Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Resource Repletion , Role of Buildings

  • Reference work entry
Sustainable Built Environments

Definition of the Subject

Raw materials scarcity , rising raw materials extraction costs, and biodiversity loss are apparent globally. Recycling of materials is cited as one solution to those problems. However, maintaining the consistent quality of materials is excluded from most traditional sustainability assessments, and current regimes of carbon, emissions, and energy trading are not well designed to account for the quality or value of materials, or the processes for achieving materials recovery and reuse.

The building industry is a large consumer of scarce resources, and because of this, it is regarded as a leading cause of resource depletion. However, at the same time, materials contained in and moving through buildings have been extensively evaluated for their recovery potential [2], and as a result, could be used in a new model where buildings are resource repleters instead of depleters. Materials repletion is a value-based business model that defines new dimensions of quality...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

Term:

Improving the approach to materials and products sometimes requires revising traditional terminology. In the approach described here, usage of certain terms differs from traditional definitions, to account for innovative features of materials and products.

Biobased vs. biodegradable:

Many biobased products such as, for example, biopolymers are not necessarily safely biodegradable because they contain additives such as heavy metals or are combined with nonbiodegradable materials. As well, petroleum-based products that are not biobased can be biodegradable. So it is important to distinguish these features to develop an effective defined-use pathway for materials. Especially, it is important to evaluate biobased and biodegradable in the context of the intended use of the material, e.g., if it is intended for a biosphere or technosphere pathway. For example, many materials designed for single use before disposal in a biosphere pathway and defined as biodegradable, such as cups, do not biodegrade in the processing time frame used in an industrial composting facility and, as a result, end up being incompletely decomposed and incinerated, or degrade the quality of compost. Because of this, the definition of “biodegradable” includes that the material is shown to degrade completely in an industrial composting facility within a prescribed time frame.

Counter-footprint:

Calculation showing activities that can be used to counterbalance a negative “environmental footprint.” Example, producing renewable energy instead of just consuming energy. Counter-footprinting is still at an early stage and often, for example, does not calculate defined material content, defined-use pathways, or beneficial functions of materials such as, for example, cleaning the air. For example, Coto-Millan et al. [1] list construction materials as resource consumption, but not as a material resource on the counter-footprint side of the equation. The part of land “consumed” for structures is regarded only on the negative side of the footprint equation, rather than as a productive contributor to the ecology. In general, when materials are used for constructing a building, their impacts are frequently still considered only on the negative side of the environmental footprint and no longer considered as beneficial resources. See also “offset.”

Cradle to Cradle®:

An innovation platform to improve the beneficial qualities of products and services in biosphere and technosphere metabolisms as a step beyond the traditional sustainability approach of reducing negative impacts. The term Cradle to Cradle ® is a registered mark for quality assurance purposes, similar to how the broadly accepted International Standards Organization governs use of its marks and standards. However, the philosophy, principles, and many application tools of the Cradle to Cradle® approach are widely published. The founders of the C2C approach encourage governments, companies, and NGOs to use the philosophy and principles. The right to use the Cradle to Cradle Design Protocol® for certification is assigned to an independent nonprofit organization, and certification criteria are also broadly published.

Defined use:

Materials and products that are designed according to their intended use in biosphere or technosphere metabolisms.

Depletion:

Loss of nonrenewable resources and destruction of renewable resources.

Ecological footprint:

Usually a calculation of negative environmental impacts of human activity. Many definitions are used, but an example in relation to the built environment is “Corporate ecological footprint is defined as the environmental impact (in hectares) of any organisation, caused by: (a) the purchase of any kind of product and service clearly reflected in their financial accounts; (b) the sale of products deriving from the primary production of food and other forestry or biotic resources, or in other words when vegetables, fruit and meat enter the market chain for the first time; (c) occupation of space; and (d) generation of waste clearly reflected in their environmental report. Moreover, this impact measured in hectares can be transformed to obtain a result in tons of CO2 emitted (the carbon footprint)…” [1]. See also Counter-footprint and Offset.

Intelligent materials pooling (IMP):

Sharing of defined material streams among partners to achieve economy of scale and accelerate the use of C2C-defined materials.

Materials bank:

Database-supported pool of defined materials.

Materials security:

Security of supply for strategically important materials such as rare metals or phosphate.

Nutrient certificates:

Set of data describing defined characteristics of materials in products that give them value for recovery and reuse. Nutrient Certificates are a marketplace mechanism to encourage product designs, material recovery systems, and chain of possession partnerships that improve the quality, value, and security of supply for materials so they can be reused in continuous loops or closed loops or beneficially returned to biological systems. This is done by adding a new value dimension to materials quality. This new dimension is based on the suitability of materials for recovery and reuse as resources in other products and processes.

Offset:

Assessment of activities that compensate for negative environmental impacts. As opposed to counter-footprints, offsets are often used to describe remotely located activities, such as growing trees in another location to replace trees lost due to development. However, counter-footprint and offsets can also overlap.

Recycled vs. recyclable:

Products can be beneficial if they have defined recyclable content regardless if it is recycled or not. Defined recyclable content is an enabler for recycled content. If virgin content is not recyclable then it will pollute recycling streams, so recyclable is just as important as being recycled. Recycled content that is also recyclable at a similar level of quality is the end goal of product design for Nutrient Certificates.

Recycling:

There are many definitions of recycling, but for these purposes, recycling is defined as recovering and reusing materials at a similar level of quality by defining their content, as compared to “downcycling” where materials are recovered and reused at a lower quality level. For example, the term “recycling” is often applied to materials such as paper, but in reality, paper is almost always downcycled due to shortening of its fibers. Many current definitions of recycled content do not define what is in the material, with the result that it is not possible to recycle the materials at a similar level of quality. The important distinguishing factor is “defined” content, which can be indicated as defined to 100 ppm.

Repletion:

Replenishing the supply of biosphere and technosphere materials for use in products and processes.

Scarcity:

Geographically, politically, or commercially limited supply of strategic materials.

Upcycling:

Improving the existing quality of a material for its next reuse. A material can be defined as upcycled under various conditions:

  1. (1)

    When its current downcycling is improved so the material is recycled at a similar level of quality instead of lower level. For example, high-grade steel is separated from motors containing copper contaminants so the steel can be resmelted at the same level instead of downcycled

  2. (2)

    When a degraded material is repaired for effective reuse, e.g., an additive is added to a plastic to repair its damaged molecular strings so the material can be reused for a high quality purpose

Bibliography

Primary Literature

  1. Coto-Millan P, Mateo-Mantecón I, Domenech Quesada JL, Carballo Panela A, Pesquera MA (2010) Evaluation of port externalities: the ecological footprint of port authorities. In: Coto-Millan P et al (eds) Essays on port economics, contributions to economics. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 323–340. doi:10.1007/978-3-7908-2425-4_20, Table 1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Chini A (2003) Deconstruction and materials reuse. CIB publication 287. In: Proceedings of the 11th Rinker international conference, Gainesville, 7–10 May 2003

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bradsher K (2010) China said to widen its embargo of minerals. New York Times, 19 Oct 2010

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dempsey J (2010) Decline in rare-earth exports rattles Germany. New York Times, 19 Oct 2010

    Google Scholar 

  5. European Commission Ad-hoc Working Group on Defining Critical Raw Materials (2010) Critical raw materials for the EU. Report of the Ad-hoc working group on defining critical raw materials, European Commission Enterprise & Industry, Brussels, June 2010

    Google Scholar 

  6. Greimel H (2009) Enough lithium for hybrid boom? Most say yes. Automotive News, 21 Sept 2009

    Google Scholar 

  7. Pannekoek G, de Bruijne G, Smit B (2010) Phosphorus depletion: the invisible crisis. DPRN Phase II report no. 18

    Google Scholar 

  8. Richardson M (2010) China’s chokehold on rare-earth minerals. International Herald Tribune: 9, 11 Oct 2010

    Google Scholar 

  9. Doggett T (2010) U.S. aims to end China’s rare earth metals monopoly. Reuters, 30 Sept 2010. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68T68T20100930. Accessed 20 Oct 2011

  10. Keeley G (2008) Barcelona forced to import emergency water. The Guardian, 14 May 2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/14/spain.water. Accessed 20 Oct 2010

  11. Ahrends A, Burgess ND, Milledge SAH, Bulling MT, Fisher B, Smart JCR, Clarke GP, Mhorok BE, Lewis SL (2010) Predictable waves of sequential forest degradation and biodiversity loss spreading from an African city. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:14556–14561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Draft topical outline science and technology of the sustainable built environment. Email from Springer Encyclopedia to Prof. Michael Braungart, 30 Nov 2009

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cohen D (2007) Earth’s natural wealth: an audit. New Scientist 2605:34–41 (23 May 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bradshaw CJA, Giam X, Sodhi NS (2010) Evaluating the relative environmental impact of countries. PLoS One 5(5):e10440. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. USGBC (2008) LEED 2009 for existing buildings and operations maintenance. United States Green Building Council member approved, Nov 2008

    Google Scholar 

  16. DGBC (2010) BREEAM-Nl 2010 label for sustainable real estate, assessor manual new buildings. Dutch Green Building Council Version 2.0, Sept 2010

    Google Scholar 

  17. An example of this approach can be seen in USGBC (2008) Innovation in design credit catalog. USGBC, Washington, DC, Mar 2008

    Google Scholar 

  18. KPMG (2010) Biomass set to overtake wind as renewable energy champion. In: Powering Ahead: 2010 – an outlook for renewable energy M&A, KPMG survey of global renewable energy mergers & acquisitions, KPMG Cooperative, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mantau U, Steierer F, Hetsch S, Prins K (2007) Wood resources availability and demands – implications of renewable energy policies. UNECE, FAO, University of Hamburg, 19 Oct 2007

    Google Scholar 

  20. Olsson O (2009) European bioenergy markets: integration and price convergence. Licentiate thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala

    Google Scholar 

  21. United Nations, Economic Commission for Europe (2010) Forest products annual market review 2009–2010. Geneva timber and forest study papers no. 25

    Google Scholar 

  22. European Commission (2008) Climate change – can soil make a difference? Report on the conference, Brussels, 12 June 2008

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pimentel D, Harvey C, Resosudarmo P, Sinclair K, Kurz D, McNair M, Crist S, Shpritz L, Fitton L, Saffouri R, Blair R (1995) Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science 267:1117–1123, Estimates of topsoil loss vary but the severity has been well accepted for decades.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Brenner J, Paustian K, Bluhm G, Cipra J, Easter M, Elliott T, Kautza T, Killian K, Schuler J, Williams S (2001) Quantifying the change in greenhouse gas emissions due to natural resource conservation practice application in Iowa. The Iowa carbon storage project. Final report to the Iowa conservation partnership, Mar 2001. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and Colorado State University, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Fort Collins

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kratz S, Schnug E (2006) Rock phosphates and P fertilizers as sources of U contamination in agricultural soils. In: Uranium in the environment. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 57–67. doi:10.1007/3-540-28367-6_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Gilbertson T, Reyes O (2009) Carbon trading how it works and why it fails, Critical currents, Dag Hammarskjöld foundation occasional paper series no. 7, Nov 2009

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hartesveldt RJ, Harvey HT, Shellhammer HS, Stecker RE (1975) The giant sequoia of the sierra nevada. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  28. Herva M, Hernando R, Carrasco EF, Roca E (2010) The term “offset” has frequently been applied to emissions or habitat and usually refers to the purchase of offset credits for energy or greenhouse gasses. The term “counter-footprint” to describe some positive impacts of activities is used for example in: Methodological advances in ecological footprinting. In: Bastianoni S (ed) The State of the art in ecological footprint theory and applications, short communications, pp 61–62

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cradle to Cradle is a registered wordmark of McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry www.mbdc.com. Accessed 21 Nov 2011

  30. www.epea.com. Accessed 20 Oct 2010

  31. Mulhall D, Braungart M (2010) Cradle to cradle criteria for the built environment, CEO Media, Rotterdam, Oct 2010

    Google Scholar 

  32. McDonough W, Braungart M (2002) Cradle to cradle. Remaking the way we make things. North Point Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  33. McDonough W, Braungart M et al (1992) The hannover principles: design for sustainability. W. McDonough Architects, Charlottesville

    Google Scholar 

  34. Duivesteijn A (2008) The Almere principles; for an ecologically, socially and economically sustainable future of Almere 2030, Nieuwe ‘s-Gravelandseweg 3. Thoth Press, Bussum. ISBN 10; 9068684841

    Google Scholar 

  35. Magerholm Fet A, Skaar C, Michelsen O (2009) Product category rules and environmental product declarations as tools to promote sustainable products: experiences from a case study of furniture production. Clean Technol Environ Policy 11(2):201–207. doi:10.1007/s10098-008-0163-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Villalba G, Segarra M, Chimenos JM, Espiell F (2004) Using the recyclability index of materials as a tool for design for disassembly. Ecol Econ 50:195–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Global innovation: RETURNITY® The fabric of many lives. http://www.backhausen.com. Accessed 20 Oct 2010. See also Backhausen Returnity Factsheet and Returnity Info Folder downloadable at same website.

  38. Cradle to Cradle® Certification Program, Version 2.1.1, MBDC updated Jan 2010

    Google Scholar 

  39. CO2-Speicherung und Wertschöpfung – Holznutzung in einer Kaskade (2009) EPEA Internationale Umweltforschung GmbH, Hamburg, May 2009

    Google Scholar 

  40. Jokinen J (2006) Value added and employment in PPI and energy alternative. Study prepared for CEPI by Pöyry Forest Industry Consulting Oy & Foreco Oy, November 2006

    Google Scholar 

  41. Bekanntmachung ueber die Förderung der angewandten Forschung auf dem Gebiet der nachwachsenden Rohstoffe im Rahmen des Förderprogramms “Nachwachsende Rohstoffe“ der Bundesregierung zum Schwerpunkt ”Innovative Mehrfachnutzung von nachwachsenden Rohstoffen, Bioraffinerien” (2008) Bundesministerium fuer Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz, 24 Apr 2008

    Google Scholar 

  42. A glossary of industry authentication terms can be found for example at http://www.authentix.com/faqs_terms.asp. Accessed 15 Oct 2010

  43. Hans C, Hribernik KA, Thoben K-D (2010) Improving reverse logistics processes using item-level product lifecycle management. Int J Prod Lifecycle Manag 4(4):338–359, 22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Brand Stewart (1994) How buildings learn: what happens after they’re built. Stewart Brand Viking, New York. This diagram courtesy William McDonough & Partners is a rendition of an earlier published description.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Cradle to cradle roadmap, Van Gansewinkel Groep annual report for the year 2009

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Portions of this article regarding criteria for the built environment are excerpted from Cradle to Cradle® Criteria for the Built Environment, Mulhall & Braungart, CEO Media 2010, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Reprinted by permission. http://www.duurzaamgebouwd.nl/bookstore. The authors’ appreciation goes to Yael Steinberg and other EPEA scientists for their input.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. EPEA Internationale Umweltforschung GmbH, Trostbruecke 4, Hamburg, Germany

    Dr. Katja Hansen, Dr. Michael Braungart & Dr. Douglas Mulhall

  2. Academic Chair Cradle to Cradle for Innovation and Quality, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, Room T9-44, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Dr. Katja Hansen, Dr. Michael Braungart & Dr. Douglas Mulhall

Authors
  1. Dr. Katja Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dr. Michael Braungart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dr. Douglas Mulhall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas Mulhall .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Building Performance and Diagnostics Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Vivian Loftness

  2. Department of Geography Humboldt University Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Dagmar Haase

  3. Department of Computational Landscape Ecology, Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, Germany

    Dagmar Haase

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this entry

Cite this entry

Hansen, K., Braungart, M., Mulhall, D. (2013). Resource Repletion , Role of Buildings. In: Loftness, V., Haase, D. (eds) Sustainable Built Environments. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5828-9_420

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation