Emergency Driven Innovation: Low Tech Buildings and Circular Design [1st ed.] 9783030559687, 9783030559694

Citation preview

Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management

Ernesto Antonini Andrea Boeri Francesca Giglio

Emergency Driven Innovation

Low Tech Buildings and Circular Design

Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management

Series Editor: Elias G. Carayannis George Washington University Washington, DC, USA

The aim of this series is to highlight emerging research and practice at the dynamic intersection of innovation, technology, and knowledge management, where individuals, organizations, industries, regions, and nations are harnessing creativity and invention to achieve and sustain growth. Volumes in the series may include: • Research monographs and edited volumes • Handbooks and reference books • Professional titles aimed toward business leaders and policymakers Volumes in the series explore the impact of innovation at the “macro” (economies, markets), “meso” (industries, firms), and “micro” levels (teams, individuals), drawing from such related disciplines as finance, organizational psychology, R&D, science policy, information systems, and strategy, with the underlying theme that in order for innovation to be useful it must involve the sharing and application of knowledge. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8124

Ernesto Antonini • Andrea Boeri Francesca Giglio

Emergency Driven Innovation Low Tech Buildings and Circular Design

Ernesto Antonini Department of Architecture University of Bologna Bologna, Italy

Andrea Boeri Department of Architecture University of Bologna Bologna, Italy

Francesca Giglio Department of Architecture and Territory University “Mediterranea” of Reggio Calabria Reggio Calabria, Italy

ISSN 2197-5698     ISSN 2197-5701 (electronic) Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management ISBN 978-3-030-55968-7    ISBN 978-3-030-55969-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55969-4 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Series Foreword

The Springer book series Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management was launched in March 2008 as a forum and intellectual, scholarly “podium” for global/ local, transdisciplinary, transsectoral, public-private, and leading/“bleeding”-edge ideas, theories, and perspectives on these topics. The book series is accompanied by the Springer Journal of the Knowledge Economy, which was launched in 2009 with the same editorial leadership. The series showcases provocative views that diverge from the current “conventional wisdom,” that are properly grounded in theory and practice, and that con­sider the concepts of robust competitiveness,1 sustainable entrepreneurship,2 and democratic capitalism,3 central to its philosophy and objectives. More specifically, the aim of this series is to highlight emerging research and practice at the dynamic intersection of these fields, where individuals, organizations, industries, regions, and nations are harnessing creativity and invention to achieve and sustain growth. 1  We define sustainable entrepreneurship as the creation of viable, profitable, and scalable firms. Such firms engender the formation of self-replicating and mutually enhancing innovation networks and knowledge clusters (innovation ecosystems), leading toward robust competitiveness (E.G. Carayannis, International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development 1(3). 235–254, 2009). 2  We understand robust competitiveness to be a state of economic being and becoming that avails systematic and defensible “unfair advantages” to the entities that are part of the economy. Such competitiveness is built on mutually complementary and reinforcing low-, medium-,· and high­ technology and public and private sector entities (government agencies, private firms, Universities, and nongovernmental organizations) (E.G. Carayannis. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development 1(3). 235–254. 2009). 3  The concepts of robust competitiveness and sustainable entrepreneurship are pillars of a regime that we call “democratic capitalism” (as opposed to “popular or casino capitalism”), in which real opportunities for education and economic prosperity are available to all, especially – but not only – younger people. These are the direct derivative of a collection of top-down policies as well as bottom-up initiatives (including strong research and development policies and funding, but going beyond these to include the development of innovation networks and knowledge clusters across regions and sectors) (E.G. Carayannis and A. Kaloudis. Japan Economic Currents. p. 6–10 January 2009).

v

vi

Series Foreword

Books that are part of the series explore the impact of innovation at the “macro” (economies, markets), “meso” (industries, firms), and “micro” levels (teams, individuals), drawing from related disciplines such as finance, organizational psychology, research and development, science policy, information systems, and strategy, with the underlying theme that for innovation to be useful it must involve the sharing and application of knowledge. Some of the key anchoring concepts of the series are outlined in the figure below and the definitions that follow (all definitions are from E.G.  Carayannis and D.F.J. Campbell, International Journal of Technology Management, 46, 3–4, 2009). Systemic macro level

Structural and organizational meso level

Mode 3

Quadruple helix

Democracy of knowledge

Knowledge clusters

Innovation networks

Entrepreneurial Academic university firm

Democratic capitalism

Global

Global/local

Sustainable entrepreneurship

Individual micro level

Creative milieus

Entrepreneur/ employee matrix

Local

Conceptual profile of the series Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management: • The “Mode 3” Systems Approach for Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use: “Mode 3” is a multilateral, multinodal, multimodal, and multilevel systems approach to the conceptualization, design, and management of real and virtual, “knowledge-stock” and “knowledge-flow,” modalities that catalyze, accelerate, and support the creation, diffusion, sharing, absorption, and use of cospecialized knowledge assets. “Mode 3” is based on a system-theoretic perspective of socioeconomic, political, technological, and cultural trends and conditions that shape the coevolution of knowledge with the “knowledge-based and knowledge-driven global/local economy and society.” • Quadruple helix: Quadruple helix, in this context, means to add to the triple helix of government, university, and industry a “fourth helix” that we identify as the “media-based and culture-based public.” This fourth helix associates with “media,” “creative industries,” “culture,” “values,” “life styles,” “art,” and perhaps also the notion of the “creative class.”

Series Foreword

vii

• Innovation networks: Innovation networks are real and virtual infrastructures and infratechnologies that serve to nurture creativity, trigger invention, and catalyze innovation in a public and/or private domain context (for instance, government-­university-industry public-private research and technology development coopetitive partnerships). • Knowledge clusters: Knowledge clusters are agglomerations of cospecialized, mutually complementary, and reinforcing knowledge assets in the form of “knowledge stocks” and “knowledge flows” that exhibit self-organizing, learning-­driven, dynamically adaptive competences and trends in the context of an open systems perspective. • Twenty-first century innovation ecosystem: A twenty-first century innovation ecosystem is a multilevel, multimodal, multinodal, and multiagent system of systems. The constituent systems consist of innovation meta-networks (networks of innovation networks and knowledge clusters) and knowledge meta-clusters (clusters of innovation networks and knowledge clusters) as building blocks and organized in a self-referential or chaotic fractal knowledge and innovation architecture (Carayannis 2001), which in turn constitute agglomerations of human, social, intellectual, and financial capital stocks and flows as well as cultural and technological artifacts and modalities, continually coevolving, cospecializing, and cooperating. These innovation networks and knowledge clusters also form, reform, and dissolve within diverse institutional, political, technological, and socioeconomic domains, including government, university, industry, and nongovernmental organizations and involving information and communication technologies, biotechnologies, advanced materials, nanotechnologies, and next­generation energy technologies. Who is this book series published for? The book series addresses a diversity of audiences in different settings: 1. Academic communities: Academic communities worldwide represent a core group of readers. This follows from the theoretical/conceptual interest of the book series to influence academic discourses in the fields of knowledge, also carried by the claim of a certain saturation of academia with the current concepts and the postulate of a window of opportunity for new or at least additional concepts. Thus, it represents a key challenge for the series to exercise a certain impact on discourses in academia. In principle, all academic communities that are interested in knowledge (knowledge and innovation) could be tackled by the book series. The interdisciplinary (transdisciplinary) nature of the book series underscores that the scope of the book series is not limited a priori to a specific basket of disciplines. From a radical viewpoint, one could create the hypothesis that there is no discipline where knowledge is of no importance. 2. Decision makers – private/academic entrepreneurs and public (governmental, subgovernmental) actors: Two different groups of decision makers are being addressed simultaneously: (I) private entrepreneurs (firms, commercial firms, academic firms) and academic entrepreneurs (universities), interested in optimizing knowledge management and in developing heterogeneously composed

viii

Series Foreword

knowledge-based research networks; and (2) public (governmental, subgovernmental) actors that are interested in optimizing and further developing their policies and policy strategies that target knowledge and innovation. One purpose of public knowledge and innovation policy is to enhance the performance and competitiveness of advanced economies. 3. Decision makers in general: Decision makers are systematically being supplied with crucial information, for how to optimize knowledge-referring and knowledge-enhancing decision-making. The nature of this “crucial information” is conceptual as well as empirical (case-study-based). Empirical information highlights practical examples and points toward practical solutions (perhaps remedies); conceptual information offers the advantage of further-driving and further-carrying tools of understanding. Different groups of addressed decision makers could be decision makers in private firms and multinational corporations, responsible for the knowledge portfolio of companies; knowledge and knowledge management consultants; globalization experts, focusing on the internationalization of research and development, science and technology, and innovation; experts in university/business research networks; and political scientists, economists, and business professionals. 4. Interested global readership: Finally, the Springer book series addresses a whole global readership, composed of members who are generally interested in knowledge and innovation. The global readership could partially coincide with the communities as described above (“academic communities,” “decision makers”), but could also refer to other constituencies and groups. Washington, DC, USA  Elias G. Carayannis

Preface

The book aims to explore the relationship between the circular economy and building technologies, highlighting how the conversion of construction processes towards a technical framework consistent with sustainability imperatives is a powerful engine of innovation for industry. The construction of temporary settlements and structures after a catastrophe (natural, due to climate change effects, humanitarian, arising from war) provides a suitable case to study the topic, particularly when the emergency affects the poorest and least gifted contexts. The conditions of extreme urgency, the often drastic limitations of available technical and material resources, and the inescapable temporariness of the adoptable construction solutions produce a framework that foreshadows any situation of scarcity and uncertainty which the entire construction production must face in the near future. The urgent need to convert the economy from a linear to a circular model of resource use requires full-recyclable-zero-environmental-impact materials, able to provide adequate response to functional needs by committing the least amount of resources. Greener products, however, typically enjoy shorter service lives and much lower redundancy in technical performance than the solutions currently in use today. This requires a rethink not only of production models but also of developed products that can mediate the response of the necessary technical performance with the need to reduce usage of natural resources. Temporary emergency housing models, therefore, provide a broad research field from which ideas for new trajectories in building technology innovation can be drawn, consistent with the social, economic and productive dynamics that no longer push the technical performance enhancement by the expansion of resource-fuelled quantitative demand. In addition to their technical content, such developed solutions also provide useful reference regarding method, approach and operational strategy requirement. In particular: How is the balance between time and performance levels provided by the artefacts determined? What are the reasons and the theoretical and cultural implications of these decisions? These questions link reversible construction ix

x

Preface

p­ rocesses to the wider debate (from Le Corbusier, Gropius, Prouvè, Fuller, Charles and Ray Eames, to the contemporary results of R.  Horden’s research) to those, equally rich, which are focused on the concept of “technology appropriateness” (Schumacher, Ceragioli, Doshi, Baker). Necessarily, there are ramifications for the metrics of assessing the aptitude of processes, technologies and products to integrate the imperatives of circularity and measure their effectiveness. This book addresses the different implications of the topic, adopting a reading methodology by three axes – namely Design, Building, Living – to study both the phenomena and their effects. The aim is to demonstrate how low technologies can become emerging technologies in response to the transition from linear to circular economic model. This book reports the outputs of a research which have jointly carried out by the three Authors, who contributed to the publication as follows: –– –– –– ––

Conceptualization: E. Antonini, A. Boeri, F. Giglio Methodology, Writing, Review: F. Giglio Validation and Supervision: E. Antonini, A. Boeri Corresponding author: F. Giglio

In particular, Chaps. 3 and 4 are to be referred primarily to F. Giglio. Bologna, Italy Ernesto Antonini Andrea Boeri Reggio Calabria, Italy

Francesca Giglio

Acknowledgements

The monograph was made possible thanks to the collaboration of many organisations, researchers and professionals who have made original and decisive contributions to both theoretical and documental, as well iconographic, elements of the book. A special thank for the kind supply to: –– UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). –– OCHA (United Nations office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs). –– IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies), Shelter Research Unit. –– WEF (World Economic Forum) for the informations, drawings and images. –– Dr. Richard Douzjian (founder and principal of architectural design studio Shiogumo), for agreeing to be interviewed and for providing rich graphic documentation supporting his contribution. –– Prof. Elma Durmisevic (University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands), for providing data and schemes of her research. –– Shigeru Ban Architects (especially Yumiko Shirato and Philippe Monteil). –– Kengo Kuma & Associates. –– 2  pm Architekci (Piotr Musialowski, Michal Adamczyk, Stanisław Ignaciuk, Michal Lenczewski) Studio Nowa, Navarra Office Walking Architecture (Marco Navarra, Maria Marino) –– Tim de Haas at Bettershelter, for furnishing texts and original images and drawings of their projects. A particular gratitude to the authors and collaborators of the researches described in Chap. 4: –– Nicla Esposito and Elena Ferrarelli, Serena Buglisi and Eleonora Gennaccaro, Ilenia De Renzo and Maria Iaquinta, Giulia Belcastro and Antonella Cuccurullo, with the collaboration of Arch. Pierluigi Grigoletti (Cultural Association Box 336 a.m. Verona), Arch. Gabriella Caridi and Arch. Ileana Tavilla (Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria). xi

xii

Acknowledgements

–– Fabrizio Giambra, with the scientific collaboration of Prof. Antonello Russo (Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria). –– Daniela Pulitanò, with the collaboration of Arch. Alessandro Familiari (National Department for Civil Protection, Rome) and Arch. Giulia Savoja. –– Sara Sansotta, with the collaboration of Dr. Marco Adamo (Good Guys Association, Monza).

Introduction

The interaction between the circular economy and the low-tech approach is an emerging field of research in the building sector. The research hypothesis underlying this text is that such connections should be carefully investigated as they can feed innovation drivers in response to the transition from linear to circular building processes. This assumption assumes an unconventional point of view when considering current debate, where smart/advanced/high-tech solutions are recognised as the almost exclusive areas of current technological developments and the most promising resources to ensure their future evolution. Low-technology approaches as a response to the extreme needs of emergency and temporariness emerge as a very active experimentation field in operations which provide shelter for post-catastrophe refugees, especially in developing countries. Within these contexts, humanitarian innovation coupled with humanitarian architecture are able to drive new opportunities for technological, social and economic sustainable development, by feeding knowledge clusters, networks and innovation hubs. After providing a series of references and definitions that delimit a “contact zone” allying innovation, emergency, circular economy and temporariness, the text focuses on some paradigmatic cases of building innovation in response to humanitarian emergencies; applying unconventional materials available on site, with easy and quickly applied technologies, characterises these interventions, together with the inhabitants’ active participation in the recovery process. Thus, the low-tech approach endorses the quintuple helix model (Carayannis and Campbell 2009), since it acts as a driver for innovation involving, within the circular economy processes, both the institutional bodies (universities-industry-­government) and civil society as well as the natural environment and its resources. This creates favourable conditions for producing new knowledge potentially capable of generating value by which further economic activities can be fuelled (Carayannis et al. 2012). The Quintuple Helix Model therefore provides an effective and applicable key for interpreting “eco-innovation” and “eco-entrepreneurship” practices from a sustainable development perspective in the present scenario and greater so in the future. xiii

xiv

Introduction

(Carayannis and Campbell 2010). Framing the relations between circular economy and low tech within the innovation quintuple helix scheme is an outline as well as a challenge for this book, whose aim is to identify the evolution in progress and that which could soon affect the building sector, especially regarding the fallouts on technology, innovation and process management. The volume comprises five chapters: the first two border a theoretical reference framework, deepening the topics covered through a review of the current literature. The implications of what the low-tech approach brings to circular economy are discussed in Chap. 3, as well as their impact on innovation in building techniques and technologies at all levels (macro, meso, micro). Chapter 4 is a reasoned repertoire of case studies, organised according to three thematic axes: design, build and living. The cases are selected from actual worldwide operations confronting both low-tech and circular processes issues. This repertoire represents the experimental and proactive part of the book. Finally, Chap. 5 places the addressed topics within the European research scenario, outlining possible future developments in line with open technical and societal challenges available, enabling technologies and new paradigms for circular economy processes aimed at promoting economic and environmental sustainability through knowledge and innovation.

Contents

1 Building in Emergency: Low-Tech Driven Innovations ������������������������   1 1.1 Emergency, Temporariness and Innovation����������������������������������������   7 1.2 Learning from Emergency: Technical Complexity and Appropriate Technologies for Shelters����������������������������������������  12 1.3 Building Shelters After Disaster. An Interview with Richard Douzjian, Shiogumo������������������������������������������������������  18 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  25 2 Technologies for Building After Disaster: A Critical Review����������������  27 2.1 Emergency and Building Technologies����������������������������������������������  28 2.2 Temporariness and Temporary Buildings ������������������������������������������  33 2.3 Low-Tech/High-Tech��������������������������������������������������������������������������  36 2.3.1 Pre-industrial Revolution and Vernacular Architecture����������  37 2.3.2 Industrial Revolution and Birth of High Tech������������������������  38 2.3.3 The High-/Low-Tech Dualism in the Architectural Debate ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  39 2.3.4 Limited Resources and New Attention to Low-Tech��������������  40 2.4 Circular Economy Issues��������������������������������������������������������������������  41 2.5 Three Lessons ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  47 2.5.1 Paper Emergency Shelter (Ban/UNHCR, 1994)��������������������  48 2.5.2 Refugee Housing Unit (UNHCR/IKEA, 2010)����������������������  49 2.5.3 Homes for Refugees (Ban/UN-Habitat, 2017)�����������������������  52 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  55 3 Beyond Emergency Towards Circular Design: Building Low Tech ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  59 3.1 Humanitarian Innovation and Technological Innovation��������������������  62 3.2 Circular Design: Strategy Framework for Creating Circular Buildings������������������������������������������������������������������������������  67 3.3 Reversible Supply Chain: Assembling, Disassembling, Recover, Reuse������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  73

xv

xvi

Contents

3.4 Unconventional and Reused: A New Concept of Local Materials ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  78 References����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  84 4 Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  87 4.1 Design: New Material Models������������������������������������������������������������  90 4.1.1 Case Studies����������������������������������������������������������������������������  91 4.2 Build: Reversibility Models��������������������������������������������������������������  108 4.2.1 Design Experiments��������������������������������������������������������������  109 4.3 Living: The Social Emergency Models ��������������������������������������������  136 4.3.1 Design Experiments��������������������������������������������������������������  137 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  151 5 Building Strategies for Circular Economy: New Visions and Knowledge Production for European Research����������������������������  153 5.1 Emerging and Disruptive Sustainable Technologies������������������������  157 5.2 Remanufacturing Low-Tech Design��������������������������������������������������  161 5.3 Parameters for Circular Building Eco-innovation����������������������������  165 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  170 Conclusions: Rethinking Low-Tech Strategies����������������������������������������������  173

About the Authors

Ernesto Antonini, Full Professor of Architectural Technology at the University of Bologna, Department of Architecture, since 2016. Graduated in Architecture with distinction at IUAV of Venice in 1984, Professor Antonini completed a PhD in Technology for Architecture at Rome’s “La Sapienza” University in 1991. Then, he was R&D Head at Qua.S.CO. in Bologna from 1994 to 2001, Professor at IUAV Venice from 1995 to 2005 and Associate Professor at Unibo from 2005 to 2015. At the University of Bologna, Professor Antonini was Coordinator of the MS(Eng) in “Engineering of building processes and systems” from 2014 to 2019, and he is member of the PhD Board since 2014. As a researcher and then as a senior scientist, he participated in several research project funded by both National and European Programs, mainly focused on innovation in building techniques, materials and components as well as on new tools and equipment for the building process and, lately, on recycling of construction and demolition waste and sustainable architecture. He is chartered as Technical-Scientific Expert by the Italian Ministry for University and Research. He served as Research Project Evaluator for the European Commission; the Italian Ministries for Economy, Industry, University and Research; and for some Italian Regional Governments. He is Member of the Italian Society of Technology for Architecture (SITdA) and Editor of Techne, Journal of SITdA, since 2016. https://www.unibo.it/sitoweb/ernesto.antonini  

Andrea Boeri , Full Professor of Architectural Technology (2010) and Head of the Department of Architecture, University of Bologna (2015). He is a former Member of the Academic Senate of the University of Bologna (2015–2018). He is coordinator and member of scientific research groups at national and international level. He is Scientific Director of the “OFF_line laboratory” (Laboratory for Architectural Technology Innovation and Energy Efficiency), University of Bologna. Professor Boeri is Member and Coordinator of PhD Committees since 2000 (Technology of Architecture, Architecture and Design Cultures, Future Earth, Climate Change, and Societal Challenge). Lecturer for master’s degree courses at  

xvii

xviii

About the Authors

universities, public administrations, training centres. He was Coordinator of Sustainable Sites Research in the Technical Scientific Committee of the Green Building Council Italia (LEED_Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system, 2011–2014). His research covers a broad range of topics such as materials performances and construction elements, architectural technologies, quality of buildings and urban systems, and environmental sustainability. His fields of expertise are: energy efficiency and sustainable buildings, innovation technologies, smart and resilient cities, and climate responsive strategies in regeneration processes at building and district scale. He is a reviewer for international journals as well as author of more than 130 publications on subjects related to his research topics. https://www.unibo.it/sitoweb/andrea.boeri/ Francesca  Giglio, PhD, Assistant Professor of Architectural Technology (2008) and Adjunct Professor at the Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria, Department of Architecture and Territory. She is Member of the International Research Doctorate in Architecture (PhD) at Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria. She participates as member of scientific research projects funded by both National and European level in the field of architectural technology addressing the relationship between technology, design and production. Her research and didactic activities regard two principal topics  – reversible building process and advanced materials for building envelope – and also in-depth collaboration of Building Sector Companies. She is jointly responsible for the Laboratory LabMAt & Com (material characterisation laboratory) at the Building Future Lab, Mediterranea University. Her scientific activity is also developed through participation at national and international conferences and the publication of scientific papers, chapters and essays for international journals. Professor Giglio is member of international and national scientific committees and editorial boards. Since 2017, she is Assistant Editor of Techne Journal of Technology for Architecture and Environment and is also Editor and Curator of its “Reviews” Section. https://www.unirc.it/scheda_persona.php?id=802  

Abbreviations

BCG BCSD EUMEPS IFRC IOM MIT OCHA

Boston Consulting Group Business Council for Sustainable Development (Portugal) European Manufacturers of Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) International Federation of Red Cross International Organization for Migration Massachusetts Institute of Technology United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OID Observatoire de l’immobilier durable UNDRO United Nations Disaster Relief Organization UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UN-HABITAT United Nations Human Settlements Programme UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development

xix

Chapter 1

Building in Emergency: Low-Tech Driven Innovations

Abstract  This chapter outlines the theoretical reference framework of the topic, analysing the evolution in notions of emergency, temporariness and innovation recorded in the last century (Sect. 1.1). A review of current scientific literature at European level allowed an increased application of these concepts in emergency interventions in developing countries. Some promising innovation trajectories have thus been identified for Low-Tech construction, as well as many links to circular economy principles. This highlighted the need for a change from linear to circular production processes and, also, in systems of construction in both the scale of the single artefact and of an entire city (Sect. 1.2). When interviewed, by the authors, Richard Douzjian (Sect. 1.3) highlighted both the potential and critical aspects of the topic, due to the Lebanese architect’s significant professional experience in designing post-disaster interventions that experimentally applied alternative Low-Tech materials.

The built environment has a considerable impact on our planet. Approximately 40% of materials used worldwide, and about 1/3 of the GHG emission belong the construction sector. It has been calculated that the demand for the four most important materials in the world (steel, plastic, aluminium and cement) will increase two- to-­ fourfold by 2100 at a global level (WBCSD 2017, Material economics 2018, Climate Kic 2019). All four are widely used as raw materials in construction. Construction and demolition (C&D) waste, which accounts for approximately 25–30% of the total waste generated in both the EU and USA, consists of a large variety of materials, including concrete, bricks, gypsum, tiles, ceramics, wood, glass, metals, plastics, solvents, asbestos and excavated soil, much of which could be recycled, but which is currently only minimally so (WBCSD 2018). Since the huge benefits offered by the construction industry cannot be denied or limited, the only way to reduce the impact is to convert as many construction-­ related-­processes as possible from linear to circular, starting from the primary one. Building is an ideal industry for introducing a closed-loop economic model, as the high durability of its products ensures a high degree of repairs and part replacements within the building service life, as well as the opportunity to resell the removed elements on the market (Bukowski and Fabrycka 2019). © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 E. Antonini et al., Emergency Driven Innovation, Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55969-4_1

1

2

1  Building in Emergency: Low-Tech Driven Innovations

Fig. 1.1  The widening gap between sustainable resource availability and demand. Scenarios include limited resource stocks only, and therefore differ from total material consumption. Most notably, construction mineral (e.g. sand and gravel) are not considered where there is no scarcity of them. (Source: Accenture Strategy 2014)

Due to the large size of the sector and the enormous amount of resources it entails, even small changes towards a more sustainable construction can bring important benefits in global terms (Fig. 1.1), despite such a conclusion being under emphasised in public debate until now (Bukowski and Fabrycka 2019). By adopting a circular economy model, building could instead significantly contribute to achieving the goals set out in the 2015 Paris Agreement as well as UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (ABN Amro 2017). Both public bodies and private companies having embraced the SDGs as a frame for their sustainability strategy and practices, showing that the circular approach to the built environment can provide an effective framework for achieving those targets (WBCSD 2018). Although the circular economy – according to McArthur (2013) – is not a new concept, its acceptance and wider adoption, however, require the re-engineering of manufacturing practices and a change in current methods of product tracking, consuming and disposing. This is a huge challenge that involves technology, asks for innovation in business models and needs imagination (BCSD 2018). In December 2015, the European Commission launched a circular economy package entitled “Closing the loop – an EU action plan for the circular economy”, which sets out guidelines for a European transition towards a circular economy and revises various European Directives on waste and product policies. In recent years, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development also introduced a number of tools to support the implementation of the circular economy in business. Numerous studies on the state of the art of the circular economy are regularly provided by the Ellen McArthur Foundation, analysing in particular the role played by companies in the implementation of this model (BCSD 2018). Although most research on the circular economy have been carried out on social and organisational innovations  – such as circular business, production and consumption models – there is limited clarity on how and which innovative technologies can be adopted in the construction sector complying with the circular approach. The notion of “innovative circular building technologies” embodies the need for

1  Building in Emergency: Low-Tech Driven Innovations

3

redefining how materials, processes and products are designed and used within the construction sector, how resources such as raw materials, water and energy are ­managed, how to reduce or eliminate the generation of waste, including methods for their recycling and reuse (Abbasova 2018). The environmental profile of a building largely depends on the materials and technologies used for its construction. This means it can be enhanced by minimising the impact embodied into the building by its constituents; managing the durability both of each element and the whole artefact; assuring they are able to generate circular outputs at their end-of-life. The combined effect of all these strategies affects the long-term economic value of a building, as well as its ability to integrate into the circular model. Adopting circular compliant technologies and coherent design approaches is then crucial to reaching the target, making the design phase the core process stage. If results can be performed by keeping basic design principles in line with the circular economy principle, consistent practices must be identified and made feasible, as well as criteria and parameters suitable to assess their effectiveness (Fig. 1.2). While in many cases the construction sector has not operated with this concept in mind, technologies are a tool for implementing the circular economic model into building (Bukowski and Fabrycka 2019). When looking at the technological solutions currently adopted to ensure buildings are more sustainable, two approaches can be identified, one that appeals to high-tech systems and the second to Low-Tech solutions (see Sect 2.3). High-tech approaches use all the potential made available by modern technologies, exploiting the latest science, materials, machinery and knowledge innovation to implement systems that adjust building behaviour to human needs (Khalil et al. 2018). This approach rests on the assumption that more efficient devices can reduce overall energy consumption “smartly”, thus increasing the effectiveness of the resources used in building and reducing its environmental impact. These devices are also largely available, without significant barriers to their access, since their effectiveness in operations should compensate their high supply costs. Thus, energy is obtained not in terms of energy consumed for production, but in how the building was equipped to achieve these operating performances (Cody 2014). Since the whole environmental efficiency of our buildings has become the overall priority, balancing the relationship between beneficial output and the input of resources needed is the crucial target today, rather than by solely enhancing building operational energy. Low-Tech solutions are instead passive and indirect solutions that have been used for years to manipulate environmental conditions in a building, with the aim to improve user comfort (Hughes 2016). These include sun shading, natural ventilation and passive cooling techniques that capitalise and manipulate environmental conditions. These solutions have been developed using locally sourced materials, with an understanding of the immediate environmental context which allowed their design in an inadvertently sustainable way, as shown by many vernacular buildings facing different conditions in different contexts worldwide (Hughes 2016).

4

1  Building in Emergency: Low-Tech Driven Innovations

Fig. 1.2  Technologies enabling circular economy. (Source: Bukowski and Fabrycka 2019; based on Cheshire 2018)

Low-Tech solutions are highly sustainable because they dramatically reduce the energy input of a building during its construction, as well as its energy output throughout the inhabitance cycle. By doing the same with all the materials, which are mainly from abundantly available local renewable sources, the existing environmental resources are redirected to create stable comfortable conditions for human life, with no or very little impact (Cody 2014). As only simple manipulations of primary ingredients are needed, low technologies are easy to practice in construction methods, which can commonly be applied with a minimum of capital investment by an individual or small group of individuals. In contrast to the Accenture and WBCSD (2017) vision of switching to the circular based through smart and disruptive technologies (Digital, Physical, biological technologies), the development of “simple” or Low-Tech solutions represents an

1  Building in Emergency: Low-Tech Driven Innovations

5

opportunity to face the greatest consumption of energy. Among others, Bihouix shared this assumption, when suggesting applying Low-Tech to the real estate sector. Since recycling, modularity, repairability, simplicity and restraint are the watchwords of Low-Tech – he argues – the principles of frugal innovation, resilience and the circular economy are also pertinent. Low-Tech building processes thus allow communities to share interests and skills to develop (Bihouix 2019). Although Low-Tech construction techniques and design practices have fallen into disuse in wealthy countries due to intense industrialisation and related changes in socio-economic conditions, building lends itself particularly to the adoption of Low-Tech approaches, which are still largely used in developing countries, where the principles of saving and efficient use of available resources have never been lost. In poor countries, particularly when subjected to extreme shortages a consequence of emergencies or catastrophes, limited or foreclosed access to sophisticated and expensive construction materials and devices is the condition that leads to the procurement of simple Low-Tech solutions to provide shelter to the populations that otherwise would have none. However, Low-Tech strategies represent a perspective for the construction sector of the future, since they integrate the close relationship with places, the use of local materials and high environmental efficiency, in accordance with the principles of the circular economy; whose goal is to define a new development model for the construction sector. This means that developing countries are a crucial driver for the development of both the circular economy and the widespread use of low technology, as economic poverty often makes them more “circular” than richer countries. Although more out of necessity than choice, the use of cheap and locally available resources is largely practiced, as well as the recovery of waste, even when limited, for recycling or reuse. The question is how to turn this into a development opportunity. Much economic activity in lower-income countries revolves around sorting and reusing waste. However, higher-value, employment-generating opportunities for reuse and remanufacturing are yet to be seized. There is increasing optimism about the potential of the “circular economy” as a new model for sustainable growth in developing countries. The concept of the “circular economy” has been gaining traction within developing countries in recent time: governments in Rwanda, Nigeria and South Africa, for instance, are working together with the World Economic Forum and the EU and have recently launched the African Alliance on the Circular Economy (Preston 2017). The 2019 World Circular Economy Forum (WCEF 2019) Side Session on Circular Economy in Developing Countries –which took place in Helsinki as part of the third world forum on the circular economy in June 2019 – demonstrated that this topic is gaining weight at a global level. The forum considered the critical role that developing countries will play in regional and global circular value chains and explored pathways through which to accelerate the transition to circular economy (CE) in developing countries. The next 2 years will be a moment of opportunity to develop a global vision for the CE aligned with climate action and the broader sustainable development agenda. The present global climate change talks, the delivery of the UN Sustainable

6

1  Building in Emergency: Low-Tech Driven Innovations

Development Goals and the 2019 and 2020 international agreement for a global treaty on biodiversity protection provide unique opportunities to integrate the CE into existing global political agendas, which should catalyse increased public and private investment in roll-out and scale-up of CE solutions also in developing countries (see Sect 5.1). According to Weiss (2006), the concept of appropriate technology is particularly relevant for innovating a developing economy. However, it can also provide a blueprint for innovation under any economic circumstances. Moreover, this concept is supported by researcher economists at the World Bank, an assistance agency of the United Nations, that provides funds to developing countries for projects that are not eligible for lending from institutions in other world markets. Citing E.F. Schumacher’s 1973 book as the source of the “appropriate technology” movement (see Sect 1.2), they collected and gathered empirical evidence to test the notion that “intermediate” technologies adapted to local conditions that include lower education and more widespread unemployment would be more effective in achieving local economic goals. Adopting the perspective of “appropriate technology” is an excellent way to promote and increase innovation since the use of high tech is not a given for the possible solutions, which instead must firstly afford extensive benefits. While sometimes counterintuitive, adopting this approach can be highly enlightening (Weiss 2006). –– The WBCSD with BCG highlight that the path toward circularity may involve three innovation stages, with progressing degrees of complexity, in which combined adoption affects the whole value cycle: –– Process innovation: involves the development and implementation of new or significantly improved production, logistic or recycling methods. –– Product innovation: entails the development and spread of new or significantly improved goods or services. –– Business model innovation: entails significant changes in the way a company generates value, through to the adoption of new business paradigms (WBCSD and Boston Consulting Group 2018). All these dynamics can be found within the greatest Low-Tech operations accomplished, that are the provision of shelter to people after calamitous events. This extreme condition has often necessitated experimental and unconventional design solutions, providing an opportunity for innovation at all the three levels listed. This also shows how good design needs Low-Tech as an indispensable tool to respond quickly and appropriately to environmental or humanitarian crises. Japanese architect Shigeru Ban has been a pioneer in experimenting in very unconventional design concepts for displaced shelters in emergency situations, developing what Mario Botta1 defined as the “intelligence of misery”.

1  This refers to the occasion of the “dialogue between light and stone” in Rovereto (Italy) in 2011, in which Mario Botta praises the design and ethical innovation of Shigeru Ban, identifying it as the «intelligence of misery».

1.1 Emergency, Temporariness and Innovation

7

Ban’s work was the first input for this study, providing a challenging opportunity to extend the research field beyond the topic of emergency facilities, to embrace a wider application of Low-Tech in the building sector. It effectively meets the circular economy principles; unconventional materials and simple construction methods are becoming potentially powerful innovation drivers, thus opening a new scientific perspective for smart and simple technologies in meeting environmental and energy needs.

1.1  Emergency, Temporariness and Innovation The concepts of emergency and temporariness are described in theoretical terms in Chap 2 (see Sects. 2.1 and 2.2), while in this section they are considered as a single reference theme, from which new trajectories for social, technological and building innovation derive. Starting with the third term, the modern concept of Innovation began with Gabriel Tarde’s development of theories of diffusion, which explain how new ideas come to be adopted over time (Rogers 1962). Tarde believed that in order to achieve social change, ideas must be replicated and adapted in all societies (Kinnuen 1996). Subsequently, management theory developed the notion of innovation for businesses, exploring how private actors move from problem identification to solutions. With particular emphasis on the theme of temporary living, the concept of Emergency has increasingly expanded and extended from its typical post-event meaning to the actual increasingly widespread condition – the need for reception and respect for human rights (Bennicelli Pasqualis 2014). At the same time, since the early 1900s, the concept of temporariness has become a crucial constraint on building production, conditioning the relationship between function, place and architectural construction (Bologna 2012; Kronenburg 2008). The emergency issue is intertwined with that of living, placing dialectically in comparison the sense of precariousness with the aspiration of stability, insecurity with a sense of protection linked to the concept of home, the relationship between permanent and temporary and between fixed and mobile (Parente 2014). The relationship between emergency and temporariness is a theme long practiced by the culture of design, arousing particular interest in the architectural debate, which refers both to the theoretical and cultural implications of the debate in reversible and temporary construction (from Le Corbusier, Gropius, Prouvè, Fuller, C. and R. Eames, Wachsmann, up to recent contributions by Horden, and Ban) and to the notion of “appropriateness” of technologies (Schumacher, Ceragioli, Doshi, Baker). The emergence of a generalised condition of permanent environmental emergency advances current post-disaster strategies and solutions, especially those adopted in the poorest and most underdeveloped contexts, such as developing countries, as a stimulating testing ground for new trajectories of innovation. In such contexts, in which available local resources, transformed through Low-Tech, sustainable and low impact processes provide adequate responses to housing and climate needs, making up for the limited means of design intelligence (Kontogiannis et al. 2017).

8

1  Building in Emergency: Low-Tech Driven Innovations

In this context, the connections between emergency, temporariness and innovation can be identified and analysed. In this sense, developing countries and the emerging conditions to which they are subjected are a fertile area of research, in which innovation becomes a means of responding to all the problems posed. The build-up of innovation capacities has played a central role in the growth dynamics of successful developing countries. These countries have recognised that innovation is not only about high-technology products and that innovation capacity has to be introduced early on in the development process in order to possess the learning capacities that will allow “catch up” to occur. They also require innovation capacity and local innovations to address the specific challenges to their local contexts. Ultimately, a successful development strategy has to build extensive innovation capacities to foster growth (OECD 2012). Innovation has rapidly emerged as one the most widely discussed themes within the humanitarian world. In this context, humanitarian associations initiatives for developing their own sections devoted to innovation are growing. OCHA defines a humanitarian innovation as: “a means of adaptation and improvement through finding and scaling solutions to problems, in the form of products, processes or wider business models… [these] can be applied to nearly any specialised area, from logistics, to medicine, to media, and may include technology, but is not reducible to it. In addition to this, a humanitarian innovation doesn’t need to be a completely new invention”. It could simply be an existing product, process, model or technology that is adapted to a new context. Humanitarians have used the term “innovation” to refer to the role of technology, products and processes from other sectors, new forms of partnership and the use of the ideas and coping capacities of crisis-affected people. However, as with many emerging ideas, the use of the term in the humanitarian system has lacked conceptual clarity, leading to misuse, overuse and the risk that it may become hollow rhetoric (Betts and Bloom 2014). Important research efforts and policy actions have been devoted to leap the many systemic barriers that inhibit innovation in the field of humanitarian operations. For this purpose, several agencies created their innovation units, including the World Food Programme (WFP), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) have built organisational units which play an important role in positioning their organisations as relevant and dynamic players facing external counterparts (See Sect. 3.1). –– Perhaps most significantly, the theme of “transformation through innovation” was selected as one of four initial themes for the World Humanitarian Summit (Scriven 2016). However, a significant proportion of current approaches to humanitarian innovation mainly focus on: –– A “top-down” approach, according to the definition as “the starting point is the authoritative decision; as the name implies, centrally located actors are seen as most relevant to producing the desired effect” (Matland 1995). This approach is

1.1 Emergency, Temporariness and Innovation

9

valuable and offers opportunities to re-think responses across the range of sub-­ sectors that comprise humanitarianism (Betts and Bloom 2013, 2014). Among some significant examples of shelters that meet these particular conditions is the interesting case of IKEA Better Shelter (see Sect. 2.5.2), which in 2016 won the design award of the year for effective response provided where local resources are lacking in post-catastrophe situations; –– A “bottom-up” approach, that introduces an alternative way of thinking about the role of innovation in the humanitarian sector. Bottom-up innovation can be defined as the way in which crisis-affected communities themselves engage in creative problem-solving, finding solutions to their own challenges (Bloom 2015). Much experimentation design of humanitarian architecture proposed by Shigeru Ban for developing countries through low technologies uses unconventional materials available on site, and inhabitants’ participation represents this type of approach (see Sects. 4.1.1.1 and 4.1.1.2). Innovation in the humanitarian realm is about finding sustainable and dignified solutions to the most pressing issues that affect the well-being of people affected by conflict, man-made or natural disasters, diseases, and food insecurity. This innovation is fuelled by uncommonly hard constraints and extreme environmental conditions that provide, for those in the field, opportunities for experimentation that architects are often not afforded in conventional contexts. Since an unplanned event such as a natural disaster affects people beyond anything the government or local organisations can be prepared for, materials to face immediate needs are lacking and not available locally. The need for adopting site-specific design solutions is an additional relevant priority, in order to avoid conflicts with the affected people’ cultural and community beliefs. A related and complex issue seen when designing refugee camps is that people often belong varied different cultures, holding varying opinions on how a shelter should be suitably configured. Humanitarian architecture is thus more with less required to solve complex problems, with less time, money, and resources than reasonably considered necessary. Since disasters happen as a result of development failures, according to James and Taylor (2018), humanitarian relief, recovery and reconstruction are the steps needed for victory. However, significant challenges lie ahead. As improvements are needed, only innovation can allow a transformative change: innovation is necessary (James and Taylor 2018). The disruption of the political framework and traditions after a catastrophic event, and the weakening of existing organisational structures may create a favourable climate for innovation. However, very few publications address the relationship between catastrophic events and local economic initiatives or entrepreneurial efforts, despite their undeniable impact on the socio-economic fabric of the affected populations (Monllor and Altay 2016). In fact, “disasters provide opportunities to update the capital stock and adopt new technologies” (Skidmore and Toya 2002). This idea embodies Schumpeter’s theory of “creative destruction”, in which driving forces internal to the organisation such

10

1  Building in Emergency: Low-Tech Driven Innovations

as new products, new methods of production and transportation or new markets become the engine for innovation (Schumpeter 1942). In this case, disasters are external forces which could act as disruptive processes of transformation. In this case Schumpeter’s creative destruction process is therefore reversed in its agents, as here are the external events that act as the destructive force, creating opportunities for innovation (Noy and Vu 2010). Referring to this background framework, Design Thinking theory (Brown 2009) provides a holistic methodology which combines skills from multidisciplinary teams and considers local systems in the design of a whole process. Design-based approaches are not widespread within the humanitarian milieu, but from them some principles could be derived, which help initiatives to acknowledge local systems more methodically than currently practiced (Betts and Bloom 2013; James and Taylor 2018). As it is expected to become one of the greatest societal and economical disruptors of our time, the circular economy may represent a powerful driver for innovation. “Living instead of consuming”  – as the slogan popularly summarising the vision of the WCEF 2019 – foreshadows a scenario within which developing countries appear as a potentially very promising field of research and application for innovation forcing the change of processes from linear to circular. The goal of the third WCEF 2019 was sharing circular economy solutions, making them “for all”, thus including shaping the best opportunities also for developing countries. These objectives respond to the need to make the circular economy more equitable and inclusive by addressing, among other things, the problems of informal workers, the lack of regulatory framework in less developed countries and the technological disparities between the Northern and Southern hemisphere. The building sector can play a large role in embedding circularity, relieving pressure on natural resources and mitigating climate change (Tonda)2 as it is deeply rooted and widely present. For example, Gibberd3, highlighted in the same session how a wide range of circularity-compliant solutions can be taken back from “fantastic indigenous architecture” and usefully adopted to deal with the “extremely rapid” urbanisation of Africa by local materials, climate-responsive constructions and producing no waste. Procurement practices could incentivise energy and resource efficiency; taxes and other government actions could help make circular materials more available so that their use could “happen naturally”. Specific actions are needed to ensure this approach, as argued by Ilari Aho of Uponor Group, who called for design for flexible use and dismantling, so that products can more easily be reused, especially those made by locally available materials (De Paula 2019).

2  Elisa Tonda, UNEP, moderator of the session Circular Economy in Construction in 2019 World Circular Economy Forum (WCEF 2019) 3  Jeremy Gibberd is Architect, Teacher and Research Scientist. He has worked on a wide range of innovative projects in the UK, the USA, and many other places that redefine how built environments are planned, designed, built and operated to become more inclusive and more sustainable.

1.1 Emergency, Temporariness and Innovation

11

The WCEF 2019 highlighted that the transition to the circular economy should become fairer and more inclusive while supporting the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Discussions focused on: • Methods for increasing investments in circular economy businesses • Ways to spread and scale up circularity-compliant new technologies • Tools for making significant regulatory changes that enable the widening of the circular economy Additionally, operations based on circular economy principles, which involve minimising the consumption of virgin natural resources, play a major role in combatting climate change, as 67% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions are estimated to be related to the consumption of materials (UN 2017). The white paper issued by EIT Climate-KIC’s Circular Cities project (2019) pointed out the three most effective ways to minimise building impact on climate and environment (Climate Kic 2019): –– Energy solutions (utilisation of renewable energy and energy efficiency) –– Minimisation of transport (on-site utilisation of extracted soil, mass-balance) –– Material choices (carbon as low as possible, reusable, safe, healthy) The idea of a circular city is emerging in scientific literature, fed by a number of open challenges that the cities of tomorrow will be facing scarcity of resources, economic crisis, lack of social identity, availability of technologies and innovation (Murray et al. 2017; Boeri et al. 2019). The connection between the circular economy and the circular city (or urban metabolism) allows for the creation of new levels of interaction involving a plurality of stakeholders and a circular governance structure. In this perspective, a circular city is not just a matter of resources, but a more complete approach that permeates all levels of the urban system. This because cities represent an important field to experiment in sustainable and resilient solutions based on innovative technologies and enablers, thus becoming the core of the debate concerning technological implementation, resource management and urban evolution (Boeri et al. 2019). The innovative processes that concern the transition to circular economy models show several points in common, both at the urban scale and at the scale of the building, using strategies, technologies and technical solutions adapted to the places and social contexts of intervention. The change taking place in the building sector towards such models is a process characterised by the presence of all stakeholders in the construction chain which needs more strategies to spread knowledge both on a small and large scale.

12

1  Building in Emergency: Low-Tech Driven Innovations

1.2  L  earning from Emergency: Technical Complexity and Appropriate Technologies for Shelters A sheltering strategy should provide solutions for both first displacement emergency and for the refugees to stay over longer time, albeit still temporarily. In both cases, shelter construction should take into account the local context and climate, cultural practices and habits, local skills and available building materials. According to UNHCR Emergency handbook (2015), a shelter is a habitable covered living space that provides a secure and healthy living environment with privacy and dignity in order to benefit from protection from the elements, space to live and store belongings as well as privacy, comfort and emotional support. Shelter programmes generally involve a mix of sheltering solutions such as kits, plastic sheeting, tents, and cash assistance. Emergency shelter needs are best met by using the same materials or shelter as would be normally used by the refugees or the local population (UNHCR 2015). Post-disaster reconstruction is a complex process, involving many different factors with multiple socio-political, economic, organisational, functional and technical implications. For the purposes of this book, technical complexity is the central topic, since the main environmental issues focused on are strictly dependent on technical process features and performances. Material provenance, embodied energy and manufacturing related impact indeed refer to the technical sphere, as does the building method adopted and the rate of local skills and resources exploited. The constraints of climate also primarily affect the technical structure process, thus making it the most effective driver for reaching the circular economy targets (Gonzalo et al. 2010) (Fig. 1.3). –– The post-disaster reconstruction is addressed by Humanitarian Innovation policies, through “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches, as indicated in Sect. 1.1, of which scientific literature indicates advantages and disadvantages. In this paragraph we wish to analyse the technical complexity of the two approaches and their social implications. –– The top-down approach, according to UNDRO Guidelines (1982) and unlike Betts and Bloom (2013, 2014), regards the concept of a universal or standard solution that is not feasible because it ignores users’ real needs, climatic variations, differences in cultural values, family size, etc. (UNDRO 1982), imposing environments that may be culturally alien (Gulahane and Gokhale 2012). These post-disaster temporary housing solutions seem to have sustainability problems; this is because in most cases the solutions provided are not produced in the region where the disaster occurred. Importing and transporting the units or materials required to re-house all the victims may involve extremely high costs. –– The bottom-up approach provides quick and economic house building solutions through the usage of local materials and construction techniques while avoiding the transportation of materials and need for a specialised workforce. Community participation and the use of local resources seem to be crucial concepts to finding more sustainable and culturally adequate solutions (Felix et al. 2013). If the local

1.2 Learning from Emergency: Technical Complexity and Appropriate Technologies…

13

Fig. 1.3  What shelter provides. Scheme of some of the function of an appropriate emergency shelter. (Source Sphere Association 2018)

community has the knowledge to handle local materials and local construction techniques, the construction of temporary houses can start earlier, being more economic and sustainable. This approach applies the “bottom-up” innovation concept, defined as the way in which crisis-affected communities self-engage in a creative problem-solving practice, finding solutions to their own needs (Bloom 2015). Humanitarian associations look to this approach with special interest (see Sects. 2.5 and 5.1) as is showed by the “Creative Capacity Building” joint programme of UNHCR and D-Lab of MIT aimed at developing design strategies which enable refugees to solve their own problems, rather than relying on solutions provided by aid agencies (Fairs 2016).4 Using local resources, such as materials, construction techniques and workforce, greatly contributes to reducing costs, improving the local economy and providing better cultural and local integration. This also makes solutions more suitable and durable for facing local climate and easier to repair and maintain in a fit state. Modifications are simpler to make by users, allowing adaptations according to their needs and possibilities over time. Thus, if carefully designed, indigenous and local solutions will probably be more effective, quicker to make and better suited to local needs (Gulahane and Gokhale 2012). Since some advanced materials and devices may considerably contribute to improve post-disaster housing, these innovations could be supplied to enhance the effectiveness of local resources, carefully calibrating their introduction and integration (Davidson et al. 2008; Garofalo and Hill 2008; Shaw et al. 2008).  M. Fairs (2016) for Dezeen on D-LaB MIT available on https://d-lab.mit.edu

4

14

1  Building in Emergency: Low-Tech Driven Innovations

The second edition of UNDRO Shelter after Disaster (2015) by IFRC and OCHA provides evidence that in most post-disaster scenarios, a wide variety of building material is available for emergency shelter and housing reconstruction programmes. Careful survey very often leads to various exploitable sources from which substantial amounts of suitable materials can be obtained for post-disaster reconstruction, such as unused materials that existed before the disaster, indigenous eligible materials (both commercially and non-commercially available) and recovered materials from rubble. Among them, local resources and those recovered from rubble are the most relevant for fuelling widespread housing programmes, as the vast majority of the urban poor usually rebuild from waste salvaged materials, while housing in rural areas is commonly based on indigenous materials. Industrially manufactured building materials are those which normally survive a disaster in the best condition, constituting the best items that can be retrieved from salvaged rubble. Post-event surveys show that worldwide over the past 10  years, in the main, where house-losing-disasters occurred, sufficient resources from indigenous and salvaged materials were available to rebuild nearly three-quarters of the damaged housing to pre-disaster standards. While the same materials can be used in over 90% of cases to rebuilt to a structurally safer standard, thereby substantially reducing reconstruction costs. However, the authorities and agencies responsible for handling relief and reconstruction have repeatedly overlooked these resources, often taking steps to destroy them, even if inadvertently (IFRC, OCHA 2015). The reasons are that: • Few assisting teams have prior experience in housing or building, being unfamiliar with the available or required types of materials. • Indigenous and salvageable materials are often overlooked when the authorities or the aid teams reject pre-existing building standards. • Housing is often over-emphasised by assisting groups, though, it is not always the highest priority item for low-income families in a developing country. They may not, therefore, be willing to invest substantial amounts of money, time or effort into building formal structures. Some measures are needed to remove these barriers, such as: • Identifying and understanding the local building process in place before the disaster. The most effective aid team will be the one which is conversant with the pre-existing building regulations and practices and able to draw upon this understanding in developing the post-disaster programme. • Locating, qualifying and quantifying the available post-disaster resources. This will probably require personnel with experience of local building traditions integrating the aid teams (IFRC, OCHA 2015). The need for immediately available local materials and technologies thus becomes a driver for experimentation toward sustainable innovation in an emer-

1.2 Learning from Emergency: Technical Complexity and Appropriate Technologies…

15

gency contexts. This can better meet both the housing demand and the environmental requirements by standardised systems, providing site-specific solutions. The question of global vs. local materials goes beyond the availability of the materials in critical situations. Local materials belong to traditional and vernacular architecture, which has developed specific methods and skills over time to exploit their features, as for earth/soil, bamboo and wood building technologies. The related knowledge and practices are mostly geographically and culturally constrained, while industrialised and engineered building materials, like concrete and steel, are standardised at a global scale (Escamilla and Habert 2015). The notion of appropriate technology (as defined in Sect 1.1) summarises this strict relationship of context, use of local resources, simple technologies and humanitarian needs, particularly when applied to developing or disadvantaged countries. The choice to use local and low-manufactured materials instead of globally standardised, industrialised components, adds a social value to the technological appropriateness, that is, the sense-of-belonging to places to be rebuilt with community participation. This represents what we are trying to achieve when we consider the appropriateness of technology, an essential element we all too often neglect (Weiss 2006). The concept of Appropriate Technology, as already highlighted, was first formulated by the British economist E. F. Schumacher in 1973, drawing upon important foundations laid down by Gandhi and others. An appropriate technology is defined here as “a technology tailored to fit the psychosocial and biophysical context prevailing in a particular location and period”. This definition is comprehensive enough to incorporate most of the definitions which later appeared in the literature, closely following the original ideas of Schumacher (Willoughby 1990). This notion summarises the need for methods and equipment which meet three essential requirements: “be cheap enough to be practically accessible to everyone; be properly applicable on a small scale; be compatible with the human need for creativity” (Schumacher 1973). Willoughby associates the concept of appropriate technology with that of inappropriate technology, specifying that the inadequacy of technology – among its various variants – could derive from its implementation into a context which is quite different from that for which it was designed, as well as from the technical incompetence of the designer or his inability to effectively link the technical parameters to real-world practices (Willoughby 1990). An important contribution to the scientific debate on the topic within the building sector is provided by the research carried out by Italian academic V. Gangemi, who addressed the implications in the notion of appropriate technology in Western architectural culture (Gangemi 1985). Furthermore, the Italian academic G. Ceragioli investigated several topics relating to appropriate technologies in relation to developing countries, pointing out that being local is not sufficient for development-driving technology, which must instead be specifically based on “poor” local technologies (Ceragioli and Cattai 1985). Ceragioli provided the scientific debate with the definition of “poor technology” as

16

1  Building in Emergency: Low-Tech Driven Innovations

easy-to-supply, low purchase cost and low effective production and maintenance outlay materials (Ceragioli and Cattai 1985). Rohit (2010) reinforces the importance of appropriate use of contemporary technology, arguing that it can serve as a panacea for vulnerability reduction in the areas with “poor” vernacular buildings. There is also a convincing belief that traditional knowledge accumulated over time is best suited for reconstruction. However, the suitability of the introduced technology in disaster-affected areas depends not only on its disaster-resistant qualities, but also upon several factors such as social and economic context, availability of material and other resources, local skills and aesthetic sensibilities (Rohit 2010). Traditional construction practices and material supply chains often embody local knowledge accumulated over time through successive trial and error. This heritage can provide a useful resource when the appropriate technology for reconstruction is selected; thus, there is no reason to outrightly reject it as obsolete. The challenge is how to integrate positive elements within these practices into proposed solutions. The real index for evaluating the success of the reconstruction technology adopted is to what extent it will integrate the local sustainable building culture once the construction process is finished and external support is withdrawn (Rohit 2010). Shigeru Ban’s humanitarian projects provide the main reference for the adoption of this approach in Architecture (see Sects. 1.1, 4.1.1.1 and 4.1.1.2): his experiments with shelters built with the materials available in situ aroused interest and inspired applications far beyond the emergencies in which they were born. (Figs. 1.4 and 1.5). The young Lebanese architect Dr. Richard Douzjian (Shiogumo) followed the same path, designing a shelter prototype for his own country made with locally available materials, which will be further discussed in the following chapter, aimed at highlighting the original features of this experience (see Sect 1.3). Douzjian’s experience shows, among other things, a very deep attention to meet circular economy issues through efficient building design. This means that even if only low-impact, simple and common materials are selected for construction – as is usual in poor emergency contexts – their application is designed to minimise the quantity of matter and to allow easy end-of-life disassembling and separation, in order to facilitate reuse or recycling. This is because effective recycling is an essential condition for the economy of circular constructions, as is the choice of materials whose constituents and production processes are circularity-compliant (ABN Amro 2015). The circular economy vision is thus driving the building sector to revaluing local and renewable materials, rediscovering their attitude to meet the functional requirements of contemporary constructions, as well as supporting social engagement, sustainable development and community cohesion (Golden 2017). Building in emergency stresses on these dynamics, better detecting the share of innovation needed to design effective solutions with a minimum resource supply, as will be better explained in Chap. 2.

1.2 Learning from Emergency: Technical Complexity and Appropriate Technologies…

17

Fig. 1.4  Paper Log House – Turkey, 2000. (Credits: Image courtesy of Shigeru Ban Architects)

Fig. 1.5  Paper Log House – Philippines 2013. Thatching of Nypa palms laid over plastic sheets for roof. (Photo Credits: Shigeru Ban Architect)

18

1  Building in Emergency: Low-Tech Driven Innovations

1.3  B  uilding Shelters After Disaster. An Interview with Richard Douzjian, Shiogumo Richard Douzjian received his Doctorate of Engineering degree from Kyoto University, Japan (2011). He specialised in Architecture and Human Environmental Design & Semiotics, as well as Film Semiotics. He received his Master of Architecture with Distinction from Université Saint Esprit de Kaslik (USEK), Lebanon (2006). Douzjian established himself professionally as Shiogumo in Beirut, Lebanon in 2012, and Birmingham, UK, in 2019. Shiogumo is specialised in creating experience-­ rich, story-telling and human-centric architecture mainly in the form of social, cultural and institutional projects. Shiogumo’s most innovative project yet is the KAM, an archaeological museum and park in the South of Lebanon, commissioned by the country’s General Directorate of Antiquities and Ministry of Culture. When completed, the museum will be the first purpose-built, carbon neutral museum in Lebanon. Shiogumo constantly pushes to introduce common industrial materials and products in building designs as a way of cutting down costs and industrial waste. Shiogumo notably gained wide exposure online and in physical publications with the ECS-p1, an emergency shelter made exclusively out of plastic crates. Shiogumo’s ECS-p1, Emergency Plastic Crates Shelter-prototype 1, project was an opportunity to interview Richard Douzjian on the relationship between Low-­ Tech, unconventional materials, temporariness and emergency. Q: In your work, and especially for ECS-p1, the relationship between Low Tech and Temporariness is strongly connected to simple technologies, but also to the use of “unconventional”, low cost and easily available on site materials. Since it involves new construction models, this experimentation could suggest a possible extension in the meaning of “local material” as this notion referred only to poor and low-manufactured resources until a few decades ago, while today it spans over a wider range of other materials, thanks also to your experimentations. What do you think about this shift in meaning? Could you provide your definition of unconventional material? A: I wouldn’t necessarily label the plastic crates used in the ECS-p1 as “unconventional”. If we get down to the basic definitions of architecture, or a building, we’d define it as a container of people (and space). The plastic crates were originally designed and produced to be containers of goods. Therefore, on a fundamental level the plastic crates are still used for their conventional purpose of “­ containing”. I do understand though that the unconventional aspect resides in the fact these components are not traditionally used in conventional architectural constructs. But then again this is the hyper-localised, hyper-contextual aspect of the conception of the ECS-p1. The Low-Tech aspect of the ECS-p1 can also be contested: the assembly system of the shelter is Low-Tech in the sense that it only needs able-bodied persons to put it together without any specialised or mechanised tools. However, the crates and the zip ties that hold them together are made up of industrial grade, heavy duty plastics.

1.3 Building Shelters After Disaster. An Interview with Richard Douzjian, Shiogumo

19

So technically they are rather high-tech materials that didn’t exist decades ago, and consequently, without such plastics, the ECS-p1 couldn’t have existed. As you stated, local materials used to be derived from natural sources. But as societies have become industrialised, digitised and urbanised, our direct natural resources have, in a way, evolved equally with us. A high-tech society’s local materials, most accessible materials, are equally high-tech. I perceive the ECS-p1 as Low-Tech because of the simple fact that plastics are so widely available that we don’t give their (high-­ tech) production process any thought anymore. Plastics simply exist in our local environment, just like sand, timber, stone, etc. Sadly enough, this has also become true on an alarming environmental scale. I believe that the label of “unconventional materials” should adapt to our times and start being substituted by either Consumerist Vernacular or any other more descriptive and updated term. Q: Speaking of ECS-p1, you just defined your approach as Consumerist vernacular architecture. What does it means? That your possible future similar projects will change according to the sites and the local availability of simple materials? Could you explain the moment of the design process in which you choose the materials to be used and the construction technologies? By what method? A “top down” approach is often adopted for both design and building refugees’ shelters, avoiding their participation or involvement. This does not help reinterpreting the site’ genius loci, as is for the inappropriate technologies and material. How can the reconstruction of the historical and local memory be produced, knowing this is the most difficult task to do in emergency conditions? Does it depend on the specific choice in the relationship between local materials and place of intervention? Is it also related to the peoples’ participation, or other conditions? A: Vernacular architecture is commonly defined as architecture without architects and making use of locally accessible (natural) materials and resources. In our predominantly market-driven societies, we are continuously and increasingly producing objects that exceed in quantity our actual consumption needs. Our contemporary lifestyle is generating immense amounts of unused, discarded artefacts that litter vast territories. The practice of Consumerist Vernacular makes use of products destined to and rejected by consumers on a global scale as construction materials; products that are highly available in the direct environment of the user-builder. Consequently, I define Consumerist Vernacular Architecture, as architecture without architects, built using locally, easily and cheaply sourced (discarded) industrial materials and/or consumer goods. Consumerist Vernacular is therefore a more evolved or updated version of the conventional definition of Vernacular Architecture. As for a future ECS-p1 adapting to different sites, well it depends on how different those sites are from the context of our finalised ECS-p1. In a hyper-globalised world where industrial and consumer goods have become pretty much generic, I don’t think we have much differentiation in materials. Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, as a society we have already generated so much physical junk and goods that we have an almost infinite palette of industrial materials to work with. That said, thankfully diversity of climates and human cultures are still clearly present in the world. So,

20

1  Building in Emergency: Low-Tech Driven Innovations

when in need and with a little bit of creativity and ingenuity, I highly doubt that I or anybody else would have to apply the same designs of ECS-p1 to another socio-cultural or geographic context. Meaning we have endless possibilities to design architectural shelters, whether temporary or permanent, for emergencies or leisure, that are infinitely variable, adaptive, functional, inspiring and human-centric. During the conception process of the ECS-p1, we looked for the cheapest, most widely available industrial objects in the sites with the highest concentration of Syrian refugees in Lebanon; objects that are also light enough to be handled by almost anyone yet sturdy, strong and durable enough to withstand climatic and mechanical parameters; objects that can be assembled as easily as possible without specialised tools or people; objects with which we create a shelter with the smallest number of total components (the ECS-p1 is made up of only 2 components); and finally, objects and components that are recycled, recyclable or can be reused as is (if undamaged). After weeks of on-the-ground research and countless design iterations, my team and I decided that the plastic crate used by the agricultural industry is the component that fits all criteria. The plastic crates were even more ideal contextually for the Syrian refugees in Lebanon in the sense that at the time their larger concentration was in the Beqaa Valley, the agricultural heartland of the country. I believe this fact answers your questioning of emergency shelters, the ECS-p1  in particular, and the conservation or reinterpretation of genius loci, of the Beqaa Valley in this particular case. The agricultural lands of the valley were already and are always punctuated with large piles of plastic crates, either empty or full of agricultural goods. In the case of the ECS-p1 used as mass-assembled refugee shelter for/in camps, or even scattered individually, the visual landscape of the Beqaa Valley wouldn’t have been changed much. So, to a certain extent, the genius loci of the valley is still present and maybe would have been even more emphasised by the presence of ECS-p1 camps/groupings. This all falls in line with my definition of the Consumerist Vernacular approach: similarly to how conventional Vernacular Architecture continues or emphasises the genius loci of sites, so does the Consumerist Vernacular approach, but with different materials. Q: Taking as reference the twenty years spanning experiments of Shigeru Ban, recycled paper and cardboard have proven to be second-life, low cost effective materials, able to represent what Wright has called “material truth”. Were you inspired by this principle when choosing plastic crates? Do you think that other new materials - such as straw bales, pallets, bamboo culms - can also provide the project new modular measures and new expressive abilities? A: I’m a firm believer in architectural transparency: from design process to handing the key to the end user/client, from an abstract level to a material level, including transparency in the use of materials, i.e. “material truth”. As a matter of fact, I use the materials as they are in their true form and nature in all of my projects. The only times I cover or “hide” a material are when inescapable climatic, structural or functional parameters impose themselves inescapably. If I were to use colour for example, I’d search for a material that already has that innate/natural colour or if it were concrete, I’d rather add the pigments within the initial mix

1.3 Building Shelters After Disaster. An Interview with Richard Douzjian, Shiogumo

21

itself. This approach might be similar to “material truth” on one level, but I had initially started using it without my knowledge of it. I’ve always been very sensitive to environmental factors, even before my enrolment in architectural school. But I guess more importantly, I’ve been influenced by my upbringing in a lower middle-class family in the midst and end of the civil war in Lebanon: resources were always limited, rationed and optimised in use by fear of unexpectedly running out of them. So as a child the philosophy of “do more with less” was imprinted in me. Whether I’m designing a museum or an emergency shelter, my approach to material use stays the same: “do more with less”. It just hit me that it’s similar to Mies’ “less is more”! Honestly, I realised this fact and why I’ve felt affinity towards Mies’ philosophy as I’m typing this answer. Coming back to your question, I believe a “less is more” or “do more with less” philosophy if used religiously is similar to Wright’s “material truth”. Many might think that because less materials are used in an architecture, or materials are used in their true form/materiality, an architecture might appear deprived of qualities. I indisputably disagree with this. Quality of space, user experience, genius loci, functionality and aesthetics have countless times been proven to be if not superior then at the very least equal in architecture built with “material truth” to “conventional” constructs. A designer should always select their material palette depending on the project brief, site and client they’re designing for. So whether industrial/consumerist goods or conventional architectural materials, it’s these parameters that define the materiality of an architecture and consequently the quality of space. If a designer has a vision and is talented, then they should be able to create the most inspiring of spaces and structures no matter what material they end up using. And in our current societies, as I mentioned earlier, our construction material palette is virtually endless. I believe we have more opportunities now than ever to be as inventive and equally expressive with our architectural designs all the while staying austere in terms of budgeting. With a “do more with less” approach I’ve demonstrated to clients many times over that the architectural quality of a project is never compromised because of small budgets. Small budget projects actually gave us opportunities to become more inventive in our architectural solutions and our choice of materials. This brings me to Shiogumo’s very first commission, a sports hall for a college in Beirut: with a total budget of less than a million USD we designed a 2000+ square meter indoor sports hall using 40 repurposed shipping containers as main spatial and structural components, PCP panels as roof covering for the main hall, and repurposed wooden pallets for indoor cladding, and finally more than half a dozen suspended mini gardens. This was accomplished by firstly redefining the perception, uses and spatiality of a school sports hall in a dense urban area in a city with moderate climate; secondly, understanding the potentialities of our selected materials palette as well as their limitations; and finally, having been lucky enough to have an open-minded client with a vision. Unfortunately though this project was never built due to politics. But the principles we applied in its conception still linger on and have even matured in Shiogumo’s approach to architecture (Figs. 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10 and 1.11).

22

1  Building in Emergency: Low-Tech Driven Innovations

Fig. 1.6  The “ECS-p1” assembled as a 1:1 scale prototype on site on LAU’s byblos campus. (Image courtesy by Richard Douzjian)

Fig. 1.7  The “ECS-p1” assembled as a 1:1 scale prototype on site on LAU’s byblos campus. (Image courtesy by Richard Douzjian)

1.3 Building Shelters After Disaster. An Interview with Richard Douzjian, Shiogumo

23

Fig. 1.8  The “ECS-p1”. Roof assembly detail of crates connected with plastic ties, forming an alveolar system to reinforce the structure. (Image courtesy of Richard Douzjian)

Fig. 1.9  The “ECS-p1”. The window “shutters” become seats and table supports. (Image courtesy of Richard Douzjian)

24

1  Building in Emergency: Low-Tech Driven Innovations

Fig. 1.10  The “ECS-p1”. The window sills enable the crates to serve as storage units. (Image courtesy of Richard Douzjian)

Fig. 1.11  The “ECS-p1”, the interior offers 9 m2 of liveable space. (Image courtesy of Richard Douzjian)

References

25

References Abbasova, Z. (2018). Adopting circular innovative technologies in the construction supply chain of the MRA, Master of Science thesis in construction management and engineering, Tu Delft. ABN Amro. (2015). Circular construction. The foundation under a renewed sector, Report. ABN Amro. (2017). Circle economy a future-proof built environment – Putting circular business models into practice, Report. Accenture Strategy. (2014). Circular advantage, report. BCSD. (2018). Circular synergies. Challenges for Portugal. Real true design. Bennicelli Pasqualis, M. (2014). Case temporanee. Strategie innovative per l’emergenza abitativa post terremoto. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Betts, A., & Bloom, L. (2013). Two worlds of humanitarian innovation (RSC working paper series no. 94). Oxford: RSC. Betts, A., & Bloom, L. (2014). Humanitarian innovation: The state of the art, occasional policy series. UN OCHA. Bihouix, P. (2019). Could low tech be the key to a sustainable future? Strategy & Sustainability, Newsletter, 3. Bloom, L. (2015). Bottom up Humanitarian innovation, Research in brief 1, Refugee studies center. Boeri, A., Gaspari, J., Gianfrate, V., Longo, D., & Boulanger, S. O. (2019). “Circular city: A methodological approach for sustainable districts and communities” in eco-architecture VII. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, 183, 73–82. Bologna. (2012). Costruzioni temporanee. Wolters Kluver. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organisations and inspires innovation. New York: HarperCollins. Bukowski, H., & Fabrycka, W. (2019). Circular construction in practice. Innowo: Institute of Innovation and Responsible Development. Ceragioli, G., & Cattai, G. (1985). Ibridazione tecnologica – terzo mondo verso il 2000 (pp. 26–29). Milano: FOCSIV. Cheshire, D. (2018). Circular economy buildings: Evolution or revolution? AECOM. Climate Kic. (2019). The challenges and potential of circular procurements in public construction projects, Kic’s report. Cody, B. (2014). The role of technology in sustainable architecture. Wolkenkuckucksheim, Internationale Zeitschrift zur Theorie der Architektur, 19(33), 239–249. De Paula, N., Kulovesi, K., Bullon-Cassis, L., & Leone F. (2019). WCEF Bulletin, 7 June 2019 Vol. 208 No. 36, IISD Reporting Services Davidson, C., Lizarralde, G., & Johnson, C. (2008). Myths and realities of prefabrication for post-disaster reconstruction. In 4th international i-rec conference 2008-building resilience: Achieving effective post-disaster reconstruction. Christchurch, New Zealand. Escamilla, E.  Z., & Habert, G. (2015). Global or local construction materials for post-disaster reconstruction? Sustainability assessment of 20 post-disaster shelter designs. Building and Environment, (92), 692–702. Felix, D., Branco, J. M., & Feio, A. (2013). Temporary housing after disasters: A state of the art survey. Habitat International, (40), 136–141. Elsevier. Gangemi, V. (1985). Architettura e tecnologia appropriata. Franco Angeli Milano. Garofalo, L., & Hill, D. (2008). Prefabricated recovery: Post-disaster housing component production and delivery. Without a hitch e new directions in prefabricated architecture, Massachusetts, pp. 64e71. Golden, E. (2017). Building from tradition: Low-tech strategies and local materials in contemporary architecture. Routledege. Gonzalo, L., Cassidy, J., & Davidson, C. (2010). Rebuilding after disasters. London: Spon Press. Gulahane, K., & Gokhale, V. A. (2012). Design criteria for temporary shelters for disaster mitigation in India. In G. Lizarralde, R. Jigyasu, R. Vasavada, S. Havelka, & J. Duyne Barenstein (Eds.),

26

1  Building in Emergency: Low-Tech Driven Innovations

Participatory design and appropriate technology for disaster reconstruction. Conference proceedings. 2010 international i-Rec conference. Hughes M. (2016). The relationship between architecture, technology and sustainability, in D/ Zine issue 08, Brisbane, Australia. IFRC, & OCHA. (2015). Shelter after disaster. Lyons: IFRC; Chirat. James, E. & Taylor, A. (2018). Managing humanitarian innovation, Practical action, Rugby, UK. Khalil, A.  A., Fikry, M., & Abdeaal, W. (2018). High technology or low technology for buildings envelopes in residential buildings in Egypt. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 57(4), 3779–3792. Kinnuen, J. (1996). Gabriel Tarde as a founding father of innovation diffusion research. Sage Journals, 38, 4. Kontogiannis, M., et  al. (2017). Innovative technologies to support appropriate accommodation in emergency shelters. In International conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Disaster Management (ICT-DM). Kronenburg, R. (2008). Portable architecture. Design and technology. Basel. Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 145–174. McArthur, E. F.. (2013).Towards the circular economy: Economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition, Research Report. Monllor, J., & Altay, N. (2016). In Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development (Ed.), Discovering opportunities in necessity: The inverse creative destruction effect. Murray, A., Skene, K., & Haynes, K. (2017). The circular economy: An interdisciplinary exploration of the concept and application in a global context. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(3). Noy, I., & Vu, T. B. (2010). The economics of natural disasters in a developing country: The case of Vietnam. Journal of Asian Economics, 21. OECD. (2012). Innovation for development, OECD Report. Parente, M. (2014). Design e nuove tendenze nella vita temporanea per emergenze e nomadismo. PAD Design Journal. n 11. Preston, L. (2017). A wider circle? The circular economy in developing countries. Chatham House: The Royal Institute of International Affairs. Rogers E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations, the American center library, USA. Rohit, J. (2010). Appropriate technology for post-disaster reconstruction. In G.  Lizarralde, C. Johnson, & C. Davidson (Eds.), Rebuilding after disasters: from emergency to sustainability. Milton Park: Spon Press. Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful: A study of economics as if people mattered. London: Blond and Briggs. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York/London: Harper & Brothers. Scriven, K. (2016). Humanitarian innovation, special feature, n 66 Overseas Development Institute. Shaw, R., Takeuchi, Y., Uy, N., & Sharma, A. (2008). Indigenous knowledge, disaster risk reduction. Skidmore, M., & Toya, H. (2002). Do natural disasters promote long-run growth? Economic Inquiry, 40. Sphere Association. (2018). The sphere handbook: Humanitarian charter and minimum standards in humanitarian response (4th ed.). Geneva. UN. (2017). The sustainable development goals report 2017. Lois Jensen: DESA. UNDRO. (1982). Shelter after disaster: Guidelines for assistance. New York: United Nations. UNHCR. (2015). Emergency handbook (4th ed.). Genewa: Shelter Solutions. WBCSD. (2017). CEO guide to the circular economy. Paper realized in collaboration with Accenture strategy. WBCSD. (2018). Scaling the circular built environment. Pathways for business and government. Research report, Factor10 WBCSD’s circular economy project. WBCSD & Boston Consulting Group. (2018). The new big circle, Report, Geneva, Switzerland. Weiss, C. (2006). Science and technology at the World Bank, 1968–83. History and Technology, 22(1), 81–104. Taylor & Francis. Willoughby, K.  W. (1990). Technology Choice. A critique of the appropriate technology movement. Boulder & London: Westview press.

Chapter 2

Technologies for Building After Disaster: A Critical Review

Abstract  This chapter provides a critical review of the technical literature on building solutions for post-disaster emergency response. The review is divided into four sections, each focusing on a relevant aspect relating to the emergency, which is analysed within its disciplinary evolution: technological issues (Sect. 2.1), temporariness (Sect. 2.2), low tech /high tech (Sect. 2.3) and circular economy (Sect. 2.4). The method, which is common to all sections, starts from a recognised definition of each topic, which is then framed within current trends in the building sector, highlighting issues both of strength and weakness. The critical analysis is then extended to three paradigmatic cases of temporary emergency shelters built in developing countries adopting Low-Tech solutions, which are identified as innovative models that can be transferred to other contexts (Sect. 2.5).

Emergency and temporariness are the two main topic areas investigated first, as they have a long and not always linear evolution within the scientific debate in Architecture. They have represented, in fact, the theoretical and physical place for several design experiments and even for some utopias that have appeared since the second half of the twentieth century and more intensely within the last two decades. Many Masters of Modern Architecture were involved in that, thus arousing the interest of many scholars and spreading scrutiny in these topics internationally. The High-Tech/Low-Tech dichotomy and its evolutionary trajectory intersect that debate: the third section of this chapter is devoted to the analysis of this topic, focusing especially on the different technological sets that structure the two approaches. The last section in the chapter provides the framework of reference for the notion of circular economy, aiming at identifying how and to what extend the topic relates to the dynamics described above. The critical investigation carried-out on the development of circular economy principles and its effects on the building sector is mainly targeted toward discerning the links that can connect low-tech and temporariness to circular economy through innovation. Four parallel literary reviews have been carried out on the topics, retrieving references from the sector literature and dictionaries, from the guidelines of humanitarian associations for the realisation of emergency shelters and from the numerous © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 E. Antonini et al., Emergency Driven Innovation, Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55969-4_2

27

28

2  Technologies for Building After Disaster: A Critical Review

reports prepared annually by varying scientific associations that frame the trend of circular transition processes in the building sector. Building, however, plays the peculiar role of an interacting crossroad for these dynamics, due to its pivotal position in economic systems and intense exchanges it establishes with many other manufacturing clusters and human activities. This establishes building as an advanced field test for evaluating the possible technical options to be adopted in response to new growing economic and productive models. Finally, three case studies of emergency shelter building in extreme situations provide an analysis of some additional elements and evidence of how simple and cheap low-tech solutions can become opportunities for effective and sustainable innovation in extreme emergency, while replicating into other contexts both to enhance peoples’ living conditions and social cohesion.

2.1  Emergency and Building Technologies The notion of emergency1 is commonly defined as opposition to normality, as a disturbance that breaks a previously existing balance. In biological spheres and natural systems, these two states are dynamically linked, being the balance assured by adaptations that organisms continue adopting in reaction to disturbances, with the aim of limiting their negative effects as much as possible, without the means to avoid them (Wong and Candolin 2015). Contemporary wealthy and developed societies tend instead to perceive the states of “normality” and “stability” as a static condition that must be preserved and protected against any “emergency” or “instability”. This is probably due to technological power that has produced a season of development and well-being of such duration and width as to be considered permanent, while emergency conditions are feared as an accident which must be prevented or avoided. For example, Edward S. Corwin defined emergency in terms of conditions that “have not attained enough of stability or recurrency to admit of their being dealt with according to rule” (Corwin 1957). The huge availability of resources, energy and technical knowledge has actually prevented most unexpected events, often by investing heavily by means of empowering the robustness of both artefacts and natural environments, in order to at least limit the worst effects of unplanned occurrences which can disturb stability (WEF 2014). However, this effort to take control of both social and unpredictable natural phenomena has not reached a complete success. On the contrary, many balances have become more fragile, worsening the consequences of the phenomenon that escapes control, while over-withdrawal of resources leads to a shortage of available means of defence. 1  The English word Emergency directly and clearly indicates a particularly critical condition that relates to an extreme, but temporary situation, while in Italian the corresponding word “Emergenza” also has several other meanings

2.1 Emergency and Building Technologies

29

The manifest ineffectiveness of this approach aimed at improving resistance, has created the need for a more adaptive strategy, which instead provides systems of “resilience” that can tolerate any possible perturbation of stability without major upset. This vision could further blur the sharp boundaries of the present notion of emergency: however, it is sufficient to look around, and back in time, to understand that stability is not a permanent but a dynamic condition, continuously perturbed, thus intertwined with emergency. In many countries, like in several natural systems, emergency even appears to be a normal living condition, longer lasting and more endogenous than the shorter stages of stability. Providing systems with enough resilience to offer more fault-tolerance against the perturbations can reduce but not eliminate the need to recover acceptable levels of functionality after an event which caused a loss of stability. So, acting “in emergency” means to design and produce responses able to assure the system can restart after a perturbation. These measures must be adopted in the short term and in operating conditions which are often very hostile, due to the shortages caused by the perturbation itself. Emergency renders the design’s attention to technology more evident, and this is precisely the area that we specifically wish to address: the relationship between design and technical architectural resources (Cetica 2005). Design therefore becomes a field of experimentation and innovation in emergency conditions: since current solutions and technologies are not available, the needs must be met by developing unconventional responses capable of taking advantage of the limited and poor exploitable local resources. Providing shelter for the survivors is one – if not the main – crucial response following an emergency, which often destroyed or made existing housing infrastructure unavailable, depriving people of any protection. The characteristics of emergency housing units depend on the post-disaster care phase. The emergency first phase is usually marked by tents, caravans and prefabricated containerised units, characterised by very low dimensional standards to meet the essential needs of first shelter and expected to be used for a few weeks or months at most. After the emergency first response, transitional dwellings are used covering the period until the restoration of the final residences, usually requiring a few years (UNHCR 2015; ECA 2016). Transitional dwellings must assure the minimum functional requirements and the necessary space for acceptable accommodation, even if lower dimensional standards than those of permanent housing are often provided. The Italian regulation on emergency management (DPCM 14/01/2014) adopted this two-step scheme within the National relief programme for seismic risk, which also includes guidelines for drafting emergency planning compliant with DPCM 3/12/2008 on the functions of the National Civil Protection Service, in an emergency. A high degree of experimentation is often needed in the design of emergency housing units. Experienced and respected architects – including some recognised Masters of Modern Architecture – have devoted great efforts to developing innovative and sometimes ingenious prototypes for disaster relief situations. As

30

2  Technologies for Building After Disaster: A Critical Review

Buckminster Fuller, Alvar Aalto, Future Systems, Renzo Piano and Shigeru Ban have done at various moments and contexts. Great efforts were also spent by industrial manufacturers in providing building systems, material and components capable of meeting emergency housing needs. Several of those were rigorously tested and occasionally deployed in post-disaster situations, experimenting with a wide range of different approaches and configurations. However, only some of these prototypes fit the suitable criteria for a shelter that, according to Kronenburg, should be designed and built benefiting from local knowledge and with materials of local origin, within the framework of a coordinated disaster preparedness plan which includes the involvement of local industry (Kronenburg 2009). Other authors share the same concerns, like Bologna, who identifies easy transportability, rapid construction, low cost as the basic requirements for emergency shelters. Additional features he suggests lie with recycling materials, reuse of components and reversibility, in order to better comply with temporariness and sustainability needs. Within this framework he argues that architectural configuration must consider many additional factors, such as the nature of the disaster, the settlement context, the culture and social and economic conditions of the population. The same is true for the building process, which can deploy both light off-site prefabricated and on-site construction, mainly made of wood, metal and plastic (Bologna 2012). The definition of temporary housing stands in the background as a crucial issue and includes a variety of different cases which should be identified with greater precision, to treat each of them in the most appropriate way. According to UNDRO (1982) and OCHA - IFRC (2015), temporary housing is one of the eight basic types of post-disaster shelter provision. By considering temporary housing as a shelter type, the UNDRO classification seems to reflect what Quarantelli (1995) stigmatises as the variety of unclear and inconsistent ways the terms shelter and housing are used in disaster literature. Four types of emergency housing can thus be identified, according to the emergency stages to which each of them can be suitably adopted (Lizarralde et al. 2010, Felix et al. 2013): 1. Emergency shelter: a place where survivors stay for a short period of time during the early emergency peak 2. Temporary shelter: suitable solution for an expected short stay, ideally no more than a few weeks after the disaster. This may be tents or public mass shelters. 3. Temporary housing: the place where survivors can temporarily reside, usually from 6 months to 3 years, returning to their normal daily activities, pending a definitive rearrangement. These facilities can be prefabricated house, or rented houses. 4. Permanent housing: the return to the rebuilt house or resettlement in a new one, to live permanently The decision about what terminology to use is not a neutral choice, since each option combines technical and contextual factors that shape the specific response required. The shelter’s expected level of permanence, the materials by which they

2.1 Emergency and Building Technologies

31

Fig. 2.1  Overlaps between some of the different shelter terminologies in use. (Source: IFCR 2013)

are made, the site on which they are built, strictly relates to the operational policies and their relations with local entities. Many authors provide evidence that the more the design of these temporary shelters fits into the local context, the more successful the operation is, even more so if local construction technologies and cultural ­preferences of the refugees are respected. However, the time needed to develop, agree and engineer such solutions after the disaster has occurred can significantly delay shelter provision (Fig. 2.1) (IFRC 2013). The design experiments developed since the civil war in Rwanda in 1994 by the Japanese architect Shigeru Ban in collaboration with the UN Agencies have become a reference for this comprehensive approach to emergency housing combining sustainable innovation and people involvement as the main leverages for recovery success.

32

2  Technologies for Building After Disaster: A Critical Review

Following this first UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) Assignment, Ban’s paper shelter was developed, composed of set of curtains on a supporting structure made of cardboard tubes (see Chap. 3) which have subsequently seen extensive used to face other catastrophes, such as the 1999 earthquake in Turkey; the 2001 Gujarat earthquake; the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami; Katrina hurricane in 2005; the Sichuan earthquake in 2008; the L’Aquila earthquake in 2009 and also in Haiti, Tohoku and the Philippines. As in the pioneering case of Rwanda, also in many other circumstances the action of UNHCR proved decisive in promoting innovation in the provision of housing responses to the emergency. To support this evolution and to ensure “a life in dignity”, the UNHCR Global Strategy for Settlement and Shelter 2014–2018 (SPHERE) Standards provide practical advice on how best to design different types of shelters and uphold the rights of displaced persons. Among the principal documents, it highlights: –– UNHCR (2015) Handbook for emergency: it gives greater attention to out-of-­ camp emergency response, covering all aspects of UNHCR-led refugee emergency preparedness and response and other UNHCR involvement. It was first published in 1982 and is at its fourth edition. –– UNHCR (2016) Shelter Design Catalogue, developed by Shelter and Settlement Section (SSS): it collects several shelter designs developed across a variety of locations, contexts and climates (2016). –– SPHERE Association (2018) The Sphere Handbook, that specifies a set of principles and minimum humanitarian standards for four technical areas of humanitarian response (shelter and settlement, water, food, health). Humanitarian standards are statements which describe the sets of actions-needed so that crisis-­ affected people may enjoy this right.2 The intervention strategies and operational objectives focus on univocal targets. Among the guiding principles of the UNHCR Global Strategy for settlement and shelter 2014–2018, three recommendations can be highlighted, the most relevant for the purposes of this study (UNHCR 2014): –– Sustainability: Policies and programmes should be developed and implemented with sustainability and durable solutions as the ultimate goal, taking into consideration appropriate technology, capacity-building of both refugee and local communities, using local skills, materials, techniques and knowledge. –– Community empowerment: Refugees and the affected population at large should be empowered and capacitated at all stages to participate in programme planning, needs assessment, implementation, monitoring and evaluation in order to design acceptable, appropriate, sustainable and culturally sensitive programmes.

2  The Sphere Project was initiated in 1997 by a group of NGOs and the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement to develop a set of universal minimum standards in core areas of humanitarian response: The Sphere Handbook.

2.2 Temporariness and Temporary Buildings

33

They should also be involved as much as possible in the design, construction, and maintenance of any shelter, settlement and core relief item support. –– Environment: Settlement and shelter interventions need to be planned and implemented to mitigate, to the greatest extent possible, the impact on the natural environment and to prevent hazard risks such as landslides, floods and ­earthquakes, among others. Attention should be given to laws and regulations governing the use of environmental impact assessments prior to the design and planning of the settlement and shelter programme. As the UNHCR and IFRC  - OCHA argue, every shelter is contextual and there exists no “one-size-fits-all” solution to apply worldwide (UNHCR 2015, IFRC-­ OCHA 2015). Immediacy, simplicity and use of on-site available technologies are however the features of emergency shelters that widely – even if variably – characterise the current approaches, supported by major international architects and industrial firms. Since urgency is typically the most critical and severe need in post-catastrophe situations, possible housing responses in emergency inevitably intersect the temporariness factor. Most practices and design experiments therefore address temporariness as closely related with emergency conditions, while opposite issues involving the preservation of permanency and local identity are instead only considered in certain cases. This is the reason why the potential of demountable and portable buildings for use in post-disaster situations is perceived as a real area for development by those involved in the world of architectural design and construction (Kronenburg 2009). The development for alternative and innovative shelter based on simple technologies and the use of local materials continues, nevertheless, to be the target to attain, since it is open to both ethical and technically sustainable and effective responses in emergencies, including those of a less extreme nature (see Sect. 2.2). Natural and anthropogenic disasters, indeed, are not the only cause, nor are disadvantaged countries the only place where temporary solutions for housing are in demand. Poor urban immigrants, the elderly homeless, the jobless young, low-­ income workers or students needing short time accommodation are only a few of the drivers for the current increasing demand of different levels of housing temporariness in wealthy countries too.

2.2  Temporariness and Temporary Buildings The adjective “temporary” assumes different meanings in architectural language, depending on the object, the space and the time span to which it refers. It may refer to features of flexibility, transience, reversibility of a living space, as to an ephemeral, event-related use of an existing facility that has exhausted or lost its original function. It can also be used to designate a space occupied by users for a certain period of time, pending a new accommodation, both permanent and transitory (Perriccioli 2018).

34

2  Technologies for Building After Disaster: A Critical Review

The concept of temporary housing (and the parallel one of temporary building) has deep roots in the history of civilisation. All humans were nomadic during the long period preceding the Neolithic agricultural revolution, and many of our ­ancestors continued to avoid stable settlements as many as several millennia later (Rizzo 2004; Harari 2011). Only temporary shelters were possible to protect themselves from external atmospheric agents. Thus, at each stop a new cave was found, a hut built, a tent deployed, and the same thing once the next position had been reached. Very little energy could be devoted to this purpose while this also limited the withdrawal of resources from the surrounding environment, essentially a coherent coupling of housing temporariness, light building and low-tech. The need to build structures to accommodate temporary activities and the availability of appropriate material have led to the notion of temporary housing, whose meaning today is vaguely wide and the very use of the term “temporary dwelling” can generate ambiguities about the real features and purposes of the artefact (Bologna 2012). The research and experiments that took place during the 1930s and 1940s, based on the principles of transience, mobility, flexibility, disassembling and interaction with the territory and the environment, were carried out mainly on behalf of armed forces or civil protection agencies, interested in shelters which could be deployed in emergency. Between the mid-1960s and early 1980s, a remarkable flowering of ideas, projects and experimental prototypes appeared both in Europe and in the USA, involving designers increasingly interested in architectures free from the classical standards of the solid object, destined for posterity, unchanged and unchangeable over the time (De Giovanni 2018). Temporary housing has already entered the debate in the temporal dimension of architecture and become a topic of great debate for design disciplines over recent years (Bologna 2005, 2008; Lauria 2008). This is due to the driver effect on research that temporary building has produced, pushing experimentation on new materials and light construction techniques, based on dry assemblage of components (Huber 2017; De Giovanni 2018). Furthermore, this transition phase within the building sector towards a more sustainable and circular economy has added the challenge to push for and explore building solutions contributing to saving natural resources and reducing waste production. According to green economy principles, temporary architecture can meet the increasing demand for sustainability by providing an option for producing buildings with less impact over their whole life cycle: less land consumption, more moderate in resource needs, easier constituent’s recovery and recycling at the end of their operational stage (Antonini and Tucci 2017). This highlights a close link between temporariness and building process reversibility (see Chap. 4), as the lighter and easy assembly construction systems required to meet temporariness requirements lead to less matter and in sub-systems easier deconstruction at the end of their life, thus less waste disposal and more opportunities for profitable recycling (Terpolilli 2005).

2.2 Temporariness and Temporary Buildings

35

The scientific literature identifies three areas of temporariness – related concepts, leading to effects on functional, technical and spatial building features when occurring both separately and in combination: –– Temporary building: a built artefact which is designed to be in operation for a short and aforethought time and subsequently decommissioned, to be dismantled or reconverted for possible further use. The main requirement for a building complying to this scenario is reversibility, which implies that a building system must have high levels of demountability, lightness, recyclability as well as adaptability, when new functions must be housed. Post-disaster emergency homes are the most common application case for this building concept, which is also often used for temporary housing when inhabitants can be “parked” during renovation work, pending their return to their restored dwellings. –– Temporary use: refers to the replacement of users or activities with new ones within the same building, after a variable period of stay. As the building should meet the new functional and spatial requirements that any new using cycle typically entails, a suitable set of easy to modify or reset options should be adopted. The building system requirements related to these needs are typically: easy flexibility, adaptability, maintainability. Tourist accommodation and residences for specific categories of users (students, elderly people, immigrants) follow more involved building typologies. –– Temporary location: the building can be displaced from a location and deployed in a different one, as it has autonomous mobility or can be transported or carried. The main feature allowing this is transportability, which can apply to the entire assemblage or to individual elements that compose the building system. In both cases, the carried objects must comply with strict size and weight requirements and have a suitable level of tolerance to handling stresses. Moreover, systems must have sufficient adaptability for installation in different situations, without losing the basic performance levels they must provide to users. The systems to be transported for separate elements must also ensure extreme ease and speed of both assembly and disassembly. Depending on the temporariness of use, construction or location, the most stringent requirements that building systems must comply with include: –– Spatial and technological adaptability and flexibility, in order to better manage the different needs of users changing over time –– Demountability, remountability and reversibility, in the case of construction to be decommissioned after use and possibly reinstalled in the future if necessary –– Lightness, ease of transport, quick deployment, fast assembly and disassembly for systems that must be relocated from one place to another The so-called light technologies made of wood or metal are generally the most consistent building systems with all the requirements for temporariness (Bogoni 2003, Kronenburg 2002, Bologna 2005, 2012). Bologna (2012) highlights how in Italy the demand for temporary housing today is expressed by different categories of users: immigrants, the elderly, young couples, students and university teachers, the military and mobile workers. The current

36

2  Technologies for Building After Disaster: A Critical Review

supply of temporary residences, which still does not fully take this complexity into account, includes: –– Residences for university students, with specific typological models that depend mainly on functional relationships with support services –– “Parking” houses, intended to accommodate a transit user waiting to return to their permanent home –– “Short stay” residences, also for a transit user waiting to find permanent accommodation (such as young couples or immigrants with temporary residence permits), or those who have a place of work away from their usual home (commuters or on the move workers) –– Housing modules for the emergency, usually of a small size and set up in a short time to meet the housing needs of the re-staff populations without their own home as a result of a disastrous event –– Residences for the elderly or for people who are not self-sufficient (otherwise called hotel houses), which can be accompanied by support services –– Accommodation facilities for tourist purposes (residences and holiday homes) (Bologna 2012) Notwithstanding experimentation into temporary architecture in a wide and increasingly articulated range of application fields, emergency housing remains its privileged area of application, as this is a social priority at global level (see Sect. 2.2). However, many advantages could be obtained by providing answers capable of producing beneficial effects even beyond extreme housing crises. As the boundaries between emergency and ordinariness are less sharp than they once were, or are often perceived to be, the topic begs to be tackled with new approaches and new production models.

2.3  Low-Tech/High-Tech According to the OECD (2003; Bender 2004, Carapellotti and Ribaldi 2016), technology classification by levels is based on the relative expenditure needed to make that technology available. Therefore, “low technology” means a class of technical devices that can be supplied at very low cost, compared with the budget that users can devote to equip themselves with these. The level of transformation of basic resources and the related process and device incorporated knowledge are recognised as the main factors affecting the affordability: cheaper usually means made of low-processed and low-energy embodied materials, locally available with few transportation costs and easy logistics, within reach of technical skills that can be found close to the manufacturing site. These context elements induce in turn some effects on the Low-Tech device features and performances that can result in poorer or limited features compared to the High-Tech solution developed to perform the same purposes.

2.3 Low-Tech/High-Tech

37

Since its main aim is to provide shelter capable of protecting people from the surrounding adverse environment, building production has always faced this issue, by developing a huge variety of Low-Tech solutions worldwide, all strictly related to local conditions, available resources and owned knowledge. The notion of Low Technology emerges from a long evolution, as a set of building techniques fed by low-processed and local available materials, but able to meet the user needs for effectiveness, functionality, comfort and easy maintenance, with minimum provision of resources. According to Rocca, Low-cost-Low-Tech architecture, “answers to a more careful understanding of human ecology and becomes a symbol of a profound technical and aesthetic renewal that concerns every aspect of contemporary life” (Rocca 2010).

2.3.1  Pre-industrial Revolution and Vernacular Architecture Low-Techs were born together with the vernacular architectures that can be defined as “unpretentious, simple, indigenous, traditional structures made of local materials and following well-tried forms and types” (Curl 2006). Moreover, according to the etymological approach and to the “Dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française” (Robert and Alain 1985), the notion of vernacular architecture refers to the house of Verna, which in Latin means “slave born in the house”, while vernaculus means “indigenous”, or “domestic”. This definition is derived from Roman law, codified in the fourth century by Emperor Theodosius the Great (347–395) (Guillaud 2014). As a consequence in great part to the restrictions in transportation, Vernacular Architecture strictly depended on local materials and skills. This led to the conservation of resources and the creation of uniqueness and identity of the architecture of each region, as well as the formation of a solid heritage of technical and expressive knowledge, since each material embedded its physical and aesthetic characteristics that dictated the architectural technology that fits each material (Winchip 2011; Salman 2018). This “contextualised” architecture, which belongs to a particular regional or geographical area and to a given time, emerges from the “genius loci”, that is the sense of “being of the place” and “being to the place” as Norberg-Schulz defined it (Norberg-Schülz 1980). Vernacular architecture most commonly refers to “traditional” or “popular” architecture, as opposed to “scholarly” architecture (Guillaud 2014), while Paul Oliver (1997) refers it to Rudofsky and his notions of popular architecture, “Architecture without architects” (Rudofsky 1964), or even “people’s” architecture (Oliver 2003), as expression of an “indigenous science of construction”(Oliver 2006). Every society that created architecture has evolved its own forms, adhering to people in their language, clothing, customs, and traditional stories. Until the collapse of cultural frontiers in the twentieth century, there are distinctive local shapes

38

2  Technologies for Building After Disaster: A Critical Review

and details in architecture as a natural product of materials, technology, environment and culture (Fathy 1976; Salman 2018). However, the link between human habitat and its surrounding supply basin had been broken several decades before, with the advent of the Industrial Revolution (Achenza and Giovagnorio 2014). Technological advances significantly modified the construction sector too, by introducing new building materials (concrete, steel, glass) and techniques, made available by highly polluting and energy-expensive industrial manufacturing processes (Fernandes et  al. 2014). From this point forward, “economic development represents the development of more intensive exploitation techniques of the natural environment” (Wilkinson 1973, Achenza and Giovagnorio 2014).

2.3.2  Industrial Revolution and Birth of High Tech The industrial revolution shifts architecture towards a totally new and disruptive paradigm, leaving behind the simple construction technologies and sustainable use of available local resources to widely apply; instead, all the formidable features that progress has provided through new materials. From this basis, a trend developed that would eventually reach its peak with the High-Tech Movement. High-tech architecture, also called Late Modernism, rose up during the 1970s as a style that incorporated different elements and suggestions from modern technology into architectures. It was developed by British architects such as Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, Nicholas Grimshaw and Michael Hopkins (Banham 1997). The most issues of High Tech Architecture can be summarised as follows: –– High tech: the industrial Style and Source book for the Home: is the text published by Joan Kron e Suzanne Slesin in 1978 from which the High-Tech architectural style was named. The text described an increasing number of residences and public buildings with a crudely technological aspect and outlined stylistic lines, borrowed from industrial aesthetics. –– Modernism and post-modernism: These two schools of thought hold the High tech architectural style as a link between them. Clement Greenberg, long acknowledged as the theorist of American Modernism, defined Postmodernism in 1979 as the antithesis of all he loved: that is as the lowering of aesthetic standard caused by the “democratisation of culture under industrialism” (Jencks 1987). –– High technology for envelope: sophisticated “smart” devices supported by eco-­ friendly technologies have greatly amplified the possibilities of resorting to high-­ tech integrations in architecture. This led to externalising what had generally been the hidden part of an architecture (Khalil et al. 2018). An emblematic example is the Reconstruction of the Reichstag Dome, the German Parliament Building (Bundestag) in Berlin. The project, by Sir Norman Foster, began in 1992 and was completed in 1999.

2.3 Low-Tech/High-Tech

39

2.3.3  T  he High-/Low-Tech Dualism in the Architectural Debate The emergence of High Tech coincided with a growing disillusionment on the part of architects and designers with the achievements of the Modern Movement (Banham 1997). Indeed the Masters of the Modern Movement highlight different positions with respect to relations with industrial technologies and the expressive canons with which to accompany their use in architecture. The functionalist rationalism of the European matrix often makes it a linguistic or stylistic element, which is then taken up and spread by International Style. The name comes from the book “The International Style” by historian and critic Henry-Russell Hitchcock and architect Philip Johnson. The book was published in 1932 in conjunction with an exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. The term is again used in a later book, “International Architecture” by Walter Gropius, founder of Bauhaus. At the same time, particularly in the USA, Organic Architecture was developing, which instead continued with the intention of connecting architecture with nature, calling into question the industrial massification of time. The adjective “organic” appeared in reflection in architecture at the beginning of the twentieth century. Most of all, it was Frank Lloyd Wright who was involved in defining the characteristics of organic architecture, applying them systematically in his built projects. Among the many occasions, Wright first used the term organic in 1908, then in a famous article in 1914 for “Architectural Record”, and again in the book “Organic Architecture”, which was printed in 1939, as a transcript of four lectures given that year at the RIBA - Royal Institute of British Architects in London. At the same time, in Europe, another recognised master of architectural modernity was approaching an organic conception of architecture: Alvar Aalto. Wright (together with his collaborators Rudolf Schindler and Richard Neutra) and Aalto are, in a sense, the guardians of an organic attitude that spans Western architecture throughout the twentieth century. In this last current Green architecture is rooted (anti-urban, often radically hippy/alternative and pauper-like traits that also constitute obstacles to its export in different contexts). Green architecture, philosophy of architecture that advocates sustainable energy sources, the conservation of energy, the reuse and safety of building materials, and the siting of a building with consideration on its impact on the environment. In a certain sense, this initial wave of green architecture was based on admiration of the early Native American lifestyle and its minimal impact on the land. Influential pioneers who supported a more integrative mission during the 1960s and early 1970s included the American architectural critic and social philosopher Lewis Mumford, the Scottish-born American landscape architect Ian McHarg and the British scientist James Lovelock. They led the way in defining green design, and they contributed significantly to the popularisation of environmental principles (Mumford 1967; Wines 2000).

40

2  Technologies for Building After Disaster: A Critical Review

2.3.4  Limited Resources and New Attention to Low-Tech From the 1970s, the scientific debate began to acquire awareness of the issue of resources and the limits of growth (Meadows and Club of Rome 1972), as well as the construction sector, whose impact on the natural environment, both in terms of withdrawal of resources and waste production, is demonstrated by increasingly alarming data that emerged over the following 40 years. The environmental issue also affected the field of emergency operations in developing countries, involving both their management and the strategies for shelter design and implementation. The needs for sustainable, simple and appropriate technologies for emergency housing thus became crucial, pushing towards the development of innovative responses thanks to the research carried out by important architects, like Shigeru Ban with his humanitarian architecture, to name just one. Innovation in building techniques, participatory and low cost are the main features of his interventions, which are bringing attention to Low-Tech theoretical principles and their application also in Western countries. Since resource depletion and energy overconsumption trigger a vicious circle which is untenable in the long term, renewable energies, which do not run out, appear to be an answer. But the paradox is that producing, storing and processing increasing quantities of this energy require the deployment of resource-hungry technology processes, particularly in terms of rare metals and high performing materials (Bihouix 2019). A further negative issue of the high consumption model is that the “circularity” of the supplied goods is very low, as the resources are utilised in a “dispersive” way. For example plastic, as it can only be recycled a few times, and metals, because of how they are used. According to the “Oxford dictionary of Architecture”, “Low Tech as antithesis of High Tech, involves the recycling of materials and components and the use of traditional construction, insulation, and natural means of heating and ventilation.Low Tech recognizes the environmental damage done by High Tech through excessive use of resources, and has been applied to the circumstances of poverty-stricken areas, where it has been ermed “alternative”, “intermediate” and even “utopian” technology” (Curl and Wilson 2015). Among the main steps: –– Global issues, local scope: From the UN Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 and by the Agenda 21, individually tailored local approaches have been confirmed as the most suitable and effective solutions to global issues, especially regarding the mitigation of global warming (Ion 2012). –– Simple technology: simpler and cheaper devices and configurations, made by and poor, including unusual materials, can bring both environmental sustainability and affordability in building. This requires development and innovation in materials and construction techniques. –– Interacting with the context: a suitable balance between indoor and outdoor climate can be performed by adopting simple but strategic design shrewdness and regionally available natural materials, such as earth, straw, bamboo or hemp. By

2.4 Circular Economy Issues

41

allowing appropriate architectural and building solutions which take advantage of local material properties, Low-Tech responses can be performed, thus complying with site and climate with minimum needs for resources and energy (Bihouix 2019). Low-tech solutions are highly sustainable because they limit the energy input both in the construction and operational stage of the building. Instead of consuming, they rather redirect the existing environmental resources to shape conditions comfortable for human living. High-tech solutions do the opposite, as they adjust the building features to the human needs by equipping it with “smart” systems mostly based on several automatically controlled and operated devices such as HVAC installations, motorised windows and shutters, all active captors for exploiting renewable energies. This is not to say that high tech must be avoided, as it can coexist and cooperate together with Low Tech. The question is to what extend a designed solution can ultimately be sustainable for the future. Or, in other words, which approach is more compatible with sustainable future development: combined High- and Low-Tech solutions can better allow us to reach our sustainability goals if integrated within architecture that is able to assure the best balance between energy input and output on the complete building and over its entire life-cycle. A substantiated upshot for this challenge has not yet been envisaged by the scientific community, while the discussions within the architectural circles seem to be limited to purely stylistic concerns (Cody 2014). However, the consensus for Low-Tech is widening even in real estate, as emerged from OID3 2019 Conference, since it is considered as scientific-evidence based and the correct option for meeting sustainable future goals (Bihouix 2019).

2.4  Circular Economy Issues The term circular economy was formally used for the first time in an economic model by Pearce and Turner (1990). Drawing on the principle that “everything is an input to everything else”, the authors took a critical look at the traditional linear economic system and developed a new economic model, named the circular economy, which applies the principles of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. What is prominent in this model is the relationship between the economy and the environment, influencing three environmental economic functions, namely, resource supply, waste assimilation and utility source (Rizos et al. 2017). The definition provided by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation – which is one of the both most cited and recognised within scientific literature  – defines the circular 3   The OID (Observatoire de l’’immobilier durable) conference within the “Immobilier & Prospectives” cycle organised by the multi-specialist asset manager “La Francaise” was held on 20 February 2019 in Paris.

42

2  Technologies for Building After Disaster: A Critical Review

economy as “an industrial system that is restorative or regenerative by intention and design”. The main effects are the replacing of concept of “end-of-life” with that of reuse, shifting the focus to renewable energy, the elimination of waste, as well as of toxic chemicals since they could impede re-use practices. This is attainable through a more effective design of materials, products and systems, within new business models (2013, p. 7). Following the work of Pearce and Turner and often in reference to it, there have been various attempts to define the circular economy, with most of them providing a more detailed interpretation of the resource-oriented approach, while others stress the need for closed loop material flow and the reduction of virgin resource consumption, aimed at reducing harmful environmental impact. For instance, Sauvé et al. (2016) suggest that the circular economy refers to the “production and consumption of goods through closed loop material flows that internalise environmental externalities linked to virgin resource extraction and the generation of waste (including pollution)” (Rizos et al. 2017). Several interpretations available in literature also suggest widening the extent of material resource management, in order to embrace further dimensions. At the EU level, the European Commission (EU Action Plan) has included a definition of circular economy within its Communication “Closing the loop – An EU Action Plan for the circular economy”, which forms part of the Circular Economy Package. What emerges is that the circular economy needs more than traditional piecemeal R&D approaches, but radical changes and joint efforts involving all the stakeholders: researchers and technology centres, big companies and SMEs of all sectors including the primary ones, users, governments and civil society. It also requires regulatory frameworks in additional to public and private investment (EU 2017). The building sector today has drawn from the concept of sustainability through green economy strategies, approaches and objectives aimed at closing the resource cycles which have developed over the last 30 years. UNEP studies and reports are among the main international references on this topic and, in particular, on Green Economy strategies as a means of reaching advanced sustainability goals (UNEP 2011). In its report “Towards a Green Economy”, UNEP defines the green economy as an improvement in human well-being and social equity, which also ensures a significant reduction in environmental risks and ecological scarcity. This definition is linked to the concept of integration of sustainability components, which entails durability as the first aim. Although the concept of green economy does not replace that of sustainable development, there is a growing recognition that achieving sustainability rests almost entirely on getting the economy right. The evolution of the concept of circular economy goes through seven scientific theories that can be summarised as follows (McArthur 2013; Rizos et al. 2017): –– Cradle-to-Cradle design: is an economic, industrial and social framework aiming at creating systems that are not only efficient but also virtually waste-free. This model was applied to industrial design and manufacturing, social systems and urban environments (McDonough and Braungart 2002).

2.4 Circular Economy Issues

43

–– Performance economy: Walter Stahel added to the C2C theory the “closed circuit” approach to the production process, which includes four main aims, extending product life cycles, creating long-lasting value goods, carrying out product renewal activities and avoiding waste (Stahel 1976). –– Biomimicry (imitation of life): is the knowledge of natural principles and processes and the development of artificial imitations or reproductions that provide solutions to the needs of human beings. The three most important principles: studying and emulating nature, applying an ecological standard to judge the sustainability of our innovations to not evaluate nature. –– Industrial ecology: is the study of material and energy flows within the industrial systems by adopting a systemic point view. This leads to designing production processes that comply with local ecological constraints, whose global impact has been considered from the outset (Garner and Keoleian 1995). –– Natural capitalism: based on four pillars: radically increasing the productivity of natural resources; reinvesting in natural capital; applying models and production materials inspired by biology as well as business models (Hawken et al. 1999). –– Blue economy: this practice was originally developed by G. Pauli, referring to practical cases of systems fed by connected cascading resources, where the waste from one product serves as input to create new cash flow. –– Regenerative design (Theory of): from the idea introduced by Lyle in the late 1970s, that of linking sustainable development to the concept of resource regeneration. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation identified four major mechanisms by which the circular economy creates value (McArthur 2013): –– The power of inner circle: the closer the product gets its direct reuse, the larger the cost savings will be in terms of material, labour, energy, capital and the associated externalities. –– The power of circling longer: keeping products, components, and materials in use longer, creates value within the circular economy. This can be achieved by enabling a product to serve more cycles or by making each single cycle longer. –– The power of cascaded use: the use of discarded materials from one value chain creates value when they are used as by-products for another value chain, replacing virgin materials. –– The power of pure circles: providing processes with uncontaminated material flows increases product collection and redistribution efficiency while maintaining quality. The current interpretation of the circular economy concept may result in underrating the contribution of renewable materials. While the circular economy has addressed the issue of renewable materials focusing mainly on biodegradability, the technical characteristics of these materials have been given less consideration. Nonetheless, renewable materials have a key role in reuse, remanufacturing, and recycling streams. This is the case for many products manufactured from the after-­ use-­cascade of wood, as so for the large volume of recycled paper and cardboard.

44

2  Technologies for Building After Disaster: A Critical Review

The same happens for crop residues or captured greenhouse gases supplying the production processes of bioplastics. A circular economy therefore not only closes the loop, slows and narrows resource flows (Fig. 2.2) but also works to regenerate and restore stocks from which additional primary materials are produced (McArthur CE 100 2016, 2018). With regard to the role of products in a circular economy, according to EEA report (2017), the EU economy is largely linear by design, resulting in an avoidable impact on the environment and human health; however, there is inefficient use of natural resources and over-dependency on resources from outside Europe. Moving to a circular economy would alleviate these pressures and concerns, delivering economic, social and environmental benefits. The EU’s Seventh Environment Action Programme (seventh EAP) calls for Europe to become a resource-efficient, low-carbon economy. Reducing dependency on fossil fuels, recycling materials and reusing products are important for reaching the broader goal of reducing the environmental burden of Europe’s resource use and staying within planetary limits (EEA 2015). Strategies for a circular and low-carbon economy are cross-linked and can support each other: the use of natural resources is one of the main and most evident common pivots on which different actions ­converge. This in turn means that links between resource use and energy, water and biodiversity will also need attention (EEA 2016, 2017).

Fig. 2.2 Circular Economy Principles in the Construction Value Chain. Based on Ellen McArthur Foundation 2013 and Ellen McArthur Foundation and Fung Global Institute 2014a. (Source: World Economic Forum 2016)

2.4 Circular Economy Issues

45

According to WBCDS Report “Scaling the circular built environment” (2018), the built environment, consuming almost half of the world’s resources extracted every year and responsible for a massive environmental footprint, is a fundamental sector in the transition from a linear to a circular, more sustainable world. Moving towards a circular built environment involves a shift in roles and business models for stakeholders active in this sector. Two important dynamics are highlighted by several sources as drivers for this transition: The identification of five new specific business models (Fig. 2.3) targeting specific circular prospects in the built environment (Accenture 2014, WBCSD 2017, ABNM Amro 2017), namely: –– Circular supplies: reducing raw material consumption; use of non-toxic, high-­ grade materials that can be reused and recycled, or procuring renewable materials (bio-based or biodegradable) –– Product as a service: Delivering services instead of products by retaining ownership. Relieve clients of the burden for monitoring and staying in control of raw materials by gaining their long-term loyalty –– Product lifetime extension: Keeping and extending the product lifespan through smart maintenance, repairs, upgrades and renovation –– Sharing platforms: sharing products or assets and optimising their use to avoid under-utilisation and unnecessary surplus of goods –– Resource recovery: making new raw materials from waste products, resources and processes

Fig. 2.3  Five business models and three disruptive technologies. Source: WBCSD (2017)

46

2  Technologies for Building After Disaster: A Critical Review

Fig. 2.4  The ReSOLVE framework (Ellen McArthur Foundation): six action areas for businesses and countries wanting to move towards the circular economy. Source: Ellen McArthur Foundation, SUN (2015) reworked scheme

Implementing the six actions leads to the transition towards a circular economy as identified by the Resolve framework (Fig. 2.4), a key output of the Ellen McArthur Foundation’s research: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Regenerate: Regenerating and restoring natural capital Share: Maximising asset utilisation Optimise: Optimising system performances Loop: Keeping products and materials in cycles, prioritising inner loops Virtualise: Displacing resource use by virtualising their use Exchange: Selecting both resources and technology wisely

The REsolve framework has been applied to 12 case studies described in CE 1004 Report “Circularity in the built environment: case studies” (2016). Each of the case studies highlights the elements of the ReSOLVE framework that are relevant to their project, with a dual purpose: –– To demonstrate that “elements” of circularity already exist in many buildings and projects, creating a built environment that is holistically circular. 4  The Circular Economy 100 (CE100) is an E.MacArthur Foundation initiative. It’s a pre-competitive innovation programme established to enable organisations to develop new opportunities and realise their circular economy ambitions faster

2.5 Three Lessons

47

–– Better define each of the elements of the ReSOLVE framework for the built environment, through the design, construction, use and deconstruction/recycling phases (CE 1002016). All these actions increase the utilisation of physical assets, prolong their life, and shift resource use from finite to renewable sources. Since they can be applied to supplied products, buildings, neighbourhoods, cities, regions or even to entire economies, each action reinforces and accelerates the performance of other actions, creating a strong compounding effect (CE 1002016, Nava 2019). As shown by the above action schemes, the transition to the circular economy is a complex process, which involves several factors and requires a shift in roles and business models for stakeholders. Thus, the only possible way is to proceed by stages of advancement, each targeting specific and measurable results. Multiple barriers also slow down the transition, due to culture, regulation, market, technology and education factors (WBCDS 2018). Having performance indicators and measurement methods of the transitional state would be very useful as they can provide suggestions regarding the suitability of tools necessary to implement the transition. These tools, that must include all the economic, environmental and social aspects, can be managerial, regulatory and financial as well as technical (Fondazione per lo sviluppo sostenibile 2017).

2.5  Three Lessons As operating in conditions of immediacy strongly challenges both building design and technologies, emergency housing has driven many experiments and fuelled the scientific debate on how the gap between means and needs can be addressed, especially when it is so wide. Low tech has often been the key strategy to face those extreme building scenarios, as it provides the only possible option to meet the severe and combined requirements for low cost, easy assembly/disassembly, lightness and use of easily available materials. In many cases, this unfavourable context has become a powerful engine for innovation, provoking suitable responses in spite of very untoward conditions. The cutting of supply chains and resource shortage typically affecting post-­ disaster building operations show some analogies of what we are all facing in the near future, due to the effects of a linear economic model, on environmental balance and living conditions for inhabitants of the planet. Successful experiments in building for emergency may thus provide a useful reference to manage the transition to the circular economy, meeting both the people’s and environment’s needs by alternative means, rather than those currently adopted. Technological aspects are not the only consideration. Social issues, such as inhabitant participation in reconstruction and innovation development, must be part of the thought process. The innovation hubs and clusters established by humanitarian agencies in occurring emergencies (deepened in Sect. 3.1) can provide further

48

2  Technologies for Building After Disaster: A Critical Review

reference, helping to trace paths toward the transition to a new setting of even in developed economies. Three cases of emergency housing were selected as field studies, as they demonstrate closely how responses to post-disaster extreme urgencies can meet people’s needs with minimum resource withdrawal and limited environmental impact, through sustainable design. Two projects are part of Ban’s Disaster relief projects, comprising first and the last, currently underway, carried out in collaboration with UNHCR and UN_ HABITAT, respectively. The third project is the result of collaboration between UNHCR and IKEA. The projects are the following: 2.5.1 Paper Emergency Shelter (Ban/UNHCR, 1994) 2.5.2 Refugee housing Unit (UNHCR/IKEA, 2010) 2.5.3 Homes for refugees (Ban/UN-Habitat, 2017)

2.5.1  Paper Emergency Shelter (Ban/UNHCR, 1994) Place: Byumba Refugee Camp, Rwanda. Customer: UNHCR. Architect: Shigeru Ban. Chronology: 1994–1999. The first experiment of a temporary housing module designed by S.  Ban is intended for the Byumba refugee camp in Rwanda, where more than two million people were left homeless as a result of the civil war. UNHCR had supplied plastic foil and aluminium poles to be used to set up the temporary shelters, but Rwandan refugees sold the aluminium poles and instead cut down trees in the surrounding forest using the branches as structural support, aggravating already critical deforestation. At the UNHCR’s request, Ban was called upon to develop an innovative, rapidly realisable structure using low-cost materials: it is in this context that he identified recycled cardboard tubes as a possible solution for the first time. Between 1995 and 1996, three prototypes of different sizes and shapes underwent durability and resistance tests, including termites, so the chosen model was sent to the camps, provided with an assembly manual drawn up by the same designer (Firrone 2007). The shelter covers an area of 16 m2 and consists of an interconnected cardboard tube structure, which supports a roof made of corrugated metal sheets or a 4x6 m plastic sheet. The system consists of a single type of pole and joint, all the same, which allow some variations but within a very limited range of configurations. In the standard one, the shelters have no windows and are not supplied with water or electricity. To assess the system, 50 of these shelters were built in Rwanda in 1998 (Ban 2014).

2.5 Three Lessons

49

The cardboard tube technology, although not directly available on site, represents an innovative and unconventional emergency response in terms of availability, immediacy, low cost and appearance, which continues to represent Ban worldwide. Beautiful, though simple, structures helped a refugee camp to escape a slum-like appearance, but the aesthetics of Ban’s projects is also a strategy: to get the most out of everything available (Kimmelman 2007). The shelters, intended for temporary use, have long since been replaced by more durable houses with timber frames and clay plaster walls, built by the residences with the assistance of humanitarian workers in the camp. The only part that could be used was the plastic sheet used as waterproofing for the roof, provided by UNHCR.  Therefore, only a very limited part of the materials used integrate the reversibility paradigms, while the choice of the cardboard aims to exploit its biodegradability and reduced durability. This prevents its reuse, although the system is designed to make them easily removable but allows them to be disposed of at the end of their life without releasing polluting waste. The simplicity and speed of installation guarantees the active participation of the residents in the construction. However, the occasional emergency that the Ban shelters have coped well with have unexpectedly led to a longer-lasting emergency (Herscher 2019), effectively prolonging the period in which refugees “live in camp conditions, which immobilise, demoralise and often prolong their traumatic experiences” (Lynch 2013). Thus, the operation meets the needs of immediate social emergency, yet does not solve the challenge of temporariness: the stabilisation of refugees in the camp, rather, produces negative effects on their daily living conditions (Figs. 2.5 and 2.6).

2.5.2  Refugee Housing Unit (UNHCR/IKEA, 2010) Place: Stoccolma, Svezia. Customer: IKEA Foundation. Architect: RHU Design Team. Chronology: 2013–2017. The result of the humanitarian research project “Better shelter RHU AB”, Refugee Housing Unit (RHU) was jointly undertaken in 2010 by UNHCR and the Swedish Refugee Unit RHU AB, with the support of the IKEA Foundation. The aim of the project was to develop a solution for use in emergency settlements as an alternative to tents, offering refugees more dignified living conditions. During the first phase of the RHU’s development, a pilot project was launched in Ethiopia, with 39 families transferred to housing units for an intensive six-month test period. A report was published following this test period concerning possible improvements, including a different positioning of doors and increased levels of lighting available through windows on cloudy days.

50

2  Technologies for Building After Disaster: A Critical Review

Fig. 2.5  Paper Emergency Shelter for UNHCR. Ban’s first experimentation opportunity for cardboard tubes. Photo credits: Shigeru Ban Architects

Fig. 2.6  Paper Emergency Shelter for UNHCR. Photo credits: Shigeru Ban Architects

2.5 Three Lessons

51

Prior to release in 2015, the design of the shelters was therefore improved to make the units more comfortable at high temperatures, better usable and easier to install. Following the installation of several thousand shelters worldwide, an upgraded version was released in 2017, incorporating further improvements (Terne et al. 2017). In 2016 the project was received an award at the ninth edition of the “Beazley Designs of the Year”, promoted by the Design Museum of London, in the Architecture category, “for its remarkable contribution to the global emergency of migration and displacement”. The kit covers an area of 17.5 m2 and is composed of a frame made of sheet steel profiles, an innovative ground anchoring system and a series of “Rhulite” interlocking panels for roofing and walls. The system is completed by doors, windows, floor covering and a small solar energy system (to power a lamp and charge the telephone). Rhulite is a low-density polymeric formulation based on polyolefin, specifically developed for this project, on the basis of strict specifications: to make panels light enough to be easily and cheaply transported over long distances, but with sufficient mechanical strength and able to provide an acceptable level of thermal insulation even in severe climates. For the privacy of the occupants, the panels had to prevent introspection at night but allow light to pass through during the day. The modular design makes the RHU adaptable to different contexts: the ab-­ binding frame to a simple plastic sheet can provide a first emergency shelter, while by adding the panels, a shading net and solar-powered light, the shelter can gradually evolve into a more comfortable and less extreme living solution. The dimensions and features of the module are in line with international standards for minimum living space recommended for a family of five. Since all components are made in North Europe, due to the industrial production of the shelter, the indicator related to the origin of the materials in this case has zero value. The components are placed in two boxes that contain the elements for the two-­ stage construction of the housing module separately. This facilitates transport and assembly, which small groups of people carry out in 4/5 hours, if simple instructions are followed, as with every IKEA product. The ground anchoring system consists of 500 mm anchors inserted into the ground, connected to a steel plate to which the metal frames of the structure are fixed. The dry connections guarantee fast assembly/disassembly by users and total reversibility of the system. The metal parts, the cover sheet (in recyclable plastic) and the Rhulite panels ensure the circularity of the resources used. The use of a basic supporting frame to which different types of panels could be added was a fundamental requirement set by UNHCR. The project chose to interpret this specification in terms of differentiated component durability: while Rhulite panels last up to 3 years, the steel frame, if assembled correctly, has an expected life of 10 years. The participative design and cyclic testing of the installations make Better Shelter a dynamic programme that explores possible new configurations and improvements over time, thanks to the contribution of users (Figs. 2.7 and 2.8).

52

2  Technologies for Building After Disaster: A Critical Review

Fig. 2.7  The Refugee Housing Unit (RHU) is a self-standing, sustainable and durable shelter, designed through collaboration between UNHCR, the social enterprise Better Shelter and the IKEA Foundation. Source UNHCR Shelter and Settlements Section. www.unhcr.org

2.5.3  Homes for Refugees (Ban/UN-Habitat, 2017) Place: Kalobeyei, Kenya. Customer: UN-HABITAT. Architect: Shigeru Ban. Chronology: (started in 2017, in progress). In 2017 UN-HABITAT commissioned S. Ban to design up to 20,000 new permanent shelters in the Kalobeyei refugee camp in northern Kenya, crowded with over 17,000 refugees from Sudan. After an inspection to investigate the potential of the site, the materials available and local construction techniques, Ban proposed a range of three different housing models, with the aim of allowing the relocated people to choose the solution they consider most appropriate, instead of imposing one for all.

2.5 Three Lessons

53

Fig. 2.8  The Refugee Housing Unit (RHU).Prospects. Source Better shelter 1.2 Product information. UNHCR Shelter and settlement section

In Type A, cardboard tubes are used as a vertical structure and casing. Type B is a modular system with a load-bearing structure in pre-assembled wooden frames and closures in raw earth bricks, produced manually at the foot of the building, or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Type C is made of interlocking, locally produced compressed earth blocks (CEBCompressed Earth Bock) (shigerubanarchitects 2019).

54

2  Technologies for Building After Disaster: A Critical Review

In 2017 UNHCR Kenya carried out a first experimental intervention of 20 shelters, which in case of success would be replicated to progressively replace the existing precarious structures in the camp. The proposal of three different construction techniques highlights a design approach that considers the inhabitants as an active part of the operation. The solutions offered make it possible to respond to the different needs and expectations of the users, holding some performances firm, common to all configurations: to be technically and socially sustainable, suitable to the climatic conditions of the place, based on locally available materials, easily realisable and maintainable. In addition to the requirements of ease of assembly and easy maintenance over time, both Type A, dry-assembled, and Type B and C, wet-assembled, also meet the requirement of circularity of resources, being made of materials (cardboard, raw earth, wood) that can be disposed of easily and without impact at the end of their life cycle. The collaboration with UN-HABITAT stimulates the designer to explore the possibilities of a humanitarian architecture in response to a humanitarian request, with provision of a dignified and durable shelter a key objective of the project, while also improving the socio-economic climate of the settlement, to the benefit of both the displaced people and the host community. The decision to involve the population in the choice of typology, self-construction and maintenance activities is one of the most important and innovative aspects of the project. The aim of creating more durable housing than conventional emergency shelters has positive consequences in terms of quality of life for the refugees, which helps to alleviate post-disaster insecurity more quickly. The results of the project’s monitoring of the use of the shelters are not yet available (Figs. 2.9 and 2.10).

Fig. 2.9  UN-Habitat project for Kalobeyei Refugee Settlement, Kenya. Photo credits Takeshi Kuno. Image courtesy Shigeru Ban Architects

References

55

Fig. 2.10  UN-Habitat project for Kalobeyei Refugee Settlement, Kenya. Photo credits Takeshi Kuno. Image courtesy Shigeru Ban Architects

References Emergency Ban, S. (2014). Humanitarian architecture. Aspen Art Museum. Cetica, P. A. (2005). Progetto dell’emergenza e risorse tecniche dell’architettura. In R. Bologna & C.  Terpolilli (Eds.), Emergenza del progetto. Progetto dell’emergenza (p.  23). Milano: Federico Motta. Corwin, E.  S. (1957). The president: Office and powers, 1787–1957 (4th rev. ed.). New  York: New York University Press. De Giovanni, G. (2018). Emergenza sanitaria e temporaneità. Agathon, (4), 13–20. ECA. (2016). Union civil protection mechanism: The coordination of responses to disaster outside the EU has been broadly effective, Special Report n33, Publications office of the EU. Felix, D., Branco, J. M., & Feio, A. (2013). Temporary housing after disasters: A state of the art survey. Habitat International, (40), 136–141. Elsevier. Herscher, A. (2019). Designs on disaster from: The Routledge companion to critical approaches to contemporary architecture. Routledge. IFRC. (2013). Post-disaster shelter: Ten designs. Geneva, Switzerland. IFRC and OCHA. (2015). Shelter after disaster. Lyons: IFRC; Chirat. Kimmelman. (2007). Shigeru Ban: Building to last, just long enough, New York Times. Kronenburg, R. H. (2009). Mobile and flexible architecture: Solutions for shelter and rebuilding in post-flood disaster situations, Blue in architecture 09, Proceedings IUAV Digital Library. Lynch, E. A. (2013). Mudende: Trauma and massacre in a refugee camp. Oral History Forum, 33. Sphere Association. (2018). The sphere handbook: Humanitarian charter and minimum standards in humanitarian response (4th ed.). Geneva, Switzerland. Terne, M., Karlsson, J & Gustafsson, C. (2017). The diversity of data needed to drive design, Shelter in displacement n 25. UNDRO. (1982). Shelter after disaster: Guidelines for assistance. New York: United Nations. UNHCR. (2014). Global strategy for settlements and shelter. A UNHCR strategy 2014–2018.

56

2  Technologies for Building After Disaster: A Critical Review

UNHCR. (2015). Handbook for emergency (4th ed.). Genewa, Switzerland. UNHCR - Shelter and Settlement Section. (2016). Shelter design Catalogue. Genewa, Switzerland. Wong, B.  B. M., & Candolin, U. (2015). Behavioral responses to changing environments. Behavioral Ecology, 26(3), 665–673. World Economic Forum. (2014). Resource scarcity the future availability of natural resources, World Scenario Series.

Temporariness Bogoni, B. (a cura). (2003). Altre abitazioni. Mantova. Bologna, R. (2005). Transitorietà e reversibilità negli interventi per l’emergenza abitativa. In R.  Bologna & C.  Terpolilli (Eds.), Emergenza del progetto. Progetto dell’emergenza (pp. 14–18). Milano: Federico Motta. Bologna, R. (2008). Abitare la temporaneità, Costruire in laterizio n.126. Bologna, R. (2012). Unità abitative per l’emergenza, Teknoring, Wolters Kluwer. Firrone, T. (2007). Sistemi abitativi di permanenza temporanea. Roma: Aracne. Harari, Y. N. (2011). Sapiens. A brief history of humankind. Dvir: Kinneret, Z-mora bitan. Huber, D. (2017). Insecurities: Tracing displacement and shelter. Artforum, 55, n. 5. Kronenburg, R. (2002). Houses in motion. The genesis. London: History and Development of the Portable Building. Lauria, M. (2008). La Permanenza in architettura. Progetto, Costruzione, Gestione, Gangemi. Roma. Lizarralde, G., Johnson, C., & Davidson, C. (2010). Rebuilding after disasters: From emergency to sustainability. Milton Park: Spon Press. Perriccioli, M. (2018). Impermanenza e architettura. Idee, concetti, parole. Agathon, (4), 5–12. Quarantelli, E. L. (1995). Patterns of sheltering and housing in US disasters. Disaster Prevention and Management, 4, 43–53. Rizzo, A. (2004). Abitare nella città moderna. La casa temporanea per studenti. Palermo: Edizione Grafill. Terpolilli, C. (2005). Temporaneo e transitorio nell’architettura contemporanea. In R. Bologna & C.  Terpolilli (Eds.), Emergenza del progetto. Progetto dell’emergenza (pp.  10–13). Milano: Motta.

Low Tech/High Tech Achenza, M., & Giovagnorio, I. (2014). Environmental sustainability in vernacular architecture. In M. Correla, L. Di Pasquale, & S. Mecca (Eds.), Versus heritage for tomorrow. vernacular knowledge for sustainable architecture. Firenze University Press. Banham, J. (1997). High tech. In Enciclopedia of interior design. Routledge. Bender, G. (2004). Innovation in Low-tech. Considerations based on a few case studies in eleven European countries, Arbeitspapier Nr. 6. Bihouix, P. (2019). Could low tech be the key to a sustainable future? Strategy & Sustainability, Newsletter, 3. Carapellotti, F., & Ribaldi, P. (2016). Economic data scientist. Santarcangelo di Romagna: Maggioli. Cody, B. (2014). The role of Technology in Sustainable Architecture. Wolkenkuckucksheim, Internationale Zeitschrift zur Theorie der Architektur, 19(33), 239–249.

References

57

Curl, J.  S. (2006). A dictionary of architecture and landscape architecture. Oxford University Press. Curl, J. S., & Wilson, S. (2015). The Oxford dictionary of architecture. Oxford University Press. Fathy, H. (1976). Architecture for the poor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fernandes, J., Mateus, R., & Braganca, L. (2014). The potential of vernacular materials to the sustainable buildings design. In M. Correia, G.D. Carlos, & S. Rocha (Eds.), Vernacular heritage and earthen architecture: Contributions for sustainable development. London: Taylor & Francis Group. Guillaud, H. (2014). Defining vernacular architecture. In M. Correla, L. Di Pasquale, & S. Mecca (Eds.), Versus heritage for tomorrow. Vernacular knowledge for sustainable architecture. Firenze University Press. Ion, B. D. (2012). Towards low technology - higher performance architecture: Potentials of alternative construction in West Scotland. Conference University of Strathclyde Glasgow 1st June in Cic start online issue n 11 innovation review pp 22–24. Jencks, C. (1987). Postmodern and late modern: The essential definitions. Chicago Review, 35(n4), 31–58. Khalil, A. A., Fikri, M., & Abdeaal, W. (2018). High technology or low technology for buildings envelopes in residential buildings. Egypt, Alexandria Engineering Journal, 57(4), 3779–3792. Elsevier. Kron, J., & Sleise, S. (1978). High-tech: The industrial-style and sourcebook for the home. Crown Pub. Meadows, D. H., & Club of Rome. (1972). The Limits to growth: A report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. New York: Universe Books. Mumford, L. (1967). La città nella storia. Milano: Etas Kompass. Norberg-Schülz, C. (1980). Genius Loci, Academy editions, London. OECD. (2003). OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard 2003. OECD Publishing. Oliver, P. (1997). Encyclopedia of vernacular architecture of the World (Vol. 3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oliver, P. (2003). Dwellings: The vernacular architecture world wide. London: Phaidon Press. Oliver, P. (2006). Built to meet needs: Cultural issues in vernacular architecture, architectural. Amsterdam/London: Elsevier Press. Rocca, A. (2010). Architettura low cost/low tech. Invenzioni e strategie di un’avanguardia a bassa risoluzione, Sassi, San Vito di Leguzzano, Vicenza. Salman, M. (2018). Sustainability and vernacular architecture: Rethinking what identity is. In Urban and architectural heritage conservation within sustainability. IntechOpen: Kabila Hmood. Wilkinson, R. (1973). Poverty and progress. An ecological perspective on economic development. New York: Methuen. Winchip, S. M. (2011). Sustainable design for interior environments. New York: Fairchild Books. Wines, J. (2000). Green architecture (architecture & design), Philip Jodidio.

Circular Economy ABNM AMRO. (2017). A future proof built environment, Report. Antonini, E. & Tucci, F. (2017) (a cura di). Architettura, città e territorio verso la Green Economy, Edizioni Ambiente, Milano. EEA. (2015). The European environment – State and outlook 2015: Synthesis (State of the environment report). Copenhagen: European Environment Agency. EEA. (2016). Circular economy in Europe: Developing the knowledge base (EEA report no 2/2016). Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.

58

2  Technologies for Building After Disaster: A Critical Review

EEA. (2017). Circular by design. Products in the circular economy, EEA Report, n6 p 7. EU. (2017). Circular economy, research and innovation. Connecting economic & environmental gains, p 4. Fondazione per lo sviluppo sostenibile. (2017). Relazione sullo stato della green economy. Roma. Garner, A., & Keoleian, G. (1995). Industrial ecology: an introduction. Pollution prevention and industrial ecology. National Pollution Prevention Center for Higher Education. pp 1–32. Hawken, P., Lovins, A. B., & Lovins, L. H. (1999). Natural capitalism: creating the next industrial revolution. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. McArthur E. F., SUN. (2015). Growth within a circular economy. Vision for a competitive Europe, Research Report. McArthur, E. F. (2013). Towards the circular economy: Economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition, Research report, p 7. McArthur, E. F., CE100. (2016). Circularity in the built environment: Case studies. Ellen McArthur Foundation. McArthur, E.  F., CE100. (2018). Renewable Materials for a low carbon and circular future, Research Report. McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle To Cradle: Remaking The Way We Make Things. New York: North Point Press, Print. Nava, C. (2019). Ipersostenibilità e tecnologie abilitanti. Canterano, RM: Aracne editrice. Pearce, D.  W., & Turner, R.  K. (1990). Economics of natural resources and the environment. New York/London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Rizos V. Tuokko K., & Behrens A. (2017) The Circular Economy A review of definitions, processes and impacts, CEPS Research Report no. 8. Robert, P., & Alain, R. (1985). Dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française (2nd ed.). Paris: Le Robert. Rudofsky, B. (1964). Architecture without architects: A short introduction to non-pedigreed architecture. University of New Mexico Press. Sauvé, S., Bernard, S., & Sloan, P. (2016). Environmental sciences: Sustainable development and circular economy. Alternative concepts for trans-disciplinary research. Environmental Development, (17), 48–56. Elsevier. Stahel, W. R. (1976). The performance economy. UK: Palgrave Macmillan. UNEP. (2011). Towards a green economy: Pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication. United Nations Environment. WBCSD. (2017). CEO guide to the circular economy, Paper realized in collaboration with Accenture Strategy. WBCSD. (2018). Scaling the circular built environment. Pathways for business and government. Research report, Factor10 WBCSD’s circular economy project. World Economic Forum – WEF. (2016). Shaping the Future of Construction: A Breakthrough in Mindset and Technology, Research report

Chapter 3

Beyond Emergency Towards Circular Design: Building Low Tech

Abstract  This chapter highlights the implications on the circular economy principles of Low-Tech approach to the building production with reference to available technical literature. These implications are first investigated on a large scale, analysing the potential of Low Tech in policies of Humanitarian Innovation (Sect. 3.1), and then design strategies are addressed, including construction processes which adopt local and unconventional materials. Furthermore, different declinations of circular design are described in regard to design strategies, theories, approaches and principles, in relation to the main circular economy trajectories (Sect. 3.2). Subsequently, experiences and principles concerning reversible building concepts are outlined, addressing the analysis of the notion of reversibility with particular focus on related building process issues (Sect. 3.3). In regard to materials, analysis is provided showing how the notion of “local material” is being extended with respect to its original and more conventional use (Sect. 3.4). An evolution trend is finally drawn, starting from the specifications of humanitarian association guidelines for emergency shelters, up to the use of unconventional materials including temporary buildings in developed countries. The overall aim of the chapter is to show the growing interest in scientific debate for the Low-Tech option as a possible answer to the challenge for a sustainable future within the building sector.

In the current social and economic context, smart technologies have been heralded as the most effective and appropriate way to meet the growing needs for improving people’s quality of life. However, the emerging imperatives of saving resources, reducing waste and mitigating climate change instead trigger a countertrend, which involves any debate in the field of design, embracing all its scales, from the single product to the entire city. The elevated performance of advanced building materials results in great cost and impact. The costs represent a barrier to affordability, while elevated process energy and related emissions during production seriously affect their environmental profile. Additionally, they are often so complex in structure, features and constituents that their end-of-life recycling is often hard to ensure. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 E. Antonini et al., Emergency Driven Innovation, Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55969-4_3

59

60

3  Beyond Emergency Towards Circular Design: Building Low Tech

Conversely, simpler and lower-impact materials, made with renewable resources and by less energy-hungry processes, are thus emerging as a viable option to be explored and applied more extensively and intensely, not only as a suitable solution for extreme emergency conditions of resource shortage, as considered so far. The Low-Tech approach – initially born to meet the needs of humanitarian emergencies in poor countries – thus becomes a research field driven by the broader ambition to develop new products and process technologies appropriate to both the social and environmental challenges that the whole construction sector is facing. The technical, economic and social dynamics that are driving international humanitarian aid programmes deserve, therefore, significant observation, especially considering the strategy adopted in recent years that aims to make Humanitarian Innovation a lever to trigger innovation. By focusing emergency management response on speed and cost (see Sects. 2.1 and 2.2), more structured and farsighted approaches have been developed. The aims have shifted to longer-term scenarios allowing aid strategies to leverage their efforts into fuelling social and economic post-emergency recovery. Based on the local labour and materials available on-site, the technologies adopted for building shelters enable inhabitants to acquire skills which can also be applied in the future. This also shifts to more sustainable arrangements both in the process structure and the technical paradigms inspiring building solutions, which lead to embracing circular economy principles. The so-called Humanitarian Innovation have practised this wider concept for some years, by applying “bottom-up action” strategies in managing emergency aid missions in poor underdeveloped areas. The support provided to local people aims to build both facilities and capabilities, by promoting innovation in techniques and production process, of goods suitable for urgency response but also to address the context of economic, cultural and physical needs, especially after the emergency peak situation. The assumption is that if designed to effectively support these policies, emergency aid can act as a powerful driver for long-lasting and sustainable enhancement of local economy performances, also with positive effects on the social dimension. What arises is an enlarged concept of Low Tech, spanning the core technical issue, to expand until involving socio-technical, organisational and cultural areas. This wider scenario also extends to the involvement of scales of intervention, which interconnect and exploit linkage in the network connecting the different spheres which were once strictly managed hierarchically. The “innovation hub”1 has often been advocated as a reference tool for implementing such actions, intended as a sharing place which provides provisions for 1  The innovation hubs created by the National Council of Science Museums engage youth in innovative and creative activities. These hubs serve as springboards for new ideas and innovation and thus helping the society and economy to face future challenges and meet the rising aspirations of the growing population.

3  Beyond Emergency Towards Circular Design: Building Low Tech

61

nurturing new ideas and aiding development, albeit unconventionally, but supported locally. Sustainability issues and circular economy targets can provide these hubs with a robust framework of opportunities and content which is both viable and durable. The connections among the hubs and towards the entire city (…) are based on making the territory regenerative with relation to energy flows, people flows, ­resilience, sustainability and energy efficiency. [Thus] the links among innovation hubs can support the creation of new value chains strengthening relations among actions, actors, spaces and resources (…) according to a systemic approach (Boeri et al. 2018). As the building sector is a great resource consumer both in materials and energy, a number of avenues could be effective in reducing its impacts on the environment. Philippe Bihouix in his book “L’âge des low-tech” advocates a development model in which “low technologies” would replace today’s high tech innovations. There has been no dematerialisation of the economy, on the contrary: in the last 15 years, the extraction of almost all types of metal has grown faster than gross domestic product. In response to this, he proposes a social and cultural model, as well as technical, characterised by two dimensions: –– The first is the systemic dimension. A Low-Tech approach based on three aspects: sobriety and economy at source; design based on sustainable and repairable techniques; and production conditions based on knowledge and decent human labour. Therefore, challenge current economic and social models by first addressing the “technical issue”. The basic principle is to consume less and not just recycle better, “do more and better with less”, as the circular economy calls for. –– The second is the political dimension. Use legislation to promote more sustainable development, propose fiscal mechanisms to support innovation and promote prescriptive power through public procurement. Despite the fascination for free markets, regulatory leverage remains a powerful tool for public action. According to Bihouix (2014), converting the building industry to a lower technology standard may involve some considerable effects on the sector operations and even more on the whole economy and society, due to the role building plays within them. The Low-Tech option is an ever-emerging field where several dynamics inter-­ cross, showing – at times unexpectedly – mutual connections and high innovation potential. Necessarily, this has attracted the interest of a large audience of stakeholders, including designers, manufacturers, public authorities and international organisations. Three of these dynamics are specifically addressed in the remainder of this chapter: circularity-oriented design strategies, the concept of reversibility in construction processes and the use of unconventional materials in temporary constructions.

62

3  Beyond Emergency Towards Circular Design: Building Low Tech

3.1  Humanitarian Innovation and Technological Innovation According to OCHA, humanitarian crises are increasing in number as in duration. Between 2005 and 2017, the average length of crises with an active UN inter-agency appeal rose from 4 to 7 years, while those receiving an internationally led response almost doubled, rising from 16 to 30 (OCHA 2018). The resource gap in the humanitarian system has led in an urgent need to sharpen the means to action. Current reforms are attempting to make crises funding faster and more cost-effective and to search new possibilities. The challenge of this ongoing shift is to involve new actors, create new partnerships and stimulate new forms of investment. These factors have spurred Humanitarian Innovation by practitioners and donors in three broad categories: suppliers of grants and finance, research and development bodies and cooperation networks. Table 3.1 provides a snapshot of the current initiatives by each category. The issue of innovation in humanitarian response is not a new phenomenon and has grown rapidly for the humanitarian policy agenda. It is inherent in the desire to overcome obstacles in order to provide relief and assistance to people affected by crises. In recent years there has been a wave of new initiatives to promote innovation within and between organisations, new partnerships and increased investment in development and testing innovation at the operational level (Scriven 2016). As humanitarian agencies rarely develop products in-house, most product innovation starts outside the humanitarian environment, generally driven by commercial enterprises. Some private actors are indeed motivated by the opportunity to develop solutions that, if proven to work in a disaster, could be commercialised for the bottom two billion world in the people who live on less than $2 per day. Meanwhile, larger corporations such as Deloitte, Ericsson and IKEA are providing humanitarian goods and services in the name of corporate social responsibility (Betts and Bloom 2014). Under normal circumstances, it is the developer who investigates for problem in order to find a solution, by investing in research and development, and draws the design brief needed to obtain a new product or solution, which is then proposed to the humanitarian agencies. Further small commercial markets for such products sometimes exist, such as camping, hiking or military uses, but success in the humanitarian field is crucial. This entails a high risk of failure due to the inadequacy of the product due to the technical severity of the emergency requirements and/or the socio-cultural customs in the deployment sites. Conversely, a variety of Low-Tech products developed by local inventors using the available materials properly repudiate the notion of appropriate or intermediate technology. However, most are appropriate to their birth-context only, as the lack in replicability and compliance to any standard prevent their wider application (Ramalingam et al. 2009). Since closer cooperation with all the possible stakeholders during the design process could instead eliminate ineffectiveness and help focus product development on more successful targets, partnership is instead recognised as a central component in the innovation process (Dette 2016). This is not only to

3.1 Humanitarian Innovation and Technological Innovation

63

Table 3.1  Examples of Humanitarian Innovation that reflects the dynamic nature of interactions within the humanitarian system

United Nations

NGOs

Private sector

Research and development WFP: Division for Policy, Programming and Innovation; Business Innovation Support Office UNICEF First 72 Grant UNICEF: T4D; Innovation Labs Innovation Funds: UNICEF OCHA Humanitarian and UNHCR Exchange Language WFP Cooperating Partners’ Innovation Fund OCHA Humanitarian Research and Innovation Grant Humanitarian Innovation World vision (e.g. Last Fund Mile Mobile Solutions) MSF innovation

Grants and finance WHS Regional Innovation Grants

Deloitte Humanitarian Innovation Programme IKEA Foundation Google.org

GlaskoSmithKline Healthcare Innovation Awards

Collaboration and networks UNHCR Ideas (SpigitEngage platform)

UN Innovation Network (multiagency) UNHCR’s Innovation Circle UNHCR’s iFellows

START Consortium, Beta Cash Learning Partnership (CaLP): NGO partners, IFRC and Visa Digital Humanitarian Network

Mercy Corps Social Innovation Oxfam Open Innovation ICRC Innovation CARE: Digital Early Warning Program Norwegian Refugee Council Internews Center for Innovation and Learning IKEA Foundation UN Foundation Accelerator DHL logistics Aidmatrix supply chain partnership with OCHA management Kenyans for Kenya IDEO.org (e.g. MobileMoney; Drones for Good) and Open IDEO platform Gates Foundation CiYuan Initiative (Business for Social Responsibility) Philippines Corporate Network for Disaster Response

(continued)

64

3  Beyond Emergency Towards Circular Design: Building Low Tech

Table 3.1 (continued) Grants and finance Universities and think tanks

Government DFID & USAID Development Innovation Fund (sub-set Humanitarian Innovation Initiative) Humanitarian Innovation Fund donors include UK DFID, Canadian International Development Agency and the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs ECHO innovation financing (e.g. Gargaar project)

Research and development University of Oxford HIP Harvard Humanitarian Initiative & Humanitarian Academy Duke University (Innovation Co-Lab) Massachusetts Institute of Technology (e.g. Development Innovation Network) Qatari computing and research institute EBS Business School Stanford University’s Design School and Center for International Security and Cooperation US Government, FEMA Innovation Teams

Collaboration and networks Singularity University Stanford University’s Center for Innovation on Global Health MIT’s International Development Innovation Network

One off events for innovation coordination and discussion (i.e. DFID, ECHO)

DFID Research and Evidence Division and earmarked innovation funds.

Luxembourg Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ satellite based platform Emergency.lu

Source: Betts A., Bloom L. (2014) Available at https://www.unocha.org/publication/policy-briefsstudies/humanitarian-innovation-state-art

coordinate the functioning of the system but also as a means of drawing on ideas, good practices and resources from private technology developers, military research and development agencies, universities as well as people in need of help themselves. Partnerships with private companies and academic institutions are thus becoming more common. Examples of the output this cooperation has produced are the WASH kits designed by Oxfam, World Vision’s Last Mile Mobile Solutions (LMMSvii) distribution tracking software and the new shelters developed in partnership with UNHCR and IKEA Foundation (see Sect. 2.5.2). This may a­ dditionally contribute to providing humanitarian responses with smarter, greener and more effi-

3.1 Humanitarian Innovation and Technological Innovation

65

Fig. 3.1  The Humanitarian ecosystem. (Source: Betts A., Bloom L. (2014) Available at https:// www.unocha.org/publication/policy-briefs-studies/humanitarian-innovation-state-art)

cient solutions, through innovative formulas and production schemes, possibly circular economy compliant (Fosseli 2019). According to the report “Technological innovation for humanitarian aid and assistance” (2019), technological innovations are indeed recognised capable of playing a strong role in facing humanitarian challenges by preventing and helping to reduce human suffering during crises2 (STOA 2019)3. Figure 3.1 summarises the potential for new connections, mutual learning and cross-fertilisation that can be mobilised by the wide range of actors contributing to the humanitarian system. The figure depicts the panel of actors and their connection opportunities, distinguishing the more usual (solid lines) from the less frequently recorded ones (dashed lines) (Betts and Bloom 2014).

2  This is a concept highlighted at the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016 by former UN SecretaryGeneral Ban-Ki Moon who urged the global community to commit to the “Agenda for Humanity” to address the challenges in the humanitarian sector with the aim of preventing and helping reduce human suffering during crises. 3  The STOA project “Technological innovation for humanitarian aid and assistance” was carried out by Capgemini Consulting, at the request of the Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) and managed by the Scientific Foresight Unit within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) of the European Parliament.

66

3  Beyond Emergency Towards Circular Design: Building Low Tech

Even when considered as a component of and an enabler for humanitarian assistance, technological innovation is a multi-faceted topic, both in contents and in perception by the various stakeholders experiencing it. The partnership-based experiences and the new visions adopted by assisting agencies have progressively shaped an alternative, bottom-up model for emergency aid actions (see Sect. 1.1). It is rooted in user-centred design, indigenous innovation and participatory methods as a means to mobilising the capabilities of the affected populations. This model is inspired by two key elements: 1. Recognising and understanding innovation capacity within communities and putting these communities and local systems at the heart of the innovation process, regardless of where ideas or resources originate. 2. Considering bottom-up, or community-centred, approaches not as a completely new idea for humanitarian work, as participatory approaches have been included in humanitarian and development strategies for some time, thus several references are available to facilitate ideas and the development of solutions within a community (Betts and Bloom 2013). The innovation cycle is a hands-on model for community engagement, when combined with participatory strategies. The most cutting-edge research in this area concerns refugees. This is because the affected populations frequently need significant external support, especially during the emergency peak phase, as bottom-up solutions are subject to local power dynamics often excluding the groups most in need of humanitarian assistance (Scriven 2016). A potentially suitable model for addressing humanitarian challenges can instead be provided by a variety of physical or virtual innovation “spaces” or “hubs” (see Sect. 3.3), even if these are mainly focused on promoting innovation rather than in directly performing actions. There has been a blossoming of initiatives to encourage and support sustainable innovation, which act as connectors between local initiatives and external inputs. These include major companies like Google, small hubs like iHub in Nairobi or Mara Launchpad in Kampala, as well as the many “maker spaces” launched all around the world. UNICEF’s Innovations Lab Kosovo provides Kosovar youth both mentorship and seed grants to pilot and develop social enterprises. Paung Ku consortium funded initiatives for self-help groups, community-based organisations and a Learning Resource Centre provided information and training services to the survivors of Cyclone Nargis, which hit Burma in 2008. In addition to technological innovations, non- or Low-Tech innovation has the potential to further the “Agenda for Humanity”. Overall, it is recognised that technological innovation should not be perceived nor embraced as an all-encompassing solution to the challenges identified by the humanitarian sector in the “Agenda for Humanity”. Instead it is a tool that can facilitate the necessary steps to be taken in addressing these challenges (STOA 2019).

3.2 Circular Design: Strategy Framework for Creating Circular Buildings

67

3.2  C  ircular Design: Strategy Framework for Creating Circular Buildings The experimentation of the first prototype of “Circular Building” was carried out by Arup Associates, on the occasion of the London Design Festival in 2016, with the aim to test the maturity of circular economy thinking within the construction industry. This was the first building in the UK to comply with the Circular Economy principles, while creating a comfortable and aesthetic environment for the user. Developed in partnership with The Built Environment Trust, Frener & Reifer and BAM, the Circular Building was constructed using materials and products leased rather than purchased, and every part of the building can be removed with minimum damage, reused, remanufactured or recycled at the end of its life. The steelwork is made from off-cuts left over by other projects; the size of the building was adjusted to suit the steel lengths available. The building itself is comprised of an outer ‘skin’ made of interchangeable boards of compressed agricultural waste, put together through mechanical and push-fit connections rather than adhesives to allow deconstruction. The simply “house shaped” architecture promotes a familiar archetypical geometry at a scale making it very immediate to perceive (Holmes 2016). A definition of circular building is provided in the Report “A Framework for Circular Buildings: Indicators for possible inclusion in BREEAM” (2018) – in line with the Transition Agenda for circular construction in The Netherlands. So, a circular building is defined as “A building that is developed, used and reused without unnecessary resource depletion, environmental pollution and ecosystem degradation. It is constructed in an economically responsible way and contributes to the wellbeing of people and the biosphere. Here and there, now and later. Technical elements are demountable and reusable, and biological elements can also be brought back into the biological cycle”. This last is in line with the Ellen Mac Arthur Foundation’s definition of circularity, in that the preservation of the value of buildings and their components is ensured by optimising use and reuse cycles with minimal use of virgin resources. In addition, it stresses the importance of both the technical and biological cycles (Circle Economy et al. 2018). For this reason, this definition is taken as a reference, which is useful for identifying the strategies that lead to the design of a building with those characteristics or to the identification of pre-existence intervention strategies. In 2019 the global economy was only 8.6% circular, yet less than 2 years earlier, it was 9.1%. Nevertheless, three interrelated trends can explain the widening gap: high extraction rates, ongoing stock build-up and low levels of end-of-use material processing and recycling (Circle Economy 2020). Closing the circularity gap serves the important objective of preventing both further environmental degradation and social inequality. As laid out in the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement, countries have an important and pivotal role to play in this. Some that operate within the ecologic boundaries of the planet’s resources do not even meet some basic social needs. Conversely, other countries provide their citizens with increasingly high welfare levels but overshoot

68

3  Beyond Emergency Towards Circular Design: Building Low Tech

by some distance the sustainable withdrawal rate of planetary resources. This means that all are “developing countries” regarding circularity. Although each starts from a different point, all have a distance to travel, and many share common elements in their journeys (Circle Economy 2020). When looking closer at the built environment, the challenge of bridging the circularity gap requires differentiating targets and means according to local contexts. Indeed, closing the gap will not only be a matter of reducing material input and cycling more; it will also be crucial to optimising and extending the lifetime of what has already been built. Where large building stock is already available and demographic dynamics are quite stable, as in most Western countries, maintaining, refurbishing and reusing the existing stock are paramount to exploiting the resources it embodies, while avoiding land and material waste. In emerging economies with high rates of urbanisation, like China and India, the main target is instead in optimising a building’s lifespan and increasing end-of-life material reuse in new constructions. Finally, the main objective for poor and developing countries is to make decent housing available to all their citizens and provide suitable standards of health and comfort. This must be done by preserving all local resources, thus valorising existing renewable sources of energy, material and labour, as well as avoiding overexploitation in the future, as a duty to buildings produced today. In these different contexts, the building elements and design strategies involved differ according to the main challenges building must face. When existing buildings are the target of focus, the indoor layers and devices are the more involved; thus they are the preferred target for circular strategies. Conversely, when the main activity is of new building production, more emphasis is taken on the location, site, shape and construction system, which must jointly allow buildings to meet the requirement for adaptability, low-impact operating, ready disassembled, easy element recycling after their service life cycle (WBCDS 2018) (Fig. 3.2).

Fig. 3.2  Link between building layers and priority to apply circular strategies. (Source: WBCDS 2018)

3.2 Circular Design: Strategy Framework for Creating Circular Buildings

69

SytemiQ and Ellen MacArthur Foundation have mapped the innovation priorities that allow three successive waves of investment to accompany the construction environment towards the objectives of the circular economy: –– Designing and producing circular buildings: Multi-usage highly modular and energy positive buildings made of durable non-toxic materials –– Closing building loops: Ramp-up recycling and re-manufacturing of building materials –– Developing circular cities: Integrating circularity into urban developments through innovative business models (SystemiQ and MacArthur Foundation 2017; Debacker et al. 2017) While the first two waves renew relatively consolidated notions, the latter wave referring to circular city (see Sect. 1.1 for the definition) has only been shaped recently by transferring the circular metabolism model of the natural systems to the urban environment operation. The aim is at overcome the “take-make-dispose” paradigm, by prioritising of flow management actions that allow circular cycles of resource use and reuse (Murray et al. 2017; Boeri et al. 2018). Nevertheless, the circular economy approach also supplements the meaning of the first two waves that refer directly to the building scale. Regarding design, the main priority is to reduce all building environmental impact. This includes both operation and embodied impact, while those related to the changing use of the building are also under consider, by enhancing attitude for adaptability. Concerning building materials; the focus goal is reusing and recycling elements, products and materials. This means all the resources extracted from the ecosystem must be exploited within no-waste processes, avoiding withdrawing of further goods, thus maximising the reuse practices on all the scales. For these purposes, a conceptual model that considers the building composed of a set of layers can provide designers a useful means to shaping their decisions making them more circular compliant. A package of specific requirements can be associated to the function each suitably defined layer plays within the building. This allows a very effective selection of the features of the constituent materials, focusing solely on their relevant purposes (Circle Economy et al. 2019). The concept of building “by layers” had been first proposed by architect Frank Duffy in the 1970s, later Stuart Brand developed the concept in the 1990s, and today it is better-known, though not yet a widely adopted method to perform a circular-­ compliant building design (Arup, Mac Arthur Foundation 2020). Brand’s model considers the building formed by six separate and interlinking layers, each with its own peculiar features and lifespan: Site, structure, skin, services, space and stuff (Brand 1994). By identifying different layers, very specific strategies can be adopted for each of them. This helps greatly to eliminate redundancy in both building design and manufacturing material. Additionally, more specific-featured building elements increase their residual value, making their reuse opportunities easier to determine and recycling cheaper to perform (Circle Economy et al. 2019).

70

3  Beyond Emergency Towards Circular Design: Building Low Tech

Fig. 3.3  Building layers. (Source: Brand 1994. Adapted by Arup 2016)

More recently, Arup added a seventh layer to this model called “System” (Arup 2016). This new layer extends the model approach beyond the building scope, by including what occurs around it, the surrounding context, district or city within which the building is located. Building by layers means conceiving and designing each element while focusing on the specific feature it carries into the building. Building by layers leads to focusing on each element and its specific features when conceiving and designing a building, thus shaping the assembling components separately – making them easier to remove individually, even at different times, according to their different lifespans. Repairing, replacing, moving or adapting a single element is also easier, without affecting wider entities. This reduces unnecessary obsolescence and facilitates both the flexibility of the building and its longevity over time (Arup 2016). Furthermore, stakeholder and process actor involvement can also be layer-­ related, since some key figures can be identified for each level. Engineers and building companies are therefore crucial for the structure level, architects for the skin level, whereas technical installation specialists are the main protagonists at service level. The users and owners influence most significantly the building operation phase and maintenance activities, which significantly affect time and end-of-life stage (WBCDS 2018) (Fig. 3.3). The question therefore arises whether it makes more sense to look at the value of separate layers instead of the value of a whole building (Circle Economy et al. 2019). Aiming to better address the subject, a list of six design principles set out in Bakker et al. (2017) suitably map the challenges faced when conceiving a circularity-­ compliant building. The list originally referred to retail products, but it applies just as effectively to buildings, as explained for each item in the list below. 1. Design for product attachment and trust: This principle suggests shaping products that will be appreciated and reliable for a long time.

3.2 Circular Design: Strategy Framework for Creating Circular Buildings

71

2. Design for product durability: This points to developing products that can take wear and tear without breaking down. 3. Design for standardisation and compatibility: This aims to design products with parts or interfaces that fit other products as well. The building modularity principles comply well with this requirement. 4. Design for ease of maintenance and repair: This requires enabling products to be maintained in tip-top conditions. Given the share of the cost, environmental impact and effort which concern the use phase of a built asset, it is crucial to ensure that it can be easy repaired and maintained. 5. Design for upgradability and adaptability: Allowing for future expansion and modification means buildings which can meet the current needs but also flexibly adapt to future ones, thus responding to an increasingly required feature. 6. Design for dis- and re-assembly: This principle ensures products and parts can be easily separated and later re-assembled. Designing for both deconstruction and reuse of building components at the end of their life is an active research field (see Sect. 3.3) (Bakker et al. 2017). Two of these principles are particularly relevant for the purposes of the present study: –– Design for standardisation and compatibility: As already defined above, the building modularity principles comply well with this requirement. In the building sector, the “module” is an arbitrary unit adopted to regulate the dimensions, proportions or construction of the parts of a building. The modular design strategy is an efficient (standardised) production method for delivering customer-­ specific and flexible buildings. Under this construction method, buildings are constructed using materials that are easy to dismantle. This makes replacement, reuse or recycling significantly easier and less expensive. During reuse, the design holds its value and not only the (more limited) value of the material. This process starts at the builder’s and the architect’s drawing board (Van Sante 2017). The main advantages of modular design include design flexibility, augmentation and cost reduction. In addition, the system can be upgraded by adding new functions simply by plugging a new module so that the system can be augmented within a specific range, facilitating the repair or modification of possible parts without destroying the basic structure of the building (Tseng et al. 2018; Mora 2007; EEA 2017). Therefore, modular construction contributes to circularity in several ways. First, waste is more readily reduced in a controlled environment such as a factory, where practices such as recycling of materials, controlling inventory and protecting building materials are more easily implemented than on an open construction site that is more prone to external disturbance. Modular construction typically involves less transport of materials and staff, contributing to fewer emissions (Kim 2008). Moreover, modular buildings can be disassembled, and the modules relocated or refurbished for reuse, reducing the demand for raw materials and minimising the amount of energy expended in creating a building to meet the new need. The potential reusability of detachable compo-

72

3  Beyond Emergency Towards Circular Design: Building Low Tech

nents raises the resale value of building parts that can be replaced, recycled or moved according to need. –– Design for dis- and re-assembly: Paying special attention in shaping buildings to allow to be easily disassembled over time leads to effective recovery of the dismantled building elements, since reversible joining devices must mostly be adopted in order to effectively meet the requirement. Design for disassembly is an approach which devotes special concern, at the early design stages, to end of life. This implies conceiving the product in such a way that it is easy to separate into parts and components at the end of its useful life. The aim is to allow both the replacement of individual damaged parts and the adoption of the most appropriate recovery option for those to be discarded, including reuse, recycling and recovery for energy use or disposal (ISO 14021: 2016, 7.4.1). The conventional approach to building design often neglects the different degrees of both intensive use and the technical durability of building systems, products, components and materials (Celadyn 2014). Allowing easy disassembling is a preliminary condition in the building process towards resource circularity. Nevertheless, further steps are needed to reach a closed resource flow. The Reversible Building Design approach (see Sect. 3.3), which shares this intention, assumes the building design target should be to feed circular value chains. Thus, considering demolition and the resulting waste as an element of good design assures the building has multiple reuse options. Different reuse and transformation scenarios for both individual materials and the whole building will result in different possible business models, thus reducing the risks of vacancy or decommissioning due to unsuitable performance (Charter 2019). The Circular Land Tendering Roadmap (2018) provides a synthetic guideline based on four practical design strategies, with a hierarchy as follows: –– Reduce: The easiest way to mitigate impact is to first avoid producing it. Rather than trying to calculate how to supply an enormous energy demand in a sustainable way, the best course of action is to design a system that has very low demands for energy to begin with. –– Synergise: The next step once resource demands and their related impacts have been maximally reduced is to identify local synergies that can satisfy these demands. –– Supply: Once synergistic supply options have been reasonably exhausted, remaining resource and functional demands should be supplied using clean, renewable, recycled or otherwise ecologically beneficial sources of supply. –– Manage: Creating information and data transparency about how and when resources are being used is essential to operating an efficient and well-­functioning system (Roemers and Faes 2018, Circle Economy et al. 2018). What emerges from this framework is the need for an integrated approach to achieve circular construction, in which the entire supply chain is involved (Van Sante 2017). This means, in order to be circular, the building production process must be part of a flow connecting to the resource and reuse cycles of other indus-

3.3 Reversible Supply Chain: Assembling, Disassembling, Recover, Reuse

73

tries. This could extend to the operational phase too, within which the building will use renewable sources and, where possible, locally available used material streams (Arup 2016). To make this effective, a multidisciplinary approach must be adopted in building design and operation management, to link the principles of circular building with the smart city paradigms. Since a very wide set of factors are involved and must be coherently mobilised, multiple competences are needed interconnect and cooperate. This should make it possible to evolve from a fragmented scenario of multiple disconnected clusters of devices to a uniform integrated environment where different devices are collaborating (Andrisano et  al. 2018). Collaboration schemes must therefore be established allowing for broad applicability of service-based circular business models across all industries. Additionally, the integration of circularity principle within building sector standards and incentives for the construction players to shift to the new scheme are supportive key levers needed to achieve a substantial ramp-up of circular buildings (SystemiQ and MacArthur Foundation 2017).

3.3  R  eversible Supply Chain: Assembling, Disassembling, Recover, Reuse Reversibility is defined as a process of transforming or dismantling entire buildings or parts of them, by preserving the maximum integrity of the removed elements and assuring the minimum damage instead to those kept in place (Durmisevic 2006). The reversibility requirement thus refers firstly to the attitude of a system to be easy disassembled. This means go back step by step through the building assembling process, recovering most of the elements that had entered the primary process previously. To meet the requirement, the element dismantled via disassembling must not be disposed of, but re-enter into a cycle of use. According to the biological metaphor, they “dissolve themselves without leaving trace”, as what disappears reappears embodied in a new element without any waste throughout this process. Therefore, a building system is composed of elements that can easily be disaggregated or disconnected or disassembled fulfil the requirement (Bologna 2002). Any building design complying with these requirements can be defined as circular. This could act as a key “accelerant” for spreading the circular economy in construction since it enables reversible building processes. The reversible building therefore becomes the backbone for this purpose, due to the planned attitude to all of its elements which can be easily removed and then reused when decommissioned by effective no-waste disassembling methods (Yeang 2006). Four thresholds can be identified for reversible design, with two indicators to assess them. The indicators are: –– The quantity of salvageable resources –– The “depth” the disassembling process can easily reach

74

3  Beyond Emergency Towards Circular Design: Building Low Tech

Fig. 3.4  Reversible architecture. From the point of view of the ecologist, a building is simply a transient phase in the flow of materials and energy in the biosphere, managed and assembled by people for a brief period of use. (Yeang 2006; Antonini et al. 2010)

Fig. 3.5  Scheme of reversible design support system. (Antonini et al. 2010)

3.3 Reversible Supply Chain: Assembling, Disassembling, Recover, Reuse

75

Based on the values these indicators assume, thresholds are established as follows: –– The first threshold corresponds to simple element reposition: it is reached when the disassembling only allows the displacement of some layers or elements from their original location and reallocates them to a different one, without any further modification. –– The second threshold is reached when the disassembling allows the removal of a surface layer of the component and replaces it. –– The third one identifies assembled components which can be entirely disassembled into their sub-constituents, which fully preserve their integrity and features. –– The highest threshold concerns the whole building. Based on the threshold, a classification of the disassembling strategies could be established in order to optimise the design phase and to finalise it to achieve the best end-of-life eco-­ friendly buildings (Antonini et al. 2010) (Figs. 3.4 and 3.5). Through the disassembling strategies classification, the design decisions can be assessed concerning the choice of building components and configuration of assembled elements and to finalise by achieving the most eco-friendly behaviour at their end of life. The high disassembly level intensifies the building material circularity and multiplies the potential of adaptability and reuse features. In this context, the BAMB (Buildings as Material Banks) EU project was funded by the European Commission within Horizon 2020 to enable a systemic shift in the building sector by creating circular solutions.4 The aims of BAMB are the prevention of construction and demolition waste, the reduction of virgin resource consumption and the development towards a circular economy through industrial symbiosis. The focus of the project is on building construction and process industries (from architects to raw material suppliers). The BAMB project implements the principles of the waste hierarchy: the prevention of waste, its reuse and recycling. The key is to improve the value of materials used in buildings for recovery. This is achieved by developing and integrating two complementary value adding frameworks: –– Materials passports5 –– Reversible building design These frameworks will be able to change conventional (cradle-to-grave) building design, so that buildings can be transformed to new functions (extending their life span) or disassembled to building components or material feedstock that can be up-­

4  The Project BAMB – Buildings As Material Banks is a consortium of 16 partners from 8 European countries (2015/2019). Coordination: Institut Bruxellois pour la gestion de l’environnement  – Brussels Instituut Voor Milieubeheer The project is available on: www.bamb2020.eu 5  “Material passport for building” was introduced in 2003 by Braungart & Mc Donough and further described in 2012by Hansen et al.

76

3  Beyond Emergency Towards Circular Design: Building Low Tech

Fig. 3.6  Difference between linear model with focus on design for one end of life and circular model of material use in construction with focus on design for multiple lives and reuse options of materials. (Source: Durmisevic 2019)

cycled in new constructions (using materials passports). This way, continuous loops of materials are created, while large amounts of waste will be prevented (Fig. 3.6). Project partners developed a Reversible Building Design Protocol that enables different stakeholders in the construction value chain to implement reversible design strategies and approaches in construction and refurbishing activities. At the core of this design approach are: –– Transformation capacity: the ability to transform building spaces to meet new requirements –– Reuse potential: the ability to reuse elements and components Reversible building is a result of high reuse and transformation potential of building (Fig. 3.7). A base line for both concepts, aimed at high transformation capacity and high reuse potential, is disassembly, upon which reversibility of building space and

3.3 Reversible Supply Chain: Assembling, Disassembling, Recover, Reuse

77

Fig. 3.7  Three dimensions of transformation supported by reuse. Both reuse potential and transformation capacity are measures of the reversibility of a building. (Source: Durmisevic 2019)

reversibility of building structure are the initial set of elements which can prosper (EU 2019). The research highlights key indicators for such reversible buildings in relation to their transformation and disassembly without waste generation: –– Independency: Is provided through the separation of functions on building, system and component levels and development of independent functional modules –– Exchangeability: Is provided by minimisation of complexity and number of relations between different elements and typology/morphology of connections that support reuse Finally, BAMB research identifies three scopes – called levels – to which composition and decomposition practices could apply within the built environment. This classification contributes significantly by integrating the concept of Reversible Building Design. The levels identified are: –– Building level, which refers to the whole functional behaviour of the building (load bearing, enveloping, partitioning and providing services). –– System level, which corresponds to the scale of assembly of components assuring each functional feature of the system (structure, envelopment, equipment, etc.) –– Component level, which relates to the basic functional unit combining sub-­ components and materials into a single element with their own geometrical and functional purpose and identity, (such as a single beam or pillar, a brick, a facade panel, a window or a door, etc.) (Durmisevic 2018, 2019).

78

3  Beyond Emergency Towards Circular Design: Building Low Tech

Since the change in supply chain replaces the traditional construction scheme and techniques through an industrial approach, the design stage is also modified. The new building site is a component assembly plant, which must be reactivated over time to implement the disassembly and recovery of the building components. Dry construction techniques enable these tasks to be performed easily, especially if simple assembly technologies are adopted. Coupled with low-impact materials and a high rate of recycling, this Low-Tech scheme could perform a circular building process, entering all the involved stakeholders in an effective circular economy cycle. In addition to the increased quantities of materials returning to use cycles and reduced withdrawal of precious resources, beneficial effects can instead be expected within the balance between new building and renovation. The change also entails several paradigm shifts in building process, such as the reuse of a product by another user, the extend of the lifespan of goods through good maintenance and repair and the reuse of product parts (ING Economic Department 2017). The current transition from linear to circular in the building sector is therefore a strong innovation process. By involving the supply chain, it concerns all the stakeholders and radically changes the approach to the design. This shifts the focus towards simple/low technologies that have proven high compatibility with the principles of the circular economy.

3.4  U  nconventional and Reused: A New Concept of Local Materials The dynamics which drive the use of available on-site building materials, both conventional and unconventional, both in emergency and in market contexts, are deepened here, after being described in Sect. 1.2 which addressed the relationship between appropriate technology and Low Tech. The range of materials available on site, even unconventional or reused, for the construction of emergency shelters, can be identified from two sources: –– Humanitarian organisations manuals drawn up for the effective and appropriate selection of available resources, both local and imported, in relation to the contexts of application and the global and local implications of the choices that can be made –– The design experiments that extend the range of materials proposed by the manuals (such as cardboard tubes, plastic or wooden boxes, pallets, sandbags, plastic bottles, etc.) Of these experiments, those carried out in non-emergency contexts mainly concern temporary buildings, in which new technologies and new construction languages are explored. The topic will be further explored in paragraph 4, Sect. 4.1.

3.4 Unconventional and Reused: A New Concept of Local Materials

79

Consistent with this, the following paragraph first provides a review of the humanitarian organisations manuals and then analyses two experiments that apply innovative construction methods and unconventional materials. What we designate as “available on site” are often poor materials, deriving from production chains other than construction, but suitable to meet functional building requirements. These are unconventional materials that sometimes, however, also provide new image opportunity to temporary Low-Tech architectures intended for many different purposes. Despite all references to easily traced vernacular architecture, our approach is not in proposing “unnecessarily traditional” technologies but exploring the innovation potential of the unconventional materials in current situations even more in the near future. What we are tackling is the latitude extension of the concept of “local material” we observed, which makes it an appropriate option for the buildings that are aimed to better comply with circular economy (Giglio 2018). Developing countries and post-disaster emergency had been the first application field, due the real shortage of any conventional building material available in these contexts. Referring to these situations, the concept of appropriate technology is considered so when it is compatible with local, cultural and economic conditions (i.e. the human, material and cultural resources of the economy) and utilises locally available materials and energy resources, with tools and processes maintained and operationally controlled by the local population (Vanek 2003). The concept was integrated with the theory of facilitated technology (Scudo and Sabbadini 1997) that defines the study and testing of modules and products made with alternative techniques and materials in developing countries, where performing materials are difficult to source. According to this school of thought, the alternative materials – natural, reused, recycled – are “materials unrelated to the traditional building sector. These materials are therefore located far from our building culture, but they can instead be or become usual in cultural contexts different from ours” (Rogora and Lo Bartolo 2013). The manuals and guidelines prepared by humanitarian associations for managing emergency aid missions include a wide range of both conventional and unconventional materials suitable for shelter providing intervention adapted to different climate, environmental and social contexts. Some guidelines, such as IFRC guide (2013; 2015) and IOM Emergency Procurement Catalogue (2016), give more importance to the location of a shelter than its design. Reusable materials and upgradeable arrangements are suggested, in order to facilitate possible family relocation to different sites. More durable materials are also recommended, good quality timber and bamboo elements which can be possibly reused to build permanent houses. Specifications on the material quality are also required, so that the intended design life of the shelter can be achieved, as well as appropriate materials and design to ensure easy shelter maintenance and upgrade (IFRC 2013). Many aid teams feel that providing adequate building materials (or equipment to produce these materials) is the key factor for successful sheltering interventions, thereby neglecting the shelter design process.

80

3  Beyond Emergency Towards Circular Design: Building Low Tech

In some instances, this approach is intended only to replace housing destroyed by the disaster; in other cases, it concerns complete replacement. Small interventions have been attempted such as the introduction of lightweight roofing materials. Three main issues are reported affecting material supply in emergency: –– Imported materials risk making it impossible to answer any future demand for maintenance and repair. –– The introduction of such materials may necessitate the modification of the basic shelter designs, with subsequent unforeseen drawbacks. –– Effective price control procedures must be adopted preventing fraud and which is often the main concern (IFRC and OCHA 2015). A good example of guidelines in the appropriate use of different types of material for emergency shelters was that prepared in 2009 within the “Humanitarian Timber” research project6 by IFRC, OCHA and CARE International. The text is intended for emergency building professionals and focuses particularly on various possible types of wood and bamboo constructions. The book provides information on selecting, specifying, procuring, using and distributing timber and bamboo as construction materials for small- and medium-­ sized buildings in humanitarian operations. Possible types of timber to consider are: –– –– –– –– ––

Sawn wood Timber poles Timber composites (e.g. plywood) Coconut timber (including wood from other palm tree species) Bamboo

Significant amounts of timber construction material may be available from damaged or destroyed houses. Trees may also have been felled during a natural disaster and may be processed and used. Bamboo has different properties to timber and is dealt with separately where appropriate. The method used will largely depend on local skills (Ashmore and Fowler 2009). A further technical guideline on the use of plastic sheeting in emergencies has also been prepared by IFRC in collaboration with Oxfam International. Plastic sheeting can be a useful temporary building material to provide repairs or emergency shelters for refugees displaced by conflicts or by disasters. For this ­purpose, hundreds of thousands of square metres of these sheets are distributed each year, by NGOs, government agencies and the private sector. Plastic sheeting (also known as plastic tarpaulin, tarp or polythene sheet) is a sheet of strong, flexible, water resistant or waterproof material. Although different qualities exist, most of the plastic sheeting procured for use in humanitarian relief is made by laminating a woven mesh of HDPE (high-density polyethylene) between two layers of LDPE (low-density polyethylene). Additional chemicals (such as calcium carbonate) are added to both the woven core and the exterior laminations to

 More information are available on www.humanitariantimber.org.

6

3.4 Unconventional and Reused: A New Concept of Local Materials

81

add colouring, to make the material flexible, to add UV stability and to alter the opacity. All plastic sheeting must reach minimum performance standards (Saunders and Bauer 2007). According to the International Organisation of Migration (2012), a material suitable for being applied in disaster relief shelters should be easy to recycle, update, reuse, resell and reposition after a shelter is removed. In turn, a shelter can be considered “recycled” if partially or completely made by materials obtained from disassembling (Arslan 2007). Several authors also underline that shelters should be made with materials that can be recycled, updated and reused instead of those that are simply disposed of after use. This, as respect for the environment, is an exemplar approach the aid actions should practice and spread. The trend that occurs in these technical experiments is an extension of the range of materials used and their uses, especially in the direction of mobilising unconventional resources, due to their low cost and wide availability. This also occurs when the same approach is adopted in less extreme contexts, such as those in Western countries, where, however, materials are available and are often used in different applications and where temporary architectures are prevalent. This is the case, for example, for two projects that use beer crates, taken from a number of important Shigeru Ban design experiences described in Chap. 4. The first is the Brilliant Boxel pavilion, designed and completed by the students of the University of Applied Science of Detmold, Germany, by employing the used beer crates as volumetric pixels in creating a full-scale pavilion that has been used all summer on campus as a place for students to listen to music. The 2000 beer crates are organised along free form geometry. The temporary construction was designed using parametric software to control the position of the boxes in relation to the overall geometry and to analyse the structural performance. Even with the branding plainly visible on each unit, the design clearly speaks to the homogeneity of its components as they dissolve into a whole, taking a more elegant shape than each could be in isolation. The result is repetition at its finest (Brenny 2012). The boxes are old beer crates donated by a local brewery. After the pavilion comes down, they will be recycled (Figs. 3.8 and 3.9). The second case, “Bonheur Provisoire”, is also a pavilion, which attempts to be more provocative by adopting an unusual building material. From the designers, Architects SHSH7: “We desired the contents of the pavilion to ask, 50 years later, what the notions of progress, universalism and happiness had brought in their time through the system of international exhibitions, and how could a ‘package’ building be enrolled in the parentage of an architectural solution that manages to convey the architectural questions of a given period in time”. Working on a larger scale that diminishes the impact of each beer crate, the structure plays on more traditional forms and pays tribute to historic expectations of 7  SHSH: is an architecture study composed by Shizuka Hariu and Shin Bogdan Hagiwara. Their mission is divided into three categories, design, consultancy and research, and they are also actively involved in charity activities in relation to natural disaster relief and dyslexia support for children. http://www.shsh.be.

82

3  Beyond Emergency Towards Circular Design: Building Low Tech

Fig. 3.8  Brilliant Boxel pavilion. (Image © Dirk Schelpmeier and Marcus Brehm)

Fig. 3.9  Brilliant Boxel pavilion. (Image © Dirk schelpmeier and Marcus Brehm)

3.4 Unconventional and Reused: A New Concept of Local Materials

83

Fig. 3.10  Bonheur Provisoire pavilion SHSH Shizuka Hariu, Shin Bogdan Agiwara. (Source: http://www.shsh.be)

Fig. 3.11  Bonheur Provisoire pavilion SHSH Shizuka Hariu, Shin Bogdan Agiwara. (Source: http://www.shsh.be)

84

3  Beyond Emergency Towards Circular Design: Building Low Tech

architecture. Understanding that the sense of the temporary can only be truly successful when it is free of waste, the pavilion was built using an everyday and ephemeral component which after the event returns to its normal daily use. With the constructive principles of universality and reusability, SHSH decided to use a material extracted from the daily life of an ordinary consumer. Hence, a plastic beer crate is used as a generic element – like bricks, but deployed beyond its individual characteristics (Figs. 3.10 and 3.11). This allowed them to explore many common architectural features such as columns, arches and domes, combining together to form a huge and enigmatic interior environment. After an initial estimate, about 33,000 empty crates were necessary to construct the pavilion. The selection of this material allowed us to reduce the time of assembly and disassembly and produce a series of spaces that far exceed the mere accumulation of common elements in an architectural format (SHSH 2008). The example of the use of beer crates (such as plastic crates in ECS-P1, see Sect. 1.3) is, of course, an example of an experimental strand in which the need to save and reduce resources and waste leads to the identification of innovative uses of unconventional and locally available materials. With this principle, we cross the technical characteristics and especially the materials used or recommended by the humanitarian associations for emergency shelters. The same materials are reinterpreted and proposed by references in architecture that trace the lines of an almost unconscious innovation, in cases of emergency, but that becomes constructive experimentation even in other contexts. The principles related to the choice of materials and the project of shelters have incorporated the ethics that develop the circular economy in the building sector, thus becoming a reference to draw from and to be reinterpreted in other contexts and conditions.

References Andrisano, O., Bartolini, I., Bellavista, P., Boeri, A., et al. (2018). The need of multidisciplinary approaches and engineering tools for the development and implementation of the smart city paradigm. Proceedings of the IEEE, 106(4), 738–760. Antonini, E., Giurdanella, V., & Zanelli, A. (2010). Reversible design: Strategies to allow building deconstruction and a second life for salvaged materials. In Proceedings second international conference on sustainable construction materials and technologies, Università Politecnica delle Marche. Arslan, H. (2007). Re-design, re-use and recycle of temporary houses. Building and Environment, (42), 400–406. Arup. (2016). The circular Economy in the built environment, London. Arup, Mac Arthur Foundation. (2020). From principles to practices: Realizing the value of circular economy in real estate, Report. Ashmore, J. & Fowler, J. (2009). A guide to the planning, use, procurement and logistics of timber as a construction material in humanitarian relief, OCHA, IFRC, CARE. Bakker, et al. (2017). The products that last. Product design for circular business models TU Delft Library/Marcel den Hollander IDRC. Betts, A., & Bloom, L. (2013). The two worlds of humanitarian innovation (Working paper no. 94). Oxford: Refugee Studies Centre.

References

85

Betts, A. & Bloom, L. (2014). Humanitarian innovation: The state of the art, OCHA policies and studies series, N009. Bihouix, P. (2014). L’âge des low-tech: Vers une civilisation techniquement soutenable. Paris: Editions du Seuil. Boeri, A., Gaspari, J., Gianfrate, V., Longo, D., & Boulanger, S. O. (2018). Circular city: A methodological approach for sustainable districts and communities. Eco-Architecture VII, WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, 183-2018, 73–82. Bologna, R. (2002). La reversibilità del costruire: l’abitazione transitoria in una prospettiva sostenibile. Rimini: Maggioli. Brand, S. (1994). How buildings learn: What happens after They’re built. Viking: Penguin books. Brenny, C. (2012). Building with beer and the material ecosystem. in Material strategies. Innovative Applications in Architecture. Celadyn, W. (2014). Durability of buildings and sustainable architecture, in Technical transactions Architecture, 7/A-2014. Charter, M. (2019). Designing for the circular economy. Abingdon: Routledge. Circle Economy, et al. (2018). A framework for circular buildings, Redeveco Foundation. Circle Economy, et al. (2019). Building value. A pathway to circular construction finance, Report. Circle Economy. (2020). The circularity gap report, Creative Commons, Report, Ruparo, Amsterdam. Debacker, W., et  al. (2017). Circular economy and design for change within the built environment: Preparing the transition. In International HISER conference on advances in recycling and Management of Construction and Demolition Waste, 21–23 June 2017, Delft University of Technology. Dette, R. (2016). Mapping innovation in humanitarian action, INSPIRE Consortium. Durmisevic, E. (2006). Transformable building structures: Design for disassembly as a way to introduce sustainable engineering to building design & construction, Doctoral thesis. Durmisevic, E. (2018). Reversible building design guideline, BAMB Wp3document, University of Twente, ebook. Durmisevic, E. (2019). Circular economy in construction. Design strategies for reversible buildings, University of Twente, ebook. EEA. (2017). Circular by design. Products in the circular economy, EEA Report, n 6. EU. (2019). Buildings as material banks: Integrating materials passports with reversible building design to optimise circular industrial value chains. Available at https://cordis.europa.eu/ project/id/642384/it Fosseli, O. E. (2019). Innovative financing – Business models for humanitarian action, KPMG Innovation Norway. Giglio, F. (2018). Low Tech e materiali non convenzionali. Misura, Tempo, Luogo/Low Tech and unconventional materials. Measure, Time, Place. Techne n 16, Fupress pp 122–130. Holmes, E. (2016). Creating the circular building in resource. Available at: https://resource.co/ article/creating-circular-building-11508 IFRC. (2013). Post-disaster shelter: Ten designs, Geneva, Switzerland. IFRC, & OCHA. (2015). Shelter after disaster. Lyons: IFRC; Chirat. IFRC, UNOCHA, & CARE International. (2009). Timber. A guide to the planning, use, procurement and logistics of timber as a construction material in humanitarian relief, IFRC. IOM. (2016). Emergency procurement catalogue. A Guideline of Shelter and NFI Procurement, International Organization for Migration - South Sudan. Kim, D. (2008). Preliminary life cycle analysis of modular and conventional housing in Benton Harbor, Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Mora, E. (2007). Life cycle, sustainability and the transcendent quality of building materials. Building and Environment, 42, 1 329–1 334. Murray, A., Skene, K., & Haynes, K. (2017). The circular economy: An interdisciplinary exploration of the concept and application in a global context. Journal of Business Ethics, 140, 369–380.

86

3  Beyond Emergency Towards Circular Design: Building Low Tech

OCHA. (2018). World humanitarian data and trends, United Nations Office for the coordination of humanitarian affairs (OCHA). Ramalingam, B., Scriven, K., & Foley, C. (2009). 8th review of humanitarian action - Innovations in international humanitarian action, ALNAP. Roemers, G. & Faes, K. (2018). Roadmap for circular land tendering, Report Metabolic, SGS Search. Rogora, A., & Lo Bartolo, D. (2013). Costruire alternativo. Materiali e tecniche alternative per un’architettura sostenibile. Milanofiori AssagoMilano: Wolters e Kluwer Italia. Saunders, G. & Bauer, R. (2007). Plastic sheeting, A guide to the specification and use of plastic sheeting in humanitarian relief, IFRC, OXFAM. Scriven, K. (2016). Humanitarian innovation, special feature, n66 Overseas Development Institute. Scudo, G., & Sabbadini, S. (Eds.). (1997). Le regioni dell’architettura in terra: culture e tecniche delle costruzioni in terra in Italia. Rimini: Maggioli. STOA. (2019). Technological innovation for humanitarian aid and assistance, European Parliament research report. SystemiQ & MacArthur Foundation. (2017). Achieving growth within, editors Conker House Publishing Consultancy, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Report. Tseng, M.  M., Wang, Y., & Jiao, R.  J. (2018). Modular design. In S.  Chatti, L.  Laperrière, G. Reinhart, T. Tolio, & The International Academy for Production (Eds.), CIRP encyclopedia of production engineering. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. Van Sante M.. (2017). Circular construction Most opportunities for demolishers and wholesalers, ING Economics Department, Report. Vanek, F. (2003). Field guide to appropriate technology. Elsevier: Academic Press. WBCDS. (2018). Scaling the circular built environment. Pathways for business and government. Research report, Factor10 WBCSD’s circular economy project. Yeang, K. (2006). Ecodesign: a manual for ecological design. Londra: Wiley-Academy.

Chapter 4

Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Abstract  This chapter provides a documented critical collection of case studies and design experiments of buildings which have technological characteristics and design qualities which allow, regardless of their different uses or intervention contexts, consideration as buildings with a circular potential and are therefore prepared for the transition to the circular economy. The cases have been selected according to three basic issues which characterise each of them: temporariness, Low Tech and circularity. The collection is organized by grouping the cases into three areas which refer to the main scopes affected by the solutions adopted in each case: design, building and living. The use of new materials emerges as the main driver which generates effects within the area of building design (Sect. 4.1). Unconventional resources, often low cost and locally retrieved, lead to a change in architectural languages and push the architects to explore new relationships between building and site. Therefore, reversibility (Sect. 4.2) appears to be the most effective leverage in stimulating innovation within the area of building. The dry connections of the building elements and their consequent easy disassembly at the end of their service life not only change the building process but also affect its environmental profile, by allowing material recovery and recycling, thus increasing resource circularity. Finally, the size and shape of building spaces are the features which most influence the area of living (Sect. 4.3). Some shifts in functional housing design appear to be an actual way towards providing users with acceptable living conditions within the strict social constraints of an emergency. The overall objective of this survey is to highlight the development of new technical and living models in building design and production, triggered by the need to save resources and reduce waste. Since this entails integrating areas of technological innovation within the construction processes, the paths towards circular design emerging from this evolution are also considered this mapping.

The different strategies of circular design and reversible design feeding the concept of circular building are intensified in Chap. 3, helping to better define the close relationship between the reversibility and circular potential of a building. The reversibility-oriented construction technologies, along with the adoption of revers© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 E. Antonini et al., Emergency Driven Innovation, Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55969-4_4

87

88

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

ible manufacturing processes for building products, lead us to consider several buildings of our millennium as the precursors of circular building. The Expo 2000 held in Hannover and devoted to “Humankind, Nature and Technology” represented a milestone in the challenge of how to save planet Earth in the third millennium. Its main focus targeted solutions deemed suitable for the future, rather than present technological and scientific advances. The nine “Hannover Principles” prepared by William McDonough e Michael Braungart (McDonough and Braungart 1992) for Expo 2000 represented a set of instructions relating to the design of buildings and objects with a focus on environmental protection, their effect on sustainable development and their overall impact on society. The Hannover Principles were the first expression of the Design for Sustainability concept that “is the conception and realisation of environmentally sensitive and responsible expression as a part of the evolving matrix of nature” (McDonough and Braungart 1992). The nine points represent, therefore, a reference and a design methodology that is then found once more in the text Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things (McDonough and Braungart 2003). Among the completed pavilions, the ZERI Pavilion in Colombian bamboo designed by Simòn Vèlez, the Japanese Pavilion in cardboard tubes by Shigeru Ban and Frei Otto and the Swiss wood Pavilion by Peter Zumthor, effectively acquired the concept; by considering its implications both on the sustainability of “first nature” resources and the recycling of “second nature” waste. The Zeri Pavilion has had a major effort in changing the image of bamboo, which is still considered a symbol of poverty by most of the billion people who use it as a readily available building material. The project aims to create a unique structure, able to instil pride in this abundant, fast-growing construction material, stimulating its wider use. The Japanese Pavilion was an innovative structure built using a grid of cardboard tubes connected by fabric laces, without nails or cement or bricks. Although some iron rods were added in order to comply with current German building regulations, this was the largest paper building in the world, which was completely recyclable, including the plastic sheets overlapping the tube grid to assure it is rainproof and airtight. The stacks of wooden planks outside every carpentry or timber warehouse – so frequent in the alpine landscape – are the reference for the Swiss pavilion design, built by stacking 45,000 unseasoned wooden planks, without any glue. The 9  m high walls divide the internal space according to a labyrinthine and complex logic, while the larch roof beams rest on vertical masts of Scottish pine. Steel cables connected to spring tie rods held in place the timber stacked planks and complete a minimal and elegant design which reflects the iridescent and lively texture of the wood. Low Tech solutions and the use of low impact, no-waste easily recoverable building materials make the Pavilions pilot projects in shaping circular design principles and the Hannover Expo as a significant milestone towards these issues.

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

89

The environmentally responsive design principles and consistent technical decisions have since emerged as the core measures in closing the material loops, ever more recognised as the key to directing the building sector towards the circular economy. Regarding this topic, a list of 16 circular design qualities enabling more effective reuse, recycling or renewal of buildings and building components has been established by the research project “Le Bâti Bruxellois: Source de nouveaux ­ Matériaux” (BBSM).1 Eight of these features and their related practices are especially suitable in relation to circular design strategies and the added value carried by the Low Tech approach when shaping technical building solutions (Cambier et al. 2019): –– Reused: Use building parts and components already present on site or reclaimed elsewhere. –– Recycled: Look for building components made of low-value by-products or waste materials. –– Renewed: Use materials that are replenished continuously by responsible agriculture and forestry. –– Compostable: Choose materials that can be biologically degraded into natural substances. –– Pure: Favour components that consist of a single material instead of a blend. –– Simple: Go for Low-Tech, legible solutions rather than complicated ones. –– Reversible: Make it possible to undo connections without damage to the components they join. –– Location and site: Recognise and develop the qualities of a place responsibly. As documented by the cases analysed, most contemporary Low-Tech architecture largely applies reversible and circular design principles. The main pillars of such practice are a site-specific approach, closely related to the location and locally available materials, with a strict commitment for appropriateness and eco friendliness in both the resources and processes applied. Our investigation into the circular potential of the case studies by the criteria that our study adopted demonstrates that reversibility is indeed a common factor in the three areas of design, build and living, the exact phenomenon we observed.

1  The BBSM research was conducted by VUB (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) Architectural Engineering and was financed by European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Brussels-Capital Region. Project partners: UCLouvain, Rotor, Belgian Building Research Institute. Source: https:// www.vub.be/arch/page/circulardesign. Although less relevant for our purposes, the additional Circular Design Qualities of the Belgian study identified are: Safe and Healthy, Durable, Manageable, Accessible, Independent, Compatible, Multi-purpose, Varied.

90

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

4.1  Design: New Material Models How building design is approaching the Low-Tech perspective and to what extent this is changing its languages, modules, proportions and performance in managing that shift are the first questions addressed by the analysis concerning the design ambit. The use of material resources available on site, including both local and un-­ conventional materials, such as the reused, recovered, recycled, is the main indicator adopted in evaluating the projects. Since it refers to the circular potential of buildings, consistent with the technologies applied, the use of local materials, therefore, represents an indicator combining different circular design qualities (Cambier et al. 2019), as discussed in the previous paragraph. The same parameter is suitable to highlight how the adequate use of even poor materials can lead to new languages for Low Tech Architecture, avoiding vernacular drifts, yet compliant with circular economy requirements. The cases collected within the design ambit are characterised by the ability to exploit the potential of the building shape in promoting the effective use of unconventional materials available on site at low cost (Rogora and Lo Bartolo 2013), through coherent architectonic language. This effects two substantial design concerns: one relating to the technical and functional effectiveness of the building solutions configured by using such kinds of unusual materials and the resulting concerns in constructive coherence. The second mainly concerns the symbolic and figurative dimensions, as it affects the relationships between the use of unconventional materials and the recognisability of the architectural character. As this is a substantial means by which the building establishes connections with site and place, it is an especially relevant aspect for the design purpose. The notion of Genius Loci (Norberg-Schulz 1976) provides a useful reference in interpreting this feature, as this recognises the role of the physical dimension of the building and its material constituents in providing content to the symbolic and also figurative values. Due to the peculiar conditions that emergency or temporariness implies, an extension of the concept of local material emerges from the selected cases, thus stimulating greater exploration into the possible widening of the application latitude for the Genius Loci notion. Considerations of local do not only refer to materials withdrawn as natural sources from the building’s surroundings but also those various materials available locally, albeit imported, if they provide suitable functional performance able to trigger positive social and economic dynamics within the settlement (see Sect. 3.4). These enlarged horizons have often brought the notion of modularity into these contexts, which to date were unfamiliar to locally home-born or vernacular building technologies. Many materials, recovered both from waste and manufactured from local re-­ sources, are indeed shaped in regular forms, because of the seriality of their original industrial production or due to some simple, locally performed processing of nearby harvested natural by-products. Such is the case for recovered pallets, fruit boxes or bottle crates or of shaped straw bales or bamboo culms mats.

4.1  Design: New Material Models

91

Since these entail geometrical rules assembly, those which Wachsmann defined the material modules (Wachsmann 1960) significantly contribute to giving the project a figurative personality and identity, in relation to the building proportions and dimensions and to the size and texture of its constituents, thus to the whole appearance of the building. These new material and figurative models characterise many of the selected cases, although the resources and solutions feeding each of them are very different. Conversely, all the cases share the imperatives of reversibility, Low Tech and circularity, as well as specific and innovative use of some material.

4.1.1  Case Studies All cases collected within this section belong to socio-cultural contexts requiring quick construction in response to different needs. The use of simple unconventional materials and “poor” technologies was the criteria based on which the cases have been selected, among those available in the literature. The aim is to explore the ramifications of the physical, productive and material dimensions exerted on the architectural character of the building in terms of shape, size, form and expressive identity. The guidelines for emergency buildings both for international institutions and humanitarian associations ask that aid programmes consider different building typologies and technical configurations while also suggesting adopting solutions that establish a positive relationship between the place and the material resources to use, therefore with their onsite availability. Straw bales, wood and plastic fruit boxes are the materials/components adopted in the selected case studies, which provide an overview of the leading contemporary experiences of effective responses to the shortage of available resources by using unconventional materials. The straw bales take on a symbolic value in both the selected projects (Yusuhara Marche and Konaki Averof Cultural Centre) as they link the building to the history of the place and its economic and cultural traditions. The modularity that bales confer on the facades gives the projects a metric and rhythm which relates the modular bale size to the framework of the façade. Moreover, the symbolic and expressive meanings couple with the insulating features of the straw, allowing the building to achieve excellent thermal performance, as for the Konaki Averof. Concerning the projects using the fruit boxes, the two selected examples (The Expo 2015 Polish Pavilion and Protiro) have different intended uses, but they also exploit the basic component modularity, giving expressive strength to the envelopes by making the box texture evident. The modular wooden elements of the Expo 2015 Polish pavilion explicitly refer to fruit boxes, thus celebrating both the typical agricultural production of Poland and the theme of Expo. Showing the expressive power potential of an unconventional material is instead the key aim for Protiro, which exploits material colour and modular flexibility giving the project a strong perceptive identity.

92

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

These unusual material options, however, allow all the cases to offer important social advantages, such as a reduction of waste and impact and the enhancement of local resources, this, also due to architectural languages and configurations that are consistent with the specific conditions of the sites. The case studies are the following: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Straw bales for Yusuhara Marche, Kengo Kuma Straw bales for Cultural Centre Konaki Averof, G. Batzios Architects Wood boxes for The Expo 2015 Polish Pavilion, 2 pm Architekci Plastic boxes Protiro, Nowa – Navarra Office Walking Architecture.

4.1.1.1  Straw Bales for Yusuhara Marche, Kengo Kuma Place: 1196–1 Yusuhara, Yusihar-Cho, Takaoka-gun, Koch, Japan Client: Tomio Yano, Town Mayor of Yusuhara Architect: Kengo Kuma & Associates Chronology: 2010 Throughout human history, solid materials and massive configurations have often celebrated the symbolic value of the building and its ability to resist over time. The use of lighter and sometime more perishable materials as a pose to traditional ones is questioning this relationship, asking for new meanings for the notions of temporariness and temporary architectures. Kengo Kuma & Associates explored these challenging fields in some of their architecture, especially where the aim to connect both context and user led to the adoption of local materials and building techniques. This is so for Yusuhara Machino-eki; a project which includes a market selling local products and a small 15-room hotel which was completed in 2010  in the Japanese city of Yusuhara. Using rough-textured materials, such as thatch and log, Kengo Kuma & Associates tried to confer a recognisable identity to Yusuhara, in which the naive appearance of the building materials and the elementary forms of the construction systems consistently characterise architecture of the building, giving value to the functions that each of them houses. The concept that inspired the project is indeed that of a blossoming forest in downtown Yusuhara. The thatch on the eastern sidewall of the compound exhibits this purpose, with the roof a reference to local tradition. An enclosure made of natural materials envelops both the two buildings, conferring them a symbolic value linking the history and identity. The complex appearance as a whole merges element inspired by the past, such as the traditional building materials, with a distinctly modern design.2 2  Text source: most information about the project was provided to the Authors by courtesy of Kengo Kuma & Associates. Additional data was retrieved from www. kkaa.co.jp.

4.1  Design: New Material Models

93

Fig. 4.1  Yusuhara Marche, Japan. Principal elevation. (Credits ©2010 Takumi Ota Photography. Image courtesy by Kengo Kuma Associates)

A modular thatch curtain wall patterns the building front looking outwards to the street, whose panels are tightly baled together to appear as a solid vegetal wall. The building behind is compact; its side facade is accented by the alternating horizontal lines of straw blocks and windows (Figs. 4.1 and 4.2). Straw bales, therefore, perfectly resemble the slats of a window curtain. The lower part of the building is glazed, including the market entrance facing the main street, which can be opened at any time of the day. Modular piles (2000 × 980 mm) of straw are positioned above it, thus offering the unprecedented effect of a curtain wall. These modular thatch panels can also pivot on a steel mullion opening into the outdoor atrium whose flowing fresh air facilitates the maintenance of the panels. In addition to the overhanging roof supported by the pillars (Fig. 4.3), further measures protect this delicate covering from atmospheric agents. Contrary to a ­traditional thatched roofing, where they are placed vertically, here the thatch bunches are bound horizontally, so the cut ends will not be exposed to rainfall, as instead would have occurred had the ends faced towards the outside. Yusuhara is known as the town on the main road used by Sakamoto Ryoma, a high-minded samurai of the region who contributed to the political reform known as the Meiji Restoration in the nineteenth century. A number of thatched greenrooms called “Chad Do” existed along the road, which in addition to the restrooms provided travellers with a sort of cultural salon, serving free teas. The objective was to celebrate this history; the “Cha do” became the reference for the project by Kengo Kuma architects, together with the environmental heritage of the surrounding Yusuhara region. Thus thatch became the architectural medium connecting the past

94

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Fig. 4.2  Yusuhara Marche, Japan. Particular of thatch modules on main façade. (Credits ©2010 Takumi Ota Photography. Image courtesy by Kengo Kuma Associates)

with the present, while the full-height cedar pillars in the main market space evoke a connection with the natural landscape (Fig. 4.4). The cedar trunks are also used indoors, here partially maintaining their astringent skin thanks to a less intense peeling by the debarker, so adding a chromatic nuance to their texture.

4.1  Design: New Material Models

95

Fig. 4.3  Yusuhara Marche, Japan. Detail of the thatch façade. (Credits: Drawings by courtesy Kengo Kuma Associates)

4.1.1.2  S  traw Bales for Cultural Centre Konaki Averof, G. Batzios Architects Place: Larissa, Greece Client: Municipality of Larisa Architect: George Batzios Architects Chronology: concept design The George Batzios Architects proposal for the Konaki Averof Cultural Centre in Larissa, Greece, includes both the building and the surrounding site within an ambitious regeneration project of Konaki Averof. This is one of the old grain storehouses scattered in nineteenth century by the vast land ownership on the Thessaly plain, a fertile area in which the city of Larissa is located. Georges Batzios did not simply want to redesign it, arguing that historic architecture cannot simply be reinterpreted as a copy, because the landscape has evolved in such a way that the original architecture is no longer functional.

96

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Fig. 4.4  Yusuhara Marche, Japan. Internal view of cedar pillars. (Credits ©2010 Takumi Ota Photography. Image courtesy by Kengo Kuma Associates)

The historically prevalent agriculture activity in the region strongly inspires the design concept. The Thessalian golden wheat crops consequently become the primary material of the building, with an outer skin 40 cm thick of compressed straw panels, outside coated by a transparent and insulating film and by plaster skimming inside (Figs. 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7).

4.1  Design: New Material Models

97

Fig. 4.5  Cultural Centre “Konaki Averof” Arisa, Greece. Envelope with compressed straw. (Images courtesy by Georges Batzios Architects)

Fig. 4.6  Cultural Centre “Konaki Averof” Arisa, Greece. Main elevations. (Images courtesy by Georges Batzios Architects)

The exposed straw is a contemporary construction technique developed in Northern Europe reinterpreting the traditional use of this crop by-product, without losing its physical properties and ecological features.3  From the technical report of the project, provided by courtesy of Georges Batzios Architects

3

98

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Fig. 4.7  Cultural Centre “Konaki Averof” Arisa, Greece. Modules of compressed straw in main facade. (Images courtesy by Georges Batzios Architects)

This material overlays the entire building facades of both the new and the preserved volumes, adapting itself to their shapes and avoiding interfering with the inner layers of their envelopes. On the technical side, the straw wall reduces the building’s energy needs by 95%, triggering a passive thermal behaviour. This allows the building to reach the Passiv Haus standard. Visually, it displays a golden glow, reinstating the lost colour and texture of the plains (Fig. 4.8). Compressed straw is also present, in the area surrounding the building, so visitors can stroll, sit, have lunch or even lie down on golden straw bales, in a modern and safe architectural context. The building was developed on two main levels. The ground floor houses all the basic functions rationally organised according to the four modules of the programme. The attic level is more freely settled as a public open space: a social “playground” where the visitors interact with the different activities the building provides. Authentic traditional agricultural tools are exhibited on the straw background covering all the building surfaces, emphasising the relationships to the land and the crops which is the symbol of the whole project. Batzios has brought the history of the place into a contemporary building by converting straw from an element of the agricultural Thessalian land into an iconic construction material. This link is more than simply symbolic or evocative, the intense physical presence of the straw as a building constituent makes a strong and

4.1  Design: New Material Models

99

Fig. 4.8  Cultural Centre “Konaki Averof” Arisa, Greece. Stratification of the envelope. (Images courtesy by Georges Batzios Architects)

consistent connection with the surrounding natural environment, its resources and, through it, with its history too (Fig. 4.9). The project won second prize at the Open Architectural Competition “Rehabilitation Konaki Averof Cultural Center, Larisa, Greece”. 4.1.1.3  Wood Boxes for the Polish Pavilion, 2 pm Architekci Place: Milano, Italy Client: Milano, EXPO 2015 Architect: 2 pm Architekci Chronology: 2015 The Polish Pavilion was designed by 2  pm Architekci for EXPO 2015 World Exhibition in Milano (Italy), whose theme was “Feeding the Planet, Energy for Life”. Investors intended to promote Polish European leadership in apple production, further celebrating fruit as an agricultural resource helping to feed the planet. The designers interpreted this brief by developing a geometric and elegant Pavilion, which features an exceptional facade made of thousands of wooden crates used for apple transport. Having been built on a rectangular plot of 2.370 m2, this was, by size, the fourth Expo pavilion. Lightweight, modular, low cost and produced from abundantly available softwoods, the timber crates appear an ideal choice for a temporary structure, including them on the list of effective unconventional building materials (Figs. 4.10 and 4.11). The design takes inspiration from the apple crate, both on a micro- and macroscale: the modular box plot texturizes the pavilion’s openwork outside wall, making its constituents visually recognisable, while the whole building appears as a huge timber packaging case (Fig. 4.12). Both the materials and assembly techniques

100

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Fig. 4.9  Cultural Centre “Konaki Averof” Arisa, Greece. Internal view. (Images courtesy by Georges Batzios Architects)

were largely dictated by the needs of the pavilion for reclaiming and recycling after the closure of the EXPO, as recommended by the Expo guidelines to reduce waste. The ready-made wooden crates of the outer envelope are indeed screwed together and then fitted on a prefabricated structural steel frame, on which the ceiling also lies, made with prefabricated reinforced concrete plates. Although less exhibited, the structure and its material constituents are as simple, but effective, as those on the envelope, inspired by the same principles of easy dismantling, Low Tech and low cost (Figs. 4.13 and 4.14). The pavilion’s layout leads visitors through a symbolic secret garden, hidden behind an openwork box-like structure. The garden itself con-

4.1  Design: New Material Models

101

Fig. 4.10  The Expo 2015 Polish Pavilion apple crates modular façade. (Image courtesy © Piotr Musialowski, 2 pm Architekci)

sists of endless rows of apple trees, evoking the Polish landscape whose agricultural exploitation feeds the national economic success4. 4.1.1.4  Plastic Boxes Protiro, Nowa -Navarra Office Walking Architecture Place: Caltagirone, Italy Client: Onlus Concetta D’Alessandro Foundation Architect: Nowa -Navarra Office Walking Architecture Chronology: 2016. Several attempts have been made to recycle plastics for building applications, but very few of them targeted the recycled materials for their expressive values, unlike Protiro Orange Crate Façade by NOWA-Navarra Office Walking Architecture, by architects Marco Navarra and Maria Marino. Protiro is a recovery project of two industrial sheds located in Caltagirone, Sicily. It was performed in 2016 to house the activities of the Italian “Onlus Concetta D’Alessandro Foundation”, which is a charity dealing with the rehabilitation of disabled people.

4  Text source: most information about the project was provided to the Authors by courtesy of 2 pm Architekci. Additional data was retrieved from http://2pm.com.pl/.

102

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Fig. 4.11  The Expo 2015 Polish Pavilion first floor. (Image courtesy © Piotr Musialowski, 2 pm Architekci)

The project oversaw the renovation and adaptation of two former barrel roof craft warehouses, transforming them to their new owner’s needs. As the space under the great vault was modified to house two floors, a new lift and staircase were added (Fig. 4.15), connecting the guesthouse on the ground floor to the area devoted to guest activities, located on the first floor. The strongest and most characterising element of the project is the box-shaped volume situated before the existing buildings and excavated at its lower part to allow access. This setting inspired the name of the project; the typical front entrance portal of a Romanesque cathedral is called Protiro in Italian. A key contemporary architectural element to strengthen the colour was devised through the use of reused plastic crates for oranges to provide the buildings with a visually dynamic perforated facade. The facade used a standard plastic crate for fruit and vegetable transport (92.5  ×  64  ×  56  cm). Green crates consisting of two shades were retrieved and installed on a steel structure, alternated in order to make a pixelled plot of parallel diagonal chromatic lines (Figs. 4.16 and 4.17). Although unforeseen, no recycling or processing was required, making this an exemplary case for smart reuse of waste (Bonnefin 2018).

4.1  Design: New Material Models

103

Fig. 4.12  The Expo 2015 Polish Pavilion entrance. (Image courtesy © Piotr Musialowski, 2 pm Architekci)

The reuse of fruit crates as a building material stems from a decade-long research by these architects on the potential of design to exploit the strong aestheticism and social impact of unusual and poor resources for architectural purposes. This façade ennobles a common utilitarian and serial product to strengthen the appearance of the building and generate sophisticated graphic effects (Figs. 4.18 and 4.19).

104

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Fig. 4.13  The Expo 2015 Polish Pavilion: top view of the garden. (Image courtesy © Piotr Musialowski, 2 pm Architekci)

Fig. 4.14  The Expo 2015 Polish Pavilion: detail of the apple crates façade. (Image courtesy © Piotr Musialowski, 2 pm Architekci)

4.1  Design: New Material Models

Fig. 4.15 Protiro, New Pavilion for rehabilitation and training activities, NOWA. Axonometric exploded view. (Drawings by courtesy studio NOWA)

105

Studio

106

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Fig. 4.16  Protiro, New Pavilion for rehabilitation and training activities, Studio NOWA.  Main façade with modular plastic crates. (Photo Credits by Peppe Maisto)

Fig. 4.17  Protiro, New Pavilion for rehabilitation and training activities, Studio NOWA.  Main façade with modular plastic crates. General view. (Photo Credits by Peppe Maisto)

4.1  Design: New Material Models

107

Fig. 4.18  Protiro, New Pavilion for rehabilitation and training activities, Studio NOWA. Night view. (Photo Credits by Peppe Maisto)

Fig. 4.19  Protiro, New Pavilion for rehabilitation and training activities, Studio NOWA. Particular of plastic crates and staircase. (Photo Credits by Peppe Maisto)

108

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Ennobling poor materials is a constant aim in the design research of the NOWA Studio, whose aims are to transform them through weaving and design into a powerful aesthetic identity. Nevertheless, the use of crude materials to produce expressive surfaces is just one element of the NOWA design strategy. Indeed the project also generates a deeper and wider effect, as it results in revamping not only waste ­products and an empty building but also the surrounding anonymous and degraded urban environment too. Transforming urban waste by design into resources for cities and the territory is the approach that NOWA has been practising for years, by embracing an idea of extreme architecture to respond jointly to boundary conditions, economic constraints and environmental challenges. Its coherent multi-scale approach to resource recovery makes the project exemplary for its environmentally friendly design practices, within which the unconventional materials find a consistent place, as the new modularity and language they bring to the architecture. The project was among the 17 Italian candidates for the European Union Contemporary Architecture Award – Mies van der Rohe Award 2017. In certain elements, Protiro recalls the Polish pavilion project for Expo 2015, designed by the 2 pm studio (candidate for the same award)5.

4.2  Build: Reversibility Models The needs for temporariness lead most building processes to adopt light and dry construction systems, often made of low-cost materials, which are easily available even in emergency situations. The reversibility of the adopted strategies is the main criterion by which we analysed the projects within the building scope, considering that light and dry construction systems as the preferred option due to the circular potential they induce on the production chain and entire process, up to the end-of-life phase. As for the design scope, for that of building, we also assumed the meaning of Reversible as “making it possible to undo connections without damaging the components they join” (Cambier et al. 2019). By this notion, the circular potential of a building can been so defined as a function of the specific types of dry connections or material stratifications the construction adopted. The application of this criterion allowed us to highlight some technical choices which were not fully consistent with the total reversibility targeted as the aim of our project. This is often due to budget or regulation constraints, which hindered the adoption of a more environmentally suitable solution. In some cases, the compromise between safety, comfort, cost and reversibility requirements reduced 5  Text source: most information about the project was provided to the Authors by courtesy arch. Marco Navarra and arch. Maria Marino, NOWA studio. Additional data was retrieved from http:// www.studionowa.com.

4.2  Build: Reversibility Models

109

product circularity potential, when considering the desired goals of the project. However, while reversibility and circularity features are explicitly included within the design brief in some cases, in others they appear as a viable or even a confirmed outcome, although not fully planned, as documented by the design experiments analysed below. Just as the dry assembling of promptly movable elements speeds up the construction, it also facilitates its dismantling, allowing the recovery of all the elements suitable for return to the natural environment or designated for further production cycles. Building reversibility processes thus emerges as a fundamental condition for increasing the recoverability and recyclability potential of material resources, including those of a spatial nature, as noted in the cases studied. The reversibility feature of a project depends on multiple elements, though it mainly concerns the building materials chosen and the ease of assembly and disassembly allowed by the connecting technology adopted. When considering this feature, project circular potential can thus vary according to the effectiveness of the solutions it performed. Nevertheless, together with temporariness and Low Tech, circularity contributes to establishing a grid of criteria suitable to assess and compare projects.

4.2.1  Design Experiments The case studies collected which are devoted to building can be classified as “microarchitectures” as they “try to reestablish a link, not only aesthetic-perceptual, between architecture and production, man and nature, technology and landscape, implementation process and environment” (Horden 2004; Perriccioli 2008). Those included within this selection are design experiments conducted by the authors, in collaboration with associations and companies. Despite covering a wide range of various intended uses, each of them shares the principles of environmental, spatial, functional and material reversibility. The authors’ contribution to this design research has chiefly addressed the shaping of strategies to reduce material resource use and maximising the reuse potential of the building components. The measures to promote stakeholder involvement to feed possible supply chains of recovered resources have also been developed, with particular consideration to post-­emergency contexts. It is the notion of microarchitecture itself which implies a bubble effect, as it tends to include a wide set of aspects, not always evident in their mutual connections and dependencies but useful in synthesising the variety of challenges the building will face in the near future, as well as any opportunity it may have of exploiting the emergent technologies. “Microarchitecture is inspired by mobility, bionics and microelectronics. It means creating technical innovation, new path in research, product and material development, but also new paths in teaching. Microarchitecture brings architecture closer to product design. It occu-

110

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible pies a sector that is located in an intermediate space between housing and transport, water and land, sky and mountains, aerodynamics and architecture, ecology and technology but above all between man and nature” (Horden 2008).

Designing a microarchitecture thus represents an opportunity to explore the wide latitude of the notion of reuse. This addresses both the attitude of the spaces being rearranged to accommodate different uses and the recovery of building materials and components. The perspective that feeds this approach aims to enable and ­stimulate a process of reiterated transformation involving both physical and social dimensions. The use of easy assembly and disassembly building solutions is consistently envisaged, as well as modular settings and schemes helping future reconfigurations. Both measures are suitably shaped and integrated to accompany the adoption of an adaptive approach by users, which should trigger circular flows of both resources and activities able to provide economic opportunities at the local scale. Although temporariness is a powerful driver for microarchitecture as a whole, it requires severe constraint in post-emergency sheltering provision, which is pushing towards innovative low cost and Low Tech building solutions and very easy assembly and disassembly. This shows how temporariness fits in with material reusability and recoverability in helping to achieve circular economy goals. The cases selected within this area refer to two different types of completed design experience: –– The participation to the design competition “Box 336 a.m.”, launched by the homonymous Cultural Association based in Verona, Italy, aimed to develop a prototype microarchitecture intended for socio-cultural housing activities in the central Italy area hit by a strong earthquake in 2016 (Amatrice and surrounding areas). The brief requested a space that would help rebuild the earthquake survivors’ collective memory and sense of community, bringing the “superfluous necessary” to the affected people. Thus, something “ephemeral” that could help recover the sense of community, unity and cohesion.6 The aim of the competition was therefore to condense these aspirations into something tangible: a small library, a rehearsal room, a small museum and a place to play were some examples of possible uses for a container. One of the main technical requirements was that of an ephemeral architecture – that is, not permanent and above all not permanently anchored to the ground – but resistant to earthquakes and atmospheric agents, made with materials promptly available, easy to transport, mount and dismount, replicable and combinable in clusters. Among those participating, four projects were selected (Chapel of Light, Degustabox, Magic Home, MINI_Com) that integrate technical and social innovation within microarchitectures suitable for multiple uses. Reversibility through modularity and easy disassembling are the main design keys, coupled with easy transportation and quick deployment, the use of low-cost technologies and 6  The scientific programme and the team project were coordinated by Prof F. Giglio from 2017 to 2018. The team project had the supervision of Arch G. Caridi, I. Tavilla, Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria and Arch P. Grigoletti, Cultural Association Box 336 a.m., Verona, Italy.

4.2  Build: Reversibility Models

111

energy self-sufficiency from renewable sources, as better described below. Additionally, they also explore the weight/resistance relationship in using lightweight materials when recovered and recycled from other production chains. –– The research project “THM-Temporary wood Housing Module” was carried out in collaboration with the Italian Department of Civil Protection, based in Rome.7 The assignment was to provide Civil Protection with a guideline for tenders on supply, transportation and assembly of emergency dwellings. The specific executive project target was to establish a prototype for a quick deployable housing module intended to reduce, as much as possible, unavoidable permanence for people in the tent cities, by providing better comfort standards. According to the Civil Protection requests, the housing module had to have minimum dimensions (complying with the Health Minister Decree of 05. 07.1975),8 aggregable to establish small settlements, be recoverable after dismantling. Additionally, each unit had to be structurally autonomous, be formed by components selected from an open catalogue and be able to comply comfort and budget requirements which are established within the contracts already carried out by the Civil Protection for the realisation of type solutions for emergency (Giglio and Savoja 2017). To respond to the multiple implications of this brief, the project addressed several aspects, such as the need to increase space mutability and quick response to the emergency and resource shortage issues, by adopting modular coordination, light prefabrication and simple building element connections. This led to establishing a modular dimensional grid, according to which the housing modules were shaped. They were made of CLT (cross-laminated timber) panels, with measurements suitable for wheeled transportation by ordinary vehicles and aggregably based on settlement needs. The computations and simulations drawn up during the planning and design stages proved the system meet the technical and cost requirements and that it is cyclically removable for deployment in other locations. The overall aim of all the design experiments described below was to test the application of reversible and circular strategies in building design, specifically developing a set of technical solutions suitable for these purposes. The description sheet of each project applies a common scheme highlighting three main scopes: (1) the design research aims; (2) the Low-Tech building options adopted: materials, components and connections; and 3) the circularity implications: assembly and disassembly process issues. The design experiments considered are: 4.2.1.1 CoL.  Chapel of Light: a chapel dedicated to remembrance and memory which gives the community a small space for meditation 7  The scientific programme was coordinated by Prof F. Giglio from 2015 to 2016 with the collaboration of Arch A.  Familiari, Department Civil Protection in Rome, Italy and Arch G.  Savoja, Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria. 8  The Health Minister Decree of 05. 07.1975 identifies the dimensional and functional characteristics of the accommodation concerning the hygienic-sanitary suitability purposes.

112

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

4.2.1.2 Degustabox: a laboratory selling handicraft products, aiming to stimulate the recovery of the local microeconomy 4.2.1.3 Magic Home: a kindergarten allowing recovering children the time to play and sharing space 4.2.1.4 MINI_Com: a small “slow” media library as a place to study and to access audiovisual material 4.2.1.5 THM: a temporary timber housing module as a model for post-earthquake emergency shelters 4.2.1.1  CoL.Chapel of Light Place: Amatrice Client: Box 336 am Association. Project team: F. Giglio (coordinator), N. Esposito, E. Ferrarelli. Chronology: 2018. Aims of the Design Research The building is intended as a place of worship where the population can meet together and remember the earthquake victims and the personal experience of the catastrophe each survivor lived. This project in line with the following three projects aims to satisfy the requests of the “Box 336” Design Competition. The proposals were developed through common workflow, starting from a first phase of investigation and study, followed by the design stages. A continuous feedback with the promoting Cultural Association was kept all through the process. Meeting both the social needs of the earthquake victims and the requirements concerning budget and construction features was established as the main targets for the design. Additionally, the reversibility of assembly techniques, the transportability module and its adaptability to different locations within the earthquake hit central Italy area are also targeted. This microarchitecture’s total surface is 18 m2, of which 15,20 m2 is the main public area. The interior of the chapel includes an altar, a lectern and a central nave with rows of seats for the faithful on both sides. A continuous window located between the choir and the nave cuts the side facades from ground to roof, providing natural light indoor (Fig. 4.20). This cutting evokes the earth crustal rifting caused by earthquake, thus links to memory, while the glazed surfaces illuminated by the sunlight mean hope for the future. Thanks to solar path analysis, a glazed area is precisely located on the floor in the position the sunlight hits at the hour of the tragic event. Some rubble is visible under the glass, as a further remembrance of the event. Low Building Technologies: Material, Components, Connections Low-Tech principles inspired the design, which applies a dry building system, partially made of materials available at the location. Assembly is considered easy to perform and complies to the objectives of simplicity, economic sustainability, prompt disassembly and reuse and end-of-life cycle.

4.2  Build: Reversibility Models

Fig. 4.20  The concept design and main strategies

113

114

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Galvanised iron prefabricated components were chosen for the elevation structure, assembled together with metal plates and bolts, as they are cheaper than steel profiles. A galvanised iron grid was placed on a layer of poured concrete provides the base, while the grid extends upwards, filled with locally recovered rubble that provides the underfloor layer. The vertical envelope main layer is made of expanded polystyrene insulation (EPS) panels that provide an effective cost/performance ratio. The panels are attached by metal joints to the galvanised steel tubes connected to a supporting structure. A raw coating of on-site impregnated fir plywood panels cover the insulation. The same solution is applied to the roof cladding too. Raw fir plywood is also used to make the outer single-wing door and fixed mobile frames, which are completed with a galvanised iron band on both vertical sides. The windows have galvanised iron frames screwed to the supporting structure and laminated glazing panels. The standard window glazing can be replaced with luminescent solar concentrators, providing the building with electric supply. The LSCs are innovative PV devices fully integrated within the transparent glazing, which exploit solar radiation making the building envelope functional and active (Moraitis et al. 2018). The LSC panels consist of a glass or plastic slab doped with a chromophore, such as fluorescent dye. Incident light is absorbed by the fluorophores and reemitted inside the slab at a longer wavelength. This reflected light is channeled towards the slab edges where photovoltaic silicon panels are located converting solar into electric energy. The average panel energy supply is about 300 W/m2 (Fig. 4.21). The Circular Process of Assembly/Disassembly The design has coherently shaped the construction process aiming to comply with circular economy principles and in particular the feature of reversibility. The assembly sequence is therefore planned to be performed in phases, which make consistent the constructive settings with the temporary nature of the building and allow easy disassembly of its components. The planned process stages are (Fig. 4.22): –– Phase one: excavation, concrete casting for the foundation, housing of the galvanised iron grid, building of the technical box –– Phase two: elevation structure setting – the off-site shaped iron modules are connected together on-site by metal plates and bolts –– Phase three: completion of the structure by assembling the secondary rods and joining the insulation panels onto the rods –– Phase four: installation of the glazing panels –– Phase five: application of the external and internal wall coating by screwing the galvanised iron structure to the previously impregnated plywood panels Disassembly can be done by proceeding in reverse. Only the concrete foundation is designed to remain on site. The removed components may be recovered and reas-

4.2  Build: Reversibility Models

Fig. 4.21  The technological system

115

116

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Fig. 4.22  The assembly phases

4.2  Build: Reversibility Models

117

sembled in other locations, albeit with possible lower initial performance for some of them, due to the effects of the severe climatic conditions at the site or to possible ineffective dismantling processes. 4.2.1.2  Degustabox Place: Amatrice Client: Box 336 a.m. Association Project team: F. Giglio (coordinator), I. De Renzo, M. Iaquinta Chronology: 2018. Aims of the Design Research Degustabox is a module for tasting and buying typical food products made under the brand “De.co.” (Denominations of Municipal Origin) in Amatrice, which is one of the cities most damaged by the earthquake that hit central Italy in 2016. The social purpose of the project is to add value to the traditional local agri-food business, as an opportunity for post-earthquake recovery, helping to stimulate and reactivate the local microeconomy. The design aims to contribute to the public management of building rubble, targeting to “limit the volume of waste by recovering materials that can usefully be used as a new raw material” (art. 28 DL 189/2017). The rubble of the August 2016 Earthquake is indeed estimated at about 2.650.000 tons. Its management is charged to the public bodies, which allow for the recovery of those rubble fractions classified as non-dangerous. The box is intended to occupy an area of 3 × 6 m, providing an inside floor area of 11 m2 within which a small display, a tasting space and a bathroom must be housed. The box must comply with the overall requirements of the design competition, in terms of quick and simple deployment and of modularity, intended as the possibility of combining the boxes into clusters and box flexibility to allow different spatial and functional configurations when aggregated (Fig. 4.23). Low Building Technologies: Materials, Components, Connections The proposed design is formed by an outer shell made of 20 overlapping galvanised steel gabions filled with stones. A set of rods connected to the metal cages hold the metal insulated panels to the roof. A secondary steel structure supports a modular coextruded seven-layer system of alveolar polycarbonate panels. That system coats the inner side of the gabions, to provide thermal and sound proofing. One of these panels is movable as it fits the entrance gate. The “male-female” interlocking between the panels assures considerable resistance to bending, allowing assembly without metal uprights, thus avoiding heat dispersion due to thermal bridges. The steel gabions are positioned over a grid of 8 HEM steel beams and L shape steel profiles that are laid on the ground. Over this, an expanded clay-filled metal corrugated sheet supports the EPS panels, coated with a raw untreated fir planks as a floor.

118

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Fig. 4.23  The concept design and main strategies

4.2  Build: Reversibility Models

119

The building is off-grid and energy self-sufficient thanks to a wind turbine which weighs only 42  kg and is active even at low wind speed (2  m/s). A specifically designed BMS manages the energy supplying according to operational variable. A rainwater recovery system supplies all non-drinking water needs. It includes a storage tank located behind the building, a pump, a filter to prevent pump clogging and a control unit managing the installation (Fig. 4.24). The Circular Process of Assembly/Disassembly The assembly system was designed with the aim of recovering the components and materials once disassembled. The planned assembly phases are (Fig. 4.25): –– Phase one: ground levelling and mounting of the base consisting of 8 HEM steel grid and L shape steel profiles laid on the ground. The profiles are joined with metal plates and bolts. –– Phase two: provision of the crawl base (corrugated sheet metal and expanded clay) and assembly of the steel profiles that are bolted to the HEM profiles of the base. –– Phase three: mounting of the metal cages on the base through metal plates and bolts and rubble filling. –– Phase four: completion of the base floor (laying of EPS panels and fir plank floor) and bolting to the pillars of the steel beams. –– Phase five: secondary structure assembly by fastening screws and bolting the steel frame to the base and the beams to the covering. –– Phase six: positioning of the internal partitions and assembling of alveolar polycarbonate panels. –– Phase seven: installation of the outdoor tank behind the building and connected to the pump and control unit. –– Phase eight: positioning of the covering panels. The disassembly process can be done by exactly reversing the assembly sequence, although the full recoverability/recyclability of all components cannot be assured in spite of the effective fixing systems adopted. 4.2.1.3  Magic Home Place: Collemagrone Client: Box 336 am Association. Project team: F. Giglio (coordinator), S. Buglisi, E. Gennaccaro Chronology: 2018. Aims of the Design Research Magic Home is a kindergarten intended to allow the Amatrice children to repossess the time for play and sharing space, through which the collective memory and sense of community are rebuilt after the earthquake. The project is contextualised within the Collemagrone inclusive playground, near Amatrice, and it complies with the requirements of “Play For All”, a European

120

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Fig. 4.24  The technological system

4.2  Build: Reversibility Models

Fig. 4.25  The assembly phases

121

122

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

project for the creation of playgrounds usable by children with all kinds of skills. The project concept is a modular grid generating a cubic shape on which a pitched roof is added, which refers to the house archetype. The internal surface is 16.20 m2, while the height is from 3.50 to 2.10 m when the roof raised, depending on the pitch inclination. A 90° wall rotation system around its median provides functional flexibility for the interior space, generating different spatial environments. To enhance this purpose, each internal partition is also designed to perform a different function. Magic Home responds to the design competition requirements for transportable modular structures that can be replicated as easily assembled and disassembled. The Magic Home modules can be so combined, creating child-friendly “villages” with different configurations (Fig. 4.26). Low Building Technologies: Materials, Components, Connections The Magic Home structure is composed of prefabricated galvanised tubular iron elements assembled on site with bolts and metal plates, while the lower horizontal closure and the perimetrical envelope are sandwiches of a layer of sheep wool insulation in between two OSB panels. Metal profiles resting on the ground raise the horizontal closure from the soil. The panels pivot by a hinge system hooked to their upper and lower edge and to the structural steel rods. The same panels are used for the roof, with an additional steam brake layer and an outer copper sheet to protect from atmospheric agents. As a result of their modelling, the copper sheets also provide a gutter that transports rainwater into a small drainpipe, evacuating it into the ground (Fig.  4.27). Different finishes adapt the panels to different functions and activities, such as cork sheets intended to hold drawings, washable adhesive blackboard sheets and flexible magnetic sheets on which small metal objects can be hooked. The Circular Process of Assembly/Disassembly A limited number of components, easily available on site or even recovered and reused, is the key strategy adopted by the project to increase its circularity potential. The main assembly phases are (Fig. 4.28): –– Phase one: assembly of the galvanised iron supporting structure by bolting and metal plates –– Phase two: fixing the structure of the movable wall pivot pins, to which the walls will then be hooked. Installation of the OSB wool-insulated panels of the horizontal and perimetrical closures –– Phase three: construction of the roof –– Phase four: copper cladding of the roof –– Phase five: application of the panel finishes The disassembly is done by reversing the construction sequence. So the process starts from the copper roof sheets, and then the floors are removed, the partitioning panels and lastly the movable panels and the pins connected to them. All the components are recoverable and reusable in other supply chains.

4.2  Build: Reversibility Models

Fig. 4.26  The concept design and main strategies

123

124

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Fig. 4.27  The technological system

4.2  Build: Reversibility Models

Fig. 4.28  The assembly phases

125

126

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

4.2.1.4  MINI_com Place: Amatrice. Client: Box 336 am Association. Project team: F. Giglio (coordinator), G. Belcastro, A. Cuccurullo. Chronology: 2018. Aims of the Design Research In response to the “Box 336 a.m.” design competition, this project developed a small “slow” media library where communities hit by earthquakes can find a place to learn, study and recover well-being. The transitory nature of ideas inspires the design concept in its ephemeral and immaterial aspects, shaping a fleeting and abstract space that explores the potential of architecture in both its material and virtual dimensions. Sitting, thinking, listening and seeing are the functions that MINI_com houses. Thus, an area for video-audio stations was provided; a media library was set up as a place for studying by audiovisual means, a space for multimedia projection. An equipped wall extends for the entire length of the box separating the main functional areas and hosts some wired niches allowing individuals or small groups of users to perform their activities within the comfortable environment of the media library. MINI_com has a net rectangular surface of 14.30 m2, a total height of 4.30 mt. and an average internal height of 3.00 mt. Situated on the ground without being firmly anchored, the box can be installed in urban, historic or empty peripheral areas, as well as in landscape or rural contexts. (Fig. 4.29). Low Building Technologies: Materials, Components, Connections MINI_com is designed as a set of supporting frames interlocked together to form a closed structure. This consists of six structural frames conferring the box its recognisable shape. The construction system is based on the “platform frame” principle: each frame is composed of five 8  ×  14  cm section rods of dry poplar laminated wood, connected together by mortise-tenon connections and shaped at their edge as “half wood” joints, for the interlocking of the external cladding panels. The vertical locking panels and the base slab are made with sandwiched panels of poplar plywood composed of internal panel in poplar plywood 10  mm thick pressed into the structure locks, which also serve as a substructure for laying the hemp insulation fibre, thickness 40 mm, a waterproofing membrane and finally a closing panel in poplar plywood 20 mm thick with joints on the supporting frame, equal in length to the centre structure distance (Fig. 4.30). The frames are aggregable and can be easily combined to perform other functions, adding new spatial configurations. The frames can also be easily replicated, to increase or decrease the volume of the microarchitecture. The three-dimensional grid is self-supporting, and therefore it does not require any provisional prop during construction.

4.2  Build: Reversibility Models

Fig. 4.29  The concept design and main strategies

127

128

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Fig. 4.30  The technological system

4.2  Build: Reversibility Models

129

Simple standard materials found in any hardware store significantly reduce transport time and costs, providing a suitable response to economic and sustainability requirements. A wind piezoelectric generator makes the project energy-effective, assuring the building off-grid self-sufficiency by exploiting renewable sources. The devices are based on fourth-generation piezoelectric technology, and they are integrated within the building’s outer skin. The system works through generating material power when subjected to mechanical compression or deformation. Each nano-generator extends to a 25  cm2 surface: with a wind speed of 6  m/s, the energy production reaches 20 W/m2, but a wind speed of 0.1 m/s is sufficient to trigger it. The Circular Process of Assembly/Disassembly The project adopts a reversible self-construction process: except for the piezoelectric façade, all the box is built with wood rods connected by the interlocking mounting technique. This safeguards the material integrity allowing each component being recovered and reused once disassembled. The building process develops through few simple phases (Fig. 4.31): –– Ground base. Three wood beams are placed over nine 15 × 15 cm solid wood “feets” and connected to them by half-wood interlocking joints. The feets can be adjusted according to the ground profile. Adjustable wooden blocks on the ground. Interlocking beams at the base. –– Phase two: platform frame assembly. The preassembled frames are fitted to the bottom beams. –– Phase three: main structure interlocking. The frames are locked together by horizontal 8 × 12 cm laminated wooden joists. An alternating sequence of half-wood joints binds the frames, so connecting each of them to other five perpendicularly to its own axis. The mounting sequence is first lock the four vertical elements (X axis), then the eight perpendicular, four by side (Z axis), and lastly insert from above the six inclined elements, three by side. –– Phase four: secondary structure assembling. Interlocking of the horizontal beams to the main structure. This connects all the structural elements: as the half-wood joints favourably exploit the tensions perpendicular to the wood grain, the rod compressive tension generates a state of compulsion, so increasing the system resistance. The horizontal stresses, such those due to the wind and earthquake, are indeed absorbed by the friction between the elements of the nodes, interconnected in such a way as to confer ductility to the structure. –– Phase five: laying the panels. Press-fitting of the first 10 mm internal panel, positioning and cutting of the hemp insulation layer. Press-fitting of the 20 mm outer panel. Then repeat the sequence for further panels until completion of the envelope. –– Phase six: fixture installing – positioning of the wooden frame slats, insulation interposing, shaped inner panel fixing, external panel fixing, posing the showcase. The disassembling can be quickly done by reversing the sequence until lastly removing the piezoelectric façade.

130

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Fig. 4.31  The assembly phases

4.2  Build: Reversibility Models

131

4.2.1.5  T  HM Temporary Wood Housing Module for Post-Earthquake Emergencies Place: not specified. Client: Department Civil Protection (Rome, Italy). Project team: F. Giglio (coordinator), D. Pulitanò. Chronology: 2016. Aims of the Design Research The research project “THM Temporary wood Housing Module for post-earthquake emergencies” meets the requirements of the Italian Civil Protection, for an operational response to a housing emergency occurring after a calamitous event. The specific research aim was to overcome the inconveniences of temporary housing by instead designing living modules able to quickly accommodate the homeless families in comfortable houses, although provisional.9 According to the Civil Protection, the failure of the reuse of temporary houses after an emergency is among the main problems within this field. The design so targets to overcome this gap by preventing the time spent in providing users with different solutions. Additionally, it aims to avoid those design errors that have often occurred due to hasty decisions taken after an emergency. Among the suitable measures to reach this goal, settlement typology represents a preliminary crucial issue. Based on recent and dramatic experiences, what must initially be avoided is emptying the old city centres and moving the population to unidentified and totally standardised new settlements, instead of maintaining their historical memory by keeping them close to their old homes. The solution that the design proposes is based on 240 × 600 cm units, dimensionally modulated on a 60 × 60 cm mesh. The size is that of a shipping container, to allow their transport on ordinary vehicles. The units can be assembled in different configurations, by selecting the most suitable from a catalogue according to the number of users to be hosted (Fig. 4.32). The houses are structurally independent of each other, to make housing management flexible even whenever a unit is vacated, then removed from the settlement to be reused elsewhere. The design chose a very compact architectural shape for the units and settled low transmittance values for the building envelop, fully complying with the limits established by current Italian regulations on energy efficiency (DM 06/26/2015).10 9  In dealing with the design of temporary housing modules, the in-force technical specifications have been followed and particularly those of the “Open procedure tender, pursuant to Legislative Decree 163/2006 and subsequent amendments, for the supply, transport and assembly of housing solutions in Emergency (s.a.e.) and related services, on behalf of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers  – Department of Civil Protection  – edition 2” and the current regulations for social housing. 10  Decree of the Italian Ministry of Economic Development 26 June 2015: Application of the methods of calculation of the energy performance and definition of requirements and minimum requirements for buildings

132

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Fig. 4.32  The concept design and main strategies

4.2  Build: Reversibility Models

133

Low Building Technologies: Materials, Components, Connections The modules are based on the use of: –– Low-Tech construction systems, characterised by dry connections and use of natural materials from renewable sources –– Passive strategies to reduce energy consumption, creating a thermally, visually and acoustically comfortable indoor environment A five-layer CLT (cross-laminated timber) was chosen as the construction system, as it allows very rigid three-dimensional modules to be built, which are suitable for moving and lifting without damage (Fig. 4.33). A ventilated facade makes the vertical closure module suitably oriented for this feature. The cladding protects the wood fibre insulation layer and mitigates excess heat. The installation cavities are filled with sheep wool, a fibre with a remarkable capacity for natural regulation of indoor humidity. The horizontal bottom closures are raised off the ground so protecting radon gas and humidity from entering indoors. The basement housing the technical networks is filled with expanded clay, a light, recyclable and reusable material. The cavities for the plant networks located in the horizontal top closures are filled with sheep wool, while wood fibre panels provide roof insulation. The Circular Process of Assembly/Disassembly The house modules can be quickly assembled or dismantled, so as to speed up the delivery to the next users, both on the same site or elsewhere. The research mainly addressed the off-site housing modules construction by panels and the feasibility of road transport for the pre-assembled modules. The modules assembly is a two-stage process, taking place firstly in the factory and then on the site where the modules will house their inhabitants: –– Phase one: panel assembly. The individual panels are dry-assembled together to form three-dimensional cells ready to be transported on a road semitrailer. Since the heavier panel has a size of 240 × 17 × 600 cm and weighs about 1 tonne, a three-worker team equipped with a 1,5  ton, 4  m lifting capacity construction crane is needed. The connections of the panels are made as so: –– Between vertical panels: angular metal plates –– Between the base and vertical panels: angled plates and holddown11 metal corner brackets fixed by screws to the vertical panel and by threaded bars to the base panel –– Between the horizontal covering panels and the vertical closing panels: straight and angular perforated metal plates and full-thread connectors –– Phase two: housing modules lifting. A crane lifts each assembled module by means of adjustable lifting eyebolts (Fig. 4.34). As they are connected, the indi-

 The holddown angles connect the structural slab to the panels, resisting the tensile forces and avoiding overturning phenomena.

11

134

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Fig. 4.33  The technological system

4.2  Build: Reversibility Models

Fig. 4.34  The assembly phases and aggregation modules

135

136

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

vidual volumetric modules forming each house can be separated, carried elsewhere and reassembled for further uses. If needed, modules can also be further disassembled separating the panels, to reduce the storage space. At the end-of-life cycle of the buildings, the CLT components can be reused, the wood fibre and sheep wool can be recycled and composted, the expanded clay is totally reusable, the wood glued with adhesives without formaldehyde is biodegradable and recyclable, and the steel joints can be reused.

4.3  Living: The Social Emergency Models The imperatives for circular economy and sustainability combined with the needs for temporariness result in new living conditions for people. The social emergency contexts emphasise this challenge as the quality of the living space must be assured despite strong resource shortages, to ensure suitable levels of comfort and maintenance over time. This often led to develop Low-Tech approaches, aimed at responding to technical and economic issues by consistently shaping living spaces and their ability to house the users and their activities, at both building and urban scale. This chapter deals with the living area, analysing the relationships between low technology, circular economy and the whole set of housing quality, material comfort and well-being that architecture can provide for its users and which we summarise as living conditions. The verb “to live” comes from Latin habere (to have), and it means “occupying a house” or “having wonted residence”. Although its meaning is strongly related by etymology to the notion of permanence, according to Chimenz (2017), people have always had and will continue to need temporary accommodation, by choice or by necessity. While experiencing temporary housing is not uncommon, designing it is a challenging duty, as this requires setting a suitable balance between architecture, building technology and functional specific features, without the usual design practices and solutions which can simply be transferred. Instead of the strict dependence of usability from stability and its attractiveness as the only way to trigger beauty, as seen in classic Vitruvian theory linking the utilitas to firmitas and venustas, the provisional building must satisfy the user needs by different means other than remaining intact over time. As a result, architectural identity should also be its own and consistent. Even when these buildings are designed, developed and manufactured within industrial processes, as several shelters for emergencies often are, their effectiveness is not solely related to the outer protective shell functional adequacy or structural resistance, but more to the ability to provide users with acceptable service levels, i.e. suitable living conditions (Chimenz 2017). The human-centred design approach is therefore particularly suitable for this purpose, although the expected short lifespan and temporary use could – and often has – led to neglect, by not considering this concern. How the design of minimum and temporary spaces can meet the constructive, spatial and formal quality of the

4.3  Living: The Social Emergency Models

137

architecture is shown by two design experiments presented below, which exploit those conditions as an opportunity rather than a constraint. The first case explores both the design and social implications of the urban emergency of the homeless, trying to reinterpret the space of a temporary shelter by integrating it into the urban reality of contemporary cities, while the second case addresses indoor space shaped by optimising the use of a single material, in terms of its environmental effectiveness.

4.3.1  Design Experiments The number of immigrants entering the EU has fallen over the last 4 years when compared to the peak recorded in 2015, when more than 710,000 refugees, displaced persons, asylum seekers and other newcomers crossed the Union borders (COM 2015).12 The need to respond more effectively to the migratory flow is still, however, a relevant concern for Europe, as their impact risks jeopardising EU political cohesion (COM 2019).13 Among other policies that face this challenge, several strong responses are also required to make temporary housing available, targeting both immigrants and the increased demands for emergency sheltering, such as for the homeless, whose number is increasing considerably in all major European cities. A new experimentation field is thus opening for the design of minimal dwellings, simple to deploy and able to provide living space suitable for these specific purposes, by applying both consistent technologies and building processes. While in previous chapters (see Sects. 4.1 and 4.2) we addressed the design and building issues related to the microarchitectures for emergency purposes, the cases provided in this section refer to the scope we called living, intended as the study of minimum housing space configuration, in relation to both the specific user needs and building technologies suitable for these shelters. Two design experiments are analysed below: although they refer to different contexts and adopt distinct technology configurations, both apply circular economy principles. The simple dry connections methods enable quick assembly and disassembly, suitably planned easy recovery of the components at the end of their lifespan, renewable sources supplying energy demand and the recyclability of materials, which are the keystone strategies adopted to pursue the circular behaviour in building.  COM (2015) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council “Managing the refugee crisis: State of Play of the Implementation of the Priority Actions under the European Agenda on Migration”, 510 final, Bruxelles, 14.10.2015 13  COM (2019) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council “Progress report on the Implementation of the European Agenda on Migration”, 126 final, Bruxelles, 6.3.2019 12

138

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Additionally, the design of both selected microarchitectures targets reduced material use and more quality of living space, to provide the users suitable levels of comfort and decent living conditions, despite the unfavourable context constraints. The design targeting these aims results in architecture that endorses strong social value, as it can be removed and redeployed in new locations to respond to recurrent emergency housing demands wherever they occur. Rigid cooperation between the key stakeholders involved in each operation also characterises both cases,14 which allows the design to address its direct applicability. The cases are: –– Tatami Shelter is a housing project for homeless people based on Low Tech solutions, which was developed in collaboration with the “Good Guys” humanitarian association of Monza, Italy. The project aimed to respond to a social emergency, restoring the sense of belonging and dignity of the users and promoting citizen involvement. The design brief asked for the development of a dual use day/night housing module made with simple dry assembled wooden technologies and easy to build with user participation. The open daytime configuration is a small urban resting space with shaded seating. This configuration changes to overnight, when it is turned into a homeless shelter. Since it is designed to be part of the municipal social programmes for homeless relief, the project has a strong component of social innovation. –– MEPS-Modular EPS components is the second case study included within this area. MEPS are modular housing modules intended for various use and made by sintered expanded polystyrene plates. The research was conducted in collaboration with Polyeffe, an Italian manufacturer of EPS components, whose aim was to develop possible new markets for its products and particularly for shells shaped from a single EPS block to form housing spaces. The MEPS project applies the concepts of production and material efficiency, by optimising the block shaping to obtain an excavated shell of maximum size, while the removed material is milled and reused for making other products. As with reference to the previously addressed areas, the analysis of the following case studies is also organised focusing on three aspects: (1) aim of the design research, (2) the temporary and emergency living and (3) the circular process: contributing to materials and remanufacturing components. –– 4.3.1.1 Tatami Shelter for homeless –– 4.3.2.1 MEPS, Modular EPS components

 The researches were conducted from 2018 to 2019 at the Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria, Italy. Scientific coordination: Prof. F. Giglio. The Tatami shelter project was realised with the collaboration of M. Adamo, of the Association “Good Guys”. The MEPS project was conducted together with Prof. A. Russo, Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria and in collaboration with the Polyeffe Company, Italy.

14

4.3  Living: The Social Emergency Models

139

4.3.1.1  Tatami Shelter Place: not specified. Project team: F. Giglio (coordinator), S. Sansotta Chronology: 2018. Aim of the Design Research The lack of common definitions and survey methodologies makes country comparison difficult; however, 100 million people were estimated to be homeless worldwide in 2014,15 while 410 thousand people were reported homeless in Europe in 201716, and four million people were sleeping rough at least once a year. In Italy, a November and December 201417 survey calculated that there were 50.724 homeless. In order to deal with this challenge, an alliance with the “Good Guys” association of Monza was established, which led to the Tatami Shelter project target, which has designed and built minimum temporary housing units intended to provide homeless shelter in urban spaces. The specific objective is to develop a shelter with a dual day/night use and therefore with a shifting configuration. While settled in its open position during the day, the module provides a small rest space with shaded seating, whereas it can be closed overnight and converted into a homeless shelter, equipped with a lavatory and basic facilities for sleeping and cooking. This inspiring strategy creates a link between shelter and the surrounding urban environment and activities, reducing the boundaries between different social uses in the same collective spaces. The project applies the concepts of use temporariness and space transitivity, by which it is expected to contribute in reducing the entropy processes at multiple scales (Fig. 4.35). User participation in the process is a further innovative aspect of the project. The housing deployment module is indeed designed to be performed with active citizen participation, while the users can directly operate the daily conversion from one configuration to another. These features of the project become a trigger for municipal social inclusion and participation programmes. A modular grid was defined to trace the reference for the design, taking inspiration from that of the traditional Japanese Tatami module, from which the project name comes. The Tatami Shelter is equivalent to four and half tatami modules, approximately 7 m2 of ground surface and is 2.6 m high. Its design concept is that of a dynamic transforming object, leading to its space flexibility and time variability features (Fig. 4.36). Three couples of rails are arranged on a paved urban space, allowing three of the system elements to slide along the rails, while the fourth element is   The data is provided by: Global Homelessness Statistics https://homelessworldcup.org/ homelessness-statistics/ 16  The data is provided by: Europe and Homelessness, Alarming trends https://www.feantsa.org/en/ report/2018/03/21/the-second-overview-of-housing-exclusion-in-europe-2017 17  The data is provided by: Istat, Le persone senza dimora https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/175984 15

140

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Fig. 4.35  Tatami Shelter. The concept design and main strategies

4.3  Living: The Social Emergency Models

Fig. 4.36  Tatami Shelter. The technological system

141

142

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

fixed to the ground. Each element houses a bench providing a shadowed daytime rest space (Fig. 4.37). In night setting, the mobile elements are pushed inside, so the system becomes a closed configuration, and each of its elements takes on a particular function, providing a table, four chairs, a bed and a storage cupboard for the homeless (Fig. 4.38). Temporary and Emergency Living A transitional liveability has emerged nowadays as a possible emergency response to the increasing number of homeless. The research addresses the development of a replicable but provisional shelter module, not a permanent solution but hopefully a momentary response to homeless needs. The Tatami Shelter itself is indeed a possible means for homeless social reintegration, since finding a refuge and taking care of their living space can help them to re-establish a relationship with the community and without feeling exclusion. The four modules are structurally independent to allow their double configuration. Three of them are mobile, while the fourth one is fixed as it houses the toilet. The modules have a laminated wooden frame structure with wooden perforated cladding panels to which polycarbonate sheets are added as protection from atmospheric agents. The roofs are made of a wooden lath frame and polycarbonate sheets. As in traditional Japanese buildings, each module rests on a 45 cm laminated wooden base which prevents rising damp. The modules, together with the base, slide on pairs of tracks prepared before assembly, which trace the movement path of the modules. Once moved, the fixing systems ensure the modules remain locked. The toilet module, intended for the exclusive use of the homeless, is equipped with a sink under which there is a rotating toilet. The installation is off-grid: the water is collected from the module roofs and stored on site. By integrating a photovoltaic panel on the roof, it is also possible to produce electricity. In the daytime configuration, each module makes a seat available. If they want to read, users can take advantage of the shared books stored in the external panel of one of the modules. The fixed module of the toilet remains closed. In nighttime setting, the base becomes a useful container for the homeless’ belongings. Despite its simple appearance and self-sufficiency from the local infrastructure network, the house is equipped to ensure suitable user standards. The construction transience does not imply a lowering of the quality threshold. The innovation does not lie in new technological devices, but in exploiting available, low-cost materials, in performing simple assembly and promoting social innovation in the place where the installation is deployed. Circular Process: Contributing to Materials and Remanufacturing Components This research relates to temporariness features and economic issues when responding to a social emergency through a device that becomes an integrating element of the affected context. The Tatami Shelter design addresses innovation and environment, featuring space flexibility, the reversibility of the construction process and the lowering of management costs. Flexibility concerns both social and material resources, as the

4.3  Living: The Social Emergency Models

Fig. 4.37  Tatami Shelter from bench to shelter

143

144

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Fig. 4.38  Tatami Shelter activities diagrams

4.3  Living: The Social Emergency Models

145

spatiality, which is intended as the aptitude of a space to adapt to different needs by assuming mutable arrangements. The technical choices substantiate the project as part of an ecosystem; their target is to set up a circular economy process, as impact on the environment must be prevented even when an emergency is occurring: –– Building system: materials from renewable resources (laminated wooden frame, wood) that are also recyclable, such as the polycarbonate sheets –– Technical solutions: dry assembling and simple resting of the structure on the ground, without the need for foundations Since it refers to the traditional Japanese building in shape and size, the Tatami Shelter shares what Perriand observed (1949) arguing that the Tatami constructive and compositional value is in the ease of assembly and disassembly. In the desire to integrate this concept with that of circularity, we could define the project a reversible and circular architecture, in which each component returns to fulfil its function, beyond the duration of the building cycle. 4.3.1.2  MEPS: Modular EPS Components Place: not specified. Project team: F. Giglio (coordinator) with A. Russo, F. Giambra. Chronology: 2018. Aim of the Design Research MEPS, for Modular EPS, aims to experiment in the use of EPS in the building of housing modules meeting both different levels of temporariness and circular economy principles. The study was conducted in collaboration with Polyeffe  – Art Company, an Italian manufacturer of EPS components for different applications. The design path developed in two phases: a preliminary survey on existing solutions that led in defining the design requirements, followed by the module design, which aimed to integrate architectural, technological, structural and energy aspects. The project is based on a modular system providing functional living spaces and formal flexibility. Five prefabricated sintered expanded polystyrene (EPS) modules, measuring 250 × 260 × 100 cm capable of wheeled transportation, are connected by dry junctions ensuring their quick assembly and disassembly (Fig. 4.39). The modules are placed on the ground through adjustable metal bases. Passive and active devices ensure module energy efficiency (Fig. 4.40). The aggregability allows the system to meet the needs of different types of users and to be placed in different scenarios, including temporary emergency housing. Temporary and Emergency Living A set of five modules were designed, aimed at providing different configurations in relation to the required needs of studying, reading, resting, sleeping and meeting. The modules consist of two shells connected by joints. Two different types of upper and four lower shells allow varying module combinations by different assembly logics, according to the activities they house.

146

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Fig. 4.39  MEPS Modular EPS components. The concept design and main strategies

4.3  Living: The Social Emergency Models

Fig. 4.40  MEPS Modular EPS components. The technological system

147

148

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

The envisaged uses include: –– Urban design: One module. Each module is designed to work individually and therefore, given the features, can be used as indoor or outdoor furniture. –– Homeless: Two modules (sleeping, meeting) responding to the homeless phenomenon with a cheap solution. –– Sleep box: Three modules (sleeping, meeting, studying). Intended for short-term stays and can be placed both in public and private spaces. Equipped with a bed, power outlets to recharge electronic devices, Wi-Fi connection and a luggage storage compartment. –– Temporary house: Five modules. An in-depth study was devoted to this type, which is designed for use in both emergency contexts and temporary installation purposes. The module was designed to provide self-sufficient, off-grid energy, being equipped with two 300 watt photovoltaic panels and a 280 l boiler, serving the prefabricated kitchen-bathroom module in power and water, respectively. The energy concerns also inspired the building shape and orientation as well as the positioning and dimensions of its openings (Fig. 4.41). An aluminium sheet finishes the outer surface providing protection from atmospheric agents, while plywood sheets coat the inner surfaces. The coatings can be modified according to the requirements of each installation. All the EPS shells have profiled slots housing the aluminium profiles. These make the structure more stable, also providing the hooking for the external and internal cladding as well as the connection between modules. Circular Process: Contributing to Materials and Remanufacturing Components The assembly and disassembly process inspired by a circular, regenerative and reconstructive model is one of the project’s main targets. This has a specific implication within MEPS design, as it involves both the positive and negative geometries shaped from EPS blocks to form furniture within the interior liveable spaces. Each shell is made by shaping a 250  ×  140  ×  100 block of high-density EPS (35 kg/mc) by CNC heated wire pantograph. All the cut parts and the processing scraps, as well as any non-compliant products, re-enter the company production cycle as new raw material, which Italian regulations more properly define as ­“by-­product”18 (Fig.  4.42). In this way, the product life cycle is extended by a remanufacturing industrial process, minimising any waste. If the construction is dry assembled, the EPS components can be carried to the manufacturer at the end of

 The by-product, that is not classified as waste, is defined by Article 184-bis of D.Lgs. 152/2006 (relating to the 2008/98/CE Waste Directive). The by-products are commonly designated as “second raw materials”. Source: AIPE, Vol 17.

18

4.3  Living: The Social Emergency Models

149

Fig. 4.41  MEPS Modular EPS components. Alternation and variability of the modules according to the activities

150

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Fig. 4.42  MEPS Modular EPS components. Production process

References

151

their life cycle and recycled by the same process.19 This is also envisaged for MEPS modules, as a second option if direct reuse as integer elements cannot be performed. The same stages are planned for the wood used for the module internal coating, the aluminium profiles and coating sheets. Although some aspects need to be further investigated, MEPS project meets all the requirements examined during the definition of the theoretical research pathway. Simple technologies, dry connections and the use of recyclable materials help to increase the circularity potential of the building.

References AIPE, la nuova vita dell’EPS: le vie del riciclo, Report AIPE, Vol. 17, Milano. AIPE, Riciclare l’EPS, polistirene espanso sinterizzato, Report AIPE, Vol. 12, Milano. Bonnefin, I. (2018). Emerging materials: Recycled plastic. Certified Energy. Cambier, C., Elsen, S., Galle, W., Lanckriet, W., Poppe, J., Tavernier, I., & Vandervaeren, C. (2019). Building a circular economy. Vrije Universiteit Brussel VUB Architectural Engineering. Chimenz, L. (2017). Microarchitetture o macrodesign? Temporary Italian design for emergency. Area, (151), 12–17. COM. (2015). Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the European council and the council “Managing the refugee crisis: State of play of the implementation of the priority actions under the European agenda on migration”, 510 final, Bruxelles, 14.10.2015. COM. (2019). Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the European council and the council “Progress report on the implementation of the European agenda on migration”, 126 final, Bruxelles, 6.3.2019. Giglio, F., & Savoja, G. (2017). Reversible Design, urban micro-architectures and experimentation of sustainable closed processes. In D. Flaccovio (Ed.), Catalano, I rifiuti come risorsa per il progetto sostenibile. II Convegno Internazionale “Riduci, Ripara, Riusa, Ricicla” (pp. 129– 140). Ita: Pisa. Horden, R. (2004). Microarchitecture: Review of the past and future perspectives. Detail, Micro-­ architecture, 12, 1422–1427. Horden, R. (2008). Micro architecture: Lightweight, mobile and ecological buildings for the future. Thames & Hudson. McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (1992). The Hannover principles: Design for Sustainability: Prepared for EXPO 2000, the World’s fair, William McDonough Architects. McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2003). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. Vintage Books. Moraitis, P., Schropp, R. E. I., & Van Sark, W. G. J. H. M. (2018). Nanoparticles for luminescent solar concentrators – A review. Optical Materials, Elsevier, 84, 636–645. 19  The EU policies concerning the production process circularity especially focus on the EPS life cycle, as it is considered having high environmental impacts due to be an oil derivative material (Piana and Consonni 2018). Despite it, EPS is 98% air, and therefore the use of raw material for its production is minimal compared to the volume obtained. It is also 100% recyclable without process losses, and most EPS products can be reused.

152

4  Assessing the Circular Potential: Design, Build, Living Reversible

Norberg-Schulz, C. (1976). Genius loci. Lotus International, (13), 6–23. Perriand, C. (1949). Au Japon in “L’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui”. Perriccioli, M. (2008). L’opinione. Detail Costruire semplice, (6), 4–6. Piana, M., & Consonni, E. (a cura di). (2018). Economia circolare: per l’EPS è già realtà, Report AIPE, no. 74, Milano. Rogora, A., & Lo Bartolo, D. (2013). Costruire alternativo. Wolters Kluwer Italy: Materiali e tecniche alternative per un’architettura sostenibile. Wachsmann, K. (1960). Una svolta nelle costruzioni. Milano: Il saggiatore.

Chapter 5

Building Strategies for Circular Economy: New Visions and Knowledge Production for European Research Abstract  This chapter linked the technological strategies fuelling the transition to the circular economy in building sector with the new visions and trajectories of European research. The aim is to highlight possible opportunities to further explore the issues addressed in the previous chapters for the benefit of our readers and the advancement of the discipline. Three topics were identified, which brought together the main theoretical and applicative aspects that were addressed. The first highlights the impact of disruptive technologies that sprawl within the building sector, driven by the overall sustainability target (Sect. 5.1). The second connects the Low-Tech approach in building design to the strategies for remanufacturing that are applied to the whole production processes, aimed at increasing their reversibility (Sect. 5.2), while the third topic focuses on the new requirements of the circular buildings (Sect. 5.3), making them particularly suitable in feeding an innovation dynamic within the sector centred on Low-Tech options.

The circular economy is a priority for the European Green Deal, the new strategy for growth which is an integral part of the European Commission’s strategy to implement the 2030 Global Agenda and achieve the United Nations’ Sustainable Development targets. The Green Deal is “a new growth strategy that aims to transform the EU into a fair and prosperous society, with a modern, resource efficient and competitive economy in which economic growth is decoupled from the use of resources, and where there are no net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050” (COM 2019). This strategy aims to halt – and possibly to lighten – the increasing pressures we place on our planet’s resources, ecosystems, climate and biodiversity. Since it relates to the twelfth UN Sustainable Development Goal (UN-SDG) concerning Responsible Consumption and Production, this strategy provides an important contribution to the 2030 Global Agenda (COM 2019). The European Green Deal roadmap includes specific action to stimulate resource efficiency and the transition to a circular and clean economy, which halts climate change, ends biodiversity loss and reduces pollution. The Plan includes “requirements on how we do things” within a framework of sustainable product policy aiming at using fewer materials and ensuring that products can be reused and recycled. The need for © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 E. Antonini et al., Emergency Driven Innovation, Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55969-4_5

153

154

5  Building Strategies for Circular Economy: New Visions and Knowledge Production…

investments and financing instruments is also outlined by the strategy as a means to ensure a fair and inclusive transition involving all sectors of the e­ conomy, including the building sector, which is featured in all points of the strategy (Fig. 5.1). This socio-ecological transition has been identified by the European Commission as a major challenge within the roadmap of future development, requiring new models of innovation and new ways for disseminating knowledge within society (Carayannis et al. 2012). This makes innovation one of the most important elements of the development strategies. Thanks to its socio-economic targets and disruptive vision, the Low-Tech approach better integrates the quintuple helix innovation model, as defined by Carayannis and Campbell (2009). In fact, among other innovation models, it strongly involves institutional subjects (universities-industry-government), civil society and the natural environment in circular economy processes (Carayannis et al. 2012). Since it recognises the ecological transition of twenty-first century society and economy, the quintuple helix model is a model which is highly sensitive to the environment, which has evolved over time to better adapt to environmental changes, advances in knowledge and the technological progress. The quintuple helix model establishes nature as the fundamental central component for innovation and knowledge production in the transformation to a bio-based society (Franc and Karadžija 2019) (Figs. 5.2 and 5.3).

Fig. 5.1  The European Green Deal. (Source: European Commission 2019)

5  Building Strategies for Circular Economy: New Visions and Knowledge Production…

155

Fig. 5.2  Knowledge production and innovation in the context of the knowledge economy, knowledge society (knowledge democracy) and the natural environments of society. (Modified from Carayannis and Campbell 2012, p 18; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000, p 112; Danilda et al. 2009; Source: Carayannis et al. 2012)

Fig. 5.3  The subsystems of the quintuple helix model. (Modified from Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000, p. 111; Carayannis and Campbell 2009, p. 207; 2010, p. 62; Source: Carayannis et al. 2012)

156

5  Building Strategies for Circular Economy: New Visions and Knowledge Production…

Moreover, the helix model provides a useful framework for transdisciplinary (and interdisciplinary) analysis of sustainable development and social ecology, as it highlights the need for collaboration among different stakeholders when growth and development are the targets (Carayannis and Campbell 2010). In order to maintain socio-eco-transition as the target, the EU is working on a transformation to the quintuple helix approach. Through the Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Union aims to reach the highest environmental standards and involve all the stakeholders in this process. The next challenge will be the implementation of those measures within the Member States, since their integration is heterogeneous. However, many countries have already made progress to support innovation and sustainable development (Franc and Karadžija 2019). In addition, the World Economic Forum Transformation Map identifies management and sharing of knowledge as the driving force for innovation. The map is in fact a dynamic, constantly updated, repository of knowledge about the issues affecting global development, from climate change, and the future of all industries. It has considered more than 120 topics and the connections and interdependencies between. Moreover, each map includes a feed with the latest research and analysis form the leading institutions and media from all the world. The purpose of this sentinel is to support more informed decision-making by detecting the complex and interlinked forces that are transforming economies, industries and people’s day lives on a global scale. The Transformation Map presents insights written by a range of experts from the World Economic Forum’s Expert Network Strategic Intelligence platform. Among the topics of the Strategic intelligence Transformation Map, we wish to highlight the topic SDG 12 “Responsible Consumption and Production”, together with strategic issues and related interdependencies. In particular, the map links the issues related to responsible consumption and production of resources in relation to the different aspects of the circular economy and many other multidisciplinary issues that show social implications such as demographic and demand shift, accelerating sustainability and environmentally sustainable consumerism. This paragraph addresses the question of how the products and service innovations are geared to meeting the citizens’ needs and drive the socio-economic growth of a specific area. What emerges is that this process requires at least two ingredients to succeed: effective interaction between the scientific milieu and industry and active citizen involvement within the innovation production. This implies a transition from technologically centred to socially centred innovation (Yawson 2009). This means that social innovations are an important instrument in achieving sustainable development and therefore coupled to the technological tools as an unavoidable trigger of them. The role social innovations play within this transition is already recognised in developed countries, and now it is becoming part of the strategies and innovation policies in developing countries too (Millard 2018). Various innovation theories and models have emerged over time and evolved as new knowledge which is available now. The perception that innovations are an important source of growth at global and local level has thus strengthened, pushing countries and companies to establish favourable frameworks for enhancing innovation practices (Fig. 5.4).

5.1 Emerging and Disruptive Sustainable Technologies

157

Fig. 5.4  Strategic intelligence transformation map on SDG 12 Responsible consumption and production. (Credits: image courtesy by World Economic Forum, Switzerland)

5.1  Emerging and Disruptive Sustainable Technologies Within the circular economy perspective, waste recovery and recycling allow materials to re-enter into the supply chain, thereby decoupling economic growth by the subtraction of environmental resources (Ghisellini et al. 2016). To implement this transformation towards a circular economy, a system-wide radical innovation is needed, which is strong enough to reshape the markets and value production processes (Christensen 1997; Stahel 2014). Thus, sustainability has the force to introduce many disruptive technologies (ING 2020). This is because shifting to a more sustainable order requires revising several consolidated paradigms on which the present socio-economic dynamics are still anchored.

158

5  Building Strategies for Circular Economy: New Visions and Knowledge Production…

As they operate at the system level, the changes that are needed are radical by nature, since they are new to the firms, their customers and suppliers, industry or even for the world. Such innovations can thus be destabilising for technical and economic structures and competence-destroying, as they impact on markets, firms, and industries and the whole process of value creation (Christensen 1997). Several disruptive emerging technologies are so reshaping the world in which we live, while the laws and regulations governing this innovation are also changing just as quickly. We intend as emerging technology: a technical innovation that overpasses the boundaries of a particular process, sector or application field, enabling radically new settings. Although the notion of emerging technology has been, and is, the subject of much academic debate and a central topic in policy discussions and initiatives, it still lacks some key basic elements, namely, a consensus on what classifies a technology as “emergent”, and real effort is necessary to design solutions that operationalise the core theoretical concept. According to Rotolo et al. (2016), a definition for emerging technology can be established by combining the current meaning of the term – particularly relating to the notion of “emergence” – with the outcomes of several key innovation studies on the topic. The resulting definition identifies five attributes that feature in the emergence of novel technologies. These are (i) radical novelty, (ii) relatively fast growth, (iii) coherence, (iv) prominent impact and (v) uncertainty and ambiguity (Rotolo et al. 2016). The disruptive technologies are whereas innovations driving the creation of new markets and eventually leading in the disruption of an existing market and related value networks, by displacing the earlier technology. This term, coined by Clayton M.  Christensen (1997), is often used in business and technology literature to describe innovations that improve a product or service in ways that the market does not expect. The theory of disruptive innovation has proved to be a powerful way of thinking about innovation-driven growth, so the term “disruptive innovation” is misleading when referring to a product or service singularly observed from a fixed point, instead of along its evolution over time. Innovation can so be defined as “disruptive” only when it originates in the lower, neglected and less profitable low-end footholds of a given market or when it creates a new market from below, enabling those who could not afford it in the dominant market to become consumers. Low costs and equally low performance usually characterise the products and services offered to the market (Christensen et al. 2015). The transition to the circular economy requires innovation trajectories in which both emerging and disruptive technologies converge, sometimes following distinct paths, or joined within an integrated innovative process. Where it concerns both product manufacturing and building construction processes, the Low-Tech approach can integrate this framework by different modes: –– As emerging technology, due to the sprawl and successful evolution that it has recorded over time

5.1 Emerging and Disruptive Sustainable Technologies

159

–– As disruptive technology, for its ability to affect the market, even on a small scale, by effectively exploiting its high economic, operational, distributive accessibility consistently with the definitions provided By funding specific action devoted to this topic (FET-Future Emerging Technologies, within the H2020 framework), the European Commission also looks at emerging technologies as an opportunity for innovation and development, to be promoted by supporting frontier research in science and technology, which explore alternative and unconventional pathways. FET actions are expected to initiate radically new technology routes, through as yet unexplored collaboration between advanced multidisciplinary scientific areas and cutting-edge engineering. This aims to help Europe to grasp the leadership in those promising and crucial future technology areas able to reinforce the Union’s competitiveness and growth. The FET programme has three complementary action lines adopting various methodologies and addressing different scales, from new ideas to long-term challenges: –– FET Open funds projects new ideas for radically new future technologies. This can involve a wide range of new technological possibilities, inspired by cuttingedge science, unconventional collaboration or new research and innovation practices. –– FET Proactive supports areas that are not yet ready for inclusion in industry research roadmaps, with the aim of building up and structuring new interdisciplinary research communities. –– FET Flagships are initiatives that focus on solving an ambitious scientific and technological challenge, such as developing new materials for the future (EU 2017). In addition to EU interest, developing countries are also paying great attention to emerging technologies, thanks to Humanitarian Innovation. The responses provided from humanitarian emergencies (as previously described in the text) act and still function as accelerators for innovation, using Low-Tech building technologies and construction processes as powerful leverages. Technological innovation is embraced as the best way to address the needs of those affected by humanitarian disaster and to address the challenges faced in humanitarian assistance, as also declared by the UN “Agenda for Humanity” (UN 2016). Interpretations of what this entails vary, however, between actors. The humanitarian aid funds devoted to research and development (R&D) are limited, while some global initiatives, such as the Global Alliance for Humanitarian Innovation (GAHI) and the Humanitarian Innovation Fund (HIF), facilitate (technological) innovation in humanitarian assistance. In addition, humanitarian organisations engage in-house capabilities in innovation activities and the private sector contributes by more traditional procurement and corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities as well as by co-creating initiatives. All these actors consider frugal innovation and innovation in and with local communities as vital to foster people

160

5  Building Strategies for Circular Economy: New Visions and Knowledge Production…

engagement. Since adopting innovation in humanitarian assistance requires changes in the current way of working, both operational schemes and implementation barriers need to be addressed for these actions to succeed. On the other hand, technological innovations are driving fundamental change in humanitarian assistance (STOA 2019). The discussions on research and technology policy focus mainly on the innovation dynamic of new technologies. Long-term growth, competitive advantages on the world market and employment effects are then only considered in the perspective of new high-tech products. According to this vision, the future of industrial sectors producing mature and conventional standard products is not a raised question at all. Such industrial sectors are regarded as “Low-Tech” (see Sect. 2.3), based on the well-known OECD 2003 categories classifying industry by four clusters (high-tech, medium-high-tech, medium-­low-­tech, low-tech). This scheme is often falsely used to identify innovative and hence “relevant” sectors, with the implicit meaning that high-tech is innovative by definition, while low-tech is not (Schwinge 2014). Many convincing examples however provide evidence of sectors and companies having successfully made innovation of Low-Tech Products in EU “high-tech countries”, such as those analysed by the research project “Policy and Innovation in Low-Tech Industries in Europe – PILOT” on the Low-Tech industrial development perspectives1 (Hirsch-Kreinsen 2008). Nonetheless, the expressions “radical innovation” or “disruptive innovation” are frequently used when discussing innovation as a transformative tool. Christensen et al. (2015) state, however, that the theory’s core concepts have been widely misunderstood and its basic tenets frequently misapplied. As a consequence, organisations risk choosing the wrong strategic approaches, thereby reducing their chances of success. This stems from the interruption by which a smaller company or a competitor with fewer resources is able to challenge a consolidated company. It targets customer needs and segments that are either overlooked or ignored by established business, which focus on improving their existing products and services for existing customers. The entrants often gain a foothold in low-end segments or new markets, by providing suitable and cheaper products and services and building different business models from the established ones. If successful, they will move upmarket later, targeting the mainstream customers (Fig. 5.5). When mainstream customers start adopting those new products and services in larger volumes, the disruption has occurred (STOA 2019). A process based on disruptive innovation can however take time, and often it does: “Complete substitution, if it comes at all, may take decades, because the incremental profit from staying with the old model for one more year trumps arguments to write off the assets in one stroke” (Christensen et al. 2015).

1  The research project PILOT (2002/2005) was funded by the European Commission under the Key Action “Improving the Socio-economic Knowledge Base” of FP5. Coordinator of project: University of Dortmund (UD.ESS.TS) Germany Prof. H. Hirsch-Kreinsen, PD Dr. Gerd Bender. Available at: www.pilot-project.org.

5.2 Remanufacturing Low-Tech Design

161

Fig. 5.5  Process of disruptive innovation. (Source: Christensen et al. 2015 in STOA 2019)

Several important drivers deriving from technological innovation push towards revised frames for innovation policies. Rapid technological change will have transformative and disruptive effects that may both advance and frustrate sustainable development. While the application of new and emerging technologies represents an opportunity for faster progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals, rapid technological change can also disrupt markets and economies, exacerbate social division and raise normative questions. Consideration of the direction, distribution and diversity of innovation pathways in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals could provide opportunities for policymakers to support new forms of innovation that avoid the economic, social and environmental stresses which arose during past technological eras. New and emerging technologies could facilitate new pathways towards sustainable development that also take into consideration its economic, social and environmental dimensions (UN 2019).

5.2  Remanufacturing Low-Tech Design Remanufacturing is a manufacturing process that involves dismantling a product, restoring and replacing its components and testing both the individual parts and the whole product to its original design specifications (ERN 2015). According to BS8887-Part 22, remanufacturing is an industrial practice of: “Returning a product to at least its original performance with a warranty that is equivalent or better than that of the newly manufactured product”. According to the Centre for Remanufacturing & Reuse, remanufacturing can be also defined by “a series of 2  British Standards Institution’s BS 8887-2:2009 Terms and Definitions, as part of the “MADE” series of standards (design for manufacture, assembly, disassembly and end-of-life processing)

162

5  Building Strategies for Circular Economy: New Visions and Knowledge Production…

manufacturing steps acting on an end-of-life part or product in order to return it to like-new or better performance, with warranty to match” (2007). A further useful definition (BMUB 2016) means remanufacturing as treatment for reuse of a used product which through various process steps is brought to at least the quality level of a new product. For this the collected used parts, so-called cores are disassembled, cleaned, inspected, rebuilt and re-assembled. Remanufactured products should not be understood as “used”, “refurbished”, “repaired” or “reused” but as new products with a new quality. In its Research Report, the ERN-European Remanufacturing Network explains that remanufacturing is an important component of a resource-efficient manufacturing industry and a key strategy within the circular economy: by keeping components and their embodied material resources (including “critical” or “advanced” materials) in use for longer, significant energy use and emissions to air and water can be avoided. In addition to its environmental benefits, remanufacturing provides opportunities for the creation of highly skilled jobs and economic growth. Despite these positives, remanufacturing is an undervalued part of the industrial landscape and an under-recognised, sustainable industry (ERN 2015). ERN is, actually, one of the most important research funds under the Horizon 2020 programme which surveyed remanufacturing activity by sector across the EU, identifying a number of high impact actions by which practitioners, policymakers and researchers could boost remanufacturing.3 Regeneration can be practiced in a wide range of industrial sectors, in which it can also take place through different processes. It is particularly attractive for capital-­intensive industries that produce durable products with relatively long life cycles. As the recycling is, remanufacturing is a key component of the circular economy and the preferred option for closing material loops, thanks to the high resource efficiency potential it performs (Lange 2017) (Fig. 5.6). The economic drivers for remanufacturing may include reduced costs of sold goods, reduced prices to the customer, supply risk mitigation and stronger value chain relationships.4 By shaping the product already suitable for re-fabrication, the design can strengthen the remanufacturing economic and ecological advantages. Thus, “Design for Remanufacturing” (DfRem) is a component of ecodesign which can lower the environmental impacts of a product over its entire life cycle (Sundin et al. 2008). The leverage effect of DfRem can be applied at both the strategic and the technical levels (Nasr and Thurston 2006): –– Technical level: concerns the employment of durable and adaptable processing technologies and of long-lasting, reliable materials, easily disassembled thanks to a modular, partly standardised product design

3  The ERN consortium partners have constructed an European wide market study on remanufacturing. Source: remanufacturing.eu. 4  The Centre for Sustainable Design, “Remanufacturing and Product Design”

5.2 Remanufacturing Low-Tech Design

163

Fig. 5.6  Instruments of a circular economy. (Source: Lange 2017)

–– Strategic level: consists of a comprehensive analysis of the market and consumer behaviour regarding re-fabricated products, as well as in defining effective marketing strategies and efficient collection chains. Over the last years, both the analysis and actions that benefit remanufacturing have been mostly addressed at the technical level (Prendeville and Bocken 2016). (Table 5.1). However, the greatest benefit obtained from a lasting product design is when the strategic level is also implicated (Prendeville and Bocken 2016) (Table 5.1). Some research activities on the subject have indeed addressed not only the product “remanufacturability” from a strictly technical point of view but also the conditions which allow a sustainable business for the company. Since conflicting aims can arise under certain circumstances within both the product development and on-duty stages, this can be prevented by producer responsibility, thus product ownership, when the product remains with the manufacturer over its entire life cycle (Nasr and Thurston 2006). Virtually every manufactured product may be remanufactured at the end of its life cycle. However, aspects such as the business model or product’s design make Table 5.1  Elements of DfRem – technical level Design For remanufacturing – technical level Product design in consideration of adaptive or adequate Technology Materials Use of durable technology Corrosion resistance extending beyond a life cycle Wear resistance Use of exchangeable technologies with the same Durability product design

Construction Ease disassembly

Ease cleaning Modular product design with low complexity Adequate joining processes Surface stability (functional and decorative (using pins, screws, etc.) layers) Design standardisation for product families, (among other)

Source: Lange (2017) Resource efficiency through remanufacturing, Zentrum Ressourceneffizienz

164

5  Building Strategies for Circular Economy: New Visions and Knowledge Production…

remanufacturing certain products more profitable than others or in some cases inconvenient. Some useful parameters in tracing the profile of a remanufacturable item are available in scientific literature. Parker (2003) identifies three key parameters: –– The intrinsic value, that is, the market value of the product being reprocessed –– The re-constructability, that is, the product aptitude for easy disassembly and then re-assembly at the end of the recovery process –– The evolution rate, that is, the speed at which new variants of the product are launched on the market Based on these parameters, Parker recommends a legislative intervention intended to allow the reuse of components into new products, to support investment in research on Design for Remanufacturing (DfRem) and to develop a system of ­services which extend the product’s lifecycle and possibly even update its formal and functional features (Parker 2003). Very few industrial sectors currently apply remanufacturing strategies (automotive, electronic, interior design), so the research challenge is to extend these practices to the whole building sector, while at present they are limited solely to furniture (chairs, desks, shelves, etc.) (Krystofik et al. 2018). In lightweight construction, for example, the saving of as much weight as possible can influence the material durability and hence oppose product use over multiple life cycles. Comprehensive consideration of product life cycle and a precisely defined aims are therefore crucial elements in establishing design strategies (Lange 2017). The entire remanufacturing process can be decomposed in three sequential subprocesses: disassembly, overhaul and re-assembly. “The coordination of these sub-­ systems is key for a successful production planning and control system” (Guide et al. 1999). According to Steinhilper (1998) and Sundin (2004), the activities that make up a regeneration process can be more detailed divided into: –– –– –– –– –– –– ––

Disassembly Inspection Sorting Cleaning Reprocessing Re-assembly Checking and testing

Empirical evidence shows that companies, involved in remanufacturing activities, organise their processes in different ways. Although the sequence disassembly-­ restore-­assembly appears to be a constant, activities such as inspection, cleaning or testing do not enjoy the same emphasis within the process. The sequence, therefore, must be chosen to consider the recovery process, the characteristics of the product and the technology available for treatment.

5.3 Parameters for Circular Building Eco-innovation

165

The disassembly activity is located upstream of the process and is extremely critical, since its implementation directly affects the quality of recovered material for subsequent activities. This step plays a central role in preserving the value of recovered cores, while its effectiveness is directly influenced by the design quality and its capability to meet not only the customer requirements but also the needs for recovery by higher environmental-friendly criteria. (Gallo et al. 2012). With regard to its technological, material and constructive aspects, transferring the technical level of DfR to the building sector has more direct implications than those induced by low technology applications, which the text has previously discussed. Even if Low-Tech building often adopts dry connections which provide easy assembly/disassembly features, the main character shared by both approaches is the use of “simple” materials and components. This concerns the physical constitution of the building element (a monolayer and mono-material component is more easily disassembled than a multi-layer, plurimaterial component), as with their connection techniques (as dry connections are more performatives) and component shape design (modularity, standardisation). Our aim, therefore, proposes the concept of remanufacturing adapted to Low-Tech design practices, which we interpret as a conjugation and extension of both processes. Low-Tech technologies are indeed particularly suitable for remanufacturing schemes in a circular economy framework, as regarding both the process and product stages. In fact, their aptitude for easy recovery within the production cycle meets the process requirements, while their standardisation, modularity, connection system and materials features comply with those of a remanufacturing product needs.

5.3  Parameters for Circular Building Eco-innovation Addressing the innovation issue from not only economic but also from social and environmental dimensions is the main challenge towards the transition to a greener, cleaner and more equitable economic growth, with the policy and governance effects this implies (Bleischwitz et al. 2009). According to the three pillar SD model, this requires that innovation be optimised by considering the combined sustainability of its social, environmental and economic effects. Therefore, integrating sustainability into innovation policies is not an easy task (Hines and Marin 2004). Although scientific literature does not provide a sharp distinction between environmental and non-environmental innovation (Hellström 2007), the main efforts seem to mainly concern the environmental scope. Environmental or eco-innovations include all the measures taken by relevant actors (i.e. firms, politicians, unions, associations, churches) which: –– Develop, apply or introduce new ideas, behaviour products and processes into the market

166

5  Building Strategies for Circular Economy: New Visions and Knowledge Production…

–– Contribute in reducing environmental burdens or reaching specified sustainability targets (Klemmer et al. 1999) The strategy of eco-innovation is recent and therefore is under a continual process of development and review (Buttol et al. 2012). Although the notion of eco-­ innovation is very broad-ranging, one of the widely known definitions is that “it is the production, assimilation or exploitation of a product, production process, service or management or business method that is novel to the organisation (developing or adopting it) and which results, throughout its life cycle, in a reduction of environmental risk, pollution and other negative impacts on resources used (including energy use) compared to the relevant alternatives” (Kemp and Pearson 2008). The Eco-Innovation Observatory (EIO) defines eco-innovation as “the introduction of any new or significantly improved product (good or service), process, organisational change or marketing solution that reduces the use of natural resources (including materials, energy, water and land) and decreases the release of harmful substances across the whole life-cycle” (EIO 2012), while the OECD Oslo Manual for the collection and interpretation of innovation data describes innovation as “the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service), or process, a new marketing method, or a new organisational method in business practices, workplace organisation or external relations” (OECD and Eurostat 2005, p. 46). This definition generally applies to eco-innovation, but eco-innovation has two further significant, distinguishing characteristics: –– It is an innovation that explicitly emphasises a reduction on the environmental impact, whether such an effect is intended or not. –– It includes innovation in social and institutional structures, which do not limit products, processes, marketing and organisational methods (Rennings 2000). Eco-innovation and its environmental benefits go beyond the innovator conventional organisational boundaries to enter the broader societal context through changes in social norms, cultural values and institutional structures. This can be understood and analysed according to its targets (the main focus), its mechanisms (methods for introducing changes to the target) and its impacts (the effects on environmental conditions) (OECD 2009). In general, eco-innovations are a special kind of innovation that contribute in creating new solutions by providing added value to consumers and businesses (Makara et  al. 2016) by significantly reducing their impact on the environment, which is the basic feature distinguishing them from other types of innovation. The OECD Report “Sustainable Manufacturing and Eco-Innovation” (2009) provides a simple illustration of the general conceptual relations between sustainable manufacturing and eco-innovation (Fig. 5.7). The sustainable manufacturing steps are related to their primary eco-innovation implications, depicting the innovation targets (on the left) and mechanisms (at the bottom). The waves spreading towards the upper right corner indicate path dependencies for different sustainable manufacturing concepts. While more integrated sustainable manufacturing initiatives – such as closed-loop production – can potentially yield higher environmental

5.3 Parameters for Circular Building Eco-innovation

167

Fig. 5.7 Conceptual relationships between sustainable manufacturing and eco-innovation. (Source: OECD 2009)

improvements in the medium to long term, they can only be made through a combination of widening the range of innovation targets and mechanisms, therefore covering a larger area of the map. The importance of undertaking eco-innovation was emphasised in the basic strategy for EU further development “Europe 2020: Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth for 2014–2020” as one of its seven flagship initiatives in the package called “Innovation Union”. The EU planned transition to a circular economy is fostering eco-innovation development at the macro-, meso- and micro-levels (Smol et al. 2017). The context of eco-innovation may determine how successfully the innovation is received and diffused, but finding opportunities for innovation first requires an understanding of where it comes from and which direction the innovation should take (increasing quality of products, improving ecological environment, diversifying products, etc.) (Gjoski 2011). More recently, the goal of creating a circular economy has come to prominence as a systemic response to environmental constraints. According to the Eco-­ Innovation Observatory (2018), “Eco-innovation is the change implemented to achieve the aims of the EU Circular Economy agenda”. The overarching idea is to “decouple” growth from resource use, thereby protecting the environment, reducing pollution, reducing business costs and developing our economies. As a result of solid policy backing, eco-innovation has been well integrated into the EC funding mechanisms. According to the Report “A Policy Brief from the Policy Learning Platform on Environment and resource efficiency” (2019), the next proposals beyond Horizon 2020 give the eco-innovation/circular economy/decoupling agenda even greater support and an even larger share of the funding under the main programmes, such as Horizon Europe. The new actions will emphasise mission-­ oriented policy support, which means setting precise goals and aims achievable

168

5  Building Strategies for Circular Economy: New Visions and Knowledge Production…

through research funding. Many of the missions (replacing the current set of measures called societal challenges) will have an eco-innovation/circular economy dimension. As regards design, technology and management implications, their close and complex relations within the circular economy are clearly identified in the Transforming Map of the Strategic Intelligence World Economic Forum, which highlights the ever-changing debate in progress and the integration of these issues relating to all aspects of quality of life (Fig. 5.8). The map identifies the main circular economy-related topics, recording the different links each topic enjoys with intervention strategies and policies for all sectors converging in the transition process, which also include the construction sector and the circular building concept, as already examined. Transferring the eco-innovation model for the circular economy to the building sector requires the identification of new parameters for both design and building, which are better able to define what can be called a circular building.

Fig. 5.8  Strategic intelligence Transformation Map on circular economy. (Credits: image courtesy by World Economic Forum, Switzerland)

5.3 Parameters for Circular Building Eco-innovation

169

With this aim in mind, the text has identified both important European experiences and six different design strategies in line with the principles of the circular economy, from which eco-innovation principles and objectives for circular buildings can be drawn. An example of the contents that the research can bring to this knowledge is “Buildings as Material Banks” (BAMB), which promotes tools such as electronic materials passports (see Sect. 3.3) and reimagines the building as a dynamic datatracked repository of tradable value (Ramboll 2019). Therefore, Eco-innovation, based on its definition and extension meaning, can represent a suitable connection field between those parameters describing the circular construction and those assessing building solutions compliance with the Low Tech principles. The entire construction supply chain needs to be involved in order to achieve circular construction, including the architects and owners who decide whether to reuse or demolish an old building, the construction suppliers of bio-­ based building materials and the smart demolition firms providing used building materials of high grade, intended for reuse. Thus, the wholesalers can also take on the role of resource banks, selling used materials. This means that all the supply chain partners, from owner and architect to demolisher, need to embrace circular principles for the process to succeed (Van Sante 2019). Since innovation plays a key role in moving manufacturing industries towards sustainable production, both industry and government need to better understand how and by what means the transition to a sustainable future can be made. Eco-innovation can facilitate sustainable manufacturing initiatives evolving to reach higher targets, switching from traditional pollution control to measures for cleaner production, from waste management to closed-loop production strategies which adopt a life cycle view. These complex, advanced eco-innovation processes are often referred to as system innovation, i.e. as an innovation characterised by fundamental shifts in how society functions and meets its needs (Geels 2005). Although system innovation may have its source in technological advances, technology alone will not produce a great enough difference if it is not coupled with changes in organisational and social structures and cultural values (OECD 2009). Eco-innovation also benefits enormously from close collaboration between relevant actors on a regional level, such as regional policymakers, research institutions located in the region and regional representations of national business associations, clusters, industrial symbiosis synergies, etc. Insufficient collaboration between these actors is a common weakness hampering eco-innovation. The introduction of regulatory incentives or restrictions on a national or EU level can trigger positive trends, by driving the construction and property industry to move faster to sustainable buildings and the users to raise their requirements for environmental awareness and responsibility (Ramboll 2019).

170

5  Building Strategies for Circular Economy: New Visions and Knowledge Production…

References Bleischwitz, R., Welfens, P. J. J., & Zhang, Z. (2009). In Bleischwitz, Welfens, & Zhang (Eds.), Sustainable growth and resource productivity economic and global policy issues. Greenleaf Publishing Limited. BMUB. (2016). German resource efficiency programme II. Programme for the sustainable use and conservation of natural resources (1st ed.). Berlin: BMUB. Buttol, P., Buonamici, R., Naldesi, L., Rinaldi, C., Zamagni, A., & Masoni, P. (2012). “Integrating services and tools in an ICT platform to support eco-innovation” in SMEs. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 14(2), 211–221. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). Mode 3 and Quadruple Helix: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3/4), 201–234. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2010). Triple Helix, quadruple Helix and quintuple Helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1(1), 41–69. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. 21st-century democracy, innovation, and entrepreneurship for development (Springer briefs in business (Vol. 7)). New York: Springer. Carayannis, E.  G., Barth, T.  D., & Campbell, D.  F. J. (2012). The quintuple Helix innovation model: Global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Enterpreneurship, Springer open Journal. Centre for Remanufacturing & Reuse. (2007). An introduction to remanufacturing, Envirowise. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. University of Illinois. Christensen, C.  M., Raynor, M.  E., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disruptive innovation? Harvard Business Review, 44–53. Danilda, I, Lindberg, M, & Torstensson, B-M (2009). Women resource centres. A Quattro Helix innovation system on the European agenda. Paper. http://www.hss09.se/own_documents/ Papers/3-11%20-%20Danilda%20Lindberg%20&%20Torstensson%20-%20paper.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2012. Eco-Innovation Observatory (EIO). (2012). Methodological report. Eco-Innovation Observatory. Funded by the European Commission, DG, Environment, Brussels, Belgium. Eco-Innovation Observatory (EIO). (2018). Eco-Innovation of products: Case studies and policy lessons from EU Member States for a product policy framework that contributes to a circular economy, Biannual report. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “mode 2” to a triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123. European Commission. (2019). Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions. “The European Green Deal”, Bruxelles 11.12.2019 COM (2019) 640 final. European Remanufacturing Network (ERN). (2015). Remanufacturing market study, Research report. European Union. (2017). From great science to thrilling technology. Europe’s future and Emerging Technologies programme. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. European Union. (2019). A policy brief from the policy learning platform on environment and resource efficiency, Report Interreg Europe. Franc, S., & Karadžija, D. (2019). Quintuple helix approach: The case of the European Union. Notitia – Journal for Economic, Business and Social Issues, (5), 91–100.

References

171

Gallo, M., Romano, E., & Santillo, L.  C. (2012). A perspective on remanufacturing business: Issues and opportunities. In V.  Bobek (Ed.), International trade from economic and policy perspective. Intechopen. Geels, F.  W. (2005). Technological transitions and system innovations: A co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 11–32. Gjoski, N. (2011). Innovation and sustainable development: Linkages and perspectives for policies in Europe, ESDN Quarterly Report June. Guide, V.  D. R., Jayaraman, V., & Srivastava, R. (1999). Production planning and control for remanufacturing: A state-of-the-art survey. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 15, 221–230. Hellström, T. (2007). Dimensions of environmentally sustainable innovation: The structure of eco-­ innovation concepts. Sustainable Development, 15, 148–159. Hines, F., & Marin, O. (2004). Building innovations for sustainability. 11th international conference of the Greening of Industry Network, Volume 13, Issue 4, Special Issue: Innovating for Sustainability, Wiley Online Library. Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. (2008). Low tech innovations. Industry and Innovation, 15(1), 19–43. ING. (2020). Sustainability needs will drive future disruptive innovations. ING Wholesale Banking. Kemp, R., & Pearson, P. (2008). Final report MEI project about measuring eco-innovation: Deliverable, 15 of MEI project (D15). Klemmer P., Lehr U., & Löbbe, K. (1999). Environmental innovation volume 3 of publications from a Joint Project on innovation impacts of environmental policy instruments. Synthesis report of a project commissioned by the German Ministry of Research and Technology, Analytica-Verlag, Berlin. Krystofik, M., Luccitt, A., Parnell, K., & Thurston, M. (2018). Adaptive remanufacturing for multiple lifecycles: A case study in office furniture. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 135, 14–23. Lange, U. (2017). Resource efficiency through remanufacturing, Centrum Ressourceeneffizienz. Makara, A., Smol, Kulczycka, J., & Kowalski, Z. (2016). Technological, environmental and economic assessment of sodium tripolyphosphate production–a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 133, 243–251. Millard, J. (2018). How social innovation underpins sustainable development. In J.  Howaldt, C. Kaletka, A. Schröder, & M. Zirngiebl (Eds.), Atlas of social innovation – New practices for a better future (Sozialforschungsstelle). Dortmund: Dortmund University. Nasr, N., & Thurston, M. (2006). Remanufacturing: A key enabler to sustainable product systems [online]. In Proceedings of the 13th CIRP in-ternational conference on life cycle engineering (LCE), 2006, Leuven, Belgium. OECD. (2003). OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard 2003. OECD Publishing. OECD. (2009). Sustainable manufacturing and eco-innovation framework, Practices and measurement, Synthesis Report. OECD and Eurostat. (2005). Oslo Manual, Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data, third edition. OECD publications. Parker, D. (2003). Remanufacturing in the UK: A significant contributor to sustainable development? Aylesbury: Oakdene Hollins. Prendeville, S., & Bocken, N. (2016). Design for remanufacturing and circular business models. In Sustainability through innovation in product life cycle design, Part III (pp. 269–283). Singapore: Springer. Ramboll. (2019). Sustainable buildings market study 2019, Green Market study. Rennings, K. (2000). Redefining innovation: Eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics. Journal of Ecological Economics, 32, 319–332.

172

5  Building Strategies for Circular Economy: New Visions and Knowledge Production…

Rotolo, D., Hicks, D., & Martin, B. (2016). What is an emerging technology? Research Policy. Schwinge, I. (2014). The paradox of knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship in low tech industries. Springer. Smol, M., Avdiushchenko, A., & Kulczycka, J. (2017). Circular economy indicators in relation to eco-innovation in European regions. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 19(3). Stahel, W. R. (2014). The business angle of a circular economy. Higher competitiveness, higher resource security and material efficiency. In E. M. Foundation (Ed.), A new dynamic. Effective business in circular economy. Steinhilper, R. (1998). Remanufacturing: The ultimate form of recycling. Stuttgart: Frauenhofer IRB Verlag. STOA. (2019). Technological innovation for humanitarian aid and assistance, European Parliament research report. Sundin, E. (2004). Product and process design for successful remanufacturing. In Production systems dissertation. Linköping, Sweden: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Linköping University. Sundin, E., Östlin, J., Rönnbäck, A. Ö., Lindahl, M., & Sandström G. Ö. (2008). Remanufacturing of products used in product service system offerings. In: M. Mitsuishi, K. Ueda, & F. Kimura (Eds.), Manufacturing systems and technologies for the new frontier. London: Springer. UN. (2016). One humanity: Shared responsibility, Report of the Secretary General for the World Humanitarian Summit. UN. (2019) The impact of rapid technological change on sustainable development, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Van Sante, M. (2019). Circular construction, ING Economic Department. Yawson, R. M. (2009). The ecological system of innovation: A new architectural framework for a functional evidence-based platform for science and innovation policy. SSRN Electronic Journal.

Conclusions: Rethinking Low-Tech Strategies

Emergency-driven innovation. Low-Tech buildings and circular design – the aim of this book is to envisage the building sector of the future, showing how low technologies become the enablers for the transition of building to the circular economy, through innovation. The concepts of temporariness and emergency and their evolution were initially outlined by means of a theoretical reference apparatus. They were then positioned within Low-Tech strategies in industry, economy and building, to demonstrate the response to circular economy dynamics. The book focusses on a variety of innovative and experimental features, namely: –– The circular economy and developing countries in emergency conditions In recent years, the idea of a circular economy that looks to developing countries and their inhabitants has gained more and more ground, as a path towards a more prosperous global economy. The need for a radical transformation in the way natural resources are used has been largely recognised, referenced by a number of recent internationally relevant events (Pacific Summit 2019 – WCEF 2019) whose main concern is to ensure a suitable supply to the future generations. The optimisation of resource replenishment cycles along their value chains could help meet the material needs of the rapidly growing world population by drastically lowering per capita resource exploitation rates. This means that developing countries are a crucial driver for the development of both the circular economy and widespread use of low technology, as their economic poverty often makes them more “circular” than richer countries. Structural constraints and variety of conditions – whether institutional capacity, technology shortage, access to finance – will require different paths to the circular economy. While developing countries are in a strong position to take advantage of the new opportunities of a more sustainable economy, much economic activity in lower-income countries revolves around sorting and reusing waste. However, many

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 E. Antonini et al., Emergency Driven Innovation, Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55969-4

173

174

Conclusions: Rethinking Low-Tech Strategies

opportunities in reusing and remanufacturing are present, often high-value and employment-generating, yet most of have simply not been seized. The circular economy could become one of the most disruptive drivers for change within society and the economy in the near future. According to the circularity gap report (2020), in 2019, only 8.6% of the global economy was circular. Therefore, with regard to circularity, we are all “developing countries”: despite our starting from different points, all have a distance to cover and many share common elements in their journey. Closing the circularity gap serves the prime objective of preventing both further environmental degradation and social inequality. As laid out in the UN-Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement, countries have an important and pivotal role to play in this. Some that operate within the ecologic boundaries of the planet’s resources do not even meet the most basic social needs. Conversely, other countries provide their citizens with increasingly high welfare levels but far exceed the sustainable rate of planet resource withdrawal. Various experiences and data highlight how emergency situations, particularly characterised in developing countries, represent a set of models and solutions, including different levels of innovation, which could create considerable opportunities when transferred to western countries. –– Humanitarian Innovation and temporary shelter Many emblematic examples of temporary shelters show how the housing response to emergencies in developing countries can bring innovation, as occurs in other areas, such as social or planning strategies. The design of temporary emergency shelters has become a field of application in which humanitarian bodies have performed innovative political and design strategies. Aiming at promoting innovative strategies and technologies for developing countries, the Humanitarian Agencies and Associations have shaped the notion of Humanitarian Innovation and practised this model, forming a reference approach for operating in this field. Several operations developed by humanitarian bodies (UNHCR, UN-HABITAT) in collaboration with skilled architects have shown how constraints can be converted into opportunities. So, the need for immediacy, limited availability of solely local materials and access to simple technologies have not prevented unconventional provision, which has developed into effective responses to emergency housing demand. The “bottom-up” approach is the key ingredient in this process: locally available cheap materials, low-cost building techniques and active user participation in construction have become drivers for innovation and enablers for the circular economy. This successful approach can represent an opportunity for innovating the building process and construction methods in Western countries too. The same context has been addressed by other partnerships which also adopted low technologies, but within a “top-down” approach, which was often focused on lightweight, innovative materials and easy assembly (as for the shelter modules developed by UNHCR with IKEA). In this case, Humanitarian Innovation was

Conclusions: Rethinking Low-Tech Strategies

175

p­ rincipally geared to developing technical innovation that shapes the technology arrangement of the process alongside its outcomes. The top-down approach was adopted by a large degree of Humanitarian Innovation undertakings, sometimes implicitly, while others applied locally appropriate bottom-up solutions. This latter condition is the most favourable in developing the concept of “reverse innovation”, i.e. an innovation spread within the industrialised world after first settling in developing countries. Using the notion of “creative destruction” by Schumpeter (1942) together with the Skidmore and Toya (2002) concept of “disaster as opportunity in adopting new technologies”, a catastrophe often takes on a dual aspect as a destructive process of transformation and driver of innovation. –– An evolved definition of Low Tech Within those contexts, the Low Tech option aims to provide an alternative to technological complexity, but moving away from the rhetoric of the Low Tech/vernacular architecture dichotomy, it refers, instead, to a more evolved attitude. This moves in line with the “low” level of technological intensity of manufacturing industries defined by OECD, thus closer to the dynamics to which industrial sectors are aiming to enhance their sustainability and circularity. –– Towards the concept of circular building Several building design strategies targeted circular production cycles, by various means. Most of them, however, seem to converge with the concept of circular building, which summarises these shared principles and methods. In parallel, the improvement in reversibility of both production and construction processes increases the ease of disassembly of devices, whatever their function, thus creating favourable conditions for their recoverability. This leads to an increasing use of unconventional materials, which expands the traditional concept of local material to a wider horizon. In addition to the effects on design and construction practices, the Low-Tech option thus triggers a powerful shift in all the production schemes. This book provides a mapping of Low-Tech principles and strategies feeding the transition processes towards the circular economy, by classifying them on the basis of three reading keys: design and new materials, building and reversibility, living standards and social models. Several projects were selected – from the literature for design and from research experiences for build and living – as examples of what can define “circular buildings” regarding the technical arrangements and features, material choices, process reversibility, as the social and participative dimensions. Design: Due to the peculiar conditions implied by emergency or temporariness, an extension of the concept of local material emerges from the selected cases, thus stimulating intensifying the notion of genius loci in its application latitude and in its possible widening. Build: Ensuring the reversibility feature can combine project choices regarding technologies and the assembly and disassembly processes, maintaining

176

Conclusions: Rethinking Low-Tech Strategies

c­onsistency with the local operational conditions. This leads to different responses and results, yet all share the same target of circular potential enhancement. Living: The human-centred design approach appears to be particularly suitable in valorising the relationships between Low Tech, circular economy and the whole set of housing quality, material comfort and well-being that architecture can provide its user, which is summarised as living conditions. Despite the complexity it involves, this design method shows great potential in achieving sustainable goals through innovation in building. –– 8 Principles of low building technologies from humanitarian associations guidelines Post-disaster emergency housing in very poor contexts provides many additional arguments on the potential of Low-Tech innovation. Eight useful principles in managing the low technology approach in building have been established for this purpose. They have been drawn from the Humanitarian Agencies’ strategic and operational guidelines on shelter provision. A description is provided for each source, extracting from them the principles and practices which are also applicable in Western construction contexts: 1. Cultural appropriateness: An appropriate shelter design is such when it meets user needs, respects the local culture, integrates the vulnerability and capabilities of the affected community and sustains itself by the resources available. Although in emergency conditions the site choice is often limited, the shelter location is often more important than its design (IFRC 2013, UNHCR 2015). Even when – and sometimes because  – they blossom in the poorest and resource deprived contexts, the appropriate technologies maintain the principle of preserving the value of the relationship between context, local culture and social needs. As technical and technological appropriateness is a changing and evolving concept, it better suits the needs for resource conservation driven by climate change at a global scale. Although not explicitly stated as a circular economy aim, the appropriateness provides a founding principle in sustainable resource management. 2. Modular design: The shelter design brief should encourage flexibility, adaptability and easy upgrading of the project, which should provide kits making it suitable for different and even extreme climatic conditions, which are progressively expandable, and equipped by additional internal divisions for privacy (IFRC 2013). The modular design principles, which apply to both industrial and building components, are a basic reference to increasing their recoverability/recyclability at the end of their life cycle. Modular design is indeed a suitable strategy to circular economy needs for material resources saving and optimising, as it contributes to facilitating the end-of-life recovery/reuse/recycling options. 3. Availability of local material resources: After every disaster, one or more of the following sources can be used, from which substantial amounts of materials can be derived to supply shelter construction (UNDRO 1982): –– Unused materials that existed before the disaster –– Indigenous available materials (both commercial and non- commercial) –– Materials salvaged from the rubble

Conclusions: Rethinking Low-Tech Strategies

4.

5.

6.

7.

177

The use of the available material resources, even when unconventional for building, is a relevant experimentation field for low technologies, involving both ethical issues relating to material recovery and the architectural outcome, in terms of possible new languages to explore. Management of local resources: The quantities and qualities of the materials intended to be used as well as the environmental impact of their harvesting must be taken into account when assessing resource availability for a large-scale project of shelter construction (IFRC 2009). The environmental awareness programme provides a possible tool for defining suitable rules to encourage respect for local resources and to identify the responsibility for their management and harvesting within certain areas (UNHCR 2007). Since the data is less than comforting when considering the consumption of global resources in recent years, sustainable material resource management is a key target in meeting circular economy principles. Due to the huge demand for raw materials in building, construction urgently needs to investigate alternative resources and adopt more sustainable processes and supply chains. Participation: User involvement within the building process fulfils the “bottom up” approach by ensuring inhabitants a greater sense of belonging and identity of place, which is very often lost, by over-complex technology. The participatory use assessment from early process stages is highly recommended for emergency housing programmes, as well as the involvement of the user community (women and men) and all persons of concern (Oxfam, 2006; UNHCR, 2015). When transposed to western contexts, user participation often leads to self-construction practices, requiring building technologies and construction methods that can be performed by non-professional workers. While not always viable, the self-­ construction process, both in emergency and non-emergency situations, promotes the use of simple construction technologies, preferring small-sized modular components, which are easy to carry and assemble. Innovation hub: The innovation hubs and “bottom-up actions” that were originally developed for Humanitarian Innovation can be applied to other contexts and used in accompanying the transition to the circular economy, at urban (circular city) and building level (circular building), as at design level (circular design). These initiatives can stimulate and channel active citizen participation in all the innovation and transformation processes of a location. They can thus provide references and suggestions to help trace paths towards new spatial and functional settings even in developed countries. Materials and building technologies: According to the Humanitarian Agency guidelines, temporary shelters should be displaced as soon as the acute emergency that required their deployment is mitigated, to be reused somewhere else, if they are reusable and undateable (IFRC 2013). Structures that can be assembled by simply nailing or bonding rigid materials and braced by wires are intrinsically suitable for such purposes (IFRC 2009). The simplicity of both the joints and components indeed allows fast and easy disassembly, facilitating the circularity of the resources used.

178

Conclusions: Rethinking Low-Tech Strategies

8. Durability: The specifications for shelter should detail the required quality of materials, so that their intended lifespan can be forecast and their ageing monitored. Materials and design should allow for easy maintenance and upgrade (IFRC 2013). In line with circular economy principles, maintainability and easy component replacement are also required. Many of the preferred technical options for the circular building, such as dry assembly, modularity, design for deconstruction optimisation and easy component replaceability, are suitable in providing durability through maintainability, which in turn is closely linked to sustainable resource management. –– Low building technologies and European visions The circular economy in the building sector cannot correspond to a standardised set of solutions, as it relates to the specificity of needs, site, process and resources for each operation, within which they often constitute different dynamics and times. Low-Tech, scalable technical solutions are an exciting opportunity in addressing the poverty-ending desired by the UN Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. It is therefore useful and reasonable to identify the elements that could condition or even jeopardise this pathway, as well as the strengths of Low-Tech strategy: –– The success and sprawling of disruptive technologies that may yet stimulate the transition towards a circular economy remain of little significance at a global level. –– Low-Tech design for remanufacturing, intended as an extension of the Design for Remanufacturing concept, could be a strategic reference framework for actions applicable to all building processes; from the city scale to that of a single manufactured product. The principles of durability, reuse, redistribution and/or remanufacturing are the preferred strategies for product and production processes within a circular economy scenario. In order to increase the sustainability of products, the European Commission stated that design plays a crucial role in shifting to eco-innovation, as it is fundamental in ensuring product durability, reusability, reparability and recyclability as well as in increasing the recycled material shares. Closing resource loops to as near as possible to where the customer lives should be both a short- and longer-term win-win solution for any leading remanufacturer. Acknowledging that the product – as with buildings and their components – is never in an end state but merely in a process stage can strongly help the adoption of a suitable circular vision. Since the construction sector produces a vast share of our environmental footprint, mitigating its impacts is crucial, but this requires us to rethink not only how but also what we build. Rather than permanent solutions for temporary and changing needs, we must find dynamic assets that can evolve according to new technical developments and user demands. As we live in a world in need of disruptive innovations, the development of Low-Tech solutions can also bring about the opportunity to address the digital technology’s elevated energy consumption.

Conclusions: Rethinking Low-Tech Strategies

179

This is not just an issue of technology but of far-reaching societal change, thus a socio-technical, organisational and cultural challenge. The rethinking of construction processes and design targets could trigger new drivers of change involving all the construction chain stakeholders, in terms of responsibility, competence and good, sustainable practices. The Low-Tech strategy fulfils the aim to reduce the gap between resources (materials and energy), context and technological appropriateness, providing intervention models which are widely applicable when smart and high-­performance technologies can be avoided or where they appear insufficiently effective environmentally.