Content uploaded by Firehiwot Kedir
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Firehiwot Kedir on Dec 29, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Review
Resource efficiency in industrialized housing construction eA
systematic review of current performance and future opportunities
Firehiwot Kedir
*
, Daniel M. Hall
Chair of Innovative and Industrial Construction, Institute of Construction and Infrastructure Management, ETH Zurich, Stefano-Franscini-Platz 5, Zürich,
8093, Switzerland
article info
Article history:
Received 1 August 2020
Received in revised form
29 November 2020
Accepted 5 December 2020
Available online 11 December 2020
Handling editor: Prof. Jiri Jaromir Kleme
s
Keywords:
Industrialized construction
Resource efficiency
Housing
Sustainability
Value chain
abstract
Improved resource efficiency in the construction industry is needed to balance sustainability re-
quirements with growing demand for new infrastructure. Resource efficiency includes the reduction of
primary and non-renewable materials, the creation of high-quality products with minimal waste, and the
retention of long-term product value. One potential source of resource efficiency is the increased
adoption of industrialized housing construction which includes novel construction methods and prod-
ucts. Current literature identifies numerous opportunities for resource efficiency in industrialized
housing construction. However, this literature is scattered across several sources and units of analysis.
Using a Systematic Literature Review, this paper identifies eight recurrent product and process-related
themes and fifteen specific subthemes of resource efficiency in industrialized housing construction
across building lifecycle phases. These themes can be based on product such as the use of innovative and
industrial materials or on process such as the use of inventory monitoring and tracking. Additional in-
dustry and regulatory themes are also identified. Furthermore using frequency analysis of literature, the
paper finds while themes of resource efficiency exist across all building lifecycle phases, the most
recurring themes occur in design, manufacturing and logistics phases. There is less literature dedicated to
resource efficiency during occupancy and end-of-life phases. The paper further discusses how early
design decisions such as material design have a systems-level impact that propagates throughout the
building lifecycle, and how a beyond-systems approach is needed between stakeholders and processes to
integrate current resource efficiency potentials into industrialized housing construction practice. Finally,
the paper identifies future research directions for resource-efficient industrialized housing construction
including concepts of circular economy, value chain coordination, and socio-economic impacts.
©2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................. 2
2. Point of departure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................. 2
2.1. Demand for global construction of housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .................................2
2.2. Current construction methods and resource efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................2
2.3. Industrialized housing construction (IHC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................3
3. Research design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................. 3
4. Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................. 3
4.1. Content analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................................4
4.1.1. A eDesign.......................................................... ..................................................4
4.1.2. A1. Dematerialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................................4
4.1.3. A2. Material design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................................6
4.1.4. B eManufacturing and logistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................6
4.1.5. B1. Waste and quality management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................6
*Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Kedir@ibi.baug.ethz.ch (F. Kedir).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125443
0959-6526/©2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Journal of Cleaner Production 286 (2021) 125443
4.1.6. B2. Production and inventory systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................7
4.1.7. B3. Transportation systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................................7
4.1.8. C eAssembly ........................................................ .................................................7
4.1.9. C1. Assembly system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ............................................7
4.1.10. D eOccupancy ......................................................... .. .............................................8
4.1.11. D1. Operational performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................8
4.1.12. E - End of life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................................8
4.1.13. E1. Reusability and recyclability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................8
4.2. Frequency analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................................9
4.3. Additional recurring themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................................9
4.3.1. Industry factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................................9
4.3.2. Regulatory factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........................................10
5. Discussion, limitations, and future research directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................. 10
5.1. Future research directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........................................11
5.2. Limitations .............................................................. .....................................................12
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................. 12
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ...........................................12
Acknowledgments ............................................................. .....................................................12
Supplementary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................. 12
References ................................................................. ........................................................12
1. Introduction
Over the past several decades, increased demand for global
housing has led to claims of a global housing crisis (Aalbers, 2015).
The housing market is characterized by too little supply and too
high of demand (Aalbers 2015;Potts, 2020). There is a need to build
about two billion homes before the end of the 21st century (Smith,
2018). The issues of access to land and construction costs have been
unabating drivers of housing unaffordability (McKinsey Global
Institute, 2014). Furthermore, housing plays an important role in
global sustainability (Winston and Pareja Eastaway, 2008),
including a holistic view that balances societal justice, economic
development, and environmental services (Goodland, 1995). These
challenges require improved planning and construction of housing.
To balance sustainability requirements and the demand for
affordable housing, one potential strategy is resource efficiency.
Resource efficiency has been studied in housing in several contexts.
The work of Wilson and Boehland (2008) shows resource efficiency
can be achieved through downsizing housing design. Similarly, the
research of Kumar Dhar et al. (2013) points out the importance of
having flexibility in housing design to accommodate changing
layout demands (during occupancy and end of life phases) for
occupants.
However, there has been less discussion of how resource effi-
ciency can be achieved through the industrialization of housing
production. Industrialized Housing Construction (IHC) is a holistic
term that includes approaches such as prefabrication, modulari-
zation, off-site fabrication, or modern methods of construction
(MMC). IHC has been a strategy to deploy emerging innovations for
resource-efficient housing construction (Rohn et al., 2014). Exam-
ples include product innovations such as cross-laminated timber
(CLT) and process innovations such as lean manufacturing.
Although resource efficiency should be an integral part of
comparing IHC with conventional housing construction, there is
limited guidance surrounding the topic (Pan et al., 2012). To address
this gap, this paper summarizes current performance and future
opportunities for research efficiency in IHC through a systematic
literature review (SLR). The paper provides a short departure
summarizing existing literature for housing, conventional con-
struction methods, and IHC through the lens of resource efficiency.
Next, the SLR research design is introduced, followed by a
presentation of fifteen subthemes for resource-efficient IHC across
eight recurring themes in five building lifecycle phases. Finally, the
paper concludes with a discussion of the key findings, future
research directions, limitations, and a conclusion.
2. Point of departure
2.1. Demand for global construction of housing
The global population is estimated to reach 9.7 billion in 2050
(United Nations, 2019). The urbanization of the population has its
own positive impact on economic growth (United Nations, 2019).
Nevertheless, it also demands careful thought about the provision
of adequate housing and urban planning strategies. The global
residential buildings in particular account for 38% of the global
construction volume (WEF, 2016). Residential buildings also occupy
much more floor space compared to non-residential buildings (PE
International 2013;Huang et al., 2018). Such demand has so far
been supplied by the construction industry that consumes an
estimated 3 billion tones of raw materials and other resources
(WEF, 2016). Still, this supply of housing has also not been able to
meet the demand resulting in more substandard housing (United
Nations, 2019). Hence studying this particular segment of the
infrastructure demand and supply is vital.
2.2. Current construction methods and resource efficiency
The building construction industry alone is estimated to
consume 25% of virgin wood and 40% of raw stone, gravel, and sand
globally each year. It also accounts for 40e50% of the global output
of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Khasreen et al., 2009). These
trends endanger the planetary boundaries that are defined to be a
safe operating space for humanity (Rockstr€
om et al., 2009;Steffen
et al., 2015). Reasons for inefficient construction resource utiliza-
tion include the fragmented, project-based approach (Hall et al.,
2019) and the “linear”economy approach in which construction
materials are sourced, used, and disposed of with little re-use or
recycling (Zimmann et al., 2016).
Resource efficiency in housing construction is proposed to
address the gap between housing demand and current construc-
tion methods. Housing resources include materials, water, energy,
F. Kedir and D.M. Hall Journal of Cleaner Production 286 (2021) 125443
2
and land (UNEP, 2011). The definition of resource-efficient housing
can include the reduction of materials used, the reduction of waste
during production, the replacement of non-renewable materials
with recycled or renewable materials, and/or the extension of
product lifetime (BRE, 2017). These can be achieved during the
creation of the value (extraction, manufacturing, assembly, and
retailing) or during use and post-use of the value (maintenance,
reuse, and recycling) (Achterberg et al., 2016;Ellen MacArthur
Foundation 2013). To measure resource efficiency in construction,
scholars often perform a life-cycle impact assessment of flows of
materials, energy, and water (Priemus 2005).
2.3. Industrialized housing construction (IHC)
The need for productivity increase in the construction industry
has led to the traction in IHC (McKinsey Global Institute, 2017). IHC
extends beyond prefabrication of elements. IHC refers to a holistic
strategy that includes well-defined technical systems, use of in-
formation communication technology (ICT), planning and control
of processes, and a stronger relationship with stakeholders (Lessing
et al., 2005). The MMC working group (2019)defines IHC using a
seven-category framework. The term pre-manufacturing is defined
as all activities that occur away from the final site where buildings
are permanently placed. These processes are executed in a
controlled environment using manufacturing principles. Structures
can be pre-manufactured as a volumetric element (3D) or as a
panelized system (2D). Additionally, IHC can include on-site im-
provements such as integrating lean processes, and/or using
building information modeling (BIM). These are the sub-systems of
IHC that can create a platform to achieve resource efficiency. More
recent work has begun to integrate circular economy principles and
internet of things (IoT) with IHC to expand the intrinsic benefits of
products for resource efficiency (Construction Products Association
2016;Zhong et al., 2017).
Consequently, the application of IHC has been growing in
several countries. For example, in Hong Kong, the government has
introduced prefabrication strategies for the construction of public
housing since the mid-80s. As of 2002, the share of prefabricated
components in Hong Kong is estimated to be 17% (Luo et al., 2015).
Additional studies show the rise of IHC in North America (Pullen
et al., 2019;Hall et al., 2019), Japan (Yashiro, 2014;Steinhardt and
Manley 2016), and many regions of Europe (Berger, 2018). As the
application of IHC is on the rise, current performances of processes
and products need to be analyzed and understood to plan and
construct resource-efficient housing.
However, studies on resource efficiency and new forms of con-
struction that can bring about systems-level innovation are scat-
tered across many different individual studies. A few review papers
do address IHC and resource efficiency. For example, Jin et al. (2020)
used a bibliometric analysis to summarize research methodologies
used to study environmental performance of IHC buildings. How-
ever, this work has a focus on operational efficiency and the post-
construction stage. Other reviews study specific environmental
IHC building systems such as modular construction (Sonego et al.,
2018;De Carvalho et al., 2017). Still, a comprehensive literature
review at the intersection of IHC and resource efficiency does not
yet exist.
3. Research design
The research design follows a SLR approach. SLR allows the
collection of relevant knowledge created in a specific research
domain. The synthesis of this research can lead to an extension of
knowledge (Webster and Watson, 2002). To conduct a rigorous
review, the approach presented in the research of Wolfswinkel
et al. (2013) is implemented. In this approach, key concepts
emerge chiefly through the analytical process instead of a deduc-
tive method. Five main stages that are done iteratively provide a
means to execute a rigorous review of literature. These stages are
also followed in this paper, discussed below and summarized in
Fig. 1.
Define: In this stage, the specificfield of research is identified.
Furthermore, as a means to gather the best possible pool of
knowledge, confinement strategies are followed. The scope of the
SLR is limited to three main thematic areas; industrialized con-
struction, sustainability, and housing. In addition, synonyms,
wildcard tokens, and other keywords that can be associated with
the three main thematic areas are added. Because this literature
search targets research at the intersection of the themes, the
Boolean operator “AND”is used between the three thematic areas
while the Boolean operator “OR”is used to include all associated
keywords. Table 1 shows the main thematic areas and the associ-
ated keywords used in the search. To gather quality literature, two
acclaimed data sources are used, namely Scopus and Web of Sci-
ence. Lastly, a confinement strategy is used to limit the number of
papers. In this research, only journal articles are studied.
Search: Using the definition in the first stage and the data
sources, the search was run. In this stage, 431 journal articles are
identified.
Select: In the selection processes, articles that appear multiple
times (duplicates) are removed. Following that, the remaining list
of articles is refined by the first author by reading the abstract of
each article. Papers with abstracts that clearly fall outside of the
target scope were removed. After this step, 181 papers remained on
the list. Lastly, the final list is obtained after articles were read in
their entirety. In the end, 86 papers are selected as the final sample
of this SLR.
Analyze: Next, the authors analyzed the 86 articles using a
three-step coding procedure (Wolfswinkel et al., 2013). First, in a
process of ‘open coding’, the articles were read in their entirety.
Specific excerpts were extracted, then re-read and coded by the
first author into a set of tentative sub-categories (subthemes). Next,
using ‘axial coding’, the first and second author reviewed the
subthemes and excerpts in detail to identify interrelationship and
abstract the recurring primary themes. Finally, using ‘selective
coding,’the recurring themes were associated with broader cate-
gories (building lifecycle phases) to understand the phenomena of
resource efficiency in IHC as it sits within a broader context of the
built environment. Once new categories and subcategories stopped
emerging, i.e. theoretical saturation has been reached, the
description of building lifecycle phases, recurring themes, and
subthemes was finalized. In addition, some of the identified
recurring themes emerged did not fit within a building lifecycle
phase. These were coded as additional recurring themes that could
act as barriers or enablers for the application of a resource-efficient
IHC.
Present: In the final stage, the findings of the SLR are presented
through content analysis of literature and two frequency analyses.
The content analysis presents a qualitative and comprehensive
overview of the content. The first frequency analysis categorized
articles according to their mentions of specific building lifecycle
phases and recurring themes. The second frequency analysis
counted the number of recurring themes mentioned in each of the
articles.
4. Findings
From the SLR, eight product and process-related recurring
themes emerged for resource efficiency in IHC across five building
lifecycle phases (see Table 2). The design lifecycle (A) phase
F. Kedir and D.M. Hall Journal of Cleaner Production 286 (2021) 125443
3
discusses activities that occur before construction products are
realized through manufacturing processes. The manufacturing and
logistics phases (B) describe the product manufacturing stage and
the outbound logistics until it arrives at the construction site. The
assembly phase (C) represents any production activities that occur
at the construction site until the project is completed and handed
over to the occupant. The occupancy phase (D) includes activities
such as use and maintenance. The End of Life phase (E) represents
activities such as de-construction. Furthermore, each recurring
theme within the building lifecycle phases constitutes specific
subthemes related to resource efficiency in IHC. In total fifteen
subthemes were identified across eight recurring themes (see
Table 2).
4.1. Content analysis
In the following section, detailed and comprehensive review of
the current scientific knowledge on each of the building lifecycle,
recurring themes, and subthemes are presented.
4.1.1. A eDesign
IHC involves a thorough planning strategy to manage the
technical and process performances (Lessing et al., 2005). IHC often
uses a product-based approach contrary to the project-based
approach found in the construction industry. This product-based
approach allows stakeholders to create a common understanding
of the product at the very early stages of the construction process
(Tykk€
a et al., 2010). This phase constitutes of two recurring themes
and three subthemes that show the performance and potential of
IHC in the design phase for resource efficiency.
4.1.2. A1. Dematerialization
Dematerialization by design refers to the reduction of material
quantities required and specified in the design of housing. The
dematerialization can happen throughout a building’s lifecycle
phases and using different strategies including improved consumer
behavior during occupancy phase (
Swia˛tek, 2013). In this recurring
theme, dematerialization is discussed at both the product and
systems levels of optimization.
Fig. 1. Research strategy followed across the systematic literature review stages.
Table 1
Keywords used to collect relevant literature.
Industrialized Construction (OR) (AND) Sustainability (OR) (AND) Housing (OR)
Prefabrication, Modular Construction, Pre-built, Digital fabrication, Dfab,
Mass-produced, Off-site construction, Prefab*, Factory-built, Additive
manufacturing, Mass customization,
Industrialized Building system
Green building, Low carbon, Climate change,
Environment, Zero carbon, Sustainable*,
Environmental-Assessment, Life cycle, LCA, Net zero,
Circular economy
Residential
Building
Apartment
House
F. Kedir and D.M. Hall Journal of Cleaner Production 286 (2021) 125443
4
The first subtheme of dematerialization is product optimization.
This is often achieved through design awareness of advanced
manufacturing and/or digital tools for design optimization (Iuorio
et al., 2019). Advanced manufacturing and digital fabrication
enable new geometrical forms that can be visually appealing,
structurally efficient, and rapidly produced. Such examples include
CNC machines that can produce homes from CAD files (Knight and
Sass, 2010). Designers can experiment with dematerialization
design strategies such as introducing hollow sections and reducing
the thickness of elements (Ahmed and Tsavdaridis, 2018). Addi-
tionally, designers can rely on the manufacturing process and
eliminate unnecessary over-design used to account for poor on-site
Table 2
Summary of building lifecycle phases, recurring themes, and subthemes for resource efficiency.
F. Kedir and D.M. Hall Journal of Cleaner Production 286 (2021) 125443
5
quality control (e.g. poor concrete mix) (Banks et al., 2018). In a case
study in China, design for an IHC system reduced concrete and steel
materials by 17.5% in comparison to traditional production methods
(Shen et al., 2019).
The subtheme system optimization includes holistic system
design for structures that are resource-efficient at the overall level
and not just optimized on a component-by-component basis. Sys-
tem optimization can be obtained in IHC through standardized
products and systems using design concepts such as product
modularity. With product modularity, individual components can
be designed and developed while ensuring integration with the
product as a whole (Da Rocha et al., 2015;Hung et al., 2018). This
process simplifies the possibility to achieve diversity in design
(with optimal response to variances of local conditions or prefer-
ences) and resource efficiency in production (Frutos and Borenstein
2003;Sivo et al., 2012;Eid Mohamed et al., 2017). System optimi-
zation can also be obtained by coordinating super and substructure
designs. For example, the design of lightweight materials in the
superstructure system (e.g. wood and aluminum) results in a sub-
sequent reduction in materials usage for substructures such as
foundations (Cherian et al., 2017;Brehar and Kopenetz 2011;
Mrkonjic 2007). Alternatively, the selection of certain systems can
result in resource inefficiency. For example, the design of modular
systems often requires extra or redundant structural elements in
comparison to traditional systems (Smith et al., 2018). Prefabricated
concrete systems can also require supplementary steel materials
that are not required by in-situ concrete designs (Wang et al., 2018).
4.1.3. A2. Material design
Resource efficiency in material design means shifting to low
carbon materials and moving away from energy-intensive and non-
renewable resources (Achenbach et al., 2018;Iuorio et al., 2019;
Ahmed and Tsavdaridis 2018;Padilla-Rivera et al., 2018). Research
finds that construction materials can account for up to 90% of the
environmental impacts for both conventional and prefabricated
housing with dominant contributors being concrete, steel, and
aluminum (Abey and Anand 2019;Teng and Pan 2019;Mrkonjic
2007). The following section explains the subthemes of resource
efficiency through material design in IHC.
The subtheme discusses the opportunity for IHC to embrace
products and systems that are made from innovative and industrial
materials (Puri et al., 2017;Milutien_
e et al., 2012). A major move-
ment identified in recent literature is the shift to industrialized
timber products and systems eoften referred to as mass timber e
instead of steel and concrete. In general, scholars point to an
increased use of wood in the construction sector and associated
reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions (Johnston et al., 2014;
Frenette et al., 2010;Balasbaneh and Bin Marsono 2017;Kuzman
and Sandberg 2017;Bukoski et al., 2017;Tettey et al., 2019;
Dodoo and Gustavsson 2016;Lehmann 2013). Examples of indus-
trialized wood include Medium-density fibreboard (MDF), Oriented
Strand Board (OSB), Glued laminated Timber (Glulams), or Cross-
laminated Timber (CLT). Authors specifically mention increased
adoption of CLT systems for IHC (Lehmann 2012;Maodu
s et al.,
2016). Compared with other materials, CLT has an easier produc-
tion and assembly process (Araujo et al., 2016). The research of
Dodoo et al. (2014) has found that the conventional building
required 36% more concrete and 62% more steel than the CLT sys-
tem. In countries such as Sweden where wood construction has
been in practice, such use of industrialized wood is easier. On the
other hand, countries such as Malaysia use concrete as the main
construction material for IHC (Balasbaneh and Bin Marsono, 2018).
This increases the use of non-renewable and environmentally un-
sustainable materials such as cement and reinforcement steel (Jia
Wen et al., 2015;Aye et al., 2012).
On the other side of using innovative and industrial materials is
composite systems for IHC (Samani et al., 2015). IHC material
design has used slab systems with glass fiber reinforced gypsum to
reduce carbon-intensive materials such as cement (Cherian et al.,
2017). IHC has also effectively used secondary materials such as
prefabricated mortar panels made from polyurethane foam and
Electric Arc Furnace Slags (EAFS). The use of secondary materials in
IHC can lead to a more circular economy (Briones-Llorente et al.,
2019). Nevertheless, scholars find low adoption rates of renew-
able, environmentally certified, and/or recycled materials for IHC
(Kamali et al., 2018;Santin 2009).
4.1.4. B eManufacturing and logistics
IHC typically moves production activities from the construction
site to off-site factories where building elements are manufactured.
While manufacturing systems in IHC provide enormous potential
for resource efficiency, caution is needed in consideration of related
transportation emissions (Du et al., 2019;Quale et al., 2012). Three
recurring themes in this phase are waste and quality management,
production systems, and transportation systems.
4.1.5. B1. Waste and quality management
One of the recurring themes in the manufacturing and logistics
phase in IHC is waste and quality management. When scholars
claim potential benefits of IHC, one recurrent claim is the potential
to reduce high-levels of construction waste and to limit con-
sumption of primary materials (Khahro et al., 2019;Bakri et al.,
2011;Boyd et al., 2013;Wang et al., 2018;Kamali et al., 2018;Du
et al., 2019). Shen et al. (2019) find that prefabricated public
housing in Beijing reduces construction waste by 12.22%. Addi-
tionally, Jaillon and Poon (2008) find a 60e70% reduction of waste
with IHC strategies compared with traditional construction. From
review of the literature, there are three subthemes to reduce gen-
eration of waste and increase quality in IHC.
When IHC embraces reliable manufacturing techniques and a
controlled production environment, material waste can be reduced
through precision in manufacturing. Industrialization and advanced
manufacturing enables production of higher quality products
(Mohamad et al., 2012). This reduces or eliminates on-site plas-
tering and painting trades (Mao et al., 2013;Brehar and Kopenetz
2011;Jaillon and Poon 2008;Cherian et al., 2017). Additionally,
higher-quality products with longer lifespans require less mainte-
nance and replacement during occupancy and EoL phases (Jaillon
and Poon 2010;Schuler et al., 2001). On the other hand, conven-
tional construction involves wet trades such as on-site concrete
work that produce a large amount of waste on-site. For example,
Begum et al. (2010) find that conventional construction sites can
record up to 54.6 tones/100 m
2
of on-site waste. When industri-
alized methods are used, this number dramatically decreases to 1.5
tones/100 m
2
. Furthermore, much of the waste generated in an
industrial setting is fed back into the system (Begum et al., 2010).
This performance can be attributed to the precision of
manufacturing equipment like CNC machines and a controlled
environment in IHC (Mao et al., 2013;Lehmann 2013). The research
of D’Oca et al. (2018) identifies that prefabrication strategies ach-
ieved up to 1 mm precision in an innovation project. Additionally,
the precision in manufacturing enables trust for designers to avoid
overdesign and for contractors to avoid placing surplus orders.
Material orders for delivery to the construction site often use a
5e15% contingency anticipating waste during production (Quale
et al., 2012). The controlled environment also allows unconven-
tional material saving of water. For example, a steaming method for
concrete curing can be applied instead of traditional on-site water
application (Cao et al., 2015).
IHC can be more resource-efficient because of perpetuity in
F. Kedir and D.M. Hall Journal of Cleaner Production 286 (2021) 125443
6
manufacturing. Because IHC uses repeated manufacturing tools and
processes, it can reduce reliance on ad hoc and short-term solu-
tions. The reuse of temporary structures such as formwork and
props can be much more systematic in a manufacturing environ-
ment (Jiang et al., 2018;Mohamad et al., 2012;Teng and Pan 2019;
Cao et al., 2015;Banks et al., 2018). The research of Dong et al.
(2015) finds a 10% reduction in carbon emissions for precast con-
crete compared to cast-in-situ concrete structures. The majority of
the reduction is associated with the reuse of steel formwork
compared to conventional timber formwork used on the con-
struction site. The same research finds that carbon emissions from
single-use timber formwork is ten times greater than a steel
formwork that can be repeatedly used up to 100 times in a
manufacturing environment. Similarly, Jaillon and Poon (2008) find
IHC reduces reliance on timber formworks, reducing timber use by
6.16 kg/m
2
of the construction floor area (CFA).
IHC benefits from synergy in manufacturing, where manufactu
ring capacity also allows for more sustainable and integrated
product designs. For example, Cao et al. (2015) demonstrate how
heat insulation boards can be manufactured in concert with the
main exterior wall system. This reduces the amount of mortar
required as a bonding agent by 83.6%. Bock (2019) studies a façade
system that is cast simultaneously with a steel skin that can harvest
solar energy. H€
ofler et al. (2015) note the possibility of including
service systems such as ductwork during the manufacturing pro-
cess of the building elements.
4.1.6. B2. Production and inventory systems
Production systems for IHC refer to the processes used for the
manufacturing of building elements. IHC production systems can
improve resource efficiency through improved material process
flow planning and the integration and smooth information flow
amongst stakeholders (Barriga et al., 2005). Two subthemes related
to production and inventory systems are lean production and in-
ventory tracking and monitoring.
The first subtheme is the use of lean production. Lean production
principles found in the manufacturing industry can be adapted to
IHC for process innovation. Lean production seeks to design waste
out of the production system (Heravi and Firoozi, 2017). A pull
production system can avoid overproduction and excess inventory
by using “backward scheduling”that relies on real-time demand
instead of historical data and forecasts (Barriga et al., 2005). Several
IHC companies have integrated lean production as a means to in-
crease resource efficiency in their production system (Tykk€
a et al.,
2010).
Another subtheme is inventory tracking and monitoring.Mate-
rials and products can be tracked, traced, and visualized through
the integration of tracking technologies such as RFID and BIM.
These benefits are often touted for schedule improvement. How-
ever, they can also be extended to improve materials management
(Li et al., 2017). The use of digital tracking identifies the precise
number of inventories at any given time (Heravi and Firoozi, 2017).
In a production system, lean processes should match with an
automated material control system. Barriga et al. (2005) find the
current control systems used for IHC have much room for
improvement. When processes are not successfully automated,
there is greater risk for redundancy of information that can lead to
excess resource usage. Hence inventory control systems can create
shared and automated platforms in which all parties involved have
access to visualize and monitor the supply chain (Alwisy et al.,
2019;Barriga et al., 2005).
4.1.7. B3. Transportation systems
Transportation systems refer to the system in which IHC prod-
ucts are transferred from the place of manufacturing to the place of
final assembly site. The transportation system in IHC is an impor-
tant theme to compare resource efficiency in IHC with conventional
construction (Mao et al., 2013;Abey and Anand 2019;Quale et al.,
2012;Wang et al., 2018;Kamali et al., 2018). In the German timber
prefabrication industry, building elements are transported on
average 350 km. This contributes to one-tenth of the total global
warming potential (GWP) of the studied elements (Achenbach
et al., 2018). To reduce transportation distance, the selected
manufacturing sites should be close to the final assembly location.
However, other scholars argue that performance of IHC during the
transportation phase is comparable to conventional construction
due to fewer, more efficient deliveries of finished products to the
construction site (Du et al., 2019;Adalberth 1997).
Resource efficiency in IHC is impacted by transportation effi-
ciency for building elements. One issue is the volume of IHC
products. Delivery of finished products to construction sites can
require more rounds of delivery (Kim and Bae, 2010). In the
transportation of volumetric elements, additional materials are
required for stability (Tavares et al., 2019;Boyd et al., 2013;
Ahmed and Tsavdaridis 2018). The findings of Smith et al. (2018)
show that compared to conventional timber construction, pan-
elized timber construction systems use 6.7% more timber material
while volumetric/modular systems use 69.4% more timber ma-
terial. The significant increase in the case of volumetric/modular
system is because of the added wood requirement for trans-
portation rigidity. Overall, conventional construction performs
better in resource consumption associated with the trans-
portation phase (Kamali et al., 2019). Within different IHC pro-
duction systems, transportation efficiency can differ depending on
the design of the supply chain. A lean supply chain that requires
frequent just-in-time (JIT) delivery of materials to reduce batch
size will also require more energy and emits more pollutants (Kim
and Bae, 2010). The type of materials being transported also plays
a role. Lightweight building systems such as aluminum can reduce
the environmental impacts associated with transportation
(Mrkonjic, 2007).
Another subtheme is on-site and near-site manufacturing. On-
site or near-site production systems can reduce the impacts asso-
ciated with transportation. The distance between where elements
are manufactured and are assembled plays a big role.Li et al.
(2018b) find that the further manufacturing of a product occurs
from the construction site, the worse the environmental perfor-
mance of that product compared to other alternatives. In Hong
Kong, precast elements are manufactured offshorewhich leads to a
much higher environmental impact (Teng and Pan, 2019). Iuorio
et al. (2019) show case studies that use “flying factories”as a res-
olution. Some IHC production systems are designed for portable
machines such as CNC routers or 3D printers that can be set up
close to the assembly site. This significantly reduces transportation
distance of finished products.
4.1.8. C eAssembly
IHC typically conducts fewer production activities at the con-
struction site. However, some activities need to also take place in
the construction site. The assembly system employed in this phase
is a recurring theme for resource efficiency in IHC.
4.1.9. C1. Assembly system
The assembly system refers to on-site processes required to
form the entire building system such as erection and joinery works.
Conventional construction activities require operational energy to
power various tools and equipment. By contrast, IHC uses a more
efficient assembly process (Wang et al., 2018;Jiang et al., 2018;Kim
and Bae 2010;Shen et al., 2019;Quale et al., 2012;Zhu et al., 2018;
Adalberth 1997). The assembly process is simplified and
F. Kedir and D.M. Hall Journal of Cleaner Production 286 (2021) 125443
7
condensed. However, IHC can require additional materials such as
connecting pieces and steel bars for assembly (Zhu et al., 2018).
Site and equipment efficiency is a subtheme under the assembly
system of IHC. The opportunity to increase site and equipment ef-
ficiency stems from higher levels of standardization in products and
processes of IHC. Moreover increased use of digital tools such as
BIM facilitate resource efficiency in assembly through clash de-
tections (D’Oca et al., 2018;Alwisy et al., 2019). Mao et al. (2013)
find a 10% reduction in impacts associated with equipment use
compared to conventional construction. Hoisting of large IHC
products such as volumetric module systems can be more efficient
than the hoisting of smaller, more frequent material deliveries (e.g.
batch of rebars, batch of electrical conduit). The overall number of
crane “picks”for a conventional site will be higher, requiring more
electricity demand. Additionally, concrete trades in traditional
construction sites often use concrete pump trucks whereas, in IHC,
projects have already prefabricated the elements (Du et al., 2019;
Cao et al., 2015). Cao et al. (2015) find the absence of pump trucks
for concrete trade in IHC reduces diesel usage by 51.4% per unit area
compared to conventional construction. Similar to the trans-
portation phase, material selection also has an impact. Bukoski
et al. (2017) find the assembly of steel IHC systems consumes 590
more liters of diesel for crane and other lifting equipment
compared to the assembly of timber IHC systems.
4.1.10. D eOccupancy
Occupancy refers to the use phase of IC buildings. The following
section describes the recurring theme and two subthemes identi-
fied in this stage.
4.1.11. D1. Operational performance
Operational performance refers to the consumption of resources
during the occupancy phase of housing. Resource efficiency in this
phase can be used in the form of construction materials or energy.
Operational performance for IHC depends on many site and design
conditions such as buildings’quality, orientation and site location,
ventilation, and energy sources. These decisions should be well
integrated with the design of IHC to make sure site-specific
resource-efficient buildings are built (Johnston et al., 2014;
Frenette et al., 2010;Dong et al., 2018;Dodoo and Gustavsson 2016;
Bukoski et al., 2017).
The first subtheme under the operational performance of IHC is
operational energy efficiency. Researchers have found differing
operational energy efficiency for IHC. Some literature suggests
energy efficiency for IHC is similar to conventional construction
(Zhu et al., 2018;Briones-Llorente et al., 2019;Aye et al., 2012;
Korjenic and Klari
c2011;Brehar and Kopenetz 2011). In other re-
searches, IHC products seem to outperform traditionally con-
structed buildings. For example, Samani et al. (2015) find the
extruded polystyrene (XPS) wall system performs 1.8 times better
in thermal resistance than a brick wall. Some IHC products such as
CLT claim high acoustic and thermal performance that do not
require additional insulation materials (Lehmann, 2012). Never-
theless, there are opportunities to have better-performing struc-
tures in IHC. Although IHC systems can use lightweight materials
such as timber and aluminum that benefit prefabrication and as-
sembly processes, these materials have lower thermal inertia that
leads to decreased stability in indoor temperature (Mrkonjic 2007;
Rodrigues et al., 2016). Also, volumetric and dry-construction sys-
tems in IHC can suffer from higher heat loss and air leakage at the
intersection of modules and elements (Maodu
s et al., 2016). Hence
more attention should be given to interfaces between products to
ensure a balanced system in which indoor conditions are
comfortable (D’Orazio and Maracchini, 2019).
An additional subtheme is non-intrusive refurbishment. IHC can
be used to refurbish older buildings and improve operational en-
ergy performance. The application of prefabricated insulation
panels or façade systems to existing buildings reduces the opera-
tional energy resource demand (Pihelo and Kalamees 2019;Passer
et al., 2016). This opportunity for non-intrusive refurbishment is
large. For example, Paiho et al. (2015) note that close to 60% of
Russia’s multi-family housing stock needs renovation. Various
façade solutions have been developed for this application. In the
research of Paiho et al. (2015), a standardized multifunctional
energy-efficient façade (MEEF) system is introduced as a non-
intrusive refurbishment solution. Such solutions promote an op-
portunity to renovate buildings with minimum resources and less
distraction of existing structures (D’Oca et al., 2018).
4.1.12. E - End of life
End of Life (EoL) refers to post-occupancy once a building
structure has served its initial design lifetime or purpose. The
recurring theme of reusability and recyclability discusses resource
efficiency in this phase.
4.1.13. E1. Reusability and recyclability
Reusability and recyclability potential for IHC refers to re-
integration of IHC products and systems into the supply chain.
Such lifecycle benefits have been given low importance in the past
(Jaillon and Poon, 2010), but recent scholarship points to the
increasing need for such approaches (Borsos et al., 2019). Two
subthemes during the EoL phase include product flexibility and
product-as-a-service.
The first subtheme is the product flexibility of IHC. Product flexi-
bility is a design solution such as design for disassembly (DfD) that
ensures design solutions are dynamic to operations, maintenance,
and EoL requirements. IHC structures can be designed for more
efficient dismantling or deconstruction (Brehar and Kopenetz 2011;
Borsos et al., 2019). Designing products for flexibility contributes to
easier repair or replacement processes (Jaillon and Poon 2010;
Mrkonjic 2007;Khahro et al., 2019;Wang et al., 2018;Tettey et al.,
2019).Design strategies such as separating building components
based on expected lifespan eases the disassembly during mainte-
nance and EoL (Nijs et al., 2011). Technical systems fastened together
using nails can cause more structural damage during EoL when
compared to modular systems fastened with bolted connections.
Bespoke connections should be avoided (Phillips et al., 2016). Apart
from the technical systems employed in IHC, the type of material
used for construction increases or decreases the reusability and
recyclability opportunities. Reusability potentials of timber and steel
composite are found to be high (Loss and Davison 2017;Balasbaneh
and Bin Marsono 2018). The research of Aye et al. (2012) shows the
reusability potential of prefabricated steel to be 81.3%, timber
buildings 69.1%, and concrete buildings 32.3%. Ultimately, the
disassembly process is much easier and there is more opportunity
for reuse or recycling of the elements, especially compared to con-
ventional demolition which typically leads to landfill disposal.
The second subtheme is product-as-a-service. Product-as-a-
service is a new business model where manufacturers shift from
selling products to providing services. This builds a long-term
relationship between the customer (or the product) and the
manufacturer. The reusability and recyclability potential of IHC el-
ements is not insured until there is a specific stakeholder desig-
nated to handle the end of life of a building. Mrkonjic (2007)
describes an “overall management system”in which a building can
be rented (leased) out to individuals while manufacturers retain
permanent responsibility for the EoL. Information on customers’
preference, lifecycle product performance, and frequent fault pat-
terns can be collected and shared using extended function quality
deployment and data mining technologies (Ni et al., 2007).
F. Kedir and D.M. Hall Journal of Cleaner Production 286 (2021) 125443
8
4.2. Frequency analysis
From the 86 papers studied, 80 discuss the eight recurring pri-
mary themes and those are analyzed in this section.
From the 80 papers, 48 articles study resource efficiency during
the design phase, and 47 articles study resource efficiency during
the manufacturing and logistics phase. The number of articles
studying resource efficiency in downstream building lifecycle
phases is much lower than in the early phases. When analyzing the
frequency of recurring themes, material design (A2) is the most
discussed theme followed by waste and quality management (B1).
Recurring themes belonging to downstream building lifecycle
phases such as reusability and recyclability (E1) and assembly
system (D1) are mentioned infrequently. The least frequent recur-
ring theme is the topic of production system (B2). The results from
the first frequency analysis are illustrated in Fig. 2 and elaborated in
Appendix A and B.
The second frequency analysis shows that all 80 articles
mention at least one recurring theme. However, only 24 articles
mention more than one recurring theme and only 10 articles
discuss 3 recurring themes. Lastly, only 2 articles cover 5 of the
recurring themes. The analysis also shows that no articles cover the
entire eight recurring themes that were identified in the SLR. The
second frequency analysis in this paper is demonstrated in Fig. 3
and Appendix C.
4.3. Additional recurring themes
There are several recurring themes and subthemes associated
with resource-efficient IHC but that do not fit within a single
building phase. These themes can be categorized as industry factors
(Table 3) and regulatory factors (Table 4). The list of articles and
additional recurring themes can also be found in Appendix D.
4.3.1. Industry factors
First, because there can be general skepticism around IHC, user
integration is a crucial step (Zhai et al., 2014a)(Table 3). Customers’
willingness to pay (WTP) differs based on what they are paying for.
For green building features such as LED lighting and water-saving
showerheads, the WTP is high. However, the WTP for pre-
fabricated elements is low. Customers tend not to value resource
efficiency in processes such as industrialized production methods
as highly as they might value resource efficiency seen in more
visible end-products (Yau et al., 2014). Providing a user-friendly
interface for users is a good step to take to integrate users (Iuorio
et al., 2019). Additionally, showcasing benefits through demon-
strative projects helps to reduce uncertainties surrounding in-
novations in the face of stakeholders and add to the learning
process for product development (Koch and Bertelsen, 2014).
Second, because construction firms operate within a networked
industry structure, there is a network effect that challenges firm-
level commitment to adopt more sustainable IHC (Table 3). For
example, six of the IHC companies studied by Tykk€
a et al. (2010)
mention the lack of competencies in timber engineering as an
impediment. Lack of knowledge surrounding technology and
equipment in IHC lifecycle phases can compromise the benefits of
IHC such as quality assurance (Luo et al., 2015;Wu et al., 2019).
Moreover, IHC requires earlier involvement of stakeholders but this
can be difficult in a conventional project and organizational
structures (Jaillon and Poon, 2008). In that sense the role IHC firms
to implement resource-efficient construction systems is pivotal
(Warren-Myers and Heywood, 2018).
Fig. 2. Frequency of mentions of building lifecycle phases and recurring themes in studied literature.
F. Kedir and D.M. Hall Journal of Cleaner Production 286 (2021) 125443
9
4.3.2. Regulatory factors
Regulatory factors are related to the codes, policies, and in-
centives that locally impact IHC (Table 4). The shift towards
performance-based building codes has led to an increase in inno-
vative ways of building houses. Contrary to the compliance code,
these codes only specify the intended performance of materials and
products and do not mention specific materials or products
(Schuler et al., 2001). The lack of building codes that fit innovative
materials and products also hinders resource efficiency in IHC (Zhai
et al., 2014b;Luo et al., 2015;Khahro et al., 2019;Lehmann 2012).
Regulatory bodies also use differing incentives and policies to
promote innovation for IHC (Tykk€
a et al., 2010;Li et al., 2018a;Wu
et al., 2019;Zhai et al., 2014b;Jaillon and Poon 2008). Builders
request incentives to help with high capital investment costs in IHC
(Luo et al., 2015;Shen et al., 2019). Policies implemented in
different countries can promote IHC for its resource efficiency po-
tentials (Tykk€
a et al., 2010). For example, Hong Kong provides
government incentives for IHC specifically to address waste
reduction and quality improvements (Jaillon and Poon, 2008).
5. Discussion, limitations, and future research directions
This SLR identifies eight recurring themes and fifteen sub-
themes for resource efficiency across the building lifecyle phases of
IHC. The diversity of the contribution from the studied literature
revealed the importance of aggregating the recognized perfor-
mance and potential of IHC into a holistic overview. In particular,
the following two observations emerge as points of further
discussion.
The first discussion point is the impact of early systems de-
cisions on resource efficiency that perpetuate across the building
lifecycle phases. Early system decisions should aim to create high-
value products during the value creation processes and plan to
maintain value in the value retention phases (Achterberg et al.,
2016). Although different resource efficiency subthemes popped
up in the design, manufacturing and logistic, occupancy, and EoL
phases of IHC, many of them are planned and implemented in the
early stages of the building lifecycle phases. These subthemes are
enormous and can be placed in the value creation process of IHC
(Fig. 4). During the value creation process of IHC, the product and
manufacturing-led approach taken by IHC shows the strength of
IHC to design and manufacture high-value products. Once the value
is created, the product should be at its highest value and delivered
for use. During the use phase, the potential of IHC to increase
resource efficiency is mainly seen by its value retention potentials
through products that can sustain their quality and design solutions
that allow flexibility in occupancy and after EoL. The research has
found a significant relationship between early design decisions and
subsequent resource efficiency potentials of IHC across lifecycle
phases. For example, the types of materials specified in the design
phase show a propelling effect in energy requirements during
transportation and assembly phases. In the same way, the fore-
thought given to the assembly platform was found to be crucial for
the occupancy and EoL resource efficiency of IHC. To that end, all of
the subthemes in IHC for resource efficiency should be evaluated at
a systems-level and integrated into the early design phases.
Nevertheless, researches (Jaillon and Poon, 2010) point to the
limited considerations given to both value creation and retention
performances of IHC for resource efficiency.
Viewed more broadly, this relates to the second discussion
point, the opportunity for beyond-systems optimization. These
opportunities complement the individual performances of the
Fig. 3. Number of recurring themes mentioned by articles.
Table 3
Additional recurring theme (industry factors) and subthemes.
Industry factors
User integration The integration of end customer for better development of resource-efficient IHC.
Firm-level commitment The advancement of firms towards resource-efficient IHC.
Table 4
Additional recurring theme (regulatory factors) and subthemes.
Regulatory factors
Building codes Introduction of building codes that permit and promote innovative and industrial materials and products with resource efficiency potentials.
Incentives and policies The need for regulatory bodies to facilitate the adoption of resource efficiency in IHC.
F. Kedir and D.M. Hall Journal of Cleaner Production 286 (2021) 125443
10
products and stakeholders along the construction value chain.
Through IHC, a much better adoption of supply chain integration is
studied (Lessing and Brege, 2015). This research also shows op-
portunities such as digital platforms that can increase monitoring
of resources and business models that promote resource efficiency.
This can amount to a much greater cross-systems resource effi-
ciency accounting. Furthermore, the additional recurring themes
reveal that resource efficiency in IC cannot be achieved with only
technical innovation but rather through integrating people and
policies.
Although the SLR identifies many examples of successful
resource-efficient IHC systems, there are also many opportunities
for improvement. Future IHC systems can be organized through
digital manufacturing-led supply chains that enable better control
of the entire lifecycle and value chain of products. Forward-
looking frameworks give explicit attention to resource efficiency
for the future of the built environment (Fig. 5)(Construction
Products Association, 2016). This may include consideration of
1) intelligent built assets that give feedback on their actual per-
formance in real-time, 2) resource-efficient economic models
such as circular economy that enable the re-use, re-distribution,
remanufacturing, and recycling of materials and products, and 3) a
manufacturing-led industry through the 4th industrial revolution
encompassing several strategies that enable a digital and auto-
mated production and value chain (Oesterreich and Teuteberg,
2016). The combination of these three elements can lead toward
IHC products and systems that are smart, optimized, and
resource-efficient.
5.1. Future research directions
From consideration of the findings and the above future trends
for the built environment, we suggest three future research di-
rections. First, IHC scholars could investigate resource-efficient
economic models such as the circular economy. In theory, there
could be strong symbiosis between circular economy and IHC
supply chains. IHC scholarship to date has looked at linear pro-
duction models, but emerging scholarship on design for disas-
sembly (Mrkonjic 2007;Rausch et al., 2019) and renewable or bio-
based materials (Briones-Llorente et al., 2019) can create circular,
technical, and biological feedback loops.
Second, IHC scholars could study the intricate ecosystem of the
construction value chain. Capturing, storing, and distributing
manufacturing data is an advantage for strategic manufacturer-
supplier-client relationships. Studies increasingly show the
collaboration and coordination of the value chain provide stake-
holders with the incentives for more resource-efficient design and
manufacturing of IHC that capture this value (Dallasega et al., 2018).
This research direction can create awareness and commitment to
resource efficiency in IHC firms that are studied to be insufficient
(Chang et al., 2016).
Third, attention must be paid across technological, institu-
tional, and relational aspects (Scrase et al., 2009). For example,
the impact of customers’perspectives and WTP for IHC housing
construction will impact how effectively the resources have been
deployed. Some early research has identified this but much more
research is needed (Kedir et al., 2020). Other research suggests
Fig. 4. Subthemes for resource efficiency in IHC across the value hill, adapted from Achterberg et al. (2016).
F. Kedir and D.M. Hall Journal of Cleaner Production 286 (2021) 125443
11
theroleofIHCfirms in driving resource efficiency could be
similar to the power of the consumer (Warren-Myers and
Heywood, 2018). Nevertheless, It is still unclear how IHC will
shape the societal and economical aspects of resource efficiency
(Memari et al., 2014).
5.2. Limitations
Some limitations to the SLR must be recognized. The findings
and discussion are based on available literature gathered through
a limited number of keywords and databases. While the search
was designed for broad initial gathering of papers that were
filtered through a structured process, there is still potential that
some literature has been overlooked. Next, the reviewed papers
are diverse with respect to the types of project, scope, context,
and assumptions employed in different impact assessment
methods. Many authors themselves point out the difficulty of
comparing resource efficiency potentials across studies due to
this uniqueness. Therefore, this paper should be understood as
an attempt to identify themes and trends in the literature and
not as a source of specific data or form of meta-analysis. Finally,
the paper studied only a particular application of Industrialized
Construction, i.e. housing, in order to limit the overall scope.
However, we expect the findings presented here can be applied
or adapted for other infrastructure and facilities in the built
environment.
6. Conclusion
Given the enormous global housing demand coupled with un-
sustainable approaches to housing construction, there has been
increased research attention to alternative housing construction
methods such as IHC. This paper provides a comprehensive over-
view of resource efficiency in IHC. Through a systematic review of a
broad range of literature, the paper provides a foundational list of
resource efficiency themes in IHC. A structured categorization un-
packs resource efficiency in IHC through eight recurring themes
and fifteen specific subthemes across building lifecycle phases. As
presented in this paper, IHC does not inherently deliver complete
resource-efficient solutions. However, IHC can facilitate resource-
efficiency through a combination of approaches such as digitali-
zation, standardization, production, and advanced logistics. Find-
ings show the interrelationship between the different themes and
the need to make early systems decisions to achieve all-out
resource efficiency. Furthermore, beyond-system optimization
strategies of socio-technical factors can foster the adoption of
resource efficiency in IHC. The paper also implies the key oppor-
tunities for future iterations of IHC to improve upon its current
performance. Resource efficiency is dependent upon multiple
stakeholders and various building lifecycle phases. It is paramount
to study these holistically and implement resource efficiency at a
scale. Therefore, future implementation of IHC should in addition to
the recurring themes exploit resource-efficient economical models,
value chain collaboration, and socio-technical perspectives.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of ETH
Zurich for this research.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125443.
References
Aalbers, M.B., 2015. The great moderation, the great excess and the global housing
crisis. Int. J. Hous. Policy 15, 43e60. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14616718.2014.997431.
Abey, S.T., Anand, K.B., 2019. Embodied energy comparison of prefabricated and
conventional building construction. J. Inst. Eng. Ser. A 100, 777e790. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40030-019-00394-8.
Achenbach, H., Wenker, J.L., Rüter, S., 2018. Life cycle assessment of product- and
construction stage of prefabricated timber houses: a sector representative
approach for Germany according to EN 15804, EN 15978 and EN 16485. Eur. J.
Fig. 5. Construction products framework, adapted from Construction Products Association (2016).
F. Kedir and D.M. Hall Journal of Cleaner Production 286 (2021) 125443
12
Wood Wood Prod. 76, 711e729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-017-1236-1.
Achterberg, E., Hinfelaar, J., Bocken, N.M.P., 2016. Master Circular Business with the
Value Hill. Circle Economy.
Adalberth, K., 1997. Energy use during the life cycle of single-unit dwellings: Ex-
amples. Build. Environ. 32, 321e329. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(96)
00069-8.
Ahmed, I.M., Tsavdaridis, K.D., 2018. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and cost (LCC)
studies of lightweight composite flooring systems. J. Build. Eng. 20, 624e633.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.09.013.
Alwisy, A., Bu Hamdan, S., Barkokebas, B., Bouferguene, A., Al-Hussein, M., 2019.
A BIM-based automation of design and drafting for manufacturing of wood
panels for modular residential buildings. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 19, 187e205.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2017.1411458.
Araujo, V. De, Vasconcelos, J., Barbosa, J.C., Morales, E., 2016. Wooden residential
buildings ea sustainable approach. Bull. Transilvania Univ. Brasov 9 (58),
53e62. No.2.
Aye, L., Ngo, T., Crawford, R.H., Gammampila, R., Mendis, P., 2012. Life cycle
greenhouse gas emissions and energy analysis of prefabricated reusable
building modules. Energy Build. 47, 159e168. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enbuild.2011.11.049.
Bakri, A.F., Zubir, S.S., Samadi, Z., Osman, H., 2011. Tailoring the needs for a better
living: an urban renewal scheme on low cost housing. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ.
148, 301e312. https://doi.org/10.2495/RAV110281.
Balasbaneh, A.T., Bin Marsono, A.K., 2017. Strategies for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions from residential sector by proposing new building structures in hot
and humid climatic conditions. Build. Environ. 124, 357e368. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.08.025.
Balasbaneh, A.T., Bin Marsono, A.K., 2018. New residential construction building and
composite post and beam structure toward global warming mitigation. Environ.
Prog. Sustain. Energy 37, 1394e1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12807.
Banks, C., Kotecha, R., Curtis, J., Dee, C., Pitt, N., Papworth, R., 2018. Enhancing high-
rise residential construction through design for manufacture and assembly - a
UK case study. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Manag. Procure. Law 171, 164e174. https://
doi.org/10.1680/jmapl.17.00027.
Barriga, E.M., Jeong, J.G., Hastak, M., Syal, M., 20 05. Material control system for the
manufactured housing industry. J. Manag. Eng. 2, 152e158. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X (2005)21:2(91).
Begum, R.A., Satari, S.K., Pereira, J.J., 2010. Waste generation and recycling: com-
parison of conventional and industrialized building systems. Am. J. Environ. Sci.
6, 383e388. https://doi.org/10.3844/ajessp.2010.383.388.
Berger, Roland, 2018. Prefabricated Housing Market in Central and Northern Europe
eOverview of Market Trends and Development. Munich.
Bock, M., 2019. A building integrated solar thermal collector with active steel skins.
Energy Build. 201, 134e147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.07.040.
Borsos,
A., Balogh, J., Kokas, B., Bachmann, B., 2019. An eco-approach to modularity
in urban living. Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodyn. 14, 83e90. https://doi.org/10.2495/DNE-
V14-N2-83-90.
Boyd, N., Khalfan, M.M.A., Maqsood, T., 2013. Off-site construction of apartment
buildings. J. Architect. Eng. 19, 51e57. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-
5568.0000091.
BRE, 2017. Material Resource Efficiency in Construction Supporting a Circular
Economy. IHS BRE Press, Bracknell.
Brehar, O.F., Kopenetz, L.G., 2011. Prefabricated structural system for passive houses.
J. Appl. Eng. Sci. 1 (4), 15e22.
Briones-Llorente, R., Calder
on, V., Guti
errez-Gonz
alez, S., Montero, E., Rodríguez,
A.,
2019. Testing of the integrated energy behavior of sustainable improved mortar
panels with recycled additives by means of energy simulation. Sustain. Times
11, 1e19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113117.
Bukoski, J.J., Chaiwiwatworakul, P., Gheewala, S.H., 2017. The life cycle assessment of
an energy-positive peri-urban residence in a tropical regime. J. Ind. Ecol. 21,
1115e1127. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12494.
Cao, X., Li, X., Zhu, Y., Zhang, Z., 2015. A comparative study of environmental per-
formance between prefabricated and traditional residential buildings in China.
J. Clean. Prod. 109, 131e143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.120.
Chang, R.D., Zuo, J., Soebarto, V., Zhao, Z.Y., Zillante, G., Gan, X.L., 2016. Sustainability
transition of the Chinese construction industry: practices and behaviors of the
leading construction firms. J. Manag. Eng. 32, 1e13. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000439.
Cherian, P., Paul, S., Krishna, S.R.G., Menon, D., Meher Prasad, A., 2017. Mass housing
using GFRG panels: a sustainable, rapid and affordable solution. J. Inst. Eng. Ser.
A 98, 95e100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-017-0200-8.
Construction Products Association, 2016. The Future for Construction Product
Manufacturing, Digitalisation, Industry 4.0 and the Circular Economy. London,
UK.
Da Rocha, C.G., Formoso, C.T., Tzortzopoulos, P., 2015. Adopting product modularity
in house building to support mass customisation. Sustainability 7, 4919e4937.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su7054919.
Dallasega, P., Rauch, E., Linder, C., 2018. Industry 4.0 as an enabler of proximity for
construction supply chains: a systematic literature review. Comput. Ind. 99,
205e225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.03.039.
Dodoo, A., Gustavsson, L., 2016. Energy use and overheating risk of Swedish multi-
storey residential buildings under different climate scenarios. Energy 97,
534e548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.12.086.
Dodoo, A., Gustavsson, L., Sathre, R., 2014. Lifecycle carbon implications of con-
ventional and low-energy multi-storey timber building systems. Energy Build.
82, 194e210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.06.034.
Dong, Y.H., Jaillon, L., Chu, P., Poon, C.S., 2015. Comparing carbon emissions of
precast and cast-in-situ construction methods - a case study of high-rise private
building. Construct. Build. Mater. 99, 39e53. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2015.08.145.
Dong, L., Wang, Y., Li, H.X., Jiang, B., Al-Hussein, M., 2018. Carbon reduction
measures-based LCA of prefabricated temporary housing with renewable en-
ergy systems. Sustain. Times 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030718.
Du, Q., Bao, T., Li, Y., Huang, Y., Shao, L., 2019. Impact of prefabrication technology on
the cradle-to-site CO2 emissions of residential buildings. Clean Technol. Envi-
ron. Policy 21, 1499e1514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-019-01723-y.
De Carvalho, Adrieli Cristina Vieira, Ariovaldo Denis, Granja, da Silva, Vanessa
Gomes, 2017. A systematic literature review on integrative lean and sustain-
ability synergies over a building’s lifecycle. Sustainability. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su9071156.
D’Oca, S., Ferrante, A., Ferrer, C., Pernetti, R., Gralka, A., Sebastian, R., Veld, P., 2018.
Technical, financial, and social barriers and challenges in deep building reno-
vation: integration of lessons learned from the H2020 cluster projects. Build-
ings 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8120174.
D’Orazio, M., Maracchini, G., 2019. An experimental investigation on the indoor
hygrothermal environment of a reinforced-EPS based temporary housing so-
lution. Energy Build. 204, 109500. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enbuild.2019.109500.
Eid Mohamed, B., Elkaftangui, M., Farouk, S., 2017. A computer-based participatory
model for customization in the UAE housing market. J. Enterprise Inf. Manag.
30, 17e29. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-01-2016-0016.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013. Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and
Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition.
Frenette, C.D., Bulle, C., Beauregard, R., Salenikovich, A., Derome, D., 2010. Using life
cycle assessment to derive an environmental index for light-frame wood wall
assemblies. Build. Environ. 45, 2111e2122. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2010.03.009.
Frutos, J.D., Borenstein, D., 2003. Object-oriented model for customer-building
company interaction in mass customization environment. J. Construct. Eng.
Manag. 129, 302e313 (ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:3(302), 10.1061.
Goodland, R., 1995. The concept of environmental sustainability. Annu. Rev. Ecol.
Systemat. 26, 1e24. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.26.110195.000245.
Hall, D.M., Whyte, J.K., Lessing, J., Hall, D.M., Whyte, J.K., Mirror-breaking, J.L., 2019.
Mirror-breaking strategies to enable digital manufacturing in Silicon Valley
construction firms : a comparative case study. Construct. Manag. Econ. 1e18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2019.1656814,0.
Heravi, G., Firoozi, M., 2017. Production process improvement of buildings’pre-
fabricated steel frames using value stream mapping. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
89, 3307e3321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9306-9.
H€
ofler, K., Knotzer, A., Venus, D., 2015. Renovation concepts for net zero energy
buildings ebest practice residential building Kapfenberg/Austria. Adv. Build.
Energy Res. 9, 107e
119. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512549.2014.941007.
Huang, B., Zhao, F., Fishman, T., Chen, W.Q., Heeren, N., Hertwich, E.G., 2018.
Building material use and associated environmental impacts in China 2000-
2015. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 14006e14014. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acs.est.8b04104.
Hung, F.C., Hamin, Z.A., Beng, G.H., Raymond, C., Yin, C.C., 2018. D3 sustainable
homes ean alternative design for high-rise affordable housing IN tropical cli-
mates. Malaysian Constr. Res. J. 25.
International, P.E., 2013. Strategies for Decoupling - Options to Consider in the Field
of Buildings and Infrastructure.
Iuorio, O., Wallace, A., Simpson, K., 2019. Prefabs in the North of england: techno-
logical, environmental and social innovations. Sustain. Times 11. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su11143884.
Jaillon, L., Poon, C.S., 2008. Sustainable construction aspects of using prefabrication
in dense urban environment: a Hong Kong case study. Construct. Manag. Econ.
26, 953e966. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190802259043.
Jaillon, L., Poon, C.S., 2010. Design issues of using prefabrication in Hong Kong
building construction. Construct. Manag. Econ. 28, 1025e1042. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01446193.2010.498481.
Jia Wen, T., Chin Siong, H., Noor, Z.Z., 2015. Assessment of embodied energy and
global warming potential of building construction using life cycle analysis
approach: case studies of residential buildings in Iskandar Malaysia. Energy
Build. 93, 295e302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.12.002.
Jiang, B., Li, H., Dong, L., Wang, Y., Tao, Y., 2018. Cradle-to-site carbon emissions
assessment of Prefabricated Rebar Cages for high-rise buildings in China. Sus-
tain. Times 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010042.
Jin, R., Hong, J., Zuo, J., 2020. Environmental performance of off-site constructed
facilities: a critical review. Energy Build. 207, 109567. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enbuild.2019.109567.
Johnston, M., Guaralda, M., Sawang, S., 2014. Sustainable innovation for queens-
land’s housing design: a case study. Australas. J. Constr. Econ. Build. 14, 11e31.
https://doi.org/10.5130/ajceb.v14i4.4146.
Kamali, M., Hewage, K., Milani, A.S., 2018. Life cycle sustainability performance
assessment framework for residential modular buildings: aggregated sustain-
ability indices. Build. Environ. 138, 21e41. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2018.04.019.
Kamali, M., Hewage, K., Sadiq, R., 2019. Conventional versus modular construction
methods: a comparative cradle-to-gate LCA for residential buildings. Energy
Build. 204 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109479.
F. Kedir and D.M. Hall Journal of Cleaner Production 286 (2021) 125443
13
Kedir, F., Pullen, T., Hall, D., Boyd, R., da Silva, J., 2020. A sustainable transition to
industrialized housing construction in developing economies. https://doi.org/
10.3929/ethz-b-000418072.
Khahro, S.H., Memon, N.A., Ali, T.H., Memon, Z.A., 2019. Adoption of prefabrication
in small scale construction projects. Civ. Eng. J. 5, 1099e1104. https://doi.org/
10.28991/cej-2019-03091314.
Khasreen, M.M., Banfill, P.F.G., Menzies, G.F., 2009. Life-cycle assessment and the
environmental impact of buildings: a review. Sustainability 1, 674e701. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su1030674.
Kim, Y.W., Bae, J.W., 2010. Assessing the environmental impacts of lean supply
system: a case study of high-rise condominium construction in Seoul, Korea.
J. Architect. Eng. 16, 144e150. https://doi.org/10.1061/_ASCE_AE.
Knight, T., Sass, L., 2010. Looks count: computing and constructing visually
expressive mass customized housing. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. AIE-
DAM 24, 425e445. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060409990126.
Koch, C., Bertelsen, N.H., 2014. Learning from demonstration? Developing con-
struction for sustainability. Open Construct. Build Technol. J. 8, 9e17. https://
doi.org/10.2174/1874836801408010009.
Korjenic, A., Klari
c, S., 2011. The revival of the traditional Bosnian wood dwellings.
Energy Effic4,547e558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-011-9120-z.
Kumar Dhar, T., Sk Maruf Hossain, M., Rubayet Rahaman, K., 2013. How does flexible
design promote resource efficiency for housing? A study of Khulna, Bangladesh.
Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2, 140e157. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-10-
2012-0051.
Kuzman, M.K., Sandberg, D., 2017. Comparison of timber-house technologies and
initiatives supporting use of timber in Slovenia and in Sweden - the state of the
art. iForest 10, 930e938. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor2397-010.
Lehmann, S., 2012. Sustainable construction for urban infill development using
engineered massive wood panel systems. Sustainability 4 (10), 2707e2742.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su4102707.
Lehmann, S., 2013. Low carbon construction systems using prefabricated engi-
neered solid wood panels for urban infill to significantly reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Sustain. Cities Soc. 6, 57e67. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scs.2012.08.004.
Lessing, J., Brege, S., 2015. Business models for product-oriented house-building
companies - experience from two Swedish case studies. Construct. Innovat. 15,
449e472. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-02-2015-0009.
Lessing, J., Stehn, L., Ekholm, A., 2005. Industrialised housing: definition and cate-
gorization of the concept. In: 13th International Group for Lean Construction
Conference: Proceedings, pp. 471e480.
Li, C.Z., Zhong, R.Y., Xue, F., Xu, G., Chen, K., Huang, G.G., Shen, G.Q., 2017. Integrating
RFID and BIM technologies for mitigating risks and improving schedule per-
formance of prefabricated house construction. J. Clean. Prod. 165, 1048e1062.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.156.
Li, J., Liu, H., Zuo, J., Xia, R., Zillante, G., 2018a. Are construction enterprises ready for
industrialized residential building policy? A case study in Shenzhen. Sustain.
Cities Soc. 41, 899e906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.06.033.
Li, P., Froese, T.M., Cavka, B.T., 2018b. Life cycle assessment of magnesium oxide
structural insulated panels for a smart home in Vancouver. Energy Build. 175,
78e86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.07.016.
Loss, C., Davison, B., 2017. Innovative composite steel-timber floors with pre-
fabricated modular components. Eng. Struct. 132, 695e713. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.11.062.
Luo, L.Z., Mao, C., Shen, L.Y., Li, Z.D., 2015. Risk factors affecting practitioners’atti-
tudes toward the implementation of an industrialized building system a case
study from China. Eng. Construct. Architect. Manag. 22, 622e643. https://
doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-04-2014-0048.
Mao, C., Shen, Q., Shen, L., Tang, L., 2013. Comparative study of greenhouse gas
emissions between off-site prefabrication and conventional construction
methods: two case studies of residential projects. Energy Build. 66, 165e176.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.033.
Maodu
s, N., Agarski, B., Ko
cetov Mi
suli
c, T., Budak, I., Radeka, M., 2016. Life cycle
and energy performance assessment of three wall types in south-eastern
Europe region. Energy Build. 133, 605e614. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enbuild.2016.10.014.
McKinsey Global Institute, 2014. A Blueprint for Addressing the Global Affordable
Housing Challenge.
McKinsey Global Institute, 2017. Reinventing Construction: A Route to Higher
Productivity. McKinsey’s Captial Projects and Infrastructure Practice.
Memari, A.M., Asce, F., Huelman, P.H., Iulo, L.D., Laquatra, J., Martin, C., Mccoy, A.,
Nahmens, I., Williamson, T., Asce, F., 2014. Residential building Construction :
state-of-the-art review. J. Architect. Eng. 20, 1e38. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000157.
Milutien_
e, E., Stani
skis, J.K., Kru
cius, A., Augulien_
e, V., Ardickas, D., 2012. Increase in
buildings sustainability by using renewable materials and energy. Clean Tech-
nol. Environ. Policy 14, 1075e1084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-012-0505-2.
MMC working Group, Ministry of Housing, C.&L.G., 2019. Modern Methods of
Construction, Introducing the MMC Definition Framework. https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-08-047163-1.00588-9.
Mohamad, M.I., Nekooie, M.A., Taherkhani, R., Saleh, A.L., Mansur, S.A., 2012.
Exploring the potential of using industrialized building system for floating ur-
banization by SWOT analysis. J. Appl. Sci. 12, 486e491. https://doi.org/10.3923/
jas.2012.486.491.
Mrkonjic, K., 2007. Environmental aspects of use of aluminium for prefabricated
lightweight houses: dymaxion house case study. J. Green Build. 2, 130e136.
https://doi.org/10.3992/jgb.2.4.130.
Ni, M., Xu, X., Deng, S., 2007. Extended QFD and data-mining-based methods for
supplier selection in mass customization. Int. J. Comput. Integrated Manuf. 20,
280e291. https://doi.org/10.1080/09511920601150651.
Nijs, J.C., Durmisevic, E., Halman, J.I.M., 2011. Interface design for open systems
building. Open House Int. 36, 35e43.
Oesterreich, T.D., Teuteberg, F., 2016. Understanding the implications of digitisation
and automation in the context of Industry 4.0: a triangulation approach and
elements of a research agenda for the construction industry. Comput. Ind. 83,
121e139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2016.09.006.
Padilla-Rivera, A., Amor, B., Blanchet, P., 2018. Evaluating the link between low
carbon reductions strategies and its performance in the context of climate
Change: a carbon footprint of awood-frame residential building in Quebec,
Canada. Sustain. Times 10, 1e20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082715.
Paiho, S., Sepp€
a, I.P., Jimenez, C., 2015. An energetic analysis of a multifunctional
façade system for energy efficient retrofitting of residential buildings in cold
climates of Finland and Russia. Sustain. Cities Soc. 15, 75e85. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scs.2014.12.005.
Pan, W., Dainty, A.R.J., Gibb, A.G.F., 2012. Establishing and weighting decision
criteria for building system selection in housing construction. J. Construct. Eng.
Manag. 138, 1239e1250. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000543.
Passer, Alexander, Ouellet-Plamondon, Claudiane, Kenneally, Patrick, John, Viola,
Habert, Guillaume, 2016. The impact of future scenarios on building refur-
bishment strategies towards plus energy buildings. Energy Build. 124 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.04.008.
Phillips, D., Guaralda, M., Sawang, S., 2016. Innovative housing adoption: modular
housing for the Australian growing family. J. Green Build. 11, 147e170. https://
doi.org/10.3992/jgb.11.2.147.1.
Pihelo, P., Kalamees, T., 2019. Commissioning of moisture safety of nZEB renovation
with prefabricated timber frame insulation wall elements. Wood Mater. Sci.
Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/17480272.2019.1635206.
Potts, Deborah, 2020. Broken Cities: Inside the Global Housing Crisis. Zed Boks Ltd.
Priemus, H., 2005. How to make housing sustainable? The Dutch experience. En-
viron. Plann. Plann. Des. 32, 5e19. https://doi.org/10.1068/b3050.
Pullen, T., Hall, D.M., Lessing, J., 2019. A preliminary overview of emerging trends for
industrialized construction in the United States. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-
000331901.
Puri, V., Chakrabortty, P., Anand, S., Majumdar, S., 2017. Bamboo reinforced pre-
fabricated wall panels for low cost housing. J. Build. Eng. 9, 52e59. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.11.010.
Quale, J., Eckelman, M.J., Williams, K.W., Sloditskie, G., Zimmerman, J.B., 2012.
Construction matters: comparing environmental impacts of building modular
and conventional homes in the United States. J. Ind. Ecol. 16, 243e253. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00424.x.
Rausch, C., Sanchez, B., Haas, C., 2019. Spatial parameterization of non-semantic
CAD elements for supporting automated disassembly planning. Modul. Offsite
Constr. Summit Proc. 108e115 . https://doi.org/10.29173/mocs83.
Rockstr€
om, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F.,
Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A.,
Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., S€
orlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R.,
Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J.,
Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J.A., 2009. A safe
operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472e475. https://doi.org/10.1038/
461472a.
Rodrigues, L., Sougkakis, V., Gillott, M., 2016. Investigating the potential of adding
thermal mass to mitigate overheating in a super-insulated low-energy timber
house. Int. J. Low Carbon Technol. 11, 305e316. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/
ctv003.
Rohn, H., Pastewski, N., Lettenmeier, M., Wiesen, K., Bienge, K., 2014. Resource ef-
ficiency potential of selected technologies, products and strategies. Sci. Total
Environ. 473e474, 32e35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.11.024.
Samani, P., Mendes, A., Leal, V., Miranda Guedes, J., Correia, N., 2015. A sustainability
assessment of advanced materials for novel housing solutions. Build. Environ.
92, 182e191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.04.012.
Santin, O.G., 2009. Environmental assessment of construction trends in Mexico:
towards sustainable building? Struct. Surv. 27, 361e371. https://doi.org/10.1108/
02630800911002620.
Schuler, A., Adair, C., Elias, E., 2001. Engineered lumber products taking their place
in the global market. J. For. 99, 28e35. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/99.12.28.
Scrase, J.I., Geels, F.W., Stirling, A., Smith, A., 2009. Transformative innovation: a
research report for the department for environment, food and rural affairs.
https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4105.2960.
Shen, K., Cheng, C., Li, X., Zhang, Z., 2019. Environmental cost-benefit analysis of
prefabricated public housing in Beijing. Sustain. Times 11. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su11010207.
Sivo, M. Di, Angelucci, F., 2012. Mass customization process for the social Housing.
Potentiality, Critical points, research lines. J. Technol. Archit. Environ. 132e138.
Smith, S., 2018. The world needs to build 2 billion new homes over the next 80
years [WWW Document]. weforum. URL. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/
2018/03/the-world-needs-to-build-more-than-two-billion-new-homes-over-
the-next-80-years.
Smith, R.E., Hamedani, M.N., Griffin, G., 2018. Developing timber volume calculators
through a comparative case study analysis of wood utilization in on-site and
off-site construction methods. Technol. Archit. Des. 2, 55e67. https://doi.org/
10.1080/24751448.2018.1420965.
F. Kedir and D.M. Hall Journal of Cleaner Production 286 (2021) 125443
14
Sonego, M., Echeveste, M.E.S., Galvan Debarba, H., 2018. The role of modularity in
sustainable design: a systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 176, 196e209. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.106.
Steffen, Will, Richardson, Katherine, Rockstr€
om, Johan, Cornell, Sarah E.,
Fetzer, Ingo, Bennett, Elena M., Biggs, Reinette, Carpenter, Stephen R.,
Vries, Wim de, de Wit, Cynthia A., Folke, Carl, Gerten, Dieter, Heinke, Jens,
Mace, Georgina M., Persson, Linn M., Ramanathan, Veerabhadran,
Reyers, Belinda, S€
orlin, Sverker, 2015. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1259855.
Steinhardt, D.A., Manley, K., 2016. Adoption of prefabricated housing-the role of
country context. Sustain. Cities Soc. 22, 126e135. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scs.2016.02.008.
Swia˛tek, L., 2013. Dematerialization in architecture as an imperative of sustainable
building. In: Conference on Central Europe towards Sustainable Building.
CESB13), pp. 1e6.
Tavares, V., Lacerda, N., Freire, F., 2019. Embodied energy and greenhouse gas
emissions analysis of a prefabricated modular house: the “Moby”case study.
J. Clean. Prod. 212, 1044e1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.028.
Teng, Y., Pan, W., 2019. Systematic embodied carbon assessment and reduction of
prefabricated high-rise public residential buildings in Hong Kong. J. Clean. Prod.
238, 117791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117791.
Tettey, U.Y.A., Dodoo, A., Gustavsson, L., 2019. Effect of different frame materials on
the primary energy use of a multi storey residential building in a life cycle
perspective. Energy Build. 185, 259e271. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enbuild.2018.12.017.
Tykk€
a, S., McCluskey, D., Nord, T., Ollonqvist, P., Hugosson, M., Roos, A., Ukrainski, K.,
Nyrud, A.Q., Bajric, F., 2010. Development of timber framed firms in the con-
struction sector - is EU policy one source of their innovation? For. Policy Econ
12, 199e206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.10.003.
UNEP, 2011. Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from
economic growth. United Nations Environment Programme.
United Nations, 2019. World urbanization prospects the 2018 revision (ST/ESA/
SER.A/420). Dep. Econ. Soc. Aff. Popul. Div. 12, 236. https://doi.org/10.4054/
demres.2005.12.9.
Wang, J.J., Tingley, D.D., Mayfield, M., Wang, Y.F., 2018. Life cycle impact comparison
of different concrete floor slabs considering uncertainty and sensitivity analysis.
J. Clean. Prod. 189, 374e385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.094.
Warren-Myers, G., Heywood, C., 2018. A new demand-supply model to enable
sustainability in new Australian housing. Sustain. Times 10. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su10020376.
Webster, J., Watson, R.T., 2002. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing
a literature review. MIS Q. 26, xiiiexxiii.
WEF, 2016. Shaping the Future of Construction A Breakthrough in Mindset and
Technology. World Economic Forum (WEF).
Wilson, A., Boehland, J., 2008. Small is beautiful U.S. House size, resource use, and
the environment. J. Ind. Ecol. 9, 277e287. https://doi.org/10.1162/
1088198054084680.
Winston, N., Pareja Eastaway, M., 2008. Sustainable housing in the urban context:
International sustainable development indicator sets and housing. Soc. Indicat.
Res. 87, 211e221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9165-8.
Wolfswinkel, J.F., Furtmueller, E., Wilderom, C.P.M., 2013. Using grounded theory as
a method for rigorously reviewing literature. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22, 45e55. https://
doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.51.
Wu, G., Yang, R., Li, L., Bi, X., Liu, B., Li, S., Zhou, S., 2019. Factors influencing the
application of prefabricated construction in China: from perspectives of tech-
nology promotion and cleaner production. J. Clean. Prod. 219, 753e762. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.110.
Yashiro, Tomonari, 2014. Conceptual framework of the evolution and trans-
formation of the idea of the industrialization of building in Japan. Constr.
Manag. Econ. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2013.864779.
Yau, Y., Chiu, S.M., Lau, W.K., 2014. Economising subsidies for green housing fea-
tures: a stated preference approach. Urbani Izziv 25, 107e118. https://doi.org/
10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2014-25-02-003.
Zhai, X., Reed, R., Mills, A., 2014a. Addressing sustainable challenges in China: the
contribution of off-site industrialisation. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 3,
261e274. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-02-2014-0008.
Zhai, X., Reed, R., Mills, A., 2014b. Embracing off-site innovation in construction in
China to enhance a sustainable built environment in urban housing. Int. J.
Constr. Manag. 14, 123e133. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2014.922727.
Zhong, Ray Y., Peng, Yi, Xue, Fan, Fang, Ji, Zou, Weiwu, Luo, Hao, Ng, S. Thomas,
Lu, Weisheng, Shen, Geoffrey Q.P., Huang, George Q., 2017. Prefabricated con-
struction enabled by the Internet-of-Things Ray. Autom. Construct. J. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.01.006.
Zhu, H., Hong, J., Shen, G.Q., Mao, C., Zhang, H., Li, Z., 2018. The exploration of the
life-cycle energy saving potential for using prefabrication in residential build-
ings in China. Energy Build. 166, 561e570. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enbuild.2017.12.045.
Zimmann, R., O’Brien, H., Hargrave, J., Morrell, M., 2016. The circular economy in the
built environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.04.008, 1-93.
F. Kedir and D.M. Hall Journal of Cleaner Production 286 (2021) 125443
15
