A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Describing building sustainability innovation potential : Block making in Tanzania and Uganda
Purpose. This paper describes opportunities for sustainable building in East Africa. Previous research indicates that cement is often poorly used in the commonly used concrete blocks. Better use of cement and thereby lower costs and a lower carbon footprint might be achieved by substituting solid blocks with hollow ones while sustaining functional requirements. This work could further be advanced by a business model that promotes affordability and a lowered carbon footprint of blocks produced at building site. Methodology. Block manufacturing processes in Tanzania and Uganda are described. Sustainability performance as price and carbon footprint per wall m2 are assessed and compared for solid and hollow concrete/sandcrete blocks. Findings. The results from Uganda indicate that there is a clear economic and environmental advantage in using hollow blocks compared to solid blocks. There seems to be innovation potential to be realised both in choice of product and improvement of manufacturing processes. The preliminary findings indicate that costs per m2 of wall could for 6 inch blocks of the same functional quality be reduced with some 20% and the carbon footprint with 40% when using hollow blocks instead of solid ones. In Tanzania only a carbon footprint saving potential of about 30% has been inferred. Practical implications. The results indicate that in order to assess overall global improvement potential, sustainability needs to be understood on the operational level. Originality/value. The results contribute to the development of more sustainable building blocks in the context of East Africa.
Describing building sustainability innovation potential : Block making in Tanzania and Uganda
Purpose. This paper describes opportunities for sustainable building in East Africa. Previous research indicates that cement is often poorly used in the commonly used concrete blocks. Better use of cement and thereby lower costs and a lower carbon footprint might be achieved by substituting solid blocks with hollow ones while sustaining functional requirements. This work could further be advanced by a business model that promotes affordability and a lowered carbon footprint of blocks produced at building site. Methodology. Block manufacturing processes in Tanzania and Uganda are described. Sustainability performance as price and carbon footprint per wall m2 are assessed and compared for solid and hollow concrete/sandcrete blocks. Findings. The results from Uganda indicate that there is a clear economic and environmental advantage in using hollow blocks compared to solid blocks. There seems to be innovation potential to be realised both in choice of product and improvement of manufacturing processes. The preliminary findings indicate that costs per m2 of wall could for 6 inch blocks of the same functional quality be reduced with some 20% and the carbon footprint with 40% when using hollow blocks instead of solid ones. In Tanzania only a carbon footprint saving potential of about 30% has been inferred. Practical implications. The results indicate that in order to assess overall global improvement potential, sustainability needs to be understood on the operational level. Originality/value. The results contribute to the development of more sustainable building blocks in the context of East Africa.
Describing building sustainability innovation potential : Block making in Tanzania and Uganda
Isaksson, Raine (author) / Buregyeya, Apollo (author)
2019-01-01
Conference paper
Electronic Resource
English
DDC:
690
| British Library Online Contents | 2006
Sustainability potential awareness among built environment stakeholders: experience from Tanzania
| Emerald Group Publishing | 2021
STATE HOUSE BUILDING, TANZANIA
| British Library Online Contents | 2007
Critical Analysis of Payments for Ecosystem Services: Case Studies in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania
| DOAJ | 2023