ENGT5260: Recommendations for Waste Reduction and Resource Use

This report, submitted by a student, focuses on resource efficient design and waste reduction strategies, particularly within the context of the housing industry. It begins by emphasizing the importance of balancing resource utilization with product efficiency, given the environmental impact of manufacturing. The report explores the concept of the Rebound Effect, discussing the relationship between resource use, product efficiency, and environmental return, with a focus on waste management. It then examines the small house movement as a model for sustainable housing, highlighting its resource efficiency and waste management practices. The report analyzes the cost-effectiveness and environmental benefits of tiny homes, including their reduced resource consumption and waste generation. Finally, the report proposes resource-efficient design suggestions for commercial housing units, such as utilizing renewable energy sources and adopting minimalist design principles to minimize environmental impact and promote sustainable living practices.

Running head: ENGT5260: Assignment B
ENGT5260
Assignment B: Recommendations for waste reduction and improved resource use
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

1ENGT5260: Assignment B
Introduction.
Resource efficient designing refers to maintaining a balance between the utilisation of
resources during building a product and product efficiency. It has become important and
relevant in the current context because of the staggering amount of environmental stress and
damage that product manufacturing inflicts. Maintaining environmental resources and
reducing waste should be identified as one of the vital outcomes of any product
manufacturing industry. Resource use minimisation is one of the most debated topics in
current business and organisation domains. It comes with a variety of considerations of which
waste reduction and waste management is one. Within a particular product cycle, starting
from the manufacturing process to the use phase and ending in either being recycled or
discarded, the whole process involves using a variety of resources in variable numbers while
at the same time, contributing to the generation of waste. This is the reason why, looking at
resource efficient design becomes an important consideration.
Looking at resource use in product manufacturing from the consumer end, it can be
said that the one thing that draws consumers closer to buying and using a particular line of
products is the kind of user experience it provides them. Efficiency of a product heavily
influences the way a particular product will be received by the people. In the current context,
most people look for highly efficient products which are also cost effective. However, there
has been a general conception, supported by research (Arrobo & Padovan 2018) that states
that there is a direct correlation between the amount of resources used for production and the
level of efficiency of the product. Therefore, as the public demand for more and more
efficient product increases, the stress on the earth’s natural resources also increase, leading to
eventual resource depletion. Furthermore, the production process itself utilises a lot of
resources as both raw materials and fuel, contributing to an increased carbon footprint. Going
back to product designing, it can be said that most modern products are gradually becoming

2ENGT5260: Assignment B
more and more eco friendly, that is more products and processes nowadays are concerned
about the environmental impacts their production is associated with. The aspect of resource
utilisation and product efficiency is what gives credibility to the concept known as the
Rebound Effect.
The Rebound Effect is the phenomenon that looks at the relation between resource
use, product efficiency and the return that comes from the process. Knowing that non –
renewable resources of this planet are more capable of energy generation than the renewable
sources of the energy, most industries rely on fossil fuels for their production process. It
contributes directly to environmental pollution through the emissions that come out untreated
from the industries. Thereby, it contributes to an increase in the industry’s overall carbon
footprint. The rebound effect, also known as the take – back effect, states that the amount of
resources used in the process needs to be returned to the earth in some form or the other.
The current report looks at the housing industry and specifically focuses its attention
on the relatively new trend known as the small house movement, as per which the houses but
are smaller, compact and yet, apart from the space, does not compromise on major aspects
like comfort, accessibility or organisation, some of the basic things a person needs when
staying inside a house (Boeckerman, Kaczynski & King 2019). These houses are mostly built
to be self - sustaining and for people who like to be off the grid. However, this report also
serves the function of providing a resource efficient design suggestion that links small house
movement with the commercial housing industry and analyses few converging aspects that
could be of potential benefit to be incorporated within the commercial housing units. Smaller
houses have been proven to be quite resource efficient with most of the houses requiring a lot
less resources to maintain and being capable of sustenance with the help of renewable
resources like solar power and tidal energy. This report looks at that aspect from primarily a

3ENGT5260: Assignment B
waste management perspective while merging it together with resource efficiency and
drawing correlations with the rebound effect.
Resource efficiency, waste management and the rebound effect.
Chakravarty et al. (2013) talk about the rebound effect stating that if the
manufacturers of a product has to comply with the resource management standards, there are
certain compromises that need to be made with the performance or efficiency of the product.
There is a correlation between resource efficiency, product efficiency and waste
management. In order to make products more efficient, as Arrobo and Padovan (2018) state,
the manufacturers need to rely on more resources, and in many cases certain rare components
as resources too. While this does increase the efficiency and performance of the product to a
great extent, it negatively impacts the environment and the planet’s resource table.
Alternately, it also contributes to waste production in various forms. The Waste Reduction
(Vol 1) Report stresses the importance of identifying waste as a crucial element contributing
to the lack of wellbeing of the planet. It highlights that the people of the society, established
in different professional sectors must identify the benefits that reduction of waste entails and
the series of roles that they can individually play in combatting this issue (House of Lords
Science and Technology Committee 2008). Furthermore, according to the Report of the
Government Chief Scientific Adviser (2016), a lot of waste management can be turned
productive by looking at waste recycling as a valid alternative. If recycling is looked at as a
process of controlling the waste that is being generated, then a significant amount of garbage
related problems can be lifted from the earth. However, this requires the availability of a
strong workforce to mobilise such a process. This is where resource efficient designing and
the rebound effect come into play. According to Gillingham, Rapson and Wagner (2016), the
rebound effect can be mathematically expressed, by keeping the consumption of the product
constant, as the ratio of lost benefits to the conjectured benefits on the environment. The

4ENGT5260: Assignment B
amount of resources in the form of fuel utilised in order to make sure that a product is
efficient enough, can be brought down by increasing the fuel use efficiency of the product
(Gillingham, Rapson and Wagner 2016). Wang, Han and Lu (2016) explains that the rebound
effect can be used to estimate the fuel consumption and fuel efficiency, and finally get an
approximate empirical understanding of what level the final rebound effect score (RE score)
needs to be.
Small House movement: a look into sustainable housing.
The Small House movement, also known as the tiny house movement, is a social –
architectural movement that promotes living a simplistic life in a smaller house. According to
Ford and Gomez – Lanier (2017), a tint house is a residential structure that usually covers an
area less than 400 square feet. Even though, a majority of the connotations associated with
the tiny house movement attaches aspects of financial stability, safe economy and deviant
consumer mindsets, Kilman (2016) state that the tiny house movement has been significant in
providing certain invaluable environmental benefits. In Kilman’s (2016) paper, a tiny house
is stated to be a matter of dispute regarding the spatial area it covers, however, Kilman
approaches with 300 square feet and less of floor area as the dimensions for a tiny house.
This indicates towards a rather signifying aspect in terms of resource use, as the smaller the
houses are, the less resources would be required to build it, given that majority of the
luxurious elements associated with a modern house would be removed and only the things
that are elementary and essential would be kept (Wotton, Skates & Shutter 2018). This report
looks at both resource utilisation and waste management in a tiny house.
The first major question that most people ask is regarding the cost of building and
living in a tiny house (Colombini 2019). Reports suggest that, based on the individual
nuances of a tiny house, the cost of building a shelter this size is usually half that of a modern
commercial house (Wotton, Skates & Shutter 2018). First of all, the cost of concrete and

5ENGT5260: Assignment B
timber significantly go down because the size of the house allows for use of less resources to
build. Besides, the size of the house also forces the organisation of the interior space to make
the movement inside the house more vertical rather than horizontal. This means that instead
of separate beds for every member of the family, there are wooden bunks (or concrete bunks
in some cases) attached to the house in a fashion that they can be mechanically realigned to
make more space when needed (Kilman 2016). This not only saves space, but also removes
the additional burden of extra furniture in the house, which in turn contributes to low resource
use by the houses.
In terms of energy use to power the houses, most of the houses are reportedly
powered electrically by batteries and in some cases, a direct commercial electric line. Even
then, these houses are reported to use a significantly less amount of resources to power itself
(Murphy 2014). Besides, a lot of tiny house residents also prefer having a solar powered
alternative to power their interiors, thereby shifting to a more eco - friendly and resource
efficient way of generating and using power.
In terms of waste management, there are again certain variation and personal choices
that come into play when considering living in a tiny house. Many studies have shown that
the tiny houses that are being built, are resorting to more efficient ways of managing waste
that are generated within the house. One such process that many people adopt is to have a
biodegradable waste reuse system where the decomposable waste that is being generated are
redirected towards being used as alternate sources either for manufacturing bio – fuel or in
producing compost (Mutter 2013). Apart from that the non – biodegradable products are
mostly encouraged to be reused or disposed of for recycling. This is one of the reasons that
provide a strong support to tiny houses in the field of sustainable housing, resource efficiency
as well as waste management. Apart from that, the dimensions of tiny houses being smaller, it

6ENGT5260: Assignment B
also leaves a lot of land behind to be reused for vegetation and plantation purposes as well
(Wotton, Skates & Shutter 2018).
Tiny houses are therefore a significant inclusion in the product or process line up
when we discuss them from the viewpoint of resource efficient design. We can therefore see
that a lot of these design ideas can be implemented in the current commercial housing system
that would significantly benefit the environment in positive ways, both in terms of resource
utilisation and waste management (Hagbert & Bradley 2017).
Resource efficient design suggestions.
Commercial housing units can significantly benefit from the concepts of tiny housing.
There are several design suggestions that can make commercial housing more
environmentally friendly and less reliant on natural resources. First of these suggestions
involve actively minimising the reliance on nature’s raw materials for energy. Shifting to a
solar or tidal powered energy generation system would significantly reduce the personal
carbon footprint of the residents living in the houses. Furthermore, alternate forms of fuel use
like compressed natural gases (CNG) which produce less carbon dioxide, can also help
manage the waste generation and pollution. Carbon dioxide is a significant gas that adds to
the greenhouse effect wherein the sun’s heat is trapped and distributed within the earth’s
atmosphere. Reducing the carbon dioxide production can promote green living and eco -
friendly housing.
Secondly, the commercial houses can also opt for a minimalist lifestyle by bringing
down the floor space. Not only would it reduce the cost of building and maintaining the
houses, it would also entail using less resources to build the houses, which in turn would
contribute to major environmental resource conservation. That in itself is a significant aspect
that needs to be looked at when considering any product or process from a business to

7ENGT5260: Assignment B
consumer perspective. This kind of sustainable development actively promotes the
development of a circular economy (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2013) which falls in line
with the rebound effect as well.

8ENGT5260: Assignment B
Conclusion.
Resource efficient designing is an important strategy that needs to be looked at when
considering any product or process. While most people on the consumer end prefer efficiency
of products and overlook the impacts on the environment, it becomes important to understand
that the process of production involves utilisation of resources which, when exceeds a certain
amount, causes fatal damage to the earth and its resource table. In the process, it becomes
important to consider that the earth’s resources are not infinite, therefore, it is up to the
people of the planet to ensure that the resources that are being depleted are returned to the
earth in some way. If that does not seem like a feasible option, there are alternatives like
resource efficient design and strategies that can help achieve that goal.
In the current report, sustainable housing has been looked at as a crucial participant in
the resource efficient design platform. Within the domain of sustainable housing, this report
identifies the small house movement and tiny houses as the particular product for analysis.
The report highlights that tiny houses are effective when resource efficiency is considered.
They are houses which occupy small space and utilise less resources in comparison to
commercial houses. Besides they are also significant in managing waste generation. In doing
so, tiny houses prove to be an efficient product in terms of resource use and waste
management. Opting certain design ideas from tiny houses and implementing them in
commercial housing can also help in bringing down the resource use and waste generation,
thereby promoting an active series of sustainable, eco – friendly, green housing systems to
prevail.

9ENGT5260: Assignment B
References.
Arrobbio, O. and Padovan, D., 2018. A vicious tenacity: The efficiency strategy confronted
with the rebound effect. Frontiers in Energy Research, 6, p.114.
Boeckermann, L.M., Kaczynski, A.T. and King, S.B., 2019. Dreaming big and living small:
examining motivations and satisfaction in tiny house living. Journal of Housing and the Built
Environment, 34(1), pp.61-71.
Chakravarty, D., Dasgupta, S. and Roy, J., 2013. Rebound effect: how much to
worry?. Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 5(2), pp.216-228.
Colombini, C., 2019. The Rhetorical Resistance of Tiny Homes: Downsizing Neoliberal
Capitalism. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, pp.1-23.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013). Towards the Circular Economy, Economic and
business rationale for an accelerated transition, Available at:
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/Ellen- MacArthur-
Foundation-Towards-the-Circular-Economy-vol.1.pdf
Ford, J. and Gomez‐Lanier, L., 2017. Are tiny homes here to stay? A review of literature on
the tiny house movement. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 45(4), pp.394-
405.
Gillingham, K., Rapson, D. and Wagner, G., 2016. The rebound effect and energy efficiency
policy. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 10(1), pp.68-88.
Hagbert, P. and Bradley, K., 2017. Transitions on the home front: A story of sustainable
living beyond eco-efficiency. Energy research & social science, 31, pp.240-248.

10ENGT5260: Assignment B
House of Lords Science and Technology Committee (2008). Waste Reduction (vol 1) Report,
House of Lords, London. Available at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldsctech/163/163.pdf
Kilman, C., 2016. Small house, big impact: the effect of tiny houses on community and
environment. Undergraduate Journal of Humanistic Studies, 2(Winter 2016).
Murphy, M., 2014. Tiny houses as appropriate technology. Communities, (165), p.54.
Mutter, A., 2013. Growing tiny houses: Motivations and opportunities for expansion through
niche markets. IIIEE Master thesis.
Report of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (2016). From Waste to Resource
Productivity, The Government Office for Science, London. (Final report and case studies)
Wang, Z., Han, B. and Lu, M., 2016. Measurement of energy rebound effect in households:
evidence from residential electricity consumption in Beijing, China. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58, pp.852-861.
Wotton, J., Skates, H. and Shutter, L., 2018. Tiny House–when size matters. Australian
Planner, 55(3-4), pp.209-220.