Follow-Up: Circular (De)Construction Matchmaking Model Validation 
Sign in to Google to save your progress. Learn more
Which option describes your background the best?
Clear selection
Please review the following highlights and rate what you think about them. 

Scores: Strongly disagree -- 1; Disagree -- 2; Neutral -- 3; Agree -- 4; Strongly agree -- 5. 

Are you ready?
Clear selection

N - What the model can do NOW

N1 - It is clear that the model is designed to simulate circular matchmaking dynamics in the built environment.
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Clear selection
N2 - I agree that the model (with its background explanations) is a suitable learning tool for users who are not familiar with the concept of circular matchmaking.
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Clear selection
N3 - I agree that the model shows a potential method to analyse the feasibility of circularity hubs.
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Clear selection
N4 - I agree that the model provides a useful perspective for managing multiple circular buildings at different scales.
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Clear selection
F - What the model can do in the FUTURE
F1 - It is important to upgrade the model so that it can explore cooperation strategies among hubs and optimise hub locations for logistical efficiency.
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Clear selection
F2 - It is important to improve the model so that it can allow for partial matches, where excess materials can be accepted even if the exact quantity is not met.
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Clear selection
F3 - It is important to incorporate detailed information about construction materials and building ages into the model. This can enhance the learning experience of students and show that construction materials are interactive in an ecosystem instead of always being limited within one project.
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Clear selection
F4 - It is important to improve the model by designing an evaluation component to quantify and compare the environmental performance of different circular interventions.
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Clear selection
F5 - It is important to test the feasibility of circularity hubs at city, provincial, and national scales. This function could be supported by accurate and official data about how many buildings are going to be constructed and demolished at what place and at what time.
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Clear selection
F6 - It is important to add primary material flows to the model so that it can (1) identify the quantity gap in filling the construction demand and (2) predict the equilibrium between primary and secondary material flows.
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Clear selection
General remarks
NL: U bent vrij om te schrijven in welke taal u maar wilt.
EN: Please feel free to write in any languages that you prefer.
Please fill in any remarks that you would like to add.
Submit
Clear form
Never submit passwords through Google Forms.
This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Report Abuse - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Google Forms