Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering

Luís Bragança · Philip Griffiths ·

Rand Askar · Adriana Salles ·
Viorel Ungureanu · Katerina Tsikaloudaki ·
Diana Bajare · Gabriel Zsembinszki ·
Meri Cvetkovska Editors

Circular Economy
Design and
Management
in the Built
Environment
A Critical Review of the State of the Art
Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering

Series Editors
Sheng-Hong Chen, School of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering,
Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
Marco di Prisco, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy
Ioannis Vayas, Institute of Steel Structures, National Technical University of
Athens, Athens, Greece
Sanjay Kumar Shukla, School of Engineering, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup,
Perth, WA, Australia
Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering (STCE) publishes the latest developments in
Civil Engineering - quickly, informally and in top quality. The series scope includes
monographs, professional books, graduate textbooks and edited volumes, as well as
outstanding PhD theses. Its goal is to cover all the main branches of civil engineering,
both theoretical and applied, including:
• Construction and Structural Mechanics
• Building Materials
• Concrete, Steel and Timber Structures
• Geotechnical Engineering
• Earthquake Engineering
• Coastal Engineering; Ocean and Offshore Engineering
• Hydraulics, Hydrology and Water Resources Engineering
• Environmental Engineering and Sustainability
• Structural Health and Monitoring
• Surveying and Geographical Information Systems
• Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
• Transportation and Traffic
• Risk Analysis
• Safety and Security
Indexed by Scopus
To submit a proposal or request further information, please contact:
Pierpaolo Riva at [email protected] (Europe and Americas)
Wayne Hu at [email protected] (China)
Luís Bragança · Philip Griffiths · Rand Askar ·
Adriana Salles · Viorel Ungureanu ·
Katerina Tsikaloudaki · Diana Bajare ·
Gabriel Zsembinszki · Meri Cvetkovska
Editors

Circular Economy Design

and Management in the Built
Environment
A Critical Review of the State of the Art
Editors
See next page

ISSN 2366-259X ISSN 2366-2603 (electronic)

Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering
ISBN 978-3-031-73489-2 ISBN 978-3-031-73490-8 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8

This work was supported by European Cooperation in Science and Technology.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2025. This book is an open access publication.

Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribu-
tion and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were
made.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons license,
unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s Creative
Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

If disposing of this product, please recycle the paper.

Editors
Luís Bragança Philip Griffiths
ISISE, ARISE, Department of Civil School of Architecture and Built
Engineering Environment
University of Minho Ulster University
Guimarães, Portugal Belfast, UK

Rand Askar Adriana Salles

ISISE, ARISE, Department of Civil ISISE, ARISE, Department of Civil
Engineering Engineering
University of Minho University of Minho
Guimarães, Portugal Guimarães, Portugal

Viorel Ungureanu Katerina Tsikaloudaki

Department of Steel Structure and Structure School of Civil Engineering
Mechanics Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Polytechnic University of Timişoara Thessaloniki, Greece
Timișoara, Romania
Gabriel Zsembinszki
Diana Bajare Department of Industrial and Building
Faculty of Civil and Mechanical Engineering
Engineering, Institute of Sustainable University of Lleida
Building Materials and Engineering Lleida, Spain
Systems
Riga Technical University
Riga, Latvia

Meri Cvetkovska
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Ss. Cyril and Methodius University
in Skopje
Skopje, North Macedonia
This publication is based upon work from
COST Action CA21103 CircularB
(Implementation of Circular Economy in the
Built Environment, https://circularb.eu/),
supported by COST (European Cooperation
in Science and Technology).
COST (European Cooperation in Science and
Technology) is a funding agency for research
and innovation networks. Our Actions help
connect research initiatives across Europe
and enable scientists to grow their ideas by
sharing them with their peers. This boosts
their research, career and innovation.
www.cost.eu
Preface

This book offers a comprehensive exploration of Circular Economy Design and

Management within the Built Environment, presenting a critical review of the current
state of the art. It thoroughly examines multi-level approaches, ranging from mate-
rial usage to urban planning, and explores strategies for circular building design,
criteria, and indicators for circularity. Additionally, it investigates practical tools and
frameworks, as well as the roles and relationships of stakeholders across the entire
value chain. Through insightful case studies and critical analysis, readers gain a deep
understanding of circularity principles and applications, circularity management
models, feedback systems, sustainable practices, and the integration of circularity
into technological advancements and digital tools such as BIM.
The importance of this book lies in its response to the pressing challenges faced
by contemporary architecture and construction, providing a roadmap for sustainable,
circular solutions. It addresses the critical need to transition from linear to circular
practices, emphasising resource efficiency, waste reduction, and the longevity of
structures.
By offering practical insights and highlighting successful implementations, this
book aims to guide architects, civil engineers, designers, sustainability professionals,
and policymakers towards informed decision-making in creating environmentally
conscious built environments. Designed for these professionals and researchers, it
serves as a valuable resource for anyone passionate about reshaping the future of our
built spaces with a focus on circularity and environmental responsibility.
The book presents a systematic and cohesive methodology for addressing various
facets of Circular Economy design and management within the context of buildings
and the built environment, a unique approach not found in existing literature. It begins
by exploring general concepts, principles, and strategies of the Circular Economy as
they apply to buildings and the built environment. This is achieved through a bottom-
up approach, progressing from materials to building components, and eventually to
the urban scale.
A dedicated focus is then directed towards individual building scales, empha-
sising conceptual frameworks and innovative design solutions across different life-
cycle stages. The book subsequently addresses essential indicators and criteria for

ix
x Preface

circularity, covering material, component, and system considerations at the scale of

individual buildings. It also explores how these criteria can be integrated into tools
and frameworks for implementing and monitoring Circular Economy practices in
buildings, and how they align with international sustainability schemes.
Furthermore, the book examines the intersection of Circular Economy princi-
ples with Industry 4.0 technological advancements. This includes showcasing the
automation of diverse strategies and the use of digital tools to enhance circularity in
design, monitoring, and value chain management. The relationships among stake-
holders involved in circular value chains are also explored, with an emphasis on their
roles and responsibilities within feedback systems.
Each chapter of the book is substantiated with illustrative case studies, exam-
ples of best practices, and presentations of ongoing efforts. Notably, some of the
topics addressed are only partially covered in competing titles, lacking the systematic
methodology presented here.
The development of this methodology owes its success to the extensive network of
the CircularB COST Action, which convenes researchers from 40 European coun-
tries. Their collaborative efforts, expertise, and diverse perspectives were instru-
mental in shaping this methodology. The meticulous monitoring and guidance
ensured the coherence and interconnectedness of information flow throughout the
book, making it a valuable contribution to the field.

August 2024 Prof. Dr. Luís Bragança

Chair of COST Action
CA21103—Implementation of Circular
Economy in the Built Environment
(CircularB)
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Minho
Guimarães, Portugal
Contents

Part I Multi-level Approach from Urban to Buildings to Materials

1 Circular Economy Best Practices in the Built Environment . . . . . . . . 5
Genesis Camila Cervantes Puma, Adriana Salles, Janez Turk,
Vlatka Rajčić, Almudena Muñoz Puche, Kinga Korniejenko,
Themistoklis Tsalkatidis, Vanessa Tavares, Rocio Pineda Martos,
Tatiana Ruchinskaya, and Luís Bragança
2 Circular Materials—A Multiscale Approach to Circularity
at a Building, Components and Materials Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Rocío Pineda-Martos, İlker Kahraman,
Genesis Camila Cervantes Puma, Viorel Ungureanu,
Fernanda Paes de Barros Gomide, and Raluca Buzatu
3 Energy Systems and Building Services Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Marilena De Simone, Philip Griffiths, Daniele Campagna,
and Moses Itanola
4 Circular Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
François Fohl, Vlatka Rajčić, Viorel Ungureanu,
Michele Palermo, Lidiana Arrè, Ivana Carević, and Raluca Buzatu
5 Recovery and Reuse of Salvaged Products and Building
Materials from Existing Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Viorel Ungureanu, François Fohl, Jie Yang, Oliver Hechler,
Vlatka Rajčić, and Raluca Buzatu

Part II Design Strategies and Tools for Circular Buildings

6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings: Circular
Principles, Building Lifecycle Phases and Design Strategies . . . . . . . 127
Marianna Marchesi and Vanessa Tavares

xi
xii Contents

7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Paulo Santos, Aimee Byrne, Ferhat Karaca,
Paola Villoria, Mercedes del Rio, Rocío Pineda-Martos,
and Genesis Camila Cervantes Puma
8 Modularity and Prefabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Vanessa Tavares, Cristina Sousa Coutinho Calheiros,
Inês Burmester Martins, Joana Maia, Katerina Tsikaloudaki,
Mariana Fonseca, Marianna Marchesi, Mirjana Laban,
Nelson Soares, Paulo Santos, Rocío Pineda-Martos,
Vlatka Rajčić, and Viorel Ungureanu
9 Design for Circularity, Design for Adaptability, Design
for Disassembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Stella Tsoka and Katerina Tsikaloudaki
10 Reversible Buildings and Products. Transformable Buildings . . . . . . 273
Katerina Tsikaloudaki
11 Adaptive Reuse of Existing Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
Maria Beatrice Andreucci and Selin Karagözler

Part III Criteria and Indicators for Circularity in Construction

12 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Construction
Material Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
Rocío Pineda-Martos, Rand Askar, Ferhat Karaca,
Marilena De Simone, Ruben Paul Borg, Mirjana Malešev,
Vlastimir Radonjanin, Bilge Bas, Ayfer Dönmez Çavdar,
Genesis Camila Cervantes Puma, Leonardo Rosado,
and Luís Bragança
13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building
Component and System Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
Aidana Tleuken, Ferhat Karaca, Rand Askar,
Gerald Leindecker, Ilker Kahraman, Christina Giarma,
Genesis Camila Cervantes Puma, Rocío Pineda-Martos,
Iskander Bolatkhanov, Michele Palermo,
Lidiana Arrè, Ali Akbar Shah Syed, Inam Ul Ahad,
Liljana Dimevska Sofronievska, Meri Cvetkovska,
Vanessa Tavares, and Luís Bragança
14 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Whole Building
Design Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
Bahar Feizollahbeigi, Ricardo Mateus, Elena Goicolea Güemez,
and Marta Gómez-Gil
Contents xiii

Part IV Design-Support Tools and Assessment Frameworks for

Circularity
15 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for Existing Buildings . . . . . . . . . 411
Haitham Abu-Ghaida and Leonardo Rosado
16 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for New Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
Bengü Güngör, Akmaral Agibayeva, Ferhat Karaca, Rand Askar,
Christina Giarma, Leonardo Rosado, Rocío Pineda-Martos,
Philip Griffiths, and Luís Bragança
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising
Circular Economy and Digital Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
Rand Askar, Ferhat Karaca, Adriana Salles, Artyom Lukyanenko,
Genesis Camila Cervantes Puma, Vanessa Tavares,
Assemay Khaidarova, Ana Nadaždi, Rocío Pineda-Martos,
Juan Manuel Díaz-Cabrera, Meliha Honic, Catherine de Wolf,
Emriye Cinar Resulogulari, Ibrahim Karatas, Helena Gervásio,
and Luís Bragança
18 Material and Building Passports as Supportive Tools
for Enhancing Circularity in Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
Gerald Leindecker, Rand Askar, Bengü Güngör, Teresa Blázquez,
Nika Turbina, Marta Gómez-Gil, Aikaterina Karanafti,
Luís Bragança, and Catherine De Wolf
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within
International Sustainability Assessment Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545
Christina Giarma, Patrizia Lombardi, Rand Askar, Nika Trubina,
Daniela Santana Tovar, Adriana Salles, Hasan Volkan Oral,
Rocío Pineda-Martos, Aikaterina Karanafti, Bahar Feizollahbeigi,
Ricardo Mateus, Sara Torabi Moghadam, Janez Turk,
Ruben Paul Borg, and Luís Bragança

Part V Stakeholders and Circular Value Chain Management

Editorial
20 Stakeholders’ Role, Inter-Relationships, and Obstacles
in the Implementation of Circular Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 629
Diana Bajare, Gabriel Zsembinszki, Stylianos Yiatros,
Sakdirat Kaewunruen, Mustafa Selcuk Cidik, Georg Schiller,
Ning Zhang, Agatino Rizzo, Tatjana Tambovceva,
Mennatullah Hendawy, Ayfer Donmez Cavdar,
and Paul Ruben Borg
xiv Contents

21 Defining the Project’s Lifecycle Stages and Their Related

Decision-Making Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647
Diana Bajare, Gabriel Zsembinszki, Pedro Frazão Pedroso,
Marco Frazão Pedroso, Dorina Kripa, Xhesila Nano,
Tatjana Tambovceva, and Ruben Paul Borg
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers
and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 667
Diana Bajare, Gabriel Zsembinszki, Denis Rizaov,
Tatjana Tambovceva, Natālija Cudečka-Purina, Dzintra Atstāja,
Sakdirat Kaewunruen, Dorina Kripa, Xhesila Nano,
Orestes Marangos, Olympia Nisiforou, Stylianos Yiatros,
Marco Lamperti Tornaghi, Aidana Tleuken, Luís Bragança,
Adriana Salles, Rand Askar, Ali Turkyilmaz, Thomas Laudal,
Christina Giarma, Dina Azhgaliyeva, Ferhat Karaca,
and Ayfer Donmez Cavdar
23 CE Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737
Diana Bajare, Gabriel Zsembinszki, Danute Vaiciukyniene,
Sakdirat Kaewunruen, Mustafa Selcuk Cidik,
Tatjana Tambovceva, Ilker Kahraman, Gokhan Kilic,
and Ayfer Donmez Cavdar
 Part I
Multi-level Approach from Urban
to Buildings to Materials
Viorel Ungureanu and Katerina Tsikaloudaki

In an era that faces the challenges of climate change, environmental degradation

and resource scarcity, the built environment stands out as a significant contrib-
utor to global energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, natural resources’
depletion, and waste generation. It is nowadays acknowledged that the conventional
linear model of “take-make-use-dispose” used in the construction industry has been
considerably attributed to these trends. Within this framework, the circular economy
emerges as a paradigm shift towards a more regenerative system, demonstrating its
main objectives to minimize waste and maximize the value of resources.
The circular economy in the built environment involves implementing strategies
at various levels: urban, building, and materials. Each level contributes to reducing
waste, conserving resources, and promoting sustainability.
At the urban level, circular economy strategies focus on planning and designing
cities that minimize waste and optimize resource use. Urban planning and zoning
encourage mixed-use developments, reducing the need for transportation and
promoting efficient land use. Zoning regulations support adaptive reuse of buildings
and brownfield redevelopment. Cities establish robust systems for waste collection,
sorting, and recycling, and are equipped with facilities for processing construction
and demolition waste. Circular urban metabolism designs cities to function like
ecosystems, where waste from one process becomes input for another, such as using
organic waste for urban agriculture. Shared and multi-use spaces promote the use

V. Ungureanu
CMMC Department, Polytechnic University of Timişoara, Timişoara, Romania
Laboratory of Steel Structures, Romanian Academy, Timişoara Branch, Timişoara, Romania
V. Ungureanu
e-mail: [email protected]
K. Tsikaloudaki
School of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
e-mail: [email protected]
4 Part I: Multi-level Approach from Urban to Buildings to Materials

of shared spaces and infrastructure, such as co-working spaces and public ameni-
ties, maximizing the utility of built environments and reducing the need for new
construction.
At the building level, circular economy principles are integrated into the design,
construction, and operation of buildings. Design for disassembly ensures buildings
can be easily deconstructed at the end of their life cycle, allowing materials to be
salvaged and reused. Modular and prefabricated construction techniques create build-
ings that can be easily assembled, disassembled, and reconfigured. Implementing
energy-efficient designs and systems, and integrating renewable energy sources like
solar panels, reduces the building’s carbon footprint. Adaptive reuse repurposes
existing buildings for new functions rather than demolishing them, preserving the
embodied energy and materials of the original structure.
At the materials level, circular economy strategies focus on the recovery, reuse,
and recycling of building materials. Material recovery involves implementing prac-
tices for the selective demolition of buildings to recover materials that can be reused
or recycled, including careful deconstruction and inventory of materials. Using recy-
cled and biodegradable materials reduces waste and the need for virgin materials.
Material passports create digital records of materials used in buildings, including their
properties and origins, to facilitate their future reuse and recycling. Developing and
using innovative materials with a lower environmental impact, such as low-carbon
concrete, recycled steel, and sustainable insulation materials, further supports circular
economy goals.
By addressing circular economy principles at the urban, building, and materials
levels, we can create sustainable, resilient, and resource-efficient built environments.
This multi-level approach ensures that every stage of the lifecycle of buildings and
materials contributes to reducing waste and conserving resources.
In this chapter, the basic background concerning the theory and the background
of implementing the principles of circular economy in the context of the built envi-
ronment is presented. This entails every aspect of design, construction, management,
and end of life of structures, and expands from the basis of materials and building
elements, to the whole structure and the urban environment level. The main objec-
tives, strategies and means are discussed in order to set forth the essential theoretical
background. Analysis on the materials, components, energy systems and building
services follows, accompanied by a detailed presentation of circular manufacturing.
Special attention is given to the recovery and reuse of materials and products from
existing structures, which is among the core scopes of the circular economy concepts.
Chapter 1
Circular Economy Best Practices
in the Built Environment

Genesis Camila Cervantes Puma , Adriana Salles , Janez Turk ,

Vlatka Rajčić , Almudena Muñoz Puche , Kinga Korniejenko ,
Themistoklis Tsalkatidis , Vanessa Tavares , Rocio Pineda Martos ,
Tatiana Ruchinskaya , and Luís Bragança

Abstract This document serves as the opening chapter of a book that addresses the
critical issue of resource depletion in the built environment, illustrating the unsus-
tainable trends in current construction and demolition practices that extensively rely
on new raw materials. It highlights the significant impact of the building sector on

G. C. Cervantes Puma (B) · A. Salles · L. Bragança

ISISE, ARISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, 4804-533 Guimarães,
Portugal
e-mail: [email protected]
A. Salles
e-mail: [email protected]
J. Turk
Slovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia
V. Rajčić
Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
A. Muñoz Puche
R&D Project Manager, Technological Center of Furniture and Wood of the Region of Murcia,
Calle Perales s/n 30510, Yecla (Murcia), España
e-mail: [email protected]
K. Korniejenko
Cracow University of Technology, Kraków, Poland
T. Tsalkatidis
Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
V. Tavares
BUILT CoLAB, Porto, Portugal
R. P. Martos
School of Agricultural Engineering ETSIA, University of Seville, Sevilla, España
T. Ruchinskaya
TVR Design Consultancy, 6 Green Street, Willingham, Cambridgeshire CB24 5JA, UK
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2025 5

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_1
6 G. C. Cervantes Puma et al.

global resource consumption, energy utilization, and waste generation, with alarming
statistics such as buildings accounting for 40% of the world’s extracted materials
and a significant source of waste and greenhouse gas emissions. Advocating for
a transformative shift towards a circular economy in the built environment, the text
emphasizes sustainable and regenerative economic practices that minimize waste and
maximize resource efficiency. This approach necessitates the redesign of systems
to ensure the durability, reparability, and recyclability of construction materials,
thereby promoting a model where waste is systematically eliminated and materials
are continually repurposed. The document also discusses the 10R strategy, which
centres on minimizing waste and enhancing resource efficiency, and explores various
circular practices within the construction sector. It includes examples from case
studies and best practices to demonstrate the viability and advantages of adopting
circular economy principles. The challenges and success factors in implementing
such practices are thoroughly examined, emphasizing the urgent need for increased
awareness, supportive policies, and robust stakeholder collaboration to foster a more
sustainable and resource-efficient built environment. The first chapter sets the stage
for a detailed exploration of these themes throughout the book’s subsequent sections.

Keywords Circular economy · Built environment · Sustainable construction ·

Resource efficiency

1.1 Introduction

Our current society, driven by a culture of disposability, is depleting the Earth’s

valuable and limited resources at an alarming pace [1]. The built environment is a
prime example of this phenomenon, where buildings are frequently stripped down
and demolished, only to be replaced by new structures constructed from new raw
materials. Unfortunately, little to no regard is given to the significant environmental
and social consequences associated with the extraction and processing of construction
materials. Equally concerning is the lack of consideration for the eventual fate of our
buildings [2].
The built environment is a major contributor to resource consumption, accounting
approximately 40% of the world’s extracted materials [3]. Buildings and construc-
tion account for the consumption of approximately 40% of the natural resources
worldwide, 70% of electrical power and 12% of potable water. Moreover, buildings
and construction were responsible for consuming 35% of final energy and generating
38% of emissions in 2019. Buildings might have a crucial role in achieving carbon
neutrality, circularity, and sustainability of the built environment through the reno-
vation of building stock. For example, 75% of building stock existing in European
Union is non-energy efficient and is not in compliance with the current legislation
as 90% of building stock was built before 1990 [3].
The demolition and constructions activities associated with it generate the largest
waste stream in many countries. For instance, in the European Union (EU27),
1 Circular Economy Best Practices in the Built Environment 7

construction and demolition activities generated 37.5% of the waste produced in

all economic activities in 2020, that together with the activities of mining and quarry
(mostly intended for the construction industry) totalised 60.9% of waste produced.
The extraction of raw materials necessary for construction is becoming increasingly
challenging, leading to heightened environmental strain as delicate ecosystems are
exploited. In the near future, it is expected that extraction and use of raw materials
will be exacerbated considering the actual consumption of these raw materials for
construction and urban areas (urban areas currently consumes 75% of existing natural
resources and generates 50% of solid waste and 60% of greenhouse emissions on a
global scale) and the projected increase of population living in urban areas (68.4%
of the projected 9.7 billion inhabitants in 2050).
Additionally, geopolitical factors contribute to price volatility and disruptions in
the supply of essential raw materials. Adding to the complexity, the demand for
resources is projected to escalate as the global middle class is expected to double in
size by 2030. For instance, global steel demand alone is forecasted to surge by 50%
by 2025 [4]. These trends highlight the urgent need for sustainable approaches in the
built environment to address resource scarcity and minimise environmental impact.
Unfortunately, building design frequently prioritises the immediate needs of
current users without considering the future implications. A building is often
composed of intricate components, incorporating a wide array of materials and poly-
mers that are intricately fused together. This complex composition poses a significant
challenge for future retrieval or separation of these materials [5].
A more forward-looking approach that considers long-term sustainability and
resource availability is essential to ensure that valuable resources are effectively
conserved and available for the benefit of future communities [5]. To this end, under
the different headings, an overview of the basic concepts of circular economy in the
built environment is presented, such as circular materials, design, modularity, reuse
of existing building etc. The report will then continue with different examples of
case studies and best practices for each of these concepts and, finally, a few lessons
will be derived, key challenges and success factors from the implementation of the
circular economy in the built environment.

1.2 Circular Economy

The circular economy is a ground-breaking economic model that seeks to transform

the traditional linear model of “take, make, dispose” into a more sustainable and
regenerative system. It emphasises the principles of elimination of waste and pollu-
tion, optimization of material use, and regeneration of natural systems to promote the
creation of a circular flow of goods in the economy. This involves designing products
to be durable, repairable, and recyclable, thus extending their life, see Fig. 1.1.
At the heart of the circular economy lies the idea of valuing products and materials
as resources that merit preservation and creating strategies that promote the reuse
and regeneration of these resources. This approach can help reduce the depletion of
8 G. C. Cervantes Puma et al.

Fig. 1.1 The butterfly diagram: visualising the circular economy [6]

natural resources and minimise the environmental impact of waste generation and
disposal, leading to a more sustainable model of economic development [7].
Moreover, the circular economy recognises the need to achieve sustainable devel-
opment through a triple-bottom-line approach to economic performance, i.e., taking
into consideration environmental, social, and economic factors simultaneously. This
approach recognises the interconnectedness of these three factors and emphasises
the importance of ecological stewardship, social development, and economic growth
in achieving sustainable development [8].
The circular economy can have several benefits for businesses and societies
that adopt its principles. First, it can lead to increased resource efficiency, reduced
waste generation, and the development of innovative business models that promote
economic growth. Second, it can contribute to the preservation of ecosystems and
the mitigation of climate change, making it a desirable approach for professionals
seeking to promote sustainability and resource efficiency in business practices. Third,
circular business models can create opportunities for job creation and contribute
to social development, particularly in underserved communities that have been
disproportionately affected by a non-circular economy [8].
Europe has emerged as a global leader in promoting and implementing the circular
economy concept. The EU has adopted several policies and initiatives aimed at
supporting its implementation, including the Circular Economy Action Plan [9]
and the Circular Economy Package [9], which promote sustainable consumption,
production patterns, and waste reduction. EU member states have implemented
1 Circular Economy Best Practices in the Built Environment 9

waste management and recycling targets to minimise landfilling and increase mate-
rial recovery, and Extended Producer Responsibility schemes hold manufacturers
accountable for the end-of-life management of their products, promoting product
design for durability, reparability, and recyclability [10].
In conclusion, the circular economy represents a fundamental shift towards
sustainability and regenerative economic systems that align with social and envi-
ronmental goals. By prioritizing the reduction of waste and pollution, optimizing
material use, and regenerating natural systems, this model presents an alternative to
the traditional linear model, leading to a more sustainable and regenerative system.
It promotes an economic growth that considers environmental, social, and economic
factors simultaneously, recognizing their interconnection [8]. The circular economy
has several benefits for businesses and societies, including job creation and social
development, promoting sustainability and resource efficiency in business practices,
and ecosystem preservation and climate change mitigation. Europe has emerged as
a leader in promoting and implementing this concept, with policies and initiatives
aimed at supporting its implementation [11]. The circular economy represents a
fundamental shift towards sustainability, which offers a promising future for a more
sustainable and inclusive economy.
Principles
The principles of the circular economy are centred around designing out waste
by creating a system in which there is no waste. To achieve this goal, products
are designed to last, using high-quality materials, and optimised for a cycle of
disassembly and reuse that facilitates their transformation and renewal.
The circular economy distinguishes between technical and biological cycles, with
consumption only occurring in the biological cycles. Biologically based materials
such as food, linen, or cork are designed to feed back into the system through anaer-
obic digestion and composting to regenerate living systems such as soil and oceans,
providing renewable resources for the economy. In contrast, technical cycles focus
on recovering and restoring products, components, and materials through strategies
such as reuse, repair, remanufacturing, or recycling [12].
The goal of the circular economy is to optimise resource yields by always
achieving the highest possible utility of products, components, and materials in use
in both technical and biological cycles [13]. This means that products are designed
to be used for as long as possible before being disassembled and reused or recycled.
By doing so, the circular economy aims to reduce waste and minimise the use of
virgin materials.
The final principle of the circular economy seeks to use renewable energies to
fuel the system, reducing dependence on finite resources and increasing systems’
resilience. This principle emphasises the need to design out negative externalities
and develop effective systems that promote sustainability [11]. In review, the circular
economy is a production and consumption model that prioritises minimizing waste,
reducing resource consumption, and promoting sustainable use of natural resources.
It aims to create a sustainable economic system that can support the needs of both
current and future generations while minimizing its environmental impact [13].
10 G. C. Cervantes Puma et al.

By adopting design principles that focus on reducing waste and pollution,

extending the life of products and materials, regenerating natural systems, optimizing
resource yields, using renewable energies, reducing dependence on finite resources,
increasing systems’ resilience, designing out negative externalities, and developing
effective systems that promote sustainability, it can create a sustainable economic
system that meets the needs of current and future generations [11].
10R Strategy
The 10R strategy is a pivotal element of the circular economy, providing several
sustainability advantages (see Fig. 1.2). This approach involves designing out waste
by implementing a waste-free system which concentrates on high-quality products
and materials that are optimised for disassembly and utilization [14]. The technique
differentiates between technical and biological cycles, with consumption only taking
place in the biological cycle [15]. Biologically based items are designed to regenerate
living systems such as soil and oceans by feeding back into the system through anaer-
obic digestion and composting. In contrast, components and materials are recovered
and restored through strategies like reuse, repair, remanufacturing, or recycling in
the technical cycles [14].
The goal is to optimise resource yields by obtaining the highest possible utility
of products, components, and materials in both technical and biological cycles [16].
Products are designed to be of highest use for a long time before being disassembled
and reused or recycled, minimizing waste, and decreasing the reliance on virgin
materials [14]. As a result, businesses can achieve triple bottom line sustainability
benefits that include economic, social, and environmental advantages [16].
By following the 10R strategy, businesses can reduce their environmental impact,
create new opportunities for growth and cost savings, promote the circular economy,
and drive innovation [14]. By adopting a sustainable future, businesses can play their
role in lessening reliance on virgin materials and resources, contributing positively
towards a sustainable future.
The 10R strategy offers numerous sustainability benefits, including reducing
waste and improving efficiency throughout the product life cycle, promoting the
circular economy, and driving innovation [15]. By adopting the 10R strategy, busi-
nesses can reduce their environmental impact and boost their bottom line by creating
new opportunities for growth and cost savings.
For example, by reducing the number of materials used in manufacturing and
packaging, businesses can save on costs associated with raw materials, transportation,
and disposal. Furthermore, by adopting a circular economy approach, businesses can
reduce their reliance on virgin materials and resources, which can help to conserve
natural resources, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and mitigate climate change
[15].
Overall, adopting the 10R strategy can help businesses to achieve triple bottom
line sustainability benefits, which include economic, social, and environmental bene-
fits. By reducing waste and improving efficiency throughout the product life cycle,
businesses can reduce their environmental impact while also creating new oppor-
tunities for growth and cost savings [16]. By promoting the circular economy and
1 Circular Economy Best Practices in the Built Environment 11

Fig. 1.2 10R strategy [16]

driving innovation, businesses can further reduce their reliance on virgin materials
and resources while also contributing to a more sustainable future.
Benefits of Circular Economy
The circular economy offers numerous benefits that make it an attractive solution for
promoting sustainability and reducing waste. These benefits (see Fig. 1.3) include
environmental sustainability, economic opportunities, and social benefits [8]. By
adopting circular practices, stakeholders can minimise the environmental impact of
production and consumption, stimulate innovation and economic growth, create job
opportunities, improve resource access and affordability, and enhance community
resilience.
12 G. C. Cervantes Puma et al.

Fig. 1.3 Benefits of circular economy

One of the significant environmental benefits of implementing circular economy

principles is that it can lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions [5]. By
promoting the reuse of existing products and materials, the circular economy can
curtail the need for extracting natural resources, reducing the associated carbon
footprint [8]. Additionally, by minimizing the use of virgin materials, the circular
1 Circular Economy Best Practices in the Built Environment 13

economy can help conserve natural resources and protect vital ecosystems such
as soil, air, and water bodies. Moreover, circular practices and processes can
lead to significant energy savings by reducing the need for resource extraction,
manufacturing, and transportation of new products [8].
Another environmental benefit of the circular economy is that it can help to limit
waste generation and reduce pollution. Circular economy practices such as recycling
and remanufacturing can divert waste from landfills and incineration, thus promoting
resource efficiency [17]. This, in turn, can help protect ecosystems, limit biodiversity
loss, reduce landscape and habitat disruption, and contribute to the global effort to
combat climate change.
By adopting these principles, the circular economy can create a sustainable
economic system that meets the needs of current and future generations while
minimizing its environmental impact [8].

1.3 Circular Economy in the Built Environment

The circular economy is an industrial economy that aims to restore materials and
resources, relies on renewable energy, reduces toxic chemical use, and eliminates
waste through careful design. It presents a tremendous opportunity to capture more
value in the built environment. To tackle the complex nature of the built environment,
the Ellen MacArthur Foundation worked with Arup to develop a roadmap towards
a circular economy for building construction [18]. Courses, research frameworks,
and reports, such as TU Delft’s MOOC: Circular Economy for a Sustainable Built
Environment, Circular Economy for the Built Environment: A Research Framework,
and WorldGBC’s Circular Built Environment Playbook, respectively, are available.
The built environment industry has a crucial role to play (see Fig. 1.4) in transitioning
towards a sustainable, circular economy.
Recovery and reuse of salvaged building materials and products from existing
structures

Recovery and Reuse of Salvaged Building Materials in the Construction Industry

The recovery and reuse of salvaged building materials and products from existing
structures is an essential practice in the context of circular material usage in the
construction industry. Instead of demolishing buildings and sending the debris
to landfills, salvaging materials by disassembly allows for their reuse in new
construction projects, reducing waste and conserving resources [19].
Key Aspects of Recovery and Reuse of Salvaged Building Materials
Salvage operations involve carefully deconstructing or dismantling existing buildings
to recover reusable materials, requiring skilled labour, proper tools, and techniques
for safe removal and preservation. Materials are then identified, sorted, and assessed
for usability and potential applications, including evaluating condition, quality, and
14 G. C. Cervantes Puma et al.

Fig. 1.4 Circular economy in built environment

compatibility [7]. Proper preservation and storage are necessary to maintain their
quality, involving cleaning, repairing, treating, or storing materials appropriately.
Salvaged materials should be assessed and tested to meet safety and quality stan-
dards, evaluating structural integrity, durability, and performance. Establishing an
inventory and cataloguing system streamlines the reuse process, facilitating integra-
tion into new construction projects [19]. Designers and architects must consider char-
acteristics, limitations, and aesthetics when incorporating salvaged materials while
ensuring structural integrity and meeting regulatory requirements. Building networks
and partnerships among stakeholders enhance reuse, allowing for exchange of infor-
mation, expertise, and creation of marketplaces. By adopting these principles, the
1 Circular Economy Best Practices in the Built Environment 15

construction industry significantly contributes to sustainable practices by reducing

waste, conserving resources, and promoting circular material usage [20]. See more
information in Chap. 5, ‘Recovery and Reuse of Salvaged Building Materials and
Products from Existing Structures’.
Design for circularity
Design for circularity is a deliberate and systemic design approach that incorporates
the fundamental principles of the circular economy. This approach is centred on
minimizing waste, maximizing resource efficiency and promoting the reuse, recy-
cling and regeneration of materials [21]. To achieve these objectives, design for
circularity involves considering the entire life cycle of a product, from the sourcing
of materials and the manufacturing process to the disposal of waste, with an emphasis
on creating sustainable products and systems in a regenerative manner [21].
Key elements of design for circularity include the creation of products that are
durable, easily repairable, and designed for disassembly, allowing for the recovery
and repurposing of materials in a closed-loop system. Designers achieve this by
adopting a range of techniques, including the use of recycled or renewable materials,
building modularity and adaptability into designs, implementing product-service
systems, and exploring opportunities for remanufacturing or refurbishment [21].
Material Selection and Management
The European Union (EU) emphasises the importance of applying circular economy
(CE) principles across all economic sectors, including the construction sector. The
criteria for selecting circular materials in the construction sector include:
1. Water and energy conservation: Circular materials should contribute to reducing
water and energy consumption in the construction process.
2. Waste prevention: Circular materials should help minimise waste generation
during construction and demolition activities.
3. Material recycling: Circular materials should be recyclable, allowing for their
reuse in future construction projects.
4. Promotion of reuse and repair: Circular materials should be designed to facili-
tate reuse and repair, extending their useful life and reducing the need for new
materials.
5. Utilisation of secondary raw materials: Circular materials should incorporate
secondary raw materials derived from recycling or recovery processes.
By selecting materials that meet these criteria, the construction sector can
contribute to the transition towards a less resource-intensive economy and promote
circularity [12].
In the context of circularity, the European Union (EU) recognises the importance
of critical raw materials, which are economically significant, sensitive to supply
interruption, and have a significant environmental impact during extraction [22]. The
EU aims to incorporate these materials into reduction, reuse, and recycling practices
while seeking diversified and undistorted access to global raw materials markets and
reducing external dependence and associated environmental pressures [23].
16 G. C. Cervantes Puma et al.

To achieve a less resource-intensive economy, it is recommended to prioritise

the adoption of circular economy principles from the beginning of the production
process. This includes designing production systems that efficiently use materials
and enable recycling and reconversion of waste [12]. By incorporating circularity
principles into the production process, economic models can be transformed, and the
transition towards a less resource-intensive economy can be facilitated.
Selecting circular materials involves considering water and energy conservation,
waste prevention, material recycling, promotion of reuse and repair, and utilisation
of secondary raw materials [23]. The EU also emphasises the importance of incorpo-
rating critical raw materials into reduction, reuse, and recycling practices. Material
efficiency, recycling techniques, waste prevention, and lifecycle assessment are key
aspects of achieving circularity in material management and production systems [12].
Material recovery involves retrieving and reusing valuable materials from
construction and demolition waste (CDW) [24]. This process includes activities
such as deconstruction, which carefully disassembles structures to preserve valuable
components [25]. Recovered materials can include lumber, cross-laminated timber,
bricks, and other items that can be repurposed in future construction projects. The
goal of material recovery is to reduce waste generation, conserve resources, and
minimise the environmental impact associated with extracting new raw materials
[25].
Recycling is an end-of-use strategy that involves reprocessing materials to be used
in another product, thereby avoiding waste and the extraction of raw materials. In the
construction sector, recycling often involves converting CDW into reusable materials,
such as recycled aggregates, concrete, mortars, plastics, and gypsum Recycling CDW
and other waste materials can contribute to resource conservation, waste reduction,
and the promotion of sustainable material use [24]. More information is presented
in Chap. 7 ‘Circular Material Usage Strategies/Principles’.
Modularity/prefabrication
Modularity and prefabrication bear immense significance in furthering the Circular
Economy within the built environment. The integration of Circular Economy princi-
ples into modular construction allows for the development of a strategic framework
that takes into consideration the entire life cycle of construction, ranging from design
and production to use and end-of-life considerations [26]. The synergy of modularity
and prefabrication with restorative and regenerative design can effectively overcome
the trend of resource consumption growth, promoting the reuse of building compo-
nents and aligning with the principle of decoupling economic growth from resource
consumption. While the existing literature on the link between modularity and the
Circular Economy remains limited, evidence suggests that these concepts augment
resource efficiency, mitigate waste, and optimise material use, leading to a sustainable
and Circular construction sector [26].
The benefits of integrating modularity and prefabrication into construction
are manifold and significant for the Circular Economy in the built environment.
Offsite manufacturing and assembly of building components have the potential to
reduce material waste, maximise the utilisation of building materials and curtail
1 Circular Economy Best Practices in the Built Environment 17

transportation-related carbon emissions compared to traditional construction tech-

niques [26]. Furthermore, prefabrication of building components offsite simplifies
construction at the job site, expediting the construction timeline and minimizing
the presence of workers on-site. Controlled factory environments enhance quality
and consistency, leading to better-functioning and more durable buildings. Offsite
construction can also improve job site safety by reducing hazardous conditions and
minimizing work performed at high elevations [27]. Overall, modularity and prefab-
rication play an integral role in delivering higher quality, more durable structures
while promoting environmental benefits and resource efficiency within the sector
[27].
Prefabrication and modular construction offer several benefits for the Circular
Economy within the built environment, some of which include shorter project dura-
tions, cost savings, enhanced site protection, superior product quality, reduced waste,
and a closed-loop supply chain. Prefabrication and modular construction allow for
faster and more precise manufacturing, leading to shorter project timelines, reduced
construction costs, and economic sustainability [27]. Additionally, they minimise the
impact of construction on the environment and surrounding communities, enhancing
site protection while also improving product quality and promoting resource effi-
ciency through optimised material use and waste reduction [26]. The closed-loop
supply chain resulting from these practices further decreases the demand for virgin
materials, as components are reused and recycled. Overall, the integration of prefabri-
cation and modular construction techniques into Circular Economy principles offers
numerous benefits and is crucial to advancing sustainability in the built environment
(see more information in Chap. 8, ‘Modularity/Prefabrication’).
Reversible and transformable buildings
In a building context, the term “reversible” describes the process of transforming or
dismantling a building’s systems, products, and materials without incurring damages.
A reversible building can, therefore, be dismantled, and its components can be reused,
repurposed, or recycled. Similarly, reversible products can be designed and manu-
factured to enable the easy disassembly and reuse or recycling of their components.
Reversible design is a fundamental principle of the circular economy, which seeks
to keep resources in use for extended periods and eliminate waste [28].
Reversible building represents a strategic approach to architecture and construc-
tion aimed at creating buildings with reusable, repurposable, or recyclable materials,
enabling them to be disassembled without causing damage [29]. This philosophy
emphasises resource productivity and supports the ability of a building’s compo-
nents to revert to an earlier state, making the space easily adaptable to changing
user needs [29]. Reversible design considers the technical and spatial dimensions,
enabling efficient refurbishments and the disassembly, reuse, and/or recycling of the
building’s components [29].
Reversible products are of paramount importance to the circular economy, as they
allow for the deconstruction and reuse of components, reducing waste and carbon
emissions. “Reversible building” represents the backbone of circular building and
18 G. C. Cervantes Puma et al.

the circular economy, involving the design of buildings and products that are easily
disassembled and reused [29].
Reversibility and durability are potential indicators of circular economy design,
highlighting the importance of designing easily disassembled, recyclable, or repur-
posable products, promoting sustainability in the industry [30]. Reverse logistics,
which refers to the collection, repair, refurbishment, and recycling of products at the
end of their useful life, is a crucial aspect of the circular economy. Manufacturers can
use circular business models, whereby they maintain ownership of the product and
are responsible for its upkeep throughout its life cycle, regardless of who possesses
it [30].
The importance of reversible design is gradually becoming prevalent in calls
for projects as reversible design allows products to be reconfigured, adapted, and
repurposed to promote circularity in the production industry [30]. Overall, reversible
products are instrumental to the circular economy, enabling the reuse and repurposing
of materials and promoting sustainability in the production industry while reducing
waste and carbon emissions (see more information in Chap. 10 ‘Reversible and
Transformable Buildings’).

1.4 Case Studies and Best Practice Examples

The construction industry has long been recognised as a significant contributor to

natural resource depletion and environmental pollution [31]. As a result, designers
and manufacturers are increasingly focusing on sustainability and circularity in
their operations to minimise waste and promote resource efficiency. This requires
the adoption of various design concepts, including circular materials, modularity/
prefabrication, design for circularity, and reversible building/products. However, to
effectively implement these design concepts, it is essential to establish and follow
best practices [31]. Best practices provide a consistent framework for achieving
successful outcomes, optimizing performance, and ensuring regulatory compliance,
among other benefits. In this article, we delve into the importance of best practices in
achieving sustainable and circular design, highlighting their benefits and their crit-
ical role in successful implementation. Table 1.1 outlines the case studies in the next
chapters.
1 Circular Economy Best Practices in the Built Environment 19

Table 1.1 Case studies in the next chapters

Chapter Nº Case studies
Chapter 2 ‘Recovery and Reuse of Salvaged 1. Project ReCreate
Building Materials and Products from Existing 2. Temporary market hall
Structures’
Chapter 7 ‘Circular Material Usage Strategies/ 1. Gonsi Sócrates bio-building
Principles’ 2. Urban Mining and Recycling (UMAR)
experimental unit
3. Open-spaced apartment
4. Escuela Politécnica superior
Chapter 4 ‘Modularity/Prefabrication’ 1. Vertical timber extensions on existing
building
2. FrameUp—optimisation of frames for
effective assembling
3. SUPRIM case study
Chapter 5 ‘Reversible and Transformable 1. People’s Pavilion
Buildings’ 2. Brasserie 2050
3. Triodos Bank
4. Koodaaram Kochi-Muziris Pavilion
5. Stadium 974

1.5 Challenges Faced in Implementing Circular Economy

Practices in the Built Environment

The construction industry encounters economic challenges in adopting circular

economy practices. A major roadblock is the insufficient level of awareness and
knowledge of circular economy principles and practices among industry stake-
holders. Additionally, there is an absence of incentives to design and construct build-
ings and products that can be easily disassembled and repurposed at the end of their
operational life. These barriers pose significant obstacles to the adoption of circular
design in the construction industry [32]. The implementation of circular economy
practices in the built environment can also be impeded by technical obstacles. These
challenges include a lack of standardization, complicated building systems, and
the difficulty of disassembling and reusing materials. These technical barriers can
pose significant difficulties for designers and constructors seeking to adopt circular
economy practices in the built environment [33].
The implementation of circular economy practices in the construction industry
can be impeded by several economic challenges. One such challenge is the limited
research and application of circular economy concepts, which results in a lack of
understanding of its full potential. Furthermore, the absence of a circular economy
culture among stakeholders and resistance to change hinder the adoption of circular
practices. Stakeholders may perceive implementation of such practices as costly
due to insufficient regulatory frameworks and limited awareness of the benefits of
circular practices [34]. Addressing these challenges involves collaborative efforts
20 G. C. Cervantes Puma et al.

between stakeholders and government support, including the creation of new busi-
ness models and metrics, adoption of innovative technologies, and establishment
of economic incentives for circular products. Standardised metrics and increased
demand for circular products are also important in overcoming economic barriers
[35]. The design of buildings and products for disassembly and reuse at the end
of their lifecycle is vital, but stakeholders may lack awareness and knowledge of
circular economy principles and practices. In summary, there is a need for stakeholder
collaboration, government support, and novel approaches to overcome economic
obstacles and make the implementation of circular economy practices a reality in the
construction industry [35].
The implementation of circular economy principles throughout the supply chain
necessitates a clear economic justification, reinforced by metrics, tools, and guid-
ance [36]. Technical barriers, such as absence of standardization, building system
complexity, and the intricacies of disassembly and reutilisation of materials, pose
significant challenges to the adoption of circular practices in the built environment.
Moreover, a dearth of research and development in the circular economy concept
limits comprehension of its vast potential within the construction industry [34].
Resistance to change alongside the lack of a circular economy culture among
stakeholders presents another major obstacle to the circular economy’s adoption.
These impediments relate to stakeholders perceiving the high costs of implementing
circular practices, inadequate regulatory frameworks, and insufficient awareness of
the advantage of embracing circular practices [35].
Effective strategies to surmount these economic challenges require multi-party
collaboration, innovative business models and metrics, and technology adoption
[35]. This collective effort should produce clear economic incentives, practical solu-
tions, standardised metrics, and increased market demand for circular products. Thus,
through collaborative efforts between stakeholders and government support, circular
economy implementation can become a tangible reality in the built environment [37].

1.6 Success Factors for Circular Economy

Implementations in the Built Environment

The transition towards a more sustainable and circular future in the built environ-
ment requires addressing various factors that minimise waste generation, resource
depletion, and environmental impacts. Collaboration and stakeholder engagement
are crucial, involving architects, designers, contractors, legislators, manufacturers,
and communities at every stage of the value chain [12]. Design for adaptability
and modularity is essential, building flexibility and modularity into designs to
make disassembly, reconfiguration, and reuse easier, avoiding total demolition and
reconstruction for future adjustments and additions [35].
Careful consideration in material selection is critical, prioritizing durable, highly
recyclable, and environmentally friendly materials.
1 Circular Economy Best Practices in the Built Environment 21

Resource-saving practices such as energy-efficient systems, sustainable land-

scaping, and water-saving technology further enhance the circularity of built envi-
ronments. Taking a lifecycle approach to building, from planning and construction
through use and eventual destruction, is crucial. Efficient asset management measures
such as routine maintenance, monitoring, and upgrading increase the lifespan and
value of buildings [12].
Creating circular business models that incentivise recycling, renovation, and
remanufacturing of building materials promote longer product lifecycles and
decreased waste production using leasing, sharing, and product-as-a-service models.
These circular practices may be financially incentivised through tax breaks or
subsidies [35].
Data management and digitalization play a pivotal role in promoting effective
decision-making throughout the building lifespan, reducing waste, and allocating
resources better. Building Information Modelling (BIM), Internet of Things (IoT),
and data analytics are some digital technologies that can be used [38].
Governments and regulatory agencies promote circular economy adoption
through supportive policies, laws, and standards, such as waste management regu-
lations, green construction accreditations, and procurement policies that prioritise
circular practices [39]. Encouraging public education and knowledge about the bene-
fits and significance of the circular economy in the built environment among experts,
decision-makers, and the public is critical in promoting a culture of sustainability
and embracing circular practices.

1.7 General Conclusions and Future Trends in Circular

Economy Practices for the Built Environment

The built environment industry is exploring the circular economy concept as a way to
reduce resource consumption and move away from the traditional linear take-make-
dispose model. The circular economy aims to create maximum economic value while
minimizing waste by applying circular principles to both existing and new buildings.
These principles include adaptive reuse, prefabrication, and modular construction.
According to a report by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, the circular economy
offers significant investment opportunities of 115 billion euros for Europe’s built envi-
ronment sector. These opportunities involve designing and building circular struc-
tures, establishing closed-loop systems for construction and demolition materials,
and creating circular cities [23].
However, the implementation of circular economy practices in the built environ-
ment faces several challenges, such as policy and regulatory barriers, information and
awareness gaps, and the need for more collaboration across the supply chain. Despite
these challenges, several trends are emerging in the circular economy practices of
22 G. C. Cervantes Puma et al.

the built environment industry, such as increased awareness, technological and mate-
rial innovation, stakeholder collaboration, and policy support from governments and
regulatory bodies [5].
The built environment industry is moving towards a more sustainable and circular
future, with several promising aspects emerging. These include the increased use of
modular and prefabricated construction methods that enable easy disassembly, reuse
of components, and repair instead of replacement [34]. These methods can reduce
waste and resource consumption, as well as increase flexibility and adaptability.
Another aspect is the integration of circular principles into energy, water, and waste
systems for entire buildings and neighbourhoods. This can create more efficient and
resilient systems that minimise environmental impacts and optimise resource flows.
A third aspect is the availability of recycled, repurposed, and reclaimed building
materials that can reduce the demand for virgin materials and extend the life cycle of
existing materials. A fourth aspect is the application of digital technologies to support
circularity, such as building information modelling (BIM), material passports, and
blockchain-based supply chain management [35]. These technologies can enhance
transparency, traceability, and quality of building materials and components, as well
as facilitate circular design and decision making. A fifth aspect is the incorporation
of circularity into disaster recovery and resilience planning in the face of climate
change [12]. This can help the built environment industry to prepare for and respond
to natural disasters, as well as to recover and rebuild in a more sustainable and
circular way. The adoption of circular economy practices in the built environment is
essential for promoting sustainability and reducing waste. Continued innovation and
collaboration across the industry will be necessary for these practices to become the
norm and create a more sustainable future for us all.

References

1. Jørgensen S, Pedersen LJT (2018) RESTART sustainable business model innovation. In:
Palgrave studies in sustainable business. Association with future earth. Springer International
Publishing, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91971-3
2. Hussain M, Kamal A (2015) Energy efficient sustainable building materials: an overview. KEM
650:38–50. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.650.38
3. Omer MAB, Noguchi T (2020) A conceptual framework for understanding the contribution
of building materials in the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Sustain
Cities Soc 52:101869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101869
4. Ly JU (2021) Net-Zero industry tracker
5. Ayati SM, Shekarian E, Majava J, Wæhrens BV (2022) Toward a circular supply chain: under-
standing barriers from the perspective of recovery approaches. J Clean Prod 359:131775. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131775
6. Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2024) The butterfly diagram: visualising the circular economy.
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy-diagram. Accessed 9 July 2024
7. Arranz CFA, Arroyabe MF (2023) Institutional theory and circular economy business models:
the case of the European Union and the role of consumption policies. J Environ Manag 340.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117906
1 Circular Economy Best Practices in the Built Environment 23

8. Gardetti MA (2019) Introduction and the concept of circular economy. In: Circular economy in
textiles and apparel. Elsevier, pp 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102630-4.00001-7
9. European Commission (2024) Circular economy action plan—European Commission. https://
environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy-action-plan_en. Accessed 29 April 2024
10. Banjerdpaiboon A, Limleamthong P (2023) Assessment of national circular economy perfor-
mance using super-efficiency dual data envelopment analysis and Malmquist productivity
index: case study of 27 European countries. Heliyon 9(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.
2023.e16584
11. Akhimien NG, Latif E, Hou SS (2021) Application of circular economy principles in buildings:
a systematic review. J Build Eng 38:102041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.102041
12. Ossio F, Salinas C, Hernández H (2023) Circular economy in the built environment: a systematic
literature review and definition of the circular construction concept. J Clean Prod 414:137738.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137738
13. Haq UN, Alam SMR (2023) Implementing circular economy principles in the apparel produc-
tion process: reusing pre-consumer waste for sustainability of environment and economy. Clean
Waste Syst 6:100108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clwas.2023.100108
14. Rahman SM, Pompidou S, Alix T, Laratte B, Rahman SM (2021) Sustain Prod Consump
28:1178–1192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.07.025
15. Bag S, Gupta S, Kumar S (2021) Industry 4.0 adoption and 10R advance manufacturing capa-
bilities for sustainable development. Int J Prod Econ 231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.
107844
16. Potting J, Hekkert M, Worrell E, Hanemaaijer A (2017) Circular economy: measuring
innovation in the product chain
17. Oluwunmi AO, Oladayo OP, Role BA, Afolabi TO (2019) Benefits and barriers to the imple-
mentation of green building standards in universities: what are students’ views? IOP Conf Ser
Mater Sci Eng 640(1):012031. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/640/1/012031
18. Arup Associates (2024) The circular economy building. https://archello.com/project/the-cir
cular-economy-building. Accessed 9 July 2024
19. Crowther P (1999) Designing for disassembly to extend service life and increase sustainability
20. Division KCSW. DfD Design for Disassembly in the built environment: a guide to closed-loop
design and building. Foreword and Acknowledgements
21. Eberhardt LCM, Birkved M, Birgisdottir H (2022) Building design and construction strategies
for a circular economy. Arch Eng Des Manag 18(2):93–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.
2020.1781588
22. Çimen Ö (2023) Development of a circular building lifecycle framework: inception to
circulation. Results Eng 17:100861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100861
23. Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2023) https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/. Accessed 8 July
2023
24. Oluleye BI, Chan DWM, Saka AB, Olawumi TO (2022) Circular economy research on building
construction and demolition waste: a review of current trends and future research directions. J
Clean Prod 357(December 2021):131927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131927
25. Ramos M, Martinho G, Vasconcelos L, Ferreira F (2023) Local scale dynamics to promote the
sustainable management of construction and demolition waste. Resour Conserv Recycl Adv
17:200135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200135
26. Zairul M (2021) The recent trends on prefabricated buildings with circular economy (CE)
approach. Clean Eng Technol 4:100239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2021.100239
27. Potemans A (2017) Modular building in a circular economy an exploratory research
28. Durmisevic E (2018) WP3 reversible building design reversible building design guidelines
29. Antonini E, Boeri A, Lauria M, Giglio F (2020) Reversibility and durability as potential indi-
cators for circular building technologies. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12(18). https://doi.org/
10.3390/su12187659
30. Charter M (2018) Designing for the circular economy. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon; New York,
NY
24 G. C. Cervantes Puma et al.

31. Kalmykova Y, Sadagopan M, Rosado L (2018) Circular economy—from review of theories

and practices to development of implementation tools. Resour Conserv Recycl 135:190–201.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.034
32. Tirado R, Aublet A, Laurenceau S, Habert G (2022) Challenges and opportunities for circular
economy promotion in the building sector. Sustainability (Switzerland) 14(3). https://doi.org/
10.3390/su14031569
33. Sparrevik M, de Boer L, Michelsen O, Skaar C, Knudson H, Fet AM (2021) Circular economy
in the construction sector: advancing environmental performance through systemic and holistic
thinking. Environ Syst Decis 41(3):392–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-021-09803-5
34. AlJaber A, Martinez-Vazquez P, Baniotopoulos C (2023) Barriers and enablers to the adoption
of circular economy concept in the building sector: a systematic literature review. Buildings
13(11):2778. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13112778
35. Mhatre P, Panchal R, Singh A, Bibyan S (2021) A systematic literature review on the circular
economy initiatives in the European Union. Sustain Prod Consump 26:187–202. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.09.008
36. Dunant CF, Drewniok MP, Sansom M, Corbey S, Allwood JM, Cullen JM (2017) Real and
perceived barriers to steel reuse across the UK construction value chain. Resour Conserv Recycl
126:118–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.036
37. Munaro MR, Tavares SF (2023) A review on barriers, drivers, and stakeholders towards the
circular economy: the construction sector perspective. Clean Respons Consump 8:100107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100107
38. Bamigboye GO et al (2021) Waste materials in highway applications: an overview on generation
and utilization implications on sustainability. J Clean Prod 283:124581. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2020.124581
39. Giorgi S, Lavagna M, Wang K, Osmani M, Liu G, Campioli A (2022) Drivers and barriers
towards circular economy in the building sector: stakeholder interviews and analysis of five
European countries policies and practices. J Clean Prod 336:130395. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2022.130395

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 2
Circular Materials—A Multiscale
Approach to Circularity at a Building,
Components and Materials Level

Rocío Pineda-Martos , İlker Kahraman,

Genesis Camila Cervantes Puma , Viorel Ungureanu ,
Fernanda Paes de Barros Gomide , and Raluca Buzatu

Abstract Sustainable practices and strategies to enhance resource efficiency while

minimising waste in buildings and their constituent elements are key towards circu-
larity at the urban built environment. In this chapter three implementation scales,
under the paradigm of the circular economy (CE), are measured—i.e., buildings,
components and materials—, considering both new and existing buildings’ imple-
mentations. Aspects such as design for adaptability and flexibility, modular and
flexible spaces and concepts, energy and water efficiency are discussed. By imple-
menting CE strategies at the component-level using a multipronged approach would
extend the lifespan and contribute to environmental and economic sustainability.
This includes the refurbishment and upgrading of components and the adoption of
modular construction techniques, among other techniques and solutions. The last part

R. Pineda-Martos (B)
Departamento de Ingeniería Aeroespacial y Mecánica de Fluidos, Escuela Técnica Superior de
Ingeniería Agronómica, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]
İ. Kahraman
İzmir University of Economics, İzmir, Türkiye
G. C. Cervantes Puma · F. Paes de Barros Gomide
ISISE, ARISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, 4804-533 Guimarães,
Portugal
V. Ungureanu · R. Buzatu
Department of Steel Structures and Structural Mechanics, Politehnica University of Timisoara,
Timisoara, Romania
V. Ungureanu
Laboratory of Steel Structures, CCTFA, Romanian Academy - Timisoara Branch, Timisoara,
Romania
F. Paes de Barros Gomide
PPGTE, Postgraduate Program in Technology and Society, Federal University of
Technology-Paraná (UTFPR), Curitiba, Brazil

© The Author(s) 2025 25

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_2
26 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

of the chapter presents the concept of circular materials and its circularity poten-
tial at promote extended product lifecycles and transforming waste into valuable
resources. Integrating sustainable and circular design principles within construction
practices is proposed towards more sustainable and resource-efficient industries’
transformations.

Keywords Circular economy · Urban built environment · Buildings ·

Construction materials · Design for disassembly · Modularity

2.1 Introduction

Circular economy (CE) principles find application across various levels within the
built environment, encompassing buildings, components and materials. In a frame-
work for CE, a core tenant is the continuous circulation of products and materials,
aiming to minimise waste and optimise resource utilisation throughout their lifecycle.
This is accomplished through various strategies, including (i) routine maintenance
to prevent early deterioration, (ii) reuse of products in their original form, (iii) refur-
bishment to upgrade functionality, (iv) remanufacturing to create like-new products
from used components, and (v) recycling to convert used materials into new prod-
ucts. The essential purpose is to optimise resource efficiency, minimise waste, and
advocate for sustainable practices throughout the entire lifecycle of buildings and
their constituent elements.

2.2 Building Level

The principles of the CE offer a transformative approach to building design, construc-

tion, and operation. These principles encourage consideration of a building’s entire
life cycle; including designing for disassembly and adaptability to future uses, as well
as incorporating materials with high reuse and recycling potential. By designing
buildings with circularity in mind, it becomes possible to extend their lifespan
and reduce waste. The application of CE principles at the building level necessi-
tates a holistic approach that considers the total life cycle of the structure. This
approach promotes strategies to minimise resource consumption and waste gener-
ation throughout all stages, from design and construction to operation, renovation,
and end-of-life. Whether it is a new building or an existing one, different approaches
need to be considered.
New Buildings
When it comes to new buildings, the goal is to build for long-term use, build efficiently
and use materials resourcefully in order to minimise waste. Careful design and plan-
ning are crucial, alongside adopting resource-efficient construction techniques like
2 Circular Materials—A Multiscale Approach to Circularity at a Building … 27

prefabrication and modularisation, to minimise waste and enhance resource utilisa-

tion. Increasing the building utilisation and designing for durability and adaptability
are also crucial strategies, considering the future needs of the generations to come.
The latter is also associated with using circular materials with high recyclability and
recycled content, low environmental impact and non-hazardous components.
Existing Buildings
For existing buildings, the focus is on adaptive reuse, giving new purposes and
functions to existing structures. This helps towards extending the lifespan of the
building and avoiding unnecessary demolition and waste generation. Building reno-
vations and retrofits should prioritise incorporating energy efficiency goals to enhance
the building’s overall performance and optimise energy consumption. Additionally,
deconstruction techniques can be employed to carefully dismantle the building and
recover materials for reuse, remake or recycling.
At the buildings level, the application of CE principles translates to designing,
constructing, and operating buildings with a comprehensive life-cycle approach. This
means focusing on minimising resource consumption and waste generation across
the building’s life cycle, from design and construction to operation, renovation, and
deconstruction.
There are some key steps to follow, as explained in the four sub-sections below:
Design for Adaptability and Flexibility. In the twenty-first century, the dominant
feature is rapid technological advancement. The advent of new technologies and
smart building concepts is reshaping people’s lifestyles. Although buildings are
constructed with the intention of serving for many years, it is clear that in just a
decade, the needs of occupants can evolve significantly. To address this challenge,
buildings must be designed with a long-term perspective, minimising the need for
frequent replacements or demolitions. The emphasis is on creating designs that allow
easy modifications or repurposing as evolving needs arise. This adaptability is crucial
because the social, economic, and environmental conditions are constantly changing,
necessitating a corresponding evolution in the functions and purposes of buildings.
Besides aligning with circularity, this approach offers distinct advantages.
Designing for adaptability and flexibility is a pivotal step in ensuring that buildings
can respond effectively to changing circumstances. By proactively considering future
requirements and potential changes, the lifespan of buildings can be extended, hence
reducing waste, and curtailing the necessity for extensive renovations or demolitions.
Modular and Flexible Spaces. The concept of flexibility and adaptability in architec-
ture has been present since the emergence of modernism and continues to be highly
relevant in our daily lives. According to Kronenburg [1], flexible design aims to
create spaces that can be adjusted to unforeseen circumstances, evolving user needs,
and new operational requirements. The twentieth century witnessed a progressive
adoption of modular design principles, both in building structures and individual
products, marking a development in industrial history [2].
The term “flexible housing” is a more appropriate phrase to describe flexibility
in the built environment, as explained by Schneider and Till [3]. They broaden the
28 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

definition of flexibility to encompass all design choices that depart from rigid func-
tionality. This highlights the criticality of creating spaces capable of adapting to
accommodate diverse needs and functions over time.
In summary, flexibility and adaptability are crucial considerations in architecture
and engineering at the built environment. They enable spaces to respond to changing
requirements and operations, and the use of modular structures and flexible design
approaches can facilitate this adaptability. The term “flexible housing” encompasses
the range of design decisions that allow for the transformation and reconfiguration
of spaces, moving away from rigid functionality.
Energy Efficiency. Sustainable building design prioritises energy efficiency, a crit-
ical strategy for minimising energy consumption, lowering greenhouse gas (GHG))
emissions, and contributing to environmental well-being. To achieve this, several key
considerations should be weighed, such as:
Passive Design Strategies. Implementing passive design strategies is important to
optimise energy flows, natural lighting, infiltration, and ventilation. Minimising heat
loss through the building’s envelope using effective insulation, and reducing the
effect of thermal bridges, along with the management of solar heat gains can also
significantly lower the heating and cooling energy needs.
Efficient HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning) Equipment. Integrating
high-performance HVAC systems within a holistic building design fosters significant
energy savings and improved indoor thermal comfort. In addition, adopting energy-
efficient lighting solutions, such as LED bulbs and harnessing daylighting strategies,
further minimises the reliance on artificial lighting.
Smart Controls and Energy Management Systems. Using occupancy sensors, ther-
mostats, and smart controls can automatically adjust energy use according to occu-
pancy, daylight, or other factors; thus, optimising energy consumption. While energy
management systems offer the ability to leverage data from connected devices,
ensuring effective control and management relies on the implementation of a
user-friendly interface.
Renewable Energy Systems. Incorporating renewable energy systems such as
geothermal systems, solar power, wind power, biomass, or biogas can greatly
contribute to sustainable performance targets. Installing solar photovoltaic (PV)
systems on rooftops or vacant land can generate clean electricity, offsetting the
building’s energy demand and reducing reliance on grid power. Integration of small-
scale wind turbines or utilising geothermal heat pumps for heating and cooling
purposes are also viable options.
It is important to consider user-friendliness when implementing energy-efficient
systems. Complexity can hinder effective management and usage, so the systems
should have a basic interface that is easily understandable and manageable by users.
Additionally, integrating energy-efficient equipment and systems throughout the
building, such as HVAC systems, will contribute to overall energy efficiency.
2 Circular Materials—A Multiscale Approach to Circularity at a Building … 29

By incorporating these strategies and technologies, buildings can significantly

improve the prevailing comfort conditions and, at the same time, reduce their energy
consumption, reduce carbon emissions, and advance a more sustainable future. It is
essentially important that designers prioritise energy efficiency in building design and
construction to create environmentally responsible and resource-efficient structures.
Water Efficiency. Water management in buildings encompasses the implementation
of strategies and technologies to optimise the utilisation, conservation, and overall
management of water resources. The goals of effective water management include
eliminating wasteful practices and unnecessary expenses associated with the use
of clean water, reducing the reliance on freshwater resources to preserve ecological
balance, and ensuring adequate water supply in areas facing water scarcity. By imple-
menting efficient water management practices, buildings contribute to achieving
sustainable water use, conservation, and resilience in the face of growing chal-
lenges of water scarcity. This can be achieved through the adoption of water-efficient
appliances such as dishwashers and washing machines, and fixtures—e.g., toilets,
showerheads, and faucets.
Grey water recycling provides water savings of up to 50% in residences. For
commercial purposes such as hotels and dormitories, this rate exceeds 60%. The
water used to bathe and wash hands accounts for 50–60% of total greywater, the
greywater from the washing machine accounts for 25–35% of total greywater, and
the greywater from the kitchen accounts for 50–60% of total greywater.
Rainwater harvesting systems have huge potential to reduce water consumption
in buildings.

2.3 Component Level

The principles of the CE extend beyond the building itself, encompassing the indi-
vidual components that form itself. This includes the use of components that are
designed for disassembly, facilitating their seamless separation and subsequent reuse
or recycling. By incorporating circular design principles into the selection and use
of components, it becomes possible to minimise waste and maximise resource
efficiency. At the component level, several key strategies can be used to promote
circularity:
(1) Encouraging Product-as-a-Service (PaaS) Business Model: Emphasising the
PaaS model can facilitate the sharing and reusing of components, promote
resource efficiency, and reduce waste.
(2) Supporting Reverse Logistics and Take-Back Programmes: Smart take-back
systems and efficient reverse logistics keep resources in the loop, enabling
recycling and repurposing of materials at their end-of-life.
(3) Designing for Repairability: Emphasising repairability in component design
extends their lifespan and reduces the need for replacements. This can include
using easily replaceable parts or providing access to repairs.
30 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

(4) Promoting Remanufactured Components: Encouraging the use of remanufac-

tured components instead of new ones contributes to resource conservation and
reduces the demand for new production.
(5) Facilitating Component-Sharing Platforms: Providing platforms for individuals
or organisations to share components fosters resource sharing and reduces the
overall demand for new production.
(6) Collaborating for Resource and Component Sharing: Collaborating with others
to share resources and components further reduces the requirement for new
production and upholds circularity.
(7) Encouraging Innovation in Sustainable Materials and Technologies: The support
of research and development in the component field promotes the development
of innovative materials and technologies that enable sustainable and circular
components.
(8) Raising Awareness and Demonstrating the Benefits: Educating consumers,
producers, and policy makers about the advantages of implementing component-
level circularity can elevate public awareness and drive responsible consumption
behaviours.
(9) Advocating for Supportive Policies and Regulations: Advocating for policies
and regulations such as tax incentives or extended producer responsibility laws
that support CE practices at the component level can further drive adoption and
implementation.
In the built environment, implementing CE strategies at the component level
necessitates a multipronged approach, encompassing the reuse of building elements,
the refurbishment and upgrading of components, and the adoption of modular
construction techniques. These strategies extend the lifespan of components, reduce
waste, and contribute to environmental sustainability.
Reusing Components
While the term of CE may be recent, the underlying principles of resource recovery
and component reuse have a long history, dating back to pre-industrial times and
practised extensively then [4]. Material recovery is a complex process influenced
by numerous factors, encompassing economic changes, technological advance-
ments, and evolving trends such as fashion. In particular, the reuse and recycling
of metals have been practised since their very first utilisation [5]. The landscape of
decision-making is evolving, with environmental considerations gaining significant
weight alongside traditional economic and social factors. Due to this importance
and increasing material costs, the disassembly and reuse of components is attracting
more attention [6]. Recognising the importance of sustainable practices, the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed a tool to measure the energy savings
from responsible material management. Their findings demonstrate that recycling
and source reduction can conserve significant energy and minimise greenhouse gas
emissions, contributing to a healthier planet [7]. Achieving seamless deconstruction
hinges on two key factors: (1) incorporating the right technologies into the design
2 Circular Materials—A Multiscale Approach to Circularity at a Building … 31

process; and (2) developing innovative building systems and technologies that priori-
tise component reusability. By combining these approaches, we get closer to a circular
construction model where materials have multiple lives.
The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) has released a draft guide outlining
principles and strategies for Design for Disassembly and Adaptability (DfDA) in
buildings, offering valuable guidance for architects, engineers, and construction
professionals [8]. This research uses life cycle assessment (LCA) methodologies to
comprehensively evaluate various approaches toward reuse of materials and compo-
nents in the built environment. By providing designers with robust data and insights,
the study aims to develop a practical evaluation tool for selecting building layers and
components that optimise both environmental performance and reusability potential
[6].
The practice of recovering and incorporating individual components salvaged
from previous construction projects into new buildings is called “component reuse”.
This can encompass structural elements like beams and columns, or nonstructural
components like cladding panels, bricks, and even staircases. Compared to recycling,
reusing building components or entire structures typically requires less reprocessing,
leading to a more significant reduction in environmental impact [6]. The U.S. (United
States) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study revealed that component reuse
offers significantly greater environmental benefits than recycling, with waste reduc-
tion efforts leading to more than 60% higher energy and GHG emissions savings
[7].
Implementing a materials reuse strategy requires significant flexibility from design
teams, necessitating an openness to adapting plans as components become available.
Timely access to accurate information throughout the design process is highly impor-
tant. Having precise dimensions of reclaimed components readily available in the
early stages of the design empowers informed decision-making.
Reuse of structural components enjoys greater feasibility when the intended new
purpose aligns with the original function. Incorporating such as components into
a new project is facilitated by similar structural layouts and preservation of the
original span sizes in the new design. Client engagement plays an important role in
driving the success of deconstruction and reuse strategies. Their decisions regarding
budget, design goals, and level of risk tolerance significantly impact the feasibility
and success of such projects. The decision to reuse materials in a project demands a
nuanced approach, considering the unique characteristics of each site and the context
of the project. Factors such as location, available space, project timelines, and specific
design requirements all have a significant impact on the feasibility and suitability of
utilising previously used materials.
Refurbishment (Repair-Repaint-Retrofit) and Upgrading
The environmental footprint of the construction industry can be significantly reduced
through refurbishment, solidifying its position as a vital facet of the CE. Alongside
repair, remanufacturing, and direct reuse, refurbishment empowers the industry to
prioritise resource conservation and waste reduction.
32 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

Refurbishment involves the process of improving buildings by cleaning, deco-

rating, and reequipping them to achieve energy efficiency and sustainability goals. It
often includes elements of retrofitting, which focusses on upgrading existing building
components and systems to enhance their performance.
Refurbishment encompasses the targeted intervention on defective or outdated
elements, such as components and surfaces. This involves repair or replacement
while preserving the core structure. This approach promotes the conservation of
existing buildings while simultaneously enhancing their functionality and aesthetics.
Furthermore, refurbishment can extend to upgrades in fire protection, acoustics,
and thermal performance, ultimately leading to an overall increase in the building’s
quality and sustainability.
Retrofits, on the other hand, refer to the process of strengthening, upgrading,
or adding additional equipment to a building after its initial construction. This
often includes improved thermal insulation, energy-efficient HVAC systems, or even
renewable energy sources, together with the aim of improving building performance
and minimising environmental impact.
By implementing refurbishment and retrofitting practices, the construction sector
can contribute to resource conservation, waste reduction, and the promotion of
sustainable building practices. These approaches allow for extending the lifespan
of existing buildings, significantly reducing the need for construction projects made
with elements from new materials, thereby minimising the associated environmental
impacts.

2.4 Material Level

The construction industry can unlock significant environmental benefits by

embracing the principles of CE. Prioritising recycled materials in buildings reduces
the dependence on virgin resources, minimising waste and GHG emissions. This
paves the way for a more sustainable and resource-efficient future for the built
environment.
The concept of circular materials revolves around the reusing, recycling, or
transforming of materials within a closed-loop system. This approach represents
a paradigm shift, transitioning from the traditional “use and throw away” model
towards a more efficient paradigm of utilising existing resources through reuse.
Additionally, the development of new construction materials based on zero carbon
principles can also be considered part of the circular materials approach, as they lower
costs, speed up construction, improve quality and safety, and extend the lifespan of
buildings.
The use of circular materials in construction offers several benefits. It reduces
waste, conserves resources, and lowers the environmental impact of the built envi-
ronment. Some innovative construction materials and systems that contribute to circu-
larity include self-healing concrete, concrete canvas, topmix permeable, aerogel, and
nanomaterials. These materials offer improved durability, strength, and sustainability.
2 Circular Materials—A Multiscale Approach to Circularity at a Building … 33

To promote circularity at the materials level, several strategies can be imple-

mented:
(1) Material Recovery and Recycling: Implementing strategies to recover and
recycle materials from demolition or renovation of buildings, such as concrete,
metals, or wood, reduces waste and conserves resources.
(2) Closed-Loop Material Systems: Encouraging the adoption of circular materials
within construction and manufacturing processes. These materials prioritise
ease of separation, recycling, and reuse.
(3) Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): Encouraging manufacturers to take
ownership of their components beyond the point of sale, including responsible
recycling, repurposing, or alternative end-of-life solutions.
(4) Digital Platforms and Material Passports: Using digital platforms and material
passports provides information about the origin, composition, and recyclability
of building materials, facilitating their future reuse or recycling.
(5) Optimise Material Usage: Practices such as reducing overdesign, decreasing
the weight of products, and eliminating waste in production processes help
optimise material usage and minimise waste.
(6) Bio-based Materials: Exploring the development and use of bio-based mate-
rials that are renewable and biodegradable contributes to circularity and
sustainability.
(7) Advanced Recycling Technologies: The implementation of advanced recy-
cling technologies, including chemical recycling and upcycling, facilitates the
extraction of valuable materials from waste streams.
(8) Collaboration with Product Designers: Collaborating with product designers
to select materials that align with principles of CE, such as ease of disassembly
and recyclability, promotes circularity.
(9) LCAs: Conducting LCAs to evaluate the environmental impact of materials
and products, considering factors from extraction to disposal.
(10) Lean Manufacturing Practices: Promoting lean manufacturing practices to
minimise material waste during production.
(11) Stakeholder Engagement: Fostering multi-stakeholder collaboration,
including manufacturers, consumers, and policymakers, to educate and
advocate for the use of circular materials and responsible consumption
practices.
(12) Supportive Regulations: Advocating for regulations that mandate minimum
recycled content in products.
(13) Innovation and Collaboration: Collaborating with research institutions, star-
tups, and industry partners to drive innovation in materials and circularity.

Sustainable Materials Selection

Evaluating the sustainability of building materials can be guided by standards like
EN 15,804:2012 + A2:2019, which establishes foundational principles for Environ-
mental Product Declarations (EPDs) in the construction sector. EPDs play a key role
in green building assessment tools, offering insight into a product’s environmental
34 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

impact throughout its entire life cycle. EPDs rely on LCAs to provide information
on various environmental impacts of products. By meticulously analysing resource
consumption, energy usage, emissions released, and waste generated at every stage
of a product’s life cycle, LCAs offer a holistic perspective on their true sustainability.
The Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) establishes distinct definitions for
recycling and recovery within waste management. Recycling involves the repro-
cessing of waste materials into entirely new products, materials, or substances. On
the contrary, recovery refers to operations that fulfil a valuable purpose by replacing
other materials or preparing waste for a specific function.
The term “reuse” refers to sending the output material from a resource-consuming
unit to other operations without re-entering the processes from which it was emitted.
In contrast, the recycling scheme allows the effluent to re-enter the processes where it
was generated. By prioritising materials that can be recycled, reused, or transformed
within a closed-loop system, the construction industry can reduce waste, conserve
resources, and minimise environmental impact. This includes using materials with
high recycled content and designing for disassembly to facilitate material recovery
and recycling.
Beyond selecting sustainable materials, innovative practices such as digital plat-
forms and material passports offer deeper insights into the origin, composition, and
recyclability of building components. Additionally, EPR motivates manufacturers to
take ownership of their products’ end-of-life, promoting recycling and repurposing
strategies. Collaboration with product designers, conducting LCAs, promoting lean
manufacturing practices, and active stakeholder engagement work hand-in-hand to
propel the adoption of sustainable materials and facilitate the implementation of CE
practices within the built environment.
Closed-Loop
At the heart of the CE are closed-loop material systems, where materials or products
are designed for iterative use, recycling, and transforming into new offerings without
compromising quality. This approach minimises waste generation, promotes resource
conservation, and paves the way for a more sustainable and resource-efficient future.
Key characteristics and principles of closed-loop material systems include:
(1) Material Reuse: Emphasising the reuse of materials involves extending their
lifespan by using them in multiple cycles or repurposing them for different
applications. This approach mitigates the demand for virgin materials and
simultaneously minimises the generation of waste.
(2) Material Recycling: Closed-loop systems prioritise the resource recovery of
materials at the end of their designed use phase. This involves meticulous collec-
tion, sorting, and processing to transform them into new products or materials,
ultimately decreasing the reliance on virgin resources.
(3) Remanufacturing: Remanufacturing involves a meticulous process of refur-
bishing or repairing products or components, restoring them to their original
performance specifications or even exceeding them. This approach significantly
2 Circular Materials—A Multiscale Approach to Circularity at a Building … 35

extends the product lifespan, contributing to a reduction in the demand for new
manufacturing endeavours.
(4) Reverse Logistics: Reverse logistics is the “return journey” of products or mate-
rials. This system involves managing the flow of used items from consumers
back to manufacturers or recycling facilities, where they can be refurbished
or recycled. This ensures that the materials are properly collected, sorted, and
reintegrated into the closed-loop system.
(5) Resource Efficiency: Closed-loop material systems aim to optimise resource
usage by minimising waste, reducing energy consumption, and maximising the
resource efficiency and economic benefit derived from materials during their
lifespan.
(6) Waste Reduction: By designing products and systems with closed-loop princi-
ples in mind, waste generation can be minimised. This includes reducing pack-
aging waste, optimising material usage, and implementing efficient production
processes.
(7) Transparency and Traceability: Closed-loop systems benefit from transparency
and traceability, which involve tracking the origin, composition, and flow of
materials across the value chain, including acquisition, transportation, storage,
processing, and eventual delivery to the end user. This ensures accountability
and enables informed decision-making about material selection and recycling
processes.

2.5 Circular Materials

Circular materials are materials that have undergone processes such as collection,
sorting, and reprocessing after their initial use. These materials, which can include
plastics, natural fibres, metals, and more, are prepared to be used in new products
or applications. The concept of circular materials is closely linked to the CE, which
aims to transform linear material flows into circular ones by prioritising regenera-
tive resources, designing for the future, promoting extended product lifecycles, and
fostering the transformation of waste into valuable resources.
Circular materials are essential to achieve sustainability goals as they help reduce
the consumption of virgin resources, lower emissions from the production of new
materials, and minimise waste and environmental impact. By reusing materials and
incorporating them into new products, circular materials contribute to a more efficient
and sustainable use of resources.
In the context of construction, the principles of circular design can be applied to
buildings and constructed areas. This involves focussing on the design and assembly
process of the various components, such as walls, columns, slabs, roofs, founda-
tions, floors, pipes, partitions, and furniture. The goal is to ensure that the materials
used in these structures can be easily reused or repurposed in future generations of
construction. It is important to consider the lifespan of each component and plan
36 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

accordingly to maximise their potential for reuse. Integrating circular design princi-
ples into construction practices has the potential to transform the industry towards a
more sustainable and resource-efficient future.
Concrete
Concrete is undoubtedly one of highly utilised construction materials due to its
versatility, durability, and low cost [9]. Concrete contains natural ingredients such as
cement, water, aggregates (sand and gravel), and admixtures [10]. Environmental
concerns surrounding the production and disposal of concrete have spurred the
development of more sustainable practices within the industry.
Recycling concrete boasts a multitude of benefits, most notably the reduction in
dependence on primary raw materials and the substantial decrease in waste that ends
up in landfills [11]. Recycled concrete offers a sustainable approach in construction
and infrastructure by being reused as aggregate in new concrete and providing, in
this way, a closed-loop solution. Alternatively, it can be used in road construction and
earthworks, reducing the demand for virgin material. The ideal application depends
on balancing environmental benefits, local accessibility, and engineering require-
ments [10]. The lifespan of concrete structures depends on factors such as the type
of concrete used, structural design, quality of workmanship, exposure conditions,
and maintenance practices. In general, concrete structures can last 50 to 100 years,
although some last longer or shorter periods.
One of the main factors that ensures the durability of concrete is the strength of
the steel reinforcement. Maintenance practices are essential to extend the lifespan
of structures. Using circular materials such as slag in cement production can reduce
resource use and waste generation, while improving the properties of concrete [12].
The co-processing of recycled concrete scraps in cement manufacturing presents
a significant opportunity to advance the CE in construction. This approach effec-
tively uses waste as a valuable resource, minimising the landfill burden and resource
extraction.
Steel
The steel industry plays a crucial role in various human activities, including construc-
tion, transportation, consumer goods, and machinery. It is known for its remark-
able strength, durability, and recyclability, making it a valuable material for a wide
range of applications. However, the production of steel is associated with significant
environmental challenges.
Steel production has steadily increased over time, driven by population growth
and economic development. The industry is global, with China being the largest
producer, followed by the European Union (EU), India, and the U.S. These regions
also consume a significant portion of the global steel output.
Unfortunately, the steel production methods currently in use are heavily relying
on fossil fuels, contributing to carbon emissions. With roughly 7% of global energy-
related CO2 emissions, the iron and steel sectors represent significant drivers of
climate change [13]. To address this problem, there is a need for infrastructure
2 Circular Materials—A Multiscale Approach to Circularity at a Building … 37

and regulatory frameworks that promote the development and adoption of new
technologies to reduce CO2 emissions.
A positive aspect of steel is its recyclability without any loss of quality. About
30% of the world’s steel is born from recycled scrap. This recycled steel can be
used for various construction products, such as structural steel and roofing materials,
contributing to a more CE [13].
To make the steel industry more circular and sustainable, several pillars can
underpin this transition, including material efficiency, steel scrap recycling, process
efficiency, and steel production based on renewable sources [14]. These measures
involve producing lighter steel products, reusing steel items, improving energy
efficiency, and transitioning to renewable energy sources.
To achieve carbon neutrality and a circular steel economy, public policies in the
EU and elsewhere need to be updated and expanded. The creation of agencies to
promote the maintenance, repair, and reuse of steel in various industries can be a
step in the right direction.
Timber
Wood is an attractive and environmentally friendly material that aligns well with the
principles of the CE. Sustainably sourced wood, obtained from responsibly managed
forests, can play a decisive role in construction and various products, offering
numerous environmental advantages. These include lower energy requirements for
processing and the ability to sequester carbon from the atmosphere [14].
Sustainably sourced wood is used in a wide range of construction products, such as
structural wood, flooring, and cladding. It offers advantages in terms of sustainability,
workability, aesthetic qualities, and physical qualities. It can be adapted to various
layouts, built quickly with dry construction techniques, mass-produced efficiently,
and all at a cost-effective price point.
The emergence of engineered wood products has further expanded the use of
wood in the construction sector. Products such as glue-laminated wood (GLULAM),
veneered laminated wood (LVL), and cross-laminated timber (CLT), are strong,
durable, and fire-resistant. Not only reduce construction time, but they also contribute
to the environment by replacing high-impact materials such as concrete [15].
Wood recycling and reuse, while not as straightforward as materials like steel
or aluminium, are still possible [16]. Wood can be repurposed into lower-quality
products, used as biomass for energy production or in applications such as wood
chipboard and mulch. As landfill taxes increase, the recycling and reuse rates for
wood are expected to improve [17]. Engineered bamboo is also a promising material
with sustainability potential, capable of replacing traditional cladding and structural
materials in construction [18].
The concept of “off-site construction” is a noteworthy technique from a CE
perspective. It involves planning, designing, fabricating and assembling building
elements at the installation site, with the aim of minimal waste and efficient utilisation
of resources [17].
The increased use of wood in construction presents challenges, such as the need
for larger, longer-growing trees, land availability for planting, and the imperative for
38 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

public policy interventions that will accelerate the transition to a CE [19]. Addition-
ally, changing social perceptions and accelerating the development of mass wood
construction are crucial to industry growth and environmental benefits.
Masonry
Masonry, the age-old technique of building structures with materials such as bricks
and stone, has evolved into a technology that plays an important role in modern
construction. Sustainable practices in Masonry construction go beyond recycling
and carbon-free materials; they encompass the entire lifetime energy consumption
of products. Although bricks are durable and can last for centuries with proper
maintenance, they also present environmental challenges at various stages of their
production [20].
The environmental drawbacks of traditional bricks include high water and energy
consumption, substantial GHG emissions during the firing process, inadequate raw
material management leading to soil degradation, brittleness that requires additional
materials, and excess solid waste generation.
To address these issues and promote more ecological alternatives, innovative
approaches in masonry are emerging: (i) Masonry with Waste—The application
of industrial or agricultural by-products such as rice husk ash, fly ash, or slag to
create bricks or mortar with a lower carbon footprint and greater durability; and (ii)
Light Masonry—Incorporates aerated or porous materials to reduce the weight and
density of units, saving resources, transportation costs, and improving thermal and
acoustic insulation.
To improve brick sustainability, various strategies can be implemented:
(1) Use alternative energy sources or waste materials for production, significantly
reducing the environmental impact [21].
(2) Reduce the size and weight of bricks to conserve resources and reduce
transportation costs.
(3) Incorporate additives or coatings to enhance performance and durability.
(4) Develop new types of brick, such as biobased or recycled bricks, to create more
sustainable options.
Furthermore, research and innovation are paving the way for the development
of groundbreaking technologies to make bricks eco-friendlier and more functional,
aligning with CE principles:
(1) Hollow Bricks: Made from clay or concrete and can incorporate recycled waste
materials such as coal ash or rice husks. Their thermal insulation properties
reduce heating and cooling energy consumption in buildings.
(2) K-Briq: Made from 90% construction waste, it does not require firing in a
kiln, cement, or mortar for laying. It can reduce carbon emissions from brick
production by up to 90%.
(3) Biomineralised Brick: Grown from bacteria and CO2 using photosynthesis and
calcium carbonate, this self-replicating material can be repaired, extending its
use lifespan.
2 Circular Materials—A Multiscale Approach to Circularity at a Building … 39

(4) Air Purifier Brick: Designed to filter pollutants and dust using a cyclone filtration
system and a microalgae liner to capture and store contaminants. Its porous
concrete block design enhances airflow.
The use of salvaged bricks, while sustainable, faces challenges related to stan-
dardisation and verification of strength, safety, and durability [22]. Legislation in
some EU countries is moving towards reducing construction and demolition waste
sent to landfills. However, the construction industry is slow to adapt, and legislative
changes often lag behind innovative practices and materials.
Additive Manufacturing
Additive manufacturing (AM), more commonly known as 3D printing, is a critical
component of Industry 4.0, contributing to the realisation of the CE. This tech-
nology involves creating objects layer by layer from digital design data, resulting
in minimal material waste. Although AM offers substantial benefits, its adoption in
the construction industry lags behind other sectors. AM reduces material waste and
energy consumption by using only the necessary amount of material, enabling the
closed-loop production of products through the use of recycled materials. The main
steps in the AM process include modelling, converting 3D models into executable
procedures for 3D printers, actual printing, and post-processing [23].
There are three primary methods in AM related to construction: extrusion, powder
bonding, and additive welding, each with its materials and challenges. Cement-
based materials are commonly studied for additive construction and often involve a
combination of bulk materials, binders, and chemical additives.
Polymers and metals are also explored in AM construction, with various materials
like photosensitive resin, nylon, elastomers, and wax for polymers and metals for
metal structures. The potential for AM to impact sustainability by 2025 includes
reduced production costs, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions by approximately
5% [24].
AM contributes to the CE by reducing material waste, energy consumption, and
transport costs, extending product lifecycles, and offering innovative on-demand
products and services and unique one-off components. Challenges in AM sustain-
ability include understanding the AM lifecycle, adapting Design for the Environ-
ment (DfE) to Design for AM (DfAM), improving material recycling, addressing
intellectual property concerns, and exploring hidden costs [25].
Barriers in the construction sector include the cost of AM machines, customisa-
tion expenses, size limitations, post-processing requirements, and material properties
[26]. Despite these challenges, there is growing interest and investment in AM in
construction, with the development of materials, processes, design strategies and
applications, as well as the emergence of large-format 3D printing machines [27].
To realise the sustainability potential of AM in construction, standardisation in
materials, layer bonding, and structural design is crucial, along with a focus on
resource efficiency and environmental sustainability [26]. AM adoption within the
CE model promises to streamline localised value chains, increase resource efficiency,
include recycled materials, and reduce transportation costs.
40 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

References

1. Kronenburg R (2005) Flexible Architecture: the cultural impact of responsive building. Open
House Int 30(2):59–65
2. Schilling MA, Steensma HK (2001) The use of modular organizational forms: an industry level
analysis. Acad Manag J 44(6):1149–1168
3. Schneider T, Till J (2007) Flexible housing. Architectural Press, Oxford, p 237
4. Talbot F (1920) Millions from Waste, JB Lippincott, Philadelphia, PA
5. Strausser S (1999) Waste and Want. Metrop Books HenryHo, New York, NY
6. Gorgolewski M (2008) Designing with reused building components: some challenges. Build
Res & Inf 36(2):175–188
7. Ferland H (2006) Solid waste management and greenhouse gases: A life-cycle assessment
of emissions and sinks. Resource Recycling, http://yose-mite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/
content/ActionsWasteToolsSWMGHGreport.html, last accessed 2023/01/01
8. Council Directive (2008/98/EC) Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC), Directive 2008/
98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and
repealing certain Directives (Text with EEA relevance), https://www.eea.europa.eu/policy-doc
uments/waste-framework-directive-2008-98-ec, last accessed 2023/01/01.
9. PHYS (2021) Self-healing concrete could multiply lifespans of structures—Phys.org, https://
phys.org/news/2021-06-self-healing-concrete-lifespans.html, last accessed 2023/08/25
10. Cembureau (2023) The European Cement Association, http://www.cembureau.eu/, last
accessed 2023/08/25.
11. Sparrevik M, de Boer L, Michelsen O, Skaar C, Knudson H, Fet AM (2021) Circular economy
in the construction sector: advancing environmental performance through systemic and holistic
thinking. Environ Syst & Decis 41:392–400
12. Bertolini L (2014) Materiali da costruzione. Itália, CittàStudi
13. Irena (2023) Towards a circular steel industry. Int Renew Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi
14. EUROFER—The European Steel Association (2020) We are ready – are you? Making a
success of the EU Green Deal, https://www.eurofer.eu/assets/publications/position-papers/
a-green-deal-on-steel-update/2020-10-14-EUROFER-Policy-paper-A-Green-Deal-on-Steel_
V5.pdf, last accessed 2023/08/25
15. UCL (2021) Remaking steel for a net zero carbon circular economy. The Bartlett UCL, Univer-
sity College London, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/news/2021/sep/remaking-steel-net-zero-
carbon-circular-economy, last accessed 2023/08/25
16. Henry P (2021) 4 experts on sustainable mass timber and the green future of building. Form
Content, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/11/sustainable-mass-timber-green-building/,
last accessed 2023/08/25
17. Kumar A, Dhiman B, Sharma D (2020) Sustentabilidade e Aplicações de uma Madeira
como Material Estrutural: Uma Revisão. Revista Internacional de Pesquisa em Engenharia
e Tecnologia 7(10)
18. The Institution of Structural Engineers, IStructE (2023) https://www.istructe.org/resources/tra
ining/cpd-brochure-2023/, last accessed 2024/07/10
19. McKinsey & Company (2016), https://mckinseywell.com/products/wood-bio-products-mar
ket-assessment-by-product-type-biofuels-bioplastics-paper-and-paperboard-construction-
materials-others-by-application-roofing-flooring-furniture-packaging-others-by-end-use-ind
ustry-building-construction-automotive, last accessed 2024/07/10
20. Cairns R (2021) Going green: We’ve been using the same bricks for over 5,000 years. This
engineer says it’s time for a change. CNN, https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/going-green-
kbriq-sustainable-brick-spc-intl/index.html, last accessed 2023/08/21
21. Kenoteq (2023) https://www.kenoteq.com, last accessed 2024/07/10
22. Fleming S (2020) Sustainable Development: Could this revolutionary brick be the answer to
sustainable construction? World Economic Forum, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/
researchers-have-invented-a-brick-that-can-build-itself/, last accessed 2023/08/21
2 Circular Materials—A Multiscale Approach to Circularity at a Building … 41

23. Pasco J, Lei Z, Aranas C Jr (2022) Additive manufacturing in off-site construction: review and
future directions. Buildings 12(53)
24. Ozel S (2021) 7 reasons why you should use the additive manufacturing space in fusion
360. Autodesk, https://www.autodesk.com/products/fusion-360/blog/7-reasons-why-you-sho
uld-use-the-additive-manufacturing-space-in-fusion-360/, last accessed 2023/08/21
25. Ghaffar SH, Corker J, Fan M (2018) Additive manufacturing technology and its implementation
in construction as an eco-innovative solution. Autom Constr 93:1–11
26. Baigarina A, Shehab E, Ali MH (2023) Construction 3D printing: a critical review and future
research directions. Prog Addit Manuf 8(6):1–29
27. Gibson I, Rosen D, Stucker B (2015) Additive Manufacturing Technologies. Springer, New
York

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 3
Energy Systems and Building Services
Level
Marilena De Simone , Philip Griffiths , Daniele Campagna,
and Moses Itanola

Abstract Research and technological developments have mainly focused on

increasing the energy efficiency of buildings, improving the thermal properties of
the envelope and reducing energy consumption. Another critical issue is related to
waste reduction and implementation of circular economy frameworks. Moreover,
building services have a significant impact upon the health of users and any applica-
tion of the circular economy has to consider the effect on the occupants’ well-being.
In this chapter, two aspects are considered: the first relates to the building systems
which utilise energy for heating, cooling, ventilation, electrical supply; the second
concerns the systems converting the energy from the sun, wind, and soil. Regarding
the usage of energy in buildings, the types of materials applied in building services
are categorised including metals, plastics, electronic components, etc. The barriers to
the adoption of circular supply chain management are illustrated collecting informa-
tion from the literature, especially in the air conditioning sector. Then, the electricity
and thermal energy production from renewable sources are presented in the light of
implementing a circular economy at the building and urban scale. Solar, both PV and
thermal, wind, and geothermal technologies are illustrated in terms of trends in instal-
lation and prediction of waste production. Best practices of recycling are illustrated
from projects, industrial processes, and companies. The collected information high-
lights the need for closer collaboration between the involved stakeholders, starting
from the citizens and extending to all members of the design, construction, and
building management professions.

Keywords Circular economy · Building energy services · MEP · Solar panels ·

Wind energy · Geothermal energy

M. De Simone (B) · D. Campagna

Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]
P. Griffiths · M. Itanola
Belfast School of Architecture and the Built Environment, Ulster University, York St,
Belfast BT15 1ED, UK

© The Author(s) 2025 43

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_3
44 M. De Simone et al.

3.1 Introduction

Energy systems in and supplying buildings are an integral part of achieving a circular
economy. Energy is a significant enabler and is essential if buildings are to deliver
comfortable and healthy indoor environments.
The generation of electricity through the conversion of various energy streams is
outside the remit of this book, however, the move from finite fossil and fission fuels,
which require materials being ‘won’ from the earth’s crust to the rise of renewable
energy sources from sun, wind and water, aligns with circular economy principles.
This reduces the release of greenhouse gases, the growth of which in the atmosphere
is leading to climate change and the disruption of traditional circular agricultural
processes.
There are two aspects related to the implementation of circular principles to energy
systems and buildings, the first are the systems which utilise energy in the building
for heating, cooling, ventilation, electrical supply distribution systems. The second
is the circularity of the systems which convert the energy from the sun, wind and
water.
It should be noted that when discussing building services this also includes public
health systems in buildings such as sanitary waste disposal systems. While not
directly related to energy, they fall within the design remit of the building service
engineer, and so are grouped with space and hot water heating, cooling, ventilation
and electrical supply.
Communication cabling, building security and protection systems and building
transportation systems are also subsets of building services engineering, but due to
space are not considered in this chapter.

3.2 Building Services Engineering

Building Services Engineering encompasses the design, installation and mainte-

nance of the systems which make buildings habitable and comfortable. This includes
heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, hot water and sanitation systems.
Sometimes this area is referred to as MEP (Mechanical, Electrical and Public Health
Engineering).
Brand [1] describes a building as a series of layers. The services form a layer
within the structure, see Fig. 3.1.
The building services can have a significant impact upon the health of building
users, as evidenced by the rise of sick building syndrome, legionnaires disease [2].
Hence any application of the circular economy to building services has to consider
the impact upon the occupants’ health and well-being [3].
Such systems are integral to the construction of a building, but often separate from
the structure, with projected lifetimes often less than the building itself. For example,
a gas boiler may have a design life of 20 years, while a slate or concrete tiled roof
3 Energy Systems and Building Services Level 45

Fig. 3.1 Building in layers [1]

may have a lifetime of 60 years but survive significantly longer without maintenance.
Often the building services are replaced several times in a building’s lifetime. This
can result in the building services having the largest overall embodied energy within a
building over its lifetime, while for some aspects such as sanitary systems, their end-
of-life value is considered negligible. Hence the potential for achieving circularity
within building services is critical for future resource use and material sustainability.
However, it can also pose the greater barriers with advanced technologies such as
photovoltaics and LED lighting.

3.2.1 Energy Efficiency and Energy Sources

Considerable research and technological developments have been undertaken to

improve the energy efficiency of buildings since the oil crises of the 1970s. There
have been two aspects of this, the first is improvements to the building fabric to
reduce heat loss and overheating, though the latter continues to be a problem. The
second aspect is the improved energy performance of heating, cooling and ventila-
tion systems. Both aspects have led to a reduction in energy consumption, however,
this has been partly offset by increased energy use in buildings in Brand’s ‘stuff’
layer. The largest improvements have been in lighting, initially with the adoption of
fluorescent lighting technology, and since 2010, the introduction of the white LED.
In 2000 lighting represented 10% of UK domestic building energy use, in 2023 that
was around 3%. Alongside energy efficiency, the oil crises led the western world to
initiate research into alternatives to oil-based energy sources. With the rise in aware-
ness of climate change resulting from carbon emissions there is currently a shift to
non-fossil fuel energy sources.
46 M. De Simone et al.

3.2.2 Waste and Water Management

Other initiatives to reduce waste in buildings have included water management. Low
flow systems and grey water use are useful in reducing water demand. Reducing
water demand and sewage throughput reduces energy costs for public sanitation
authorities, plus reduces the stress on the environment in providing water sources or
coping with treated water outflows. However, low flow sewage systems need to be
installed correctly otherwise there are un-intended consequences [4].
In the UK it is estimated that 10–15% of building material is wasted during
construction, while 54% of demolition materials are sent to a landfill. In Australia,
construction and demolition waste makes up 40% of total waste generation [5], while
the authors of [6] estimates that for the EU it is 35%. Current estimates suggest that
most materials are unsuitable for reuse as containing toxic elements, so end up in
landfill.

3.2.3 Building Services—Materials, Use and Reuse

The types of materials used in building services include metals (such as copper,
aluminium, steel, iron), plastics, electronic components, etc. Most of these mate-
rials are readily convertible so may be remade into other materials. For example,
copper is already extracted from buildings undergoing demolition for recycling, as
to the high cost of the raw material makes material recovery economically viable.
However, the circular economy assessment must commence with extending the life of
a component or potential use elsewhere, thereby maintaining a high value for longer.
That copper wire is melted down, instead of being reused as copper wire. There
may be good reason for this, health and safety of installers and electrical system
users is at the heart of electrical design principles, see for example British Stan-
dard 7671—Requirements for Electrical Installations. Due to the product cycle of
building services equipment being considerably shorter than the rest of the building,
there is significant opportunities and sustainability advantages through the adoption
of circularity. However, MEP equipment can also be complex. Large plant such as
heat pumps and chillers are constructed from many smaller components that are
difficult to break down, components have plastic as well as metal parts and may also
have coatings to protect surfaces from corrosion.
Within the UK and Ireland, the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engi-
neers (CIBSE) is leading the review and development of Circularity within Building
Services Engineering. TM56: Resource efficiency of building services [7] is a tech-
nical memorandum covering material use. In 2019, a research agenda was commis-
sioned to consider circularity in the profession, using a University College London
(UCL) building. The targets set included avoiding early obsolescence of installations
through futureproofing, addressing performance gap issues between design and as
built and overcoming initial cost barriers for equipment which gave better life-time
3 Energy Systems and Building Services Level 47

performance. Digital technology was also seen as unlocking potential by tracking

material flows. In the UCL project the whole life cost and carbon reductions were
used to demonstrate the benefit of a circular approach to the building services instal-
lation. The project concluded that each project is unique, and each lends itself to
different approaches and solutions, while consideration of the maintenance strategy
is important in the design stages.
Poppelwell et al. [8] concluded that early engagement of everyone in the value
chain was essential, and the adoption of a total expenditure (TOTEX) approach to
funding projects was required. They also highlighted the need for close collabora-
tion and open communication between all members of the design, construction and
building management team. This would require an evolution of the industry. They
proposed five scenarios for facilitating circular building services:
1. Joint Venture
2. Universal building
3. Passive
4. Pre-loved
5. Recover.
The Joint Venture is where all the stakeholders in a building—from client to parts
suppliers operate under a single financial umbrella. By doing this, the incentives for
everyone involved is aligned to optimising the performance. This requires a ‘product
as a service’ approach to systems, with performance being what is paid for instead
of design and equipment.
In the Universal Building the building uses are defined, and during the design
account is taken of the most onerous use that the building may be put to. This allows
for easy or simple adaption to meet a change of use. Installations are designed to
last as long as possible. This also requires a building to be defined in terms of the
type of building it cannot become. There can sometimes be arguments in terms of
capital expenditure (CAPEX) versus operational expenditure (OPEX). It requires the
market to recognise this future flexibility.
Marks and Spencer, a UK retailer of food and clothing, took such an approach
when building a new store near Manchester. The Cheshire Oaks store was designed
and constructed with sustainability at the forefront of all decisions. Amongst the
goals they set was a zero-waste policy during construction, but most importantly the
building was designed so that if it no longer suited the company to use it as a store,
it could be converted into other uses.
The Passive building’s focus is to reduce if not eliminate the active MEP systems
and instead use natural ventilation, maximising daylight, and passive shading tech-
niques. Such buildings can be unique and make them difficult to convert. One such
example was the Sainsburys supermarket, in Greenwich, London. It was the first
retail building to achieve a BREEAM Excellent rating and received plaudits for both
its sustainability credentials and architecture, being nominated for the Stirling Prize
[9]. It was demolished only 17 years after it was constructed. Sainburys moved out
because it was impossible to enlarge the store, instead a new store was constructed
48 M. De Simone et al.

nearby. Nobody came forward to use the store as was, instead the building was demol-
ished to make way for a large flat pack furniture warehouse. This demonstrates that
when developers decide to construct a passive building, the length of its occupancy
is considered, so that it does not become a stranded asset. The failing of this super-
market building was the uniqueness of the design solutions to achieve a low energy
passive building which did not translate to other uses.
The Pre-loved Building seeks to reuse equipment no longer needed in other
buildings, and then ensuring that equipment and components can be recycled at
EoL.
Finally, Recover where the MEP plant is designed to use considerably fewer
resources, and waste from plant is eliminated. An example of this can be found in
Victoria Square, Belfast, where waste heat ejected from the cooling equipment is
used to heat the floor slab in the outdoor food seating areas.
In 2021, CIBSE published TM66: Creating a circular economy in the lighting
industry [10]. Authored by design consultants, lighting consultants, industrial
designers, and representatives from lighting manufacturers. It acknowledged that
considerable gains had been made since 2010 regarding in-use lighting energy effi-
ciency, especially through the adoption of LEDs. However, there have been unin-
tended consequences such as the unmaintainable luminaire with no ability to replace
the light source if it fails. The capacitors in the light source driver have been iden-
tified as the component most likely to fail, giving a mean lifetime of 5–10 years,
with the unit only useful for recycling at best. Also, the speed of development of
LEDs has led to short product life cycles and hence it is difficult to get spare parts,
or components are not backwards compatible. Hence this technical memorandum
set out to establish checklists as means of assessment a product’s circularity. It also
provided real-world examples of good practice.
Alongside this publication, CIBSE launched the Circular Economy Assessment
Method (CEAM). Its objective is “… to is to give information to all, enable supply
push by creating a ‘nuts and bolts’ tool for manufacturers, and to stimulate demand
by giving specifiers and clients the questions they need to ask” [10]. It contains two
Excel based tools. The first is CEAM-Make which allows manufacturers to assess
the performance of their luminaire and the supporting ecosystem. The second tool,
CEAM-Specify, is to support specifiers when seeking to identify equipment, a bit
like a briefing list of the questions to ask a manufacturer.
The UK’s Green Building Council (UKGBC) have created a Circular Economy
Forum. They are investigating current circular economy metrics. While these apply
to the wider construction industry, they have relevance for building services. They
have narrowed published research to seven metrics:
1. Dematerialisation (Upfront), kg m−2 GIA
2. Dematerialisation (Life Cycle), kg m−2 GIA
3. Design for Disassembly and Re-use, % (tonnes)
4. Material:
a. Re-used % (tonnes)
b. Remanufactured % (tonnes)
3 Energy Systems and Building Services Level 49

c. Recycled % (tonnes)
5. Material Database and Passport % (tonnes)
6. Design for adaptability % (Area)
7. Embodied Carbon (kg CO2 e m−2 GIA).
The metrics were chosen so that incremental as well as absolute circularity of
projects could be measured. They proposed that the metrics are reported according
to the layers of a building as defined by Brand [1], see Fig. 3.1. They did this because
there tends to be a discipline lead for each layer and the related supply chains, each
layer is aligned with the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Whole Life
Carbon Assessment [11], and each layer tends to have different design lives [12].
In Sweden, Climecon [13] have implemented descriptions to help specifiers adopt
circular economy principles when choosing equipment. They have adopted wool
instead of plastic for their acoustical attenuation systems. Outside systems have been
coated to improve their life-time and protect from corrosion, with UV-resistance plas-
tics used to reduce the need for replacement. Chen et al. [14] undertook a review of
papers on life cycle analysis (LCA) and the circular economy in construction. They
looked at various techniques such as lean construction. They proposed applying
building information modelling (BIM) to enhance the information exchange and
decision-making processes. They concluded that LCA is critical to validate the
potential of recycled and reused materials regarding their environmental impact and
mechanical properties.
The authors of [15] examined barriers to the adoption of circular supply chain
management (CSCM) in the air conditioning sector. CSCM is a process used to
design the supply chain by recycling, remanufacturing or refurbishing, repairing,
and reusing products. Through a literature review and interviews they identified
six main barriers and 21 sub-barriers which were rated by an Analytical Hierarchy
Process (AHP) method.
Their ranking of the barriers is from most to least critical was:
1. “Regulatory” barriers, primarily insufficient environmental laws
2. The high cost of circular supply chain management
3. Market competition limiting CSCM adoption
4. Obligations to comply with refrigeration gas regulations
5. A lack of tax breaks when using CSCM
6. “Operational” barriers.
Their overall conclusion was that the legal issues are the greatest barrier to CE
adoption in the air conditioning industry. Mohebbi et al. [16] investigated cradle-to-
grave carbon assessment of a typical UK supermarket, as the use of refrigerators and
other appliances represents a suitable field for the implementation of CE principles.
They point out that the use of circular economy methodologies is an appropriate
solution for managing waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE).
50 M. De Simone et al.

3.3 Energy Transition and Circular Economy

The Nearly Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB) concept is a real solution to reduce energy
consumption, promote energy transition and decarbonization of the constructions
sector according to the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive [17]. The use
of renewable energy systems contributes to achieving net positive energy balance
of buildings and can also promote circular material flows if well planned and
harmonised. On the other hand, pivotal technologies to the energy transition, such as
wind farms and PV systems, still utilise raw materials from natural resources instead
from processing of waste. Well experienced EoL management strategies are not
developed for these materials and components, and renewable energy manufacturing
could encounter a significant reduction of metal reserves [18]. The electricity and
thermal energy production from renewable sources are presented in the following
sections in the light of implementing a circular economy at the building and city
scale. Solar, both PV and thermal, wind, and geothermal technology are illustrated
in terms of trend in installation and prediction of materials usage and recycling.

3.3.1 Photovoltaic—Trend in Installation

Photovoltaic (PV) technology is recognised as one of the most promising solutions

for contrasting climate change and improving energy security. The diffusion of PV
systems recorded a constant growing as reported by the International Energy Agency
(IEA), from 4 GW in 2005 to 100 GW in 2012, and 942 GW in 2021 [19]. China
dominates with a cumulative capacity of 308 GW, followed by the European Union
(179 GW), the USA (123 GW), Japan (78 GW), India (60 GW), Australia reached
(25 GW), and Korea (22 GW).
In the European Union (EU), Germany leads with 59 GW, followed by Italy (23
GW), Spain (19 GW), France (14 GW), and the Netherlands (13 GW). In 2022
Europe continued the increasing trend with 39 GW installed, led by Spain (8 GW),
Germany (8 GW), Poland (5 GW) and the Netherlands (4 GW). High electricity
market prices have reinforced the competitiveness of PV and several countries have
acted policies to further accelerate PV installations. On the contrary, other countries
reduced supports for this technology because of grid congestion.
It is expected that countries with the most ambitious PV targets will have the
largest shares of PV waste in the future. The IRENA–IEAPVPS report [20] outlines
that by 2030 the top three countries, for cumulative projected PV waste, will be
China, Germany, and Japan. The accumulative global PV panels at EoL is predicted
to reach 1.7–8 million tonnes by 2030 and 60–78 million tonnes by 2050. Only the
European Union (EU) has adopted PV-specific waste regulations at the time of writing
(2024). In the rest of the world, most countries classify PVs as general or industrial
waste. The EU has pioneered PV electronic waste (e-waste) regulations including PV-
specific collection, recovery and recycling targets. Based on the extended-producer
3 Energy Systems and Building Services Level 51

responsibility principle, the EU Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive

[21] requires all producers supplying PV panels to the EU market (wherever their
manufacturing be based) to finance the costs of collecting and recycling EoL PVs
in EU market. This experience can offer useful examples of how EoL management
can be a positive component in the PV value chain [20]. The recovered material can
be used to produce new PV panels or be sold into global commodity markets. It is
predicted (2016) that PV panels could produce a value of up to US$ 450 million by
2030. This is equivalent to the amount of raw materials necessary to produce about
60 million new panels. By 2050, the recoverable value could reach US$ 15 billion,
corresponding to 2 billion panels.
Type of PV collectors and materials. A PV panel is a combination of PV modules
that convert the solar radiation in electrical current. A PV module consists of solar
cells, which are the smallest generating units. A solar cell is mainly made by doping
semiconductor materials like Silicon (Si) and Cadmium (Cd) [22]. PV panels are
wired in series, like DC batteries, this is referred to as a string and these are mounted
in panels. Figure 3.2 shows the diffusion into the market of the different PV types. The
first-generation PV technologies have reached commercial maturity. Copper indium
gallium selenide (CIGS or CIS) technology have just entered the market, while the
cadmium telluride (CdTe) technology has reached the market penetration stage. The
recent technologies are still under investigation and further research is needed to
enter the market commercially.
In 2021, Europe contributed to the total cumulative PV installations for almost
22%. Si-wafer based PVs accounted for more than 95% of the total production, and
mono-crystalline PVs represented about 84% of total crystalline Si manufacturing
[23].

Fig. 3.2 Solar PV technology status. Source IRENA [24]

52 M. De Simone et al.

A PV module is expected to have an average lifetime of 30 years, but some of them

can be considered waste in earlier stages for diverse reasons: optical failure, power
loss, defect in junction-box, glass breakage, interconnection defects, delamination,
and damages during transportation [22]. The DC-AC inverter can also fail and need
replaced before the PV string requires replacing.
Crystalline silicon photovoltaics require silver, quartz, copper, metallurgical
silicon, aluminium, and tin. Photovoltaic thin-films made of CdTe require tellurium,
cadmium, molybdenum, or tin. Thin-films made from CIGS require copper, indium,
gallium, selenium, cadmium, tin, or zinc depending on the buffer layer used.
Perovskites PV cells depend on the calcium titanium oxide mineral, lead and tin
compounds.
Recovered materials from EoL photovoltaic includes glass cullet, silicon wafers
and granulates, silver, indium, tin, molybdenum, nickel, zinc, copper, aluminium,
steel, tellurium, cadmium, selenium, gallium, ruthenium, and plastic components.
PV panels can also be used as a source of smelter flux [18].
End of life of PV panels. PV collectors are designed to minimise the moisture
that can come in contact with the solar cells and standard c-Si modules are bonded
using two layers of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA). This technical solution makes
solar modules recycling a complex process [25]. The Ostfalia University of Applied
Sciences (Germany) has proposed a guideline highlighting problematic aspects in
module design: irreversible fixing of the frame, scarce recyclability of the junction
boxes, inclusion of toxic materials such as lead, an ample variety of materials, and
the fusion of wafers with EVA.
The separation of the glazed cover and backsheet from the PV cells is still a critical
task. A popular strategy to free the cells from encapsulation is incineration, that is an
energy-intensive process emitting dangerous gases such as hydrogen fluoride (HF),
fluoroacetate and furans (C4 H4 O) due to the burning of fluorinated polymer [26]. PV
Cycle (2007) created a process commercially available in the European market for
recycling mono or multi crystalline silicon modules that starts from the separation
of the aluminium frame and the junction boxes. A secondary step is the mechanical
process for the extraction of the remaining materials, such as glass. It is a downcycling
process that provides about the 80% of recovered materials. Thin film processes are
under development in Italy, Japan, and South Korea, but the costs are still expensive.
In fact, 90% recovery of materials is not sufficient considering the initial production
costs [25].
Moreover, studies show that the impurity level is another crucial issue in recycling.
Pre-treatments (physical, chemical, thermal, and hybrid) play a key role in impurity
removal and metal recovery. Other problems are the uniform collection, the efficiency
in recovery processes, and energy-saving. Comparing different types of PV, those in
Si crystals are the ones that possess high economic value. One ton of mixed PVs (first
and second generation) can produce about 9.32 kg of Cu, 0.30 kg of Ag, 33.48 kg of
Si, 1.12 kg of Sn, 1.12 kg of Pb, 4.9 g of Cd, 2.5 g of Te, and 3.4 g of In [27].
In the UK, RecycleSolar [28] uses physical and chemical processes on EoL PV.
The metal frame is removed first along with the electrical connections. The panels are
3 Energy Systems and Building Services Level 53

then shredded and crushed to break the lamination bonds. An acid leach is then used
to recover the semiconductor films from the glass, and physical processes separate the
glass from the EVA. The metal compounds are precipitated using increasing levels of
pH, and the various materials are collected. The process can recover material suitable
for processing into semiconductor grade raw material for use in the manufacturing
of new PV. They claim to recover 90% of the glass and 95% of the semiconductor
layers. They also recycle the inverters.
Environmental, economic, and social impacts of a circular economy for PV.
There are opportunities and challenges related to PV recycling processes. Several
studies have analysed the impacts of PV recycling on the environment [25].
An investigation conducted in The European Full Recovery End-of-Life Photo-
voltaic [29] project, for instance, showed that environmental impacts from c-Si
recycling processes come from plastic incineration and chemical and mechanical
treatments for the recovery of metals.
On the other hand, PV Cycle [30] highlighted a significant decrease in Global
Warming Potential impact compared to the process of making cells. Moreover, an
environmental benefit can be obtained from the glass and copper recycling for CdTe
modules.
Other studies found that the environmental effects related to the recycling process
are lower than for landfill, if the recycled resources are used in modules manu-
facturing. Overall, recycling of PV modules retain harmful substances (e.g. lead,
cadmium, and selenium), recover rare materials (e.g. silver, tellurium, and indium)
and make them available to the market for future applications.
A positive social impact of PV recycling is reflected by its potential to create new
job positions. In fact, according to the report of the European Commission, if all
residential and commercial PVs are collected, pre-treated, and recycled in Europe,
it would create 20,000 jobs by the 2050.
The EU has promoted several projects in synergy with the various solar waste
recycling companies scattered across its territory. The Ramp-PV project (2020–
2022) [31] was coordinated by the French company ROSI [32]. Another project that
has received funding from the European Institute of Innovation and Technology
(EIT) is the ReSiELP (2017–2020) [33] that includes 8 companies and several
European research institutes including the French CEA with the lead role, ENEA,
CETMA, Relight SRL ITO srl, the university of Padova in Italy, MAGY and Bay
Zoltan Nonprofit Ltd in Hungary, PROJEKTkompetenz.eu in Germany. The goal
of ReSiELP is to bring together technologies from different fields with the aim of
recovering critical and valuable raw materials also present in PV waste through inno-
vative technologies based on the concept of circular economy aiming for a zero-waste
approach [34].
The project is based on three pillars:
1. The recovery of EoL modules;
2. The reuse of silicon after the purification stage;
3. The reuse of glass for the development of building materials.
54 M. De Simone et al.

Recovered materials are fed back into various production systems, except for
copper, aluminium and silver which are directly sold, recovered glass is incorporated
into mortars and concretes and then tested with the aim of producing environmen-
tally sustainable solutions, while silicon is processed to generate high-quality solar
silicon so that it can be reintroduced into the photovoltaic chain and thus become
a closed loop. The PHOTORAMA project [35] is a three-year EU-funded project
(2021–2024) with the goal of mapping out a circular and sustainable chain to have a
carbon-neutral photovoltaic industry, and develop, recycle and recover useful mate-
rials from photovoltaic panels. Figure 3.3 represents the distribution of the European
companies.
The list of the companies’ website follows:
Italy
https://www.9tech.it/.
https://www.compton-industriale.it/index.html.
https://www.frelp.info/chi-siamo/.
France
https://www.veolia.com/en/veolia-group/profile.
https://www.rosi-solar.com/kerf-recycling/.

Fig. 3.3 Location of solar waste recycling companies in Europe

3 Energy Systems and Building Services Level 55

Germany
https://www.antec.solar/de_DE/turnkey-anlagen/.
Slovakia
https://aerisoul.com/.
Denmark
https://orsted.com/en/who-we-are/sustainability/nature/circular-resource-use.
Poland
https://jamko.eu/recykling-modulow-fotowoltaicznych/.
The Netherlands
https://www.rinovasol.de/unternehmensgruppe.
Ireland
https://recyclesolar.ie/.
https://www.purevolt.ie/resources/solar/solar-panel-recycling.php#intro.
Norway
https://www.sintef.no/en/sintef-research-areas/solar/.
Spain
http://solucciona.com/solrecycle/.
Swiss
https://immark.ch/de/unternehmen/prozesse.
http://www.kwbplanreal.ch/index.php?type=web&lang=de&show=315&mhs=0.
https://www.erecycling.ch/it/sens.html.
United Kingdom
https://www.hnhpro.co.uk/solar.
https://www.recyclesolar.co.uk/.

3.3.2 Wind Energy—Installation Trend and Materials

The wind turbines market is constantly in evolution and its expansion entails a
growing installation with a consequent increase in waste. About 36,000 blades in
Europe are expected to be dismantled by 2025, which corresponds to 240,000 tonnes
of polymer composite waste [36].
56 M. De Simone et al.

Turbines components are also made of concrete, stainless, high-grade steel, cast
iron, thermoplastics, rare earth elements (REEs), copper, zinc, aluminium, silver, and
gold [18]. Blades include composite material, and their recycling is still costly and
without high volume recycling solutions. Using blades in a second life construction
is a solution that is gaining in popularity, but it presents problems such as: a sensed
lower quality of used materials and of their structural properties, scarcity of end
markets, unfamiliarity with recycled products and doubts about the environmental
benefits of repurposing [37]. Moreover, wind turbines use rare earth components that
are on the verge of depletion and their recovery could be of significant importance.
The materials that make up a wind turbine are different and their quantities depend on
the type of turbine, and manufacturer. According to Jensen [38, 39] the components
and materials of a wind turbine can be represented in Table 3.1.
Considering a 60 MW turbine, the quantities expressed in kg of potentially
recyclable materials are summarised in Table 3.2.
According to the American Chemical Society, nine elements are in serious threat
of extinction in the next 100 years, seven are in rising threat from increasing use,
and 28 are in future risk of supply [40]. Moreover, the JRC Science for policy report
(2020) explains the important role of REEs in wind energy [41]. An analysis of
future balances supply/demand is useful to understand the high and low demand
scenarios and the maximum expected recycling inputs based on current recycling
input rates of some REE used in the wind turbines like Neodymium, Praseodymium
and Dysprosium (see Fig. 3.4).
Future scenarios for the production of waste material from wind farms in Europe
can be found in [42] considering four time snapshots:
• In 2020, the majority of the blades waste material is concentrated in the central
east and North of Germany. Some regions in the central part of Spain also have a
high amount of waste material.

Table 3.1 Turbine parts, materials, and potential disposal methods (an elaboration from Jensen
[39])
Part of turbine Main material(s) EoL handling
Hub Iron Recycling (foundry)
Canopy Glass fibre/epoxy or steel Recycling, incineration or landfill
Nacelle Steel, permanent magnets, PCB, Recycling (as filler), incineration
batteries or landfill
Platforms and ladders Aluminium Recycling (foundry)
Blades Glass fibre, epoxy and balsa wood Recycling (as filler), incineration
or landfill
Cables and busbars Plastic, copper and aluminium Recycling (foundry)
Tower Steel Recycling (foundry)
Miscellaneous Lubricants, grease, paint, rubber, Recycling, incineration or landfill
plastic
3 Energy Systems and Building Services Level 57

Table 3.2 Approximate recyclable materials from 60 MW wind turbines (an elaboration from
Jensen et al. [38])
Material Material quantity (kg) % of material/Tot
Ferrous metal 6,560,000
Aluminium 104,000
Copper 292,000
METALS 6,956,000 88
Polyethylene 32,000
Polypropylene 6600
Polyvinylchloride 6000
POLYMERS 44,600 0.6
Electronics 124,000
Batteries 36,000
Balsa wood 29,000
NdFeB Magnet 40,000
Miscellaneous –
Others 229,000 3
Total 7,923,400

Fig. 3.4 Tonnes of a neodymium, b praseodymium and c dysprosium potentially available for
recycling up to 2050 (EU-27 and the United Kingdom) and the maximum expected recycling inputs
based on current recycling input rates. Source JRC [41]
58 M. De Simone et al.

• In 2030, the waste blade material increases around Europe. In particular, it will
increase in the Northwest of Spain and in the North of France. Moreover, other
countries such as Scotland, Ireland, Finland, Romania, and Sweden will expe-
rience an increment. Less intense hotspots could be observed in Poland, central
Greece, Baltic regions and Southern Italy.
• In 2040, wind turbine waste increases in Spain, France, Finland and in central
Greece.
• In 2050, a small increase of waste material hotspots is observed in the Bal-tic
countries and in Northern UK, France, and Poland.
End of life of wind turbines. Blades are composite structure, consisting of various
elements and materials: reinforcement fibres (glass, carbon, aramid or basalt)
polymer matrix (thermosets such as epoxies, polyesters, vinyl esters, polyurethane
or thermoplastics), sandwich core (balsa wood or foams, polyethylene terephtha-
late), coatings (polyethylene, polyurethane), metals (copper wiring, steel bolts)
[38]. Different techniques for the treatment of waste deriving from wind turbines
are proposed, such as: landfill and incineration or other finer treatments called
secondary applications (mechanical recycling, thermal recycling, chemical recycling,
co-processing). The methods of treating materials are described below.
Landfill is the most common disposal solution for decommissioned turbine blades.
Landfill options are prohibited in some countries, such as Germany and the Nether-
lands. In fact, landfill is unsuitable in countries with long term prediction of restricted
spaces, such as Ireland [43].
In secondary applications, we find recycling treatments of different nature such as:
mechanical, thermal, chemical, and co-processing. Mechanical recycling involves
cutting, shredding or grinding the material into smaller pieces to be included as
aggregate in concrete or combined with resin to be made into panels.
Mechanical grinding can preserve some of the mechanical properties of the
composite, but it often results in losses of polymer length and contamination for
additives or other materials that leads to a lower polymer quality than the original.
Mechanical recycling has limits: plastics must be large enough to be treated,
furthermore, in the shredding/melting phase some plastics have high temperature
sensitivity and composite structures or thermosetting qualities that make treatment
difficult [18, 37, 43]. Thermal recycling methods such as Pyrolysis or Fluidised Bed
Combustion (FBC) require the use of high temperatures to recover resins, reinforced
fibres and thermal energy [43]. Pyrolysis is not economically feasible for Glass
Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) as recovered glass fibres can be degraded, instead
raw materials are available at a low cost. The advantage is highlighted through a
technical-economic evaluation which indicates that this process has lower environ-
mental impacts than other treatments [37]. Chemical recycling consists in converting
the material to be treated to its monomer state/lower molecular weight raw material
and is used when mechanical recycling is not feasible. As an example, solvolysis is
used to recover fibres from resins using solvent mixtures, or thermal, catalytic and
biological deconstruction which are more commercially available processes [18, 43].
3 Energy Systems and Building Services Level 59

In co-processing, the material is mixed with other waste material and sent to a
cement kiln where the shovel waste replaces a portion of the processing fuel and raw
materials, the mechanical properties are destroyed impeding third life applications
[37].
Recycling wind turbines in urban environment. This section describes case
studies and projects concerning the recovery and reuse in urban environment of
wind turbines, from blades to foundations. Turbines’ components can be used
for various purposes including commemorative installations, pedestrian and cycle
bridges, noise barriers, construction site delimitation barriers, urban and domestic
furniture and more. The ongoing experiences help people understand that decom-
missioned turbines are not only bulky and potentially toxic waste but opportunities
for reducing the extraction of raw materials if a second life can be provided.
Wind turbine blades can be reused for the structural part of pedestrian, cycle,
and vehicle bridges and recent studies have shown that disused wind turbines can
support loads of 33 tonnes [44]. Bridges that use wind turbine blades as their primary
load-carrying structural members are investigated in the project “Re-wind Network
blade repurposing solutions” [45]. Bridges have variable length spans between 5 and
23 m and variable widths between 3 and 6 m. Four blade models were considered:
N29 (Nordex), V44 (Vestas), GE37 (General Electric), C96 (Clipper). The wind
turbine blades are typically placed on the sides or underneath the bridge deck that
can be made of timber plank, poured-in-place concrete, precast concrete panel, steel
grid, steel panel, FRP panel, or any proprietary decking system. According to Re-
Wind Network, BladeBridges are durable, sustainable, and have a unique aesthetic
as shown in the catalogues and websites [44, 45]. Two-girder BladeBridges are
bridges supported by two blades along their facing in the same direction (symmetric)
or in opposite directions (asymmetrical). Two BladeBridges were designed and
constructed by the ReWind Network in 2022:
• In January, a two-girder BladeBridge was constructed on a greenway between
Midleton and Youghal in County Cork, Ireland;
• In May, a two-girder experimental test bridge was constructed in a quarry in
Draperstown, Northern Ireland, UK.
The Re-Wind Network BladePoles are wind blades repurposed as poles with
diverse uses:
• power line poles;
• cell phone towers;
• lighting poles;
• sign support poles.
Depending on the size of the wind turbine blade, they can be used in urban or
suburban neighbourhoods. Blades can also be used as cell-phone towers to replace
the classic towers. Smaller blades can be used in urban and suburban neighbour-
hoods for new 5G cell-phone towers. The BladePoles have the advantage of being
electromagnetically transparent and can host communication devices.
60 M. De Simone et al.

Barrier structures designed from wind blades can perform various uses:
• construction site boundary barriers: the objective is to prevent access to unautho-
rised people and avoid risks;
• noise barrier: reduce noise pollution and limit access alongside highways;
• traffic barrier (Jersey barrier).
The Re-Wind Network presented different types of construction site delimitation
barriers. The first type is “Vertical full sections” that are wind turbine blades cut into
regular or irregular strips. Sections can be arranged irregularly to create a variegated
wall.
These constructions can also be used for wave and wind attenuating and sea-wall
barriers of different design depending on the requirements, replacing timber or steel
posts currently used to make construction barriers. The advantage of these barriers
is that they can be reused many times. Moreover, arc-shaped segments cut from the
large blades can be installed vertically or horizontally to create both highway and
construction site barriers. Panels of irregular geometry conform to the urban context
and can be covered with plants.
Some companies used turbines for noise attenuation barriers, such as the Danish
company Miljøskærm [46] that builds barriers with a sound-absorbent material made
of recycled fibreglass.
Superuse Studios Rotterdam [47] designed a new playground on a 1200 m2 plot for
the ‘Children’s Paradise Hawthorn’ foundation. Five discarded wind turbine blades
were placed around an existing concrete circle and used to create a maze-like space.
The municipality of Terneuzen in Oland commissioned Superuse Studios
Rotterdam for an iconic playground built in 2016 [48]. Two wind turbine blades
were cut, and some parts were placed lying down others standing up to create interior
spaces to climb to the slide mouth.
Blades, nacelles, and hubs can be transformed into street, indoor, and garden
furniture to serve households, schools, and offices.
These elements create an eye-catching and modern design such as in the examples
that can be find on the websites:
https://projects.superuse-studios.com/projects/rewind-willemsplein/.
https://projects.superuse-studios.com/projects/rewind-willemsplein-lgbtqi/.
https://projects.superuse-studios.com/projects/rewind-oost-pier-terneuzen/.
Another successful experience is offered by GP Renewables Groups [49], a
company that aims to make completely circular the wind energy technology.
Turbine blades are also used for a variety of purposes, such as bus and bike shade,
canopies, roofing parking-lot. The initiatives involved companies, such as Siemens
Gamesa Renewable Energy S.A. and Superuse Studio. The durable shelter design
uses four 30 m rotor blades. Scrap rotor blades are easy to find in Almere. Two 30 m
blades are used to create a large shelter and every part of the blade is used to make
up the structure.
The installations can be found consulting:
https://www.energy-supply.dk/article/view/699757/.
https://re-use.eu/blade-made/.
3 Energy Systems and Building Services Level 61

Blades can also be used to build glamping pods. Small shelters utilise different
sized blades and can be constructed in diverse configurations. Roofs can also be
created either with a single curved piece and simulate a single pitched roof or simulate
an almost flat roof by cutting the wind turbine blade into strips. Bus shelters can be
made from sections of a wind turbine. The shape of blades allows water to flow out
easily. Moreover, the material is durable offering a valid alternative to the traditional
polycarbonate [45]. Circular or foldable tent and fencing are suitable for farmers or
private landowners that would like to build a holiday glamping business. Sandwich
panels were reused for a picnic table with two seats, mounted to two frames. The
effect of the blade’s curvature was explored using 1:20 scale models before the design
phase and successive manufacturing [50].

3.3.3 Thermal Solar Collectors

In Europe, solar thermal systems (ST) technology and industry is well-established.

Despite this favourable position in the market, ST installations have recorded a
decline since 2010 due to less attractive incentives and the current economic crisis
[51]. The trends of market take up and predictions for the solar thermal technolo-
gies from 2013 to 2030 are presented in Fig. 3.5. The main types of solar thermal
collectors can be classified as glazed flat-plate solar collectors, unglazed solar collec-
tors, and evacuated heat pipe solar collectors, with the latter having higher efficiency
and complex technology. The variety of materials involved in ST systems is limited
(mostly metals and glass), and recovery and recycling appear as possible alternatives
to landfill or incineration [52].
Hybrid systems, photovoltaic and thermal PV/T, could be effective solutions
to integrate renewable energy technologies in buildings based on solar energy
[53]. Further developments of PV/T systems are necessary to improve efficiency

Fig. 3.5 a Comparison of the trend of thermal solar systems (in ktoe) from 2013 through 2015 and
predictions against the NREAP (National Renewable Energy Action Plans) roadmap. Source EurOb-
serv’ER [51]. b Comparison of the current trend and prediction for 2030. Source EurObserv’ER
[57]
62 M. De Simone et al.

and reduce unit costs. As an example, different PV/T configurations have been
investigated by simulation [54] or experimental approach [55].
In the light of a circular economy, the advantages of combining ST into PV panels
were illustrated in [56]. The author suggests the integration in manufacturing and
retrofitting of deployed panels, obtaining an extension of the productive life of PV
and the increase of the performances of the heat production and storage, also using
phase change materials.

3.3.4 Geothermal Energy—Trend in Installation

Geothermal energy is used for heating and cooling of buildings especially in North
America and Europe [58]. The most reliable and detailed source of information comes
from updates provided every five years by IGA-IRENA. Considering the most recent
report [59], the countries that mostly use geothermal energy for heating and cooling
are Indonesia, New Zealand, the Philippines, China, Turkey, Iceland, Japan, Hungary
and the United States.
These countries have systems in operation for decades, others such as Belgium,
Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Honduras and Hungary have recent plants and experience
an early stage of development. About 88% of plants dedicated to district heating
are located in China, Iceland, Turkey, France and Germany. Some territories, such as
Iceland and the Azores archipelago (Portugal), have a high availability of geothermal
resources and markets where demand for energy is low, therefore, demand is satisfied
by installing low temperature geothermal plants. The electricity production from
geothermal installation in European countries is shown in Fig. 3.6.
There are 10 plants installed in Germany and operate at low temperatures. In
Iceland the first geothermal plant dates back to 1969, and there are currently eight
installations with a total capacity of 754 MWe. In Italy, the first plant was constructed
in 1995 and today there are some industrial plants in Tuscany Region. In Portugal,
the plants are mostly installed in the Azores archipelago which provides 23% of
the total electricity consumption of the islands. Other power plants are located in
Belgium, Hungary, and Austria. Geothermal energy in Turkey has spread over the
last ten years. In Croatia the first plant was installed in 2019, while very small plants
are located in Romania. Overall, over the last 20 years, the growth of geothermal
capacity in the Eurozone has occurred much more rapidly (with an average annual
rate of 5.2%) compared to the rest of the world (3.2%).
The use of geothermal energy for heating and cooling is much more widespread in
Europe than the use of geothermal for electricity production. The top five countries in
the world that have installed geothermal capacity for heating and cooling are Iceland,
Sweden, Finland, Switzerland and Norway. 90% of this geothermal energy produced
is used to heat or cool buildings.
3 Energy Systems and Building Services Level 63

The use of heat pumps is also considered in other countries such as Germany
and France. Turkey stands out in terms of geothermal cooling/heating used both in
buildings and in recreational activities and heating of greenhouses with 3488 MWth
installed. Other notable countries are: Slovenia with 31 plants (266 MWth), Greece
with 25 plants (259 MWth), and Romania with 40 plants (245 MWth).
Materials for geothermal installations. The pipes used in geothermal heat
exchangers (GHEs) can be made of conventional or innovative materials.
Figure 3.7 shows the percentages of the different types of conventional pipe
materials applied in GHE. The most commonly used material is polyethylene (PE)
followed by steel, but copper and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) are also used frequently.
In smaller quantities, we have polybutylene (PB), polyurethane (PU), plastic and
polypropylene (PP). PVC is better than steel because it is cheap, lightweight, easy
to assemble and shapeable [60].
HDPE (high density polyethylene) is a material commonly used in Europe due
to its convenience, corrosion resistance and cost. To decrease soil resistance during
drilling and ensure good thermal efficiency, thermally improved thermoplastic poly-
mers are used, namely combinations of PE or HPDE, where HPDE is thermally
enhanced with carbon nanoparticles or with graphene or aluminum wires.
Mortar is used to ensure heat transfer between the geothermal heat exchanger
and the soil. There are two types of mortars used as filling material in geothermal
plants: conventional grout (bentonite and cement) and additive (to the mortar are
added materials such as sand, graphite, aluminium chips or composite materials).

Fig. 3.6 Installed geothermal electricity capacity by country—2021. Source IRENA and IGA [59]
64 M. De Simone et al.

Fig. 3.7 Conventional pipe materials used in GHEs from 2010 to 2018 [61]

Phase change materials (PCMs) are rarely used despite offering the possibility
to improve the thermal autonomy that affects the occupation of the soil, important
in urban areas. The properties of PCMs are incremented using nanoparticles are
incorporated, usually metals, metal oxides, and carbon-based particles.
Regarding the heat transfer fluid, R410A is the most widely used refrigerant in
the field of heat pumps and air conditioning even if it needs to be replaced. Several
authors in recent years have studied different mixtures and natural refrigerants (such
as CO2 , ammonia, water, propane and isobutane) with the aim of increasing their
thermal efficiency and reducing the environmental impact. Water is a good solution,
but because of its low freezing point it is mixed with other compounds such as glycol,
propylene glycol and ethylene [62].
End of Life of Geothermal plants. The authors of [63] proposed the “R strategy”
as a guideline to implement the circular economy of geothermal plants:
• Reduce: hybrid systems that couple a geothermal plant with other renewable
energy systems can increase efficiency and reduce the raw materials needed;
• Repair, Refurbish and Remanufacture: to extend the life of components through
maintenance. Heat exchangers, pumps and condensers could be repaired by
decreasing the downstream waste stream. Current literature, however, finds no
cases of such activities;
• Repurpose: by converting abandoned wells (of oil or gas) or coal mines into
geothermal plants. The conversion of these abandoned sites into geothermal plants
are usually located in non-urban environments;
• Recycling: allows the input of waste materials into supply chains. In addition
to the classic recyclable materials (steel and plastic), geothermal brine can also
be recycled. It contains several elements such as lithium, lead and boron. These
elements can be recovered from the geothermal fluid even if the major obstacle is
3 Energy Systems and Building Services Level 65

the costs associated with the recovery phase. If the heat transfer fluid is not brine,
it can be recycled and used in heating systems;
• Recovery: it is based on the incineration of waste material to produce energy.
In these materials, however, there are high concentrations of carbon, nitrogen,
sulphur, heavy metals and other potentially toxic elements.

3.4 Conclusions

Many papers discuss the role of circular economy in the built environment, and
particularly buildings, concentrating on the building as a whole and not on specific
elements of the building, for example in [64, 65]. Some papers mention circular
economy in their key words but neither mention circular economy or its principles in
the text. From this it can be concluded that while there has been good research into
the principles of circular economy in buildings around deconstruction and recovery,
however, there is a need for focused research into the barriers that exist in achieving
circularity in building services equipment. The current prediction that MEP services
in buildings have the highest embodied carbon can be countered if circular economy
principles are applied to the design, installation, use/maintenance and EoL principles.
Potentialities and issues concerning the implementation of a circular economy for
renewable energy technologies in buildings and cities were also highlighted. The
production of electricity by PV and wind involves a large variety of material that can
be recovered, reused and treated. PV systems, especially, require attention as the new
generations of panels include rare metals with an elevate economic value. Despite
this important aspect and the indications of the European Directives, suitable EoL
strategies are still neglected in the design phase and at the EoL. Best practices can be
found in some companies that tested new recycling processes targeted to reduce the
environmental impacts, increment the quantity and quality of recoverable materials,
and reuse of components (such as wind turbine blades) avoiding raw materials usage.
Scarce scientific literature and initiatives support the inclusion of solar thermal
systems in the circular economy, despite of the significant usage of glass and metals.
An extension of the productive life of solar systems could be obtained by PV/T
panels. The literature on geothermal energy is lacking studies that analyse the circular
economy contextualised to buildings and cities [63], this does not allow for an exten-
sive knowledge. This shortage could be attributed to fewer urban scale geothermal
plant installations.

References

1. Brand S (1995) How buildings learn; what happens after they’re built. Viking Press. Online.
https://archive.org/details/howbuildingslear00bran
2. Rostron J (2008) Sick building syndrome: a review of causes, consequences and remedies. J
Retail Leis Prop 7(4):291–303. https://doi.org/10.1057/rlp.2008.20
66 M. De Simone et al.

3. Godefroy J (2020) CISBE TM40: health and wellbeing in building services. Chartered
Institution of Building Services Engineer, London
4. McDermott R, Strong WA, Griffiths P, Littlewood K, Doherty MG (2020) Smart sewers 1:
sewer configuration at rural houses. J Water Resour Prot 12(09):825–834. https://doi.org/10.
4236/jwarp.2020.129048
5. Bradford Ventilation (2017) Building for a circular economy. https://www.bradfordventila
tion.co.nz/information-centre/commercial-articles/building-for-a-circular-economy. Accessed
19 Sep 2023
6. De Wolf C, Hoxha E, Fivet C (2020) Comparison of environmental assessment methods when
reusing building components: a case study. Sustain Cities Soc 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.
2020.102322
7. Cheshire D (2014) CIBSE TM56: resource efficiency of building services. Chartered Institution
of Building Services Engineers, London
8. Marino J, Boyd R, Poppelwell H (2020) Research Insight 02: Circular economy principles
for building services, CIBSE, Balham, London. Chartered Institution of Building Services
Engineers
9. 20th Century Society (n.d.) Lost Modern, Sainsburys Supermarket London. https://c20society.
org.uk/lost-modern/sainsburys-greenwich-london. Accessed 6 Sep 2023
10. Bohannon B (2021) CIBSE TM66: creating a circular economy in the lighting industry
11. RICS (2023) Whole life carbon assessment for the built environment, 2nd edn. Royal Institution
of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), London
12. UKGBC (2023) Circular economy metrics for buildings. London
13. Climecon (n.d.) Carbon Neutral 7 ways to promote circular economy in ventilation. https://
climeconair.com/se-sv/6-ways-to-promote-circular-economy-in-ventilation/. Accessed 19 Sep
2023
14. Chen Q, Feng H, de Soto BG (2021) Key approaches to construction circularity: a systematic
review of the current state and future opportunities. In: Proceedings of the international sympo-
sium on automation and robotics in construction, 2021, vol November, pp 940–947. https://
doi.org/10.22260/isarc2021/0127
15. Çıkmak S, Kesici B (2023) Analysis of barriers to the adoption of circular supply chain
management: a case study in the air conditioning industry. J Ind Prod Eng 40(4):287–300
16. Mohebbi G, Hasan A, Blay-Armah A, Bahadori-Jahromi A, Mylona A, Barthorpe M (2023)
Comparative analysis of the whole life carbon of three construction methods of a UK-based
supermarket. Build Serv Eng Res Technol 44(3):355–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/014362442
31161070
17. EPBD (2010) Council Directive 2010/31/EU of the 19 may 2010 on the energy performance
of buildings (recast)
18. Mulvaney D, Richards RM, Bazilian MD, Hensley E, Clough G, Sridhar S (2021) Progress
towards a circular economy in materials to decarbonize electricity and mobility. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 137, Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110604
19. IEA (2022) International Energy Agency IEA—snapshot of global PV Markets
20. IRENA (2016) IEA-PVPS, end-of-life management: solar photovoltaic panels
21. WEEE (2012) Council Directive 2012/19/EU of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic
equipment (recast)
22. Rabaia MKH, Semeraro C, Olabi AG (2022) Recent progress towards photovoltaics’ circular
economy. J Clean Prod 373, Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133864
23. Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE with support of PSE Projects GmbH Freiburg
(2023) Photovoltaics report
24. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) (2019) Future of solar photovoltaic: deploy-
ment, investment, technology, grid integration and socioeconomic aspects (a global energy
transformation: paper), Abu Dhabi
25. Lunardi MM, Alvarez-Gaitan JP, Bilbao JI, Corkish R (2018) A review of recycling processes
for photovoltaic modules. In: Solar panels and photovoltaic materials. InTech
3 Energy Systems and Building Services Level 67

26. Sim Y, Tay YB, Pham HK, Mathews N (2023) A facile crush-and-sieve treatment for recycling
end-of-life photovoltaics. Waste Manag 156:97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.
11.023
27. Gahlot R, Mir S, Dhawan N (2022) Recycling of discarded photovoltaic solar modules for metal
recovery: a review and outlook for the future. Energy Fuels 36(24):14554–14572, American
Chemical Society. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.2c02847
28. RecycleSolar, “Recycling Solar Panels in the UK and Ireland.” https://www.recyclesolar.co.uk.
Accessed 5 Jan 2024
29. FRELP. https://www.frelp.info/. Accessed 28 Sep 2023
30. “PV Cycle.” https://pvcycle.org/. Accessed 21 Sep 2023
31. “RAMP-PV Project, Raw material up-cycling for circular PV.” https://cordis.europa.eu/pro
ject/id/101009125. Accessed 1 Jul 2024
32. “ROSI.” https://www.rosi-solar.com/expertise. Accessed 1 Jul 2024
33. ReSiELP. https://eitrawmaterials.eu/project/resielp/. Accessed 25 Jul 2023
34. ReSiELP. https://www.resielp.eu/. Accessed 25 Jul 2023
35. “Photorama project.” https://www.photorama-project.eu/. Accessed 2 Jul 2024
36. Nedev G, Haghani R, André A, Kullberg J, Nygren D, Mattsson C (2020) Re-use of wind
turbine blade for construction and infrastructure applications. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
030-88166-5
37. Nagle AJ, Mullally G, Leahy PG, Dunphy NP (2022) Life cycle assessment of the use of
decommissioned wind blades in second life applications. J Environ Manag 302. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113994
38. Jensen JP, Skelton K (2018) Wind turbine blade recycling: experiences, challenges and possi-
bilities in a circular economy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 97:165–176, Elsevier Ltd. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.08.041
39. Jensen JP (2019) Evaluating the environmental impacts of recycling wind turbines. Wind
Energy 22(2):316–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.2287
40. Tansel B (2020) Increasing gaps between materials demand and materials recycling rates:
a historical perspective for evolution of consumer products and waste quantities. J Environ
Manag 276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111196
41. Alves Dias P, Bobba S, Carrara S, Plazzotta B, European Commission, Joint Research Centre
(2020) The role of rare earth elements in wind energy and electric mobility: an analysis of
future supply/demand balances
42. Lichtenegger G, Rentizelas AA, Trivyza N, Siegl S (2020) Offshore and onshore wind turbine
blade waste material forecast at a regional level in Europe until 2050. Waste Manag 106:120–
131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.03.018
43. Delaney EL et al (2021) An integrated geospatial approach for repurposing wind turbine blades.
Resour Conserv Recycl 170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105601
44. Re-Wind Network (2023) Draperstown wind turbine blade bridge withstands 33 tonnes in Load
Test. https://www.re-wind.info/update/2023/5/29/draperstown-bladebridge-withstands-33-ton
nes-in-ultimate-load-test
45. Re-Wind Design (2022) Catalog, 2nd edn. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b324c
409772ae52fecb6698/t/636bd07125aeb5312a8e320e/1668010099748/Re-Wind+Design+Cat
alog+Fall+2022+Nov+9+2022+%28low+res%29.pdf. Accessed 21 Mar 2024
46. Miljøskærm (2023) https://miljoskarm.dk/en/products/. Accessed 25 Sep 2023
47. Superuse Studios Rotterdam (2023) Blade Made speeltuin Wikado. https://projects.superuse-
studios.com/projects/wikado/. Accessed 7 Jul 2023
48. Superuse Studios (2016) Blade–Made speeltuin Terneuzen. https://projects.superuse-studios.
com/projects/speeltuin-wikado-terneuzen/
49. GP Renewables Group (2023) https://gp-renewables.energy/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Pro
ductList-Q1_2023_ENG-Reblade.pdf. Accessed 21 Mar 2024
50. Joustra J, Flipsen B, Balkenende R (2021) Structural reuse of high end composite products:
a design case study on wind turbine blades. Resour Conserv Recycl 167. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.resconrec.2020.105393
68 M. De Simone et al.

51. EurObserv’ER (2016) The state of renewable energy in Europe, Report

52. Carnevale E, Lombardi L, Zanchi L (2014) Life cycle assessment of solar energy systems:
comparison of photovoltaic and water thermal heater at domestic scale. Energy 77:434–446.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.09.028
53. Bartolucci L, Cordiner S, Mulone V, Rossi JL (2019) Hybrid renewable energy systems for
household ancillary services. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 107:282–297. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijepes.2018.11.021
54. Alshibil AMA, Farkas I, Víg P (2022) Multi-aspect approach of electrical and thermal perfor-
mance evaluation for hybrid photovoltaic/thermal solar collector using TRNSYS tool. Int J
Thermofluids 16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijft.2022.100222
55. Abdulmajeed OM, Jadallah AA, Bilal GA, Arıcı M (2022) Experimental investigation on
the performance of an advanced bi-fluid photovoltaic thermal solar collector system. Sustain
Energy Technol Assess 54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102865
56. Senthil R (2022) A technical note on integrating thermal energy systems into solar photovoltaic
panels toward a circular economy. Renew Energy Focus 42:97–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ref.2022.06.002
57. EurObserv’ER (2022) The state of renewable energy in Europe, Report
58. Darius D, Misaran MS, Rahman MM, Ismail MA, Amaludin A (2017) Working parameters
affecting earth-air heat exchanger (EAHE) system performance for passive cooling: a review.
In: IOP conference series: materials science and engineering, vol 217, no 1. https://doi.org/10.
1088/1757-899X/217/1/012021
59. International Renewable Energy Agency and International Geothermal Association (2023)
Global geothermal: market and technology assessment. Abu Dhabi
60. Greco A, Gundabattini E, Solomon DG, Singh Rassiah R, Masselli C (2022) A review
on geothermal renewable energy systems for eco-friendly air-conditioning. Energies 15(15),
MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155519
61. Javadi H, Mousavi Ajarostaghi SS, Rosen MA, Pourfallah M (2019) Performance of ground
heat exchangers: a comprehensive review of recent advances. Energy 178:207–233, Elsevier
Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.04.094
62. Menegazzo D, Lombardo G, Bobbo S, De Carli M, Fedele L (2022) State of the art, perspective
and obstacles of ground-source heat pump technology in the European building sector: a review.
Energies 15(7), MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072685
63. Li J, Tarpani RRZ, Stamford L, Gallego-Schmid A (2023) Life cycle sustainability assessment
and circularity of geothermal power plants. Sustain Prod Consump 35:141–156, Elsevier B.V.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.10.027
64. Akhimien NG, Al Tawheed AA, Latif E, Hou SS (2021) Circular economy in buildings.
[Online]. www.intechopen.com
65. Charef R, Emmitt S (2021) Uses of building information modelling for overcoming barriers to
a circular economy. J Clean Prod 285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124854

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 4
Circular Manufacturing

François Fohl, Vlatka Rajčić , Viorel Ungureanu , Michele Palermo ,

Lidiana Arrè , Ivana Carević , and Raluca Buzatu

Abstract Circular Manufacturing (CM), understood as CE strategies adopted in

manufacturing, takes a key position in decoupling industry growth from environ-
mental impacts. To achieve a transition into circular economy in construction, a
clear view on the state-of-the art is crucial. Construction materials such as concrete,
cross-laminated timber or steel have an environmental impact during their produc-
tion and circularity is not always given. Knowing that the design phase of a product
defines a big part of its overall environmental footprint, this chapter discusses CM
principles and most commonly pursued CM strategies for steel, concrete and timber.
Effects and impacts on buildings and eventual challenges are discussed. Furthermore,
Additive Manufacturing (AM), as a possible key driver of circularity is analysed. The

F. Fohl (B)
ArcelorMittal Commercial RPS, Esch-Sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
e-mail: [email protected]
V. Rajčić · I. Carević
Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
e-mail: [email protected]
I. Carević
e-mail: [email protected]
V. Ungureanu · R. Buzatu
CMMC Department, Politehnica University of Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania
e-mail: [email protected]
R. Buzatu
e-mail: [email protected]
V. Ungureanu
Laboratory of Steel Structures, Timisoara Branch, Romanian Academy, Timisoara, Romania
M. Palermo · L. Arrè
Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and Materials Engineering, University of Bologna,
Bologna, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]
L. Arrè
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2025 69

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_4
70 F. Fohl et al.

reduction of material use is identified as key driver in order to reduce material flows,
however structural safety and durability needs to be assured. The design and mixture
of construction products and materials itself together with an efficient design process
in the projects are essential pillars of CM. Prefabrication, modular construction as
well as DfD and DfA are key principles that can be achieved with all the analysed
construction materials but are more widespread in steel construction today.

Keywords Circular manufacturing · Construction materials · Additive

manufacturing · Reduce · Reuse · Recycling

4.1 Definition and Principles

The past century has witnessed an alarming trend within industry: unbridled resource
consumption coupled with a steep rise in CO2 emissions. The negative impacts of
resource depletion and the emission of greenhouse gases are obvious and numerous
and could lead to planet collapse [1]. As described in the OECD, the scarcity of
resources will exacerbate, while the consumption of those will double to 167 giga-
tonnes in 2060 [2]. Decoupling industry growth from environmental impacts is a
major challenge and one of the key pillars to achieve the climate goals set in the EU
Green Deal. Adopting CE principles in manufacturing represents an opportunity for
industry stakeholders to reduce material consumption as well as resource toxicity,
while maintaining and pursuing their business activities.
The implementation of CE concepts, which aim to minimise the use of (primary)
resources, energy, and waste flows, hence narrowing down and closing material
loops, is strongly encouraged by policy makers. In the EU, the recently updated
Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) underlines the importance of this concept and
the will to transition towards a regenerative growth model. The design phase holds
critical influence over a product’s environmental impact, with studies suggesting
up to 80% of its detrimental footprint being determined at this stage (not specific
for construction products). This emphasises the importance of the participation of
the manufacturer in circular economy concepts [3]. When the CE philosophy is
adopted in the manufacturing sector, it transforms into Circular Manufacturing (CM),
highlighting the specific strategies and practices employed in production to minimise
waste and maximise resource reuse. Acerbi and Taisch define CM as follows [4]: “The
concurrent adoption of different CM strategies, which enable to reduce resources
consumption, to extend resources lifecycles and to close the resources loops, by
relying on manufacturers’ internal and external activities that are shaped to meet
stakeholders’ needs”.
Circular manufacturing in construction refers to an approach that aims to minimise
waste, reduce resource consumption, and increase the lifespan of construction mate-
rials and products through a circular economy model. This approach builds on the
broader framework of the circular economy, which emphasises the elimination of
4 Circular Manufacturing 71

waste by extending the lifespan of products and materials and keeping them in use
for as long as possible.
Table 4.1 summarises circular manufacturing principles been adopted in construc-
tion and described in further detail in the text below (non-exhaustive list).
To drive the manufacturing sector’s transition towards a circular economy,
numerous strategies can be implemented, including circular design, disassembly,
remanufacture, reuse, recycle, servitisation (manufacturing firms offering innovative
services alongside their products), cleaner production, industrial symbiosis, resource
efficiency, waste management, reverse logistics, and closed-loop supply chain.
Design for Recycling and Reuse: Sustainable construction practices prioritise
designing and manufacturing materials and products with their end-of-life in mind
(Fig. 4.1). This entails ensuring easy disassembly of components and facilitating
their recycling or repurposing for other projects, thereby minimising the demand for
virgin raw materials.
Moreover, the key sustainable construction principle for reducing the quantity of
new materials used in the industry is to build less. This is most easily achieved by
reusing existing building stock. Existing buildings have the potential to be refurbished
by retaining existing building elements and improving them to suit future uses. If
we have to build new buildings, we must consider how many of the materials can
be from reused products, components or buildings. For example, where there are
buildings being demolished on site or locally, materials can be sourced from these
buildings, refurbished, and then used in the new building. Alternatively, a national
circular economy should be developed to enable the sharing of good quality reused
products.
Many structural elements, such as steel beams or concrete prefabricated floor
slabs, have a life expectancy which far outlasts a building’s lifespan. By knowing
these products are going to waste through the demolition of existing buildings,
designers can incorporate these components into their design from the outset, using
fewer new natural resources and raw materials. Instead of breaking components
into smaller pieces and recycling the individual materials, reusing a component in
its primary form has a higher value for sustainable construction. It results in fewer

Table 4.1 Circular manufacturing principles in construction

1. Design for Reuse and Recycling 5. Long-Term Building Planning
Design with the EoL in mind Lifespan of structures, Design for Adaptability
(DfA)
2. Material Selection 6. Digital Technologies
Choosing the right material 3D printing
3. Prefabrication and Modular Construction 7. Resource efficiency in manufacturing
Reversible construction, Design for stage
Deconstruction (DfD) Efficient use of raw materials
4. Resource Recovery and Recycling
Salvage of materials, DfD
72 F. Fohl et al.

Fig. 4.1 Average lifespan of building layers [5]

modifications, and less manufacturing and construction. This uses fewer materials,
less energy and minimises environmental impacts. The value of the item is retained
with the potential to reuse it again in the future, thus enabling circular principles to
continue in the future.
Material Selection: Choosing sustainable, renewable, and low-impact materials plays
a vital role in circular manufacturing. Materials that are durable, easily repairable,
and recyclable are preferred over those with limited lifespan and high environ-
mental impact. Prioritise low-maintenance materials throughout the entire building
to ensure long-term structural integrity and facilitate future reuse or recycling of
valuable components. Implement distinct material strategies for each building layer,
considering their individual lifespans (see Fig. 4.2).
Prefabrication and Modular Construction: Prefabricated and modular construction
methods can enhance circular manufacturing by enabling easier disassembly and
reassembly of building components, allowing for faster construction, and reducing
waste during the building process. The design should accommodate reversible
connections.
Resource Recovery and Recycling: Construction sites can integrate waste sorting
and recycling processes to ensure that materials are recovered and reused whenever
possible. This includes salvaging materials from deconstructed buildings and using
recycled materials in new construction. Additionally, the use of recycled materials
must be maximised without compromising the technical performance of the material.
This can be achieved through innovative and efficient design solutions that minimise
waste. The growing commercial interest in waste signifies a paradigm shift: waste
is no longer solely viewed as a burden, but increasingly regarded as a potential “co-
product” with considerable implications for environmental impact assessment. This
4 Circular Manufacturing 73

Fig. 4.2 Strategy needs to

fit to the life expectancy of
the layer [6]

is evident in the cement and concrete industry, where companies actively explore
waste-based alternatives, such as industrial by-products, to replace Portland cement,
with the aim of decreasing the environmental footprint of construction materials.
Long-Term Building Planning: Circular manufacturing also involves considering the
long-term use and adaptability of structures. Designing buildings that can be easily
modified or repurposed for different uses increases their lifespan and reduces the need
for new construction. Sustainable construction extends the lifespan of buildings by
prioritising flexible and adaptable design. This means considering potential future
uses and designing features that can easily accommodate them, thereby minimising
future material consumption and construction waste.
Digital Technologies: Building Information Modelling (BIM) and other digital tech-
nologies unlock a new era of construction efficiency. By streamlining processes,
facilitating precise material tracking, and enabling optimised resource allocation,
these advances contribute to a sustainable and cost-effective building environment.
Integrating digital design tools into a sustainable construction strategy facilitates
the precise calculation of material quantities, including the individual screws and
bolts needed for a building. This meticulous approach minimises material ordering,
resulting in reduced waste and a more environmentally responsible construction
process.
74 F. Fohl et al.

By assigning each material in a building a digital “passport” containing its envi-

ronmental and technical specifications, decision-makers can select materials based
on their environmental impact. This transparency extends beyond construction, as
material passports facilitate accurate identification and responsible reuse or disposal
at the building’s end-of-life, promoting a circular economy and minimising waste. 3D
printing enables the manufacture of building components with precise, customised
shapes, eliminating the need for excess material and reducing waste generation.
Virtual Reality (VR) technology offers the ability to generate immersive replicas of
buildings and spaces, allowing clients and users to virtually experience them before
construction begins. This immersive experience facilitates informed decision-making
and enables design modifications prior to physical construction, thereby minimising
costly and resource-intensive post-completion changes.
Resource efficiency in the manufacturing stage: efficient use of raw materials and
energy for the production of construction materials (e.g. cement, steel) is a main pillar
of circular manufacturing. Circular manufacturing in construction has the poten-
tial to contribute to environmental sustainability, reduce the carbon footprint, and
foster the development of a built environment characterised by enhanced resilience
and resource efficiency. However, its successful implementation requires collabora-
tion among all stakeholders, including designers, contractors, suppliers, and policy-
makers, to address challenges such as standardisation, regulation, and industry-wide
adoption.

4.2 Steel

The most relevant CM strategies for steel in construction are presented in Table 4.2.
Steel is widely used in construction and infrastructure, as load bearing elements,
façades or foundations. Due to its inherent properties, several CE strategies can
be easily applied on steel elements in the built environment such as circular design,
reduce, remanufacture, reuse, recycle, servitisation, industrial symbiosis, just to name
some of them. In a first step, the use of material should always be avoided. If this is
not possible, the use of materials should be reduced.
The reduction of material use is relevant mainly in the following stages of a steel
element: 1. Design phase of product 2. Design phase of project. Resource efficiency

Table 4.2 CM strategies for steel

Steel
1. Reduction of material use 3. Recycling
On product by project basis, DfA Scrap-based steel production
2. Reuse 4. Industrial symbiosis and efficient waste treatment
Circular design and traceability, DfD
4 Circular Manufacturing 75

for steel elements starts with efficient design of products. They should be designed
to be lightweight and long-lasting, while still meeting the same structural and safety
requirements. Over the last decades steel products were continuously improved and
further developed. In general, high strength steel grades allow the choice of lighter
sections, when talking about structural elements. The choice of lighter sections by
designers results 1:1 in a reduction of required steel production, reducing the need
for virgin raw materials and minimising greenhouse gas emissions during construc-
tion and operation. Hence, designers wield significant influence during the project’s
initial phase, as the decisions made then heavily impact its success and sustain-
ability. Choosing the right solutions and implementing them efficiently are therefore
critical for a positive outcome. Steel elements are prefabricated, hence allow a fast
installation on the construction site. Further, steel elements can be designed to be
modular and easy to dismantle. Design for Adaptability (DfA) represents a core
strategy within the CE framework that allows to keep building stock longer in use,
hence reduce the use of new raw materials. It has to be underlined that steel structures
offer opportunities to follow this strategy, due to possibility of long spans and related
opportunities on modularity.
Reuse, to extend the lifecycle of a product, is closely linked to circular design.
Circular design strategy is one of the game changers in the construction industry,
as the decisions in the Beginning-of-Life (BoL) of a product, influence the envi-
ronmental impacts during the lifecycle and in the End-of-Life (EoL). To promote
circular design in construction, manufacturers need to focus on product functional-
ities and features, efficiency, reuse possibility as well as durability and modularity.
Availability of information and traceability of the products is crucial. Most of steel
elements can be disassembled from the existing structures after their service life.
In general, disassembly is straightforward when mechanical connections are used.
(Read more about reuse of salvaged steel elements in chapter 5). Only if CE princi-
ples, especially circular design, are considered already in the manufacturing stage,
a shift to CE in the construction industry is possible. Again, the design phase of a
steel product, as well as the design phase of a project are relevant. Besides product
specifications, the management at the end of life of these products needs to be consid-
ered. According to Acerbi et al., one of the main barriers for circular design in the
construction sector are agency and ownership issues in the End-of-Life of materials
[1].
Recycling of a construction material becomes relevant at its EoL. Strategies like
reuse or remanufacturing should be chosen first, as they represent a higher level of
circularity. Steel is infinitely recyclable and can be recycled to 100%. Besides reuse,
recycling is the most adopted CE strategy for steel. The European Steel Association
conducted a survey in 2012 that quantified the steel recovery rate from representative
building demolition projects. The average recycling rate for steel across all products,
was found to be 92% [7]. Taking all steel products into account, also those products
that are not used in construction, a recycling rate of 85% is realised [8]. These numbers
show that the recycling chain for steel is well established. The magnetic properties of
steel allow an easy separation from other construction materials during the demolition
76 F. Fohl et al.

or dismantling stage. Every steel plant that produces steel, is a recycling plant for
End-of-Life steel. Two main production routes are currently used in steel production.
The first one is the mainly iron-ore based production in a two-stage process—Blast
Furnace/Basic Oxygen Furnace (BF/BOF). In the blast furnace, iron ore is turned into
iron. In the second stage, iron is turned into steel. The second route is a scrap-based
production in an Electric Arc Furnace (EAF). The iron-ore based steel production,
called the primary route, relies on iron ore, coke (coal), limestone and up to 30%
scrap input. Scrap-based steel production, called secondary production, uses up to
100% of scrap [9]. Scrap plays a major role in circular steel manufacturing, while
each tonne of scrap used avoids 1.5 tons of CO2 emissions, but also conserves critical
resources such as iron ore (1.4 tonnes), coal (740 kg), and limestone (120 kg). End-of-
Life scrap is a limited resource. Knowing that the average lifetime of a steel product
is around 40 years, the End-of-Life scrap that is available today as a resource for
new production, was produced around 40 years ago. Scrap availability will further
increase in the next decades; hence double from around 450 Mt in 2023 to 900 Mt in
2050. In order to achieve complete circular manufacturing in steel, scrap recycling
needs to be maximised, however due to limitations in scrap availability and a rising
steel demand, a primary steel production will be needed until 2100 according to
today’s forecasts. Steel production over the (primary) Blast Furnace route currently
accounts for 71% of the global steel production, which is mainly led by Chinese
production. In Europe, 56% of the crude steel production is based on the primary
route, which means that 44% is produced on the secondary route [8, 10].
Industrial symbiosis and efficient waste treatment are strategies that are closely linked
to the recycling strategy in CE. Besides maximising scrap use in the steel production,
there are also other ways to reduce environmental impacts of the primary production
route and increase the circularity: (1) Biomass to replace fossil coal, (2) Direct
reduced iron, (3) Use of renewable energy, (4) Carbon capture and usage, (5) Use of
by-products. Steel manufacturers in Europe are currently undergoing a fundamental
change by replacing Blast Furnaces into Direct Reduced Iron plants, in order to meet
the targets, set by the Paris Agreement and the EU Green Deal. This cuts the GHG
emissions by around 50% per ton of steel, while still meeting the steel demand.
Direct Reduced Iron is a viable and already existing technology, that is used on
industrial scale. Currently the iron ore is reduced with natural gas. In the future, this
could be done with hydrogen, leading to a chemical reaction that only emits water
as by-product, besides the iron. H2 Green Steel, in Boden, Sweden, are erecting a
new primary iron ore plant powered by hydrogen, which eliminates the need for
coke and hence eliminates greenhouse gas emissions for the primary generation of
iron. This is highly reliant upon the large hydroelectric schemes nearby to make this
viable. In a DRI plant in Germany, the switch to using hydrogen instead of natural
gas in the iron ore reduction process is being prepared [11]. But also, the Blast
Furnace route itself can become more efficient. Some manufacturers have launched
promising pilot projects, that demonstrate the use of biomass, to replace fossil coal
in the Blast Furnaces in an industrial scale. The biomass consists of waste wood and
waste plastic. The EU Horizon 2020 funded project, ‘Torero’, also deals with carbon
4 Circular Manufacturing 77

capture and usage. Hence, carbon monoxide from the Blast Furnace’s exhaust fumes
can be captured directly in the plant and microbially fermented to bioethanol, that
can be used in gasoline or chemical industry. This allows material and energy loops
to be closed to a large degree. This project allows the creation of a value chain of
waste wood, which has currently no attractive applications [12].
During the steel making process, several co-products are generated. The BF/
BOF route generates around 400 kg of solid co-products, whereas the EAF route
produces only 200 kg. The main solid co-products are slag (90%), dust and sludge.
These materials are considered as by-products, not as waste since they have an
economical value and are used in other industries. Slag, for instance, is a welcomed
resource in road construction and in cement industry, where it is used as roadstone
or clinker replacement. The efficient use of steel co-products, in e.g. cement, road
construction, metallurgical use, fertiliser and other areas, leads to an overall material
efficiency in the steel industry of 97.5%. Furthermore, the use of slag in cement has an
environmental value since it can reduce the embodied carbon of concrete up to 59%.
Besides solid co-products, process gases from coke ovens and BFs and BOFs can be
exploited. They are generally used to produce steam and to fuel reheating furnaces
after they are cleaned. Process gases are also used as reducing agents in the BF.
The exceeding heat of reheating furnaces, for instance, can be used for heat supply
of entire districts. Obviously, using co-products from steel industry contributes to
circular economy [10].

4.3 Concrete

The most relevant CM strategies for concrete in construction are presented in

Table 4.3.
Concrete acts as both a composite material and a structural element, depending
on the lifecycle stage. Its individual components, like cement and aggregates, can
also be viewed as distinct products or integral parts of the concrete itself. In terms
of Circular Economy strategies, two levels are identified [13].
Material-scale. The diverse material scales involved in concrete (angstroms to
meters) and its chemically distinct components—aggregates and binders—restrict

Table 4.3 CM strategies for concrete

Concrete
1. Reduction of material use 4. Recycling
On material and product scale Downcycling–Crushing concrete
2. Increasing longevity 5. Resource efficiency in manufacturing
DfA Biofuels, Supplementary cementitious materials
3. Reuse and remanufacturing
DfD
78 F. Fohl et al.

the feasibility of complete recycling. Consequently, it is typically reprocessed as

components in new concrete or other products, limiting the ability to recapture its
original material state. Concrete has remarkable versatility due to its ability to incor-
porate a wide range of materials such as aggregates, extending its functionality and
performance. Few examples are the inclusion of fibre-reinforced polymers, rubber
[14] or mixed plastic waste [15]. Although incorporating downcycled materials offers
potential benefits both for the life cycle of the material and the specific properties
of concrete, questions remain regarding their impact on future reuse or recycling
options. However, the effectiveness of these materials in fulfilling their engineering
function within the infrastructure is evident.
Product-scale. Where structural elements and whole buildings are considered, the
remarkable tensile strength advantage of reinforced concrete over its unreinforced
counterpart (which in design is assumed to be zero) becomes evident. This supe-
rior characteristic allows for its application in demanding structural components like
beams and columns, solidifying its value and desirability for reuse compared to its
unreinforced counterpart. Despite its superior strength and value for reuse, rein-
forced concrete constitutes a minority within the global concrete landscape. Esti-
mations suggest that only 25% of globally produced cement ends up in reinforced
concrete, highlighting the potential for expanding its utilization for more sustainable
construction practices [16]. While reinforced concrete provides superior function-
ality, the incorporation of steel reinforcement creates new vulnerabilities that can
impact its longevity. Specifically, exposure to atmospheric CO2 and chlorides from
de-icing salts or seawater can trigger corrosion of the steel, potentially compromising
the structural integrity of the concrete. Concrete’s interaction with the environment
triggers degradation mechanisms that reduce its load-bearing capacity and lifespan,
significantly impacting its performance and ultimately leading to costly repairs or
replacements. These detrimental effects depend on the specific concrete mix and its
exposure environment. Notably, the economic burden of steel corrosion in reinforced
concrete is substantial, representing roughly 4% of GDP in industrialised nations
[17]. The inherent differences in value and physical longevity between reinforced
and unreinforced concrete significantly impact the effectiveness of various reuse and
recycling strategies. This necessitates a nuanced approach considering these distinct
characteristics to optimise resource recovery and minimise waste.
Circular Economy approaches for concrete encompass various strategies targets:
minimising resource consumption through material reduction, designing for dura-
bility and resilience, extending lifespan through proper maintenance and repair,
maximising value through reuse, and ultimately recovering resources via reman-
ufacturing and recycling.
Reduction of material use in concrete construction starts with minimising material
used in the design stage. This multi-pronged approach focuses on: (1) Structural
optimisation—product scale (reducing the overall volume of concrete needed in
structures while maintaining safety and functionality), (2) Material optimisation—
material scale (lowering the amount of cement per cubic metre of concrete through
innovative mix alternative materials), (3) Clinker optimisation—material scale (using
4 Circular Manufacturing 79

alternative sources or minimising the clinker content within the cement itself, aiming
at a smaller environmental footprint).
Increasing longevity represents another design-stage strategy within the Circular
Economy for concrete. While the immediate reduction in the in-use concrete volume
might be modest, the long-term benefits are substantial. Extending the lifespan of
structures translates to reduced material flows and waste generation over time, conse-
quently minimising environmental impact. Design for Adaptability (DfA) promotes
a product-scale approach that prioritises designing products with inherent flexibility,
enabling them to adjust to evolving needs and circumstances [18]. The principles
of DfA extend beyond products and can also be effectively applied to infrastructure
projects [19]. In-service strategies like maintenance, repair, and refurbishment play
an important role in slowing resource flows, by extending the technical lifetime of
products and components. However, these efforts must constantly evolve to ‘keep
up’ with upstream innovations in the concrete lifecycle, such as the development of
low-carbon novel concretes that require specific protective measures.
Reuse and remanufacturing constitute complementary end-of-use strategies that
focus on slowing resource flows by extracting and re-integrating functional compo-
nents from decommissioned concrete products into new applications, thereby
minimising reliance on virgin materials. Reuse is defined as the act using again
a component or product in its original or a similar function, potentially requiring
preparatory steps such as inspection, cleaning, or repair [20]. In the context of
concrete structures, a discrete concrete structural component can be considered a
product offering. Refurbishment entails a meticulously documented process of disas-
sembling a product offering into its constituent parts. These parts are then metic-
ulously inspected, cleaned, repaired or replaced as necessary, and subsequently
reassembled into the original product offering, while delivering an equivalent or
enhanced warranty pertaining to the product’s functionality [21]. Within the construc-
tion industry, a structure can be viewed as a complete product, comprised of numerous
component parts, encompassing (but not restricted to) structural elements. Remanu-
facturing and refurbishment, while sharing similarities, represent distinct approaches
to extending the functional lifespan of structures. Refurbishment focuses on replacing
individual, end-of-life components within an existing structure to prolong its overall
operational life. In contrast, remanufacturing involves the disassembly of a structure
at its end-of-life, with the utilisation of still-functional components to construct a new
structure entirely. Both methodologies align with the principles of Design for Disas-
sembly (DfD). Within this framework, disassembly signifies the strategic removal
of structural components with the intended purpose of their subsequent utilization
in different structures.
Recycling constitutes an end-of-use strategy aimed at closing resource loops. This
strategy entails the reprocessing of materials for integration into the creation of new
products, thereby circumventing both waste generation and the extraction of virgin
resources. In the context of concrete, recycling ranks as the second most prevalent
Circular Economy strategy utilised. The typical recycling process for demolished
80 F. Fohl et al.

concrete structures entails the fragmentation of the material at its end-of-use stage.
This coarse aggregate is subsequently employed as a substitute for natural aggre-
gate in the creation of new concrete. This method falls under the classification of
downcycling, indicating that the recycled aggregate exhibits diminished value and
functionality relative to the original concrete. Not all downcycling is equal. “Recy-
cled concrete aggregate” boasts higher quality and finds application in structural
concrete, while the more prevalent “recycled aggregate” exhibits lower quality and
is typically confined to road sub-base construction [22].
Resource efficiency in manufacturing is key pillar in reducing the environmental
impact in the cement industry: (1) the focus on improving the energy efficiency of
cement plants primarily emphasizes optimising the thermal performance of their
kilns; (2) substituting/decreasing the use of conventional fuels (coal and/or petcoke)
in cement kilns with biofuels and other alternative fuels, (3) optimising the clinker-
to-cement ratio through the strategic replacement of clinker with alternative materials
or supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), respectively reducing the clinker
content of cement; (4) carbon capture, utilisation, and storage [23].
Currently, most cementitious binders in production already incorporate a small
quantity of SCMs. In fact, the estimated global clinker factor was 0.77, indicating that
out of the total 4200 million tonnes of cement produced in 2015, at least 800 million
tonnes of SCMs were utilised [24]. Integrating alternative materials and lowering the
clinker-to-cement ratio in cement production yields reductions in both emissions and
energy consumption. Exploring the utilisation of waste products from various indus-
tries as alternative raw materials in construction presents an intriguing eco-friendly
option and is widely used in the cement industry. Materials such as ground blast
furnace slag (GBFS) from pig-iron/steel production process, coal fly ash (FA) from
coal fired industries, natural pozzolanas (silica fume, rice husk ash) have proven to be
effective in substantially reducing CO2 emissions per tonne of cementitious materials.
While GBFS and FA are the most widely used Supplementary Cementitious Mate-
rials (SCMs), their availability is projected to be limited. Currently, these materials
account for only 17% of the global supply compared to current cement production.
This supply is expected to decline to a mere 7% by 2050, driven by increased steel
recycling and a shift away from coal usage. The restricted availability of established
supplemental cementitious materials, such as slag and fly ash, in conjunction with
the emerging potential for enhanced clinker substitution facilitated by calcined clay
and limestone blends, is transforming the cement production landscape. A ternary
blend (limestone-calcined clay cement, LC3) offers higher levels of substitution
due to the synergistic effects among clays, limestone, and clinker. Clay, a widely
abundant resource globally, serves as the primary raw material for LC3 production,
alongside clinker. Clays with a substantial presence of kaolinite, a critical factor
in determining clay quality for cement applications, have demonstrated exceptional
pozzolanic properties when subjected to calcination within the temperature range
of 700 to 850 °C [25]. Additionally, to address the increasing demand for cement
and consequently concrete, considering the constraints on the availability of high-
quality SCMs, research is now directed toward exploring alternative possible wastes
4 Circular Manufacturing 81

as SCMs from the other industries such as red mud, incinerated sewage sludge ash,
municipal solid waste (MSW) ash, wood biomass ash, construction and demolition
waste powder and others. Currently most of these wastes are landfilled due to lacking
technical solutions, symbiotic value chains, and coverage by the EU regulations. One
of the critical aspects of using new waste materials in the cement production are stan-
dardisation and compatibility with the cement production process related specifically
on maintaining consistent cement quality and performance. Establishing standards
and guidelines will help to ensure the safe, reliable, and environmentally responsible
incorporation of waste-derived materials into the cement manufacturing process.
One of good example of activating value chain and foster industry-urban symbiosis
is AshCycle project focused on use underutilised incinerated ashes as secondary raw
materials in the construction and wastewater treatment sectors trough developing of
technical guidance, requirements and specifications.
An alternative to traditional cement is the use of alkali-activated materials (AAM).
Alkali-activated materials (AAMs) constitute a category of binding agents produced
via the chemical interaction between an alkali metal activator and a solid silicate
precursor [26]. The solid precursor can consist of materials rich in calcium silicate
or aluminosilicate, including natural pozzolan, bottom ash, fly ash, or metallurgical
slag. Activators are soluble substances that provide alkali metal cations, elevate the
mixture’s pH, and expedite the dissolution of the solid precursor. Despite signifi-
cant potential, the global commercial adoption of these materials remains negligible
compared to established alternatives [16]. Researchers are currently directing their
attention toward innovative alternatives as precursor materials, including ferronickel
slag, electric arc furnace slag, red mud, and calcined clay.

4.4 Timber

The most relevant CM strategies for timber in construction are presented in Table 4.4.
Although timber constructions offer significant potential to promote sustainable
building practices, achieving a fully closed material cycle with negligible emissions
remains a challenge. Although the inherent characteristics of timber enable partial
carbon sequestration during growth and facilitate recycling, various aspects of the
process, such as forestry practices, transportation, and processing, require further
optimisation to fully realise the material’s sustainability potential. As approximately
half the dry weight of timber is composed of carbon and one kilogram of carbon is

Table 4.4 CM strategies for

Timber
timber
1. Reduction of material use 3. Recycling
Optimise building structures To a small amount
2. Reuse and remanufacturing
82 F. Fohl et al.

equivalent to 3.6 kg of CO2 , each kilogram of dry timber stores roughly 1.8 kg of
CO2 . Despite its carbon storage potential, timber is a finite resource, and significant
amounts of processed wood currently end up as fuel, releasing its stored carbon back
into the atmosphere. Furthermore, at the end of its life cycle, through combustion or
natural decay, timber releases its stored CO2 , limiting its positive long-term impact
on climate change. To increase the volume of timber and wood-engineered construc-
tion, strategies should focus on maximising material efficiency and raw material
utilisation through: (1) optimising structural design for material efficiency, (2) inte-
grating secondary wood streams into construction components, and (3) establishing
a circular economy framework that promotes the extended service life of timber
products [27].
Despite the potential for circularity, timber recycling and closed-loop material
use remain marginal practices. Most of the timber is still used for energy produc-
tion, effectively eliminating it from the construction cycle and negating its long-term
carbon storage potential. Several European research projects investigated specific
aspects of wood recycling such as “WoodCircus!–Underpinning the vital role of
the forest-based sector in the Circular Bioeconomy”, or “CaReWood”–Cascading
Recovered Wood providing the wood satisfies the requirement of being free of
contamination [28]. In the latter case, the research focused on true timber recy-
cling, using used timber from demolition projects instead of simply “downcycling”
it. This is particularly relevant given the significant amount of high-quality construc-
tion timber discarded during demolition. Across Europe, the construction sector
generates 70.5 million tonnes of waste timber annually, yet only one-third undergoes
recycling processes [29].
The circular economy draws inspiration from nature’s cyclical processes, empha-
sising resource optimisation and the continued circulation of materials within closed
loops. Often described as a holistic approach, it embraces the “reduce, reuse, recy-
cle” mantra. By prioritising reuse and reintegration of materials into new products,
the circular economy strives towards eliminating waste as a concept, recognising
its inherent resource inefficiency. Polymers and other fossil-based materials demand
a transition from linear to circular economic models. Preventing their disposal in
landfills or conversion into fossil fuels during energy recovery is crucial. The rise of
industrialisation coincides with a dramatic increase in CO2 emissions, demonstrably
contributing to global warming [30].
Reuse and Remanufacturing: throughout its lifecycle, timber acts as a natural carbon
sink. During photosynthesis, trees capture atmospheric CO2 and store it within their
cellular components, primarily cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. Upon harvesting
and subsequent combustion, stored carbon is released back into the atmosphere,
completing the cycle [31]. Direct combustion for energy accounts for roughly half of
the globally harvested wood, resulting in the immediate release of its stored carbon
back into the atmosphere as CO2 [32]. Diversifying the energy mix with renewable
sources such as solar could reduce the reliance on fuelwood, thus reducing carbon
emissions. However, the immediate reduction of the use of fuelwood in developing
countries remains a complex challenge due to its critical role in providing energy
4 Circular Manufacturing 83

access. The other half of global timber harvest enters the industrial sector, where
it is processed into valuable engineered wood products widely used in building
applications. Contemporary timber construction primarily utilizes adhesive-bonded
elements like glue-laminated timber (glulam) and cross-laminated timber (CLT),
with minimal use of untreated solid timber. Strand-based products, such as Oriented
Strand Board (OSB) and Parallel Strand Lumber (PSL), offer additional options
for ceiling elements and solid wall, albeit to a lesser extent. One example among
currently available products is the “Magnum Board,” a solid element crafted from
glued OSB panels, manufactured by Swiss Krono [33].
Instead of dismantling and recycling timber components, the most sustainable
approach prioritises the reuse of entire buildings or their components whenever
possible. The optimal waste management strategy in timber construction revolves
around maximising reuse, starting with the entire building and progressing to indi-
vidual components only when necessary. At the material level, shredding and
reassembling timber particles into new products instead of direct thermal conversion
should be preferred.
Hassan et al. identified wood chips, sawdust and bark as primary sawmill side
streams, comprising 38.3% of log input, with wood particles and sawdust consti-
tuting the most significant volume. In particular, processing hardwood logs, often
less straight, is expected to further increase this percentage. Although wood parti-
cles have diverse applications in energy (pellets), construction (concrete additives,
particleboard), and agriculture (fertilisers), most of the waste wood still goes directly
to energy production [34]. While regulations like the Renewable Energy Act (EEG
2017) and RE2020 promote resource efficiency through “cascading use”, current
practices like those in the particleboard industry often result in downcycling, ulti-
mately diminishing material value and hindering true circularity. Downcycling is
the current norm, but no technology exists to break down particleboards into their
constituent materials because of the use of thermoset adhesives, whose irreversible
curing process effectively “locks” the materials together, preventing efficient separa-
tion into their original components. Current “cascading use” systems remain ineffec-
tive, failing to meaningfully increase timber’s market share against competitors. Only
a true recycling process, epitomised by the cradle-to-cradle approach, can achieve a
truly wasteless, circular economy.
Regarding the environmental footprint, the cradle-to-gate concept measures a
product’s environmental impact from raw material extraction to factory output,
excluding use and end-of-life stages where producer responsibility ceases. Looking
beyond production to the full product lifecycle, from cradle-to-cradle, requires the
development of innovative material design approaches. These approaches must
integrate recycling considerations from the outset, alongside primary material
development, to achieve true circularity.
84 F. Fohl et al.

4.5 Additive Manufacturing

Additive manufacturing (AM) is a CM strategy that can be applied on different

construction materials; hence, it is treated separately. Table 4.5 presents the key
characteristics of additive manufacturing as a CM strategy.
Although additive manufacturing promises to be a pivotal pillar of Industry 4.0,
driving the circular economy and reducing carbon through minimal material waste,
its adoption in construction remains below its potential compared to other indus-
tries [35]. Utilising data from CAD software or 3D scanners, additive manufacturing
builds objects iteratively, one layer at a time. It is also known as 3D printing. AM
minimises energy consumption and waste by using only the precise amount of mate-
rial needed for a design, eliminating the need for subtractive processes and scrap
material. This process can be used to create new products from recycled materials,
reducing waste and saving resources, and offering substantial environmental benefits
for the construction sector [36–38].
As outlined by Gibson, Rosen and Stucker, the foundational steps of additive
manufacturing comprise [39]:
• 3D model generation via either computer-aided design (CAD) software or 3D
scanning;
• conversion of the model into an executable format specific to the intended 3D
printer, typically involving slicing into 2D sections;
• object construction by the AM machine (3D printer) through sequential deposition
of material layers based on the pre-generated slices;
• removal and potential post-processing of the printed object.
The main 3D printing methods used in construction are:
Extrusion: This approach creates objects by adding material in sequential layers,
using one or more nozzles depending on the specific technology (e.g., fused depo-
sition modelling uses a single nozzle, while multi-jet modelling employs multiple)
mounted on a robotic arm, gantry system, or crane. The material can be concrete,
cement, wax, foam or polymer. This is the most common and versatile method,
as it can be used in almost any environment, including construction sites, and for
various applications [40]. As technical challenges, the balance between printability
and buildability becomes a crucial aspect during printing, since instability during
manufacturing can induce zones of weakness in the extruded material [35].

Table 4.5 Key characteristics of additive manufacturing as CM strategy

Circular manufacturing
1. Main 3D printing methods 3. Potential reduction of material waste,
Extrusion, Power Bonding, Additive Welding energy consumption and transport costs
2. Materials 4. Barriers to overcome
Concrete/cement, polymer, metal a.o Costs, Size and Dimension limitations a.o
4 Circular Manufacturing 85

Powder Bonding: This method creates an object by selectively bonding together

layers of powdered material using a binder, a laser, or a chemical reaction. The
material can be polymer, metal or sand. This method can produce complex and
detailed shapes but requires a controlled environment and post-processing [40].
Additive Welding: This method creates an object by depositing droplets of molten
metal or wire using an electric arc or a laser. The material is usually steel or
aluminium. This method can produce strong, durable structures, but it requires high
temperatures and skilled operators [40].
Due to their inherent fresh and hardened properties, the vast number of readily
available raw materials and the flexibility in mix design, cement-based materials offer
unmatched adaptability, making them the most studied option for widespread use
in additive construction. Printable cement-based materials typically blend common
construction materials (sand, soil, clay, crushed stone, recycled aggregates, etc.) with
binders (cement, polymers, fly ash) and workability agents/additives, but there are no
standard protocols for assessing printable cement-based mixes, leading to challenges
in formulation and performance optimisation [41]. Additive manufacturing (AM)
could unlock substantial incentives for polymer recycling and reuse within a circular
economy framework. By enabling the creation of new products from used or recycled
materials, AM offers a closed-loop approach that minimises waste and maximises
resource efficiency. Pellets, as an example of polymer reuse, can be used as a raw
material in additive manufacturing. Pellets are small cylindrical pieces of plastic that
can be melted down and used to create 3D printed parts [42].
Polymers offer an attractive option for AM in construction due to their combina-
tion of affordability and lightweight properties, enabling the cost-effective and poten-
tially faster construction of lighter structures, while allowing storage in a control-
lable, deposit-ready state, unlike that of cement-based raw materials. AM of polymers
has attracted significant interest across various sectors. However, widespread imple-
mentation as functional, load-bearing components remains limited. While research
explores various polymeric materials such as elastomer, photosensitive resin, acry-
lonitrile–butadiene–styrene (ABS), nylon, and wax, the resulting AM products often
function primarily as conceptual prototypes due to limitations in strength and overall
performance compared to traditional manufacturing methods [41].
Thus far, there have been no demonstrations of the production of building compo-
nents using solely lignocellulosic resources or wood-based products, without the
inclusion of any mineral or plastic binders. In their study, Lamm et al. provide a
comprehensive analysis of the present state of 3D printing using wood and ligno-
cellulosic materials (such as lignin, wood particles, nanocellulose, and cork). The
authors delve into the examination of filament-based printing technologies and
granulate-based extrusion processes, particularly in the context of large-scale printing
[43].
In wood-based FDM/FFF printing, there is a trade-off between wood content and
printability/strength. Increasing the wood content beyond 30% becomes difficult to
manage successfully with current technology. Rosenthal et al. achieved an impres-
sive 89% wood content in small-scale specimens using liquid deposition modelling.
86 F. Fohl et al.

Their key innovation was a paste-like methylcellulose suspension with ground beech
sawdust [43]. Launched in 2020, the TU Dresden’s “Addwood–3D printing of furni-
ture “ project demonstrated the potential of timber-based 3D printing using a layered
particle-resin approach (this technique-built elements by layering sprayed timber
particles and adding resin, achieving qualities similar to particleboards). However,
existing patents reveal that a fully bio-based solution for the construction industry
remains elusive.
Recent publications indicate an absence of discourse surrounding metallic struc-
tures in the context of additive manufacturing applications for construction [35].
An all-encompassing adoption of additive manufacturing techniques for large-scale
structure printing can be realized once the current size and resolution limitations are
overcome. Below are some practical examples of the use of AM parts in construction:
steel structures for pedestrian bridge construction—which are 3D printed; new 3D
printed steel structural elements and connectors [45–48]; 3D printed multi-binding
geopolymer composites—which are a type of cementitious material that can be rein-
forced with nano additives to improve mechanical properties; 3D printed concrete
houses using robotic concrete printing; among others.
Despite a diverse array of AM processes available for architectural and construc-
tion applications, many remain restricted to creating objects from single, homoge-
neous materials, hindering the exploration of more complex and versatile structures
[36]. Though in its early stages, multi-material AM in architecture and construction
shows promise, necessitating discussions about its potential advantages and draw-
backs to accelerate its development. A 2022 study by Pasco et al. [35] suggests that
by 2025, AM could significantly improve manufacturing sustainability. Qualitative
assessments predict a 5% reduction in key sustainability criteria such as production
costs, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions.
Additive manufacturing can support the circular economy in several ways, such
as described in [46, 48–51]:
• reduce material waste by using only the amount of material needed to create an
object and reusing or recycling excess material;
• reducing energy consumption by using less energy-intensive processes and
optimising the design and performance of objects;
• reducing transport costs and emissions by producing objects closer to the point of
use or demand and enabling distributed and decentralised production networks;
• extending the useful life of products by allowing repair, refurbishment, remanu-
facturing or customisation using additive manufacturing techniques;
• create new business opportunities and value propositions by offering on-demand,
customised or innovative products and services using additive manufacturing
capabilities.
Since 2015, the ISO/ASTM 52900 international standard has brought clarity and
consistency to the terminology used in the AM and ASTM community. This stan-
dardisation helps to distinguish AM from traditional techniques such as casting,
machining, rolling, forging, and extrusion. However, a radical change in licencing
4 Circular Manufacturing 87

structures, patents, trademarks, and copyrights is also expected. Sustainability

policies that focus on technology, work, and regulation also need to be created [35].
To truly realise the environmental benefits of AM in construction, a comprehensive
life-cycle assessment (LCA) approach is essential. This involves meticulous analysis
of the entire lifecycle of the structure, from manufacturing to end-of-life, alongside
the AM process itself. This holistic perspective is crucial for paving the way towards a
circular economy within AM construction [52–56]. According to MTC, the following
are some of the challenges that AM faces in a sustainability context:
• develop a greater understanding of the AM lifecycle and collect its data;
• identify how Design for the Environment (DfE) approaches can be adapted to
Design for AM (DfAM);
• maximize resource recovery through efficient material recycling;
• enhanced safeguards for intellectual property (IP) and better control over regulated
products;
• investigate the potential challenges and unforeseen expenses inherent to MA,
among others [50].
Also, important barriers need to be overcome in the construction sector, such as:
• additive manufacturing machines are expensive;
• metal additive manufacturing has its benefits in cost when you need 1 to 100
prototypes.
• customising parts is very costly;
• parts have size and dimension limitations;
• using them to create large batch sizes takes more time than traditional manufac-
turing;
• many additively manufactured objects require some post-processing to clean up
and smooth edges, among other things;
• ensuring the final part has good properties. From a materials science perspective,
this is probably the greatest challenge in additive manufacturing [57].
In recent years, numerous initiatives have emerged in the development of materials
and processes, in addition to designing strategies and applications specifically opti-
mised for additive manufacturing. Large-format 3D printing is gaining traction in
construction, with new suppliers emerging and established companies developing
innovative solutions. Panjonk et al. highlight the increasing involvement of estab-
lished construction companies in 3D printing, indicating a promising future for this
technology in real-world applications [58].
The achievement of sustainable AM construction practices requires a rigorous
and well-defined framework that addresses all key aspects. Continuous and consis-
tent material delivery through optimised mixer and pump settings is paramount for
uninterrupted printing and robust interlayer adhesion. This necessitates the precise
selection of compatible material types and their specific formulations, including the
appropriate incorporation of additives and compatibilizers (materials that allow two
largely incompatible materials to mix together to form a new blend or alloy) for opti-
mised interaction. To advance AM in construction, one need to focus on developing
88 F. Fohl et al.

standardised performance criteria, material properties, methods to ensure strong layer

adhesion and robust structural design approaches. The deployment of additive manu-
facturing (AM) as a leading technology within the circular economy (CE) model
presents potential benefits including, but not limited to, shortened localized value
chains and production costs, enhanced resource efficiency and environmental sustain-
ability through the use of recycled materials, and reduced transportation-related
emissions [41].

References

1. Acerbi F, Sassanelli C, Terzi S, Taisch M (2021) A systematic literature review on data and
information required for circular manufacturing strategies adoption. Sustainability 13:2047.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042047
2. OECD (2019) Global material resources outlook to 2060: economic drivers and environmental
consequences, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307452-en
3. European Commission (2014) Directorate-general for energy, directorate-general for enterprise
and industry. Ecodesign your future: how ecodesign can help the environment by making
products smarter. European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2769/38512
4. Acerbi F, Taisch M (2020) A literature review on circular economy adoption in the manufac-
turing sector. J Cleaner Product 273:123086. ISSN 0959–6526, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcl
epro.2020.123086
5. Brand S (1994) How buildings learn: what happens after they are built? Penguin, New York
6. Brydenwood (2023) Value & reuse: sustainable construction and circular economy. https://
www.brydenwood.com/sustainable-construction/s172998/
7. Sansom, M; Avery N (2014) Briefing: reuse and recycling rates of UK steel demolition arisings.
Proc Inst Civil Engin Engin Sustain 167(ES3):89–94. https://doi.org/10.1680/ensu.13.00026.
8. Worldsteel (2021) Climate change and the production of iron and steel. Worldsteel Associ-
ation. https://worldsteel.org/wp-content/uploads/Climate-change-and-the-production-of-iron-
and-steel.pdf
9. Biljard R; Mulders P (2023) Steel, the perfect material for a sustainable, circular
and re-usable economy. https://foundationreuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Founda
tion-Reuse-Bijlard.pdf
10. Worldsteel (2021) Steel industry co-products. World Steel Association. https://worldsteel.org/
wp-content/uploads/Fact-sheet-Steel-industry-co-products.pdf
11. ArcelorMittal (2021) Climate action report. https://corporate.arcelormittal.com/media/jv0
jm0ok/car_2.pdf
12. Torero. Fueling a sustainable future. https://www.torero.eu/
13. Marsh A, Velenturf A, Bernal S (2022) Circular economy strategies for concrete: implemen-
tation and integration. J Cleaner Product. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132486
14. Li X, Ling (Bill), Tung-Chai, Mo, KH (2020) Functions and impacts of plastic/rubber wastes
as eco-friendly aggregate in concrete – a review. Construct Build Mater 240:117869
15. Saikia N, de Brito J (2012) Use of plastic waste as aggregate in cement mortar and concrete
preparation: a review. Construct Build Mater 34:385–401. ISSN 0950–0618. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.02.066
16. Scrivener C, John V, Gartner E (2018) Eco-efficient cements: potential economically viable
solutions for a low-CO2 cement-based materials industry. Cement Concrete Res 114:2–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.03.015
17. Francois R, Laurens S, Deby F (2018) Steel corrosion in reinforced. Concrete. https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-1-78548-234-2.50001-9
4 Circular Manufacturing 89

18. Kasarda M, Terpenny J, Inman D, Precoda K, Jelesko J, Sahin A, Park J (2007) Design for
adaptability (DFAD)—a new concept for achieving sustainable design. Robot Comput-Integrat
Manufact 23:727–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2007.02.004
19. Gilrein E, Carvalhaes T, Markolf S, Chester M, Allenby B, Garcia M (2019) Concepts and
practices for transforming infrastructure from rigid to adaptable. Sustain Resilient Infrastruct
6:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2019.1599608
20. den Hollander M, Bakker CA, Hultink E (2017) Product design in a circular economy: devel-
opment of a typology of key concepts and terms: key concepts and terms for circular product
design. J Ind Ecol 21:517–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12610
21. Priyono A, Ijomah W, Bititci U (2016) Disassembly for remanufacturing: a systematic literature
review, new model development and future research needs. J Indust Engin Manag 9:899. https://
doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2053
22. Purnell P, Dunster A (2010). Recycling of concrete. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781845697662.
5.569
23. IEA (2009) Cement technology roadmap 2009. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/897
b7ad9-200a-4314-b870-394dc8e6861a/CementTechnologyRoadmap-CarbonEmissionsRed
uctionsupto2050.pdf
24. Snellings R (2016) Assessing, understanding and unlocking supplementary cementitious
materials. RILEM Tech Lett 1:50
25. Porikam Poil KR (2023) Development of high-performance concrete with lower ecological
footprint, doctoral thesis. University of Zagreb Faculty of Civil Engineering
26. Rilem TCA (2014) Alcali activated materials. State-of-the-Art Report, RILEM TC 224-AAM.
Springer
27. Mair C, Stern T (2017) Cascading utilisation of wood: a matter of circular economy? Curr
Forestry Rep Bd 3. Nr 4:281–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-017-0067-y
28. Risse M, Richter K (2018) CaReWood – cascading recovered wood; Teilvorhaben: Ökologische
und ökonomische Berwetung der kaskadischen Holznutzung, Technische Universität München,
Lehrstuhl für Holzwissenschaft, https://www.ls.tum.de/fileadmin/w00bww/hfm/Bilder/Stoffs
trom/20180130_abschlussbericht_carewood_wp6.pdf.
29. WoodCircus (2022) Underpinning the vital role of the forest-based sector in the Circular
Bioeconomy. https://woodcircus.eu/
30. Ziska LH, Epstein PR, Schlesinger WH (2009) Rising CO2 , climate change, and public health:
exploring the links to plant biology. Environ Health Perspect 117(2):155–158. https://doi.org/
10.1289/ehp.11501
31. Geng A, Yang H, Chen J, Hong Y (2017) Review of carbon storage function of harvested wood
products and the potential of wood substitution in greenhouse gas mitigation. Forest Policy
Econ 85:192–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.08.007
32. Ramage MH (2017) The wood from the trees: the use of timber in construction. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 68:333–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.107
33. SWISS KRONO for massive timber building (2023) https://www.swisskrono.com/global-en/
products/building-materials/magnumboard-osb/#/
34. Hassan MdK, Villa A, Kuittinen S, Jänis J, Pappinen A (2019) An assessment of side-stream
generation from Finnish forest industry. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag Bd 21, Nr 2, S 265–280.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0787-5
35. Pasco J, Lei Z, Aranas C (2022) Additive manufacturing in off-site construction: review and
future directions. Buildings 12:53. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12010053
36. Gardner L (2023) Metal additive manufacturing in structural engineering–review, advances,
opportunities and outlook. Structures 47, 2178–2193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.
12.039
37. Garg R (2023) Here’s how to create a circular system for the built environment. Nov 2. https://
www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/ritu-garg
38. Khan MA, Latheef A (2023) Metal additive manufacturing of alloy structures in architecture:
a review on achievements and challenges. Mater Today Proc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.
2023.05.192
90 F. Fohl et al.

39. Gibson I, Rosen D, Stucker B (2015) Additive manufacturing technologies: 3D printing, rapid
prototyping, and direct digital manufacturing, 2nd edn. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-
2113-3
40. Baigarina A, Shehab E, Ali M (2023) Construction 3D printing: a critical review and future
research directions. Progress Addit Manufact 8:1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40964-023-004
09-8
41. Ghaffar S, Corker J, Fan M (2018) Additive manufacturing technology and its implementation
in construction as an eco-innovative solution. Autom Constr 93:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.autcon.2018.05.005
42. Mishra V, Negi S, Kar S (2023) Manufatura aditiva baseada em FDM de termoplásticos reci-
clados e compósitos associados. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 25:758–784. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10163-022-01588-2
43. Lamm ME et al (2020) Material extrusion additive manufacturing of wood and lignocellulosic
filled composites. Polymers (Basel) Bd 12, Nr 9 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/polym1209
2115
44. Rosenthal M, Henneberger C, Gutkes A, Bues C (2017) Liquid deposition modeling: a
promising approach for 3D printing of wood. Europ J Wood Wood Products. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00107-017-1274-8
45. Wynne Z, Buchanan C, Kyvelou P, Gardner L, Kromanis R, Stratford T, Reynolds T (2022)
Dynamic testing and analysis of the world’s first metal 3D printed bridge. Case Stud Construct
Mater 17:e01541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01541
46. Ye J, Kyvelou P, Gilardi F, Lu H, Gilbert M, Gardner L (2021) An end-to-end framework for the
additive manufacture of optimised tubular structures. IEEE Access 9:165476–165489. https://
doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3132797
47. Erven M, Lange J (2022) Design of optimised 3D-printed steel nodes. In: Structures and
architecture a viable urban perspective? CRC Press, pp 229–236
48. Kloft H, Schmitz LP, Müller C, Laghi V, Babovic N, Baghdadi A (2023) Experimental appli-
cation of robotic wire-and-arc additive manufacturing technique for strengthening the I-beam
profiles. Buildings 13(2):366. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13020366
49. Laghi V, Palermo M, Gasparini G, Trombetti T (2020) Computational design and manufacturing
of a half-scaled 3D-printed stainless steel diagrid column. Addit Manufact 36:101505. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101505
50. MTC (2023) Additive manufacturing in the circular economy: opportunities and constraints
from a design perspective. NCAM National Center Additive Manufacturing; MTC Manu-
facturing Technology Center. https://ncam.the-mtc.org/media/gycaqkwb/am-in-circular-eco
nomy.pdf?download=AM%20in%20the%20circular%20economy [Accessed 15 August 2023]
51. CECIMO (2022) Publications: enabling the circular economy with additive manufac-
turing exploring best practices. 07 November 2022. CECIMO European Association
of the Machine Tool Industries and Related Manufacturing Technologies. Available
from: https://www.cecimo.eu/publications/enabling-the-circular-economy-with-additive-man
ufacturing-exploring-best-practices/
52. Reis RC, Kokare S, Oliveira JP, Matias JC, Godina R (2023) Life cycle assessment of metal
products: a comparison between wire arc additive manufacturing and CNC milling. Adv Indust
Manufact Engin 6:100117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aime.2023.100117
53. Shah IH, Hadjipantelis N, Walter L, Myers RJ, Gardner L (2023) Environmental life cycle
assessment of wire arc additively manufactured steel structural components. J Clean Product
389:136071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136071
54. Tinoco MP, de Mendonça ÉM, Fernandez LIC, Caldas LR, Reales OAM, Toledo Filho RD
(2022) Life cycle assessment (LCA) and environmental sustainability of cementitious materials
for 3D concrete printing: a systematic literature review. J Build Engin 52:104456. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104456
55. Mohammad M, Masad E, Al-Ghamdi SG (2020) 3D concrete printing sustainability: a compar-
ative life cycle assessment of four construction method scenarios. Buildings 10(12):245. https://
doi.org/10.3390/buildings10120245
4 Circular Manufacturing 91

56. Campatelli G, Montevecchi F, Venturini G, Ingarao G, Priarone PC (2020) Integrated WAAM-

subtractive versus pure subtractive manufacturing approaches: an energy efficiency compar-
ison. Int J Precis Engin Manufact-Green Technol 7:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40684-019-
00071-y
57. Tankova T, Silva L (2020) Robotics and additive manufacturing in the construction industry.
Current Robot Rep 1:13–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43154-020-00003-8
58. Pajonk AM, Prieto Hoces AI, Blum U, Knaack U (2022) Multi-material additive manufacturing
in architecture and construction: a review. J Build Engin 45:Article 103603. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jobe.2021.103603

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 5
Recovery and Reuse of Salvaged
Products and Building Materials
from Existing Structures

Viorel Ungureanu , François Fohl, Jie Yang , Oliver Hechler,

Vlatka Rajčić , and Raluca Buzatu

Abstract The recovery and reuse of salvaged products and building materials from
existing structures is an essential practice in sustainable construction and environ-
mental conservation. This process, often referred to as building deconstruction or
architectural salvage, involves carefully dismantling buildings to preserve reusable
materials. It offers numerous benefits, including significant environmental impact
reduction, economic advantages, and historical preservation. Environmentally, it
reduces the amount of construction and demolition debris in landfills, conserves
natural resources by reusing existing materials, and reduces the carbon footprint
by decreasing the need for new materials, thus reducing emissions from manufac-
turing and transportation. Recovery and reuse involve several steps. It begins with
assessment and planning, where a detailed site assessment is performed to identify
salvageable materials. A deconstruction plan is then developed that details the steps

V. Ungureanu (B) · R. Buzatu

CMMC Department, Politehnica University of Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania
e-mail: [email protected]
R. Buzatu
e-mail: [email protected]
V. Ungureanu
Laboratory of Steel Structures, Romanian Academy, Timisoara Branch, Timisoara, Romania
F. Fohl · O. Hechler
ArcelorMittal Commercial RPS, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
e-mail: [email protected]
O. Hechler
e-mail: [email protected]
J. Yang
ArcelorMittal Global R&D, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
e-mail: [email protected]
V. Rajčić
Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2025 93

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_5
94 V. Ungureanu et al.

and methods to safely dismantle the structure. During the deconstruction phase, the
building is carefully dismantled, starting from the top down, using manual labour
and specialised tools to preserve the materials in good condition. These materials are
then separated into categories such as steel, timber, concrete, bricks, etc. Next, the
salvaged materials undergo cleaning and processing, making them ready for reuse.
Proper storage and distribution are crucial to preserve the integrity of materials.
However, practice faces challenges such as labour intensity, risks of contamination
from hazardous materials such as asbestos and lead paint, fluctuating market demand,
and ensuring the quality and safety of reused materials, which may require certifi-
cation and compliance with building codes. The present chapter starts with aspects
of pre-demolition/deconstruction audit that involves the collection of information
about the materials and elements that will be recovered and continues with the eval-
uation of reusability of materials, mainly with steel, timber and concrete, structural
components, entire primary and secondary structure.

Keywords Recovery · Reuse · Upcycling · Salvaged products · Building

materials · Existing structures · Pre-demolition/deconstruction audit

5.1 Introduction

Salvaging and reusing materials from existing structures is a cornerstone of the use
of circular materials in construction, minimising waste and conserving resources.
Instead of demolishing buildings and sending the debris to landfills, salvaging mate-
rials by disassembly allows for their reuse in new construction projects, reducing
waste and conserving resources.
Crowther [1] highlights the principles of disassembly as an alternative to
demolition. These include the following:
• offer unimpeded access to all building elements slated for disassembly;
• enable disassembly at any scale, from individual materials to entire structures;
• arrange components based on a hierarchy of access that correlates with their
respective life expectancies;
• facilitate simultaneous disassembly of multiple elements instead of linear
sequences;
• clear label of components and document their assembly/disassembly procedures;
• separate building structure, envelope, and internal walls using distinct systems;
• standardise and limit the number of material types, components, connections, and
systems while ensuring compatibility with existing standards;
• embrace open construction systems that accommodate various structural alterna-
tives;
• minimise the number of components and connections for straightforward disas-
sembly;
• prioritise mechanical connections over chemical ones for easier separation;
5 Recovery and Reuse of Salvaged Products and Building Materials … 95

• favour readily available tools and practices for widespread adoption;

• design component sizes compatible with intended disassembly methods;
• utilise lightweight materials to simplify handling;
• prevent component deformation caused by repeated assembly/disassembly.
Here are some key aspects related to the recovery and reuse of salvaged building
materials:
1. Salvage Operations: Salvage operations involve carefully deconstructing or
dismantling existing buildings to recover reusable materials. This process
requires skilled labour, the right tools and techniques to ensure the safe removal
and preservation of salvaged items;
2. Materials Identification and Sorting: During the salvage process, the materials
are identified, categorised and sorted to determine their reusability and potential
applications. This includes assessing the condition, quality and compatibility of
salvaged materials for future reuse;
3. Preservation and Storage: Salvaged materials may require proper preservation
and storage to maintain their quality and usability. This may involve cleaning,
repairing, treating, or storing materials under the appropriate conditions to
prevent deterioration or damage;
4. Material Assessment and Testing: Salvaged materials should be evaluated and
tested to ensure that they meet safety and quality standards for reuse. This includes
evaluating their structural integrity, durability, and performance characteristics
to determine their suitability for future applications;
5. Inventory and Cataloguing: Establishing an inventory and cataloguing system
for salvaged materials helps streamline the reuse process. It enables architects,
builders, and designers to easily access information about available salvaged
materials, facilitating their integration into new construction projects;
6. Design Considerations: Incorporating salvaged materials into new designs
requires careful consideration of their characteristics, limitations, and aesthetic
appeal. Designers and architects need to explore innovative ways to inte-
grate these materials while ensuring structural integrity and meeting regulatory
requirements;
7. Local Networks and Partnerships: Building networks and partnerships among
salvage yards, contractors, architects, and other stakeholders can improve
the reuse of salvaged materials. Collaboration allows for the exchange of
information, expertise, and the creation of marketplaces for salvaged materials;
8. Education and Awareness: Increasing awareness among industry professionals
and the general public about the benefits and opportunities associated with
salvaging and reusing building materials is crucial. The implementation of educa-
tional programs, workshops, and public awareness campaigns aimed at various
stakeholders can significantly contribute to the promotion of disassembly design
principles and the creation of a robust market for salvaged materials.
The recovery, de-characterisation and reuse of salvaged building materials offer
multiple benefits, including waste reduction, resource conservation, cost savings,
96 V. Ungureanu et al.

preservation of architectural heritage and environmental impact reduction. By incor-

porating salvaged materials into new construction projects, the construction industry
can significantly contribute to circular material usage and sustainable building prac-
tices, even reduce costs due to the significant rising costs of some raw materials. The
following subchapters deal mainly with steel, timber and concrete.

5.2 Pre-demolition/Deconstruction Audit

Selection of demolition methods depends on the construction materials and site

conditions and is subject to regulatory requirements. Top-down demolition method
is commonly used for multi-storey buildings meaning that demolition starts from
the top floor level. Temporary propping and shoring are usually needed to ensure
stability of the structure. Excavators are generally used to demolish the structure;
structural steel members sheared, or flame cut into short lengths for ease of handling,
transportation, and recycling; and concrete demolished for down-cycling or landfill.
Pre-deconstruction audit involves the collection of information about the materials
and elements that will be recovered, the waste streams, and recommendations for
further handling and reuse. Recommended waste audit includes field survey, docu-
mentation research, condition evaluation, and management recommendations [2, 3].
Guidance for the deconstruction process using the top-down method is available,
offering recommendations from project planning to deconstruction stages, along
with compliance legislation [4].
A Pre-demolition audit–overall guidance document has been prepared as an exten-
sion to the Waste Audit Guideline released by the European Commission in 2017
[5]. The pre-demolition audit guidance package has been prepared within the project
“Best practices for Pre-demolition Audits ensuring high quality RAw materials–
PARADE” funded by EIT RawMaterials. The Guideline helps maximize the recovery
and reuse of valuable materials and components from buildings and infrastructure,
prioritizing sustainability while upholding the safety standards outlined in the EU
Construction and Demolition Waste Management Protocol [2].
A document offering guidelines on conducting a reclamation audit was developed
through a collaborative effort within the project Interreg NWE 739: Facilitating
the Circulation of Reclaimed Building Elements (FCRBE), October 2018–January
2022–A guide for identifying the reuse potential of construction products [6]. This
manual guides you through the process of conducting these audits. It’s designed for
building professionals, and anyone involved in (de)construction, including architects,
engineers, contractors, and owners.
According to Building and Construction Authority [7], the Pre-demolition Audit
is a continuous process, spanning across three key phases: (a) pre-demolition plan-
ning, (b) active demolition, and (c) post-demolition assessment. This multi-stage
approach ensures the optimal recovery of demolished materials for beneficial reuse
and recycling, while always prioritizing safety practices and measures.
5 Recovery and Reuse of Salvaged Products and Building Materials … 97

Steel. The practice of deconstruction with the intension of reclaiming and reusing
structural components is not yet commonplace due to a lack of demand for salvaged
materials and the associated time and labour costs. Many existing buildings present
challenges for deconstruction and material reuse due to their original design. The
findings of the PROGRESS project [8] indicate that deconstruction of existing
single-storey steel-framed building is relatively straight-forward when following a
reversed construction sequence. Deconstruction begins with the removal of non-
structural elements and equipment, followed by the methodical disassembly of
flashing elements, cladding, and secondary structures before tackling the primary
structure. This deconstruction is recommended to be carried out on a bay-to-bay
basis rather than by the entire building layer. Optical Emission Spectroscopy anal-
ysis can easily and quickly analyse chemical composition of steel which can serve
as a non-destructive method to sort steel from waste stream. In general, steel is the
perfect material to reuse, as the integrity of a steel element after deconstruction can
be easily tested, compared to other construction materials. Steel is predestined for
deconstruction after service life as there is a wide variety of mechanical connections.
At the European level, a technical specification for reuse of structural steel is
under development, which is complementary to the provisions in EN 1090-2 [9]
for the execution of steel structures. It specifies requirements for both reusability
assessment and quality assessment. A testing protocol is proposed for determining
the following properties: yield and tensile strength, elongation, tolerances on dimen-
sions and shape, heat treatment delivery condition, and weldability [10, 11]. Non-
destructive or destructive techniques may be used depending on the provenance of
steel and availability of original inspection documents.
Precast Concrete. The widespread use of pre-cast elements throughout Europe
creates a readily available pool of materials for large-scale reuse, making this
approach particularly attractive. Evaluating the potential for concrete reuse demands
a two-step process: delving into historical records like design drawings and calcu-
lations, followed by on-site inspections involving visual and non-destructive assess-
ments. Complete original manufacturing drawings and certificates, if available,
can provide invaluable information to assess concrete reuse potential, further vali-
dated through suitable testing. Information availability, historical exposure level,
and intended new application will determine the ‘pre-classification’ categories for
concrete elements, which will guide further evaluation.
The European research project ReCreate–Reusing precast concrete for a circular
economy [12], aims to address the challenge of damaging demolitions. This Euro-
pean research project explores methods for deconstructing precast concrete elements
for their safe reuse in new buildings, with the objective of transforming waste into
resources and creating a profitable circular economy model for construction. This
project explores innovative approaches to deconstructing precast concrete, even for
structures built without disassembly in mind, aiming to improve both the technical
feasibility and economic attractiveness of this sustainable approach. Deliverable D2.1
of the projects discussed in detail the process of information collection as a BIM-aided
pre-deconstruction audit process [13]. A central goal of the pre-deconstruction audit
is to create a comprehensive inventory of recoverable materials and components
98 V. Ungureanu et al.

within the donor building, maximising potential for reuse and minimising waste.
Buildings incorporate a variety of precast concrete elements: structural members
(columns, beams, load-bearing and non-load-bearing walls, and shear walls provide
structural support and stability to buildings), enclosure elements (facades, incorpo-
rating sandwich elements contribute to thermal performance and architectural expres-
sion), circulation elements (stairs, stair landings, and balconies facilitate movement
and access within and around buildings), etc. In theory, these precast elements can be
repurposed for the same intended use. During the pre-deconstruction phase, it was
essential to gather data on the physical dimensions, shape, and potential damage of
all elements. If the information was already accessible from archives, it was essential
to verify its accuracy.
PEIKKO White Paper [14] reviewed a set of connections between precast concrete
structures to determine their capacity to allow the dismount and reuse of the struc-
tures. Existing solutions must agree with the current norms recognising reuse, and
their potential must be proven in practice. The benefits of reuse are also assessed
from an economic and environmental point of view by presenting a study case for
pre-cast concrete frame load bearing structures. However, the document highlights
the need for new standards dealing with the topic, which would also help to verify
the condition of old concrete structures for reuse.
Timber. After centuries of dominance by other materials, Europe witnessed a
renaissance of timber construction in the late twentieth century, fuelled by the rise
of light timber frame systems. Now, in the twenty-first century, innovative advance-
ments are taking this sustainable building method to new heights, transforming the
industry. Mass timber, such as CLT (cross-laminated timber), shattered the limitations
of timber construction, paving the way for high-rise timber buildings in some coun-
tries. Although predominantly used in residential projects, timber is increasingly
being used for office buildings, schools and hotels, transforming the construction
landscape. The rise of off-site construction could be seen as an even more game-
changing development, as it amplifies the benefits of timber, leading to even greater
accuracy, material efficiency, speed, and waste reduction. Although modern construc-
tion methods gain traction across Europe, regional differences emerge in prefabrica-
tion, materials, and design styles. This requires adaptable Design for Deconstruction
and Reuse (DfDR) guidelines that can effectively address the specificities of each
partner country.
The InFutUReWood project [15] tackled the challenge of reusing wood from
existing buildings, specifically focussing on its viability as a structural material. The
following transformative recommendations stem from their work:
• For new buildings, local or building authorities could mandate the inclusion of
deconstruction plans, prepared by designers, as part of the building permit applica-
tion process. These plans would facilitate future disassembly and reuse of building
materials.
• Minor tweaks to the design of timber buildings can significantly enhance the
potential for deconstruction and material reuse. Deconstruction plans, when
linked to data on material origin and environmental footprint, become powerful
5 Recovery and Reuse of Salvaged Products and Building Materials … 99

tools to promote circularity in construction. This allows for targeted material

reuse, informed selection of replacements, and minimised environmental impact
throughout the lifecycle of a building. Mandatory deconstruction plans with mate-
rial passports and recycling information should be integrated into the building
permit process for new buildings, facilitating future disassembly and material
reuse. Current financial incentives that favour biomass energy for building would
create a major barrier to its reuse over multiple life cycles. To encourage such
reuse, a shift towards tax advantages and subsidies specifically supporting timber
reuse is crucial.
• Financial incentives should encourage “cascading use” of timber, prioritising
renovation and reuse over virgin materials in new construction. Robust assessment
methods are important to demonstrate the full impact of cascading, demonstrating
its contribution to sustainability (environmental, social and economic), as well as
circularity within the construction sector.
• Without harmonised standards and adaptable assessment documents, the construc-
tion industry faces limitations in advancing sustainable building practices. This
impacts not only manufacturers and architects, but ultimately hinders progress
towards meeting society’s growing expectations for environmentally responsible
construction. Stakeholders involved in the revision of the Construction Products
Regulation should prioritise finding solutions to address this challenge.
• Instead of viewing upfront costs as mere expenditures, integrated policy frame-
works are crucial for both the construction and recycling sectors to recognise them
as investments in a global resource deposit, promoting long-term resource value
and sustainability.
While the EU’s Construction Products Regulation review tackles reuse, trace-
ability of materials after first use, and standards, specific solutions are needed for
timber due to its distinct natural properties compared to non-living materials. For low-
risk circular economy products and applications, exploring alternative approaches
like streamlined processes or targeted support programs can unlock their potential,
even if broader solutions remain elusive.
Although building safety is paramount, it is equally important to consider its
interdependencies and vulnerabilities within the larger urban ecosystem. Effective
building safety strategies must be systemic, addressing how structures interact and
impact each other. Buildings, major climate culprits, now face growing threats from
the climate crisis itself, putting communities and livelihoods at risk. Storms, floods,
and landscape-scale fires are just some of the increasing dangers.
Although certain outputs can be currently implemented, further research is
required in all aspects of timber utilisation. Specifically, cross-laminated timber has
been recognised as a construction material with significant potential for future reuse.
Additionally, it can be manufactured using reclaimed timber. Collecting the neces-
sary data for wood characterisation and product certification is a huge undertaking.
Hence, project consortia working in this field should collaborate and share data to
accumulate a substantial body of knowledge over time. The scope of wood quality and
property research, as they are so variable, necessitates data sharing beyond individual
100 V. Ungureanu et al.

projects, and therefore the involvement of multiple projects in sharing their data is
crucial. In addition to data sharing, it is essential to compile a Guide to Good Prac-
tices that encompasses various circular design solutions. This guide should incorpo-
rate research projects and industry solutions and be tailored to meet the regulations
of different countries. The transfer of knowledge to society and the education of
building professionals are crucial aspects. Transitioning from the current state can
pose numerous challenges and obstacles, including new building regulations and the
need to adapt to harmonised standards.
One of the most effective waste reduction strategies is to prolong and diversify the
use of the same resource through cascading. Risse [16] defines cascading as a resource
strategy in which units serve various material applications sequentially, culminating
in their final use (in the case of timber) for energy generation through incineration.
As Risse explains “It follows a holistic perspective on the material’s value chain and
can include various reuse and recycling processes as well as end-of-life treatments”.
Cascading can reduce pollution, resource depletion, and energy consumption associ-
ated with manufacturing, while simultaneously extending carbon storage in products
and delaying emissions for years, making it a valuable tool for environmental sustain-
ability and climate change mitigation [17]. Cascading can reduce pollution, resource
depletion, and energy consumption associated with manufacturing, while simultane-
ously extending carbon storage in products and delaying emissions for years, making
it a valuable tool for environmental sustainability and climate change mitigation (e.g.
Irle et al. [18]; Lesar et al. [19]; He et al. [20]). The success of high-value recycling
for recovered wood hinges on overcoming the hurdles presented by its inherent
heterogeneity and lower quality, which currently restrict yields [21].
Cascading wood effectively demands not only novel technologies but also a trans-
formation in demolition and waste treatment practices to maximise material quality
[22–27]. Ideally, product and building design should prioritise material preservation
and straightforward and efficient recycling. Most of the wood from demolished build-
ings is incinerated for energy, primarily to heat power plants, with only a negligible
amount diverted to landfills. This highlights the growing interest in timber buildings,
which offer a more sustainable alternative.
Despite relying on wood waste for energy, many countries are missing a key
opportunity: a massive amount of high-value wood products and assemblies, like
structural components, end up incinerated instead of being cascaded for further use.
Embracing design for reuse and recycling in wood construction could unlock a trea-
sure trove of opportunities: timber structures could be readily reused, paving the way
for practical implementation of wood cascading across the industry.
5 Recovery and Reuse of Salvaged Products and Building Materials … 101

5.3 Evaluation of Reusability: Materials/Structural

Components/Entire Primary and Secondary Structure

The reports of many studies consistently highlight innovative design concepts for
deconstruction and reuse, which have the potential to be applied in contempo-
rary buildings. The reports highlight that both the feasibility and the potential for
reuse increase with the size of the reclaimed components. Larger elements save
time, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and minimise waste generation. By priori-
tising adaptability in volumetric and planar units, it not only reduces waste but also
unlocks valuable opportunities for repurposing them in different contexts or modi-
fying them within buildings as component lifespans differ. This results in long-
term cost savings and improved sustainability. There are examples that demonstrate
various design strategies for Design for Deconstruction and Reuse (DfDR) in build-
ings. Each example is accompanied by its specific design approach to facilitate the
reuse and deconstruction process. In the given examples, the buildings are designed
to be in one place for a specific period of time. They are constructed with the inten-
tion of being easily deconstructed and reassembled in another location without the
need for component replacement. Buildings designed for disassembly and reuse
often exhibit key features such as modular component systems, easily reversible
connections, adaptable floor plans, and circular procurement strategies. Although it
is clear that structural timber reuse is feasible, it has not yet been widely adopted
as a common approach. The primary obstacles to the use of reclaimed structural
components are primarily the absence of demand for salvaged materials, as well as
restrictive building regulations and the absence of established design standards. The
practices employed during the demolition phase also hold significant importance and
should be taken into consideration during the design of buildings to prevent damage
to the components.
Entire Structures. Relocating entire buildings in order to reuse a maximum of
the components and structure is considered in PROGRESS project [8, 10, 11]. The
SEGRO warehouse building in Slough, UK, for instance, built in 2000 was relocated
in 2015 on the same business park, to make it possible to construct a new road bridge.
The primary steel structure was relatively easy to recover with an intumescent coating
removed and repainted on site. Reclaim of secondary steelwork was more challenging
due to the large number of elements and their relative fragility. The precast concrete
floor planks were easy to remove as there were no rebars between them but grouts;
some of the planks were damaged during the deconstruction process and required
repair. New composite steel cladding was installed due to the costs of reclaiming the
bricks from the original cladding and the difficulty in reinstallation.
Other case studies from the PROGRESS [8] project include the Agrocolumna
warehouse built in 2004 and initially located in Craiova and relocated to Copăceni,
Romania in 2012 (see Fig. 5.1), and a warehouse building situated within the western
harbour of Helsinki underwent a nearby relocation utilising crane technology,
eliminating the need for disassembly etc.
102 V. Ungureanu et al.

Fig. 5.1 Deconstruction and relocation of a warehouse and office building [8]

A similar approach is followed by Capelle et al. [28]. Within their BAMB-Project,

circular solutions for the building sector were analysed with the help of several pilot
projects. Find hereafter a non-exhaustive list: BRIC–An educational transformable
wooden building in Belgium, new building, disassembled and assembled twice, used
as an office building in 2018, a shop in 2019 and an acoustic laboratory in 2020;
GTB LAB–A novel building module constructed in the Netherlands that combines
a steel frame with exchangeable components, enabling flexibility and transforma-
tion, which has already undergone its first functional change; REMs An indoor
interactive and modular exhibition space on circular building materials, in Brussels,
London, Watford, Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Westerlo, new construction, assembled,
transformed, and relocated six times.
The 2015 Finnish project ReUSE, explored by Hradil [29], investigated the
potential for reusing various building materials, including timber (with a partic-
ular focus on mass timber elements). Hradil observes that a substantial variety of
load-bearing building elements possess reusability potential, either through recovery
from construction and demolition waste or direct reuse from existing structures. He
proposed a size- and complexity-based classification system, dividing projects into
five distinct categories: (1) building (2) structures, (3) structural elements, (4) basic
structural elements, (5) building blocks. Hradil leverages the summarized building
element definition to establish a criteria-driven approach for categorizing and eval-
uating individual elements. Hradil [29] identified these key features of mass timber
building components as:
A: sports halls, modular houses, towers, bridges;
B: roof trusses, glulam frames;
C: sandwich panels, ceiling joists, curved glulam beams;
D: wood-based panels, straight solid or glulam beams;
E: boards.
Structural components: Steel. It is not always reasonable to relocate entire build-
ings. However, single building components such as roofing, cladding, floors or load
bearing structures can be recovered and reused. Flat steel construction products for
5 Recovery and Reuse of Salvaged Products and Building Materials … 103

Steel metal sheeting PIR sandwich panels Mineral wool sandwich panels

Fig. 5.2 Flat steel construction products

the building envelope cover inter alia steel metal sheeting, PIR sandwich panels and
mineral wool sandwich panels (see Fig. 5.2).
The steel metal sheeting products are 100% recyclable with 16.74% average of
recycled content. With choosing special steel from selected producers, options with
e.g. a minimum of 75% of recycled content and thus significant CO2 savings can be
chosen. Recycling of the foam of PIR sandwich panels is technically feasible into
raw materials to produce again PIR foam sandwich panels. For mineral wool sand-
wich panels, steel and mineral wool are separable and both are recyclable. Mineral
wool can contain between 30 and 50% of recycled content. Also, mineral wool
production waste is mainly recycled (up to 90%). The industry is currently looking
into an enhancement of circular economy on each step of the products life of steel
construction products by:
1. Recycle production waste in particular for PIR sandwich panels as well as waste
on site;
2. Use of environmentally friendly surface coatings;
3. Concepts to promote separation into mono-materials;
4. Innovative deconstruction concepts.
Further carbon equivalent savings can be achieved by value engineering with
optimised design and related steel thicknesses. Innovative deconstruction concepts
promote the reuse of steel construction elements. The construction as such as planned
with mechanical fastening techniques. The fastening elements are to be placed from
one-side only to facilitate easy deconstruction layer by layer. Riveted connections
can be opened by drilling. Setting pins can be loosened by hammering. Bore holes
remain in the elements.
Sealing tapes and other sealing products at element edges or intersections may not
be removed residue-free. Impacted edges of used panels can be refitted respectively
needs to be cut-off from the product being reused. Loss of material can be recycled.
It is to be noted that standard element sizes may not remain. It is to be noted that
producers do not have a business model in place accounting for reuse of construction
elements, mainly due to the challenge of warranty respectively product responsibility.
The assessment for fitness-of-purpose of the product to be reused is to be agreed
between the party selling product, the designer as well as the purchaser as no legal
framework does exist for this case.
104 V. Ungureanu et al.

Fig. 5.3 Composite

concrete floor

Reclaiming and reusing concrete floors as components are not easy tasks. In
current practices, concrete floors are crushed for recycling or landfilling. Precast
floor slabs may be easier to reclaim and reuse from existing buildings, compared
to cast in-situ applications. Hollow core slabs are prefabricated concrete slabs pre-
stressed for strength, commonly used in residential construction for fast and efficient
floor systems. In one pilot project in Oslo, hollow core concrete slabs were carefully
removed from a demolished multi-storey building to be reused in a new building
[30]. Norwegian standard NS 3682 issued in 2022 [31] has provided guidance on
reuse of hollow core slabs, from dismantling to assessment.
Composite concrete floors (see Fig. 5.3) comprise reinforced concrete and profiled
steel deckling as formwork during concreting and as reinforcement in a final stage.
They are commonly designed with composite beams with steel connectors, such
as welded shear studs, in steel framed buildings usually non-residential multi-storey
buildings. Reclaiming steel sections from such applications is possible, with concrete
crushed and studs cut. One easy and elegant way to make this type of composite
solution fully deconstructable (floor slabs detachable from composite beams) is to
use demountable connectors such as bolts, however, the design of such solution is
not covered by Eurocodes.
Using high-strength structural bolts as shear connectors is acceptable in
Australian/New Zealand standard AS/NZS 2327 [32]. Within the EU-funded project
REDUCE, a total of twenty different demountable shear connection systems have
been identified with selected solutions tested, and a design guide on demountable
composite construction has been published [33, 34]. Reuse scenario of composite
beams with composite floors and demountable connectors has been tested in the UK
by Lam et al. [35]; cast in-situ composite floors was cut along the troughs of steel
decking after first use, detached, reassembled, and tested to failure, to create a reuse
phase. Demountable composite construction has the merits of resource efficiency in
first use due to improved strength and stiffness and thus reduced material consump-
tion, and time, labour, carbon savings during assembly and disassembly in first use
and subsequent uses of components or structure.
A steel-timber composite flooring system as described by Romero et al. [36]
has been developed recently; using demountable shear connectors between timber
floor and steel beam to form composite action. Timber panels can be detached from
the beams and potentially reused with the same or new beams or repurposed as
non-structural elements.
5 Recovery and Reuse of Salvaged Products and Building Materials … 105

Stockists in the UK have a growing business on reclaimed steel sections thanks

to the newly developed steel reuse protocols and the increasing demand on low
carbon steel. Before, finding reclaimed steel sections in good quality was not easy
and a systematic assessment method was lacking. Completed in 2002, the BedZED
project in London used reclaimed steel as frames amounts to 95% of the structural
steel [37]. In retrofitting projects, steel is usually the right and light weight material
to use for load bearing; the Holbein Gardens project in London, for instance, used
reclaimed steel for extension of the frame [38].
A demonstration project in Luxembourg demonstrates opportunities on how to
reuse steel load bearing structures. The Project Petite Maison contributes to the
concept of design for deconstruction, reuse, and circularity. The project has three
phases named: construction phase, use phase (and open for public visits), and decon-
struction phase. The load-bearing structure is steel framed with the demountable
composite solutions and adaptable steel connections developed within the REDUCE
project [39]. The elements adhere to a standardized 1.35-m grid system, prevalent in
European construction. Noted that, using a higher grade of steel from S355 to S460
saves approximately 24% of material consumption thus reduced embodied carbon.
The developed systems are designed as modular, demountable, standardised, and
potentially reusable. Each building element has been linked with a QR code and
virtual platform containing material passport data such as technical properties and
manufacturers to facilitate tracking and future reuse.
Steel foundations consist of bearing piles and sheet piles and can be found mainly
as deep foundation elements in structures as bridges, industrial facilities, housing,
underground car parks or quay walls (see examples in Fig. 5.4). The purpose of the
foundation can be temporary or permanent, which results in a service-life ranging
from some months up to 100 years. Two main modes of action for steel foundations
are identified:

1. Vertical load bearing elements,

2. Retaining walls with limited vertical bearing capacity.

Fig. 5.4 Steel as a reclaimable foundation element

106 V. Ungureanu et al.

The vertical load bearing is assured by steel bearing piles that are generally
combined with a shallow concrete foundation. Retaining walls, constructed with
sheet piles take horizontal loads, but also have a certain bearing capacity, which allows
an efficient use of material. Steel sheet piles are modular, prefabricated elements.
For either case, steel elements can be reclaimed after the service life of the structure.
Three options are identified for reuse of steel foundations:
1. Reuse steel foundation on the same site (in-situ reuse);
2. Reuse steel foundation on the same site (ex-situ reuse);
3. Reuse steel elements on another site (off-site ex-situ reuse).
Reuse steel foundation on the same site (in-situ): It is possible to reuse vertical
bearing piles. As described by Sangiuliano et al. [40], the Ministry of Transportation
of Ontario in Canada, is assessing existing bridge abutments that need to be reha-
bilitated/replaced. The aim is to reuse the existing steel foundations. The authors
describe the assessment procedure to check if an existing, 50-year-old, steel foun-
dation, could be maintained and used to support a new superstructure for another
75 years. The procedure considers corrosion as well as geotechnical and structural
assessment. The positive result leads to substantial savings in cost, construction time
and natural resources.
Reuse steel foundation (ex-situ): Sheet piles can be used for temporary applica-
tions and then reused on the same site for further construction stages or on another
jobsite. They can be reused up to ten times [41]. The multiple reuses allow the effi-
cient use of a steel element. Being reused multiple times, the steel element is kept on a
high level of circularity over several lifecycles. Manufacturers as well as contractors
offer rental services and buy-back schemes for sheet piles. Vertical bearing piles are
generally used in permanent applications. After reclamation they would be used on
another site.
After deconstruction of the superstructure, the use of vibratory hammers, typically
used for pile installation, facilitates the efficient extraction of sheet and bearing piles.
For steel used in infrastructure, other than quay walls, very limited corrosion is to be
expected as the elements often emerge in the soil [42]. Steel foundations are ideal
for reuse, due to their integrity and ease of reclamation and storage. Reusing steel
foundations significantly reduces the use of raw material, waste, and energy. Today,
the reuse of steel foundations, in the form of sheet piles, is common. Around 25%
of sheet piles in Europe are reused at least once.
Reuse of steel is technically viable: steel is inherently reusable and durable; and
steel construction is easily reversible to facilitate reclamation of materials and compo-
nents. Reuse of steel is already common practice in shoring, excavation, and the
railway industry. Case studies indicate that salvaged steel can be repurposed as struc-
tural elements: over 40% of structural steel used in the Brent Cross Town substation
project (see Fig. 5.5) was salvaged from surplus oil pipelines [43].
Steel can also easily serve as an intermediary to improve the reuse potential of
other materials such as concrete, brick, and timber through connections [44].
Structural components: Concrete. In practice, the elements most commonly used
in concrete constructions can be reused. These are:
5 Recovery and Reuse of Salvaged Products and Building Materials … 107

Fig. 5.5 Brent Cross Town

primary substation [43]

• Columns: serving as vertical supports for a structure, columns transfer the

compressive forces and bending moments from upper floors, through founda-
tions, to the ground. Square, rectangular, and circular are the most common
cross-sectional shapes for these vital structural members;
• Beams: characterised by their rectangular cross-section, beams serve to transfer
primarily transversal loads to supporting elements. Their reinforcements enable
them to effectively resist both shearing forces (frames) and bending moments
(longitudinal steel bars);
• Walls: these vertical elements, carry vertical loads and, due to their inherent
strength, also resist horizontal forces generated by wind and earthquakes;
• Floors: characterised by their horizontal orientation and primarily subjected to
bending moments, floors are categorised according to the direction of their spans
(unidirectional or bidirectional) and construction style (solid, ribbed, or mixed);
• Façade panels: relatively thin, flat elements of uniform thickness, employed
primarily to fill the spatial gaps between structural columns. Primarily serving
aesthetic and environmental purposes, these non-structural components do not
contribute directly to the building’s load-bearing capacity.
Küpfer et al. [45] presented an original collection of 77 concrete component
reuse cases in new construction projects in Europe and the United States, span-
ning projects built between 1967 and 2022. Employing a chronological approach,
the authors identified seven distinct trends categorised across three main time inter-
vals: (a) the early, pioneering period (1967–1998), (b) the intermediate, development
period (1999–2010), and (c) the recent, diversification period (2011–2022).
Within the study, the authors established a three-tier value recovery framework
for concrete component reuse, based on the disparity between the structural demands
of the components in the new design and their original roles in the donor structure,
i.e.:
(a) equivalent reuse of components when the reuse is for the same purpose,
108 V. Ungureanu et al.

The residential quarter before The residential quarter after

refurbishment refurbishment

Fig. 5.6 Residential quarter before and after refurbishment [47]

(b) downcycling reuse when the reuse of concrete components in new applications
are subjected to a less diverse or less intense spectrum of loads or stresses
compared to their original design specifications, and
(c) upcycling reuse, when the reuse of concrete components in the receiver structure
is required, is subjected to more intense spectrum of loads or stresses compared
to their original design specifications.
Asam [46, 47] presented the latest developments in the area of reuse of building
parts from disassembled concrete prefabricated parts from housing construction in
eastern Germany. He presented four pilot projects implemented between 2005–2007
in the Berlin area. The slab and wall components were supplied by donor buildings
in an area of 35 km around Berlin (see Fig. 5.6).
In 2015, Huuhka et al. [48] conducted a study to evaluate the reusability of concrete
panels prevalent in the Finnish mass housing stock. The research focused on assessing
the dimensional compatibility of these panels with the requirements of contemporary
architectural design paradigms. Analysing multi-story housing built between 1968
and 1985, the study discovered that a single, average-sized apartment building could
provide enough materials to construct up to nine detached houses.
In his study, Glias [49] investigated the feasibility of reusing existing struc-
tural concrete elements. His findings confirmed the technical practicality of this
approach while highlighting its potential for cost reduction and environmental bene-
fits compared to the use of new construction materials. In addition to its other applica-
tions, this strategy presents a potentially valuable solution for vacant office buildings.
These encouraging findings warrant further research to fully explore the full potential
for reuse and to realise a pilot project that utilises reused elements in the foreseeable
future.
Several noteworthy examples, including the Kummatti housing estate rehabili-
tation project in Raahe, Finland (2008–2010), have provided concrete evidence of
the environmental, economic, and construction time advantages associated with the
5 Recovery and Reuse of Salvaged Products and Building Materials … 109

reuse of concrete elements; a small-scale initiative involving the reuse of wall panels
resulted in a noteworthy 36% reduction in construction costs [48]. The design of new
housing in Mehrow, near Berlin, exemplifies another successful implementation of
circular construction principles. Precast concrete elements from unwanted buildings
were repurposed for the project, resulting in a 30% cost reduction, highlighting the
potential of resource conservation in the construction industry [50].
In 2001, a research project titled “Recycling Prefabricated Building Components
for Future Generations” was initiated by the Federal Ministry of Transport, Building,
and Housing in Germany. This initiative aimed to assess the feasibility and potential
of dismantling and reutilising prefabricated concrete elements in the construction of
new houses. The project yielded significant findings regarding the viability of reusing
building elements. The use of hand procedures with light machinery proved to be
more cost-effective compared to heavy-duty equipment. Furthermore, measurements
ensured the quality of the dismantled elements and the reused components were
demonstrably 50% less expensive than their new concrete counterparts. In particular,
total building costs were observed to be 26% lower when using reused elements [49].
Salama [51] conducted a comprehensive analysis of contemporary issues
concerning concrete technologies and their influence on building assembly and
disassembly processes. Recognising the environmental implications, he delves into
the potential of design-for-disassembly (DfD) principles and explores theories for
future advancements. Ultimately, his work aims to guide the construction design of
concrete buildings towards a more environmentally responsible future. The study
concluded that the implementation of the design for disassembly (DfD) criteria in
precast concrete systems and elements presents a feasible and effective solution to
transition their linear life cycle to a circular model.
Drawing upon insights from pilot projects conducted in Finland, Sweden,
Germany, and the Netherlands, the ReCreate project [13] is currently in progress.
This research initiative investigates the feasibility of transitioning from a traditional
build-and-demolish approach to a model where elements from dismantled structures
are repurposed to construct new buildings. As the project is still under development,
further details and results are not yet available.
Structural components: Timber. “Building elements of higher category can be
often separated into several elements of lower category. Even though the higher
category elements have typically higher value than their parts together, the separation
would make sense, because it may be more difficult to find a suitable application of
higher category elements. The re-using complexity depends on many factors” [29]:
(a) the substantial weight of certain elements may employ difficult handling,
(b) architects may deem design modifications necessary,
(c) cleaning/separation or disassembly/reassembly processes may be required,
(d) revised or new structural designs are needed,
(e) adaptation to alternative applications should be evaluated,
(f) quality/geometry assessments are needed, particularly for smaller pieces lacking
documentation.
110 V. Ungureanu et al.

Hradil’s research [29] underscores the critical role of time in the entire construc-
tion process, encompassing design, construction, deconstruction, and reuse. This
study highlights that time directly translates into both labour costs and environmental
impact, positioning it as a decisive factor in the move towards circular construction
models within the building industry chain. The implementation of a comprehensive
DfDR strategy demonstrably contributes to time optimisation within the construction
process. This approach facilitates expedited decision-making, enhances the efficiency
of element categorisation based on size and complexity, streamlines disassembly
procedures, promotes the timely identification of optimal reuse opportunities, and
expedites the reconstruction phase, resulting in significant time savings across the
entire project lifecycle.
The implementation of a successful design for deconstruction and reuse (DfDR)
strategy is contingent on a nuanced understanding of several key factors, primarily
the ‘scale’ of the element under consideration. This scale encompasses both the size
of the individual element and the size of the intended reuse unit. For example, the
complexity of deconstructing and reusing structures changes based on the design.
Choosing to reuse entire volumes presents different hurdles than focussing on
individual planar components. Similarly, the deconstruction of stud-and-chipboard
units versus CLT elements involves tackling distinct challenges. Deconstructing a
stick-frame building to reuse separate studs involves distinct issues compared to
other systems. These challenges include meticulously separating the studs without
damaging neighbouring elements, managing the sheer number of smaller compo-
nents, and ensuring their viability for reuse. The implementation of design for decon-
struction and reuse (DfDR) strategies requires careful consideration of a multitude of
interrelated factors. These include the scale and type of the building that is deconstruc-
tion, the intended objectives of the reuse process, the perceived quality and potential
resale value of the salvaged elements (whether planar, modular or individual), the
inherent ease of disassembly associated with different materials and joint types, the
feasibility and cost of transportation, and the associated labour costs. By comprehen-
sively evaluating these factors, stakeholders can make informed decisions regarding
the most appropriate DfDR approach for each specific project, maximising the poten-
tial for resource conservation and promoting the reuse of valuable building materials
beyond commonly used options such as slates and bricks.
The implementation of design for deconstruction and reuse (DfDR) strategies in
the context of timber construction requires a flexible and adaptable approach. This
requires moving beyond a one-size-fits-all model and tailoring the DfDR principles
to the specific characteristics of the elements under consideration. A three-tier frame-
work can be used to guide this adaptation, which includes Level 1 (linear elements,
such as studs, joists and trusses), Level 2 (planar units, such as walls, floors, and
roofs), and Level 3 (volumes, such as rooms or entire buildings).
Level 3 deals with buildings as complete volumes in DfDR for timber. Such
structures can be deconstructed and reused either on the larger scale of entire units or
broken down into smaller components such as walls and floors, allowing for adapt-
able reuse based on project needs. Level 2 delves into timber structures composed of
planar elements such as walls, floors, and roofs. Here, the emphasis lies on exploring
5 Recovery and Reuse of Salvaged Products and Building Materials … 111

various DfDR strategies to disassemble and reuse these individual components with
maximum effectiveness. Level 1 within the DfDR framework for timber construc-
tions applies familiar principles found in traditional light-frame stick building prac-
tices. However, post and beam systems introduce additional considerations due to the
frequent use of engineered timber elements. These elements often possess unique
shapes and configurations, such as portal frames commonly used in sports halls,
industrial buildings, and commercial structures. The aim of retrieving larger compo-
nents during deconstruction presents several compelling advantages. Each additional
dismantling step requires increased time, labour, and equipment, leading to higher
costs and associated greenhouse gas emissions.
Examples:
Level 1: A building that can be reused: Brummen Town Hall [52]
Opened in 2013, the town hall stands as a testament to sustainable design, earning a
Dutch Award for Sustainable Architecture. Its architectural concept bridges gener-
ations, meticulously preserving its historic foundation (dating back to 1890) while
seamlessly integrating a contemporary, modular space beneath a captivating glass
roof. Approximately 90% of the materials utilised in the recently constructed modular
addition exhibit the remarkable capability of being dismantled and subsequently
reused. Furthermore, the adoption of a modular design strategy not only facilitated
a significant reduction in the overall construction timeframe but also contributed to
the environmentally responsible approach employed in the building expansion. The
existing structure incorporates a foundation dating back to 1890, serving as the histor-
ical cornerstone of the building. This foundational element will remain preserved and
unaltered even after the dismantling of the recently constructed circular extension
(Fig. 5.7). Equipped with the first materials passport, the town hall transforms into a
transparent “depot” revealing the history and future potential of every element, some
already earmarked for a new purpose. Collaborating with suppliers from the begin-
ning streamlined the sourcing of recycled and recyclable materials, contributing to
the high degree of circularity of the building. The initial decision to utilise thicker
wooden beams, rather than adhering to a “less is more” mentality, prompted a pivotal
realisation within the project team. This experience illuminated the inherent differ-
ences between key performance indicators (KPIs) employed within a linear economic
model, focused on minimising material usage, and those essential for success within a
circular economy framework, which prioritises durability, reusability, and the poten-
tial for future use cycles. This shift in perspective underscores the crucial role of
re-evaluating traditional metrics and establishing new, circularity-aligned KPIs to
facilitate responsible resource management and achieve long-term sustainability
goals within the construction industry. Implementing the concept of a novel mate-
rials passport faced hurdles in customer persuasion and supplier data accessibility,
reflecting the challenges inherent in pioneering sustainable practices.
112 V. Ungureanu et al.

Fig. 5.7 Brummen Town Hall (photo source https://www.rau.eu/portfolio/gemeentehuis-bru

mmen/)

Level 1 and 2: Fielden Fowles Architecture Studio [53]

This demountable studio, crafted from sustainable Douglas fir timber and clad with
rugged corrugated bitumen sheets, minimises cuts, waste, and optimises resource use
through a carefully chosen 2440 mm internal datum and 1830 mm structural grid, util-
ising full and three-quarter plywood sheets to perfection. The internal walls employ
610 mm plywood boards, corresponding precisely to a quarter of a standard plywood
sheet. The structural framework utilises paired beams and columns measuring 300
× 600 mm, all supported by a modular grid system defined by 1800 mm (for primary
beams), 600 mm (for purlins), and staggered 2400 mm (for noggins) spacings. This
strategic alignment seamlessly integrates with the plywood butt joints, minimising
material waste and facilitating efficient disassembly. Additionally, the inclusion of
steel T-sections for window frames further exemplifies the focus on both structural
integrity and adaptability, highlighting the design’s commitment to sustainability
and future-proof functionality (see Fig. 5.8). Although initially set for a specific
lease period, this structure is designed to be dismantled and reassembled elsewhere,
offering long-term possibilities beyond its current location.
Level 2: Temporary Market Hall, Östermalm, Stockholm [54]

Fig. 5.8 Fielden Fowles architecture studio (photo source https://www.woodawards.com/portfo

lio/feilden-fowles-studio-2/)
5 Recovery and Reuse of Salvaged Products and Building Materials … 113

Fig. 5.9 Temporary Market Hall, Östermalm, Stockholm (photo source https://hicarquitectura.
com/2017/03/tengbom-ostermalms-temporary-market-hall/)

During the refurbishment of the existing market hall, in 2017, a temporary solution
was implemented to shelter the traders. The façade utilizes untreated cedar cladding
on plywood at the lower level, while the clear-storey incorporates modular polycar-
bonate sheeting for ample natural light. Internally, the structure remains exposed,
showcasing a visually striking latticework of glulam beams supported by columns
constructed from cross-laminated timber (CLT) (see Fig. 5.9).
This building uses a modular mounting system, which facilitates efficient erection
and dismantling for potential reuse at alternative locations. The sustainable choice
of timber construction results in a lightweight structure that minimises the need
for heavy foundations. The roof structure is comprised of sturdy 1.2-m LVL beams
supported by glulam columns, offering a robust and weatherproof solution.

5.4 Ease of Recycling

Significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of building

materials, notably cement, steel, aluminium, glass, and insulation materials,
contribute substantially to the embodied carbon footprint of buildings, highlighting
the need for sustainable construction practices that minimise this environmental
impact.
Steel. If steel elements are not reclaimed for reuse, a recycling strategy is generally
followed for steel elements from construction. Recognised as the most recycled mate-
rial globally, steel exhibits remarkable circularity within the construction industry.
This assertion is supported by the European Steel Association’s 2012 survey, which
analysed steel recovery rates from building demolition sites, revealing a significant
percentage of material being salvaged and diverted from waste streams. The average
recycling rate for steel across all products was found to be 92%. Taking into account
all steel products, also those products that are not used in construction, a recycling
rate of 85% is realised.
Since steel scrap has a financial value, it is generally not landfilled. For post-
consumer scrap, the recycling loop starts in the end-of-life of a steel element. The
114 V. Ungureanu et al.

lifetime of a steel product in construction or infrastructure can vary from 50 to100

years. If it’s not intended to reuse the steel elements, they are reclaimed to enter the
recycling loop. Big metal recycler collect scrap and process it, to sell it again to the
steel industry where it’s used as input for new steel production. The processing mainly
consists of shredding, or shearing of the steel elements, to sort them and remove
plastics or non-ferrous materials. Large beams are cut with a high-temperature torch
cutter, to assure an easy handling.
Steel recyclers are constantly upgrading their (mechanical) sorting systems to
assure reliable and homogenous scrap qualities. Steel scrap comes not only from
demolitions sites, but also from ferrous consumer goods (e.g. washing machines,
vehicles etc.). It is from highest importance that the sorted steel scrap is not containing
high amounts of copper, which could contaminate the required chemistry for steel
grades in the new production. Steel is 100% recyclable and can be infinitely recycled
without loss of properties. This means that no ‘downcycling’ occurs, even when
steel is recycled repeatedly. It is a truly circular material. Every steel plant is a
recycling plant, as steel scrap is used in the production. Besides, by-products from
the production like slag or dust are used in many other industries, which leads to an
overall efficiency of 97.5% in the steel industry. Slag is widely used in the concrete
industry, where it’s defined as secondary cementitious material (SCM) and allows
to create low carbon concrete. The use of SCM is for the moment the only way to
decarbonise the cement mixture on an industrial scale.
Concrete. The manufacture of cement, characterized by its energy-intensive chem-
ical processes, contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, depletes natural
resources like sand, and negatively impacts ecosystems. Cement, the critical binding
agent in concrete, stands out as the material requiring the highest energy input during
production, contributing significantly to the overall environmental impact of the
concrete industry [55]. Its manufacturing process currently accounts for a 3% of
global energy consumption [56].
Concrete recycling is the process of reusing crushed and recycled concrete mate-
rials in various construction projects. It is an environmentally sustainable practice
that helps reduce the demand for new concrete production and minimises waste
disposal in landfills. However, recycling concrete is an energy-intensive process.
Recycled concrete has established itself as a valuable source of aggregate, demon-
strating successful applications in various contexts, including granular subbases,
soil–cement, and even new concrete production. Notably, these repurposed materials
are classified into two distinct categories:
1. Recycled Aggregate (RA), and
2. Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA).
Below it will be shown some benefits of concrete recycling and the various
methods used in the recycling process.
One of the primary advantages of concrete recycling is the conservation of natural
resources. The use of crushed concrete as aggregate offers a significant environmental
advantage by reducing the need for the extraction and processing of virgin raw
materials such as gravel, sand, and cement. This approach contributes to resource
5 Recovery and Reuse of Salvaged Products and Building Materials … 115

conservation, reduces the environmental footprint associated with mining activities,

and even alleviates the demand for energy-intensive cement production.
The implementation of concrete recycling practices presents another environ-
mental benefit, such as reducing the amount of waste deposited in landfills. Concrete
waste can take up significant space in landfills and its disposal can be costly. By
recycling concrete, the volume of waste sent to landfills is reduced, contributing to
a more sustainable waste management system.
The concrete recycling process involves several steps. The first step is the collec-
tion and transportation of concrete waste to a recycling facility. Once at the facility,
the concrete is crushed into smaller pieces using heavy machinery. The crushed
concrete is then screened to remove any contaminants or debris.
After the initial processing, the crushed concrete is further processed to create
recycled aggregate. Recycled aggregate can be used in various construction applica-
tions, such as road base, drainage systems, and as a substitute for natural aggregate
in new concrete production. The quality of recycled aggregate is tested to ensure it
meets the required specifications and standards.
In addition to recycling concrete as aggregate, it is also possible to recycle the
cementitious materials present in concrete. This process, known as cementitious
material recycling, involves separating cement paste from the aggregate through
mechanical or chemical methods. The recovered cementitious materials can then be
used in the production of new cement or other construction materials.
In conclusion, concrete recycling is an essential practice that promotes sustain-
ability in the construction industry. By reusing crushed concrete as aggregate or
recycling cementitious materials, natural resources can be conserved, reduce waste
in landfills, and minimise the environmental impact of concrete production.

5.5 From Recycling to Upcycling

Steel. Construction industry is using more and more high-strength steel (up to S700)
to assure lightweight, durable, environmentally friendly, and efficient steel structures.
Steel scrap is used as input in every steel production route. In the Blast Furnace
route currently up to 20%, and in the Electric Arc Furnace route up to 100% is
used. Decades ago, the used steel grades were less efficient (up to S275), however
exactly these steel elements are now entering the recycling loop and are used for new
production. To achieve high-strength steel grades, alloying elements may be added
to this steel scrap.
Steel stands out as a unique material because of its closed-loop recycling potential.
Unlike most materials, which experience some level of degradation during recycling,
steel retains its strength and quality indefinitely, allowing it to be perpetually reused.
In particular, the recycling process can even enhance its strength and value (it can be
“upcycled”) in certain applications, further highlighting its sustainability credentials
within the circular economy. As a result of a high demand for high-strength steel,
steel scrap is achieving higher quality, and this phenomenon will continue to develop.
116 V. Ungureanu et al.

Timber. Upcycling of timber is a creative and environmentally friendly approach

to repurposing discarded or old wood materials into new and useful products,
rather than sending them to landfills or incineration. The practice of reusing timber
contributes significantly to environmental sustainability by reducing waste genera-
tion, conserving natural resources, and minimizing the carbon footprint associated
with the production of new wood products.
Other promising avenues for the use of recycled secondary wood in pre-
fabrication, modular construction, and methods for the design of demountable wood
products have been identified. The utilization of large cross-laminated timber (CLT)
panels often presents challenges due to their size. Fortunately, deconstruction tech-
niques allow panels to be disassembled and cut to desired lengths, facilitating their
repurposing in various construction applications. Although a small amount of waste
is unavoidable, the implementation of efficient deconstruction processes and the
exploration of creative reuse strategies can significantly reduce its impact. To fully
maximise the environmental and economic benefits of sustainable construction prac-
tices, it is essential to provide readily available guidance on both materials’ disas-
sembly methods at the end of their initial life cycle and potential reuse applica-
tions in subsequent projects. To encourage a closed-loop economy, manufacturers
or main suppliers could offer take-back programs for end-of-life products, enabling
their reclamation and reintroduction into the market. The certification of upcycled
secondary timber presents several unique challenges. First, the visual quality of
the material often varies significantly compared to cross-laminated timber (CLT)
produced from virgin wood, making the adherence to established aesthetic standards
difficult. Secondly, the inherent flammability of wood requires the implementation
of robust fire safety measures to meet the certification requirements.

5.6 Efficient Waste and Circular Resource Management

Steel. Only a small part of steel elements from construction industry is not recycled or
reused. In average it’s about 4%, that are mainly generated by rebars or light structural
steel. For heavy structural sections a survey shows a 100% reuse and recycling rate,
hence no landfill is generated [57]. Compared to other construction materials, steel
in construction generates no or only small amounts of waste. The production phase
of steel is also minimizing waste, as by-products are used in several other industry
sectors.
Steel and metal recycler treat steel scrap from different sources. As consumer
goods can contain as well non-ferrous elements, these are separated from the ferrous
elements and fed to their own recycling chain (e.g. copper, plastics).
5 Recovery and Reuse of Salvaged Products and Building Materials … 117

References

1. Crowther P (1999) Design for disassembly to extend service life and increase sustainability.
In: Lacasse MA, Vanier DJ (eds) Durability of building materials and components 8: service
life and asset management. NRC Research Press, Vancouver, Canada, pp 1983–1992
2. European Commission (2016) EU construction and demolition waste management protocol.
Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs
3. European Commission (2018) Guidelines for the waste audits before demolition and renovation
works of buildings. Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and
SMEs
4. DRG102 (2022) Deconstruction of structures from top down, guidance notes. National
Federation of Demolition Contractors (NDFC). https://demolition-nfdc.com
5. Wahlström M, Hradil P, zu Castell-Rudenhausen M, Bergmans J, van Cauwenberghe L, Van
Belle Y, Sičáková A, Struková Z, Li J (2019) Pre-demolition audit–overall guidance document:
PARADE. Best practices for pre-demolition audits ensuring high quality RAw materials. EIT
RawMaterials
6. FCRBE (2022) A guide for identifying the reuse potential of construction products. Project
Interreg NWE 739: Facilitating the Circulation of Reclaimed Building Elements (FCRBE),
October 2018–January 2022
7. Building and Construction Authority—BCA (2019) Guidelines for pre-demolition
audit, sequential demolition and site waste management plan. A Singapore Govern-
ment Agency. https://www1.bca.gov.sg/docs/default-source/docs-corp-buildsg/sustainability/
sc_demoprotocol.pdf
8. PROGRESS: Provisions for a Greater Reuse of Steel Structures (2017–2020) Research fund
for coal and steel. https://www.steelconstruct.com/eu-projects/progress/
9. EN 1090-2 (2018) Execution of steel structures and aluminium structures–part 2: technical
requirements for steel structures. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels,
Belgium
10. Girão Coelho AM, Pimentel R, Ungureanu V, Hradil P, Kesti J (2020) European recommenda-
tions for reuse of steel products in single-storey buildings. ECCS—European Convention for
Constructional Steelwork. ISBN: 978-92-9147-170-6
11. Hradil P, Talja A, Ungureanu V, Koukkari H, Fülöp L (2017) Reusability indicator for steel-
framed buildings and application for an industrial hall. ce/papers 1(2–3):4512–4521. https://
doi.org/10.1002/cepa.511
12. ReCreate: Reusing precast concrete for a circular economy. Horizon 2020, grant agreement
no. 958200, 2021–2025. https://recreate-project.eu/
13. Vullings MWF, Wijte SNM, Huuhka S (2022) D2.1: guidelines for a BIM-aided pre-
deconstruction audit. The ReCreate Project. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docume
nts/downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5f54ee881&appId=PPGMS
14. PEIKKO White Paper (2022) Dismount and reuse of precast concrete frame. https://media.pei
kko.com/file/dl/i/leyTcQ/ffmXgWD9GursZAo0ltziIg/PeikkoWhitePaper_Dismountandreuse
ofprecastconcreteframe.pdf?fv=6b8a
15. InFutUReWood: Innovative design for the future–use and reuse of wood (building) components.
ERA-NET Cofund ForestValue, grant agreement no. 773324, 2017–2023. https://www.infutu
rewood.info/
16. Risse M (2019) Resource and eco-efficiency assessment of utilizing recovered solid wood in
cascades. Dissertation. Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, 129 pp
17. Maguire J (2018) Cascade use of Ireland’s harvested wood resource: the impact of resource
efficiency on harvested wood pool carbon flux dynamics. Dissertation. University College
Dublin, Dublin, 155 pp
18. Irle M, Privat F, Deroubaix G, Belloncle C (2015) Intelligent recycling of solid wood. Pro
Ligno 11(4):14–20
118 V. Ungureanu et al.

19. Lesar B, Humar M, Hora G, Hachmeister P, Schmiedl D, Pindel E, Siika-aho M, Liitiä T

(2016) Utilisation of recycled wood in biorefineries: preliminary results of steam explosion
and ethanol/water organosolv pulping without a catalyst. Eur J Wood Prod 74(5):711–723.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-016-1064-8
20. He P, Hossain MU, Poon CS, Tsang DCW (2019) Mechanical, durability and environmental
aspects of magnesium oxychloride cement boards incorporating waste wood. J Clean Prod
207:391–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.015
21. Privat F (2019) Faisabilité du recyclage en boucle fermée des déchets post-consommateurs en
bois massif. Dissertation. École supérieure du bois, Nantes, 163 pp
22. Kalcher J, Praxmarer G, Teischinger A (2017) Quantification of future availabilities of recov-
ered wood from Austrian residential buildings. Resour Conserv Recycl 123. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.resconrec.2016.09.001
23. Llana DF, Íñiguez-González G, Arana-Fernández M de, Uí Chúláin C, Harte AM (2020)
Recovered wood as raw material for structural timber products. Characteristics, situation and
study cases: Ireland and Spain. In: Proceedings of the 63rd international convention of society
of wood science and technology, July 13–15, pp 117–123
24. Llana DF, González-Alegre V, Portela M, Íñiguez-González G (2022) Cross Laminated Timber
(CLT) manufactured with European oak recovered from demolition: structural properties and
non-destructive evaluation. Constr Build Mater 339:127635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbui
ldmat.2022.127635
25. Martínez E, Nuñez Y, Sobaberas E (2013) End of life of buildings: three alternatives, two
scenarios. A case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(5):S.1082–1088. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11367-013-0566-4
26. Nasiri B, Piccardo C, Hughes M (2021) Estimating the material stock in wooden residential
houses in Finland. Waste Manag 135:318–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.09.007
27. Sakaguchi D, Takano A, Hughes M (2017) The potential for cascading wood from demolished
buildings: potential flows and possible applications through a case study in Finland. Int Wood
Prod J 8(4):208–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/20426445.2017.1389835
28. Capelle T et al (2019) Testing BAMB results through prototyping and pilot projects, D14-4
pilots built and feedback report. Building as Material Banks project report. https://www.bam
b2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/20190228-BAMB-D14.pdf
29. Hradil P (2014) Timber re-using. Barriers and opportunities of structural elements re-use.
Research report VTT-R-01363-14. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo
30. Skanska (2020) Taking a pioneering approach to re-using concrete decks. https://group.ska
nska.com/media/articles/taking-a-pioneering-approach-to-re-using-concrete-decks/
31. Norwegian Standard NS 3682 (2022) Hollow core slabs for reuse. Standards Norway, Oslo,
Norway, p 24
32. Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2327 (2017) Composite structures—composite
steel-concrete construction in buildings. Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand, Sydney/
Wellington, Australia/New Zealand
33. Sansom M, Girão Coelho AM, Lawson RM et al (2019) Reuse and demountability using steel
structures and the circular economy. REDUCE Final Report. Project 710040
34. Girão Coelho AM, Lawson M, Lam D, Yang J (2020) Guidance on demountable composite
construction systems for UK practice. SCI P428. The Steel Construction Institute, Ascot, UK
35. Lam D, Yang J, Wang Y, Dai X, Sheehan T, Zhou K (2021) New composite flooring system for
the circular economy. Steel Compos Struct 40(5):649–661. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2021.
40.5.649
36. Romero A, Yang J, Hanus F, Odenbreit F (2022) Numerical investigation of steel-LVL timber
composite beams. Ce/papers 5(2):21–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/cepa.1694
37. Lazarus N (2002) BedZED: Toolkit part I–a guide to construction materials for carbon neutral
developments. BioRegional Development Group. https://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Ecolog
ical_Building/BedZED-Toolkit-Part-1.pdf
38. ASBP (2023) Case study—Holbein Gardens. The alliance for sustainable building products.
https://asbp.org.uk/case-studies/holbein-gardens. Accessed 26 July 2023
5 Recovery and Reuse of Salvaged Products and Building Materials … 119

39. Odenbreit C, Yang J, Kozma A, Romero A, Popa N, Hanus F, Obiala R (2023) Design for
disassembling, reuse, and the circular economy: a demonstration building, “Petite Maison”.
ce/papers 6:369–373. https://doi.org/10.1002/cepa.2537
40. Sangiuliano T, Staseff D, Chatterji PK, Shi K, de Castro R (2023) Reuse of existing steel pile
foundations—Greenock Creek Bridge, Walkerton, Ontario, Canada. In: Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers–Forensic Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1680/jfoen.22.00025
41. Fohl F, Hechler O (2024) Reuse of steel sheet piles—best practice. In: Bragança L et al
(eds) Creating a roadmap towards circularity in the built environment, springer tracts in civil
engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45980-1_325
42. EN 1993-5 (2007) Eurocode 3–Design of steel structures–part 5: Piling. European Committee
for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium
43. Arup (2023) Brent Cross Town substation, London. https://www.arup.com/projects/brent-
cross-town-substation
44. Durmisevic E, Noort N (2003) Re-use potential of steel in building construction. In: Chini AR
(ed) Deconstruction and materials reuse CIB publications 287. University of Florida, pp 1–10
45. Küpfer C, Bastien-Masse M, Fivet C (2023) Reuse of concrete components in new construction
projects: critical review of 77 circular precedents. J Clean Prod 383:135235
46. Asam C (2007) Recycling prefabricated concrete components–a contribution to sustainable
construction. In: International conference on sustainable buildings 2007: sustainable construc-
tion. Materials and Practices, Lisbon, Portugal, 12–14 September 2007. IOS Press. ISBN:
978-1-58603-785-7
47. Asam C (2007) Typical measures on load bearing building elements during modernisation.
In: Research in architectural engineering series: COST C16 improving the quality of existing
urban building envelopes, vol 4. IOS Press, pp 203–210
48. Huuhka S, Kaasalainen T, Hakanen JH, Lahdensivu J (2015) Reusing concrete panels from
buildings for building: potential in Finnish 1970s mass housing. Resour Conserv Recycl
101:105–121
49. Glias A (2013) The “Donor Skelet” designing with reused structural concrete elements (Master
Thesis). TUDelft University
50. Stacey M (2011) Concrete: a studio design guide. RIBA, London
51. Salama W (2017) Design of concrete buildings for disassembly: an explorative review. Int J
Sustain Built Environ 6(2):617–635
52. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2022) A building that can be reused: Brummen Town Hall.
[Online]. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-examples/brummen-town-hall
53. Young E (2019) Feilden Fowles: a learning experience. Damn Magazine. https://www.feilde
nfowles.co.uk/FF/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019_07_Damm_Mag-1.pdf
54. Temporary Market Hall, Östermalm, Stockholm. https://hicarquitectura.com/2017/03/ten
gbom-ostermalms-temporary-market-hall/
55. Habert G, Miller SA, John VM et al (2020) Environmental impacts and decarbonization strate-
gies in the cement and concrete industries. Nat Rev Earth Environ 1:559–573. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s43017-020-0093-3
56. Miller SA, Moore FC (2020) Climate and health damages from global concrete production.
Nat Clim Chang 10:439–443. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0733-0
57. Sansom M, Avery N (2014) Reuse and recycling rates of UK steel demolition arisings. Proc
Inst Civ Eng Eng Sustain 167(ES3):89–94. https://doi.org/10.1680/ensu.13.00026
120 V. Ungureanu et al.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
 Part II
Design Strategies and Tools for Circular
Buildings
Viorel Ungureanu and Katerina Tsikaloudaki

Designing circular buildings involves incorporating principles of sustainable design,

construction, and materials to minimise waste and maximize efficiency, considering
various principles and strategies such as circularity, adaptability, disassembly, and
adaptive reuse. These approaches focus on creating sustainable buildings and prod-
ucts that can be more easily maintained, repurposed, or recycled to reduce waste and
environmental impact. They embrace the idea of creating structures with longevity
and flexibility in mind.
Circular principles aim to create a sustainable and regenerative system in which
resources are reused, recycled, and restored. Key principles include:

• Design Out Waste: Products and materials must be designed to minimize waste
and pollution.
• Keep Products and Materials in Use: Extend the lifecycle of materials through
reuse, repair, refurbishment, and recycling.
• Regenerate Natural Systems: Ensure that human activities have a positive impact
on natural ecosystems.

The lifecycle of a building can be divided into several phases, each offering
opportunities to apply circular principles:

V. Ungureanu
CMMC Department, Polytechnic University of Timişoara, Timişoara, Romania
Laboratory of Steel Structures, Romanian Academy, Timişoara Branch, Timişoara, Romania
V. Ungureanu
e-mail: [email protected]
K. Tsikaloudaki
School of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
e-mail: [email protected]
124 Part II: Design Strategies and Tools for Circular Buildings

• Concept and Design Phase where on the one hand Circular Design Strategies
will incorporate flexibility, modularity, and disassembly in the design, while
on the other hand, selecting materials that are sustainable, recyclable, and have
low environmental impact. Moreover, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) will evaluate
environmental impacts from the outset to inform design choices;
• Construction Phase, where Efficient Resource Use will optimise construction
processes to reduce material waste and energy consumption, while Sustainable
Materials, able to be reused, recycled, upcycled, and locally sourced materials
will minimise environmental footprint;
• Operation and Maintenance Phase. Energy Efficiency is implementing ener-
gysaving technologies and renewable energy sources, while Maintenance and
Upgrades will extend the building life and adaptability;
• End-of-Life Phase. Plans for building deconstruction rather than demolition to
enable material recovery and reuse are important circular principles, while Recy-
cling and Upcycling will ensure that materials can be recycled or upcycled into
new products, closing the loop.

To effectively implement circular principles throughout the building lifecycle,

several design strategies can be used. This part of the book is focussing on the
following strategies, i.e.:

1. Modularity and Prefabrication: Using modular components and prefabricated

elements in construction to increase efficiency, reduce waste, and allow for easier
disassembly or reconfiguration.
2. Design for Circularity: This involves designing products and buildings in a way
that keeps materials in use for as long as possible and eliminates waste. The goal
is to create a closed-loop system in which materials can be recycled or reused
continuously.
3. Design for Adaptability: Designing structures that can easily be adapted to
different uses or changing needs over time, promoting longevity and reducing
the need for demolition or reconstruction.
4. Design for Disassembly: Creating products and buildings that can be easily
taken apart for maintenance, repair, or recycling purposes, promoting resource
efficiency and reducing waste.
5. Reversible Buildings and Products: Structures and products designed with the
ability to be reversed or returned to their original state, promoting flexibility and
sustainable usage.
6. Transformable Buildings: Buildings that can physically change shape or config-
uration to adapt to different requirements, optimising space utilization and
functionality.
7. Adaptive Reuse of Existing Buildings: This involves repurposing and modifying
existing structures to meet new needs, preserving historical value and reducing
the environmental impact of new construction.
Part II: Design Strategies and Tools for Circular Buildings 125

Incorporating the principles of circularity, adaptability, and disassembly into the

design of buildings and products can significantly enhance their sustainability and
lifecycle efficiency. Strategies such as reversible buildings, transformable designs,
adaptive reuse, and modularity not only reduce environmental impact but also provide
economic and social benefits, leading to a more sustainable future in construction
and product design.
Chapter 6
Design Frameworks for Circular
Buildings: Circular Principles, Building
Lifecycle Phases and Design Strategies

Marianna Marchesi and Vanessa Tavares

Abstract This chapter explored the current theory and practices on circular building
design to provide an overview of what a circular building is and how a circular
building has been implemented by design through a literature review. Until now,
the circular economy in the built environment has mainly been implemented through
technological innovation focusing on materials, products, business models and indus-
trial systems. Design for a circular economy in the built environment has progres-
sively expanded from single products and components to building and urban systems.
The enlargement of the design scope has entailed a shift from insular to system inno-
vation. Besides a technocentric approach focused on circulating resources through
economic and technical innovation, a holistic vision has emerged in the literature that
sees circularity as a transformation which integrates technological, social, organi-
zational and institutional considerations of circularity to promote systemic changes
in large urban social-technical systems. This study initially investigated the current
understanding of the circular building concept, and then analysed design frameworks
applied to develop circular buildings by reviewing the literature. Finally, it defined
propositions for evaluating the current level of implementation of circular buildings
This exploration provided an overview of the current body of knowledge on the
circular building concept, a classification of existing design frameworks and strate-
gies for implementing the circular building concept and the identification of relevant
propositions to test through case study research to assess the level of implementation
of circular buildings.

Keywords Circular building · Design framework · Circular building design ·

Design for a circular economy · Built environment

M. Marchesi (B)
Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
e-mail: [email protected]
V. Tavares
BUILT CoLAB Porto, Porto, Portugal
CEAU-FAUP, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

© The Author(s) 2025 127

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_6
128 M. Marchesi and V. Tavares

6.1 Introduction

This chapter aims to contribute to the knowledge of practitioners on circular building

design by providing an understanding of what a circular building is and how a circular
building has been implemented by design through the analysis of existing literature
and design frameworks created to support the development of circular buildings.
Until now, a circular economy has mainly been implemented in the built envi-
ronment through technological innovation focusing on materials, products, business
models and industrial systems. Design for a circular economy (CE) in the built
environment has progressively expanded from single products and components to
building and urban systems. The enlargement of the design scope has entailed a
shift from insular to system innovation. Moreover, while it has mainly focused on
the technical aspects of circularity, it has also recognized the crucial role of users,
communities, and more in general of stakeholders and dynamics in socio-technical
systems like the built environment. Besides a technocentric approach focused on
circulating resources through economic and technical innovation, a holistic vision has
emerged in the literature that sees circularity as a transformation that integrates tech-
nological, social, organizational and institutional considerations of circularity [1–3].
While design for a CE shows a growing interest towards a more holistic approach to
circularity, literature in design for sustainability acknowledges that systemic changes
in large urban systems like the built environment can only be achieved by comple-
menting technical innovation with social innovation and focusing on broader changes
in socioeconomic systems [4]. Sustainability-oriented innovations have shown a
progressive evolution from technically focused solutions to socio-technical focused
innovations to address sustainability as a socio-technical challenge and promote
systemic changes [1].
This study explored the current theory and practices on circular building design
to understand current practices and identify propositions for evaluating the current
level of implementation of circular buildings. Initially, the study explored the current
definitions of the circular building concept and design frameworks to implement
it by reviewing the definitions of circular building in the literature and existing
design frameworks for circular buildings. This exploration provided an overview
of the current body of knowledge, a classification of existing design frameworks and
strategies for implementing the circular building concept and the identification of
relevant propositions to test in future through case study research to assess the level
of implementation of circular buildings.
The questions addressed throughout the chapter are the following:
1. What is a circular building?
2. How to implement a circular building?
To reply to the research questions, we formulated the following objectives:
1. Define what a circular building is in terms of building and process definitions and
in relation to building layers and building life cycle through a literature review.
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings 129

2. Define how a circular building has been implemented by design through mapping
and classifying existing frameworks of design strategies in the literature.
3. Compare definitions, life-cycle models and design frameworks to identify propo-
sitions to apply for evaluating the current level of implementation of circular
buildings.

6.2 Materials and Methods

The study consists of practice-oriented research [5] aiming at contributing to practi-

tioners’ knowledge of circular building design by exploring the circular building
definitions, mapping existing building life cycle models and design frameworks
developed to support the implementation of circular buildings and identifying suit-
able design frameworks for assessing the current level of implementation of circular
buildings in future research.
The study was conducted in 3 stages:
(1) Exploration of theory and practice: gathering information on the circular
building concepts, building lifecycle models and existing frameworks of design
strategies for circular building design from various sources.
(2) Classification of design frameworks: structuring design frameworks in cate-
gories according to design principles, building life cycle stages and building
life cycles.
(3) Comparison of concepts, life cycle models and design frameworks for circular
building design: comparing information to identify suitable propositions for
assessing the level of implementation of circular buildings.
Exploration of theory and practice: An exploration of theory and practice on circular
building design was performed to review the most recent definitions, life cycle models
and design frameworks for circular building design. Information was creatively
combined from different practical and theoretical sources to formulate propositions—
concepts and specifications of relations between concepts. This information came
from sources related to circular building design, i.e., insights from experts, practi-
tioners, stakeholders, existing research, and the researcher’s experiences. Information
was selected using Google Scholar to obtain the most comprehensive perspective on
circular building definitions. In addition to academic work defining CE concepts,
the study explored a growing body of grey literature outlining the steps necessary to
embed CE strategies within building design through Google search. This includes
work from organizations of varying geographic coverage, including the global,
international, national and city levels. The selection of information was performed
according to the following selection criteria: (1) publications from 2015 to 2023; and
(2) keyword(s) used in various combinations: “circular building design”, “design for
the circular economy”, “design for circularity”, “design for building life cycle”,
with the terms: “framework”, “models”, and “design strategies”. In this study, by a
design approach or methodology, we mean an overall framework for doing design.
130 M. Marchesi and V. Tavares

By design methods, we mean sequences of activities to be followed to improve partic-

ular stages of the design process (task clarification, conceptual design, detail design,
etc.), and specific tasks within these stages (e.g., generation, evaluation,) etc.). We
defined design framework as a “design guideline that provides a set of rules, prin-
ciples and strategies that are useful to follow in attaining some design objectives or
performing specific tasks within stages of the process” [6]. Examples of design frame-
works include the conceptual design principles suggested by French (1985), and the
many Design for-X sets of guidelines, such as Design-for-Manufacturing, or Design-
for-Environment guidelines. By design tools, we mean hardware and software for
supporting design based on some design approach, method or set of guidelines.
The design tool supports the effective and efficient use of the approach, method or
guideline [6]. The exploration collected a growing body of literature mainly produced
outside of traditional publishing and distribution channels to provide support embed-
ding CE strategies within the building design process. This includes work from
organizations at the global level (Arup; Ellen Mac Arthur Foundation), international
level (Circle Economy, Dutch Green Building Council, Metabolic, and SGS Search;
European Commission), national level (UK Green Building Council), and city level
(Greater London Authority).
Classification of design frameworks: This phase of the research describes the
current body of knowledge and the identification and classification of design frame-
works and strategies. Based on the exploration, a set of design frameworks and
strategies were identified, analysed and classified according to the most often-used
hierarchical structures to arrange design strategies for the CE [7] as reported below:
• Classification of design strategies based on circular principles/objectives.
• Classification of design strategies based on the building life cycle phases.
• Classification of design strategies based on life cycles.
Comparison of definitions, models and design frameworks: This research phase
compared the identified definitions, lifecycle models and design frameworks. The
criteria adopted for the framework comparison were (1) framework structure [7]; (2)
purpose; (3) stage supported [8]; (4) level of implementation supported [8]; and (5)
impact areas [9]. The comparisons were discussed to define consolidated concepts
and models, identify gaps and trends in design frameworks for future research devel-
opment on circular building design and lead to the identification of relevant design
frameworks for assessing circular buildings through case study research in the future.

6.3 Circular Building Definitions

A review of definitions of the circular building and the circular building process was
performed. Four definitions of the circular building as a process and three defini-
tions of the circular building as the resulting object were identified and reported in
Table 6.1.
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings 131

Table 6.1 Circular building—process and object definitions

Term Definition
Applying circular economy “Buildings can be designed to have a positive, enduring legacy
principles to buildings by making them more adaptable and by ensuring that valuable
(process) materials and components can be reclaimed and reused at
end-of-life. Ensuring that buildings can be disassembled
provides the opportunity for them to be redeployed in new places
or for new uses and allows components to be salvaged and reused
or remanufactured. This, in turn, reduces dependence on raw
materials for construction while salvaging and remanufacturing
creates local employment. Declaring and understanding the
ingredients that make-up materials and components will help to
ensure that biological materials can be safely returned to the
biosphere and technical materials can be reclaimed for reuse
within the industry. There is also the added benefit that using
pure materials with the contaminants designed out helps provide
better environments where people can live and work” [10]
Application of the circular “In a circular economy, buildings will be designed for a whole
economy at the building level lifecycle and not simply an end use. Policy and incentives will
(process) encourage clients to issue full lifecycle contracts from design to
operation and disassembly as well as push their ambitions in
achieving holistic lifecycle certification and awards. Components
and structures will often be leased rather than purchased.
Performance-based contracts will see tenants and landowners
pay for a service such as lighting rather than individual fittings or
materials. Circularity will be embedded in all parts of an
ecosystem. This will ensure that individual assets are flexible,
interchangeable, and highly customizable [11]. Design decisions
such as optimizing disassembly and reuse from the beginning of
the program have implications for the operation, renewal and
repurposing of the building and its components. In the circular
model, a building’s construction will be integrated with the
resource and reuse cycles of other industries. In operation, the
building will use renewable sources and, where possible, locally
available used material streams. This will make it more resilient,
and it will provide lower risks to investors. Buildings will also be
used flexibly 24/7 with high levels of occupation during the day
and night” [11]
Circular building “Circular building (verb) is the dynamic total of associated
(process and object) processes, materials and stakeholders that accommodate circular
flows of building materials and products at optimal rates and
utilities” [12]
“A circular building (noun) is the manifestation of this in a
temporary configuration” [12]
Circular building “An architecture characterized by reversible connections,
(object) allowing buildings and components to be taken apart in a way
that allows for future reuse or lengthens the building life by
being flexible and adaptable” [13]
(continued)
132 M. Marchesi and V. Tavares

Table 6.1 (continued)

Term Definition
Circular economy in “A strategic programming of a building to easily change its
buildings configuration for longevity and potentially be susceptible to the
(process) loop of reduction, reuse and recycling for resource efficiency”
[14]
Circular building “A circular building” is developed, used and reused without
(object) unnecessary resource depletion, environmental pollution and
ecosystem degradation. It is constructed in an economically
responsible way and contributes to the well-being of people and
the biosphere. Here and there, now and later. Technical elements
are demountable and reusable at the end of their (extended)
lifespan, and biological elements can also be brought back into
the biological cycle” [9, 15]

6.4 Circular Building Lifecycle Phases

According to the ISO standard, a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) follows 4 stages:
(1) Goal and scope definition when the problem to be analysed is defined including
stating the intended application of the study, the reason for carrying it and to
whom the results may be communicated (defined in ISO 14040).
(2) Inventory analysis (ISO 14041) when all inputs and outputs flows are listed
and accounted for (flow model), data are collected for all activities within the
product systems (processes and transports), and the resources used, and pollutant
emissions are calculated in the systems in relation to the functional unit.
(3) Impact assessment (ISO 14042) when impacts are linked to flows, and the
inventory results are transformed into more relevant environmental information.
(4) Interactive stage of interpretation (ISO 14043) when results are analysed and
discussed, feeding the previous three stages in a retroactive process.
When focusing specifically on buildings, EN 15,978 defined 5 different life cycle
phases (Fig. 6.1):
• A1–A3 is defined as the “Product stage” with A1—raw material extraction, A2—
transport to plant, and A3—manufacturing.
• A4–A5 is defined as the “Construction process stage” including A4—transport
to site, and A5—construction and installation process.
• B1–B7 is defined as the “Use stage” with B1—use, B2—maintenance, B3—
repair, B4—refurbishment, B5—replacement, B6—operational energy use, and
B7—operational water use.
• C1–C4 is defined as the “End-of-life stage”, including C1 de-construction and
demolition, C2—transport to waste management facilities, C3—waste processing,
and C4—disposal.
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings 133

Fig. 6.1 Life cycle stages according to ISO

• D is defined as “Supplementary information beyond life cycle” which includes

benefits and loans beyond the building life cycle attained through reuse, recovery,
and recycling actions.

Depending on the goal and scope of the analysis, different scopes can be used in
an LCA: (1) a “cradle-to-gate” focus on the product stage (A1-A3); (2) a “cradle-
to-site” includes construction and assembly (A1-A5); (3) a “cradle-to-use include
use stage (B1-B7); (4) a “cradle-to-grave” assesses the whole LC including the end-
of-life stage; (5) a “cradle-to-cradle” includes benefits and loads beyond the system
boundary (D).
Environmental product declarations (EPD) of building products have been emitted
focusing on product stage (A1–A3). However, in June 2019, the EN15804 was
revised, giving place to a new version of the standard (EN15804 + A2), and accepted
by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN). End-of-life scenarios (C1–
C4) and the benefits and loads beyond the system boundaries (D) now must be
considered.
134 M. Marchesi and V. Tavares

The life cycle of a circular building has been defined by [15] according to [9,
11] into 5 stages. It differs from the EN 15,978 standard since it includes the design
stage, but it does not consider a stage beyond the building life cycle. The five stages
are described in Table 6.2 reported below.

Table 6.2 Building life cycle phases and circular principles [9, 11, 15]
Lifecycle stage and Circular economy principles
substages
Production phase “The sourcing of virgin materials to produce building materials is
Extraction and processing of reduced to a minimum and substituted with secondary raw
raw materials materials—such as reused materials or components, recycled
materials and bio/renewable materials –, with priority given to
Transport to factory local sourcing. Production includes material extraction and
Energy, waste, and water use domestic material consumption of construction materials” [9]
in the factory
Design phase The design of buildings is conceived within a long-term
Design of building perspective, which considers both modularity and adaptability
criteria as well as energy-efficient principles that minimize
externalities. Operation and performance are embedded in the
design and its processes, while open-source architectural design
techniques allow designers, architects and engineers to distribute
design ideas and build on each other’s work
Construction phase “The process of construction accommodates more flexibility,
Transport to location enabling easy remodelling of buildings during renovation and
easier disassembly at the end-of-life stage.” [9]. Off-site
Building installation manufacturing and prefabrication help eliminate waste from
construction sites. Transportation of construction materials
prioritizes distance over price. Novel techniques, such as 3D
printing, allow the production of construction materials,
components or even entire buildings at high accuracy and
flexibility in design, time efficiency, lower cost and material
waste production; with the use of resins and substrates made
from renewable or reusable materials
Use phase The life of the building is prolonged using internal circular
Use resource cycles, such as waste capture and filtering, or net-energy
production. “Users of circular buildings lease components and
Maintenance services instead of owning them” [9]. “Through regular
Repair maintenance, optimal resource operation in buildings is ensured,
Repair while the premature destruction of building components is
prevented through repair or small renovations” [15]. Flexible use
Replacement and sharing of buildings optimize use and occupancy rates
Renovation
Operational energy
consumption
(continued)
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings 135

Table 6.2 (continued)

Lifecycle stage and Circular economy principles
substages
End-of-life phase “The demolition of buildings is minimized and mostly limited to
Reconstruction/demolition old and inefficient building stock” [9]. New design approaches
allow easy access to building services and include demountable
Transport and reconfigurable systems. Systems or models, such as Building
Waste processing Information Modelling (BIM) supported by Digital Product
Disposal Passports (DPPs), help to expand, contract or redesign buildings
as well as to reconstruct and deconstruct them. “Cloud-based
Reuse, recover, and BIM models offer an opportunity to collaborate remotely and
recycling with more stakeholders” [15]. The lifetime extension of
construction materials, products, components and even whole
buildings is achieved through reuse, repurposing, refurbishment,
recovery and recycling. These approaches maximize the value of
elements in use, thereby minimizing the demand for virgin raw
materials

A 9-stage lifecycle framework for circular buildings has been proposed by Brincat
et al. [8]. The study mapped out the different stages of the building lifecycle including
key actors and relevant circular strategies. The framework is reported below in
Table 6.3.

Table 6.3 Building life cycle phases and circular approaches [8]
Lifecycle stages Circular strategies
Concept During this stage, it is possible to lay out the first steps of a project. It is where
initial ideas are outlined regarding the building design, the durability of the
project, the resilience of the materials to be used, the different use scenarios in
mind and the suitability of the different solutions, parts and construction
products. “All these initial concepts/ideas will be further set down in the
design phase” [8]
Procurement “This stage is relevant for the acquisition of goods and services prior to the
construction phase” [8]. It is where the project’s environmental impact can be
assessed. The main actors involved in this phase are able to specify sustainable
building approaches that should be used in tenders/proposals
Design In this stage, the ideas of the concept stage are made more concrete. Plans,
schematics and details regarding the construction project are developed. This
stage is relevant for implementing CE principles in the design requirements
and strategies and for considering aspects such as the use of recycled
materials, the future reuse potential and recyclability capacity of both the
building and the materials to be used, as well as the building’s/infrastructure’s
transformation capacity
Manufacture In this stage, the manufacturing of goods takes place. This stage is relevant as
it is possible to ensure the product’s durability and the products’ recycling and
recovery potential. It is also a relevant stage to reduce the use of hazardous
substances that hamper the reuse/recyclability and thus curb the products’ use
in buildings due to these reuse/recyclability challenges
(continued)
136 M. Marchesi and V. Tavares

Table 6.3 (continued)

Lifecycle stages Circular strategies
Demolition of This stage consists of the dismantling of existing assets (e.g., buildings/
existing assets infrastructure or parts thereof), which occurs through pre-planned and
controlled methods. In this stage, the reduction of waste and a high-quality
waste management plan is relevant to separate materials resulting from the
demolition into batches with an appropriate place of destination/treatment.
During this stage, it is also possible to do a preliminary on-site sorting of all
waste, where hazardous and non-hazardous waste is separated accordingly
Construction This stage consists of the assembly and erection of the structure(s) designed
previously. Construction techniques are relevant as these may promote the
durability of buildings and the resilience of the materials, and also promote the
adaptability of buildings/infrastructure. Appropriate construction techniques
also contribute to easy and clean building deconstruction in the future
Handover, use, During this stage, the formal finalization of the project takes place. The
asset end-users of the project begin to use the building/infrastructure. Asset
management management maximizes usability due to the collection of critical asset
performance data in real-time, which leads to understanding the asset’s
complete life cycle. Asset management is relevant because it adopts life cycle
thinking in realizing full value from the assets and allows for decision-making
in terms of e.g., greener investment in production systems; investments/
practices to increase energy and material efficiency; using, maintaining and
remanufacturing production systems which can be reused and recycled at the
end of their first life, etc
Refurbishment, In this phase, remodelling, renovation, adaptation or improvement of the
adaptive reuse, building/infrastructure is enabled. Moreover, existing buildings/infrastructure
renovation, can be extended in their lifespan and the intensity of building use can be
maintenance, increased. Overall, this stage reduced the demand for new construction, which
and repair consumes more materials than renovating, repairing, maintaining and
refurbishing existing buildings
End of life and During this stage, the selective dismantling of building/infrastructure
deconstruction components occurs for the purposes of reusing, repurposing, recycling and
of future assets managing waste. “Deconstruction represents value for the CE goals since
extracting high-value materials for resale or reuse is possible “[8]. These
materials include steel, wood, aluminium, furnishings and finishes, which all
can be reused and/or repurposed for future use. Within each stage, the
stakeholders identified—such as government/regulators/local authorities and
those within the financing and planning/design stages—have key roles to play
in the uptake of circular approaches. In addition to this, stakeholders are also
relevant for data creation which facilitates the measurement of circularity

In this analysis, we included the RIBA Work Plan [16] even if it is not a represen-
tative framework for circular building design since it does not include the end-of-life
stage. We considered it because the process was adopted in a few frameworks to
embed CE principles in the design and construction stages of buildings. The RIBA
Work Plan provides the project team with a road map for promoting consistency
from one stage to the next, and guidance to clients. It is composed of 8 stages [16]:
(1) strategic definition, (2) preparation and briefing, (3) concept design, (4) spatial
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings 137

coordination, (5) technical design, (6) manufacturing and construction, (7) handover,
and (8) use.

6.5 Building Layers and Lifetime

The concept of building in ‘layers’ was first proposed by Frank Duffy in the 1970s
and developed by Stuart Brand in the 1990s. It is based on the idea that buildings are
dynamic systems that interact with a set of evolving needs; consequently, they require
the ability to accommodate change—i.e., space, function, and componentry—over
time [17]. This statement implied the definition of building layers as a set of building
component systems organized based on functions and life spans [17]. Brand’s model
is composed of six layers and each layer holds specific functions and has an expected
service life as explained below [18]:
• Site is the building location.
• Skin is the façade and building exterior (20–35 yrs.).
• Structure is the building’s loadbearing system including the foundation and load-
bearing elements (30–300 yrs.).
• Services are pipes, wires, energy and heating systems (15–30 yrs.).
• Space plan is the internal fit-out including walls and floors (10–30 yrs.).
• Stuff is the rest of the internal fit-out including the furniture, lighting, and ICT
(5–20 yrs.).
• System is an additional layer that has been recently included with the intent to
apply this approach beyond the scope of a building, for example in the context of
a district or city [11].
According to this approach, buildings are made of separate and interlinking layers,
each with a different lifespan. If each layer is conceived to be easily separated and
removed, the possibility to reuse, remanufacture and recycle is facilitated. When
buildings are devised in separate layers, with different lifespans, each element can
be repaired, replaced, moved or adapted at different times without affecting other
layers or the whole system. This increases the flexibility of use and longevity over
time obviating the need to construct entirely new buildings and assets and avoiding
large-scale wastage of assets while reducing unnecessary obsolescence, resource
use and other environmental impacts. Design for deconstruction, design for ease of
maintenance, design for flexibility, and design for adaptability are all circular design
approaches that are supported by the approach of building in layers.
Defining a product life span is also crucial in order to perform an LCA, to know
the reference flow of the system under analysis, and to account for impacts according
to the predefined functional unit. In a building that is a complex system composed
of different products and with a long-expected lifetime (normally over 50 years), we
need to define the specific lifetime of each component. To address this issue, various
sources have determined the expected lifetime of each of the building components by
defining layers such as structural frame, building envelope, finishing, and opening.
138 M. Marchesi and V. Tavares

6.6 Design Frameworks Based on Circular Principles

Research showed an initial effort to apply CE principles to building design and

provide design frameworks arranged according to circular principles/objectives.
The first design framework was the ReSOLVE framework formulated by the Ellen
MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey [19] and then adapted to the built environment
by ARUP [11, 18]. The ReSOLVE framework (Table 6.4) outlines six strategies to
apply to products and buildings as well as neighbourhoods, cities, regions, or even
entire economies through layers to identify circular economy opportunities.
In 2016, David Cheshire formulated a framework for supporting the design of
circular buildings (Table 6.5) [10]. He identified 3 objectives—(1) design principles;
(2) waste as a resource; and (3) circular business models—and circular strategies
in each objective to apply to circular building design. This framework defines a
hierarchy for design strategies which maximizes the use of existing materials, with
the idea being to retain existing buildings. Diminishing returns are gained by moving
through the hierarchy outwards: working through refurbishment and re-use through
to the least preferable option of recycling materials produced by the building or
demolition process. The hierarchy is supported by some key design principles: (1)
building in layers—ensuring that different parts of the building are accessible and can

Table 6.4 ReSOLVE framework [11, 18, 19]

Strategy Building layers
System Site Structure Skin Services Space Stuff
Regenerate Regenerating
and restoring
natural capital
Share Maximizing
asset
utilization
Optimize Optimizing
system
performance
Loop Keeping
products and
materials in
cycles,
prioritizing
inner loops
Virtualize Displacing
resource use
with virtual
use
Exchange Selecting
resources and
technology
wisely
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings 139

Table 6.5 Applying circular

Objective Strategy
economy principles to
building design [10] Design principles Building in layers
Designing-out waste
Design for adaptability
Design for disassembly
Selecting materials
Waste as a resource Retain
Refit
Refurbish
Reclaim/reuse
Remanufacture
Recycle/compost
Circular business models Performance-based models
Take back models

be maintained and replaced; (2) designing out waste; (3) designing for adaptability;
(4) designing for disassembly and (5) selecting materials—for example, those that
can be re-used and recycled.
A more holistic framework for designing and constructing circular buildings was
developed by Kubbinga et al. in 2018 [9]. Starting with a definition of a circular
building, followed by desired impact areas, they defined building design strate-
gies and sub-strategies in more detail to create the desired impacts. This framework
(Table 6.6) provides strategies to foster the circularity of materials, energy and water
while promoting biodiversity, human culture and society, health and well-being and
multiple forms of value. A crucial area to consider is the inclusion of measurements of
building circularity through project-level indicators that are both practically quantifi-
able with available data. This framework was designed to integrate existing validation
and certification systems for a sustainable built environment such as BREEAM.
In 2019, Surgenor et al. developed a framework (Table 6.7) to assist construction
clients wishing to specify circular principles in the project brief. It considers a range of
circular economy principles and design strategies [13]. Surgenor et al. [13] included
benefits and gave suggestions on what to ask for in the brief. They also featured
considerations for potential challenges and suggested responses.
This analysis also includes a design framework proposed by the Great London
Authority (GLA) in 2020. They looked at how to embed CE principles into built
environment practices at the local scale and adopt less resource-hungry approaches
to the delivery of buildings and infrastructure. GLA implemented a policy to ensure
buildings consider CE principles which includes setting out waste reduction objec-
tives. A CE statement is mandated as part of the planning application for all major
schemes within the Greater London area to implement CE considerations and inform
design decisions at early project stages [20]. It consists of a framework of design
strategies and measures to help London transition to a CE (Table 6.8).
140 M. Marchesi and V. Tavares

Table 6.6 Framework for circular buildings [9]

Impact area Principle Strategy Indicators (unit)
Materials Optimize Accountability and Feasibility study
cycle material use substantiation of the building
volume
Design for flexibility Building flexibility rate
Design for resilience Thermal comfort, Function’s
location, Extra protection
measures for vulnerable building
parts
Design reassembly De/re-mountable connections,
Accessible connections
Checks and balances on Life Cycle Assessment
environmental impact
(prerequisite)
Reutilize Maximize the number of Material Circularity, Indicator
reused materials score, Local supply of reusable/
second-hand materials
Maximize the number of Renewable components, Local
reused components supply of reusable components
Maximize the number of Use of recycled products,
reused elements Renewable elements, and Local
supply of reusable elements
Future use Circular business models for
return and reuse, Future
re-utilization/recycling,
Performance-based models,
Feasibility study
Circular Maximize the number of Recyclable materials used
materials renewable materials Biobased materials used
Minimize use of scarce/ No critical materials,
critical materials Documentation of critical
materials
Minimize the use of scarce/ Environmental impact of the
critical materials used materials, % of used
responsible origin materials
Knowledge Availability of information Building material passport,
development (element, component, Demolition specifications/
and sharing material) disassembly guidelines
Energy cycle Minimize Building design contains and Amount of energy used, Energy
energy uses a minimal amount of consumption during both
consumption energy construction and use,
Information sharing systems,
Amount of embodied energy
(continued)
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings 141

Table 6.6 (continued)

Impact area Principle Strategy Indicators (unit)
Optimize Energy matching (space and Energy storage and/or
energy time) management Systems
demand
Sustainable Minimize environmental Energy sources with a minimal
and local impact on the energy source environmental impact
energy
Sustainable Availability of information In and out energy data measured,
and local (energy) for building In and out energy data publicly
energy stakeholders available
Possibility of optimization Performance-based contract
during the use phase models
Water cycle Minimize Building design contains and Water-saving or water-free
water uses a minimal amount of facilities, information-sharing
consumption water systems
Water Greywater system Grey water system
cascading Rainwater collection system Rainwater collection system
Resource/nutrient recovery Possibility of recovering
resources and nutrients
Knowledge Availability of information Water management system
development (water) for building
and sharing stakeholders
Biodiversity Avoid the loss Minimal loss of biodiversity See BREEAM
and ecology of biodiversity through embodied and
use-phase impacts
Integration of Ecosystem elements See BREEAM
ecosystem
services
Integration of Strengthening local See BREEAM
ecosystem biodiversity by building
services design
Knowledge Long-term biodiversity See BREEAM
development preservation
and sharing Availability/accessibility of See BREEAM
biodiversity information
Human Integration of Minimal social shortfall and Not available
culture and ecosystem loss of cultures through
society services embodied and use-phase
impacts
Facilitate Functional shared spaces and Not available
shared amenities
amenities and
services
(continued)
142 M. Marchesi and V. Tavares

Table 6.6 (continued)

Impact area Principle Strategy Indicators (unit)
Knowledge Availability/accessibility of Not available
development social information
and sharing
Health and Avoid toxic Building design embodies no No C2C Banned List of
wellbeing materials and or minimal toxicity Chemical Materials, no or
pollution minimal VOC emissions
Prevent pollution during the Not available
construction, use phase and
deconstruction
Ensure Ensure air quality and See BREEAM
sufficient thermal comfort
quality of life Ensure light and visual See BREEAM
by providing comfort
an optimal
indoor Ensure optimal acoustics See BREEAM
environment
Knowledge Availability/accessibility of Not available
development information
and sharing
Multiple Ensure Long-lasting aesthetic value Not available
forms of long-term of the building
values aesthetics
Knowledge Availability/accessibility of Not available
development information
and sharing

Table 6.7 Circular economy guidance for construction [13]

Principle Strategy
Maximize reuse (including Reuse the existing asset
refurbishing and repurposing) Recover materials and products on-site or from another site
Share materials or products for onward reuse
Design buildings for Design for longevity
optimization Design for flexibility
Design for adaptability
Design for assembly, disassembly and recoverability
Use standardization Designing and constructing buildings that apply standardized
elements or modular designs for materials and products that
enable a reduction in construction waste and easier reuse in
next life
(continued)
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings 143

Table 6.7 (continued)

Principle Strategy
Products as a service Establish and promote a payment structure through which
customers have unlimited access to resources but only pay for
what is actually used, or for the result linked to their use
Minimize impact and waste Use low-impact new materials
Use recycled content or secondary material
Design out waste
Reduce construction impacts

Table 6.8 Circular economy statement [20]

Principle Strategy/ Building layers
indicator Site Structure Skin/ Services Space Stuff Construction
(unit) skell stuff
Conserve Minimize the
resources, quantities of
increase materials used
efficiency (material
and source quantity in
sustainably Kg)
Minimize the
quantities of
other
resources
used (energy,
water, land)
(quantity)
Specify and
source
materials and
other
resources
responsibly
and
sustainably
(recycled
content in %
by value;
reused
content in %
by value)
(continued)
144 M. Marchesi and V. Tavares

Table 6.8 (continued)

Principle Strategy/ Building layers
indicator Site Structure Skin/ Services Space Stuff Construction
(unit) skell stuff
Design to Design for
eliminate longevity,
waste (and adaptability or
for ease of flexibility and
maintenance) reusability or
recoverability
(assumed
number of
replacements;
repair and
replacement
quantities in
Kg; estimated
reusable
materials in
Kg/m3;
estimated
recyclable
materials in
kg/m3;
strip-out
waste arising
in T;
construction
waste arising
in T )
Design out
construction,
demolition,
excavation
and municipal
waste arising
(t/m2 Gross
Internal Area)
Manage Manage
waste demolition
sustainably waste
and at the (% reused or
highest value recycled
onsite/offsite)
Manage
excavation
waste
(% reused or
recycled
onsite/offsite)
(continued)
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings 145

Table 6.8 (continued)

Principle Strategy/ Building layers
indicator Site Structure Skin/ Services Space Stuff Construction
(unit) skell stuff
Manage
construction
waste
(% reused or
recycled
onsite/offsite;
% not reused
or recycled)
Manage
municipal
waste (and
industrial
waste, if
applicable)
(t/ annum; %
reused on or
off-site; %
recycled or
composted, on
or off-site; %
not reused or
recycled)

In 2020, Densley Tingley Mihkelson, Gillott and Cheshire [21, 22] developed a
CE design framework (Table 6.9) comprising four overarching circularity principles
(Design for Adaptability; Design for Deconstruction; Circular Material Selection;
and Resource Efficiency) and contributing design strategies. In line with Cheshire’s
[10] built environment hierarchy, this CE design framework was constructed, high-
lighting the order in which these principles should be considered to maximize circu-
larity. Within the adopted principles, a set of 45 specific design strategies or actions
for which compliance may be evidenced were defined. This framework provides
design decisions and actions that may be taken to implement proposed objectives.
Strategies are assessed by a three-level criteria rating system, developed in place of
a credit weighing, to measure projects. This framework was used to develop a CE
digital tool called Regenerate for the assessment of the technical implementation of
circular building design in new and existing buildings.
All the analysed frameworks in this category focus on providing a set of strategies
to implement defined principles/objectives and achieve the expected features and
performances of a circular building, but they do not provide support in terms of the
implementation process. Most of them support material circularity; only one of them
includes additional resources like water and energy. Indicators are rarely reported:
only one framework includes them aiming at supporting the assessment of circular
buildings.
146 M. Marchesi and V. Tavares

Table 6.9 Regenerate [22]

Principle Strategy/indicator (unit) Building layers
Site Structure Skin/ Services Space
skell
Design for Floor loading enables
adaptability change of use
Structural grid allows
different configurations
Column and foundation
capacity allow future
vertical expansion
Fire rating of frame and
escape strategy suitable for
different uses
Floor-to-ceiling height
enables new services for
changing climate or change
of use
Environmental design
strategies (e.g. ventilation,
daylighting and acoustics)
suitable for alternative uses
Accessible services for easy
upgrade
Accessible services for easy
upgrade
Interior design allows
reconfiguration
Design for Deconstruction plan
deconstruction Material inventory—with
core properties and
materials designed for reuse
highlighted
Mechanical not chemical
connections
Easily accessible
connections
Durable connections and
components
Minimize different types of
connections
Composites designed to be
separated into component
materials for future
recycling
(continued)
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings 147

Table 6.9 (continued)

Principle Strategy/indicator (unit) Building layers
Site Structure Skin/ Services Space
skell
Circular material Reused materials
selection Leased materials
Part of buy-back schemes
Designed for upgrade/
remanufacture
No toxic/hazardous
materials/coatings
Biological materials
non-contaminated for return
to nature
Technical materials easily
separated
Optimize Design for material
optimisation
Design for energy
optimization (in-use)
Design for efficiency of use
(space and time intensity)
Design for zero waste in
construction

6.7 Design Frameworks Based on Building Lifecycle Phases

The literature on circular building design revealed a progression of the approach from
design strategies arranged according to circular principles/objectives to design strate-
gies organized according to the building lifecycle stages. This progression shows a
focus shift from the object (the circular building) to the process (the circular building
process). This category of design frameworks arranges strategies according to stages
of the building lifecycle and provides tasks to be performed during the process by
the design team or through stakeholder collaboration. To implement circular build-
ings, circular economy strategies need to be applied along the building life cycle.
Adopting circular design strategies throughout the entire life cycle of a building,
from strategies for using renewable and secondary raw materials during the produc-
tion stage and promoting building disassembly capability during the design stage, to
strategies for extending the building’s life through renovation during the use stage
and reusing of materials and components at buildings’ end-of-life, contributes to
realizing circular buildings. For circular design strategies to be effective, new inno-
vative business models and enabling policies are required to be complementarily
implemented. Akhimien et al. [14] developed a basic framework based on a 4-stage
148 M. Marchesi and V. Tavares

Table 6.10 Building life cycle stages and circular economy strategies [14]
Building life cycle Principles Description
stages (EN
15,978:2001)
Product Manufacture Building for Building design consideration for easy building
disassembly deconstruction. Use of prefabricated modules in the
context of assembly and disassembly, design for
adaptability, design for deconstruction,
standardization
Design for Building design program from inception for
recycling recyclability, reuse recycling of building
components and reduction of construction waste
Building Building materials analysis and selection as major
materiality considerations for a circular economy. Material
selection and recyclability
Construction Building Building construction methods that can help.
construction Construction facilitates the application of a circular
economy
Operation Building Building in use and modalities for operation.
operation Operation in line with circular economy principles
Building Optimization of building parts for durability and
optimization longevity. Repair activities, upgrades, component
exchange, etc. to improve building durability and
performance, etc
End of life Building Building end-of-life programs and loop systems.
end-of-life Interventions to either restore, reuse, or recycle
building components

building lifecycle process (Table 6.10). While it provides a general overview of the
implementation process, the set of strategies is very limited to be able to guide the
process implementation.
Meanwhile, Arup and the Ellen Macarthur Foundation released the Circular Build-
ings Toolkit focused on supporting the design process to implement circular build-
ings [23]. This framework (Table 6.11) arranges design strategies to support the
design team in the implementation of the circular building from the design to the
construction stages. It also provides a set of objectives and related targets in terms of
resource circularity that the design process should point to implement through tasks.
It translated the principles of the CE into a prioritized set of strategies and actions
relevant to real estate projects. This framework is based on relevant international
best practices and policies (such as EU Taxonomy and EU Level(s)). The strategies
are also aligned with CE recommendations from the World Green Building Council
as well as National Green Building Councils. The design framework is embedded
into a workflow, which leads the project team and key stakeholders from design brief
to handover based on the RIBA Plan of Work [16]. The following stages from the
building’s use to its recovery are not included. CE principles are embedded in the
design process from the initial concept stage involving investors and developers to
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings 149

Table 6.11 Circular buildings toolkit [23]

Circular objective phase Strategy action Indicator
Build nothing 1. Refuse new construction Reused floor area (% of
total GFA)
Strategic definition 1.1 Reuse, renovate or
repurpose an existing asset
Build for long-term value 2. Increase building Total building utilization [h/
utilization sqm]
Preparation and briefing 2.1 Increase the multi-use
potential of building spaces
Spatial coordination—concept 2.2 Create the general physical
technical design conditions to enable multi-use
implementation
Spatial coordination—concept 2.3 Design for increased
technical design utilization of regularly “empty”
spaces
Technical design 2.4 Design local building
performance units so that they
can work at various space
configurations and requirements
Technical design 2.5 Make use of versatile/
flexible/movable internal walls
for the space layout to support
multi-use
3. Design for longevity EU Level(s) Whole Life
Cycle Costs [$/m2 /yr.]
Concept architectural design 3.1 Design for future climate
adaptability/resilience
Technical design 3.2 Prioritize standardized,
modular elements over bespoke/
tailor-made solutions, and avoid
complex building geometries
Concept architectural design 3.3 Investigate
Product-as-a-Service schemes
for components expected to
have a short or medium service
life in the project
Structural engineering 3.4 Maximize the durability of
the building structure through
careful selection, protection and
maintenance of components
Facades engineering 3.5 Ensure the individual
service life of envelope
systems, components, products
and materials aligns with the
minimum service life of the
building
(continued)
150 M. Marchesi and V. Tavares

Table 6.11 (continued)

Circular objective phase Strategy action Indicator
Spatial coordination—concept 3.6 Make use of Whole
technical design Life-Cycle Cost assessment
(WLCC) as a design assessment
tool
Technical design 3.7 Issue a Building Materials
Passport document for the
project
4. Design for adaptability EU Level(s) Adaptability
Rating
Spatial coordination—concept 4.1. Increase convertibility:
technical design choose architectural massing, a
structural grid and a foundation
layout compatible with all
likely future uses
Spatial coordination—concept 4.2. Increase convertibility:
technical design Allow for changes in building
use by designing the building
envelope to allow for more than
one use, or to allow
modifications in window size
and spacing
Spatial coordination—concept 4.3. Increase convertibility:
technical design Make passive provision
accounting for possible changes
to MEP systems and provide a
plant replacement strategy that
avoids waste
Technical design 4.4. Develop and issue an
Adaptability Manual document
5. Design for disassembly EU Level(s) Disassembly
Potential Rating
Technical design 5.1 Develop reversible
connections between the
building super-structure
elements
Technical design 5.2 Allow access to reversible
connections between the
structure and building services
Technical design 5.3 Develop and issue a
Disassembly Manual Document
for the building
Build efficiently 6. Refuse unnecessary Material use intensity per
components functional unit [kg/unit/yr]
(continued)
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings 151

Table 6.11 (continued)

Circular objective phase Strategy action Indicator
Strategic definition 6.1 Refuse redundancy in
spaces and overestimate
headcounts
Concept architectural design 6.2 Eliminate/reduce the need
for on-site parking space
Spatial coordination—concept 6.3 Prioritize passive and
technical design simple servicing strategies over
overly complex ones
Technical design 6.4 Refuse finishes where
possible
7. Increase material efficiency Material use intensity by
area [kg/sqm /yr]
Concept architectural design 7.1 Avoid material-intensive
deep underground and high-rise
construction
Spatial coordination—concept 7.2 Reduce the material use
technical design intensity in the building
structure via material-efficient
structural forms and techniques,
such as hybrid and/or
composite solutions
Spatial coordination—concept 7.3 Reduce dimensions of the
technical design building structure components
through the selection of
high-strength materials
Technical design 7.4 Use advanced engineering
practices to improve the
material efficiency of structural
and envelope components
Manufacturing and construction 7.5 Reduce material waste at
production and construction
through off-site prefabrication
of the building structure and
envelope components
Build with the right materials 8. Reduce the use of virgin EMF’s Material Circularity
materials Indicator (MCI)
Spatial coordination—concept 8.1 Maximize the use of
technical design reclaimed components for all
building layers
Manufacturing and construction 8.2 Use concrete with high
secondary content
Concept architectural design 8.3 Use engineered timber (or
other biobased materials) in
building structures
(continued)
152 M. Marchesi and V. Tavares

Table 6.11 (continued)

Circular objective phase Strategy action Indicator
Technical design 8.4 Use bio-based rapidly
renewable materials for the
interior design concept
Technical design 8.5 Reduce the use of critical
raw materials
9. Reduce the use of Embodied Carbon Intensity
carbon-intensive materials [kgCO2 eq/m2 /year]
Technical design 9.1 Track the embodied carbon
footprint during design and set
an ambitious overall embodied
carbon target for the project
Technical design 9.2 Track the embodied carbon
footprint of the building
structure and set a target that is
below the regionally
recommended thresholds
Technical design 9.3 Track the embodied carbon
footprint of the building
envelope and set a target which
is below the regionally
recommended thresholds
Technical design 9.4 Track the embodied carbon
footprint of building systems
and set a target that is below the
regionally recommended
thresholds
Technical design 9.5 Track the embodied carbon
footprint of building fit-out
components and set a target that
is below the regionally
recommended thresholds
Concept architectural design 9.6 Design for digital
information management and
provide sufficient information
for LCA
10. Design out hazardous Environmental Impact Cost
polluting materials [e/m2 /year]
Technical design 10.1 Track all environmental
impacts during design through
detailed LCA, not just carbon,
and set an ambitious target for
the overall project (all layers,
including realistic functional
and service lives of
components)
(continued)
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings 153

Table 6.11 (continued)

Circular objective phase Strategy action Indicator
Technical design 10.2 Ensure that building
materials and products are not
on the ‘Living Building
Challenge (LBC) Red List’
Manufacturing and construction 10.3 Use on-site electric
equipment to reduce the use of
fossil fuel-driven machines on
site, in turn, reduce the impact
of nitrogen, smog and
particulate matter emissions in
the area
Technical design 10.4 Avoid the use of
hazardous/pollutant materials in
the services inside the building
Technical design 10.5 Avoid the use of
hazardous/pollutant materials in
the space
Manufacturing and construction 10.6 Manage hazards of legacy
materials in existing buildings

define the project objectives. The framework is mainly focused on material circularity
while other resources like energy and water are not included.
A few years later, Liebetanz and Wilde [24] released the Circular Economy System
Enablers Framework which defines CE strategies across the building lifecycle to
be performed by identified system enablers to implement circular buildings. This
framework is based on the theoretical premises that solutions for a CE are the result
of the interplay among four main building blocks across all the stages of the building
lifecycle: (1) circular design, (2) circular business models, (3) reverse cycle, and (4)
enablers [19, 26]. The four building blocks are the requirements on a systemic level
for the circular economy to emerge. The circular design is one of them. Acharya
et al. [18] show that implementing a circular economy in the built environment
industry requires not only designing buildings in line with circular principles but
also an understanding of the whole building life cycle and the construction value
chain, which involves high levels of collaboration and information exchange. To
do this, new business models are needed that reimagine the currently fragmented
value chain and facilitate more circular behaviours. To ensure success, however, the
enabling conditions also need to be introduced while potential and existing barriers to
implementing circularity in the built environment need to be removed. New tools and
incentives are required that enable investors to receive a financial return on decisions
that affect not only the selling and leasing of properties and spaces but also their
end-of-use and repurposing. Table 6.12 includes examples in the building sector for
each building block [18, 25].
154 M. Marchesi and V. Tavares

Table 6.12 Building blocks for a circular economy in buildings [18, 25]
Circular design Circular business Reverse cycle Enablers and favorable
models system conditions
Material selection Flexible spaces Take back scheme Collaboration
Design for reuse, repair, Adaptable assets Materials passports Access to financing
remanufacturing and
recycling
Modularization/ Relocatable Extraction Leading by example
standardization buildings technologies and driving scale
Production process Residual value
efficiently Performance
procurement

Based on these premises, the Circular Economy System Enablers Framework [24]
(Table 6.13) identifies 6 stages in the building lifecycle and maps 8 action-orientated
enablers that help deliver CE strategic objectives through strategies across the
building lifecycle. The “Circular economy design principles” is one of the enablers
that aims at implementing “an architecture characterized by reversible connections,
allowing buildings and components to be taken apart in a way that allows for future
reuse or lengthens the building’s life by being flexible and adaptable” [24] through
strategies applied in the extraction and manufacture, design, construction, in-use and
end-of-life.
A different approach was applied by Brincat et al. [8] to develop the Frame-
work of Circularity Strategies and Indicators across the Building Lifecycle reported
in Table 6.14. They evaluated levels of uptake of circular strategies by consulting
key stakeholders across the construction value chain to assess activities. Based
on this study, they defined a list of 11 circular strategies currently implemented
in the construction industry ecosystem at four levels of the built environment
(product/material, building/infrastructure, organizational/process and city/region/
national levels). Then they mapped these strategies across all the stages of the building
lifecycle, including design, construction, use or end-of-life phases. Each stage allows
for the possibility of applying identified circularity approaches differently. Indica-
tors for assessment are included at each stage of all levels to measure the uptake of
circular approaches.
This framework introduces two innovative aspects in this category: 4 levels of
interventions systemically linked and arranged in stages as well as related indicators
for the assessment of the strategies. While it aims to support the need to work system-
ically at different levels of the built environment to implement circular buildings, it
does not provide guidelines on the implementation of tasks for stakeholders across
the building lifecycle to work collaboratively.
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings 155

Table 6.13 Circular economy system enablers framework [24]

Stage Enabler Strategy
Investments Green contracts and Ensure aspirations for circularity are shared by all
leasing stakeholders
Tax and legislation Stimulate green innovation
Tax and legislation Incentivize reuse to stimulate the market
Green financing Financing to match circularity ambitions set out in
the client brief
Green financing Financing to support innovative circular business
Green financing Cheaper debt financing for assets that adopt
circularity, net zero carbon pathways, and green
credentials
Education Benefits of green contracts and leases
Education Increase investor understanding of how CE fits into
ESG portfolios and lower risk associated with
climate change
Extraction and Collaboration and early Allows contractor to work with supply chain to
manufacture engagement secure materials needed (reused options can take
longer than new)
Secondary materials Procure secondary materials via secondary
market materials markets e.g. reuse hubs
Circular economy Materials designed to be disassembled at the end of
design principles the first use to enable reuse
Circular economy Takeback schemes to enable reuse or
design principles remanufacture
Tax and legislation Tax on virgin materials
Metrics, benchmarks Marking of materials for identification to help with
and indicators maintenance/repair/disassembly e.g. by using
material passports
Education Education on circular economy design principles
Design Collaboration and early Allows design team, client, and contractor to work
engagement together to procure secondary materials and
implement circular design principles
Secondary materials Design to the availability of secondary materials
market
Circular economy Implement circular economy design principles (see
design principles Circular economy guidance for construction [13]
Green contracts and develop alternatives to Cat A fit-out and work with
leases future tenants if possible
Tax and legislation Mandate circular economy statements and Whole
Life Carbon Assessments (WLCA) to inform
design decisions
Green financing Utilizing circular design principles to help
investors align to Environmental, Social, and
corporate Governance (ESG) and new regulations
(continued)
156 M. Marchesi and V. Tavares

Table 6.13 (continued)

Stage Enabler Strategy
Metrics, benchmarks Set targets for % of reused materials within a
and indicators building as part of brief
Education Education on the use of circular economy design
principles
Education Benefits of early engagement
Education Challenge perceptions of rescued and secondary
materials being inferior to new
Construction Collaboration and early Engagement with the whole team
engagement
Secondary materials Contractors interact closely with the secondary
market materials market for procurement and giving back
excess materials
Circular economy Information communicated on the disassembly of
design principles products
Green contracts and Legally binding obligations in different lifecycle
leases phases
Tax and legislation Establish conditions that minimize the construction
of new buildings and incentivize refurbishments
Metrics, benchmarks, Detailed measure of onsite waste and monitoring
and indicators its destination
Metrics, benchmarks, Monitoring of performance in use and waste
and indicators
Education Training to minimize waste and better segregate
products
Education Education on how to install materials so they can
be uninstalled
Education Green procurement training and skills for using
secondary materials
In-use Collaboration and early Share best practice examples
engagement
Secondary materials Materials are salvaged to be reused via reuse hubs
market or take-back schemes for future reuse
Circular economy Deconstruction and extension of the lifespan of
design principles materials enabled by design allow materials reuse
or manufacturers to take back products
Green contracts and Contract changes, so the building does not have to
leases be returned to the original state between tenancies
because of collaboration between new/old tenants
on what can be reused
Tax and legislation Incentivize refurbishment over demolition by
removing VAT on retrofit
Tax and legislation Legislation for pre-redevelopment audits
(continued)
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings 157

Table 6.13 (continued)

Stage Enabler Strategy
Metrics, benchmarks, Detailed monitoring of materials
and indicators
Education Educate demolition contractors on deconstruction
to maintain the value and maximize reuse

Table 6.14 Framework of circularity strategies and indicators according to the building lifecycle
[8]
Level Stage Strategy Indicators (unit)
Product or Manufacture, Increasing direct reuse of products Reused product (Yes/No)
material level construction, and materials
end-of-life Increasing reuse/recycling of waste
stages from construction works
Increasing reuse/recycling of waste
from demolition works
Manufacture, Increasing direct reuse of products Remanufactured/reused
end-of-life and materials content (% by mass which
stages Increasing reuse/recycling of waste has been remanufactured or
from demolition works from a reused source)
Lifetime extension e.g., through
retaining and refurbishing
Manufacture, Increasing recycled and secondary Recycled/secondary content
construction, content of construction products (% by mass of product that is
end-of-life and materials from a recycled or secondary
stages Increasing reuse/recycling of waste content)
from construction works
Increasing reuse/recycling of waste
from demolition works
Manufacture, Designing for future disassembly Design for disassembly and
end-of-life and reuse circularity (measured using
stages Increasing reuse/recycling of waste an index/checklist)
from demolition works
Construction Reducing waste/wastage rates/ Wastage rate (amount of
stage waste generation from product/material delivered
construction activities but not used measured as %
by mass)
Manufacture Improving durability, lifespan, and Predicted service life
stage repairability of construction works (measured in years)
Lifetime extension e.g., through
retaining and refurbishing
(continued)
158 M. Marchesi and V. Tavares

Table 6.14 (continued)

Level Stage Strategy Indicators (unit)
Manufacture, Increasing reuse/recycling of waste Hazardous waste (% by
construction, from construction works mass)
end-of-life Increasing reuse/recycling of waste
stages from demolition works
Reducing waste/wastage rates/
waste generation from
construction activities
Manufacture, Increasing recycled and secondary Realistic end-of-life
construction, content of construction products scenarios developed
end-of-life and materials (measured as Yes/No)
stages Increasing direct reuse of products
and materials—Increasing reuse/
recycling of waste from
construction works
Increasing reuse/recycling of waste
from demolition works
Manufacture, Increasing recycled and secondary Residual financial value per
construction, content of construction products unit product/material at
end-of-life and materials end-of-life (in Euros per
stages Increasing direct reuse of products functional unit)
and materials
Increasing reuse/recycling of waste
from construction works
Design and Product as service, new business Extended Producer
construction, models—Increasing recycled and Responsibility scheme (i.e.
end-of-life secondary content of construction take-back scheme or product
stages products and materials as service) (measured as Yes/
Increasing direct reuse of products No)
and materials—Increasing reuse/
recycling of waste from
construction works
Increasing reuse/recycling of waste
from demolition works
Building or Concept and Improving durability, lifespan, and Comparison of asset life
infrastructure design stages repairability of construction works cycle costs: costs of asset
level Product as service, new business over life cycle. (e.g. euro/m2/
models yr.)
Concept and Improving durability, lifespan, and Comparison of asset life
design stages repairability of construction works cycle assessment: assessment
Increasing direct reuse of products of the whole life cycle of the
and materials asset (e.g. kgCO2 eq/m2/yr.)
Reducing waste/wastage rates/
waste generation from
construction activities
Lifetime extension e.g. through
retaining and refurbishing
Design stage Improving material efficiency/ Material intensity/
intensity/mass of materials used dematerialization: amount of
Improving durability, lifespan, and material used (e.g. kg/m2/yr.)
repairability of construction works
(continued)
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings 159

Table 6.14 (continued)

Level Stage Strategy Indicators (unit)
Concept, design Increasing direct reuse of products Reused content: proportion
stages and materials of the asset that is designed
Increasing reuse/recycling of waste with reused products /
from demolition works materials (% by mass)
Increasing reuse/recycling of waste
from construction works (for reuse
of surplus products)
Design, Increasing recycled and secondary Recycled content: proportion
manufacture, content of construction products of the asset that is designed
construction and materials with recycled content (% by
stages Increasing reuse/recycling of waste mass)
from demolition works
Increasing reuse/recycling of waste
from construction works (for reuse
of surplus products)
Design stage Designing for flexibility and Measurement of the
adaptability adaptability/flexibility of the
Lifetime extension e.g. through asset in use (measured as a
retaining and refurbishing score)
Design stage Designing for future disassembly Proportion of the asset that
and reuse can be disassembled at end of
Increasing reuse/recycling of waste life (% reuse potential by
from demolition works mass)
Construction Reducing waste/wastage rates/ Construction waste generated
stage waste generation from on and off-site (measured in
construction activities tons/100 K Euros (pro-ject
value)
Construction Reducing waste/wastage rates/ Hazardous waste generated
stage waste generation from during construction
construction activities (measured in % by mass)
Construction Increasing reuse/recycling of waste Construction waste reused,
stage from construction works recycled, recovered, and
landfilled (measured in % by
mass)
In-use, Improving durability, lifespan, and Construction-related waste
refurbishment repairability of construction works generated through in-use/
stages Reducing waste/wastage rates/ refurbishment cycles (tons/
waste generation from 100 K Euros (project value))
construction activities
In-use stage Lifetime extension e.g. through Effective utilization of
retaining and refurbishing building (e.g. levels of
occupancy) or asset;
intensiveness of use (e.g.
hours of utilization/m2)
In-use, Lifetime extension e.g. through Proportion of building/asset
refurbishment, retaining and refurbishing retained (mass) for further
end-of-life Reducing waste/wastage rates/ use (e.g. % by mass of the
stages waste generation from asset retained for future reuse
construction activities (adaptive reuse)
(continued)
160 M. Marchesi and V. Tavares

Table 6.14 (continued)

Level Stage Strategy Indicators (unit)
End-of-life stage Increasing reuse/recycling of waste Demolition waste generated
from demolition works from the deconstruction/
Reducing waste/wastage rates/ demolition (measured in
waste generation from tons)
construction activities
End-of-life stage Increasing reuse/recycling of waste Hazardous waste generated
from demolition works from the deconstruction/
demolition (measured in %
by mass)
End-of-life stage Increasing reuse/recycling of waste Demolition Waste reused,
from demolition works recycled, recovered,
Increasing direct reuse of products landfilled resulting from the
and material deconstruction/demolition
(measured in % by mass)
Organization In-use, Lifetime extension e.g. through Refurbishment/
or process refurbishment retaining and refurbishing Transformation rate of
level stages Designing for flexibility and buildings/assets portfolio (%
adaptability of buildings/infrastructure
refurbished/year)
Design, in-use Improving durability, lifespan, Predicted service life of
stages repairability of construction works buildings/assets (measured in
Lifetime extension e.g. through years)
retaining and refurbishing
Manufacture, Increasing recycled and secondary Average proportion of a
design, content of construction products reused and recycled content
construction and materials in new assets/infrastructure
stages Increasing direct reuse of products (measured as % by mass)
and materials
Increasing reuse/recycling of waste
from construction works
Manufacture Increasing recycled and secondary Reused, recycled and
stage content of construction products secondary content input (%
and materials by mass)
Increasing direct reuse of products
and materials
Increasing reuse/recycling of waste
from construction works
Increasing reuse/recycling of waste
from demolition works
Construction, Reducing waste/wastage rates/ Non-hazardous waste
refurbishment, waste generation from arisings generated by
demolition construction activities construction, refurbishment
stages Lifetime extension e.g. through and demolition (measured in
retaining and refurbishing tons /100 K Euros (overall
project value)
Construction, Reducing waste/wastage rates/ Amount of hazardous waste
refurbishment, waste generation from generated by construction,
demolition construction activities refurbishment, and
stages Increasing reuse/recycling of waste demolition (Tons /100 K
from demolition works Euros (overall project value)
Increasing reuse/recycling of waste
from construction works
(continued)
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings 161

Table 6.14 (continued)

Level Stage Strategy Indicators (unit)
Construction, Increasing direct reuse of products Waste management routes
refurbishment, and materials generated from construction;
demolition Increasing reuse/recycling of waste refurbishment; and
stages from construction works demolition (measured in %
by mass/year for reuse,
Increasing reuse/recycling of waste recycling, recovery or
from demolition works disposal)
All stages All circularity approaches number and proportion of
buildings/assets in the
portfolio which have
requirements set for circular
economy in their design,
construction, refurbishment
and end-of-life phases
(measured by % of projects/
year)
Refurbishment, Increasing direct reuse of products Number and proportion of
demolition and materials buildings/assets that are to be
stages Increasing reuse/recycling of waste demolished or refurbished
from demolition works that have requirements set for
pre-demolition audits and
subsequent implementation
(measured by % of projects/
year)
Urban level Construction, Reducing waste/wastage rates/ Construction and demolition
(city/region/ demolition; waste generation from waste generated from
national) concept/ construction activities construction, demolition, and
planning stages Lifetime extension e.g. through refurbishment in a defined
retaining and refurbishing urban area (measured in tons/
capita)
Construction, Increasing reuse/recycling of waste Recycling/recovery rate of
demolition; from construction works construction and demolition
concept/ Increasing reuse/recycling of waste waste: proportion of
planning stages from demolition works construction, refurbishment
and demolition waste being
recycled (or recovered)
(measured in % by mass)
Concept/ Lifetime extension e.g. through Refurbishment and
planning stage retaining and refurbishing transformation rate relative to
Designing for flexibility and new construction: Amount of
adaptability buildings/assets refurbished
versus the number built new
over a given timeframe
(measured in % of projects/
year)
Demolition; Lifetime time extension e.g. Demolition rate: number of
concept/ through retaining and refurbishing buildings demolished over a
planning stages Reducing waste/wastage rates/ given timeframe (measured
waste generation from as tons/capita)
construction activities
Demolition; Lifetime extension e.g. through Average age at demolition
concept/ retaining and refurbishing (years)
planning stages Reducing waste/wastage rates/
waste generation from
construction activities
162 M. Marchesi and V. Tavares

6.8 Discussion

This chapter explored the definitions of a circular building in terms of object and
process, building lifecycle models and design frameworks through a literature review.
By comparing the definitions of a circular building (Table 6.15), we observed that
the definition focus is varied: two of them look at the circular building as a process,
two of them at the circular building as a resulting object and three of them consider
both aspects. All of them are centred around the circular flows of building materials
and products implemented through strategies applied to building design, operation
and end-of-life to keep resources at optimal rates and utilities.
While the circular flow of building materials is consistently considered in the
definitions, a wider approach to resource circularity (water, energy, and materials)
and biodiversity is not well-established. Moreover, while a focus on technical areas
of impact is consistently observed in the definitions, social areas of impact are rarely
considered. Only one definition applies a more holistic approach considering the
circularity of multiple resources (materials, energy, and water) flows and biodiver-
sity and including social aspects—i.e., human culture and society, health and well-
being—and multiple forms of value [9, 15]. This is consistent with the literature on
the evolution of the CE approach. Until now, the implementation of a CE has mainly
adopted a technocentric approach focused on circulating resources through economic
and technical innovation progressively expanding from single products/components
to building and urban systems. However, while it has been mainly focused on the
technical aspects of circularity, it has also recognized the crucial role of users and in
general stakeholders and dynamics in socio-technical systems like buildings and the
built environment. Based on this analysis, Zimmann et al.’s definition [11] may be the
most representative and comprehensive of what a circular building is currently while

Table 6.15 Circular building definitions: (1) [10]; (2) [11]; (3) [9, 15]; (4) [13]; (5) [12]; (6) [14]
Criteria (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Definition focus
Circular building (object) • • • • •
Circular building (process) • • • •
Impact areas—technical
Material cycle • • • • • •
Energy cycle •
Water cycle •
Biodiversity and ecology •
Impact areas—social
Human culture and society •
Health and well-being •
Multiple forms of value •
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings 163

Kubbinga et al.’s definition [9] later adopted by OECD [15] may offer a perspective
for further implementation.
The analysis of the building life cycle in circular buildings showed a variety of
building life-cycle models in terms of the number of phases and allocation in the
process time frame (Table 6.16). By comparison, it emerged that the EN 15,978
(2011) model and Kubbinga et al.’s model [9] are both arranged in 5 stages, but
they differ in the inclusion of a stage beyond the life cycle in the first model and the
inclusion of a design stage in the second model after the production stage. The other
2 models [8, 16] introduced two additional stages before the design stage and moved
the manufacturing stage close to the construction.
An integrated model of 6 stages that combines the first two models with the latest
two is formulated to be adopted in the framework comparison. It is composed of the
following stages: (1) the strategic stage (concept and procurement), (2) the design
stage, (3) the manufacturing stage, (4) the demolition and construction stage, (5) the
use and refurbishment stage, and (6) the end-of-life stage.
Then, the study investigated design frameworks developed to support the imple-
mentation of circular buildings to identify suitable propositions to assess the level of
implementation of the circular building concept. The study identified 10 frameworks
that embed CE strategies within building design to implement circular buildings and
classified them into two categories:
(1) Frameworks of design strategies to achieve established circular principles.
(2) Frameworks of design strategies to be implemented throughout phases of the
building life cycle.
The literature did not show any framework of design strategies based on life
cycles according to the classification proposed by Franconi et al. [7]. Therefore, we
conclude that this category has not yet been implemented in circular building design
while it is observed in other design areas such as product design.
The analysed frameworks provide sets of design strategies summarized in key
principles/objectives or building life cycle phases to ensure effective integration
within the process. Table 6.17 compares the sets of strategies of 9 frameworks.
The Circular Economy System Enablers Framework [24] is not included since it
is not comparable to the others. This comparison highlighted that currently available
frameworks have sets of strategies that are not fully aligned. It also showed that
3 frameworks [8, 13, 23] are comparable in terms of the set of strategies. They
show similar strategies even though Surgenor et al.’s framework is based on circular
principles while Arup and Ellen Macarthur Foundation’s framework [23] and Brincat
et al.’s framework [8] are based on building lifecycle phases. Interestingly Brincat
et al. defined their set of strategies, as well as critical indicators to assess them by
consulting key stakeholders across the construction value chain.
Based on this comparison, we developed two visual charts (Figs. 6.2 and 6.3) to
help identify trends and gaps and distinguish a set of frameworks to evaluate the level
of implementation of circular buildings.
The first chart (Fig. 6.2) shows that the research on circular building design has
moved from sets of strategies to achieve circular objectives/principles to sets of
164 M. Marchesi and V. Tavares

Table 6.16 Building life cycle models: 1) EN 15,978:2011; 2) [9]; 3) [16]; 4) [8]
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Strategic definition Concept
Preparation and Procurement
briefing
Product stage Production stage
A1: raw material raw material
extraction and supply extraction and
processing
A2: transport to Transportation to
manufacturing plant factory
A3: manufacturing and Energy, waste,
fabrication water use in factory
Design stage Concept design Design
Design of building Spatial coordination –
– Technical design –
Manufacture and Manufacture
construction
Demolition
Construction stage Construction Construction
stage
A4: transport to the Transport to – –
project site location
A5: construction and Building – –
installation process installation
Use stage Use stage Handover Handover, use, asset,
management
B1: Use Use Use –
B2: Maintenance Maintenance – –
B3: Repair Repair Refurbishment,
adaptive reuse,
renovation,
maintenance, and
repair
B4: Replacement Replacement –
B5: Refurbishment Renovation –
B6: operational energy Operational energy –
use consumption
B7: operational water – –
use
End of life stage End of life stage End of life and
deconstruction of
future assets
(continued)
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings 165

Table 6.16 (continued)

(1) (2) (3) (4)
C1: deconstruction, Reconstruction/ –
demolition demolition
C2: transport to disposal Transport –
facilities
C3: waste processing for Waste processing –
reuse, recovery and
recycling
C4: disposal Disposal –
– Reuse, recovery, –
recycling
Benefits and loads
beyond the system
boundary
D1: reuse, recovery,
recycling potential

strategies to be implemented across the building life cycle. Initially, research focused
on the definition of what a circular building is and how to implement it by design
through circular objectives/principles and sets of related strategies. Then the focus
moved to the building lifecycle and how to implement a circular building at different
stages of the building lifecycle process through strategies or tasks to be performed
during the process. The frameworks based on circular principles (see quadrants 1 and
2 of the chart) help define circular building features and performances as well as assess
whether it is a design solution or an existing building. This category shows relevant
frameworks to be applied in practice. In this category, the most recent frameworks
provide sets of strategies as well as indicators to assess circular buildings mainly
in technical areas of impact (specifically the materials cycle) and only one includes
social areas. Only the Framework for Circular Buildings developed by Kubbinga et al.
[9] considers holistically all the resources (materials, water, and energy) and values
involved in the development, use and recovery of a building. Moreover, it included
social areas of impact for evaluation and provides measurable criteria and indicators
in both technical and social areas. The socio-technical approach adopted in this
framework to assess circular buildings may be further developed and applied in future.
The frameworks based on the building life cycle process (see quadrants 3 and 4 of the
chart) help perform the process. This category guides the performance of the design
process or the whole building life cycle process to implement circular buildings
through tasks, targets and stakeholder collaboration. The Circular Buildings Toolkit
[23] focuses on the design and construction stages while the other three frameworks
in this category include the whole building lifecycle process. The Circular Buildings
Toolkit provides a list of tasks to be performed in the strategic, design and construction
stages to implement circular buildings. It also integrated main circular objectives to
achieve through task implementation and related indicators for assessment. This
Table 6.17 Circular Framework/Strategy Comparison: 1. ReSOLVE Framework [11, 19]; 2. Applying circular economy principles to building design [10];
166

3. Framework for circular buildings [9]; 4. Circular economy guidance for construction [13]; 5. Circular Economy Statement [20]; 6. Regenerate [21, 22]; 7.
Building life cycle stages and Circular economy strategies [14]; 8. Circular Buildings Toolkit [23]; 9. Circularity Strategies and Indicators in the Construction
Industry Ecosystem [8]. (*) it does not report 4 additional strategies—avoiding loss of biodiversity, integrating eco-system services, ensuring comfort, ensuring
long-term aesthetics, and knowledge development—which are included in this framework and are missed in all the other frameworks
(1) (2) (3) * (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Reclaim/reuse Reutilize Reuse the Refuse new Increase reuse
existing asset construction of products/
materials
Share Facilitate Share materials Increase building
shared or products utilization
amenities and
services
Loop Recycle/compost Water Recover Design for
cascading materials and recycling
products
Refit/retain/ Design for Design for Building Design for Lifetime
refurbish longevity longevity operation longevity extension,
improving
durability,
lifespan,
repairability
Building in layers Design for Design for
flexibility flexibility and
adaptability
Optimize Design for Design for Design for Design for Design for
adaptability adaptability adaptability adaptability adaptability
(continued)
M. Marchesi and V. Tavares
Table 6.17 (continued)
(1) (2) (3) * (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Design for Design for Design for, Design for Building for Design for Design for
disassembly/ disassembly, recoverability deconstruction disassembly disassembly future
remanufacture recoverability disassembly
and reuse
Take back models Optimize Use Minimize Optimize Building Increase material Improve
material use/ standardization materials/ optimization efficiency/Refuse material
energy resources used unnecessary efficiency/
demand components intensity/mass
of materials
used
Regenerate Selecting materials Circular Use recycled or Source Circular Building Reduce virgin Increase
materials, secondary resources material materiality materials recycled or/and
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings

sustainable material responsibly, selection secondary

local energy sustainably content of
construction
products/
materials
Virtualize Performance-based Products as a Product as
models service service, new
business model
Minimize Use low-impact Reduce
water/energy new materials carbon-intensive
consumption materials
(continued)
167
Table 6.17 (continued)
168

(1) (2) (3) * (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Exchange Design out of waste Avoid toxic Design out Design out of Building Design out Reduce waste
materials and waste waste end-of-life hazardous generation
pollution polluting from
materials construction
Reduce Manage Building Increase reuse/
construction demolition/ construct- ion recycling of
impacts excavation/ construction/
construction/ demolition
waste waste
M. Marchesi and V. Tavares
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings 169

Fig. 6.2 Design framework map for circular building design

framework can support the design team in the collaborative process of implementing
a circular building from the strategic to the construction stages. Similar to the other
frameworks in this category, this one is implemented in the technical areas of impact
while social areas are not included.
The second chart (Fig. 6.3) shows that most of the frameworks were developed
to support the design and construction stages while recently they extended their
aim to support the whole building lifecycle process. Frameworks based on circular
principles showed through time the inclusion of indicators linked to strategies for
assessment. Frameworks based on the building lifecycle process showed through time
the identification of strategies and indicators for evaluation to promote collaboration
among different stakeholders involved in the process. This progression displays an
increasing awareness that a CE cannot be implemented in isolation. CE design prin-
ciples need to be mutually connected to other critical enablers to shape successful
circularity. Tailored actions for stakeholders at every level need to be performed
collaboratively to advance the implementation of a circular built environment.
This study also showed gaps in research on circular building design. An integrated
framework that combines circular principles with the lifecycle stages across the
whole building process to support collaboration among stakeholders while providing
indicators for assessment is missing. This framework may combine tasks to be
performed by different stakeholders individually or collaboratively at each stage
of the building lifecycle for supporting the implementation process with circular
170 M. Marchesi and V. Tavares

Fig. 6.3 Design frameworks for circular buildings and supported stages

principles and measures for supporting circular building assessment. Arup and Ellen
Macarthur’s Foundation framework [23] and Liebetanz and Wilde’s framework [24]
may be combined to develop this integrated framework while Brincat et al. [8] may
help to include indicators for assessment. Moreover, frameworks that support the
building life cycle process with wider consideration of impact in socio-technical
areas are still missing. In the technical areas, most of the frameworks support the
circularity of materials while other resources like water and energy are partially
considered. Also, social aspects are currently limitedly explored. The interest in
a more holistic approach to circular building design considering the circularity of
multiple resource flows (materials, energy, water) and biodiversity, as well as social
aspects (i.e., human culture and society, health and well-being, and multiple forms
of value) is expected to grow in the next future.

6.9 Conclusions

This study aimed to provide an understanding of current knowledge on circular

building design in terms of definitions, life cycle stages and design strategies by a
literature review to identify appropriate propositions to assess the current level of
implementation of circular buildings.
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings 171

Through this exploration, it emerged that:

• The circular building definitions implemented in terms of building and process
are mainly technocentric and focused on circulating resources (mainly mate-
rials) through economic and technical innovation. Definitions and design support
implementation have progressively expanded from components to more complex
systems at the building and urban levels. The enlargement of the design scope has
also entailed a shift from insular to systemic.
• There are a variety of building life cycle models in terms of the number of phases
and their allocation in the process time frame. An integrated model is proposed,
and it is composed of 6 stages: (1) the strategic stage (concept and procure-
ment), (2) the design stage, (3) the manufacturing stage, (4) the demolition and
construction stage, (5) the use and refurbishment stage, and (6) the end-of-life
stage.
• The design frameworks that embed CE strategies within building design to imple-
ment circular buildings can be classified into two categories based on circular
principles and building life cycle phases. The category of design strategies based
on life cycles observed in other design areas such as product design has not yet
been implemented in circular building design.
• In circular building design, resources like energy, water and biodiversity are still
partially considered compared to materials which is well-addressed. Moreover,
social areas of impact like human culture and society, health and well-being
and multiple forms of value are not yet consistently included. However, recent
literature shows a growing interest in this direction.
• While the circular building concept and its design implementation have been
mainly focused on the technical aspects of circularity, they have also shown
recognition of the crucial importance of the role of users, communities, and
more in general stakeholders and dynamics in socio-technical systems. Design
frameworks focused on supporting collaboration among stakeholders across the
building life cycle are emerging. This evolution reflects the growing awareness
that systemic changes for environmental and social benefits in large urban socio-
technical systems can be only achieved by collaboration combining technical and
social innovations.
• This study allowed identifying frameworks to be used to evaluate the current
level of implementation of circular buildings. The Circular Buildings Toolkit [23]
may be used in the evaluation of the current level of implementation of circular
buildings limited to the design and construction stages in combination with Brincat
et al.’s framework [8] to integrate indicators for assessment.
• The design framework comparison allowed identifying gaps that may be addressed
in future research development. An integrated framework that combines tasks to
be performed by different stakeholders individually and collaboratively at each
stage of the building lifecycle for supporting the implementation process with
circular principles and measures for supporting circular building assessment is
missing. Moreover, frameworks that support the building lifecycle process with
consideration of impact in socio-technical areas are not yet available.
172 M. Marchesi and V. Tavares

Based on the results from this study, the next steps will focus on selecting relevant
case studies of circular buildings in their real-life context and assessing them through
a comparative case study to understand the level of implementation of the circular
building concept. Scores obtained from these cases will be analyzed qualitatively
and quantitatively and results will be compared to define if the circular building is
still a utopian concept or if it has been realized and in which measure it has been
implemented.

References

1. Ceschin F, Gaziulusoy I (2016) Evolution of design for sustainability: from product design to
design for system innovations and transitions. Des Stud 47:118–163
2. Friant MC, Vermeulen WJV, Salomone R (2020) (2020) A typology of circular economy
discourses: Navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm. Resour Conserv Recycl
161:104917
3. Melles G (2021) Figuring the transition from circular economy to circular society in Australia.
Sustainability 13(19):10601
4. Geels FW (2005) Technological transitions and system innovations: a coevolutionary and
socio-technical analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
5. Dul J; Hak T (2007) Case study methodology in business research. Routledge, London.
6. Blessing LTM, Chakrabarti A (2009) DRM, a design research methodology. Springer, London
7. Franconi A, Ceschin F, Peck D (2022) Structuring circular objectives and design strategies for
the circular economy: a multi-hierarchical theoretical framework. Sustainability 14(15):9298
8. Brincat C, de Graaf I, León Vargas C, Andreas MN (2023) Study on measuring the application
of circular approaches in the construction industry ecosystem. European Innovation Council
and SMEs Executive Agency (EISMEA), Brussel. https://eismea.ec.europa.eu/news/study-mea
suring-application-circular-approaches-construction-industry-ecosystem-2023-07-13_en, last
accessed 10 June 2023
9. Kubbinga B, Bamberger M, van Noort E, van den Reek D, Blok M, Roemers G, Hoek J, Faes
K (2018) A framework for circular buildings, circle economy. Dutch Green Building Society
(DGBC), Metabolic, SGS Search and Circle Economy, https://www.circle-economy.com/res
ources/a-framework-for-circular-buildings, last accessed 30 June 2023
10. Cheshire D (2016) Building revolutions: applying the circular economy to the built environ-
ment. RIBA Publishing, London
11. Zimmann R, O’Brien H, Hargrave J, Morrell M (2016) The circular economy in the built envi-
ronment. Arup, London. https://www.arup.com/perspectives/publications/research/section/cir
cular-economy-in-the-built-environment, last accessed 10 June 2023
12. Geldermans B, Tenpierik M, Luscuere P (2019) Circular and flexible infill concepts: integration
of the residential user perspective. Sustainability 11(1):261
13. Surgenor A, Winch R, Moodey L, Mant A (2019) Circular economy guidance for construc-
tion clients: How to practically apply circular economy principles at the project brief stage.
UKGBC: London. https://ukgbc.org/resources/circular-economy-guidance-for-construction-
clients-how-to-practically-apply-circular-economy-principles-at-the-project-brief-stage/, last
accessed 10 June 2023
14. Akhimien NG, Latif E, Hou SS (2021) Application of circular economy principles in buildings:
A systematic review. J Build Engin 38:102041
15. OECD (2023) Towards a national circular economy strategy for hungary. OECD Publishing,
Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/1178c379-en, last accessed 10 June 2023
16. RIBA (2020) Plan of work 2020 overview. RIBA, London. https://www.architecture.com/
knowledge-and-resources/resources-landing-page/riba-plan-of-work, last accessed 10 August
2023
6 Design Frameworks for Circular Buildings 173

17. Schmidt III, R, Austin S, Brown D (2009) Designing adaptable buildings. In: DSM 2009:
proceedings of the 11th international DSM conference, pp. 315–328. Hanser, Munich
18. Acharya A, Boyd R, Finch O (2018) From Principles to practices: first steps towards a circular
built environment. Arup, London. https://www.arup.com/perspectives/publications/research/
section/first-steps-towards-a-circular-built-environment, last accessed 20 July 2023
19. Ellen MacArthur Foundation & McKinsey (2012) Towards the circular economy: economic
and business rationale or an accelerated transition. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. http://www.
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/business/reports, last accessed: 20 June 2023
20. Great London Authority (2019) Design for circular economy primer. UK: Great London
Authority, London. https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/shaping-local-places/
advice-and-guidance/about-good-growth-design/design-circular-economy, last accessed 30
July 2023
21. The University of Sheffield (2020) Regenerate—a tool that encourages construction designers
to engage with the circular economy. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/civil/news/regenerate-tool-
encourages-construction-designers-engage-circular-economy, last accessed 10 July 2023
22. Gillott C, Mihkelson W, Lanau M, Cheshire D, Tingley DD (2023) Developing regenerate: a
circular economy engagement tool for the assessment of new and existing buildings. J Ind Ecol
27(2):423–435
23. Arup & Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2021) Circular buildings toolkit. Arup: London. https://
ce-toolkit.dhub.arup.com/, last accessed 10 July 2023
24. Liebetanz K, Wilde C (2023) System enablers for a circular economy. UKGBC, London. https://
ukgbc.org/resources/system-enablers-for-a-circular-economy/, last accessed 30 June 2023
25. Acharya D, Boyd R, Finch O (2020) From principles to practices: realizing the value of
circular economy in real estate. Arup, London. https://www.arup.com/perspectives/publicati
ons/research/section/realising-the-value-of-circular-economy-in-real-estate, last accessed 20
July 2023
26. Hopkinson P, De Angelis R, Zils M (2020) Systemic building blocks for creating and capturing
value from circular economy. Resour Conserv Recycl 155:104672

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 7
Circular Material Usage
Strategies—Principles

Paulo Santos , Aimee Byrne , Ferhat Karaca , Paola Villoria ,

Mercedes del Rio , Rocío Pineda-Martos ,
and Genesis Camila Cervantes Puma

Abstract The construction industry significantly contributes to global greenhouse

gas emissions, raw material extraction, and waste production. Implementing circular
economy (CE) principles in this sector could greatly reduce these impacts. However,
adoption within the industry remains slow due to barriers such as limited knowledge
and experience. This chapter aims to assess and help overcome these obstacles by
providing a comprehensive analysis of circular material usage principles and strate-
gies in construction. It also highlights opportunities and enablers of change, including
innovations and emerging technologies in recycling, digitization, robotic systems,
new materials, and processing techniques. Four case studies illustrate the application
of circular theory through a Bio-Building, Urban Mining and Recycling (UMAR)
Experimental Unit, Open-spaced apartment, and an “Escuela Politécnica Superior”.
The conclusions emphasize the need for strong regulatory frameworks, awareness
initiatives, and international cooperation. Integrating technological advancements

P. Santos (B)
Civil Engineering Department, ISISE, ARISE, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
e-mail: [email protected]
A. Byrne
Office of the Vice President for Sustainability, Technological University Dublin, Grangegorman,
Ireland
P. Villoria · M. del Rio
Escuela Técnica Superior de Edificación, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
F. Karaca
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering and Digital Sciences,
Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan
R. Pineda-Martos
Departamento de Ingeniería Aeroespacial y Mecánica de Fluidos, Escuela Técnica Superior de
Ingeniería Agronómica, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain
G. C. Cervantes Puma
ISISE, ARISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, 4804-533 Guimarães,
Portugal

© The Author(s) 2025 175

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_7
176 P. Santos et al.

like AI, robotics, and blockchain is crucial for optimizing waste management. Addi-
tionally, education on circular practices is vital. By fostering global collaboration,
standardizing circular construction approaches can lead to a more sustainable and
resilient building industry.

Keywords Circular economy · Buildings · Circular materials · Strategies ·

Principles · Overview

One of the main waste flows in the European Union (EU) is construction and demo-
lition waste (CDW), representing in 2018 around 36% of total waste generated [1].
Besides soils, concrete, bricks, gypsum, wood, glass, metals, plastic and solvents are
the most often CDW found in the EU-27 countries [2], exhibiting not only a high
resource value, but also a high potential for re-use and recycling [1]. Even with high
financial penalties, illegal fly-tipping of CDW continues to take place (Fig. 7.1). In
this context, the EU has made the management of CDW a priority [3] and the Waste
Framework Directive (WFD) 2008/98/EC [4] imposed a mandatory recovery target
(70% recovery rate of CDW in weight by 2020). Included in these recovery activities
are “the preparation of non-hazardous CDW for re-use, recycling and other material
recovery, including backfilling operations” [1].
This chapter presents an updated review of circular material usage principles and
strategies within the construction sector. First, some basic concepts about circular
economy and material usage are presented as an introductory framework. Next,
the main principles for circular material usage at the design stage are described.
After, the circular material usage strategies and principles in construction activities
are presented, including: extending lifespan and end-of-life strategies, collabora-
tive approaches and business models, technological innovations, main barriers and
enablers of circular material usage. Finally, to conclude this subsection, some best

Fig. 7.1 Construction and

demotion waste illegally
discarded in the middle of a
forest
7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 177

practices related to the previous theoretical concepts about circular material usage
in the building industry, are illustrated using some selected case studies.

7.1 Understanding Circular Economy and Material Usage

Section

The circular economy (CE) is a model of production and consumption which focuses
on retaining existing materials and products as long as possible and reducing waste
[5]. Circularity aims to move away from the traditional linear model of ‘take-make-
dispose’ where materials are extracted, manufactured into products, and ultimately
disposed of. Instead, it focuses on creating a closed-loop system where materials
are continuously reused, recycled, or regenerated to minimize the need for new
resources and reduce the environmental impact. In the built environment, there is no
clear and accepted definition of a CE [6]. However, a circular built environment can
be a sustainable approach which caters to the growing needs of the sector without
causing additional detrimental impacts on the environment.
The EU has agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030 (of 1990
levels) and to become carbon neutral by 2050 [7]. Although figures fluctuate year on
year, the Circular Economy Action Plan [8] attributes 50% of extracted material and
35% of the EU’s waste generation to construction. The sector accounts for 5–12%
of total greenhouse gas emissions through material extraction, construction product
manufacture, and building work. This includes cement, aluminium, steel, brick and
glass production which account for approximately 9% of global energy related CO2
emissions [9]. Confounding this issue, 10–15% of building material is wasted during
construction and the majority of demolition waste is currently landfilled in the EU
[10]. National construction and demolition waste (CDW) recycling rates vary greatly
across Europe, from 10 to 90% [11]. A CE has the potential to reduce global CO2
emissions from building materials by 38% by 2050 [12, 13].
According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation [14] the three principles of a CE
are: the elimination of waste and pollution, the use of circular products and materials
and thirdly, the regeneration of nature. Within these principles, there are several
subcategories and concepts which will be discussed below.

7.1.1 Eliminating Waste and Pollution

The first principle aims to move away from a linear system whereby raw mate-
rials are extracted, consumed and eventually thrown largely into landfills and incin-
erators. In circular design, raw materials use is minimized, and materials can be
designed to remain in use for multiple cycles by following the R principles. There
are many versions of the R principles for a CE which are based on the original 3;
178 P. Santos et al.

Fig. 7.2 Circularity hierarchy of principles in the product chain with examples from construction.
Based on a table by Potting et al. [19]

Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. This can then be subdivided multiple times to make
to up to 14 and even 22 Rs [15, 16]. Reike et al. [17] identified 38 “re-” words, as
listed next by alphabetic order: “re-assembly, recapture, reconditioning, recollect,
recover, recreate, rectify, recycle, redesign, redistribute, reduce, re-envision, refit,
refurbish, refuse, remarket, remanufacture, renovate, repair, replacement, reprocess,
reproduce, repurpose, resale, resell, re-service, restoration, resynthesize, rethink,
retrieve, retrofit, retrograde, return, reuse, reutilize, revenue, reverse and revitalize”.
Ten of the most common include: Refuse/Reject, Rethink, Reduce, Reuse, Repair,
Refurbish, Remanufacture, Repurpose, Recycle and Recover. Figure 7.2 indicates the
hierarchy of these, prioritized from 1 to 10 based on maximizing resource efficiency,
minimizing waste generation, and highest value creation and retention. Recycling
and recovery are ranked lowest because of the loss of complex state and the need for
higher energy inputs [18].

7.1.2 Use of Circular Products and Materials

Circular Materials used within construction can be largely divided into two groups;
low or zero-carbon materials such as wood and reused or recovered materials with
minimal reprocessing or transport-related emissions [20]. The technical cycle and
the biological cycle support circular material use and are illustrated in Fig. 7.3.
The technical cycle on the right involves materials such as metals, concrete, plas-
tics, glass, or synthetic composites in building products. At the end of a structure’s
life, or construction products’ life, these materials are recovered from the demoli-
tion or deconstruction process, sorted and processed before being reprocessed or
reused in construction or other applications. The inner loops in the Fig. 7.3 butterfly
7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 179

Fig. 7.3 Circular economy butterfly diagram interpreted for the construction industry by Ottenhaus
[22]

diagram applied to the construction industry, retain most value in the material or
product. This is based on the more general circular economy butterfly diagram [21],
in which the innermost loop, ‘Maintenance’, prolongs the life of the material or
product. This is followed by ‘Reusing’ and ‘Redistributing’ which keeps materials
in their original form and displaces the need to manufacture new items or extract new
materials. ‘Refurbishing’ and ‘Remanufacturing’ then include some processing and
the outmost loop, ‘Recycling’, is a last resort when other options are not possible.
The biological cycle, or bio-loop, only includes materials that can be safely regen-
erated in the biosphere via composting or anaerobic digestion such as timber, bamboo
or straw. Materials from the technical cycle can end up in the biological cycle, once
they can no longer make a product. The inner loops of the left side of the butterfly
diagram shows the ‘cascading principle’ which is the cascading use of renewable
resources, with several reuse and recycling cycles [23]. For the construction industry,
this is most applicable to timber, which could begin its first product life as solid timber
beams and end its fifth life being incinerated for energy recovery [24]. Cascading
ensures that biogenic carbon remains in the system for a longer period of time,
resulting in lower environmental burdens and can support other industries such as
farming via feedstock or soil fertilizer [25].
180 P. Santos et al.

7.1.3 Regenerate Nature

Circular construction can contribute to the regeneration of nature by incorporating

strategies that support ecological restoration, biodiversity enhancement, and sustain-
able land management practices. The aforementioned biological cycle contributes
to biodiversity and ecosystem health by promoting the use of renewable materials
that can be regrown and replenished. Maintaining materials in use also contributes to
this principle as less land is required for sourcing virgin raw materials, which allows
more land to be returned to nature.
While circular construction materials hold great potential for sustainable and
resource-efficient building practices, there are several challenges that need to be
addressed to facilitate widespread adoption. The details of the challenges faced can
be specific to each stakeholder’s role. However, they can be broadly grouped as
economic, informational, institutional, political and technical challenges [26] with
commonly encountered subcategories listed in Table 7.1.
A key challenge in the sector is the volume of existing buildings not designed
for deconstruction, containing toxic materials, and lacking detailed documentation
[28]. Reused materials require additional time and more qualified labour, and there
is a lack of market mechanisms to aid recovery [6]. A system needs to be developed

Table 7.1 Challenge areas for a circular built environment compiled from review articles [6, 26,
27]
Challenge subcategories Challenge
Economic – Lack of grants/unclear financial case
– Lack of financial aid, incentives or short-term benefits
– Low value of circular materials
– Cost of upfront investment
Informational – Lack of research, education and information
– Lack of awareness, interest and knowledge
– Lack of best practice case studies and leadership
Institutional/structural – Lack of strategic vision and collaborative platforms
– Fragmented supply chains
– Lack of market mechanisms for recovery
Political – Lack of regulatory instruments/regulatory pressure
– Lack of tax actions
– Lack of circular vision
Technological – Lack of integrated processes, tools, and practices
– Lack of an information management system
– Complexity of buildings
– Technology and infrastructure readiness
7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 181

which supports the use of circular materials which includes quality assurance, stan-
dardization, certification and classification, mechanisms for transport and storage
and access to the market [26, 29].
Finances, or lack of financial case, were identified as a leading barrier for stake-
holders [6, 10, 27]. For circular construction materials, this includes the high avail-
ability and low cost [27] of virgin raw material, the cost of deconstruction, the work
involved in providing the material for reuse, the cost of recycled/reused materials,
and the lack of reward or penalty [26].
Institutional or informational challenges include the lack of guidance and tools,
and lack of knowledge [26]. Stakeholders throughout construction value chains in
Europe are unfamiliar with how CE principles do or could operate in the built envi-
ronment, with many unable to identify first steps in initiating the transition to a CE
[10].
Addressing these challenges requires collaborative efforts from various stake-
holders, including policymakers, industry professionals, researchers, and end users.
Overcoming these barriers will pave the way for a more widespread adoption of
circular construction materials, however there is a need initially to provide evidence,
compile best practice examples and develop guidance.

7.2 Design Principles for Circular Material Usage

7.2.1 Designing for Circularity

There are several principles within the design stage to promote circularity in building
constructions. These principles can be clustered into the following points [30, 31]:
– Design standardized products and materials, using regular and simple modular
shapes to avoid waste.
– Design to decrease the need to extract and produce virgin materials.
– Design using recovered materials: by detecting unused materials from technical or
natural flows and transforming them into circular materials which can be incorpo-
rated within the production of new materials and products, promoting the design
of materials with high recycled content.
– Design durable materials so that they can prolong their use in the building and
therefore increase lifetime and delay the end-of-use cycle.
– Design considering the setting procedure of the materials, so that the materials can
be easily disassembled: Materials should be designed thinking that, when placed
in a construction project, they should allow deconstruction and promote reuse and
recycling. For example, using mechanical joints to avoid the use of binders and
adhesives.
182 P. Santos et al.

7.2.2 Material Selection and Management

The construction sector, in particular, plays a pivotal role in transitioning towards a

less resource-intensive economy by maximizing the use and recovery of resources
in building design and construction. Sustainable material sourcing and efficient
recycling techniques are crucial for achieving a circular economy.
1. Criteria for Selecting Circular Materials
The EU emphasizes the significance of applying circular economy (CE) principles
across all economic sectors, with a particular focus on water and energy conservation,
waste prevention, material recycling, promotion of reuse and repair, and utilization
of secondary raw materials [32].
CE in the construction sector aims to maximize the use and recovery of resources
and buildings, reducing the environmental impact. Thus, it is of importance that
designs aim to extend the useful life of buildings through rehabilitation, using recy-
clable materials; and the usage of new industrialized long-life materials based on
recovered and valued resources. Additionally, adopting new industrialized long-life
materials derived from recovered and valued resources can contribute to sustainable
practices [33]. By implementing these recommendations, the construction sector can
play a pivotal role in transitioning towards a less resource-intensive economy and
fostering circularity. This approach aligns with the broader objectives of the CE,
such as reducing waste generation, conserving resources, and promoting sustainable
material use.
2. Sustainable Material Sourcing
Regarding the availability of raw materials, critical raw materials are of particular
importance as their great economic importance for the European Union (EU); very
sensitive to supply interruption; and being their extraction of a significant impact on
the environment. Critical raw materials—e.g., lithium, are often present in electronic
devices. The current low recycling rate of these materials means that significant
economic opportunities are being lost. Thus, the fundamental directions that the
circularity strategy must take at the European level are those that consider the need to
incorporate these materials into reduction, reuse and recycling practices. To achieve
autonomy with respect to these materials, the EU proposes diversified and undistorted
access to global raw materials markets, while seeking to reduce external dependence
on these materials as well as the environmental pressures associated with their import
[32].
3. Material Efficiency and Recycling Techniques
The EU insists on the importance of incentives for the adoption of efficiency measures
in the use of resources and for increasing recycling, eco-innovative performance,
and investments in green products and services [32]. To move towards an economic
model of material efficiency, economic priorities and lifestyles must be in line with
reducing excessive economic material dependence by applying the principles of
circularity—i.e., reduce and reuse before recycling [32]. Fundamental aspects of CE
7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 183

Fig. 7.4 Important recycle

points (Source authors, based
on Situación y evolución de
la economía circular en by
Morató et al. [32])

related to recycling are: (i) design oriented towards economy of materials and energy,
use of recyclable and renewable materials, and easy disassembly and replacement of
materials and components; and, (ii) recycling and recovery of non-reusable materials
[33].
Waste prevention continues to pose a major challenge in all Member States of
the EU, including those with high recycling rates [32]. The use of recycled materials
can contribute to partially covering the total demand for materials, thus reducing the
extraction of raw materials. Creating efficient secondary materials markets enables
higher value recycling cycles since most materials are recycled after disassembly.
The principles are outlined in Fig. 7.4.
4. Lifecycle Assessment and Material Management

Production systems concerning efficient use of materials—given priority to activi-

ties allowing the development of CE principles from the beginning of the production
process phases, and not only in its final dimensions; i.e., recycling and reconver-
sion of waste—would serve as recommendations aimed at the change of economic
models and the transition towards a less resource-intensive economy. Efficient use
of materials in production systems is a critical aspect of the CE. It is essential to
prioritize activities that promote CE principles from the beginning of the production
process phases, rather than only focusing on recycling and reconversion of waste in
its final dimensions.
184 P. Santos et al.

This approach would serve as a recommendation aimed at changing economic

models and transitioning towards a less resource-intensive economy. Innovative and
effective methodologies to analyse the flow of materials and specific circularity indi-
cators linked to the lifecycle are fundamental to addressing the transition to a circular
model. These methodologies can help identify areas where material efficiency can
be improved, and waste can be minimized [32]. They can also help to optimize
resource allocation by identifying opportunities for reuse, recycling, or recovery of
materials. By adopting such methodologies, companies can reduce their environ-
mental footprint, enhance their competitiveness, and contribute to the development
of a sustainable economy.

7.3 Circular Material Usage Strategies and Principles

in Construction Activities

This sub-section is dedicated to reviewing the principles and strategies for circular
material usage in the construction industry. First, some strategies for extending
lifespan, as well for end-of-life products/materials are outlined. Next, some collabo-
rative approaches and business models to foster a circular economy in the construc-
tion sector are described. Later, some technological innovations for circular material
usage are assessed and exemplified. This is followed by a review of the main barriers
and enablers of circular material usage in the building sector. Finally, some exam-
ples are presented of circular economy best practices within the construction sector
regarding material usage, here identified as “case studies”.

7.3.1 Extending Product Lifespan and End-of-Life Strategies

Very often, the economy is filled with things that have been designed without asking:
What happens to this at the end of its life? [34]. Therefore, it is very important to
define at the design stage what will be the end-of-life strategies to promote CE of
construction products and materials. The construction industry is making a gradual
progressive transition to CE, as assessed and concluded by Charef et al. [35]. In
fact, circular strategies are starting to be implemented by the building industry, as
demonstrated by Nußholz et al. [36]. He analysed 65 novel real-world cases of new
build, renovation, and demolition projects in Europe, regarding the circular solution
applied, level of application in buildings, and decarbonization potential reported.
7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 185

Several researchers developed and made use of disruptive technologies to foster

the circular building industry. Setaki and Timmeren [37] outlined how disruptive,
often digital, technologies can potentially enable a CE in the building industry,
primarily within the two most wasteful phases of the building cycle, the construc-
tion and demolition phases. Moreover, regarding additive manufacturing, Tavares
et al. [38] performed a state-of-the-art review regarding the evaluation of benefits
and barriers of additive manufacturing for the circular economy, presenting also a
framework proposal. Furthermore, artificial intelligence is being increasingly used
to enhance the implementation of systemic circularity in the construction industry,
as recently reviewed by Oluleye et al. [39].
As mentioned by Marsh et al. [40], the construction CE principles could be
grouped as follows:
• Reduction of material use (through specification and design);
• Long-lasting design (increased durability);
• Maintenance, repair and refurbishing;
• Reuse and remanufacturing;
• Recycling.
One of the key principles for CE is to keep the products and materials in use, for as
much time as possible [41], i.e., long-lasting design by increasing longevity [40]. The
goal is to maximize the utilization time of products and materials, promoting reuse,
refurbishment, remanufacturing, and recycling. By extending the life of products,
their value is retained, and the need for extracting and processing new resources is
reduced. Nevertheless, Kirchherr et al. [42] concluded: “that the CE is most frequently
depicted as a combination of reduce, reuse and recycle activities”. They also noticed
that “recover” is also often added to the previously listed CE activities, accomplishing
this way a 4Rs framework, instead of 3Rs.
Besides increasing the durability of materials and products, it is also impor-
tant to foster their repairability. Furthermore, a remanufacturing process should be
implemented, and the product should be upgraded to its highest value, whenever
possible.
With so many existing possibilities and possible approaches to address CE in
existing buildings, it is very relevant to estimate the recoverable value of in-situ
building materials. Mollaei et al. [43] developed a new computational tool to “choose
the optimal combination of reuse, recycling and disposal options for those materi-
als”, taking into account “cost, value, duration, environmental impacts, and building
component precedence in demolition and deconstruction activities”.
According to Marsh et al. [40], the CE principles/strategies could be structured
into three main groups, depending on the lifecycle stage, as listed in Table 7.2. As
seen before, it could be defined many other strategies and included in this table.
One example is the product/material recover from an end-of-life building to be
later reused, remanufactured or recycled. Another example could be the thermal
energy recovery from a combustible material (e.g., plastic or rubber) during a burning
process. Obviously, both previous examples are for the end-of-use lifecycle stage.
186 P. Santos et al.

Table 7.2 CE principles/strategies structured as function of the life-cycle stage: adapted from
Marsh et al. [40]
Lifecycle stage CE principles/strategies
Design-stage – Reduction of material through specification and design
– Long-lasting design
In-service – Maintenance
– Repair
– Refurbishing
End-of-use – Reuse
– Remanufacturing
– Recycling

This sub-section will focus mainly on strategies to extend product lifespan and on
the available end-of-life strategies to foster circular material usage in construction
activities.

1. Extending product lifespan

• Increasing Durability by Maintenance, Repair and Refurbishment

Maintenance, repair and refurbishing are all in-service strategies for slowing resource
flows, by extending the technical lifetime of products and components [40]. Main-
tenance corresponds to a universal upkeep, and correspondent damage prevention
works to building components (such as applying protective coatings). Repair and
refurbishment are the overhaul of limited damage to a component, or the replacement
of a spoiled component wholesale with a new one [40].
Designers should think about how their product could fit into the technical or
biological cycles after use, so that product could be made with that onward path in
mind. This way, products destined for technical cycles would benefit from being easy
to repair and maintain, easy to take apart, and made of modular components that can
be replaced [44]. They should be durable enough to withstand the wear and tear of
many users. Moreover, they should be made from materials that are easily recycled.
The most efficient solution would be to use self-healing materials to extend their
lifetime and, at the limit, to make “immortal” products or components, as studied by
Haines-Gadd et al. [45].

2. End-of-life strategies

• Upgrading and Remanufacturing

During the previously mentioned durability increasing processes, when the product
can no longer be used, its components should be, whenever possible, remanufactured
and upgraded [46].
7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 187

Upgrading and remanufacturing are both product end-of-use strategies, intended

to slow resource flows by continuing the use of still-functional components from
end-of-use products in new products. Atta [46] delineated the involvement of digital
technologies in supporting the implementation of circular service-based models built
on remanufacturing in current construction practices.
Strategies for upgrading and remanufacturing of building components should be
predicted at design stage. Van Stijn and Gruis [47] developed an integral design tool
for circular buildings components (CBC), called “CBC-generator”. This software it
is a parameter based “three-tiered design tool, consisting of a technical, industrial
and business model generator”, where the designers could select and compare several
design options.
• Reuse, Reverse Logistics and Take-Back Programs

These are also end-of-use strategies. In fact, the most effective way of retaining the
highest value of products is to maintain and reuse them. Taking a window as an
example: it is more valuable as a window than as a pile of components and materials
(PVC or aluminum from the frame, glass, etc.). So, the first steps in the technical
cycle are focused on keeping products whole to retain the maximum possible value.
This could include business models based on sharing, so users get access to a product
rather than owning it and more people get to use it over time (e.g., rent equipment
during the construction stage). It could involve reuse through resale. It could mean
cycles of maintenance, repair, and refurbishment.
Reverse logistics (RL) which could be defined as a set of activities which are
conducted after the sale of a product to recapture value and end the product’s lifecycle,
is also important to foster CE in the construction sector [48]. It typically involves
returning a product to the manufacturer or distributor or forwarding it on for servicing,
refurbishment or recycling. In construction, RL “refers to the movement of products
and materials from salvaged buildings to a new construction site” [48]. This way we
are promoting material reuse, as well as deconstruction and disassembly.
More recently, Ding et al. [49] performed a review about forward and reverse
logistics for CE in construction and concluded that “while similar methods and CE
strategies are used in Forward Logistics (FL) and RL, RL operations require more
integration between supply chain actors to close the loop for CE in construction”.
A take-back program is essentially when a brand ‘takes’ or ‘buys’ back its own
materials or products. These are either cleaned, fixed and then resold by the brand
at a discount or dismantled and reused in other collections or recycled in some other
way. This strategy is also starting to be implemented by the construction industry
[50, 51].
There is already a trade market for second hand building products and materials,
such as windows and doors (see Fig. 7.5), lumber, flooring, furniture, masonry, tiles,
stones, sheathing boards, appliances, architectural/decorative, lighting, heating and
cooling devices, electrical, plumbing, etc., to be commercialized and reused [52–54].
188 P. Santos et al.

(a) Window (rebuydeal.com [52]) (b) Door (rotordc.com [54])

Fig. 7.5 Examples of second-hand building products, for reuse, being traded online

• Material Recovery

Material recovery refers to the process of retrieving and reusing materials from
construction and demolition waste (CDW). It involves identifying valuable materials
within the “waste” stream and salvaging them for reuse or resale [55]. Material
recovery typically involves activities such as deconstruction, which involves carefully
disassembling structures to preserve valuable components. Recovered materials may
include lumber [56, 57], cross laminated timber [58], bricks [59], and other items
that can be repurposed in future construction projects. The goal of material recovery
is to reduce waste generation, conserve resources, and minimize the environmental
impact associated with extracting new raw materials.
It should be noted that CDW may have several sources, such as man- or nature-
made, as illustrated in Fig. 7.6. Regarding the man-made sources of CDW, these
authors split it into 3 groups, namely: (1) Public works construction and mainte-
nance; (2) Building construction works, and; (3) Building renovation and demolition
works. The main contents of these CDW, including the nature-made sources, are also
mentioned in this illustration (Fig. 7.6).
Ramos et al. [60] evaluated a local scale dynamics to promote the sustainable
management of CDW and concluded that these strategies must rely on investment
in local solutions to optimize logistics and cost issues, cooperation between stake-
holders, and improving the market for recycled aggregates. Additionally, they stated
that it is essential that support is provided such as information, awareness and training,
focusing on good practices onsite and oversight procedures. While material recovery
7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 189

Fig. 7.6 Classification of CDW according to the source of origin [61]

focuses on salvaging and reusing whole components or materials, recycling involves

breaking down waste materials to create new products or raw materials, as will be
described next.
• Material Recycling

Recycling is an end-of-use strategy to close resource flows, by reprocessing materials

to use in another product and hence avoid both waste and extraction of raw material
[40]. Parts that cannot be remanufactured can be broken down into their constituent
materials and recycled. While recycling should be the last option, because it means
the embedded value in products and components are lost, it is vitally important as the
final step that allows materials to stay in the economy and NOT end up as waste [34].
Recycling involves the transformation of waste materials into new products or raw
materials, which can then be used for various purposes. In the construction sector,
recycling commonly refers to the process of converting CDW into reusable materials.
This can involve crushing, grinding, or shredding waste materials like concrete,
asphalt, metal, and wood to create recycled aggregates [60], crushed concrete, or
other materials that can replace virgin materials in construction projects.
There are a lot of studies on the viability and performance of new recycled mate-
rials, resulting from CDW, such as cement [62], concrete [63], mortars [64], gypsums
[65], plasters [66], plastics [67, 68], insulation materials [69], bricks [70, 71], soil
reinforcement [72] and fire-resistant materials [73]. Besides CDW, there are other
sources of waste being recycled and studied to be used in the construction sector
and building environment, such as: concrete [74]; mortars [75]; plasters [66, 76];
gypsum [65]; thermal break strips made of recycled tyre rubber [77, 78] and cork-
rubber composites [77, 78]; plastics [79]; insulation materials such as recycled tyre
rubber and silica-aerogel composites [80, 81].
190 P. Santos et al.

7.3.2 Collaborative Approaches and Business Models

In this section, some of the innovations in business models that are affecting the
construction sector in favour of CE applied to its products are collected.
1. Circular Supply Chains and Networks
Currently, the conversion of traditional linear supply chains into circular ones to
improve the management of natural resources and reduce the volume of waste
produced is included as one of the goals for the transition of the construction sector
towards CE [82]. The amount of material lost in demolition processes is equivalent to
40% of the total mass of raw materials extracted in production, making the construc-
tion industry one of the most polluting industries globally [9]. In this sense, one of
the most ambitious targets included in CE is “closing the loop” in the flows of raw
materials and resources used throughout the life cycle of construction products [42,
49, 83]. Figure 7.7 provides a schematic overview of the relationship between the
stages within the supply chain and the stakeholders.
In this general overview, a transition towards CE in the building materials supply
chain requires a joint effort of all participants included in the network [84]. There-
fore, it is necessary to increase transparency, avoiding possible weaknesses in the
chain and gaps in the agreements. This would generate opportunities for indus-
trial symbiosis and the integration of reverse logistics in manufacturing processes,
moving towards a redesign of current industrial processes and improving coordina-
tion between resources/inventories [49]. On the other hand, the creation of a well-
defined market for CDW would make it possible to increase consumer demand for
these recycled products, moving towards a green supply chain that integrates the envi-
ronmental costs derived from the product distribution process [26]. In addition, for a
transition towards circularity in the construction sector, it is necessary to recover the
secondary raw materials generated in demolished buildings at the end of their useful
life and, in turn, to analyse their viability for recycling, recovery or reincorporation

Fig. 7.7 Full supply chain cycle and stakeholders involved (Source own elaboration based on Cheng
et al. [82])
7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 191

in the production of new products [85]. At this point, several authors agree on the
importance of reducing and separating CDW at source to improve its management
process [86]. With this separation at the starting point, the logistical costs and envi-
ronmental impact in terms of CO2 equivalent emissions derived from transport to the
processing plant would be reduced, so that both transport journeys and transported
mass would be reduced.

2. Sharing Economy and Product-as-a-Service Models

Industrial strategies for value creation have changed radically in recent years as a
consequence of globalisation and progressive technological development [87]. This
evolution has affected the construction industry, which is evolving from product
procurement-centred thinking towards product-service systems (PSS) [88]. In this
way, building product manufacturers are forced to redesign their manufacturing
processes and complexity increases in the early stages of development to accom-
modate this new business model [89]. By offering product-associated functionality,
manufacturers are obliged to have a deep understanding of how their products behave
after continuous use, which provides additional motivation to improve the skills
associated with the engineering and product design stages through experience [90].
However, as in other industrial sectors, there must be a receptiveness on the part
of consumers when it comes to accepting this product and service model. In this
regard, Fig. 7.8 schematically shows the external and internal factors found in the
literature that to a certain extent condition the acceptance of this business model in
construction.
Several authors have worked with this business model trying to adapt different
products to this “servitisation” process. Examples are linked to construction equip-
ment [87], construction machinery [90], prefabricated building components [91]
or building components [92]. Importantly, the product-as-a-service model brings

Fig. 7.8 Internal and external determinants of product-as-a-service models (Source own elaboration
based on Cook et al. [89])
192 P. Santos et al.

advantages from an environmental point of view, considering the full life cycle of
the product and its subsequent recovery possibilities [93], as well as continuous
improvement based on information sharing that boosts the sustainability of building
products [88].
Finally, and in relation to the product-as-a-service business model, it is worth
highlighting how in recent decades the collaborative economy has been encouraged
to promote sustainability. This concept addresses the possibility of using high-priced
physical assets without the need to buy them, reducing waste due to obsolescence
or disuse [91]. Furthermore, thanks to the advancement of information and commu-
nication technologies, it is possible to promote a more democratic organization and
reduce information asymmetries in favour of a CE in construction [94].

3. Extended Product Responsibility

Extended product responsibility (EPR) was first defined at the beginning of the
century by Lindhqvist as a strategy to protect the environment and is intended to
ensure that any product manufacturer takes responsibility for its entire life cycle,
incorporating the stages of recovery, recycling, collection and disposal [95]. This
approach would change the current production model affecting the construction
industry by regularizing and setting the rules for the proper management of construc-
tion and demolition waste in line with the European Green Deal guidelines [1]. This
approach is already being adapted for certain products around the world, such as Euro-
pean legislation for plastic products [96], or air conditioners and washing machines
in Japan [97].
However, final construction products, understood as civil infrastructures or build-
ings, are complex and tailor-made entities in each design, which makes it difficult
to standardize and trace the prototypes produced for the market [98]. In this sense,
it is possible to think of an EPR localized to the main raw materials used in the
elaboration of construction systems. However, the useful life of these is rarely less
than 50 years and it is difficult to manage the final management of these products
[98].
Therefore, as far as EPR is concerned, it is necessary to examine current initiatives,
regulations and practices in the construction sector to understand their suitability and
ability to address the issue of end-of-life management of CDW [99]. Only in this way,
it will be possible to build a legislative framework for building and civil works, built
on the “polluter pays” principle, encouraging producers to incorporate CE criteria in
their manufacturing processes, promoting eco-design and supporting the recycling,
recovery and final reuse of construction products [100, 101].

4. Public–Private Partnerships and Policy Implications

Public–private partnerships (PPPs) are a useful tool in the construction sector to

leverage public resources and private management expertise in moving towards a
circular and sustainable economy [102]. These partnerships are established based
on a long-term relationship of trust, where resources, knowledge, skills and shared
7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 193

Table 7.3 Advantages and disadvantages of public–private partnerships in the construction sector
(Source Bao et al. [109])
Advantages Disadvantages
✓ Public sectors can alleviate responsibility ✓ Long negotiation periods
✓ Private sectors can moderate investment ✓ Lack of flexibility
✓ Public sectors can draw on private sector expertise ✓ Inequality of risk and return
✓ Public–private partnership is strengthened in the long ✓ Lack of transparency in Agreements
term

responsibility for decision-making are exchanged [103, 104]. However, these part-
nerships are not always favourable and have several advantages and disadvantages
that can be seen in Table 7.3.
While it is true that PPPs are commonly accepted in the development of facilities,
including design, financing and implementation [105], such as the supply of drinking
water in large cities [106], in waste management for a CE there is still a long way
to go. In the EU, progress is being made towards a policy framework to promote
such an agreement to reduce the environmental impact of the construction sector
[107]. However, this transition is slow and often not as efficient as desired and
making infrastructure resilient will require a change of mindset on the part of private
management and lasting support from governments [108].

7.3.3 Technological Innovations for Circular Material Usage

CE constitutes an impulse for improving the productivity of the construction sector

with a need for investment in technology and digitalisation. According to Ferrer
et al. [33], the scale and efficiency of networks of recycled, valued and recovered
construction materials are fundamental to the following points outlined in Fig. 7.9.
Innovation ecosystems to boost re-industrialization and sustainability in the
construction sector advocate the promotion and support of R + D + I (Research,
Development and Innovation) and knowledge transfer instruments on: technologies
4.0; recycling and recovery of materials and components which are more complex
to recycle (plastics, composites, waste); productivity improvements in component
manufacturing and recovery (3D, robotics, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Internet of
Things (IoT); new long-lasting materials; and materials traceability technologies
(blockchain) [33].

1. Advanced Recycling Technologies

Resource recovery as business model and driver of CE focuses primarily on recovery

of used materials or energy from waste—e.g., recycled steel and fibres, and recycled
aggregates for their use in construction or in other sectors; being industrial and
194 P. Santos et al.

Fig. 7.9 Fundamentals in circular material usage (Source own elaboration based on Ferrer et al.
[33])

energy symbiosis among complementary sectors essential for the adoption of the CE
principles [33].
In the context of construction, disassembly and recycling best practices are
employed to revalue the use of construction waste, which is often considered “low
value” material. Testing methods for disassembly, treatment, and recycling would
help to optimize the recovery and reuse of materials, contributing to the efficient
use of resources in the production process [33]. By implementing these advanced
recycling technologies, the construction industry can reduce waste, minimize the
extraction of virgin resources, and promote a more sustainable approach to materials
management. Furthermore, these technologies enable the transformation of waste
into valuable resources, promoting the development of a CE. Recycled steel, fibres,
and aggregates can be utilized in various sectors, including construction; creating a
closed-loop system where materials are continuously reused and recycled. This not
only reduces the environmental impact of resource extraction but also contributes
to the development of a more resource-efficient and less wasteful economy [110].
Overall, advanced recycling technologies and resource recovery play a crucial role in
driving the transition towards a CE by maximizing the value of waste materials and
minimizing resource consumption. By adopting these technologies and principles,
industries can contribute to a more sustainable and resource-efficient future.
7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 195

2. Intelligent Sorting and Separation Systems

Intelligent sorting and separation systems are pivotal in advancing the principles
of the CE by enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of waste management and
resource recovery processes. These systems leverage cutting-edge technologies such
as AI, machine learning, computer vision, and robotics to accurately identify, sort,
and segregate diverse materials. This enables their appropriate recycling, reuse, or
recovery, thereby promoting sustainable practices. By automating the sorting process,
these systems enhance the purity and quality of recovered materials, augmenting
their value for subsequent reuse or recycling. Moreover, they optimize resource allo-
cation by dynamically adjusting parameters, such as conveyor speed and sensor
settings, thereby maximizing efficiency while minimizing waste. These systems also
play a critical role in detecting and eliminating contaminants, thereby improving the
quality of recovered materials and mitigating the risk of cross-contamination. With
their exceptional accuracy and speed in sorting, they reduce manual labour require-
ments, increase throughput capacity, and enable the processing of larger volumes of
waste. Furthermore, intelligent sorting systems generate valuable data pertaining to
waste composition, quantity, and quality [33]. This data-driven approach facilitates
informed decision-making, process optimization, and the development of novel recy-
cling technologies. By integrating into circular supply chains, these systems facili-
tate the efficient recovery and reintroduction of recycled materials, thereby closing
the loop in the CE. As technology continues to advance, these systems are poised to
make significant contributions to resource efficiency, waste reduction, and sustainable
material utilization.
3. Digitalisation and Blockchain Applications
The promotion of the guaranteed system for components and spare parts, digital
traceability (European passport) and associated documentation are requirements for
the delivery of sustainable and circular built environment [33]. Complementarily,
financial aid for investments by industrialized and sustainable construction compa-
nies—e.g., modular design, BIM (Building Information Modelling), IoT digitaliza-
tion, 3D printing, cutting robotics, …—, and support for components’ banks and
material passports, are proposed as drivers for offers in public–private collaboration
[33].
Regarding circularity of materials, blockchain solution for materials passport
embraces technology against the low transparency and traceability of the materials
used—e.g., fibre plates, steels, coatings, facades. Collaborative design and manufac-
turing (BIM, IoT, …) benefit by the availability of new technologies which integrate
design, with production and delivery systems—JIT (Just-In-Time) delivery—at the
construction site.
4. Robotic Deconstruction
Technological innovations in deconstruction include advanced tools and techniques
used to dismantle and repurpose buildings and structures in a more efficient, sustain-
able, and profitable manner. These innovations aim to reduce waste, minimize envi-
ronmental impact, and improve safety during the deconstruction process. The use
196 P. Santos et al.

of robots for deconstruction is a promising approach that can improve efficiency

and sustainability in the construction industry. Traditional demolition methods have
significant risks and environmental impacts, especially in congested urban areas
[111]. In Japan, alternative methods using Single-Task Construction Robots (STCRs)
and semi-automated on-site factories have been developed to address legal, economic,
and ecological needs. However, implementing traditional industrial robots in a
deconstruction environment poses challenges, particularly in terms of human–robot
interaction and collaboration. To overcome these challenges, efficient human–robot
collaboration is considered in the design of deconstruction STCRs. Additionally,
the application of the Robot-Oriented Design method can make the operation of the
deconstruction system more efficient. Building components should be compatible
with robotic applications, and connectors and joints between components should
provide easy access for equipment during the disassembly phase. The use of robots
for deconstruction can save energy, money, and time while minimizing casualties and
disturbance to the economic environment [111]. A framework for the evaluation of
robot-assisted, systemized deconstruction has been proposed, which includes perfor-
mance indicators that can be adjusted based on stakeholder perspectives. Overall,
the use of robots in deconstruction offers a scalable and sustainable solution for the
industry.
5. Emerging Materials and Sustainable Manufacturing Processes
Innovation in materials, sustainable design, and the development of alternative tech-
nologies that require different materials can help mitigate supply risk. Solutions
to reduce the ecological footprint and increase material recovery to improve the
safety and competitiveness of production processes are within reach. However,
global scenarios continue to present greater complexity and competition for natural
resources [32]. The duration and footprints of carbon dioxide (CO2 ), water and
material consumption are lower in industrialized systems, being the environmental
impact of circular and sustainable industrialized construction susceptible of different
modelling scenarios of recycling percentage [33].

7.3.4 Barriers and Enablers of Circular Material Usage

Extensive literature has identified barriers and enablers to developing a circular

economy in the construction sector. However, it is important to note that a circular
economy is a multidimensional concept, and a closer inspection of existing liter-
ature reveals that barriers and enablers have primarily focused on the technical
aspects of materials and products. According to a recent study by Charef et al. [112],
barriers to the development of a circular economy in the construction sector can be
categorized into six distinct types: economic (referring to market barriers), socio-
logical (pertaining to cultural or psychological obstacles), political, organizational
(involving stakeholders), technological, and environmental (concerning ecological
impact). Similarly, Ababio and Lu [113] identified five categories of barriers: social
7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 197

and cultural, political and legislative, financial and economic, technological, and
framework and theory related.
While research on barriers to circular economy development has been extensive,
studies on enablers of the circular economy have yet to be conducted to the same
extent. Ababio and Lu [113] have departed from classifying and listing enablers under
specific categories and instead discussed them under broader themes. Generally,
enablers are related to technology and innovation, policy, education and awareness,
as well as financing and market creation. It is important to note that a comprehensive
understanding of both barriers and enablers is critical for promoting a successful
transition to a circular economy in the construction sector. This part of the report
focuses on the material usage-related barriers to enablers addressed in the literature.
They are discussed under four categories.
1. Economic and Regulatory Barriers
Numerous studies have identified insufficient and immature markets, as well as a lack
of demand for reused and recycled materials, as the primary economic barriers to the
implementation of circular economy practices in the construction sector [114–116].
These studies also suggest that the construction industry is often criticized for its
poor flexibility in adopting innovative practices due to the perceived risk of losing
profits [112, 115].
In the construction sector, adopting CE practices is met with a major challenge—
the higher resource cost associated with deconstruction compared to demolition.
Moreover, virgin materials tend to be less expensive than recycled materials, while
recycling costs more than the disposal of CDW. Unfortunately, the recent COVID-
19 pandemic has only worsened these challenges by stalling economic development
and increasing the use of single-use materials. The implementation of CE practices
in the construction industry requires significant investments, such as the renewal of
equipment [116]. Moreover, outdated legislation and the lack of standardized guides
regarding design and procurement procedures are major regulatory barriers to CE
development [112, 117]. Additionally, a lack of government support and the absence
of support from public institutions have been highlighted as critical barriers to CE
adoption [112, 118].
In order to promote the integration of circular economy practices in the construc-
tion industry, it is necessary to adopt new business models and methods of evalu-
ating assets that prioritize material value. For instance, long-term investments can be
made to support the circular economy business case by utilizing whole-life costing.
Another opportunity presented by the implementation of circular economy practices
is the ability to transform the business model into a product-as-a-service contract
(PSS), as noted by Rizos et al. [119]. Enablers that have been commonly identi-
fied include design-build-operate-maintain contracts and their variations, according
to Ababio and Lu [113]. Furthermore, stakeholders in the construction industry
have reported that implementing circular economy practices can offer more flexible
working arrangements, as Torgautov et al. [117] reported.
198 P. Santos et al.

2. Cultural and Behavioural Challenges

Cultural and behavioural changes can present significant obstacles to the adoption
of innovative practices in the construction industry. This sector is known for its
conservative nature and resistance to new ideas that challenge existing attitudes,
customs, and beliefs. Some of the cultural issues that hinder the adoption of circular
economy (CE) and sustainability practices among construction stakeholders include
a lack of awareness, reluctance, and risk aversion. Moreover, there is a preference for
virgin construction materials over reused and recycled products, which is reinforced
by ingrained beliefs that circular economy practices are not feasible [112, 118].
Several studies have investigated stakeholders’ perceptions of the adoption of
CE practices in the construction industry. The literature reviewed in this section
highlights that contractors are hesitant to use refurbished and recycled materials in
their construction due to concerns about a potential decrease in the quality of their
products [27, 112, 118]. Customers, on the other hand, may not prefer buildings
constructed using old materials. Additionally, the quality of recovered materials is
often perceived as inferior to virgin materials, further fuelling scepticism about the
feasibility of CE practices [117].
3. Stakeholder Engagement and Awareness
In order to facilitate the widespread adoption of circular economy (CE) practices
in the construction industry, it is important to address the existing cultural and
behavioural barriers. This can be achieved through a variety of means, such as educa-
tion, awareness-raising, and cultural change initiatives. By doing so, stakeholders can
work towards creating a more sustainable and circular economy, which would not
only benefit the industry but also the environment.
One effective enabling tool for increasing awareness, changing attitudes, and
affecting behaviours is dialogue [113]. This can involve open and honest commu-
nication between different groups of stakeholders, including industry professionals,
academics, and government officials. Through dialogue, stakeholders can gain a
better understanding of each other’s perspectives and work collaboratively towards
finding solutions to industry challenges.
Academic curricula and professional workshops are also important enablers for
capturing CE and its range of sustainable practices [113]. These educational opportu-
nities provide stakeholders with the requisite ideas and knowledge to address industry
challenges. Additionally, they help to ensure that industry professionals are equipped
with the skills and expertise needed to implement sustainable practices in their work.
By investing in education and training opportunities, stakeholders can work towards
a more sustainable and circular economy in the construction industry.
4. Governmental Support and Incentives
The global construction industry is facing a significant challenge in embracing
circular practices and business models due to the absence of adequate policies,
laws, and frameworks. The lack of government support, such as financial aid or
tax incentives, is making it less economically feasible to invest in circular models,
7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 199

and as a result, discouraging their adoption. The absence of regulatory pressure

and strict laws also fails to establish the necessary urgency for circularity, and the
required behavioural changes in the construction industry are not taking place. This
is a pressing issue that needs to be addressed so that the construction industry can
move towards a more sustainable and circular future [27]. Sustainable development
is becoming increasingly essential, and as a result, circular buildings are gaining
popularity. The main objective of circular buildings is to foster the idea of “building
as a material bank” [115], where the materials used in the construction are stored and
reused when the building’s life comes to an end. However, this can only be achieved
if there is a financial incentive to design buildings that can be easily deconstructed
and reconstructed. It is worth noting that circular buildings are generally more costly
than traditional buildings.
The circular economy in the construction industry is a complex issue that requires
the involvement of all stakeholders, including governments, investors, designers,
constructors, and users. The transition towards circular practices requires a signifi-
cant change in mindset and approach, as well as the adoption of new technologies
and systems. Nonetheless, the benefits of circularity in the construction industry are
far-reaching, including reduced waste and carbon emissions, increased resource effi-
ciency, and improved social and economic outcomes. Therefore, it is essential for
all stakeholders to collaborate and work towards a more sustainable future for the
construction industry.

7.4 Case Studies and Best Practices

7.4.1 Case Study 1—Gonsi Sócrates Bio-building

(Barcelona, Spain)

Figure 7.10 shows the Gonsi Sócrates Bio-Building which was built by Construcía
Company. They followed the Lean2Cradle® circular construction methodology
[120]. Almost all the building materials (99%) were characterized and its compo-
nents were reviewed, and up to 50 types of materials were inventoried. Among these
materials, 89% (8,400 tons) will not become waste at their end-of-life but have a
circular way to be reintroduced into the production process. Thus, when the useful
life of the building ends, they can be reused, repaired or recycled in the way that is
most convenient at that time, allowing them to preserve greater value for the next
use [121].
200 P. Santos et al.

Fig. 7.10 Gonsi Sócrates

bio-building [122]

Another best practice used in this building was to have ‘grey’ finishes as a sustain-
able measure to avoid wasting possible materials in future adaptations required by
new tenants. For example, laminated plasterboard partitions were removed to be
recovered onsite. The plasterboards were temporarily stored in an available space
in the same building. The three components of the laminated plasterboard partitions
were separated: metal, plaster and rock wool and the following treatment was given
to each of these materials [122, 123]:
– Metal: highly recyclable secondary material, which was easily reintroduced into
the system as a material.
– Plasterboard: in the absence of a nearby recycling plant, a nearby construction
building conducted by the same construction company was used to take the plas-
terboards. In that work, there was a shredding machine that allows the recycling
of Cradle2Cradle laminated plasterboard.
– Rock wool: In this case, the remains of rock wool were concentrated to be recov-
ered by Rockwool, which was the supplier responsible for recovering the work
surplus.
7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 201

7.4.2 Case Study 2—Urban Mining and Recycling (UMAR)

Experimental Unit (Dübendorf, Switzerland)

The UMAR building (Fig. 7.11) was designed by Werner Sobek with Dirk E. Hebel
and Felix Heisel and they considered a circular approach keeping a technological and
advanced design and architectural form. Such an approach makes reusing and repur-
posing materials just as important as recycling and upcycling them. This conceptual
emphasis means that UMAR works simultaneously as a material laboratory and a
temporary material storage. The UMAR unit was designed and built as a prototype,
showcase and demonstrator for a paradigm shift towards a circular building industry
[124]. As such, the documentation of the materials, design, details and construction
process are a crucial aspect of the process.
Several elements of this documentation have been implemented already: A mate-
rial library within the unit offers samples of all materials used in construction. These
samples are additionally linked to a digital material library with further information,
data sheets and contact details on the project’s website [125]. Some of the circular
material used were [126]:
– StoneCycling® are waste-based bricks available in different colours and textures
and are named according to their appearance for example “Wasabi” or “Salami”
(Fig. 7.12). The construction material from rubble meets industry standards and
can be used indoors and outdoors [127].
– Magna Glaskeramik is a very durable translucent material made with glass waste.
Glass waste is first broken into pieces and then undergoes a complex sintering
process without the addition of binders or the use of pressure, only utilising
temperature and time. The colour of the material depends on the colour of the raw
material used in production. It was used for the finishing material of the toilets
[126, 128].
– ReWall® [129] consists of shredded and compressed beverage cartons to develop
a floor-ceiling panel (Fig. 7.13). The board material is durable, moisture resistant

Fig. 7.11 Urban Mining and

Recycling (UMAR)
experimental unit [125]
202 P. Santos et al.

Fig. 7.12 StoneCycling®

[126]

Fig. 7.13 ReWall®

NakedBoard [126, 129]

and contains no volatile organic compounds. It was used as interior partition, as

alternative to gypsum boards. Similar research works have been conducted to ass
the recyclability of beverage cartons [130].
– Ecor flatcor/Ecor brow. ECOR products are flexible, high density, compression
moulded fibre board made from 100% waste cellulose. The plates are formed by
water, heat and pressure, without any other additives [126].
– Ecobase carpet tiles gold. The tiles are equipped generally with a EcoBase™
backing, which contains recycled calcium carbonate from local drinking water
companies through an upcycling process. Due to these recycling-oriented
resources, the company now shifted to leasing concepts for their carpet tiles in
order to be able to feed them back into the own production line after used [126].
– Natura 2. Water hyacinths or water lilies are free-swimming, perennial aquatic
plants abundant in the Philippines. Cutting of the plants is required regularly to
keep the waterways free for shipping and animals [126].
7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 203

– Black Dapple sheets are made from recycled plastics, and available in different
colour combinations. Depending on the raw material and its colour, the end
product has a certain translucency. The material has a high hardness and density,
good UV and weather resistance and a moderate scratch resistance. Dapple sheets
are 100% waterproof. The massive material can be cut, drilled and milled [126].
– Ultratouch™ denim insulation. In the production process, cotton fabric from
denim waste is shredded again into fibrous form and treated with a Boron salt solu-
tion. This gives the material mold and fungus repellent properties and ensures fire
protection. The fibre mixture is then baked in a large oven and pressed to different
thicknesses [126, 131].

7.4.3 Case Study 3—Open-Spaced Apartment (Prague,

Czechia)

It is a small apartment renovated by Papundekl Architects, which the architects

proposed to remove all the original prefabricated partitions (Fig. 7.14). All of these
main elements are clad in recycled Packwall boards around their perimeter [132].
The coloured boards can also be used for the more operationally demanding parts of
the furniture, such as the opening or sliding parts of the kitchen island or wardrobes.
The PackWall [133] board is classified as semi-permeable, where water does not
penetrate the surface, but the steam can travel through the material.
Recoma’s recycled construction boards are versatile with infinites possibilities
for application. Recoma’s recycle 4,000,000 kg composite packaging per year which
would otherwise go through waste streams where the majority of the material would
have been incinerated. Material recycling instead incinerating this waste saves CO2
emissions by 2700 tons per year. Recoma’s products are also 100% recyclable without
any waste, emissions or extra costs, since they can be made into new boards are
RECOMA in a circular solution [134].

Fig. 7.14 Apartment designed by Papundekl Architects (left) and recovered construction board
(right) [132, 134]
204 P. Santos et al.

Fig. 7.15 SKY techos

ecosostenibles [135]

7.4.4 Case Study 4—“Escuela Politécnica Superior”

(Burgos, Spain)

Within the context of the Life Repolyuse European Project led by the University
of Burgos, a new building product to reduce polyurethane waste was designed and
implemented in three building case studies located in Coventry, Vitoria and Burgos
(Fig. 7.15) [135]. The building product is named “SKY techos ecosostenibles” and
is supplied by Yesyforma [136]. The panel consists of a new ceiling plate (plaster +
polyurethane waste) which promotes the reuse of polyurethane waste by integrating it
into new construction materials, thus prolonging the life cycle of this plastic material
and avoiding its final disposal [137]. This material provides extra lightness and
improves acoustic absorption compared to regular false ceiling plates, creating a
more comfortable and conditioned environment.
The polyurethane foam waste comes from the refrigeration industry, specifically,
it is generated from the manufacture of insulation slabs, they are those which are
rejected at the production line or from those which are used for various manufacturing
tests. The type of PU waste used in this research is a rigid polyurethane foam and is
made out of two components which are polyol and isocyanate, this has an open cell
structure.

7.5 Final Remarks

This chapter examines the primary challenges associated with using circular
construction materials and suggests collaborative solutions to address them. Imple-
menting circular principles in construction materials has the potential to transform
sustainable building practices. Adopting this approach can significantly lessen the
construction industry’s environmental footprint, conserve natural resources, and
7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 205

create a more resilient built environment. Nevertheless, numerous obstacles need

to be overcome to enable the broad adoption of circular construction materials.
This chapter provides specific recommendations for overcoming the challenges
associated with the widespread adoption of circular construction materials and
outlines future directions. The interdisciplinary study also examines strategies and
principles for using circular materials in buildings, identifying various barriers,
critical success factors, and enablers within this research area.
The construction sector is a major contributor to waste generation and resource
consumption, yet it holds significant potential to lead the transition to a circular
economy. By adopting design principles focused on circular material usage, the
construction industry can reduce its environmental impact, conserve resources, and
promote sustainable material practices. Key design principles for circular material
usage include designing for circularity and managing material selection. Buildings
should be designed to be durable, adaptable, and easy to disassemble, facilitating the
reuse, recycling, and upcycling of materials at the end of their lifecycle. Construction
materials should be chosen based on their environmental impact, recyclability, and
durability, while construction waste should be minimized and managed to maximize
material recovery. Implementing these principles requires collaboration among all
stakeholders in the construction sector, including architects, engineers, contractors,
and material suppliers. The benefits of a more circular construction sector are substan-
tial: increased sustainability, resilience, competitiveness, cost reduction, innovation,
and job creation.
Furthermore, it is highlighted the critical shift towards a circular economy (CE)
in the building sector, emphasizing the need for collaborative business models and
technological innovations. Key elements for sustainability include circular supply
chains, product-as-a-service models, and extended product responsibility. While
public–private partnerships show promise, they require careful management. Future
efforts should concentrate on establishing robust regulatory frameworks, awareness
programs, and international collaboration. Integrating technological advancements
such as AI, robotics, and blockchain is essential for efficient waste management.
Educating stakeholders on circular practices is crucial. Global collaboration can
help standardize circular construction methods, leading to a more sustainable and
resilient industry. This review advocates for a focus on resource efficiency, circular
practices, innovation, stakeholder collaboration, and adaptive strategies to minimize
environmental impact and enhance sustainability throughout the construction sector’s
operations.
Based on the conclusions drawn from this study, applying CE principles in the
construction industry has significant and far-reaching implications. This research
offers actionable steps for integrating these principles into practice, including design
principles for circular material usage, stakeholder collaboration, technological inte-
gration, and the establishment of robust regulatory frameworks. These recommen-
dations provide a roadmap for future implementations and a practical framework
for policymakers, practitioners, and stakeholders to adopt and apply these princi-
ples. By embracing these recommendations, the construction industry can transi-
tion towards a more sustainable and resilient future, reducing environmental impact,
206 P. Santos et al.

conserving resources, and fostering innovation. Furthermore, integrating these prin-

ciples supports the broader global sustainability agenda, significantly advancing CE
practices beyond the construction sector.
This chapter related to implementing CE principles in the construction industry
has revealed crucial insights for enhancing sustainability and reducing environ-
mental impact. However, the slow adoption of these principles is due to industry-
specific barriers such as limited knowledge and experience. Therefore, a collec-
tive effort to educate and disseminate information is essential to overcome these
obstacles. Embracing innovation offers a promising path to promoting circularity.
Successful case studies of circular practices can provide valuable insights for wider
industry adoption. Developing robust regulatory frameworks can incentivize sustain-
able practices, and integrating advanced technologies can optimize waste manage-
ment processes. Education on circular practices is vital, and global collaboration is
essential for standardizing universally accepted approaches.

References

1. Moschen-Schimek J, Kasper T, Huber-Humer M (2023) Critical review of the recovery rates

of construction and demolition waste in the European Union—an analysis of influencing
factors in selected EU countries. Waste Manag Elsevier Ltd 167(December 2022):150–164.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2023.05.020
2. Giorgi S, Lavagna M, Campioli A (2018) Guidelines for effective and sustainable recycling
of construction and demolition waste. In: Benetto E, Gericke K, Guiton M (eds) Designing
sustainable technologies, products and policies. Springer International Publishing, pp 211–
221. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66981-6
3. European Commission (2019) Construction and demolition waste—environment. https://env
ironment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/construction-and-demolition-waste_en.
Accessed 14 July 2023
4. European Parliament and of Council (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste, known as “Waste Framework Directive”
(WFD), consolidated (revised 7-5-2018). Off J Eur Union
5. European Parliament (2023) Circular economy: definition, importance and benefits.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/economy/20151201STO05603/circular-
economy-definition-importance-and-benefits?&at_campaign=20234-Economy&at_med
ium=Google_Ads&at_platform=Search&at_creation=RSA&at_goal=TR_G&at_audience=
importance%20of%20circular%20economy&at_topic=Circular_Economy&at_location=
IE&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIv-6jtryVgAMVt4poCR1LrQBdEAAYASAAEgLUT_D_BwE.
Accessed 9 July 2023
6. Adams KT, Osmani M, Thorpe T, Thornback J (2017) Circular economy in construc-
tion: current awareness, challenges and enablers. Proc Inst Civ Eng Waste Resour Manag
170(1):15–24
7. European Commission (2019) COM/2019/640 The European green deal. Brussels
8. European Commission (2020) COM/2020/98 A new circular economy action plan for a cleaner
and more competitive Europe. Brussels
9. United Nations Environmental Programme (2022) 2022 Global status report for buildings
and construction: towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings and construction
sector, Nairobi
10. Acharya D, Boyd R, Finch O (2018) From principles to practice: first steps towards a circular
built environment
7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 207

11. European Commission (2020) Construction and demolition waste. https://environment.ec.

europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/construction-and-demolition-waste_en#publications.
Accessed 9 July 2023
12. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2022) Reimagining our buildings and spaces for a
circular economy. https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/built-environment/overview.
Accessed 8 July 2023
13. Мaterial Economics (2019) Industrial transformation 2050: pathways to net-zero emissions
from EU heavy industry. University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership
(CISL), Cambridge
14. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2018) What is a circular economy? https://ellenmacarthurfoun
dation.org/topics/circular-economy-introduction/overview. Accessed 9 July 2023
15. Çimen Ö (2023) Development of a circular building lifecycle framework: inception to
circulation. Results Eng 17:100861
16. Çimen Ö (2021) Construction and built environment in circular economy: a comprehensive
literature review. J Clean Prod 305:127180
17. Reike D, Vermeulen WJV, Witjes S (2018) The circular economy: new or Refurbished as
CE 3.0?—Exploring controversies in the conceptualization of the circular economy through
a focus on history and resource value retention options. Resour Conserv Recycl Elsevier
135(November 2017):246–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.027
18. Mesa JA, Esparragoza I (2021) Towards the implementation of circular economy in engi-
neering education: a systematic review. In: 2021 IEEE frontiers in education conference
(FIE), 13–16 Oct 2021, pp 1–8
19. Potting J, Hekkert M, Worrelland E, Hanemaaijer A (2017) Circular economy: measuring
innovation in the product chain. PBL
20. Garg R (2022) Here’s how to create a circular system for the built environment. In: United
Nations climate change conference COP27: world economic forum
21. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019) Circular economy butterfly diagram. https://ellenmaca
rthurfoundation.org/circular-economy-diagram. Accessed 9 July 2023
22. Ottenhaus LM (2022) Butterfly diagram of circular buildings (version 1). figshare. https://
doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21249573.v1
23. European Commission (2019) A sustainable bioeconomy for Europe: strengthening the
connection between economy, society and the environment: updated bioeconomy strategy.
Publications Office of the European Union, Brussels
24. Technical University Munich (2017) Cascading use of wood to ensure sustainability. https://
phys.org/news/2017-12-cascading-wood-sustainability.html
25. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2022) The biological cycle of the butterfly diagram. https://ell
enmacarthurfoundation.org/articles/the-biological-cycle-of-the-butterfly-diagram. Accessed
9 July 2023
26. Munaro MR, Tavares SF (2023) A review on barriers, drivers, and stakeholders towards the
circular economy: the construction sector perspective. Clean Respons Consump 8:100107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100107
27. Wuni IY (2022) Mapping the barriers to circular economy adoption in the construction
industry: a systematic review, Pareto analysis, and mitigation strategy map. Build Environ
223:109453
28. Sparandara L, Werner M, Kaminsky A, Finch L, Douglas K (2020) Accelerating the circular
economy through commercial deconstruction and reuse
29. Akinade O, Oyedele L, Oyedele A, Davila Delgado JM, Bilal M, Akanbi L, Ajayi A, Owolabi
H (2020) Design for deconstruction using a circular economy approach: barriers and strategies
for improvement. Prod Plan Control 31(10):829–840
30. Brown M, Haselsteiner E, Apró D, Kopeva D, Luca E, Pulkkinen K, Vula Rizvanolli B (2018)
Sustainability, restorative to regenerative. Publications COST action RESTORE CA16114,
working group one report. https://www.eurestore.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Sustainab
ility-Restorative-to-Regenerative.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2023
208 P. Santos et al.

31. Dumée LF (2022) Circular materials and circular design—review on challenges towards
sustainable manufacturing and recycling. Circ Econ Sustain 2:9–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s43615-021-00085-2. Accessed 14 July 2023
32. Morató J, Jiménez LM, Calleros-Islas A, De la Cruz JL, Díaz LD, Martínez J, P-Lagüela E,
Penagos G, Pernas JJ, Rovira S, Sanz FJ, Tollin N, Villanueva B, Woischnik A (2021) Informe
COTEC – Situación y Evolución de la Economía Circular en España. Madrid: Fundación
Cotec para la innovación. https://cotec.es/observacion/economia-circular/f62c16db-5823-
deb4-7986-a786e5c3401c. Accessed 18 Aug 2023
33. Ferrer J, Herrería N, Remón A, Armas R, Díez de Rivera T, Ramos I, Sartori T, Isla M, Morató
J, Villanueva B, Batalla J, Villa M (2022) Proyecto Economía Circular España – Acelerando
la Transición en el Sector de Construcción. https://www.accenture.com/content/dam/acc
enture/final/accenture-com/document/Accenture-EC-Espana-Informe-Sector-Construccion.
pdf. Accessed 19 Aug 2023
34. Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2023) https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/. Accessed 8 July
2023
35. Charef R, Lu W, Hall D (2022) The transition to the circular economy of the construction
industry: insights into sustainable approaches to improve the understanding. J Clean Prod
Elsevier Ltd 364(June):132421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132421
36. Nußholz J et al (2023) From circular strategies to actions: 65 European circular building cases
and their decarbonisation potential. Resour Conserv Recycl Adv 17(January). https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200130
37. Setaki F, van Timmeren A (2022) Disruptive technologies for a circular building
industry. Build Environ Elsevier Ltd 223(July):109394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.
2022.109394
38. Tavares TM et al (2023) The benefits and barriers of additive manufacturing for circular
economy: a framework proposal. Sustain Prod Consump Elsevier Ltd 37:369–388. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.03.006
39. Oluleye BI, Chan DWM, Antwi-Afari P (2023) Adopting Artificial Intelligence for enhancing
the implementation of systemic circularity in the construction industry: a critical review.
Sustain Prod Consump Inst Chem Eng 35:509–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.12.002
40. Marsh ATM, Velenturf APM, Bernal SA (2022) Circular economy strategies for concrete:
implementation and integration. J Clean Prod Elsevier Ltd 362(October 2021):132486. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132486
41. Figge F et al (2018) Longevity and circularity as indicators of eco-efficient resource use in
the circular economy. Ecol Econ Elsevier 150(November 2017):297–306. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.030
42. Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis
of 114 definitions. Resour Conserv Recycl 127:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.
2017.09.005
43. Mollaei A, Bachmann C, Haas C (2023) Estimating the recoverable value of in-situ building
materials. Sustain Cities Soc 91:104455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104455.66
44. Zhuang GL, Shih SG, Wagiri F (2023) Circular economy and sustainable development goals:
exploring the potentials of reusable modular components in circular economy business model.
J Clean Prod Elsevier Ltd 414:137503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137503
45. Haines-Gadd M, Charnley F, Encinas-Oropesa A (2021) Self-healing materials: a pathway to
immortal products or a risk to circular economy systems? J Clean Prod Elsevier Ltd 315(May
2020):128193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128193
46. Atta N (2023) Remanufacturing towards circularity in the construction sector: the role of
digital technologies. In: Technological imagination in the green and digital transition. Springer
International Publishing, pp 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29515-7_45
47. Van Stijn A, Gruis V (2020) Towards a circular built environment: an integral design tool for
circular building components. Smart Sustain Built Environ 9(4):635–653. https://doi.org/10.
1108/SASBE-05-2019-0063
7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 209

48. Hosseini MR et al (2015) Reverse logistics in the construction industry. Waste Manag Res
33(6):499–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X15584842
49. Ding L, Wang T, Chan PW (2023) Forward and reverse logistics for circular economy in
construction: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 388:135891. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2023.135981
50. Antwi-Afari P, Ng ST, Hossain MU (2021) A review of the circularity gap in the construction
industry through scientometric analysis. J Clean Prod Elsevier Ltd 298:126870. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126870
51. Hart J et al (2019) Barriers and drivers in a circular economy: the case of the built envi-
ronment. Procedia CIRP Elsevier B.V. 80(March):619–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.
2018.12.015
52. rebuydeal.com (2023) https://www.rebuydeal.com/en/buy-sell-second-hand/115/building-
materials. Accessed 15 July 2023
53. seconduse.com (2023) https://www.seconduse.com/inventory/categories/lumber/. Accessed
15 July 2023
54. rotordc.com (2023) RotorDC—deconstruction and consulting. https://rotordc.com/shop/cat
egory/door-32. Accessed 15 July 2023
55. Oluleye BI et al (2022) Circular economy research on building construction and demolition
waste: a review of current trends and future research directions. J Clean Prod Elsevier Ltd
357(December 2021):131927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131927
56. Ghobadi M, Sepasgozar SME (2023) Circular economy strategies in modern timber construc-
tion as a potential response to climate change. J Build Eng Elsevier Ltd 107229. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107229
57. Ahn N et al (2022) Circular economy in mass timber construction: state-of-the-art, gaps and
pressing research needs. J Build Eng Elsevier Ltd 53(May):104562. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jobe.2022.104562
58. Llana DF et al (2022) Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) manufactured with European oak
recovered from demolition: structural properties and non-destructive evaluation. Constr Build
Mater 339(November 2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.127635
59. Cobîrzan N et al (2020) Microscopical and macroscopical analysis of recovered bricks for
assessing their reusability in masonry buildings. Procedia Manuf Elsevier B.V. 46:144–149.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.03.022
60. Ramos M et al (2023) Local scale dynamics to promote the sustainable management of
construction and demolition waste. Resour Conserv Recycl Adv 17(February). https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200135
61. dos Reis GS et al (2021) Current applications of recycled aggregates from construction and
demolition: a review. Materials 14(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14071700
62. Sahoo P et al (2023) Sequestration and utilization of carbon dioxide to improve engineering
properties of cement-based construction materials with recycled brick powder: a pathway for
cleaner construction. Constr Build Mater Elsevier Ltd 395(June):132268. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.132268
63. Bergonzoni M, Melloni R, Botti L (2023) Analysis of sustainable concrete obtained from the
by-products of an industrial process and recycled aggregates from construction and demolition
waste. Procedia Comput Sci Elsevier B.V. 217(2022):41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.
2022.12.200
64. Ferrández D et al (2023) Towards a more sustainable environmentally production system
for the treatment of recycled aggregates in the construction industry: an experimental study.
Heliyon 9(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16641
65. Zaragoza-Benzal A, Ferrández D, Santos P et al (2023) Recovery of end-of-life tyres and
mineral wool waste: a case study with gypsum composite materials applying circular economy
criteria. Materials 16(1):243. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16010243
66. Zaragoza-Benzal A, Ferrández D, Atanes-Sánchez E et al (2023) New lightened plaster mate-
rial with dissolved recycled expanded polystyrene and end-of-life tyres fibres for building
prefabricated industry. Case Stud Constr Mater 18(October 2022):e02178. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cscm.2023.e02178
210 P. Santos et al.

67. Sormunen P et al (2021) An evaluation of thermoplastic composite fillers derived from

construction and demolition waste based on their economic and environmental characteristics.
J Clean Prod 280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125198
68. Ahmed N (2023) Utilizing plastic waste in the building and construction industry: a pathway
towards the circular economy. Constr Build Mater Elsevier Ltd 383(December 2022):131311.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.131311
69. Özçelikci E et al (2023) Eco-hybrid cement-based building insulation materials as a circular
economy solution to construction and demolition waste. Cement Concr Compos 141(January).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2023.105149
70. Seco A et al (2018) Sustainable unfired bricks manufacturing from construction and demoli-
tion wastes. Constr Build Mater Elsevier Ltd 167:154–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbui
ldmat.2018.02.026
71. dos Reis GS et al (2020) Fabrication, microstructure, and properties of fired clay bricks using
construction and demolition waste sludge as the main additive. J Clean Prod 258. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120733
72. Islam S, Islam J, Robiul Hoque NM (2022) Improvement of consolidation properties of
clay soil using fine-grained construction and demolition waste. Heliyon The Author(s)
8(10):e11029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11029
73. Giannopoulou I et al (2023) High temperature performance of geopolymers based on construc-
tion and demolition waste. J Build Eng Elsevier Ltd 72(February):106575. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jobe.2023.106575
74. He X et al (2022) Recycling of plastic waste concrete to prepare an effective additive for early
strength and late permeability improvement of cement paste. Constr Build Mater Elsevier Ltd
347(June):128581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.128581
75. Thwe Win T et al (2023) Use of polypropylene fibers extracted from recycled surgical face
masks in cement mortar. Constr Build Mater Elsevier Ltd 391(March):131845. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.131845
76. Álvarez M et al (2022) ‘Performance characterisation of a new plaster composite lightened
with end-of-life tyres’ recycled materials for false ceiling plates. Materials 5660. https://doi.
org/10.3390/ma15165660
77. Santos P, Mateus D (2020) Experimental assessment of thermal break strips performance in
load-bearing and non-load-bearing LSF walls. J Build Eng Elsevier Ltd 32:101693. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101693
78. Santos P et al (2022) Numerical simulation and experimental validation of thermal break
strips’ Improvement in Facade LSF Walls. Energies 15(21):8169. https://doi.org/10.3390/en1
5218169
79. Paihte PL, Lalngaihawma AC, Saini G (2019) Recycled aggregate filled waste plastic bottles
as a replacement of bricks. Mater Today Proc Elsevier Ltd. 15:663–668. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.matpr.2019.04.135
80. Lamy-mendes A et al (2022) Aerogel composites produced from silica and recycled rubber
sols for thermal insulation. Materials 15(22):7897. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15227897
81. Rodrigues Pontinha AD et al (2023) Thermomechanical performance assessment of sustain-
able buildings’ insulating materials under accelerated ageing conditions. Gels 9(3):241.
https://doi.org/10.3390/gels9030241
82. Cheng Q, Feng H, Garcia de Soto B (2022) Revamping construction supply chain processes
with circular economy strategies: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 335:130240.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130240
83. Bocken NMP, Olivetti EA, Cullen JM, Potting J, Lifset R (2017) Taking the circularity to the
next level: a special issue on the circular economy: taking circularity to the next level. J Ind
Ecol 21:476–482
84. Rabnawaz R, Zhang X (2021) Multi-stage network-based two-type cost minimization for the
reverse logistics management of inert construction waste. Waste Manag 120:805–819. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.11.004
7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 211

85. Komkova A, Kabert G (2023) Optimal supply chain networks for waste materials used in
alkali-activated concrete fostering circular economy. Resour Conserv Recycl 193:106949.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.106949
86. Pallewatt S, Weerasooriyagedara M, Bordoloi S, Sarmah AK, Vithanage M (2023) Repro-
cessed construction and demolition waste as an adsorbent: an appraisal. Sci Tot Environ
882:163340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163340
87. Ruvald R, Bertoni A, Johansson C (2019) A role for physical prototyping in product-service
system design: case study in construction equipment. Procedia 83:358–362. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.099
88. Tseng ML, Lin S, Chen CC, Calahorrano LS, Tan CL (2019) A causal sustainable product-
service system using hierarchical structure with linguistic preferences in the Ecuadorian
construction industry. J Clean Prod 230:477–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.
05.140
89. Cook M, Gottberg A, Angus A, Longhurst P (2012) Receptivity to the production of product
service systems in the UK construction and manufacturing sectors: a comparative analysis. J
Clean Prod 32:61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.03.018
90. Dongmin Z, Dachao H, Yuchun X, Hong Z (2012) A framework for design knowledge manage-
ment and reuse for product-service systems in construction machinery industry. Comput Ind
63:328–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2012.02.008
91. Li CZ, Chen Z, Xue F, Kong X, Xiao B, Lai X, Zhao Y (2019) A blockchain- and IoT-based
smart product-service system for the sustainability of prefabricated housing construction. J
Clean Prod 286:125391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125391
92. Ness D, Xing K, Kim K, Jenkins A (2019) An ICT-enabled product service system for reuse
of building components. IFAC 52:761–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.207
93. Kristensen HS, Remmen A (2019) A framework for sustainable value propositions in product-
service systems. J Clean Prod 223:25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.074
94. Thierer A, Koopman C, Hobson A, Kuiper C (2016) How the Internet, the sharing economy,
and reputational feedback mechanisms solve the “Lemons Problem”. Law Rev 830. https://
repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol70/iss3/6
95. Lindhqvist T (2000) Extended producer responsibility in cleaner production: policy principle
to promote environmental improvements of product systems. Lund University
96. Filho WL, Saari U, Fedoruk M, Iital A, Moora H, Klöga M, Voronova V (2019) An overview
of the problems posed by plastic products and the role of extended producer responsibility in
Europe. J Clean Prod 214:550–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.256
97. Jang YC (2010) Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) management in Korea:
generation, collection, and recycling systems. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 12:283–294.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-010-0298-5
98. Xu J, Ye M, Lu W, Bao Z, Webster C (2021) A four-quadrant conceptual framework for
analyzing extended producer responsibility in offshore prefabrication construction. J Clean
Prod 282:124540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124540
99. Campbell-Jhonson K, Calisto M, Thapa K, Lakerveld D, Vermeulen WJV (2020) How circular
is your tyre: Experiences with extended producer responsibility from a circular economy
perspective. J Clean Prod 279:122042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122042
100. Ferrão P, Ribeiro P, Silva P (2008) A management system for end-of-life tyres: a Portuguese
case study. Waste Manage 28(3):604–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.02.033
101. Deutz P (2009) Producer responsibility in a sustainable development context: ecological
modernisation or industrial ecology? Geogr J 175(4):274–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-
4959.2009.00330.x
102. Zhang X, Ullah Yousaf HMA (2020) Green supply chain coordination considering government
intervention, green investment, and customer green preferences in the petroleum industry. J
Clean Prod 246:118984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118984
103. Glasbergen P (2011) Mechanisms of private meta-governance: an analysis of global private
governance for sustainable development. Int J Strat Bus Alliances 2(3):19–206. https://doi.
org/10.1504/IJSBA.2011.040886
212 P. Santos et al.

104. Xie Y, Zhao Y, Chen Y, Allen C (2022) Green construction supply chain management:
integrating governmental intervention and public–private partnerships through ecological
modernisation. J Clean Prod 331:129986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129986
105. Tang L, Shen Q, Cheng EWL (2009) A review of studies on Public-Private partnership projects
in the construction industry. Int J Proj Manag 28:683–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.
2009.11.009
106. Munoz-Jofre J, Hinojosa S, Mascle-Allemand AL, Temprano J (2023) A selectivity index for
public-private partnership projects in the urban water and sanitation sector in Latin America
and the Caribbean. J Environ Manage 335:117564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.
117564
107. Azarian M, Tadege A, Laedre O, Wondimu P, Kristian T (2023) Project ownership in public-
private partnership (PPP) projects of Norway. Procedia Comput Sci 219:1838–1846. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.01.481
108. Ampratwum G, Osei R, Tam VWY (2022) Exploring the concept of public-private partnership
in building critical infrastructure resilience against unexpected events: a systematic review.
Int J Crit Infrastruct Prot 39:100556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcip.2022.100556
109. Bao Z, Lu W, Chi B, Yuan H, Hao J (2019) Procurement innovation for a circular economy of
construction and demolition waste: lessons learnt from Suzhou, China. Waste Manag 99:12–
21. ISSN 0956-053X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.08.031
110. European Environment Agency (2023) Construction and demolition waste: challenges and
opportunities in a circular economy. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/construction-
and-demolition-waste-challenges. Accessed 24 September 2023
111. Lee S, Pan W, Linner T, Bock T (2015) A framework for robot assisted deconstruction:
process, sub-systems and modelling. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ISARC, Oulu, Finland, pp
1–8. https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2015/0093
112. Charef R, Morel CJ, Rakhshan K (2021) Barriers to implementing the circular economy in
the construction industry: a critical review. Sustainability 13(23):12989
113. Ababio BK, Lu W (2023) Barriers and enablers of circular economy in construction: a multi-
system perspective towards the development of a practical framework. Constr Manag Econ
41(1):3–21
114. Hosseini MR, Chileshe N, Rameezdeen R, Lehmann S (2014) Reverse logistics for the
construction industry: lessons from the manufacturing context. Int J Constr Eng Manag
3:75–90
115. Kanters J (2020) Circular building design: an analysis of barriers and drivers for a circular
building sector. Buildings 10:77
116. Tleuken A, Tokazhanov G, Jemal KM, Shaimakhanov R, Sovetbek M, Karaca F (2022)
Legislative, institutional, industrial and governmental involvement in circular economy in
Central Asia: a systematic review. Sustainability 14:8064
117. Torgautov B, Zhanabayev A, Tleuken A, Turkyilmaz A, Borucki C, Karaca F (2022) Perfor-
mance assessment of construction companies for the circular economy: a balanced scorecard
approach. Sustain Prod Consump 33:991–1004
118. Bilal M, Khan KIA, Thaheem MJ, Nasir AR (2020) Current state and barriers to the circular
economy in the building sector: towards a mitigation framework. J Clean Prod 123250
119. Rizos V et al (2016) Implementation of circular economy business models by small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): barriers and enablers. Sustainability 8(11):1212
120. Vera Cornejo SE (2018) Propuesta de indicadores lean2cradle® en fases de uso
y deconstrucción. Master thesis. Escuela de Caminos. Universidad Politécnica de
Cataluña. https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/2117/341616/TFM_SOLANGE_V
ERA.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 14 July 2023
121. Construcía (2020) La Construcción Circular con Lean2Cradle®. https://www.construcia.com/
construccion-circular-lean2cradle/. Accessed 14 July 2023
122. Construcía (2020) Edificio Sócrates. https://www.construcia.com/edificio-socrates. Accessed
14 July 2023
7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 213

123. KPMG (2019) True Value de edificios Lean2Cradle®. Economía circular en el diseño arqui-
tectónico, Construcía and eco intelligent growth, 2. https://www.picharchitects.com/2020/05/
20/economia-circular-en-el-disenoarquitectonico-pt-2/. Accessed 14 July 2023
124. Heisel F, Hebel DE, Sobek W (2019) Resource-respectful construction—the case of the Urban
Mining and Recycling unit (UMAR). In: Proceedings of IOP conference series: earth and
environmental science (EES), vol 225, p 012049. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/
1755-1315/225/1/012049/pdf. Accessed 14 July 2023
125. Heisel F, Hebel DE, Sobek W (2018) Urban mining and recycling. https://www.nest-umar.net.
Accessed 14 July 2023
126. Heisel F, Hebel DE, Sobek W (2018) Urban Mining and Recycling (UMAR) experimental
unit. Materials. https://nest-umar.net/#materials. Accessed 14 July 2023
127. StoneCycling (2023) https://www.stonecycling.com/. Accessed 14 July 2023
128. Magna Glaskeramik (2023) https://magna-glaskeramik.com/. Accessed 14 July 2023
129. ReWall (2023) https://elemental.green/rewall-recycled-high-performance-roof-and-wall-mat
erials/. Accessed 14 July 2023
130. Robertson GL (2021) Recycling of aseptic beverage cartons: a review. Recycling 6(20). https://
doi.org/10.3390/recycling6010020
131. Ultratouch (2023). Denim insulation. https://www.bondedlogic.com/ultratouch-denim-insula
tion/. Accessed 14 July 2023
132. Divisare (2023) https://divisare.com/authors/2144897897-alex-shoots-buildings. Accessed
14 July 2023
133. Packwall (2023) Boards. https://www.packwall.at/en/homepage/. Accessed 14 July 2023
134. RECOMA (2023) https://www.recoma.com/product/design-board. Accessed 14 July 2023
135. Repolyuse (2018) EU funded project. Life +. https://life-repolyuse.com/. Accessed 14 July
2023
136. Yesyforma (2023) SKY techos ecosostenibles. https://www.yesyforma.es/sky-techos-ecosot
enibles/. Accessed 14 July 2023
137. Rodrigo-Bravo A, Cuenca-Romero LA, Calderón V, Rodríguez Á, Gutiérrez-González S
(2022) Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) between standard gypsum ceiling tile and
polyurethane gypsum ceiling tile. Energy Build 259. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S037877882200038X?via%3Dihub. Accessed 14 July 2023

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 8
Modularity and Prefabrication

Vanessa Tavares , Cristina Sousa Coutinho Calheiros ,

Inês Burmester Martins , Joana Maia , Katerina Tsikaloudaki ,
Mariana Fonseca , Marianna Marchesi , Mirjana Laban ,
Nelson Soares , Paulo Santos , Rocío Pineda-Martos , Vlatka Rajčić ,
and Viorel Ungureanu

Abstract The concepts of “modularity” and “prefabrication” require a deeper under-

standing being crucial to investigate their relation with the circular economy. Prefab-
rication involves pre-manufacturing building elements off-site and their transport
to the construction site and assembly. Prefabrication can be divided into different
categories: Component, Non-volumetric, Volumetric, Modular construction, Hybrid
structures, or Whole building prefabrication; and can be based on linear (e.g., columns
or pillars), bidimensional (e.g., walls or floor panels), or tri-dimensional elements
(e.g., modules or whole prefabricated houses). The most commonly used materials
are steel, wood, and concrete, although plastic, composite, and nature-based mate-
rials are increasingly being explored. While comparing the prefabricated materials,
steel has high embodied impacts but recycle and reuse potential, timber has biogenic
content and high reuse potential, and concrete poses transport and assembly chal-
lenges. The refurbishment of prefabricated buildings and the use of prefabricated

V. Tavares (B) · I. B. Martins

BUILT CoLAB, Porto, Portugal
e-mail: [email protected]
V. Tavares
CEAU-FAUP, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
C. S. C. Calheiros
Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine and Environmental Research (CIIMAR/CIMAR), University
of Porto, Av. General Norton de Matos, 4450-208 Matosinhos, S/N, Portugal
J. Maia
Faculty of Engineering, CONSTRUCT-LFC, University of Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias S/N,
4200-465 Porto, Portugal
K. Tsikaloudaki
School of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
M. Fonseca
Construct-Labest, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
M. Marchesi
Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

© The Author(s) 2025 215

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_8
216 V. Tavares et al.

elements in refurbishment are also discussed. The main benefits of adopting prefab-
rication are impact, cost, material, waste, and time reduction, with quality increase;
and the challenges are cultural, technical, and market aspects with some invest-
ment required. A bibliometric analysis explores the relationship between modularity,
prefabrication, and circular construction and concludes that the link between the three
concepts seems fragile and unclear.

Keywords Buildings · Circular economy · Construction · Modularity ·

Prefabrication

8.1 Introduction

The concepts of “modularity” and “prefabrication” are closely linked and require a
deeper understanding to grasp their similarities and differences. Furthermore, it is
crucial to investigate the connection between prefabrication and modularity within
the circular economy framework. This chapter will involve in-depth analysis and
mapping of current knowledge across these three domains.
Prefabrication, often abbreviated as “prefab”, involves a construction approach in
which building elements are produced in specialised factories or temporary facilities
off-site and then transported to the construction site for assembly into buildings [1,
2]. The assembled structures are composed of precast elements (for example, beams,
columns, slab panels, and wall panels) that can form a part of the whole building
or infrastructure [2]. Prefabricated buildings have different degrees of prefabrication
and are categorised according to their size, complexity, configuration, and installation
into buildings [3]. The degree of prefabrication significantly influences the amount
of construction labour needed on-site; a higher degree of prefabrication results in

M. Laban
Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia
N. Soares
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Coimbra, ADAI, Rua Luís Reis Santos,
Pólo II, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal
P. Santos
ISISE, ARISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, 3030-788 Coimbra,
Portugal
R. Pineda-Martos
Departamento de Ingeniería Aeroespacial y Mecánica de Fluidos, Escuela Técnica Superior de
Ingeniería Agronómica, Universidad de Sevilla, Ctra. de Utrera, Km. 1, 41005 Sevilla, Spain
V. Rajčić
Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Ungureanu
CMMC Department, Politehnica University of Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania
8 Modularity and Prefabrication 217

Fig. 8.1 Life cycle of a conventional building (on top) and prefabricated buildings (on the bottom).
Based on [4]

reduced on-site construction labour, while a lower degree increases the need for
on-site labour [3].
Compared to conventional buildings, prefabricated buildings have one extra stage,
off-site fabrication, and one extra transport from plant to site. Figure 8.1 presents the
life cycle (LC) of a conventional building (at the top) and the LC of prefabricated
buildings (at the bottom). Table 8.1 presents the main terminology used in the field
of prefabricated and modular buildings, including references.

8.2 Historical Context

One of the first references to prefabrication methodology emerged in 1624. The first
houses were manufactured in England and transported to the fishing village of Cape
Ann, the current city of Massachusetts. In 1790, simple timber-framed shelters also
produced in England were shipped to New South Wales, in Australia, intended to be
used as hospitals, warehouses, and cottages. Furthermore, some advantages related
218 V. Tavares et al.

Table 8.1 Terminology used in prefabrication and modularity, including references [4]
Terminology Reference
(up to four)
Designations Prefabricated [5–7]
Offsite [8–11]
Modern Methods of Construction [12–14]
Modular [15–17]
Pre-assembly [18, 19]
Precast [20–22]
Prefabricated [1, 6, 23]
Type By elements or components [6, 24, 25]
By panels [26–28]
By modules [5, 29, 30]
Prefabrication level Whole buildings [31–33]
Building parts [5, 34, 35]
(e.g., rooms, classroom, labs)
Building components (e.g., walls, windows, stairs) [15, 24, 36]
Structural materials Wood [37–39]
Steel [25, 40, 41]
Concrete [27, 42, 43]
Light Steel Framed [41, 44, 45]
Plastic [46–48]
Container [31–33]
Uses Residential [49–51]
Educational [6, 52, 53]
Commercial [54, 55]
Industrial [56, 57]

to the production of prefabricated components, such as the reduction of labour and

time, were reported during the colonisation of South Africa in 1820 in the assembly
of simple and shed-like systems in Freetown, Sierra Leone, and the Eastern Cape
Province, compared to on-site construction methods [3].
In the 1830s, the London carpenter John Manning created a prefabricated home
for his son, who was living in the Land Down Under in Australia. This way, the
prefabricated components were produced in England and shipped to Australia to be
easily assembled. This house was the first fully prefabricated house documented. The
prefabricated house was made up of prefabricated systems of wood and panel infill.
The roof was a pitched roof comprising grooved posts, floor plates, and triangulated
trusses supported by vertical grooved posts. The grooved posts were bolted into
a continuous floor plate, and the panels were composed of supported triangulated
trusses, and wood panel cladding was fitted between them. After that, John Manning
8 Modularity and Prefabrication 219

produced the Manning Portable Colonial Cottage for accommodating emigrants,

which consisted of an improved prefabricated structure of the previous house with
easy assembly and transport [58–60].
The most relevant example of prefabrication was the Exhibition of Great Britain
in Hyde Park, London, in 1851, in which the Crystal Palace was presented. Joseph
Paxton designed Crystal Palace in less than two weeks, and its construction took a
few months. It is a building composed of prefabricated components manufactured
off-site, using light and inexpensive materials, such as iron, wood, and glass, and
assembled on-site [58]. After Britain’s Great Exhibition, the Crystal Palace was
disassembled and then assembled in another location [60].
Previously, balloon frame construction had emerged in the United States in
1833, near Chicago. The old city of Chicago was almost exclusively built with
balloon frames before being destroyed by a fire. In the 1840s, modular construc-
tion reached the United States to meet the housing needs of the California Gold
Rush. However, in the 1900s, the builder Augustine Taylor from Chicago improved
balloon-frame construction by manufacturing walls off-site, transport, and speedy
assembly [58, 60].
The Aladdin “built in a day” house reached popularity in the United States in the
1930s. These houses had a “ready cut” system that increased the efficiency of the
assembly process of timber components. The main milestones achieved in 1932 were
a wall system composed of a metal sandwich panel and the “House of Tomorrow”.
The “House of Tomorrow”, built by George Fred Keck, is a three-story building
composed of steel frames and glass infill walls, focused on cost-effectiveness, passive
heating, and daylight modulation. Furthermore, for the Chicago World’s Fair in 1933,
the “Crystal House” was built, which allowed advances in the steel frame concept.
Moreover, Sears Roebuck and Co. created a catalogue of prefabricated houses and
sold more than 500 thousand in the United States from 1908 to 1940, some of which
still exist. At that time, these houses cost two-thirds less than conventional buildings
[58, 60].
The Structural Insulated Panel (SIP) is one of the most used prefabricated compo-
nents for house construction, initially introduced in 1935 by Forest Product Labora-
tory (FPL) researchers in Madison, Wisconsin, in the United States and first commer-
cialised by Dow in 1952. In the 60s, when rigid foam insulation was available, the
use of SIP gained traction due to its affordability and improved thermal performance
[61].
During World War II (1939–1945), prefabricated construction increased signif-
icantly due to the demand for cottages for military personnel [2]. “Quonset Huts”
or “Nissen Huts” houses were implemented in the United Kingdom for domestic,
military, and institutional purposes. After World War II, the United States faced
a shortage of houses, being forced to appeal to prefabricated dwellings due to the
return of soldiers. In addition, Europe and Japan also opted for prefabricated houses to
overcome housing demands. Regarding modularisation, modular construction corre-
sponded to 25% of all single-family houses in the United States between 1945 and
1968. Still in 1968, the prefabricated Hilton Palacio del Rio Hotel (a 500-room hotel)
in San Antonio, Texas, was built in 202 days for the Texas World’s Exposition [60].
220 V. Tavares et al.

In 1905, the first precast concrete panelled buildings were created in Liverpool,
England. The man who invented the panels was engineer John Alexander Brodi.
However, precast concrete was not widely used until the early 1950s. The prefabri-
cated concrete panel buildings gained popularity not only in the UK but also in East
European countries, the former Soviet Union and Nordic countries. The technology
was picked up later in many parts of the world, where fast development created a
need for affordable housing on a mass scale. The rise of concrete panel buildings
in East Europe has been fuelled by the post-war housing shortage and the indus-
trialisation programmes in the 1950s-1960s. The mass application of prefabricated
concrete panel buildings in East Europe can be traced back to Khrushchev’s 4–5
floor panel buildings built in the 1950s in the Soviet Union. In other East European
countries, the large panel-house building programmes started later, for example, in
1965 in Hungary, 1956–1958 in Czechoslovakia, and 1958–1960 in Romania. By
the end of the 1970s, prefabricated concrete panel buildings became the dominant
form of construction.
In 1976, the building code started distinguishing permanent houses (which require
a design based on the standard code) and mobile homes (based on the HUD code).
After 1976, numerical control became widespread use and nowadays, small factories
can model prefabricated components and have access to different tools, such as
Building Information Modelling tools, Computer Numeric Control, and 2D laser
cutting devices [60].
In conclusion, the lack of a workforce and the gradual digitalisation of the
construction sector led some countries to embrace prefabrication as a construction
method. Moreover, countries with cold climates also adopted prefabrication due to
the weather conditions and less time working outside. For example, Sweden has
approximately 84% of the total construction being prefabricated [2].
Although prefabrication is not a new methodology in the construction industry, its
reputation has increased due to its multiple advantages in fostering Circular Economy
principles in the built environment [60, 62]. Prefabricated components are also iden-
tified as more sustainable solutions with impact in economic, social, and environ-
mental dimensions, and contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
of the 2030 Agenda of the United Nations (directly related to SDG 11, Sustainable
Cities and Communities, and SDG 12, Responsible Consumption and Production)
[1]. Opportunities and barriers to adopting prefabrication will be further discussed
in Sects. 8.9 and 8.10, respectively.

8.3 Prefabricated Building Types

Prefabrication can be divided into different categories [3, 63, 64], namely:
– Component sub-assembly is the lowest degree of prefabrication and corresponds
to single-assembled building elements, promoting a higher flexibility and customi-
sation degree during the design and construction categories [3, 63, 64]. These
8 Modularity and Prefabrication 221

components require joints and connections, careful alignments, and infiltration

checks, so more work must be developed on-site. Some examples of component
sub-assembly are stairs, roof trusses, wall frames, wood kits, and precast concrete
[3].
– Non-volumetric pre-assembly (or panelised systems) are more complex compo-
nents manufactured off-site and assembled on-site through traditional construc-
tion procedures and are not responsible for creating usable space [63, 64]. These
non-volumetric pre-assembled components can be planar, skeletal, or complex
units built from individual components, such as structural frames, cladding wall
panels, and bridge units, among others [19].
– Volumetric pre-assembly units are prefabricated, pre-assembled, and pre-
finished off-site and are responsible for creating usable space. These units are
not part of the building structure but can be assembled within or onto an indepen-
dent structural frame [19, 63]. Some examples of volumetric pre-assembly units
are plant rooms, toilet pods, and shower rooms, among others [19].
– Modularisation or modular construction are volumetric units with a consider-
able dimension (such as a room-sized volumetric unit) that constitute the structure
of the building itself [19, 65]. These units are standard modules that create usable
space and can be manufactured in complete 3D boxlike (volumetric) sections,
multi-section units, and stack-on units [3]. Modular construction is mostly pre-
assembled and pre-finished off-site with a design for easy assembly to achieve
rapid assembly on-site [3, 66]. The standard modules are predominantly finished
in the factory (interior and exterior finishes), with approximately 80 to 95% of
finishes completed off-site [3] and reducing the activities required on-site (reduces
about 90% of activities needed in conventional construction) [63].
– Hybrid structures are a combination of more than one assembled prefabricated
system in order to build a whole building, which is the most common combination
of prefabricated panels and modular construction [3].
– The unitised whole building prefabrication corresponds to the highest degree
of prefabrication and finishes [3, 64] and is pre-assembled volumetric units that
form the actual structure and fabric of the building [64]. Although the unitised
whole building is manufactured under controlled conditions of quality and speed,
its bulk size and weight are limited by manufacturing and transportation capacity
[3].
Regarding the manufacturing process, prefabricated components can be manufac-
tured through two different types of methods, namely fixed platforms and production
lines [1]. On the one hand, the fixed-platform method is a traditional method in which
the mould is fixed on a stationary table [29, 67] and is more appropriate for profiled
components with heights exceeding the limits of the line method, including beams,
columns, and stairs [67]. On the other hand, the production line method is more
mechanised compared to the previously mentioned one, as it consists of a produc-
tion process with several operations at different stations where moulds are moving
through a pallet rolling line, and workers are in a specific position in each station
table [29, 67]. The production line is commonly used in producing components with
222 V. Tavares et al.

standardised shapes, such as prefabricated wall panels, load-bearing walls, partitions,

and laminated boards [1, 67].

8.4 Prefabrication Approaches

All buildings have some degree of prefabrication and include some prefabricated
elements such as doors, windows, tiles, or equipment. However, when the prefabri-
cation rate is increased–this is the percentage of buildings done offsite, in a plant,
and after being transported and assembled onsite–buildings are considered prefab-
ricated. Some prefabricated buildings are based on linear prefabricated elements
such as columns or pillars, others on bidimensional prefabricated elements such as
walls or floor panels, while others use tri-dimensional prefabricated elements such as
complete modules or whole prefabricated houses. Some use a combination of linear,
bi-dimensional, or tri-dimensional prefabricated elements. In fact, different degrees
of prefabrication are implemented in the vast variety of prefabricated buildings.
Different approaches are also used in modular buildings, as various types of
modules serve different functions within a completed building structure: four-sided
modules (i.e. all four sides are clad), partially open-sided modules, open-sided
(corner-supported) modules, modules supported by a primary structural frame, non-
load bearing modules, special stair or lift modules, and hybrid modules that may rely
on other elements to resist some or all of the imposed structural actions. Figure 8.2
summarises the different prefabrication and modular approaches.

Bending-resistant 3D Monolithic space Bending-resistant Hinged sheaves

frame made of bars cells frames as frame
construction

Flexural stiff frames Hinged bars Bending-resistant Mixed forms

as Vierendeel beams discs

Fig. 8.2 Prefabrication and modular approaches, based on [68]

8 Modularity and Prefabrication 223

8.5 Prefabricated Building Material

As presented in Table 8.1 in Sect. 8.1, different structural materials are used in
prefabricated and modular buildings. Most prefabricated buildings use conventional
materials such as steel [4, 69] and wood [13, 70] which is the most widely used
material, followed by concrete [57, 71]. Others use the combination of two or more
materials in composite systems and usually combine concrete and steel elements.
Recently, new materials have been used in prefabricated buildings, such as recycled
plastic [7] or the reuse of shipping containers [32, 33].

8.5.1 Wood Prefabricated Buildings

Wood prefabricated buildings typically involve either factory-built three-dimensional

modules made of wood, shipped to the site, assembled (modular construction) or
wood components made from conventional light-frame construction or mass timber
systems assembled on-site to form the building. Light frame construction comprises
repetitive framing members, such as rafters or trusses with wood panel decking.
Oriented strand board (OSB) and plywood are used interchangeably as decking and
sheathing materials for floors, walls, and roof decks. Mass timber products are thick,
compressed layers of wood that serve as the load-bearing structure of a building. Such
components are usually made from cross-laminated timber (CLT), glue-laminated
timber (GLT), nail-laminated timber (NLT), and dowel-laminated timber (DLT).

8.5.2 Concrete Prefabricated Buildings

Concrete prefabricated buildings consist of whole, three-dimensional building units

or building components. Both types are made in the factory using precast reinforced
concrete. In the first case, the construction is usually modular, i.e. several prefab-
ricated concrete building units are transferred on-site and assembled to form the
whole building structure. In the second case, the building components (beams, slabs,
columns, etc.) are made of precast concrete in the factory and, after being transferred
on-site, form the central part of the building. The walls can be either constructed
from preconstructed panels, such as curtain wall elements, or concrete panels or by
integrating a conventional building technique, such as brick masonry, non-bearing
partitioning wall elements, etc. In the latter case, the rate of prefabrication is lower.
224 V. Tavares et al.

8.5.3 Steel Prefabricated Buildings

Steel prefabricated buildings consist of a steel framework, which forms the main
structural system of the building. They are composed of steel columns and beams
and slab elements, more frequently concrete slabs, either prefabricated or cast in situ.
In most cases, the wall elements are made of curtain walls and lightweight panels,
designed primarily to support gravity and wind loads without participating in the
structural performance of the building.

8.5.4 Composite Systems

Composite systems employ more than one material to form their primary structure.
Among the most common are the ones made from steel frames and precast concrete
walls, which are either monolithic or have the form of sandwich panels, i.e. comprise
of two (or three) concrete wythes that embed a layer of thermal insulation. The main
characteristic of composite prefabricated systems is that the steel and the concrete
elements work together to ensure the structural performance of the building. Within
this framework, it is essential to employ specially designed connectors to safeguard
the structural continuity of the system and the proper load transfer.

8.5.5 Nature-Based Solutions

Some prefabricated nature-based solutions have recently been developed on a prefab-

ricated building element scale. Vertical greening systems (VGS) can be incorporated
into buildings to promote circularity through the materials and associated functions.
Vertical greening refers to “vegetated surfaces in the building envelope, which include
the spread of plants that may or may not be attached to the façade and can either be
rooted into the ground or in pots” [72]. An example of a VGS is the vertical garden
“WallGreen”, a modular system that allows diverse design using the vertical space
available in the building envelope. The main benefits contributing to circularity are
the structure made of recycled plastic, mainly recovered from the sea, and individu-
alised automatic watering for each plant, with the possibility of optional fertilisation
(Fig. 8.3). Other operational benefits include: (i) the possibility of individual change
of each plant of the system; (ii) deficient maintenance that can be carried out by
undifferentiated personnel; (iii) the plants living in a good volume of substrate and
can grow naturally; (iv) very resilient system to maintenance failures and irrigation
system; (v) the possibility of dismantling the structure and taking it to another loca-
tion; and (vi) it can be used for indoor or outdoor applications, providing different
ecosystem services (Fig. 8.4).
8 Modularity and Prefabrication 225

Fig. 8.3 Schematic representation of the modular system WallGreen. Source technical sheet from
the producer

Fig. 8.4 Indoor modular system of the vertical garden WallGreen in an office building (Porto Office
Park, Porto-Portugal). Credits: Cristina Calheiros

8.6 Comparison Between Prefabricated Buildings

Several research papers compare the environmental performance and cost of timber,
concrete, and steel prefabricated buildings [43, 73]. Some conclude that prefabricated
steel buildings have higher embodied costs and associated greenhouse gas emissions.
However, steel recycling and reuse potential may compensate for initial burdens [5,
74, 75], balancing the initial impacts these buildings have at the end of life.
Timber in prefabricated buildings can be easily recovered with a high potential
for reuse [75]. This is of particular significance, as wood retains a higher value when
reused [74]. If not recovered in any other way, wood can be transformed into energy,
as waste to energy (WtE). Finally, wood is considered a viewable material, being a
solution inspired and supported by nature, simultaneously providing environmental,
social, and economic benefits and helping build resilience [76].
Concrete buildings pose some challenges along the life cycle: during the trans-
port stage because of the heavyweight; throughout the assembly, requiring specific
connections; and at the end-of-life, being difficult to disassemble, often resulting in
226 V. Tavares et al.

damaged components. Therefore, reusing structural concrete elements is typically

unfeasible [5, 75]. Additionally, while concrete can be recycled as aggregate for new
concrete production [5], it is generally in a downcycling process, in a new process
with low value.
Recycled materials (e.g. plastic in [47])) and reused components (e.g. aluminium
in [77]) present new prefabricated approaches that strive from circular economy
principles being aligned with two of the CE principles [78]: Eliminate waste and
pollution and circulate products and materials (at their highest value).

8.7 Prefabricated Buildings’ Refurbishment

As described in Sect. 8.2, prefabrication was widely used during World War II (1939–
1945) to respond to the demand for housing for military personnel and, after the war,
to address the need for housing and all the other infrastructures the population needed
in the post-war. All these prefabricated buildings built before energy efficiency codes
(first introduced in the 70 s) currently need more profound renovations (if not already
demolished or refurbished). Renovating and updating these prefabricated buildings
is a challenge in Europe and the United States. Some research has focused on the
optimised approach for refurbishing these prefabricated old buildings [79], and some
national investment plans have been implemented (e.g. Portuguese national plan to
refurbish schools, including prefabricated schools from the 1970s and 1980s). More-
over, some misconceptions against prefabrication exist in some European countries
due to some lack of quality of these first prefabricated buildings, mainly due to some
assembly error (leading to construction defects and use phase pathologies) and lack of
durability. Up-to-date prefabricated buildings with modern design and construction
approaches have recently overcome this misconception.

8.8 Prefabricated and Modular Components in Buildings’

Refurbishment

Prefabricated components can be one answer to the EU challenge of doubling the

annual renovation rate from 1 to 2% over the next decade [80]. Several EU-founded
projects have focused on building stock renovation: (i) IMPRO Buildings project
(2006–2008) assessed the potential to decrease the EU-15 stock impacts by imple-
menting refurbishment measures [81]; (ii) TABULA (2009–2012) mapped residen-
tial building technologies [82]; (iii) EPISCOPE (2012–2014) aimed to assess refur-
bishment processes and forecast energy consumption in future building stock models
[83].
One EU-founded project has supported timber-based prefabricated panels for the
energy refurbishment of existing Italian buildings’ façades [84] and a country-scale,
8 Modularity and Prefabrication 227

while a Nordic project has focused on process optimisation being more concerned
with business models [85]. Some papers have assessed how prefabricated modules
or elements can be used in building refurbishment. A matching kit interface for
building refurbishment processes with 2D timber modules has decreased installation
time and fitting deviation [86], and a prefabricated timber façade for the energy
refurbishment was studied for the Italian building stock [84]. A concrete prefabricated
envelope-cladding system for building energy renovation has been shown to have
lower payback times in terms of carbon, followed by energy, but a high payback
cost, being superior to a building’s lifespan [87]. As a potentially cheaper, faster,
and more efficient solution, prefabricated and modular components may support the
necessary renovation wave [88].

8.9 Benefits and Challenges of Prefabricated and Modular

Construction

Prefabrication presents clear advantages within the construction activities and for
buildings themselves; however, it poses some challenges that need to be discussed.
In a critical review of modular buildings using a life cycle perspective, the authors
identified schedule, cost, onsite safety, product quality, workmanship and produc-
tivity, and environmental performance as key benefits, and project planning, transport
retrains, negative perception, high initial cost and site constraints, and coordination
and communication as main challenges [34].

8.9.1 Benefits of Prefabrication

Prefabricated and modular construction presents some clear opportunities for the
construction sector, enabling a faster construction speed, ensuring the compliance
of the project schedule, as well as cost savings [2, 63, 89]. This construction
approach capitalises on the inherent properties of prefabrication to provide the main
advantages relative to conventional construction:
– Impacts reduction [6] through materials use reduction and waste generation;
– Cost reduction [89] achieved through economy of scale and a more precise
construction process;
– Waste reduction [90] reduces error as offsite manufacturing is done in a more
controlled environment;
– Time reduction [34] considering that offsite fabrication can be simultaneously
done with site preparation works;
– Quality improvement [91] due to the industrialisation of the manufacturing
process.
228 V. Tavares et al.

Additionally, less significant benefits include:

Reduced risks due to bad weather and reduced on-site works;

Superior quality due to factory-based quality control, repetition, and pre-design
of similar modules;
Reduced on-site labour force: that can be moved for off-site, with increased
value;
Improved sustainability: due to less wastage generated and upcycling of waste
in controlled manufacturing environments;
Less disruption: to neighbourhood construction sites from multiple truck
movements associated with conventional onsite construction.

Besides these advantages, prefabrication enables the adoption of some circular

economy principles, including Design for Deconstruction to encourage future re-
location, re-use, re-sale, and recycling of products and materials and Design for
Flexibility to extend building lifetimes and, where possible, further extend the life
of buildings by renovation and refurbishment.
Some prefabrication advantages are enhanced when comparing lightweight
prefabricated buildings with conventional heavyweight ones. Table 8.2 summarises
the main advantages and disadvantages of lightweight prefabricated and modular
buildings compared to heavyweight traditional construction.
Regarding the perception of prefabrication among stakeholders in the Architec-
ture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry in Hong Kong, identified advan-
tages encompass frozen design at the early design stage, reduced construction cost,
shortened construction, aesthetics issues, integrity of the building, and improved
environmental performance. Opposingly, the identified hindrances include inflex-
ible to design changes, lack of research information, higher initial construction cost,
time consumption, conventional method, limited site space, monotone in aesthetics,
leakage problems, lack of experience, and no demand for prefabrication [106].
Indeed, modular units require the least amount of on-site construction time, as all
plumbing, electrical, and even design finishes have typically already been installed
in the facility. This leaves only the task of assembling the modular units to form
a completed building. As modular buildings spend more time in off-site facilities
during the construction process, the conditions are meticulously controlled for a
significant portion of the process, leading to unparalleled efficiency and quality in
large-scale commercial construction.
Modular buildings offer exceptional versatility and can be tailored to fulfil any
purpose virtually. They are particularly well suited for buildings such as hotels,
apartments, student housing, and any other types that typically consist of repetitive
units serving similar functions.
This production approach is smarter than conventional construction methodolo-
gies with a higher flexibility and material efficiency, boosting the reduction of waste,
energy, carbon footprint, and operational and environmental impact in line with
circularity principles, which could be integrated into modular construction projects
by identifying the most critical success factors [2, 107, 108]. It also has the potential
8 Modularity and Prefabrication 229

Table 8.2 Advantages and disadvantages (in bold) of lightweight prefabricated and modular
buildings compared with heavyweight conventional construction (including references)
LC stagesa HEAVYWEIGHT PREFABRICATED / REFERENCES
MODULAR
A1-A3 Normally Normally [36, 51, 92, 93]
Product stage HEAVYWEIGHT LIGHTWEIGHT
materials + materials + MASS
CUSTOMISED PRODUCTION
PRODUCTION Fewer materials
More materials Decreased embodied
Increased embodied impacts
impacts Decreased
Increased transport-related impacts
transport-related impacts Extra material used
during transport
A4-A5 IMPRECISE construction (more) PRECISE [94–96]
Construction stage process construction process
More waste generated Less waste generated
More water used Less water used
Dependency on the Independence from
weather conditions weather
Extra transport to- and
from-plant
Extra plant stage impacts
B1-B7 HARD MAINTENANCE EASY MAINTENANCE [36, 97, 98]
Use stage Unpredicted maintenance Programmed
and more difficult to maintenance and easier to
perform perform
Poor performance (due to Predicted performance
design and construction High adaptability
failures)
Low adaptability
C1-C4 DEMOLITION DISASSEMBLY [99–102]
End-of-life stage More waste generated Less waste generated
Difficult to separate waste Easier to separate waste
by streams by streams
D Benefits and loads LANDFILL REUSE AND RECYCLE [99, 103–105]
beyond the system’s CDW sent to landfill CDW recycled
boundaries Downcycling Parts and modules reused
Upcycling
a LC stages are defined according to ISO 21930

to foster lean construction and Industry 4.0 in the construction sector (Turner et al.,
2021), such as 3D printing [66]. Furthermore, prefabricated components, especially
modular construction, foster the applicability of the design for disassembly in the
built environment [110, 111] because they facilitate future alterations and disman-
tlement of a part or the whole building recovering the components and expanded
their lifespan. For example, concrete columns, floor systems, and roof structures can
230 V. Tavares et al.

be re-incorporated into the market and minimise waste generation from the built
environment [110], which could be enhanced by construction digitalisation [112].
Prefabrication seeks to effect significant efficiencies in the construction process
that should also result in considerable cost savings. A shorter project schedule further
enhances cost savings. The shorter the construction period, the less construction
period carrying costs, such as real estate taxes, insurance, interest, and other construc-
tion period carrying costs typically referred to as “soft costs”, and the sooner the
building can start generating revenue.
Summing up, prefabricated components provide certain advantages compared to
traditional on-site construction, including greater control over weather, quality, and
supervision; reduced environmental impact due to reduced waste, air, water, and
noise pollution; streamlined project schedules by fabricating building components
while the construction site is being prepared; fewer logistical challenges associated
with organising crews and deliveries; more convenient storage leading to minimal
instances of lost or misplaced materials; increased safety through limited exposure
to unsafe weather and working conditions.

8.9.2 Challenges of Prefabrication

Although prefabricated construction offers several benefits, as mentioned above, it

faces limitations that impede its widespread adoption in the industry. Factors such
as transport, lifting, and other logistical considerations present challenges that must
be identified. A significant initial capital investment is required to upskill labour and
establish a prefabrication plant. Additionally, the costs and reservations posed by
the learning curve are accentuated by the lack of expertise and knowledge regarding
the design, logistics, and installation of prefabrication components, the absence of
technical standards regarding the structural, fire, acoustic, and thermal performance,
sustainability, and overall viability of prefabricated construction and its structural
and non-structural elements, contribute to these limitations [113]. Also, some extra
planning and managing effort, high initial cost, lack of skilled workers or qualified
supply chain, and constraints in transport and logistics [114]. Furthermore, some
threats are identified in the literature, such as difficulties in installation management
due to compact spaces, extra cost-border logistics, and insufficient information on
storage [115].
Some of these barriers have been grouped in the literature [113]:
Cultural aspects, including lack of necessary technical experience, the absence
of technical standards, and preconception of prefabrication adoption, will reduce
jobs;
Economic aspects, even though prefabrication may represent high savings, if not
managed appropriately, may have high-cost overruns and difficulties in financing;
Practical aspects related to transport and handling, the lack of skilled workforce,
and the inability to make changes on-site;
8 Modularity and Prefabrication 231

Technical aspects, such as BIM adoption and automation, are due to the sector’s
reluctance to change.
Some constraints along the life cycle stages are:
During the planning phase, there are significant expenses associated with
securing funding for plant establishment, securing project financing, and dealing
with resource supply shortages;
During the design phase, challenges arise due to the absence of standards
and regulations, a lack of experienced designers, and constraints on design and
architectural creativity;
During the off-site manufacturing phase, challenges include a scarcity of skilled
labour, logistical hurdles, repetitive components, and limited tolerance;
During the on-site assembly phase, obstacles encompass difficulties in trans-
portation and handling, a shortage of skilled labour, limitations in making on-site
modifications, the intricacy of installation, and restricted tolerance.

8.10 Modularity, Prefabrication and Circular Construction

In implementing a circular economy in the built environment, prefabrication and

modularity are identified as enabling production technologies. Still, the contributions
of prefabrication and modularity to implementing circular buildings are unclear. We
define the following questions:
– Are modular building systems in themselves circular buildings?
– If not, which strategies/principles employed in modular buildings facilitate the
implementation of circular buildings?
To reply to these questions, we planned to analyse a set of case studies selected
based on the three main types of modular building systems [116, 117]: frame, panel,
and room module systems - to evaluate their ability to implement circular buildings.
The hybrid systems will not be included.
A circular building is a building designed, built, used, and disassembled according
to (i) the Circular Economy Principles [118]–eliminate waste and pollution, circulate
products and materials (at their highest value), regenerate nature–(ii) the nR strate-
gies [119]–refuse, rethink, reduce, re-use, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, repur-
pose, recycle, and recover–and (iii) other Circular Economy strategies. Even though
circular strategies can be implemented along the building life cycle, the early stage
is crucial to striving for circular design [120].
Several frameworks are available in the literature to support the design and assess-
ment of circular buildings; a selection has been analysed in that subtask. We compared
them to identify the most appropriate framework for the case study research.
Prefabricated building systems can be designed as closed or open systems [116]:
– Closed system: it integrates all part systems. The entire building or partial systems
(load-bearing structures, façades, or internal fit-out) are produced by a manufac-
turer. Elements can be only used within that system, and variety is quite limited
due to the integration of the building parts;
232 V. Tavares et al.

– Open system: it combines various prefabricated building part systems for the
shell, interior fit-out, and building envelope. The elements are standardised and
dimensionally coordinated. Elements from different manufacturers can be vari-
ably combined as a partial system or for the entire building, allowing for a wide
range of construction projects.
Building prefabrication is generally recognised as a potentially more energy-
efficient and less resource-demanding construction method than traditional ones
[117]. It reduces material waste through efficient ordering, indoor protection, pre-
planning, and cutting. The final building also benefits from increased energy effi-
ciency performance and lower energy use during its lifecycle. Prefabricated buildings
can also reduce carbon footprint by minimising transportation to sites [117]. Recently,
building prefabrication has raised interest in the implementation of circular buildings.
Minunno et al. [110] identified seven circular strategies that building prefabrication
could apply to implement circular buildings: (1) reduction of waste and lean produc-
tion; (2) integration of waste and by-products; (3) reuse of components or parts;
(4) design for adaptability; (5) design for disassembly; (6) design for recycling; (7)
materials and components track system). Furthermore, strategies to integrate Circular
Economy into modular constructions are:
– Design toward adaptability (reduction through life extension) during operational
stages;
– Design toward disassembly into components to be reused;
– Design for recycling of construction materials;
– Reduction of construction waste and the lean production chain;
– Integration of scrap, waste, and by-products into new components;
– Modular buildings can be extended on demand;
– Modular units can be reused in other applications;
– Use of systems to track materials and components within their supply chain.

8.11 Bibliometric Analyses

A bibliometric analysis identified research trends in modular and prefabricated build-

ings toward CE in the construction sector. A five-step approach was followed: (1)
conceptualisation and design; (2) data collection; (3) selection and assessment; (4)
results visualisation; and, finally, (5) interpretation and discussion. This section
briefly describes the bibliometric research process and summarises the main results:
(1) conceptualisation and design: In this stage, the research question is formulated,
and the search process is defined, including the identification of the database,
the formulation of the search query, the selection of the search keywords, and
the definition of the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the keywords selection;
8 Modularity and Prefabrication 233

(2) data collection: a list of publications containing the following keywords:

Circular economy; Construction sector; Prefabrication; Modular construction;
and equivalent or related terms were used to select over 4500 peer-reviewed
articles and reviews published in English were initially identified;
(3) selection and assessment: After a filtering process removed duplicated and
out-the-scope articles ended up with over 600 articles, and some visuals were
then built around them;
(4) results visualisation: two graphics present the number of publications per
country (Fig. 8.5) and the number of occurrences of a keyword (Fig. 8.6);
(5) interpretation and discussion: figures are presented, and results are further
discussed.
Figure 8.5 shows the country network with the average annual number of publi-
cations per country (between 1989 and 2023 and a minimum of 10 documents). Of
the total of 68 countries, 21 countries meet this condition. This figure shows that
China has the most published papers, followed by the United States and the United
Kingdom. Emerging countries in this field are Australia, Canada, Italy, and Hong
Kong (as special administrative regions of China).
Figure 8.6 presents a map of author keywords considering a minimum number of
occurrences of a keyword of 5. Of the total of 1457 keywords previously identified,
96 meet this condition. This figure shows that the term “life cycle assessment” is
undoubtedly the most used, followed by the terms “prefabrication” and “circular
economy” (that were the main terms in this bibliometric research), and in a second
level by “lean construction”, “sustainability” and “construction industry”. “Modular
construction” appears subtly, and the link between the three initial terms; “modular
construction”, “prefabrication” and “circular economy” seems fragile and unclear
(Fig. 8.6).

Fig. 8.5 Countries network with the average annual number of publications per country. The cutoff
criteria stipulated a minimum of 10 documents per country
234 V. Tavares et al.

Fig. 8.6 Co-occurrence map of keywords considering. The cutoff criteria stipulated a minimum of
5 keywords

8.12 Case Studies

Based on this review, we established the criteria for selecting the case studies.
Case studies will be chosen to provide a representative sample for each type of
the following categories:

– types of prefabrication systems: frame, panel, room module, hybrid, and complete;
– types of prefabricated building systems: open or closed;
– types of product architectures: modular or integral.

Case studies regarding circular buildings will be analysed to establish how and
in which measure modularity and prefabrication contribute to implementing circular
buildings. Several frameworks are available in the literature to support the design and
assessment of circular buildings; a selection was made in Sect. 8.1. For comparison,
we selected the framework developed by the Arup & Ellen Macarthur Foundation
[118] to apply in the case study research since it provides a set of strategies that
considers the building lifecycle; modularity, and prefabrication; and indicators to
assess the case studies are formalised.
A matrix was developed and implemented to identify CE principles within the
prefab and modular case studies; see Fig. 8.7.
8 Modularity and Prefabrication 235

CASE STUDY DESCRIPTION

Case study name (if the case study has a name):
_____________
Type (e.g. Prefabricated, Modular, both, other):
______________
Data source (e.g. published paper, design team, contractors, others)
______________
Link to data (e.g. URL):
______________
Case study description:
- authors (e.g. design team, contractors, other):
______________
- scale (e.g. component, building element; building, neighbourhood, other):
______________
- if building, gross floor area (GFA/m2))
______________
- use typology (e.g. residential, office, commercial, industrial, other):
______________
- location (e.g. country, city):
______________
- description:
________________________________________________________________
figures: (e.g. floorplan, elevation, pictures, others)

- impact categories and units (e.g. GHG/kgCO2eq):

________________
- other indicators (e.g. circular material rate):
________________
- main results:
___________________________________________________________

Describe Circular Economy design strategies based on the Circular Buildings Framework (Arup,
2021) reported below. Further information on strategies, sub-strategies, and indicators is available
here: https://ce-toolkit.dhub.arup.com/framework
Strategy Sub-strategy Indicators
Refuse new construction Reused floor area
Build nothing
(% of total GFA)
Build for long-term Increase building utilisation Total building utilisation [h/sqm]
value
Design for longevity EU Level(s) Whole Life Cycle Costs
[$/m2/year]
Design for adaptability EU Level(s) Adaptability Rating
Design for disassembly EU Level(s) Disassembly Potential Rat-
ing
Refuse unnecessary compo- Material use intensity per functional unit
Build efficiently
nents [kg/unit/year]
Increase material efficiency Material use intensity by area [kg/sqm
/year]
Build with the right ma- Reduce the use of virgin EMF's Material Circularity Indicator
terials materials (MCI)
Reduce the use of carbon- Embodied Carbon Intensity
intensive materials [kgCO2eq/m2/year]
Design out hazardous pol- Environmental Impact Cost [€/m2/year]
luting materials

Case study discussion and conclusions:

____________________________________________________________________________

Fig. 8.7 Matrix to assess CE principles in case studies

236 V. Tavares et al.

CASE STUDY 1–Existing Building Extension, Timber

Case study name (if the case study has a name): Vertical Timber Extensions on Existing
Building: new 10 stories hotel on the top of the existing commercial centre.
Type (e.g. Prefabricated, Modular, both, other): both.
Data source (e.g. published paper, design team, contractors, others): design team
WSP.
Link to data (e.g. URL): https://www.wsp.com/en-gl/projects/55-southbank
Case Study Description:
– authors (e.g. design team, contractors, other): design team
– scale (e.g. component, building element; building, neighbourhood, other): building
– if the building, gross floor area (GFA/m2) 13,000 m2 of new space
– use typology (e.g. residential, office, commercial, industrial, other): hotel
– location (e.g. country, city): Australia, Melbourne
– description: At 55 Southbank Boulevard, a six-story commercial building erected
in 1989, WSP embarked on a project to enhance its capacity by adding ten addi-
tional stories using cross-laminated timber (CLT), yielding 13,000 square meters
of extra space. The extension’s height was constrained by existing pile capacity,
precluding the possibility of installing new piles within the structure. After consid-
ering various options, including concrete slabs and composite deck slabs, CLT was
chosen for its ability to accommodate ten stories without surpassing the pile capacity,
unlike concrete slabs that could only feasibly support a six-story extension. Collab-
orating with specialists, WSP devised a Future Ready solution wherein existing
building columns were reinforced, and core walls strengthened to bear the added
load, incorporating CLT walls between hotel rooms. A composite slab transfer deck
was designed to distribute vertical loads from walls to existing concrete columns.
Two new steel cores were introduced to address heightened lateral loads, incorpo-
rating existing concrete walls into the stability system and fortifying existing core
walls. Additionally, a new raft under the steel core was engineered to transfer loads
to existing piles, negating the need for new piles. To maintain panoramic views,
steel beams and columns were meticulously designed to support CLT floor panels
and accommodate larger wall spacing around curved sections of the building.
– impact categories and units CO2 OFFSETS (TONNES): 4200
– other indicators (e.g. circular material rate): CROSS LAMINIATED TIMBER
(TONNES) 5,300 NEW FLOOR SPACE (m2) 13,000
– main results:
The Future Ready design and construction of this project presented several chal-
lenges that our team had to consider, such as working on construction while the occupied
floors below remained in use, integrating existing utilities and services, and avoiding
the need for additional foundation piles. By employing prefabricated cross-laminated
timber and embracing Circular Economy principles to repurpose the existing building,
we were able to save time and money while reducing the environmental impacts associ-
ated with demolition and reconstruction. The building was inaugurated in August 2020,
with a section transformed into the Adina Apartment Hotel Melbourne Southbank.
Describe Circular Economy design strategies based on the Circular Buildings
Framework developed by Arup is reported below. Further information on strategies,
sub-strategies and indicators is available here (Fig. 8.8):
8 Modularity and Prefabrication 237

https://ce-toolkit.dhub.arup.com/framework.

Strategy Sub-strategy Indicators

Build nothing Refuse new construction Reused floor area (% of total
GFA)
Build for long-term Increase building utilisation Total building utilisation [h/
value sqm] 24/sqm
Design for longevity EU Level(s) Whole Life
Cycle Costs [$/m2 /year]
Design for adaptability EU Level(s) Adaptability
Rating
Design for disassembly EU Level(s) Disassembly
Potential Rating
Build efficiently Refuse unnecessary Material use intensity per
components functional unit [kg/unit/year]
Increase material efficiency Material use intensity by area
[kg/sqm /year]
Build with the right Reduce the use of virgin EMF’s Material Circularity
materials materials Indicator (MCI)
Reduce the use of Embodied Carbon Intensity
carbon-intensive materials [kgCO2 eq/m2 /year]
Design out hazardous Environmental Impact Cost
polluting materials [e/m2 /year]

Case study discussion and conclusions: The solution implemented Cross Lami-
nated Timber (CLT) construction, enabling the existing building to support an addi-
tional 10 levels, achieving the desired room count across 13,000 square meters of new
floor space. CLT, weighing approximately 20% of concrete, effectively doubled the
feasible number of levels above the existing structure. Prefabricating components off-
site with CLT enhanced construction efficiencies and minimised impacts on nearby
buildings, presenting a more sustainable method for densifying urban areas. In light
of limited available development sites, lightweight timber structures offer increased
yields compared to traditional concrete and steel methods. This shift towards sustain-
ability extends to reduced transport costs and carbon emissions, facilitated by CLT’s
lightweight nature. The substantial amount of CO2 sequestered within the timber,
around 4,200 tonnes, equivalent to the annual emissions of 130 homes, emphasises
the environmental benefits. Timber procurement for the hotel adhered to Forest Stew-
ardship Council certification standards, reflecting Adina Southbank’s commitment to
sustainability. As the world’s tallest timber vertical extension, this project stands as
a pioneering example of CLT and Mass Timber construction, showcasing innovative
building reuse practices that have significantly enriched the site and its surroundings.
Awards:
2022 Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) International Conference
Tall Excellence award for Renovation.
238 V. Tavares et al.

Fig. 8.8 Pictures and floorplans of an existing building extension with a timber structure
8 Modularity and Prefabrication 239

Fig. 8.8 (continued)

240 V. Tavares et al.

CASE STUDY 2–New Modular Building

Case study name: FrameUp - Optimisation of frames for effective assembling.
Type (e.g. Prefabricated, Modular, both, other): Both.
Data source (e.g. published paper, design team, contractors, others): RFSR-CT-
2011–00,035 Final Report.
Link to data (e.g. URL): https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2777/766842 [121]
Case study description:
– authors (e.g. design team, contractors, other): M. Veljkovic et al.
– scale (e.g. component, building element; building, neighbourhood, other): Building
– if the building, gross floor area (GFA/m2 ) 638 m2
– use typology (e.g. residential, office, commercial, industrial, other):Residential
– location (e.g. country, city): Lulea, Sweden
– description:
The project aims to conceptualise and conduct feasibility tests for an innovative
execution technique for skeletal systems, incorporating structurally integrated 3D
modules and assessing the structural performance of novel joints. The new technique
involves initially assembling the roof and top floor to form a rigid body, which is
then lifted using lift towers and jacks, safeguarding the structure from precipitation
and moisture damage during assembly. Through research, the project will delineate
the competitive scope of application for the concept compared to existing building
alternatives, incorporating a comprehensive sustainability assessment (Fig. 8.9).
– impact categories and units (e.g. GHG/kgCO2 eq):
– other indicators (e.g. circular material rate):
Results of environmental categories.

Results of environmental categories per life cycle stage.

Results of energy categories (net cal. Values) per life cycle stage.
Results of the categories of energy use.
8 Modularity and Prefabrication 241

– main results:
The main achievement of the research project is the development of a construction
process for a modular building based on a lifting-up technique. This includes the execu-
tion of a building from the roof to ground floor and the assembly of frames and 3D
room modules. This process is fully visualised for the identification of possible conflicts
during the execution and to promote the project goals towards industry and society for
benefit of stakeholders. A portable lifting device consisting of a self-climbing device
and climbing columns are developed and tested. Different types of beam-column joints
are investigated in order to ensure quick assembling and to guarantee the stability of the
non-braced structure even in certain earthquake regions. Verification of the resistances
of joints at ambient and elevated temperatures, under monotonic and cyclic loadings are
done by means of experiments and Finite Element studies. Furthermore, the robustness
of a six-storey modular building is assessed, and a risk assessment of potential perilous
situations are carried out. A pilot building structural frame is executed at indoor condi-
tions and monitored in order to investigate the feasibility of the construction process.
Sustainability aspects are addressed and a comparative LCC analysis is performed to
verify the advantages of the concept. Experiments are conducted to investigate the
building physics performances of the 3D room modules. Subsequently, design models
and guidelines are developed to predict the analytical behaviour of column bases,
beam-to-column joints, and column splices using the component method. These design
recommendations align with and complement EN1993-1–8 standards.
– describe Circular Economy design strategies based on the Circular Buildings Frame-
work (Arup, 2021) reported below. Further information on strategies, sub-strategies
and indicators is available here: https://ce-toolkit.dhub.arup.com/framework
242 V. Tavares et al.

Strategy Sub-strategy Indicators

Build nothing Refuse new construction Reused floor area
(% of total GFA)
Build for long-term Increase building utilisation Total building utilisation [h/
value sqm]
Design for longevity EU Level(s) Whole Life
Cycle Costs [$/m2 /year]
Design for adaptability EU Level(s) Adaptability
Rating
Design for disassembly EU Level(s) Disassembly
Potential Rating
Build efficiently Refuse unnecessary Material use intensity per
components functional unit [kg/unit/year]
Increase material efficiency Material use intensity by area
[kg/sqm /year]
Build with the right Reduce the use of virgin EMF’s Material Circularity
materials materials Indicator (MCI)
Reduce the use of Embodied Carbon Intensity
carbon-intensive materials [kgCO2 eq/m2 /year]
Design out hazardous Environmental Impact Cost
polluting materials [e/m2 /year]

case study discussion and conclusions:

Feasibility of the novel erection concept, FRAMEUP concept, for multi-story build-
ings based on in situ work at the ground level and using jacks for lifting up the structure
has been proved.
Beam-column joints for tubular sections, using the reverse channel and long bolts
have sufficient stiffness and strength for application in non-braced frames. The beam-
column joint using long bolts are more cost effective compared to the solution using
the reverse channel.
The column base investigation has led to new models for possible implementation
in Eurocodes.
The complete design verification, including accidental loads and assessment of
robustness during the erection and at the final stage, has shown sufficient resistance for
most of application within EU.
Sustainability aspects, energy efficiency and building comfort have shown satisfac-
tory performance.
8 Modularity and Prefabrication 243

Fig. 8.9 3D views, floorplans and section from FrameUp project

244 V. Tavares et al.

Fig. 8.9 (continued)

CASE STUDY 3–Single-Family Steel Structure

Case study name (if the case study has a name): SUPRIM case study.
Type (e.g. Prefabricated, Modular, both, other): Prefabricated.
Data source (e.g. published paper, design team, contractors, others published paper,
report, patent filing.
Link to data (e.g. URL):
Case Study Description:
Authors (e.g. design team, contractors, other): Research team of the Laboratory of
Building Construction and Building Physics of the Civil Engineering Department of
the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki & Theodoros Iliadis.
scale (e.g. component, building element; building, neighbourhood, other): building
component, building.
if building, gross floor area (GFA/m2 ) 47,32.
– use typology (e.g. residential, office, commercial, industrial, other): residential
– location (e.g. country, city): Greece, Thessaloniki
– description:
The case study pertains to a small, single-family building showcasing a prefabri-
cated composite construction. Its rectangular plan extends along the south-north axis,
featuring openings solely on the south and north walls. The building structure utilises
a steel framework, while the walls are constructed using the SU.PR.I.M. (Sustainable
Preconstructed Innovative Module) wall system. This prefabricated system underwent
comprehensive testing, including structural, hygrothermal, energy, acoustic, and fire
8 Modularity and Prefabrication 245

Fig. 8.10 Floorplan, 3D image, structural system and wall composition of the SUPRIM case study
246 V. Tavares et al.

performance studies, resulting in optimisation. The SU.PR.I.M. wall system comprises

composite panels comprising two 5 cm thick reinforced concrete plates sandwiching
vertical (occasionally diagonal) metal hollow elements. Thermal insulation boards fill
the cavity between the metal elements, with the entire wall insulated using ETICS.
Specially designed shear connectors link the concrete plates and steel elements, while
bolted joints connect the wall panels to the main steel framework, specifically engi-
neered for this construction type. [The SU.PR.I.M. wall system is protected by a Greek
patent, with a pending European patent.] The building’s inclined roof is covered with
clay tiles and insulated with a 10.0 cm XPS layer, while the floor, in contact with
the ground, is reinforced concrete, insulated with a 10 cm thick XPS layer. Windows
feature PVC frames with double low-e glazing, boasting an average value of 2W/(m2
K). (Fig. 8.10)
impact categories and units (e.g. GHG/kgCO2 eq): 1950kgCO2 eq for 40 years.
other indicators (e.g. circular material rate): NA.
Main Results:
The development of the innovative prefabricated wall system was shaped in order
to satisfy high requirements for its operation and performance. Specifically, it was
designed in order to be able to bear and deliver safely all the imposed building loads;
display advanced energy performance; demonstrate excellent hygrothermal behaviour;
provide acoustic insulation protection and resistance against fire actions; and minimise
its environmental footprint during its life cycle.
Studies [122] showed that the examined building configuration shows better envi-
ronmental performance when constructed with the SU.PR.I.M. wall system in compar-
ison to using the conventional construction (reinforced concrete beams and columns
and brickwork masonry).
Describe Circular Economy design strategies based on the Circular Buildings
Framework reported below. Further information on strategies, sub-strategies, and
indicators is available here: https://ce-toolkit.dhub.arup.com/framework.
8 Modularity and Prefabrication 247

Strategy Sub-strategy Indicators

Build nothing Refuse new construction Reused floor area
(% of total GFA)
Build for long-term Increase building utilisation Total building utilisation [h/
value sqm]
Design for longevity EU Level(s) Whole Life
Cycle Costs [$/m2 /year]
Design for adaptability EU Level(s) Adaptability
Rating
Design for disassembly EU Level(s) Disassembly
Potential Rating
Build efficiently Refuse unnecessary Material use intensity per
components functional unit [kg/unit/year]
Increase material efficiency Material use intensity by area
[kg/sqm /year]
Build with the right Reduce the use of virgin EMF’s Material Circularity
materials materials Indicator (MCI)
Reduce the use of Embodied Carbon Intensity
carbon-intensive materials [kgCO2 eq/m2 /year]
Design out hazardous Environmental Impact Cost
polluting materials [e/m2 /year]

Beyond its improved energy and environmental performance, the building

constructed with the SU.PR.I.M. wall system has additional advantages, as it is prefab-
ricated and constructed according to a number of circularity design principles, such as
design for longevity, adaptability and disassembly. There is further potential to increase
its circularity, as:
• it can be disassembled and part of it can be reused, so it can be regarded as a partially
reversible one
• part of its materials can be reused/recycled
• part of its materials can be substituted with circular materials, i.e. the concrete on
the panels, etc.
Bibliography [122]

8.13 Discussion

Different types and approaches of prefabricated and modular buildings exist,

offering unique benefits and applications. These can be categorised into compo-
nent sub-assembly, non-volumetric pre-assembly (panelised systems), volumetric
pre-assembly, modular construction, hybrid structures, and unitised whole-building
prefabrication. The degree of prefabrication ranges from individual components such
248 V. Tavares et al.

as stairs and wall frames to the volumetric units that make up the structure of the
building itself. Manufacturing methods for these components include fixed platforms
and production lines, each tailored to different types of prefabricated elements. The
diversity in prefabrication types allows for greater flexibility, speed, and efficiency
in construction projects.
Structural materials used in prefabricated and modular buildings encompass a
range of options, including conventional materials such as steel, wood, and concrete;
and novel materials such as composite systems that combine multiple materials
for improved structural performance, recycled materials to promote circularity
and sustainability; or nature-based solutions (e.g. incorporating vertical greening
system). The choice of materials impacts the environmental performance and cost of
prefabricated buildings, deeply influencing reuse, recycling potential, and end-of-life
scenarios (and associated impacts). Understanding these differences and disclosing
trade-offs are crucial to assessing prefabricated buildings’ cost and environmental
burdens.
Refurbishing prefabricated buildings presents a contemporary challenge in Europe
and the United States. Initially built without energy efficiency codes, these build-
ings now require deep renovations. Modern design and construction advancements
have overcome the misconception surrounding the quality of early prefabricated
buildings. Prefabricated components play a crucial role in addressing the European
Union’s target of doubling the annual renovation rate, offering efficient solutions for
building stock renovation and energy refurbishment. Several projects and studies have
explored applying prefabricated elements in building rehabilitation, highlighting the
potential for cost-effectiveness, speed, and efficiency in the renovation process.
Prefabrication and modular construction offer a set of benefits to the construc-
tion sector, reducing time and cost, and leveraging sustainability. These advan-
tages stem from reducing environmental impact through reduced material usage and
waste generation, achieving cost efficiency through economies of scale and precise
construction, and improving quality due to controlled off-site manufacturing. The
approach also leads to reduced project timelines by allowing concurrent off-site fabri-
cation and onsite preparation, minimising risks associated with weather and on-site
labour. Additional benefits include improved sustainability through reduced waste
and circular economy principles, such as design for deconstruction and flexibility
for building longevity and renovation.
However, the widespread adoption of prefabrication is hindered by several chal-
lenges. Initial capital investment and the need to up-skill labour for prefabrication
plants pose economic barriers, along with challenges related to logistics, transporta-
tion, and handling. Insufficient technical standards and knowledge further limit its
widespread implementation. These challenges are evident throughout the construc-
tion life cycle, from the planning and design phases to off-site manufacturing and on-
site assembly, necessitating strategic planning, investment, and collaboration to over-
come these obstacles and maximise the benefits of prefabrication in the construction
industry.
The advancement of technology, including 3D printing and Building Information
Modelling (BIM), is driving a revolution in low-cost mass production. This revolution
8 Modularity and Prefabrication 249

promises more affordable construction with increased creativity, aesthetics, and flex-
ibility. Prefabricated and modular building techniques are improving, accelerating
construction timelines, and reducing costs. However, it is still being determined if
these methods will consistently deliver long-term quality improvements at a lower
cost compared to traditional approaches, as we are currently in a learning phase.
Nevertheless, technology is expected to enable larger-scale and more cost-effective
construction in the near future.
The integration of a circular economy in the built environment is facili-
tated by prefabrication and modularity, acting as crucial production technique
enablers. However, it remains unclear how prefabrication and modularity specifi-
cally contribute to the implementation of circular buildings. This raises fundamental
questions, such as whether modular building systems are inherently circular and, if
not, which strategies within modular buildings support circular buildings. To address
these questions, modular and prefabricated case studies, are analysed to evaluate
their potential in implementing circular buildings. The distinction between closed
and open prefabricated building systems is crucial, allowing for either limited inte-
gration within a single system or a flexible combination of elements from various
manufacturers in a wide range of construction projects.
Prefabricated building systems, often viewed as energy-efficient and less resource-
demanding, offer benefits in reducing material waste, improving energy efficiency
performance, and reducing the carbon footprint. The implementation of circular
strategies in prefabrication can further boost sustainability, focusing on waste reduc-
tion, waste reduction, and waste integration in new materials, design for adaptability
and disassembly, recycling, and efficient material tracking systems. To align with the
Circular Economy principles, design should prioritise adaptability, disassembly into
reusable components, recycling of construction materials, reduction of waste, inte-
gration of waste and by-products into new components, potential extension and reuse
of modular units, and effective tracking of materials and components throughout their
supply chain.

References

1. Cheng Z, Zhang T, Zhou X, Li Z, Jia Y, Ren K, Xu T, Li C, Hong J (2023) Life cycle

environmental and cost assessment of prefabricated components manufacture. J Clean Prod
415:137888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137888
2. Chippagiri R, Bras A, Sharma D, Ralegaonkar RV (2022) Technological and sustainable
perception on the advancements of prefabrication in construction industry. Energies (Basel)
15. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15207548
3. Boafo FE, Kim JH, Kim JT (2016) Performance of modular prefabricated architecture: Case
study-based review and future pathways. Sustainability (Switzerland) 8. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su8060558
4. 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 212:1044–1053.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.028
250 V. Tavares et al.

5. Aye L, Ngo T, Crawford RH, Gammampila R, Mendis P (2012) Life cycle greenhouse gas
emissions and energy analysis of prefabricated reusable building modules. Energy Build
47:159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.11.049
6. Pons O, Wadel G (2011) Environmental impacts of prefabricated school buildings in Catalonia.
Habitat Int 35:553–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.03.005
7. Tumminia G, Guarino F, Longo S, Ferraro M, Cellura M, Antonucci V (2018) Life cycle
energy performances and environmental impacts of a prefabricated building module. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 92:272–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.059
8. Goulding J, Rahimian FP, Arif M, Sharp M (2012) Offsite construction: strategic priorities
for shaping the future research agenda, Architectoni.Ca 1 62–73. https://doi.org/10.5618/arch.
2012.v1.n1.7.
9. Kolo SJ, Rahimian FP, Goulding JS (2014) Offsite manufacturing construction: A big oppor-
tunity for housing delivery in Nigeria. Procedia Eng 85:319–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
proeng.2014.10.557
10. Harvey (2014) Off-Site construction implementation resource: off-site and modular construc-
tion explained, national institute of building sciences 6. https://www.wbdg.org/resources/off
siteconstructionexplained.php.
11. 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
12. Kozlovská M, Struková Z, Kaleja P (2015) Methodology of cost parameter estimation for
modern methods of construction based on wood 108:387–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pro
eng.2015.06.162
13. Monahan J, Powell JC (2011) An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern methods of
construction in housing: A case study using a lifecycle assessment framework. Energy Build
43:179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.09.005
14. Waste and resources action programme, current practices and future potential in modern
methods of construction, (2007) http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Modern Methods
of Construction Full.pdf.
15. Isaac S, Bock T, Stoliar Y (2014) A new approach to building design modularization. Procedia
Eng 85:274–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.10.552
16. Zhang Z, Li X, Li Y, Hu G, Wang X, Zhang G, Tao H (2023) Modularity, reconfigurability,
and autonomy for the future in spacecraft: A review. Chin J Aeronaut. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.CJA.2023.04.019
17. Olson T (2010) Design for deconstruction and modularity in a sustainable built environment,
1–37. http://cmec.wsu.edu/publications/TimothyOlsonreport.pdf.
18. Why D, Works M, (2007) Pre-Assembly Perks 28–30
19. Gibb AGF (2001) Pre-assembly in construction A review of recent and current industry and
research initiatives on pre-assembly in construction A review of recent and current industry
and research initiatives on pre-assembly in construction
20. Yepes V, Martí JV, García-Segura T (2015) Cost and CO2 emission optimization of precast-
prestressed concrete U-beam road bridges by a hybrid glowworm swarm algorithm. Autom
Constr 49:123–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.10.013
21. Baldwin A, Poon CS, Shen LY, Austin S, Wong I (2009) Designing out waste in high-rise
residential buildings: Analysis of precasting methods and traditional construction. Renew
Energy 34 (2067–2073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.02.008.
22. Benjaoran V, Dawood N (2006) Intelligence approach to production planning system for
bespoke precast concrete products. Autom Constr 15:737–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aut
con.2005.09.007
23. Hong J, Shen GQ, Li Z, Zhang B, Zhang W (2018) Barriers to promoting prefabricated
construction in China: A cost–benefit analysis. J Clean Prod 172:649–660. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.171
24. Ahmed IM, Tsavdaridis KD (2018) Life cycle assessment (LCA) and cost (LCC) studies of
lightweight composite flooring systems. J Build Eng 20:624–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2018.09.013
8 Modularity and Prefabrication 251

25. Mortazavi M, Sharafi P, Kildashti K, Samali B (2020) Prefabricated hybrid steel wall panels
for mid-rise construction in seismic regions. J Build Eng 27:100942. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jobe.2019.100942
26. Lehmann S (2013) Low carbon construction systems using prefabricated engineered solid
wood panels for urban infill to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Sustain Cities
Soc 6:57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2012.08.004
27. Boscato G, Mora TD, Peron F, Russo S, Romagnoni P (2018) A new concrete-glulam prefabri-
cated composite wall system: Thermal behavior, life cycle assessment and structural response.
J Build Eng 19:384–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.05.027
28. Gasparri E, Aitchison M (2019) Unitised timber envelopes. A novel approach to the design
of prefabricated mass timber envelopes for multi-storey buildings. J Build Eng 26:100898.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100898
29. Ding H, Li M, Zhong RY, Huang GQ (2023) Multistage self-adaptive decision-making mech-
anism for prefabricated building modules with IoT-enabled graduation manufacturing system.
Autom Constr 148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2023.104755
30. Mullett TA (2017) Modular construction. project management: a reference for professionals
771–786. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203741771
31. Atmaca A, Atmaca N (2016) Comparative life cycle energy and cost analysis of post-
disaster temporary housings. Appl Energy 171:429–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.
2016.03.058
32. Dara C, Hachem-Vermette C, Assefa G (2019) Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of
container-based single-family housing in Canada: A case study. Build Environ 163:106332.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106332
33. Islam H, Zhang G, Setunge S, Bhuiyan MA (2016) Life cycle assessment of shipping container
home: A sustainable construction. Energy Build 128:673–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enb
uild.2016.07.002
34. Kamali M, Hewage K (2016) Life cycle performance of modular buildings: A critical review.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 62:1171–1183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.031
35. Salama T, Moselhi O, Al-Hussein M (2018) Modular Industry Characteristics and Barriers
to its Increased Market Share. In: Modul Offsite Constr (MOC) Summit Proc https://doi.org/
10.29173/mocs34.
36. Mateus R, Neiva S, Bragança L, Mendonça P, Macieira M (2013) Sustainability assess-
ment of an innovative lightweight building technology for partition walls—Comparison with
conventional technologies. Build Environ 67:147–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.
2013.05.012
37. Lechón Y, de la Rúa C, Lechón JI (2021) Environmental footprint and life cycle costing of a
family house built on CLT structure. Analysis of hotspots and improvement measures. J Build
Eng 39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102239
38. Pierobon F, Huang M, Simonen K, Ganguly I (2019) Environmental benefits of using hybrid
CLT structure in midrise non-residential construction: An LCA based comparative case study
in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. J Build Eng 26 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100862.
39. Eriksson P (2001) Comparative LCA:s for wood and other construction methods. Swedish
Wood Association, Stockholm
40. Soares N, Santos P, Gervásio H, Costa JJ, Simões da Silva L (2017) Energy efficiency and
thermal performance of lightweight steel-framed (LSF) construction: A review. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 78:194–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.066
41. Iuorio O, Napolano L, Fiorino L, Landolfo R (2019) The environmental impacts of an inno-
vative modular lightweight steel system: The Elissa case. J Clean Prod 238:117905. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117905
42. Chen Y, Okudan GE, Riley DR (2010) Sustainable performance criteria for construction
method selection in concrete buildings. Autom Constr 19:235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.autcon.2009.10.004
43. Vitale Pierluca AU, Spagnuolo Antonio, Lubritto Carmine (2018) Environmental perfor-
mances of residential buildings with a structure in cold formed steel or reinforced concrete,
J Clean Prod 189 839–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.088.
252 V. Tavares et al.

44. Gorgolewski M (2007) Developing a simplified method of calculating U-values in light steel
framing. Build Environ 42:230–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.07.001
45. Rodrigues E, Soares N, Fernandes MS, Gaspar AR, Gomes Á, Costa JJ (2018) An integrated
energy performance-driven generative design methodology to foster modular lightweight steel
framed dwellings in hot climates. Energy Sustain Dev 44:21–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.
2018.02.006
46. Freire F, Williams E, Azapagic A, Clift R, Stevens G, Mellor W (2002) Life cycle activity
analysis: a case study of plastic panels, technology commercialization: DEA and related
analytical methods for evaluating the use and implementation of technical. Innovation 323–
352. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1001-7_20
47. Moreno-Sierra A, Pieschacón M, Khan A (2020) The use of recycled plastics for the design
of a thermal resilient emergency shelter prototype. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 50. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101885
48. Sommerhuber PF, Wenker JL, Rüter S, Krause A (2017) Resources, Conservation and Recy-
cling Life cycle assessment of wood-plastic composites: Analysing alternative materials and
identifying an environmental sound end-of-life option, Resour Conserv. Recycl 117:235–248.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.10.012
49. Ortiz O, Bonnet C, Bruno JC, Castells F (2009) Sustainability based on LCM of residential
dwellings: A case study in Catalonia. Spain, Build Environ 44:584–594. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.buildenv.2008.05.004
50. Cao X, Li X, Zhu Y, Zhang Z (2014) A comparative study of environmental performance
between prefabricated and traditional residential buildings in China. J Clean Prod. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.120
51. Quale J, Eckelman MJ, Williams KW, Sloditskie G, Zimmerman JB (2012) Construction
matters: comparing environmental impacts of building modular and conventional homes in
the united states. J Ind Ecol 16:243–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00424.x
52. Gamarra AR, Istrate IR, Herrera I, Lago C, Lizana J, Lechón Y (2018) Energy and water
consumption and carbon footprint of school buildings in hot climate conditions. Results from
life cycle assessment, J Clean Prod 195:1326–1337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.
05.153
53. Scheuer C, Keoleian GA, Reppe P (2003) Life cycle energy and environmental performance
of a new university building: Modeling challenges and design implications. Energy Build
35:1049–1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(03)00066-5
54. Means P, Guggemos A (2015) Framework for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Based envi-
ronmental decision making during the conceptual design phase for commercial buildings.
Procedia Eng 118:802–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.517
55. Bahramian M, Yetilmezsoy K (2020) Life cycle assessment of the building industry: An
overview of two decades of research (1995–2018). Energy Build 219. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enbuild.2020.109917
56. Gourlis G, Kovacic I (2017) Building Information Modelling for analysis of energy efficient
industrial buildings—A case study. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 68:953–963. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2016.02.009
57. Bonamente E, Merico MC, Rinaldi S, Pignatta G, Pisello AL, Cotana F, Nicolini A (2014)
Environmental impact of industrial prefabricated buildings: Carbon and Energy Footprint
analysis based on an LCA approach. Energy Procedia 61:2841–2844. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.egypro.2014.12.319
58. A Brief History of Modular Construction - iBUILT, (n.d.). https://ibuilt.com/a-brief-history-
of-modular-construction/ (accessed October 2, 2023)
59. United States Navy: Quonset Huts: The Manning Portable Colonial Cottage (1833)
(n.d.). https://quonset-hut.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-manning-portable-colonial-cottage.
html (accessed October 2, 2023)
60. Boafo FE, Kim JH, Kim JT (2016) Performance of modular prefabricated architecture: case
study-based review and future pathways, Sustainability, (8), Page 558 8 558. https://doi.org/
10.3390/SU8060558.
8 Modularity and Prefabrication 253

61. Panjehpour M, Abdullah A, Ali A, Voo YL (2012) Structural Insulated Panels: Past, Present,
and Future
62. Zairul M (2021) The recent trends on prefabricated buildings with circular economy (CE)
approach. Clean Eng Technol 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2021.100239
63. Wong RWM, Loo BPY (2022) Sustainability implications of using precast concrete in
construction: An in-depth project-level analysis spanning two decades. J Clean Prod 378.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134486
64. Minunno R, O’Grady T, Morrison GM, Gruner RL, Colling M (2018) Strategies for applying
the circular economy to prefabricated buildings. Buildings 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildi
ngs8090125
65. Xu Z, Zayed T, Niu Y (2020) Comparative analysis of modular construction practices in
mainland China. Hong Kong and Singapore, J Clean Prod 245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcl
epro.2019.118861
66. Turner C, Oyekan J, Stergioulas LK (2021) Distributed manufacturing: A new digital frame-
work for sustainable modular construction. Sustainability (Switzerland) 13:1–16. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su13031515
67. Liu G, Gu T, Xu P, Hong J, Shrestha A, Martek I (2019) A production line-based carbon
emission assessment model for prefabricated components in China. J Clean Prod 209:30–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.172
68. Tichelmann K, Pfau KU, Tichelmann KJ, Pfau KU (2000) Development change in housing
construction
69. 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
70. Adalberth K (1997) Energy use during the life cycle of single-unit dwellings: Examples. Build
Environ 32:321–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(96)00069-8
71. Robertson AB, Lam FCF, Cole RJ (2012) A comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment
of mid-rise office building construction alternatives: Laminated timber or reinforced concrete.
Buildings 2:245–270. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings2030245
72. Pearlmutter D, Theochari D, Nehls T, Pinho P, Piro P, Korolova A, Papaefthimiou S, Mateo
MCG, Calheiros C, Zluwa I, Pitha U, Schosseler P, Florentin Y, Ouannou S, Gal E, Aicher
A, Arnold K, Igondová E, Pucher B (2020) Enhancing the circular economy with nature-
based solutions in the built urban environment: Green building materials, systems and sites.
Blue-Green Systems 2:46–72. https://doi.org/10.2166/bgs.2019.928
73. Marceau ML, Vangeem MG (2002) Life Cycle Assessment of an Insulating Concrete Form
House Compared to a Wood Frame House. PCA R&D Serial No. 2571:167
74. Akinade OO, Oyedele LO, Bilal M, Ajayi SO, Owolabi HA, Alaka HA, Bello SA (2015)
Waste minimisation through deconstruction: A BIM based Deconstructability Assessment
Score (BIM-DAS). Resour Conserv Recycl 105:167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rescon
rec.2015.10.018
75. Akanbi LA, Oyedele LO, Akinade OO, Ajayi AO, Davila M, Bilal M, Bello SA (2018)
Salvaging building materials in a circular economy: A BIM-based whole-life performance
estimator. Resour Conserv Recycl 129:175–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.
10.026
76. European Commission, Nature-based solutions (2024) https://research-and-innovation.ec.eur
opa.eu/research-area/environment/nature-based-solutions
77. Ng WY, Chau CK (2015) New life of the building materials- recycle, reuse and recovery, 75
pp 2884–2891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.581
78. Ellen MacArthur Foundation Finding a common language—the circular economy glossary,
(n.d.). https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/circular-economy-introduction/glossary
79. Matic D, Calzada JR, Eric M, Babin M (2015) Economically feasible energy refurbishment of
prefabricated building in Belgrade. Serbia, Energy Build 98:74–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enbuild.2014.10.041
254 V. Tavares et al.

80. The European Commission, Support from the EU budget to unlock investment into building
renovation under the Renovation Wave (2020)
81. Nemry F, Uihlein A (2008) Environmental Improvement Potentials of Residential Buildings
(IMPRO-Building), https://doi.org/10.2791/38942
82. Loga T, Stein B, Diefenbach N (2016) TABULA building typologies in 20 European coun-
tries—Making energy-related features of residential building stocks comparable. Energy
Build 132:4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.06.094
83. Stein N, Loga B, Diefenbach T (2016) Monitor progress in european housing stocks towards
climate Targets—Main Results of the EPISCOPE Project. http://episcope.eu/monitoring/ove
rview/
84. Malacarne G, Monizza GP, Ratajczak J, Krause D, Benedetti C, Matt DT (2016) Prefabricated
timber façade for the energy refurbishment of the italian building stock: The Ri.Fa.Re. Project,
in: Energy Procedia, Elsevier Ltd: pp 788–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.141
85. Bystedt A, Östman L, Knuts M, Johansson J, Westerlund K, Thorsen H (2016) Fast and
Simple—Cost efficient façade refurbishment. In: Energy Procedia, Elsevier Ltd., pp 779–787.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.140
86. Iturralde K, Linner T, Bock T (2020) Matching kit interface for building refurbishment
processes with 2D modules. Autom Constr 110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.103003
87. Zhang C, Hu M, Laclau B, Garnesson T, Yang X, Tukker A (2021) Energy-carbon-investment
payback analysis of prefabricated envelope-cladding system for building energy renovation:
Cases in Spain, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 145. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111077
88. The European Commission, ANNEX to A Renovation Wave for Europe—greening our
buildings, creating jobs, improving lives, (2020)
89. Chauhan K, Peltokorpi A, Lavikka R, Seppänen O (2022). The Monetary and Non-Monetary
Impacts of Prefabrication on Construction: The Effects of Product Modularity. https://doi.
org/10.3390/buildings
90. Li Z, Shen GQ, Alshawi M (2014) Measuring the impact of prefabrication on construction
waste reduction: An empirical study in China. Resour Conserv Recycl 91:27–39. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.07.013
91. Jaillon L, Poon CS (2009) The evolution of prefabricated residential building systems in Hong
Kong: A review of the public and the private sector. Autom Constr 18:239–248. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.autcon.2008.09.002
92. 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
93. 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 66:165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.033
94. Sandanayake M, Luo W, Zhang G (2019) Direct and indirect impact assessment in off-site
construction—A case study in China. Sustain Cities Soc 48:101520. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scs.2019.101520
95. Luangcharoenrat C, Intrachooto S, Peansupap V, Sutthinarakorn W (2019) Factors influencing
construction waste generation in building construction: Thailand’s perspective. Sustainability
(Switzerland) 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133638
96. Yin X, Liu H, Chen Y, Al-Hussein M (2019) Building information modelling for off-site
construction: Review and future directions. Autom Constr 101:72–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.autcon.2019.01.010
97. Adhikari P, Mahmoud H, Xie A, Simonen K, Ellingwood B (2020) Life-cycle cost and carbon
footprint analysis for light-framed residential buildings subjected to tornado hazard. J Build
Eng 32:101657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101657
98. Hoes P, Hensen JLM (2016) The potential of lightweight low-energy houses with hybrid
adaptable thermal storage: Comparing the performance of promising concepts. Energy Build
110:79–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.10.036
8 Modularity and Prefabrication 255

99. Harivardhini S, Krishna KM, Chakrabarti A (2017) An Integrated Framework for supporting
decision making during early design stages on end-of-life disassembly. J Clean Prod 168:558–
574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.102
100. Abdelhamid MS (2014) Assessment of different construction and demolition waste manage-
ment approaches. HBRC Journal 10:317–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2014.01.003
101. Bovea MD, Powell JC (2016) Developments in life cycle assessment applied to evaluate the
environmental performance of construction and demolition wastes. Waste Manage 50:151–
172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.01.036
102. Christensen TB, Johansen MR, Buchard MV, Glarborg CN (2022) Closing the material
loops for construction and demolition waste: The circular economy on the island Bornholm.
Denmark, Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances 15:200104. https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.RCRADV.2022.200104
103. Vitale P, Arena N, Di Gregorio F, Arena U, Di F, Arena U (2017) Life cycle assessment of
the end-of-life phase of a residential building. Waste Manage 60:311–321. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.wasman.2016.10.002
104. Akinade OO, Oyedele LO, Ajayi SO, Bilal M, Alaka HA, Owolabi HA, Bello SA, Jaiyeoba
BE, Kadiri KO (2017) Design for Deconstruction (DfD): Critical success factors for diverting
end-of-life waste from landfills. Waste Manage 60:3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.
2016.08.017
105. Silvestre JD, De Brito J, Pinheiro MD (2014) Environmental impacts and bene fi ts of the
end-of-life of building materials e calculation rules, results and contribution to a “cradle to
cradle” life cycle. J Clean Prod 66:37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.028
106. Tam VWYY, Tam CM, Zeng SX, Ng WCYY (2007) Towards adoption of prefabrication in
construction. Build Environ 42:3642–3654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.10.003
107. Wuni IY, Shen GQ (2022) Developing critical success factors for integrating circular economy
into modular construction projects in Hong Kong. Sustain Prod Consum 29:574–587. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.11.010
108. Çimen Ö (2021) Construction and built environment in circular economy: A comprehensive
literature review. J Clean Prod 305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127180
109. Volpe S, Sangiorgio V, Petrella A, Coppola A, Notarnicola M, Fiorito F (2021) Building
envelope prefabricated with 3d printing technology. Sustainability (Switzerland) 13. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su13168923
110. Minunno R, O’Grady T, Morrison GM, Gruner RL (2020) Exploring environmental benefits
of reuse and recycle practices: A circular economy case study of a modular building. Resour
Conserv Recycl 160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104855
111. Sanchez B, Rausch C, Haas C, Saari R (2020) A selective disassembly multi-objective opti-
mization approach for adaptive reuse of building components. Resour Conserv Recycl 154.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104605
112. Sanchez B, Rausch C, Haas C, Hartmann T (2021) A framework for BIM-based disassembly
models to support reuse of building components. Resour Conserv Recycl 175. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105825
113. Navaratnam S, Satheeskumar A, Zhang G, Nguyen K, Venkatesan S, Poologanathan K (2022)
The challenges confronting the growth of sustainable prefabricated building construction in
Australia: Construction industry views. J Build Eng 48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.
103935
114. Ho C, Kim YW, Zabinsky ZB (2022) Prefabrication supply chains with multiple shops:
Optimization for job allocation. Autom Constr 136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.
104155
115. Li CZ, Hong J, Xue F, Shen GQ, Xu X, Luo L (2016) SWOT analysis and Internet of Things-
enabled platform for prefabrication housing production in Hong Kong. Habitat Int 57:74–87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.07.002
116. Staib M, Dörrhöfer G, Rosenthal A (2008) Components and systems: modular construction-
design, structure, new technologies
256 V. Tavares et al.

117. Hashemi M, Kim A, Bell UK, Steinhardt P, Manley D, Southcombe K (2016) Prefabrication.
ZEMCH: toward the delivery of zero energy mass custom homes
118. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, What is a circular economy?, (n.d.). https://www.ellenmaca
rthurfoundation.org/topics/circular-economy-introduction/overview (accessed October 19,
2023)
119. Potting J, Hekkert M, Worrell E, Hanemaaijer A (2017) Circular Economy: measuring
innovation in the product chain, Policy Report
120. van der Zwaag M, Wang T, Bakker H, van Nederveen S, Schuurman ACB, Bosma D (2023)
Evaluating building circularity in the early design phase. Autom Constr 152. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.autcon.2023.104941
121. Pak, Optimization of frames for effective assembling, (n.d.). http://ec.europa.eu/research/rtd
info.html.
122. Tsoka S, Theodosiou T, Papadopoulou K, Tsikaloudaki K (2020) Assessing the energy perfor-
mance of prefabricated buildings considering different wall configurations and the use of
PCMs in Greece. Energies (Basel) 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13195026

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 9
Design for Circularity, Design
for Adaptability, Design for Disassembly

Stella Tsoka and Katerina Tsikaloudaki

Abstract This chapter summarizes the basic principles of the Design for Circularity,
Design for Adaptability and Design for Disassembly in the design face of building
projects. The chapter initially provides a general overview of the circularity principles
and the 10R incorporation in the design of circular buildings. At a second step,
the basic actions to promote the adaptability and the modularity are presented and
discussed.

Keywords Adaptability · Disassembly · Circularity · Buildings design

9.1 Introduction

According to ISO 59004, which is currently under development, circular economy

“uses a systemic approach to maintain a circular flow of resources by recovering,
retaining or adding to their value, while contributing to sustainable development”
[1]. Its overarching goal is to intentionally offer solutions for the minimized, effi-
cient, and effective utilization of resources, aiming to prevent emissions, losses,
and environmental degradation while fulfilling societal requirements. To achieve
this objective, key principles include fostering value creation, i.e. delivering solu-
tions that concurrently enhance socio-economic and environmental outcomes while
utilizing resources efficiently; promoting value sharing, i.e. collaborating throughout
the value chain to distribute the created value; ensuring resource availability, i.e. guar-
anteeing accessibility and sustained availability of resources, thereby mitigating risks
associated with reliance on virgin materials; establishing resource traceability, i.e.
collecting and maintaining data to facilitate the tracking of resources throughout their
value chains; and fostering ecosystem resilience, i.e. developing and implementing

S. Tsoka (B)
University of Patras, Patra, Greece
e-mail: [email protected]
K. Tsikaloudaki
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

© The Author(s) 2025 257

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_9
258 S. Tsoka and K. Tsikaloudaki

practices and strategies that safeguard biodiversity and contribute to the resilience
and regeneration of ecosystems [2].
Among the main actions that foster value creation is the Design for Circu-
larity, which as a principle integrates all the circular economy concepts. In other
words, Design for Circularity is an overarching principle that incorporates all design
concepts to foster the implementation of circular economy in the built environment.
These design concepts are often expressed as Design for X (DFX) rules, which
present specific objectives, requirements considerations and guidelines to be applied
during the building design, in order to enhance its performance in terms of circu-
larity [3]. Design for Adaptability and Design for Disassembly, along with material
selection and resource efficiency, are highlighted as the early-stage design strategies
that significantly contribute to the transition to a circular built environment [4].
In the next paragraphs, the concepts of the Design for Circularity, Design for
Adaptability and Design for Disassembly will be presented, with the objective to
map and analyses the current knowledge within the circular economy framework.

9.2 Design for Circularity

The circular design of buildings summarizes the actions along the life cycle of the
building with the objective of enhancing material recovery and durability, curtailing
energy and material waste, reducing reliance on virgin materials and water, and
eliminating the use of release substances detrimental to human health and ecosystem
resilience [1].
A bibliometric analysis on the field of circular economy and buildings, based on
the Scopus database has indicated a high number of scientific research (more than
3000), which have been published since 2008 [5]. However, when the keywords are
set to “design for circularity” and “buildings”, or “circular building design”, a number
of only 36 relevant papers is derived, with most of them being published after 2021.
Among them, the 70% are journal papers (25), 14% are review papers (5), 14% were
papers published in conference proceedings (5), and only 1 contribution is a book
chapter (2%). During the past decade, the transition from a linear to a circular model
of building construction has emerged as an imperative need to achieve sustainability
in the built environment, which would guarantee not only the minimization of energy
use and emissions during the operation phase, but also the minimization of waste
and the optimization of resources throughout the whole building life and beyond.
The linear model of building construction (Fig. 9.1) is built upon the one-way,
cradle-to-grave philosophy, according to which raw materials are transformed into
materials to be used for building components, systems and structures, and at the
end of their lifespan they are eventually disposed of (Elen Mc Arthur Foundation
2013) [6]. Although today most European countries have adopted the European
Waste Management Directive, only a small fraction of CDW waste is being reused
or reclaimed and most of it is being down cycled [7].
9 Design for Circularity, Design for Adaptability, Design for Disassembly 259

Fig. 9.1 Linear versus circular building construction (redesigned by the authors)

On the contrary, in the circular building model (Fig. 9.1) the “design out waste”
is on the epicentre and it is achieved by many iterative links and loops between the
building phases. The loops show the pathways through which materials and products
circulate to maximize their value and minimize waste. They can be identified as short,
medium and long; the smaller the loops the more efficient the resource management
is [8]. The objective is to re-circulate materials, components and products through
reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, upgrade, repurpose, etc., and extent their
service life so that the waste at the end of their life is minimized. At the same time,
beyond the reduction of material waste and the enhancement of material recovery
and durability, the circular building model incorporates all actions aiming at the
minimization of the energy consumption, reliance on virgin materials and water, and
release of substances detrimental to human health and ecosystem resilience, along
the life cycle of the building [1].
The circularity loops that are synoptically presented in Fig. 9.1, combined with
‘Refuse’, ‘Reduce’, ‘Recover’ and ‘Rethink’ are part of the 10R strategy, which is
presented in Chap. 1 in more detail.
The goal of circularity is pursued along the whole life cycle of the building,
the successful implementation of the circularity building model requires that the
circularity concepts should be considered from the initial steps of the building design,
which can be roughly discerned in the phases of pre- or conceptual design, the
embodiment design and the detailed design:
• The pre-design or conceptual phase is the first step of the design process. The
design team, together with the building owner, defines the needs and objec-
tives, gathers information, provides schematic solutions and preliminary plans.
Emphasis is given on the goals’ outlining and their implementation through the
initial building design. Within this framework, the circularity design strategies to
260 S. Tsoka and K. Tsikaloudaki

be implemented in building design are in this stage determined. For example, the
need for flexibility regarding the building form, layout or purpose for covering
future needs is identified in this stage and the design for adaptability concepts are
adopted as approaches in the schematic design and also in the embodiment design
stage that follows.
• The embodiment design or design development phase includes the architectural
plans of the building, along with the studies on its structural and building systems.
The selection of materials and products, the specifications and requirements are
usually determined in this phase, supported by calculations and simulations. In this
phase, emphasis is given on the decision making. For example, circularity design
strategies and decisions upon modularity, prefabrication, disassembly, etc., are
determined in this stage.
• The detailed design phase is the last one before bidding and construction. It
includes the finalization of material selection and sizing of the components, which
leads to complete engineering drawings and construction details, the final bill of
materials, etc. In this phase, emphasis is given on documentation. With refer-
ence to the previous example, the construction details enabling the assembly and
disassembly of the building components are elaborated in this stage.
All building circularity principles, strategies and frameworks presented briefly in
this chapter -and in detail in other chapters (i.e. 1, 6 and 7)-should be considered
during the building design phase. In order to further enable their implementation,
it is useful to identify the extent of their consideration on each individual design
phase. An example is presented in Table 9.1., where the above-described design
phases are associated with the circular design strategies proposed in the Circular
Buildings Toolkit [9] presented in Chap. 6. It is shown that the strategies that are
mostly related with the building scope and form are associated with the pre-design
phase; the concepts for longevity, adaptability, disassembly and minimization of
components are addressed during the embodiment phase and explicitly refined in the
detailed phase; the strategies that are related to the selection of materials are mostly
addressed during the detailed design phase of the building.
Following the same route, the principles of the 10R strategy have been associated
with the building design phases (Table 9.2). It is evident that most of the R-strategies
require an in-depth study and are addressed merely during the detailed design stage
of the building. Furthermore, they are merely associated with the extension of use and
lifespan of the materials, components and products, i.e. the building and its layers in
general. The ‘Refuse’, ‘Reduce’ and ‘Rethink’ strategies are introduced from the first
stage of building design as they refer merely to the design philosophy and function.
In the existing bibliography, besides analysing the introduction of the circular
economy principles in the design stages of a project, the Design for circularity is
presented together with its enablers, i.e. the tools and digital technologies, such as
BIM, LCA and material passports. BIM, defined as the digital representation of a
building’s geometric and non-geometric data, provides the ability to store information
in the digital model, such as planning, time-related functions, costs, environmental
aspects, etc. [11] Apart from the bill of quantities and materials, BIM tools contribute
9 Design for Circularity, Design for Adaptability, Design for Disassembly 261

Table 9.1 The consideration of circular design strategies along the building design phases: an
example for the circular design strategies (CDS) proposed in the circular buildings toolkit [9]
Phase CDS1 CDS2 CDS3 CDS4 CDS5 CDS6 CDS7 CDS8 CDS9 CDS10
Pre-design ⚫⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Embodiment ⚫⚫ ⚫⚫ ⚫⚫ ⚫⚫ ⚫⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Detailed ⚫⚫ ⚫⚫ ⚫⚫ ⚫⚫ ⚫⚫ ⚫⚫ ⚫⚫ ⚫⚫
⚫ association ⚫⚫ strong association
CDS1: refuse new construction CDS6 Refuse necessary components
CDS2: increase building utilisation CDS7: Increase material efficiency
CDS3 Design for longevity CDS8: Reduce the use of virgin materials
CDS4: design for adaptability CDS9: reduce the use of carbon intensive
CDS5: design for disassembly materials
CDS10: design out hazardous polluting
materials

Table 9.2 The consideration of 10R strategy principles [10] along the building design phases
Phase R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
Pre-design ⚫⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫⚫
Embodiment ⚫⚫ ⚫⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫⚫
Detailed ⚫⚫ ⚫⚫ ⚫⚫ ⚫⚫ ⚫⚫ ⚫⚫ ⚫⚫ ⚫⚫ ⚫⚫
⚫ association ⚫⚫ strong association
R1: refuse R6 remanufacture
R2: reduce R7: repurpose
R3 reuse R8: recycle
R4: repair R9: recover
R5: refurbish R10: rethink

to the assessment of circularity of different design options, through their capabilities

to evaluate the building environmental impacts along the entire lift cycle, optimize
construction processes, accommodate databases with information on the materials
(e.g. recycled content), facilitate the collaboration among stakeholders, etc. BIM
digital tools, together with LCA and LCC analyses and material passports that can be
integrated in those tools, can play an important role in the decision-making process, in
particular during the design phase, i.e. for selecting among different design solutions
(renovation vs demolition; reversible vs conventional construction, etc.), construc-
tion solutions and materials, in order to minimize waste and maximize the resource
efficiency [12].
262 S. Tsoka and K. Tsikaloudaki

9.3 Design for Adaptability

The term adaptability in the dictionary would refer to the capability of a person or a
system to “adapt or being adapted” suggesting the ability to “change so as to fit the
requirements of new circumstances”. Yet, when it comes to the built environment, the
definition of adaptability is a rather controversial point [13], with different definitions
being reported in the literature; the ISO 21929 describes adaptability as “the ability
to be changed or modified to make suitable for a particular purpose” [14], while [15]
describes buildings adaptability as “the ability to fit within new conditions or needs
by means of reuse or upgrading”, giving emphasis to changes in the performance for
existing structures. In the same context, Ross et al. [16] define adaptability as “the
ease with which buildings can be physically modified, deconstructed, refurbished,
reconfigured, repurposed, and/or expanded” suggesting changes not only in use and
function but also in buildings configuration, layout and components. Towards this
direction, other researchers define buildings adaptability as the ability “[…] to cope
with future changes with minimum demolition, cost and waste and with maximum
robustness, mutability and efficiency” [17] or “the capacity of a building to accommo-
date effectively the evolving demands of its context, thus maximizing value through
life” [18].
Despite the discrepancies within the reported definitions, the main principle that is
addressed by the term “adaptability” is the response of buildings to changes that will
occur throughout their whole lifecycle. As underlined by [13], changes in buildings
may occur due to technical, financial, environmental, legislative reasons or a combi-
nation of the above-mentioned factors. Similarly, Askar et al. [19] have suggested
that the main motives for change would involve the buildings obsolescence and
the premature need of demolition, the new needs of the buildings’ users and, also,
different environmental, social or other external parameters. Other researchers have
defined the need of altered building’s use or function as the predominant motivation
for change [20], giving thus a person-centric perspective in adaptability since users
will adjust their behaviour so as to address change (i.e. change of a room space or
change from an office to a residential use).
Undoubtedly, decoding the factors that lead to change is the first step so as to design
adaptable buildings that will respond to the diverse operational variables during their
lifecycle. While many scholars focus on the adaptability of existing buildings so as
to deal with structure obsolescence, premature demolition and the respective waste
management, the adaptability challenges should be addressed even from the early
design stages [18]. Besides, incorporating the adaptability concept in the design
process is key for the application of circular economy in the built environment. In
other words, Design for Adaptability (DfA) should establish different end-of-life
scenarios even at the initial stages of the design process of a building, while also
enabling the integration of modifications at any stage of a building’s life, that would
promote an extended operational life with low requirements for maintenance or
replacement of its components [21]. This temporal dimension on the design process
is crucial as buildings are not considered as a static system, only addressing the
9 Design for Circularity, Design for Adaptability, Design for Disassembly 263

present day needs but they are conceptualized in a way to fit in potential future needs
without however undergoing extensive refurbishment [13].
Adaptable buildings have gained great scientific attention during the last 20 years
due to their key role for the application of circular economy in the built environment.
A bibliometric analysis on the field, based on the Scopus database has indicated
an increasing number of scientific research published during the period 2010–2023
(Fig. 9.2). The keywords that have been applied were “design for adaptability”,
“adaptability” combined with “buildings” or “built environment” and the research
has been eliminated in the fields of “engineering”, “environmental studies” and
“energy”. A number of 95 relevant papers has been identified with most of them
being published during the period 2018–2023 (Fig. 9.2). Moreover, scientific arti-
cles and conference papers represent 45% and 42% respectively of the identified
publications, with the rest 10% and 3% involving review papers and book chapters
correspondingly. To continue, promoting adaptability requires actions and strategies
both during the design and the operation phase of the buildings. Design-based strate-
gies are implemented during the design phase of the building to increase its adapt-
ability, while process-based strategies focus on management approaches in terms of
supply, construction, and operational period of a building [13, 16, 22].
In this chapter, the emphasis is given on the design phase and according to the
existing literature, the following actions promoting adaptability are identified:
• Layering the components and the systems of a building
This concept was initially introduced by Brand [23] and was later complemented
by other researchers such as Leupen [24], without however modifying the main,
Brand’s idea. Brand suggested that the modification or replacement of the various
buildings’ components and systems occurs at different temporal rates. Based on
the cycle-time of each element of a building, he introduced the concept of the: “6
S’s” representing “Site, Structure, Skin, Services, Space Plan, and Stuff” (Fig. 9.3).
Each one of the proposed “S” defines a different layer of a building element, also
characterized by a specific change timescale. The proposed layering is one of the
most commonly reported design-based enablers, given that this separation enables

Fig. 9.2 Number of scientific studies published during the period 2000–2023 in scopus database,
identified with keywords ‘design for adaptability’, ‘adaptability’ and ‘buildings’ and the type of
publication
264 S. Tsoka and K. Tsikaloudaki

Fig. 9.3 Building layers along with respective components and timescale of change [23]

the independence among different layers. Components belonging to one layer can be
adjusted or modified without compromising neighboring layers and their elements,
while the cost and the duration of future refurbishments is also reduced [13].
• Accurate information

The retention of accurate information regarding not only the materials and compo-
nents’ technical characteristics, but also details on any building plans, models, tech-
nical and maintenance reports, or records after any modification is crucial for further
adaptation projects and the respective decision-making. Towards this direction, the
use of Building Information Modeling (BIM) can be a valuable tool to organize all
these data and share it among the involved stakeholders [16].
• Reserve capacity
Providing higher load carrying capacity in buildings and designing structural
elements so that they could accommodate future higher loads, without further struc-
tural modifications has been considered by researchers as an efficient strategy for
adaptable buildings [13]. Reserving capacity could also address future changes in the
legal framework so as to comply with climate change adaptation strategies, increase
flush floods loads etc. [25]. Yet, the extent of a building’s overdesign is not a simple
question to answer, given the high risk of excessive usage of materials, cost and
carbon emissions. In light of this, McFarland et al. [26] suggest that the evaluation
of the opportunities or restrictions that may occur for a given design load is the first
crucial step before deciding to overdesign the building’s structural elements.
• Simplicity
The simplicity of a structural system can significantly increase the level of a building’s
adaptability given the lower uncertainties and misunderstandings for future designers
and engineers [16, 26]. The key design strategies that lead to a structural simplicity
involving regular, rectangular shapes, and repetitive building floor layouts, are also
in line with the best practices for load design, reduced construction and material cost
[27]. Yet, a potential limitation of this approach lies on the reduced architectural and
artistic elements that could be introduced in the building structure such as irregular
load paths.
9 Design for Circularity, Design for Adaptability, Design for Disassembly 265

• Open layout plans

An open building layout involves spaces that are mostly free of structural or mechan-
ical obstructions and, thus, they can be easily repurposed for different functions. The
openness of a layout plan is defined even from the early design stages since it is
influenced by the number and the distance between vertical bearing structures, the
height of the building floor, the positioning of immovable internal partitions etc. [13,
28].
• Access
Access to all different systems and components of a building is critical so as to
evaluate their functionality and determine the need for maintenance or replacement.
Following the “layering” strategy, previously described, all buildings elements can
be assigned to different layers so as to enable their evaluation without however
interfering with their adjacent systems [26]. A valuable tool in this direction could
also be remote sensing, as it enables distance monitoring and immediate actions if
needed.
• Commonality
Commonality refers to the use of components with similar size and technical details
when designing and constructing a building. The repetitiveness of the same compo-
nents in parallel to the “simplicity” enables the rationalization of the construction
activities, while reducing uncertainties and extra cost [29]. As emphasized by Watt
et al. [13], rationalization is a key enabler for the circular economy application
in the built environment, while also promoting other enablers such is Desing for
Disassembly which will be discussed in the next section.
• Modularity
Modularity refers to the incorporation of components that can be easily added,
removed, or reconfigured so as to accommodate different functions. While quite
similar to the “commonality”, ([30, 31]) the modularity mainly focuses on the connec-
tion details between the components rather than on the number of the unique compo-
nents of the building, addressed by “commonality”. As suggested by [16] if a structure
is constructed entirely using standardized modules and interfaces, it can exhibit a
high level of modularity and a minimal level of commonality. Promoting standard-
ized connection details across the construction industry would greatly benefit Design
for Disassembly (DfD) and Circular Economy (CE). However, achieving this would
necessitate collaboration and agreement across various industries, which is rather
difficult to happen in the years to come and thus, concentrating on smaller, product-
scale components in construction, like services or cladding, might seem more feasible
[13]. Modularity and prefabrication are presented in detail in the previous chapter.
• Mechanical Connections
Employing simple and standardized mechanical connections facilitates the removal
and incorporation of the building components during a building’s lifespan or at its
266 S. Tsoka and K. Tsikaloudaki

end-of-life. The application of mechanical connections instead of chemical bonding,

composite glues or welds and its benefits has been discussed by many scholars ([13,
16, 32]). Besides, this strategy supports the separation of the building layers and the
access to the components, fundamental principles of Design for Disassembly (DfD)
which is discussed in the next section.
• Appropriate Materials
Opting for materials with high durability can diminish the need for repairs and main-
tenance while simultaneously extending the design lifespan of building elements
[26]. This extension in lifespan contributes to the overall sustainability of a struc-
ture, providing more time for adaptive measures to be implemented ([13, 28]). Still,
the selection of higher durability materials for their associated benefits should be
carefully balanced with any potential increases in financial and carbon costs [26].
• Design for Deconstruction
As suggested by [16] Designing for Deconstruction (DfD) involves considering the
end-of-life of buildings even at the initial design phases; building components are
thus specifically crafted with the goal of preserving their functional value after the
disassembly, enabling their reuse in subsequent projects. For instance, DfD tech-
niques steer clear of actions such as drilling large holes into solid members as these
activities can pose challenges during deconstruction, decreasing the potential of the
component to be recovered and reused.

9.4 Design for Disassembly

The term building’s “disassembly”, often reported in the literature along with the
term “deconstruction”, refers to the recovery and reuse of buildings components and
materials to move from a linear use of resources to a circular one, while decreasing
the dependence on new materials and waste disposals in landfills [33].
Disassembly in the building sector has been defined by [34] as the separation
of individual components that comprise the structure of a building, such as wall
cladding, non-structural wall panels, flooring, kitchens, and internal finishes. While
[34] makes a distinction between disassembly and deconstruction, defining the latter
one as “the removal of the buildings’ structural elements and the relocation of part
of or of the whole building”, Tatiya et al. [35] links the two terms by suggesting that
deconstruction can be considered as a sustainable approach to disassemble existing
buildings and reuse or recycle the components. In the same vein, Rios et al. [36] have
defined disassembly as a process of deconstruction in order to recover materials for
recycle or reuse.
In line with the above-mentioned definitions, Design for Disassembly (DfD) is
a sustainable design strategy that focuses on making buildings easy to take apart
at their various components at the end of their life cycle so as to efficiently recover
materials and components for recycling, refurbishment, or reuse [37]. DfD constitutes
9 Design for Circularity, Design for Adaptability, Design for Disassembly 267

Fig. 9.4 Number of scientific studies published during the period 2000–2023 in scopus database,
identified with keywords ‘design for disassembly’, ‘deconstruction’ and ‘buildings’

a practice that has been embraced by the scientific community and the industry
during the last 20 years as it can play a crucial role in fostering circular economy
principles in the built environment. A bibliometric research on the field, based on the
Scopus database and using the keywords “design for disassembly”, “deconstruction”
combined with “buildings” or “built environment” and again, eliminating the research
in the fields of “engineering”, “environmental studies” and “energy” has shown an
increasing trend on relevant scientific research published during the period 2018–
2023 with the highest number of publications reported during the last 3 years. More
precisely, a total of 67 publications have been identified for the previously mentioned
keywords, 64% of which have been published during the last 5 years. The majority of
the relevant studies are scientific papers in peer reviewed journals (i.e. 54%), while
conference and review papers represent 36 and 9% (Fig. 9.4).
Up to the present time, several researchers ([30, 37–39]) have proposed a series
of guidelines so as to promote an efficient disassembly in building projects. In this
context, Crowther [37] defined a list of 27 principles to follow, while also establishing
a hierarchy on the recycling and the reuse in order to decide what to disassemble for
a given end-of-life scenario.
The proposed hierarchy includes the materials reuse/recycle, the component reuse
and the building relocation. Given that every project has its own characteristics, each
of the 27 principles is rated as ‘highly relevant’, ‘relevant’, or ‘not normally relevant’.
This classification may be a helpful tool for a designer to evaluate the principles, based
on the technical benefits they might yield.
Based on the existing evidence, for an efficient DfD a detailed documentation of
the materials and the methods for deconstruction would be required, including the use
of detailed as-built plans, the labelling of the individual materials and components
along with their connections, and finally, a detailed “deconstruction plan”. All these
actions play a role in promoting the effectiveness of the disassembly processes.
Building materials should be also selected with foresight for future impacts so
as to maintain value and/or be more viable for reuse and recycling. Besides, the
greater utilization of recycled materials will not only foster the development of new
recycling technologies by both industry and government but will also contribute to the
establishment of more extensive support of markets for future recycling endeavours.
268 S. Tsoka and K. Tsikaloudaki

In addition, the simplicity of the design of the building’s plans and layout, the
consideration of uncomplicated shapes and the use of standardized dimensional
grids, allowing for standard sizes of recovered materials can considerably facili-
tate both the construction and the deconstruction process. Moreover, a decrease in
the number of different types of components will also minimize the required disas-
sembly procedures to be established [37]. Moreover, the separation of the structure
from the cladding, the internal walls and the building services can significantly facil-
itate the disassembly since the process can occur at some of the building layers,
without affecting others. Besides, a structure with load-bearing walls is less adaptable
compared to one with a distinct structural frame with infill.
Another principle that should also be followed involves the design of accessible
and simple connections and with the lowest number of different connection types.
Besides, the type of connection that is used between the various building elements
will strongly determine the efficiency of the ease of the disassembly. To enable a
simple and rapid process, while ensuring that the process is not challenging for
the workers to comprehend, standardized connectors should be better used for the
building components. Mechanical connectors rather than chemical ones also promote
the fast and efficient disassembly. The different types of component connections
should be as few as possible while they should be easily accessible, visually, phys-
ically, and ergonomically to eliminate the need for costly equipment or extensive
safety measures for workers [30]. Given the significance of the connection types on
DfD, Morgan and Stevenson [39] have summarized the pros and cons of various
fixing types as presented in Table 9.3.
DfD should also take into consideration the safety issues and thus, components
should be also optimized for easy removal using standard mechanical equipment can
reduce labour intensity, promote the accommodation of various skill levels while
also assuring lower costs and risks [30].
The design for disassembly has been widely implemented in modular/
prefabricated buildings ([40, 41]) while there also many projects of timber-framed

Table 9.3 Advantages and disadvantages for different connection types [39]
Connection type Advantages Disadvantages
Screw fixing − Can be easily removed − Limited reuse and cost
Bolt fixing − High resistance and high reuse − Can seize up making removal
potential difficult
Nail fixing − Speed of construction, Cost − Difficult removal usually
destroying a key area of element-ends
Friction − Keeps construction element whole − Relatively undeveloped type of
during removal connection structural weakness
Mortar − Can be made to variety of strengths − Cannot be reused, difficult to
separate bonded layers
Adhesives − Strong and efficient − Virtually impossible to separate
− Variety of strengths bonded layers
− Applied in awkward joints − Cannot be recycled
9 Design for Circularity, Design for Adaptability, Design for Disassembly 269

buildings. A relevant project, named Two Family House is the one of the Austrian
company KFN. The proposed design involves a simple, rectangular plan and the
structure is made of a modular timber-frame of 5m x 5m × 2.7m three-dimensional
grid. The structure is separated from the building envelope, made from lightweight
materials providing thus an increased adaptability potential in the design of the
building. The description of this project along with many others employing DfD is
given in the report of Guy and Ciarimboli [30].
Still, DfD is rarer in buildings made of concrete. This is mainly because concrete,
as a composite material, poses challenges in the disassembly of its components.
Especially for cast-in-situ concrete framed buildings [42], the environmental impact
and the challenges for deconstruction become even higher. To date, the prevailing
end-of-life scenario for such concrete buildings and their components is demoli-
tion. Sometimes, the demolished concrete undergoes a recycling process where it is
crushed to separate aggregates from the reinforcing steel and the resulting crushed
material is then utilized, for instance, in the construction of roads [43].
Given that this recovery process may involve high CO2 emissions, many
researchers have focused on methods to improve the environmental impact of the
recycling process of concrete buildings, enhancing thus their circular perspectives
[44].
Yet, concrete as a composite material presents multiple benefits regarding the
strength and resistance of the respective elements; to enhance its reuse and promote
DfD in concrete buildings, many previous studies have proposed the use of precast
concrete panels, so as to allow production in a controlled environment, standardize
the connection of the components, reducing thus installation time. A relevant project
that based its design on the reuse of precast concrete elements previously used in
other building projects is presented in the study of Stacey et al. [45]. More precisely,
designers used large panel precast concrete panels, developed with the so called “Plat-
tenbau” method, a technique that was extensively used in 1960–1970 in Germany
so as to quickly respond to the high demand of residential buildings. Apart from
the environmental benefit, the designers have estimated a reduction of about 30% in
the construction cost, compared to the respective value for new rather than reused,
precast concrete panels.
Besides, the use of precast concrete panels is quite old in the building industry
but nowadays, they can also address the DfD and CE challenges in the built environ-
ment since they exhibit favorable characteristics for their future disassembly, such
as standardized sizes, control of quality etc. Still, there is still the need for further
research so as to increase the recovery potential, provide systematization, detailed
specification of elements etc. [43].
270 S. Tsoka and K. Tsikaloudaki

References

1. International Organization for Standardization, ISO/DIS 59004 (2023) Circular economy–

terminology. Principles and Guidance for Implementation, Draft International Standard, ISO
2. König K, Mathieu J, Vielhaber M (2024) Resource conservation by means of lightweight
design and design for circularity-a concept for decision making in the early phase of product
development, resources. Conserv Recycl 201:107331
3. Mesa Jaime A (2023) Design for circularity and durability: an integrated approach from DFX
guidelines. Res Eng Design 34:443–460
4. Benachio G, Luiz F, Duarte F, Tavares SF (2020) Circular economy in the construction industry:
a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 260:121046
5. AlJaber A, Martinez-Vazquez BC (2023) Barriers and enablers to the adoption of circular
economy concept in the building sector: a systematic literature review. Buildings 13:2778
6. Arup, Ellen MF (2013) Towards the circular economy. Economic and business rationale for an
accelerated transition
7. European Environment Agency, Construction and demolition waste: challenges and opportu-
nities in a circular economy, Construction and demolition waste: challenges and opportunities
in a circular economy—European environment agency (europa.eu). Accessed 11 Dec 2023
8. Reike D, Vermeulen Walter JV, Witjes S (2018) The circular economy: new or refurbished as
CE 3.0?—exploring controversies in the conceptualization of the circular economy through a
focus on history and resource value retention options. Resour Conserv Recycl 135:246–264
9. Arup, Ellen MF (2021) Circular buildings toolkit. London: Arup. https://ce-toolkit.dhub.arup.
com/. Accessed 20 November 2023
10. Potting J, Hekkert M, Worrell E, Hanemaaije A (2017) Circular economy: measuring innova-
tion in the product chain. Policy Report, PBL Netherlands environmental assessment agency.
Accessed 22 Dec 2024
11. Charef R, Weisheng L, Daniel H (2022) The transition to the circular economy of the construc-
tion industry: insights into sustainable approaches to improve the understanding. J Clean Prod
364:132421
12. Giorgi S, Lavagna M, Wang K, Osmani M, Liu G, Campioli A (2022) Drivers and barriers
towards circular economy in the building sector: stakeholder interviews and analysis of five
European countries policies and practices. J Clean Prod 336:130395
13. Watt H, Buick D, Peter H, Chris K (2023) What should an adaptable building look like?
resources. Conserv & Recycl Adv 18:200158
14. International Organization for Standardization (2011) ISO 21929–1:2011–sustainability in
building construction-sustainability indicators-Part 1: framework for the development of
indicators and a core set of indicators for buildings. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland
15. Douglas J (2006) Building adaptation. Routledge
16. Ross B, Diana C, Sheila C, Amin K (2016) Enabling adaptable buildings: results of a
preliminary expert survey. Procedia Eng 145:420–427
17. Sinclair B, Somayeh M, Ghazaleh S (2012) Agility, adaptability+appropriateness: conceiving,
crafting & constructing an architecture of the 21st century. Enq ARCC J Arch Res 9(1)
18. Schmidt R, Toru E, Simon A, Alistair G (2010) What is the meaning of adaptability in the
building industry. Open Sustain Build 233–42
19. Askar R, Bragança L, Gervásio H (2022) Design for adaptability (DfA)—frameworks and
assessment models for enhanced circularity in buildings. Appl Syst Innov 5:24
20. Manewa A, Mohan S, Andrew R, Upeksha M (2016) Adaptable buildings for sustainable built
environment. Built Environ Proj Asset Manag 6(2)
21. Askar R, Bragança L, Gervásio H (2021) Adaptability of buildings: a critical review on the
concept evolution. Appl Sci 11(10):4483
22. Gosling J, Paola S, Mohamed N, Robert L (2013) Adaptable buildings: a systems approach.
Sustain Cities Soc 44–51
23. Brand S (1994) How buildings learn: what happens after they’re built. Viking Press, New York
9 Design for Circularity, Design for Adaptability, Design for Disassembly 271

24. Leupen B (2004) The frame and the generic space: a new way of looking to flexibility. In: 10th
international conference of cib w104 open building implementation. Ball State University, pp
59–59
25. Steenbergen Raphaël DJM, Koster T, Geurts CP (2012) The effect of climate change and natural
variability on wind loading values for buildings. Build Environ 55:178−186
26. McFarland D, Brandon ER, Dustin A (2020) Quantifying adaptability of college campus
buildings. In: Sustainability in energy and buildings. Springer Singapore
27. Dunant CF, Drewniok M, Orr J, Allwood J (2021) Good early stage design decisions can halve
embodied CO2 and lower structural frames’ cost. Structures 33:343–354
28. Committee S (2010) Sustainability guidelines for the structural engineer, 1st edn. American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston
29. Webster M (2007) Structural design for adaptability and deconstruction: a strategy for closing
the materials loop and increasing building value. New horizons and better practices, pp 1–6
30. Guy B, Nicholas C (2003) Design for disassembly in the built environment. In: A guide
to closed-loop design and building. https://www.lifecyclebuilding.org/docs/DfDseattle.pdf.
Accessed 14 Dec 2023
31. Slaughter S (2001) Design strategies to increase building flexibility. Building Research and
Information 29(3):208–217
32. Hamida MB, Tuuli J, Hilde R, Vincent G (2012) Circular building adaptability and its
determinants–a literature review. Int J Build Pathol Adapt 41(6):47–69
33. Allam AS, Mazdak N (2023) From demolition to deconstruction of the built environment: a
synthesis of the literature. J Build Eng 64:105679
34. O’Grady T, Roberto M, Heap-Yih C, Gregory M (2021) Design for disassembly, deconstruction
and resilience: a circular economy index for the built environment. Resour Conserv Recycl
175:105847
35. Tatiya A, Dong Z, Syal M, Berghorn G, Lamore R (2018) Cost prediction model for building
deconstruction in urban areas. J Clean Prod 195:1572–1580
36. Rios FC, Chong WK, Grau D (2015) Design for disassembly and deconstruction-challenges
and opportunities. Procedia Eng 118:1296–1304
37. Crowther P (2005) Design for disassembly–themes and principles. Environ Des Guid 1–7
38. Kissi E, Ansah M, Ampofo J, Boakye E (2019) Critical review of the principles of design for
disassembly. In: Modular and offsite construction (MOC) summit proceedings. pp 251–258
39. Morgan C, Stevenson F (2005) Design and detailing for deconstruction. Scottish Ecolog-
ical Design Association. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=
e2a9ab7b65f95b358f381efeec2a7d7eb3384361. Accessed 23 Nov 2023
40. Minunno R, O’Grady T, Morrison G, Gruner R, Colling M (2018) Strategies for applying the
circular economy to prefabricated buildings. Buildings 8(9):125
41. Jaillon L, Poon CH (2014) Life cycle design and prefabrication in buildings: a review and case
studies in Hong Kong. Autom Constr 39:195–202
42. Gueggemos A, Horvath A (2005) Comparison of environmental effects of steel-and concrete-
framed buildings. J Infrastruct Syst 11(2):93–101
43. Salama W (2017) Design of concrete buildings for disassembly: an explorative review. Int J
Sustain Built Environ 6(2):617–635
44. Shima H, Tateyashiki T, Matsuhashi R, Yoshida Y (2005) An advanced concrete recycling
technology and its applicability assessment through input-output analysis. J Adv Concr Technol
3(1):53–67
45. Stacey M (2011) Concrete: a studio design guide. Riba Publishing
272 S. Tsoka and K. Tsikaloudaki

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 10
Reversible Buildings and Products.
Transformable Buildings

Katerina Tsikaloudaki

Abstract Nowadays design for reversibility and transformability are gaining interest
in the field of architecture and sustainable design and are directly connected with the
circular economy framework. This chapter will attempt to map and analyse the current
knowledge on the concepts of reversible and transformable buildings, by presenting
the basic background and terminology, their application on the material, component
and whole building level, the challenges and barriers, as well as the benefits and
enablers for implementing reversibility and transformability in structures. Paradigms
of reversible and transformable buildings are synoptically presented at the end of the
chapter, in order to highlight how these concepts can be actually applied to real life
constructions.

Keywords Reversible buildings · Transformable buildings · Building

adaptability · Disassembly · Circular building concepts

10.1 Introduction

Design for reversibility and transformability are concepts that are gaining interest
in the field of architecture and sustainable design within the sustainability and the
circular economy framework. The difference between these two concepts is subtle;
They both refer to structures designed on the basis of flexibility and adaptability,
allowing for future modifications. Reversible buildings are designed to further enable
disassembly and reuse of their components/materials to rebuild the same or other
constructions, while transformable buildings are capable of changing their form,
layout, or purpose dynamically in response to various factors, such as occupant
preferences, environmental conditions, functional requirements, etc.

K. Tsikaloudaki (B)
School of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2025 273

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_10
274 K. Tsikaloudaki

This chapter will attempt to map and analyse the current knowledge on the
concepts of reversible and transformable buildings within the circular economy
framework.

10.2 The Background

In general, reversibility refers to the ability to reverse or undo a process or change

and return to the original state or condition. With this overall definition, the term
is met in many sciences, such as physics, chemistry, mathematics, psychology and
cognitive sciences, medicine, etc. In this framework, the term “reversibility” is also
met in the building sector as a principle applied to the monuments’ restoration [1], in
order to highlight processes and interventions that do not harm the historic building
and allow it to return to its initial state, while at the same time they respect the original
material, structural system and autonomy of the architectural members.
In the field of circular buildings, the term “reversibility” is met frequently but
not always with the same, explicit definition. It is commonly mentioned in conjunc-
tion with deconstruction, disassembly, reuse, flexibility, etc. In some cases, it is
encountered as moveability [2], relocate ability [3] and expandability [4], but discrete
boundaries and definitions between these terms are not denoted.
In most cases, reversibility refers to the ability of a construction to be dismantled to
its individual components, which are then reused and reassembled to form the same
or a similar structure. In praxis, it exploits the advantages of disassembly, which,
according to ISO 14021, “enables the product to be taken apart at the end of its
useful life in such a way that it allows components and parts to be reused, recycled,
recovered for energy or, in some other way, diverted from the waste stream” [5].
Reversibility actually takes the process one step further to the reuse of the building
components/materials keeping their primary intended purpose, with the ultimate
objective to minimise waste.
The research project Buildings as Material Banks (BAMB), funded by the EU
Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 642384,
focused on the reversibility of buildings and structures and defined reversibility as “a
process of transforming buildings or dismantling its systems, products and elements
without causing damage” [6]. Furthermore, according to BAMB’s interpretation,
“disassembly, adaptability and reuse form the nucleus of building reversibility and
as such determine the level of spatial, structural and material dimensions of reversible
buildings”.
Spatial reversibility addresses mainly the “transformable buildings”, which can
change their form, layout, or purpose dynamically in response to various factors.
Transformable buildings employ various technologies and mechanisms for their
adaptability, including but not limited to kinetic systems, modular components,
advanced materials, robotics, Internet of Things (IoT), and automated controls.
Design principles for transformable buildings often revolve around modular design,
multipurpose spaces, reconfigurable layouts, and parametric modelling. Researchers
10 Reversible Buildings and Products. Transformable Buildings 275

emphasise the importance of incorporating these principles into the initial design
phase to ensure effective transformation and maximise building functionality.

10.3 Applying Reversibility in Building Structures

Reversibility concepts can be applied at the whole building level, at the building
component level and at the building material level.
Reversibility at the whole building level is associated with the ability of the
building to be dismantled and reconstructed. Within this framework, key features
of a reversible building include: (i) modularity, in the sense that the components
can be easily assembled, disassembled, or rearranged in various configurations, (ii)
flexibility, i.e. so as the interior spaces and layout can be easily adjusted or modified
to suit different functions or user requirements, (iii) adaptability, with the objective
to accommodate changes in use, technology, or occupancy by integrating flexible
systems and designs and (iv) longevity—durability, with the aim to endure changing
needs, maximising its lifespan and reducing the need for complete reconstruction.
Beyond the above aspects, reversibility at the whole building level also reflects
its capability to change and adapt in order to cover various needs. It focusses on the
capacity of space and structure to accommodate different functions without causing
major reconstruction works, demolition and material loss. This aspect is better known
as “spatial reversibility” and addresses the transformation on the building level within
the circular framework [6]. Transformable structures are designed to anticipate future
changes and allow adaptation in a much more efficient way. This is certainly not a
new concept. Nomadic tribes exploited the elasticity of local materials to create
vernacular structures that could easily be disassembled, transported and reused. All
around us, common objects such as umbrellas or camping tents use principles of
transformation to provide adaptability to changing needs and environments [7].
According to BAMB, the three major types of transformations are identified
as: mono-functional transformation options, trans-functional transformation options,
and multidimensional transformation, which integrates the former two along with
exchangeability and relocation [8]. More specifically, mono-functional transforma-
tion concerns buildings that have the capacity to transform their layout typology
without changing their volume or use. Trans-functional transformation concerns
cases where the buildings can change use and layout typology without extensive
reconstruction. In multidimensional transformation, the buildings have the capacity
to change their layout and use, but also their volume, i.e., they can expand or shrink
according to the needs.
Reversibility at the building component level is highly associated with their
dismantle and reuse capabilities and is often referred to as “technical reversibil-
ity”. In order to further assess the reversibility potential, the building components
are discerned into structural and non-structural elements. The disassembly and reuse
of the structural building components is not always possible and depends on the
276 K. Tsikaloudaki

construction technique and the connection type among the members. In conven-
tional buildings, with a structural system with load-bearing masonry or reinforced
concrete members, it requires special tools, equipment and specialised labour force
[9, 10]. The case is different for buildings made of prefabricated components, which
generally have a high degree of deconstruction, as discussed in bibliography [11],
and in Chaps. 2 and 8 of this book. The non-structural building components, such as
partitions or external walls, doors and windows, cladding, floor and finishes, tech-
nical installations, are generally easier to be dismantled and reused, depending on the
way they were initially integrated in the building, the materials and their durability
[12].
Additionally, for the optimal design of the components within the reversibility
framework, it is recommended to use a standard structural grid, minimise the
number of different components to be assembled and disassembled, avoid composite
materials and floor systems, secondary finishes and use of adhesives and coatings,
use lightweight materials and components, dry construction techniques and, when
possible, high-performance materials [13].
Nevertheless, in non-monolithic constructions, the connections play a significant
role in determining whether the components in conjunction can be disassembled,
without causing serious damage to the members, and further reused [14]. Chemical
connections, which have the advantages of speed and low cost, or welding lead to diffi-
culties in deconstruction and reuse. On the other hand, dry mechanical connections,
such as bolts, screws, etc., are preferred. Additionally, simple, visible and acces-
sible connections contribute to efficient disassembly of structural and non-structural
elements, allowing for their further reutilisation and reassembly [13, 15].
Reversibility at the material level is merely related to the ability to reclaim building
materials and products and reuse them. An extensive review on the reuse potential
of various materials has been made in Chaps. 2 and 7 of this report.

10.4 Challenges and Barriers for Reversible Buildings

and Products

Designing buildings or components with the intention of being easily disassembled

and reassembled in another location or to form another structure has many potential
benefits in terms of sustainability but also presents several challenges:
Structural morphosis: the configuration of a building system that can be easily
taken apart and reassembled without compromising its structural integrity requires
the right balance between structural stability and disassembly feasibility. As such
it is a complex engineering task, requiring expertise, special calculation tools, time
and effort.
Material selection: Critical parameters that influence the design for reversibility
concept, beyond the environmental footprint, the durability and the after the design
10 Reversible Buildings and Products. Transformable Buildings 277

life potentials, are the weight, the compatibility with other materials in the construc-
tion, the stability/integrity through time and the potential to be reused. At the moment,
concrete’s potential for reuse is difficult to be defined due to its numerous uses,
composition, strength and form [16], but in general in situ reinforced concrete cannot
be easily removed and further reused within construction; stone and bricks can be
reclaimed and reused if the mortar is lime-based; steel is easily reclaimed, but it
requires additional processes to verify structural integrity [17], while further consid-
erations include high cost, low demand, time constraints and the presence of existing
coatings on steel members; glass cannot easily be reused in its initial form due to
practical reasons; timber can be reused, especially when engineered timber solutions
are concerned [15].
Maintenance throughout the service life: Over time, the repeated assembly and
disassembly of building components can lead to wear-and-tear, affecting the quality,
functionality, and longevity of the components and their connections. Proper mainte-
nance and repair will enhance the durability of the components, prolong their lifespan
beyond the design life and safeguard that the buildings will be functional and safe.
Performance certification: The lack of confidence in the structural properties and
performance of reused components may be an obstacle in the diffusion of reversible
buildings. The quality of the reclaimed components should be tested and certified
before being integrated in a new construction. Relevant tests, requirements and spec-
ifications should be developed in order to guarantee the quality of the components
and materials that will form a robust and safe new building.
Costs: Specialised design, materials and construction techniques may increase the
initial cost with regard to conventional buildings. Moreover, the conventional demo-
lition of a building after its design life is usually faster and cheaper than following
the chain of reversibility, i.e. disassembly of building parts, transportation to storage,
repair of components, transport to site and reassembly [16]. Additionally, the need for
transportation and storage of the reclaimed building components till their reassembly
may increase the cost of the construction.
Skilled workforce: Reversible buildings may require specialised skills and training
for construction workers to efficiently disassemble and reassemble the structure.
Ensuring a sufficient pool of skilled labour and providing training can be a challenge.
Environmental impact: For long time, sustainability in the built environment has
been associated with high building energy performance. Although the building oper-
ational stage is still important in the environmental building performance assessment,
circularity principles target merely to the resource and material efficiency and waste
management. Studies has shown that the environmental impacts of reversible build-
ings compare favourably to conventional buildings, especially when at least one reuse
occurs in the future [18]. It is highlighted that thorough studies that take into account
the production, transportation, and potential disposal of unutilised building materials
and components should be conducted, in order to guarantee a low ecological footprint
[11]. Tools, databases and inventories supporting the life cycle assessments should
be regularly revised and expanded to reflect all potential after design life impacts of
the materials [15].
278 K. Tsikaloudaki

Regulatory and policy frameworks: Existing building codes and regulations have
been configured in line with the linear model of construction and they have not
integrated provisions for the reversible buildings yet. In most countries, building
circularity is currently addressed in regulatory frameworks only with regard to C&D
waste management, leaving all the other principles outside the box.
User awareness: Engineers and final users may be sceptical and show limited
acceptance for reversible buildings, due to prejudice and lack of awareness on the
potential of this practice. Additionally, users and occupants of reversible buildings
may need to adapt to different approaches of building usage, maintenance, and
potential relocation.
Architectural design and aesthetics: The need for simple building designs, that
will enable modularity, standardisation, as well as easy assembly, disassembly and
reuse may limit the perspectives of the architect and reduce the architectural value
of the buildings.
Despite these challenges, ongoing research and innovation in materials, design,
construction methods, and industry collaboration aim to address and overcome these
obstacles to make reversible buildings a more viable and sustainable option for the
future.

10.5 Benefits and Enablers for Reversible Buildings

and Products

According to the Ellen Mac Arthur Foundation, circular economy is an industrial

system that is restorative by design and it is based, among others, upon the following
two principles: Design out waste and build resilience through diversity (including
modularity, versatility and adaptability) [19]. Within this framework, the aligned
strategies are Build nothing; Build for long-term value; Build efficiently; Build with
the right materials.
It is obvious that the reversible buildings reflect the above-mentioned principles
and strategies. Their overall objective is to reconstruct the entire building from its
initial components or at least reuse as much of its components as possible, so as the
waste disposal is minimised, in contrast to conventional buildings of the past, where
no particular case for the produced C&D waste was taken.
Among the benefits of reversible buildings, the following can be added [16]: (i)
Reduction of the virgin material use; (ii) Proper removal and handling of hazardous
materials through the disassembly of the building; (iii) Exploitation of embodied
energy and embodied carbon of materials and components; (iv) Reduction of cost
of C&D waste disposal due to less waste generation; (v) Creation of local market-
places for reclaimed components, leading to long term economic benefits and new
opportunities for employment and business development.
The key features that will enable the reversibility in building design lay on
the building design, materials, technology and policy making: More specifically,
10 Reversible Buildings and Products. Transformable Buildings 279

the key building design actions that enable reversible buildings include [9]: (i)
Reduced building complexity; (ii) Modular construction; (iii) Simple and acces-
sible connections; (iv) Reduced number of components; (v) Reduced weight of
components.
The material selected should be: (i) With durability and reusable; (ii) With
decreased environmental impact; (iii) With declared performance.
Technology will trigger the reversibility of buildings by advancing the tools
supporting BIM, developing protocols and quality tests for reclaimed materials and
evolving the databases of building materials properties and life cycle assessments.
Standard specifications and building codes to address the disassembly and reuse
of building materials and components will set the scene for reversible buildings,
which could be further developed with proper and tailor-made financial incentives
[20].

10.6 Examples of Reversible Buildings

In this section a few paradigms of reversible buildings are synoptically presented.

They concern temporary and permanent buildings, designed as exemplary cases that
show how reversible buildings can function, in favour of circular and sustainable
design.
People’s Pavilion, 2017, by Overtreders W & Bureau SLA. The building was
constructed for the Dutch design week that took place in Eindhoven in 2017. It was
designed in order to promote the value of a circular construction system, which
goes beyond the life of the building and minimises waste. Within this context, it
was made from borrowed and recycled construction materials that were returned to
their original owners when the temporary building was dismantled after the festival
[21, 22].
The framework was formed of 12 concrete foundation piles and 19 wooden
components that created eight meters high primary structure for the 250 m2 building.
For this purpose, the designers devised a construction technique that didn’t use glue,
screws or nails, but tie-down straps, tension belts and cable ties [21, 22]. Such a
system was unusual and required extensive testing before its implementation. The
glazing of the lower part of the Pavilion was reclaimed from the refurbishment of an
office building in Utrecht and after the disassembly of the building it was used for
another project [21, 22]. The exterior walls were cladded with shingles/tiles made of
recycled plastic household waste.
Brasserie 2050, 2018, by Overtreders W. The building was constructed in 2018
as a reversible barn to house a zero waste restaurant for the Lowlands Festival in
Biddinghuizen in the Netherlands. The architects conceived this building as the barn
of the future, which promotes sustainable and circular food management, along with
sustainable and circular construction [21, 23].
280 K. Tsikaloudaki

It was also constructed of borrowed, hired and dismountable standard building

materials. The structure of the barn was made of standard pallet racking, which is
used to build storage systems in warehouses. A stack of vertical farming cabinets
filled with herbs forms the facade of the pavilion. Sacks of grain stacked on pallets
around the perimeter acted as weights to prevent the building blowing away, while
tables were made of recycled plastic [21, 23].
Triodos Bank, 2019, by RAU Architects and Ex Interiors. The building houses
the headquarters of Triodos Bank and it is located in Driebergen-Rijsenburg in the
Netherlands, covering an area of 12,994 m2 . The architects conceived the building as
“a temporary combination of products, components and materials with a documented
identity” and describe it as “the first building in the world to be conceived as a material
bank” [21, 24].
The structure of the five-storey building is made entirely of timber with only
the basement making use of concrete to prevent flooding. Components of laminated
timber, cross-laminated timber and unprocessed timber were joined with screws,
in order to enable their reuse in future. It is surprising that the building is literally
screwed together with 165,312 screws [21, 24]. According to the architects, the value
of the materials would remain the same after deconstruction.
Koodaaram Kochi-Muziris Pavilion, 2018, by Aragram Architects. The building
was constructed in 2018 for the Kochi-Muziris Bienale, which is the largest contem-
porary art festival in Asia, held once every two years in Fort Kochi-Mattancherry,
in Kerala, South India [25]. Built in a record time of two months, the pavilion was
designed to completely dismantle into components salvageable for reuse, leaving the
site largely unmarked, to allow for its rewilding over the coming two years [25].
Stadium 974, 2022, by Fenwick Iribarren Architects. The Stadium 974 was
constructed in 2022 in order to host the FIFA World Cup and it is located near
the Hamad International Airport overlooking the Gulf Coast in Doha, Qatar. It has a
capacity of 44,089 people and it was designed to be the first FIFA-compliant stadium
that can be fully dismantled and re-purposed after the tournament ends [26].
Stadium 974 is constructed entirely from shipping containers and modular steel
elements. More specifically, it incorporated 974 recycled shipping containers in
homage to the site’s industrial history and the international dialling code for Qatar.
According to the architects, with their sustainable design the stadium construction
requires fewer materials, creates less waste and reduces the carbon footprint of the
building process, all while reducing the time to as little as three years [26].
It must be noted, however, that the environmental impact of the stadium might
be higher than the initially estimated one, and may be higher than that of permanent
structures, mainly due to the use of more durable materials that enable the dismantling
and reassembling. The advantages of reversible buildings will arise depending on
how many times and how far the stadium will be transported and reassembled.
10 Reversible Buildings and Products. Transformable Buildings 281

References

1. UNESCO (1972) Preserving and restoring monuments and historic buildings. UN, Paris
2. Hamida M, Jylhä T, Remøy H, Gruis V (2023) Circular building adaptability and its
determinants—a literature review. Int J Build Pathol Adapt 41(6):47–69
3. Kyrö R, Jylhä T, Peltokorpi A (2018) Embodying circularity through usable relocatable modular
buildings. Facilities 37(1/2)
4. Cambier C, Galle W, de Temmerman N (2021) Expandable houses: an explorative life cycle
cost analysis. Sustainability 13:6974
5. ISO (2016) ISO 14021:2016 Environmental labels and declarations—self-declared environ-
mental claims (Type II environmental labelling). ISO, Geneva, Switzerland
6. Durmisevic E (2018) Reversible building design guidelines. WP310UT. The Netherlands
7. Brancart S, Paduart A, Vergauwen A, Vandervaeren C, de Laet L, de Temmerman n (2017)
Transformable structures: materialising design for change. Int J Des Nat Ecodyn 12(3):357–366
8. Durmisevic E (2019) Circular economy in construction: design strategies for reversible
buildings. BAMB project, e-book edition
9. Bertino G, Kisser J, Zeilinger J, Langergraber G, Fischer T, Österreicher D (2021) Fundamentals
of building deconstruction as a circular economy strategy for the reuse of construction materials.
Appl Sci 11:939
10. van den Berg M, Voordijk H, Adriaanse A (2020) Recovering building elements for reuse (or
not)—ethnographic insights into selective demolition practices. J Clean Prod 256:120332
11. Krohnert H, Itten R, Stucki M (2022) Comparing flexible and conventional monolithic building
design: life cycle environmental impact and potential for material circulation. Build Environ
222:109409
12. Geldermans B, Tenpierik M, Luscuere P (2019) Circular and flexible indoor partitioning—a
design conceptualization of innovative materials and value chains. Buildings 9(9):194
13. Basta A, Hassanien Serror M, Marzouk M (2020) A BIM-based framework for quantitative
assessment of steel structure deconstructability. Autom Constr 111:103064
14. Yan Z, Ottenhaus LM, Leardini P, Jockwer R (2022) Performance of reversible timber connec-
tions in BAMB project Report Australian light timber framed panelised construction. J Build
Eng 61:105244
15. Dams B, Maskell D, Shea A, Allen S, Driesser M, Kretschmann T, Walker P, Emmitt S
(2021) A circular construction evaluation framework to promote designing for disassembly
and adaptability. J Clean Prod 316:128122
16. Iacovidou E, Purnell P (2016) Mining the physical infrastructure: opportunities, barriers and
interventions in promoting structural components reuse. Sci Total Environ 557–558:791–807
17. Zygomalas I, Baniotopoulos C (2016) Environmental impact assessment of end-of-life
scenarios for steel buildings. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 20(3):301–313
18. Eckelman M, Brown C, Troup L, Wang L, Webster M, Hajjar J (2018) Life cycle energy and
environmental benefits of novel design-for deconstruction structural systems in steel buildings.
Build Environ 143:421–430
19. Elen Mac Arthur Foundation (2013) Towards the circular economy. Economic and business
rationale for an accelerated transition. Elen Mac Arthur Foundation
20. Debacker W, Manshoven S (2016) D1 Synthesis of the state of the art: Key barriers and
opportunities for materials passports and reversible building design in the current system.
BAMB project
21. dezeen webpage, Marcus Fairs, Six examples of reversible architecture and design that can be
taken apart and repurposed. https://www.dezeen.com/2021/01/11/reversible-architecture-des
ign-examples-recycled/. Accessed 10 Sept 2023
22. ArchDaily webpage, People’s Pavilion/bureau SLA + Overtreders W. ISSN 0719-8884https://
www.archdaily.com/915977/peoples-pavilion-bureau-sla-plus-overtreders-w. Accessed 10
Sept 2023
23. ArchDaily webpage, Brasserie 2050 Restaurant/Overtreders W. https://www.archdaily.com/
915973/brasserie-2050-restaurant-overtreders-w. Accessed 10 Oct 2023
282 K. Tsikaloudaki

24. ArchDaily webpage, Triodos Bank/RAU. https://www.archdaily.com/926357/triodos-bank-

rau-architects. Accessed 10 Oct 2023
25. ArchDaily webpage, KOODAARAM Kochi-Muziris Pavilion/Anagram Architects.
https://www.archdaily.com/921181/koodaaram-kochi-muziris-pavilion-anagram-architects.
Accessed 10 Oct 2023
26. ArchDaily webpage, Workers Begin Dismantling Qatar’s Stadium 974, the First Tempo-
rary World Cup Stadium. https://www.archdaily.com/993811/workers-begin-dismantling-qat
ars-stadium-974-the-first-temporary-world-cup-stadium. Accessed 10 Oct 2023

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 11
Adaptive Reuse of Existing Buildings

Maria Beatrice Andreucci and Selin Karagözler

Abstract Amid the introduction of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development

Goals, the longevity and lifecycle of heritage and modern buildings and the process
of redevelopment have come under greater scrutiny. Through adaptive reuse, i.e.,
changes that involve both a functional and a physical component, practitioners can
give a second life to existing buildings. To define the state of the art in the scientific
research focused on building adaptive reuse, the authors conducted a rapid evidence
assessment. It emerged that adaptive reuse is comprehensive topic that deals with
social, economic and environmental issues. The goal of the adaptive reuse studies
varies from social to environmental topics such as human-centred adaptive reuse, and
energy efficient adaptive reuse. A comprehensive approach to adaptive reuse requires
integrated strategies aimed at preserving valuable pre-existing human artifacts in the
Anthropocene era, characterized by unsustainable consumption and transience of
data and images. Adaptive reuse combines pragmatism and creativity and requires
sensitivity in the selective approach on existing structures, contexts, and materials.
Adaptive reuse projects call for specific skills and targeted strategies that falls into
different action categories: reuse, restoration and renewal, i.e., innovative transforma-
tions of the “old and degraded” into “new and performative”. Overall, adaptive reuse
optimizes environmental sustainability, efficient regeneration processes, increased
community interest, and profitability, making it an attractive opportunity for stake-
holders seeking to revitalize urban and peri urban areas. Adaptive reuse projects
deliver workable solutions, support heritage and cultural preservation, while meeting
the changing needs of communities.

Keywords Heritage buildings · Cultural heritage · Circular economy · Urban

regeneration · Sustainable urbanization

M. B. Andreucci (B)
Department of Planning, Design, Technology of Architecture, Sapienza University of Rome,
00196 Rome, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]
S. Karagözler
Faculty of Architecture, Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design, Yaşar
University, 35100 İzmir, Turkey

© The Author(s) 2025 283

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_11
284 M. B. Andreucci and S. Karagözler

11.1 Introduction

As is now well known, buildings consume a significant share of the planet’s energy.
When they are demolished and removed, the energy spent is lost, and additional
energy is used to replace them. For this reason, since the XX century, the transfor-
mation and reuse of existing buildings through an adaptive reuse process manifests
our collective responsibility to address the global climate crisis. Moreover, after a
century in which much of the original building stock of our urban centers has been
lost as a result of urban development, practitioners and decision makers are advo-
cating that it is our duty to find new ways to reuse buildings and benefit from their
restoration, as they often represent significant collective historical and cultural value.
Adaptive reuse is a strategy to be able to preserve cultural pre-existence in the
Anthropocene era, characterized by heavy consumption and transience of data and
images. Adaptive reuse combines pragmatism and creativity and requires sensitivity
in the selective approach on existing structures, contexts, and materials. Adaptive
reuse projects require specific skills and precise strategies that falls into different
categories: reuse, restoration and renewal, transformation of the “old and degraded”
into “new and performative”.

11.1.1 Materials and Methods

A literature search was conducted for the period 2018–2023, and using a very specific
set of keywords related to adaptive reuse of existing buildings: (‘design for adaptive
reuse’) AND (‘built environment’ OR ‘building’ OR ‘construction’ OR ‘civil engi-
neering’ OR ‘urban environment’) AND (‘approach’ OR ‘method’ OR ‘strategy’
OR ‘concept’ OR ‘framework’ OR ‘principle’ OR ‘taxonomy’ OR ‘guideline’ OR
‘guide’).
The search strings were searched applying four criteria:
• Publications must contain at least one building design and/or construction strategy
that is explicitly related to building adaptive reuse and its synonyms.
• The strategy/strategies must focus on optimizing the building’s resource consump-
tion, waste generation and/or embodied environmental impacts in accordance with
the Circularity in building and construction concept [1].
• The strategy/strategies must focus solely on the design and construction for
adaptive reuse, i.e., strategies related to building renovation as well as building
extensions.
• The study must provide a sufficient level of information about the building design
and construction strategy/strategies and their application following an adaptive
reuse approach.
The different search engines used—Google Scholar and Scopus—returned a total
of 2,081 publications. Review of the title, abstract and keywords against the selection
11 Adaptive Reuse of Existing Buildings 285

criteria stated in the protocol and excluding irrelevant subject areas and duplicates
reduced the number of publications to 116. Further reading of the introduction and
conclusion, resulted in the selection of 31 publications.
The conducted rapid evidence assessment was not intended as an exhaustive study,
but rather as a representation of the state-of-the-art design for adaptive reuse of
existing buildings.
As building adaptive reuse has also been addressed in grey literature, 16 grey
literature publications, some of which were already known by the authors to meet the
scope and selection criteria of the study, were also included. Additionally, backward
snowballing [2] was performed between these papers, resulting in the inclusion of 15
additional papers. In total 41 publications were analysed in full text for the synthesis.
The outline of the study method is shown in Fig. 11.1.
A narrative literature review follows in the following pages to synthesize a descrip-
tion of existing building adaptive reuse goals, intervention strategies, and assessment
tools.

Fig. 11.1 Outline of the study methodology. Source authors

286 M. B. Andreucci and S. Karagözler

11.2 Results and Discussion

Adaptive reuse is comprehensive topic that deals with social, economic and environ-
mental issues. In the literature, the goal of the adaptive reuse studies varies from social
to environmental topics such as human-centred base adaptive reuse, to energy effi-
cient adaptive reuse. Sustainable adaptive reuse, energy efficiency, lifecycle assess-
ment, and determination of new functions are some of the goals that emerged from
the selected articles on adaptive reuse (Table 11.1).
The sustainability of adaptive reuse is divided into environmental sustainability
(e.g., resource efficiency), economic sustainability (e.g., cost efficiency), social
sustainability (e.g., memory preservation). Several studies suggest frameworks/
methods/strategies to provide sustainable adaptive reuse [3–8]. Hampel developed a
holistic framework for sustainable adaptive reuse which comprises economic, envi-
ronmental, technical, context, social, and regulations and policy issues [4]. Jiang
et al. have suggested a new preliminary framework for the adaptive reuse of historic
buildings which balances heritage conservation and energy efficiency [9]. Kitagorsky
identified new construction modules as a strategy to implement adaptive reuse process
[5]. Smart specialization strategies for adaptive reuse projects were analysed to
provide for circular adaptive reuse [6]. While the majority of the selected studies
deal with strategies at building level, Celluci has suggested interventions at room,
home and urban level [7]. Hamida et al. have examined circular building adaptability
approaches as applied into multiple case studies. According to their study, functional
reconversion and building restoration are the strategies which are required to develop
[3].
Other studies suggest frameworks/methods/strategies which are not directly
focused on the sustainability dimensions. Daub has examined the interventions as
a strategy, such as adaptive reuse, façadism and demolition [10]. Lotfi et al. have
analysed the context-based adaptive reuse strategies from the point of cultural and
political view [11]. Human-centred adaptive reuse of historic buildings has been
analysed to provide better investment decisions [12].

Table 11.1 Overview of goals and objectives pursued through building adaptive reuse design and/
or construction from the literature ranked according to occurrences within the selected literature
Goal Method Article
Sustainable adaptive reuse Generate sustainable adaptive reuse [3–7, 25]
framework/method/strategy
Assessment of adaptive reuse Generate sustainable adaptive reuse [10–13, 25]
framework/method/strategy
Energy efficiency, LCA, climate Energy efficient adaptive reuse [14–19, 25]
change mitigation framework
Urban regeneration n.a [20–22]
Function Finding the new function [23–25]
11 Adaptive Reuse of Existing Buildings 287

Popescu et al. have analysed the challenges varying from materials reuse to support
from the local community and users of repurposed buildings, while framing the
circular adaptive reuse [8]. Takva et al. have examined how the contemporary strategy
of adding volumes to existing buildings, as adaptive reuse strategy, meet the needs
of historical buildings to provide sustainability [13]. Jiang et al. have examined the
PV application to historical buildings as an adaptive reuse strategy [9].
While some studies suggest new strategies, some of them examine the existing
strategy for sustainable adaptive reuse. Shao et al. have analysed the innovative
strategies for adaptive reuse which were determined in the AdapSTAR model. They
classified the types of innovative design according to the criterion of the AdaptSTAR
model, which is tool to promote sustainability in the built environment [14]. The
reuse of materials is one way to enable adaptive reuse of circularity. Bertin et al.
have examined the cycle of material with a life-cycle perspective. According to the
study, the reuse of the structural elements contributes to reducing environmental
impacts [15]. Rodrigez et al. have performed the eco efficiency assessment for a
historic building to assess alternative retrofit strategies and uses [16]
The built environment has potential to climate change mitigation and reducing
waste generation and energy use. The reuse of the building elements and materials cut
the greenhouse gas emissions to produce building elements and materials. Therefore,
adaptive reuse is also addressed as a sustainable tool for climate change mitigation.
Conejos et al. have mentioned adaptive reuse as a strategy for carbon neutral cities
[17]. Aigwi et al. have discussed the applicability of the adaptive reuse concept as
a sustainable tool for climate change mitigation [18]. Yung et al. have examined the
implementation challenges to the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings from the point
of low carbon cities [19].
Low carbon cities can be generated by the integrated efforts of heritage conser-
vation and urban regeneration. Armstrong et al. have developed tool for evaluating
adaptive reuse as an urban regeneration strategy through understanding vacancy
[20]. In the study conducted in Seoul, it is stated that adaptive reuse of the apart-
ments will contribute not only to heritage value but also to overall sustainability from
the perspective of urban regeneration [21]. Döner have established the framework
for adaptive reuse as a solution tool for social sustainability in urban regeneration
processes [22].
The decision on function(s) of adaptive reuse of historic buildings is a complex
problem. The new function must not damage historic buildings’ value. The aspects
of the historical buildings have importance at adaptive reuse process to preserve
its value. Architectural, historical, environmental, social, cultural, economic, and
political are only some of the aspects of historic buildings that are examined in
academic papers. Vordopoulos et al. analysed the economic, political, environmental,
socio-cultural, technical and legal aspects with AHP method (Table 11.2).
This paper examined the potential of adaptive reuse practices by enhancing
strengths and opportunities as well as counteracting weaknesses and threats [23].
Abastante et al. suggested a method to find an appropriate function for iconic build-
ings. According to the study, multicriteria decision-making tools were used to find a
288 M. B. Andreucci and S. Karagözler

Table 11.2 Selected literature highlighting specific goals pursued through building adaptive reuse
Citation Article Authors Date Goal (cultural versus energy
efficiency; climate adaptation
etc.; new functions)
[24] The introduction of the Francesca 2022 Determining new function.
SRF-II method to Abastante, Previous Function (The Stock
compare hypothesis of Salvatore Exchange). Suggested Function
adaptive reuse for an Corrente, (Art school, Sport center,
iconic historical building Salvatore Greco, Restaurant, Gaming area,
Isabella M. Museum, Wine palace) Decided
Lami, Beatrice Function (Wine Palace)
Mecca
[15] Design for Reuse Ingrid Bertin, 2019 Framework: Setting up an
(DfReu) applied to Adélaïde infinite cycle of use of materials
buildings; anticipate Feraille Fresnet, by their reuse and answering in
disassembly for the Bertrand Laratte, particular to the problems of
End-of-Life (EoL), in Robert Le Roy circular economy
order to preserve
resources
[7] Circular economy Cristiana 2021 Strategies: determining
strategies for adaptive Cellucci strategies of circular
reuse of residential regeneration of residential
building buildings through adaptive
solutions at room level, home
level and urban in pursuit of
human wellbeing
[14] A Research on Shao Dan 2019 Identifying the adaptive reuse of
Knowledge Theory of historic buildings has a richer
Innovative Design for meaning to new buildings,
Adaptive Reuse of Old which could be integrated with
Buildings in Public sustainability and innovation in
Space environmental design
[10] Welcome to the Ben Daub 2022 Strategies: examining the three
[Growth] Machine: An main intervention types:
Analysis of Heritage adaptive reuse, façadism, and
Conservation in the demolition in Toronto
Intensifying City
[3] Circular building Mohammad B. 2022 Strategies: explore to which
adaptability in adaptive Hamida, Hilde extent circular building
reuse: multiple case Remøy, Vincent adaptability strategies are
studies in the Gruis, Tuuli applied in adaptive reuse
Netherlands Jylhä projects
[4] A framework for Friedrich 2020 Framework: testing developed
sustainable adaptive Hampel framework for adaptive reuse
reuse of industrial which covers economic,
buildings environmental, technical,
context, social, and planning
aspects
(continued)
11 Adaptive Reuse of Existing Buildings 289

Table 11.2 (continued)

Citation Article Authors Date Goal (cultural versus energy
efficiency; climate adaptation
etc.; new functions)
[9] Adaptive reuse and Li Jiang, Elena 2023 Energy efficiency (providing
energy transition of built Lucchi, Davide framework to balance heritage
heritage and historic Del Curto conservation and energy
gardens: The sustainable efficiency, listing potential
conservation of Casa opportunity and risk in energy
Jelinek in Trieste (Italy) transition)
[5] A Concept for Joshua 2022 New construction modules:
Sustainable Building Kitagorsky Proposed hybrid modular
Projects Using Hybrid construction for adaptability
Modular and Adaptive
Reuse Strategies
[13] Sustainable Adaptive Yenal Takva, 2023 Strategies: determine the
Reuse Strategy Çağatay Takva, adaptive reuse strategies and to
Evaluation for Cultural Zeynep Yeşim observe how contemporary
Heritage Buildings İlerisoy additions are integrated to
maintain a sustainable form of
conservation
[12] The “Intrinsic Value” of Luigi Fusco 2021 New Circular Business model
Cultural Heritage as Girard, Marilena for adaptive reuse project
Driver for Circular Vecco
Human-Centered
Adaptive Reuse
[8] Circular Economy and Mara Popescu, 2022 AR&CE: identify how the
Religious Heritage Daniela Staicu circular economy practices are
Conservation: Adaptive already embodied in adaptive
Reuse Challenges reuse
[6] Circular Economy Jermina 2019 Strategies: smart specialisation
Concepts for Cultural Stanojev, strategies for adaptive reuse
Heritage Adaptive Reuse Christer practices with CE
Implemented Through Gustafsson
Smart Specialisations
Strategies

solution for complex problems [24]. Li et al. have examined the building suggested
function according to the theory of adaptability [25].
The adaptive reuse interventions can be grouped into different categories, i.e.,
interventions required to satisfy physical requirement requested by new functions,
interventions to restore building integrity; and interventions to improve overall
building sustainability. Celluci has suggested integrated strategies in adaptive regen-
eration/reuse aiming at combining functional, structural, energy, and social interven-
tions. According to this study, space/volume addition can be mentioned as a func-
tional strategy, while reinforcement and construction of new structures are building
physics strategies. Replacement/integration of the envelope and/or equipment can
290 M. B. Andreucci and S. Karagözler

be considered energy efficient interventions. Adding multifunctional space for gath-

ering to existing buildings are common interventions suitable for society-oriented
adaptive building reuse [7].
The requirements of a specific building change according to its function. As an
example, the required space, levels, height, openings, or materials for a restaurant
building vary from similar requirements for a museum building. The internal layout
also changes according to the functional desired traits. As a consequence, the choice
of new functions, in an adaptive reuse project, has a significant role to play. Abastante
et al. have discussed the process of determining new functions for historic buildings
such as restaurants, schools, sport centers, museums, wine stores, and game centers
alternatives. Adding mezzanine floors, creating partitions, merging spaces, installing
removable units, installing new utilities were some of the suggested interventions to
pursue alternative functional goals [24, 26]. Kitagorsky suggested hybrid modular
construction systems for adaptive reuse [5]. Celluci examined the suggested interven-
tions at room level, home level and urban level from the point of view of circularity
[7].
Strategies for sustainable adaptive reuse of historic buildings encompass inter-
ventions to provide energy efficiency as well as decrease carbon emissions. Jiang
et al. have suggested replacement of the windows, thermal insulation, applying
HVAC as retrofit interventions (i.e., any work to a building over and above main-
tenance to change its capacity, function or performance) for adaptive reuse. In this
study, building integrated and building applied photovoltaic panels were analysed
as useful intervention for adaptive reuse [9]. Rodrigez et al. have suggested exterior
wall retrofit, roof and floor retrofit and window replacement as an energy efficient
retrofit for adaptive reuse [16]. Adding new volumes to existing buildings can also
be considered a valid strategy for adaptive reuse to provide building inhabitability
and sustainability. Takva et al. have examined how the contemporary additions to
historical buildings meet the needs of sustainable reuse of historical buildings [13]
(Table 11.3).
The adaptive reuse strategies must preserve historical buildings values. In the
literature, there are several papers discussing strategies after implementation has
taken place. Dan et al. have examined adaptive reuse projects within the scope of
innovative design to provide sustainable adaptive reuse [14].

Table 11.3 Overview of building adaptive reuse design and/or construction interventions from the
literature and their level of application ranked according to occurrences within the selected literature
Intervention Type of intervention Article
requirements
Physical Reinforcement, rehabilitation [5, 23, 27]
requirements
Functional Adding mezzanine floor, adding partitions, merging two [5, 23, 25, 27]
requirements space, installation of removable unit, installing new utilities
Sustainability Energy efficient retrofit interventions [9, 13, 17, 19]
requirements
11 Adaptive Reuse of Existing Buildings 291

According to the EU Quality Principles report, when new functions are considered,
these shall be compatible with the heritage status, responding to community needs,
and sustainable. As a consequence, suggested/implemented interventions should aim
at preserving heritage value, satisfy community needs, and contribute to overall
sustainability [28].
In the literature, adaptive reuse projects are assessed in two stages: before imple-
mentation and after implementation. Before implementation assessments comprise
the decision-making of the function, of the interventions, etc. While this process
ensures the preservation of the values of the historical building, it also creates
an opportunity to determine whether the decisions taken ensure social, economic
and environmental sustainability. After evaluation, the action taken are scrutinized,
thus offering suggestions for improvement, if any. Adaptive reuse design and/or
construction assessment/decision making tools from the literature can both be used
for evaluation purposes.
Multi criteria decision making (MCDM) methods are used for complex problems
such as adaptive reuse. These methods enable us to determine the relative importance
of historic building values, the most appropriate functions, the impacts produced etc.
Della Spina has suggested a hybrid framework for ranking adaptive reuse strategies
by using MCDM tools. In this paper, the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was used
to find appropriate function which can provide financial sustainability [29]. Hamida
et al. have used decision making tools to select circular building adaptability-related
strategies [3]. Ovo et al. have applied a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) with
the combination of economic and qualitative indicators to define the most appropriate
function for adaptive reuse [30]. Della Spina et al. have combined hierarchical process
analysis (AHP) and SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats)
analysis to optimize investment alternatives for a more efficient allocation of public
resources [31].
There is also a tool already developed for analysing adaptive reuse strategies.
Cojenos et al. have examined the AdaptSTAR tool to analyze if a building is suit-
able and shows potential for future adaptive reuse, already at the time a building is
designed. In the tool they used, physical, economic, functional, technological, social,
legal, and political categories enable to calculate an adaptive reuse START rating [32,
33]. Kaya et al. have used the historic urban landscape (HUL) toolkit as a multicri-
teria decision making tool to select adaptive reuse strategies to reduce environmental
impacts [34]. Foster et al. have studied determining the circular city adaptive reuse
of cultural heritage indicators to measure investment opportunity. Composite indi-
cators and scoreboards (COIN) tool developed by the European Commission Joint
Research Center were used to determine indicators [35].
Some studies were aimed at evaluating post-adaptive reuse. Dişli et al. have devel-
oped a method to analyze the application of the circular economy to existing buildings
and their preservation method [36]. Chan et al. have analysed the environmental and
economic impacts of the adaptive reuse building construction by using input–output
models [37]. Durukan et al. have analysed the adaptive reuse application of the
historic complex by comparison of the sustainability dimensions [38].
292 M. B. Andreucci and S. Karagözler

11.3 Conclusion and Way Forward

The conducted rapid evidence assessment has identified key adaptive reuse issues
that need to be addressed by policy makers, developers and owners during the devel-
opment stages of the planning and design process so that efforts toward circularity
and overall sustainability can be encouraged.
Addressing building adaptive reuse can significantly reduce whole life costs and
waste, lead to improved building functionality, extend durability, increase attractive-
ness and economic potential, reinforce cultural identity and social inclusion, while
contributing to urban regeneration.
The identification of drivers and barriers can enable a balanced view of adap-
tive reuse opportunities, and all stakeholders should devote attention to synergies
and trade-offs embedded in making such choices, especially in relation to heritage
buildings.
In the conducted research, it was revealed that key drivers for building adap-
tive reuse focus on solving lifecycle issues, inserting new functions within existing
urban areas, improving aesthetic qualities of buildings and districts, as well as taking
advantage of existing financial incentives and urban regeneration programmes.
From a city and regional perspective, building adaptive reuse can be an effec-
tive strategy for regenerating brownfields and post-industrial buildings, increasing
density, reducing urban sprawl, and encouraging proximity (e.g., the “15-min” city
concept).
The barriers to building adaptive reuse, on the other hand, include required invest-
ment and maintenance costs, outdated building regulations, inertia of “business-as-
usual” development criteria, and the inherent risk and uncertainty associated with
the intervention on degraded building stocks.
More empirical research is required to examine the role and benefits of building
adaptive reuse in the context of its contribution to circularity and overall sustain-
ability, if it is to become an effective strategic approach to circular urban regenerative
urbanization that drives the formulation of public policy and public–private practice
for addressing the intertwined ecological, environmental, social and economic issues
associated with existing building stocks.

References

1. Reike D, Vermeulen WJV, Witjes S (2018) The circular economy: new or refurbished as CE
3.0? - exploring controversies in the conceptualization of the circular economy through a focus
on history and resource value retention options. Resour Conserv Recycl 135:246–264
2. Wohlin C (2014) Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication
in software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference evaluation and
assessment in software engineering, pp 1–10
3. Hamida MB, Remøy H, Gruis V, Jylhä T (2023) Circular building adaptability in adaptive
reuse: multiple case studies in the Netherlands. J Eng Des Technol
11 Adaptive Reuse of Existing Buildings 293

4. Hampel F (2020) A framework for sustainable adaptive reuse of industrial buildings: testing
the developed adaptive building reuse framework on the case of the plant in Chicago, USA
5. Kitagorsky J (2022) A concept for sustainable building projects using hybrid modular and
adaptive reuse strategies
6. Gustafsson C, Stanojev J (2019) Circular economy concepts for cultural heritage adaptive reuse
implemented through smart specialisations strategies. In: STS Conf Graz 2019 Is Jt Annu Conf
Sci Technol Soc Unit Inst Interact Syst Data Sci Tech Univ Graz, Inter-University Res Cent
Technol Work, 2019: pp 415–436
7. Cellucci C (2021) Circular economy strategies for adaptive reuse of residential building. Vitr
J Archit Technol Sustain 6:110–121
8. Popescu M, Staicu D (2022) Circular economy and religious heritage conservation: adaptive
reuse challenges. Rev Econ 74:40–48
9. Jiang L, Lucchi E, Del Curto D (2023) Adaptive reuse and energy transition of built heritage
and historic gardens: the sustainable conservation of Casa Jelinek in Trieste (Italy). Sustain
Cities Soc 97:104767
10. Daub B (2022) Welcome to the [growth] machine: an analysis of heritage conservation in the
intensifying city
11. Lotfi S, Sholeh M (2022) Adaptive reuse gradient from ‘autocratic’to ‘creative’: a context-based
anthology of adaptive reuse experience in Tehran (1970–2020). Int J Archit Herit 16:428–450
12. Fusco L, Girard MV (2021) The “intrinsic value” of cultural heritage as driver for circular
human-centered adaptive reuse. Sustainability 13:3231
13. Takva Y, Takva Ç, İlerisoy Z (2023) Sustainable adaptive reuse strategy evaluation for cultural
heritage buildings. Int J Built Environ Sustain 10
14. Dan S (2019) A research on knowledge theory of innovative design for adaptive reuse of old
buildings in public space
15. Bertin I, Ferraille A, Laratte B, Le Roy R (2019) Design for Reuse (DfReu) applied to buildings;
anticipate disassembly for the End-of-Life (EoL), in order to preserve resources
16. Rodrigues C, Freire F (2017) Adaptive reuse of buildings: eco-efficiency assessment of retrofit
strategies for alternative uses of an historic building. J Clean Prod 157:94–105
17. Conejos S, Langston C, Smith J (2012) Designing for future building: adaptive reuse as a
strategy for carbon neutral cities. Int J Clim Chang Impacts Responses 3:33
18. Aigwi IE, Duberia A, Nwadike AN (2023) Adaptive reuse of existing buildings as a sustainable
tool for climate change mitigation within the built environment. Sustain Energy Technol Assess
56:102945
19. Yung EHK, Chan EHW (2012) Implementation challenges to the adaptive reuse of heritage
buildings: Towards the goals of sustainable, low carbon cities. Habitat Int 36:352–361
20. Armstrong G, Soebarto V, Zuo J (2021) Vacancy visual analytics method: evaluating adaptive
reuse as an urban regeneration strategy through understanding vacancy. Cities 115:103220
21. Yoon J, Lee J (2019) Adaptive reuse of apartments as heritage assets in the Seoul station urban
regeneration area. Sustainability 11:3124
22. Döner ED (2019) Urban regeneration: enabling social sustainability in historical quarters via
adaptive reuse: case of Gaziantep historical quarter
23. Vardopoulos I (2023) Adaptive reuse for sustainable development and land use: a multivariate
linear regression analysis estimating key determinants of public perceptions. Heritage 6:809–
828
24. Abastante F, Corrente S, Greco S, Lami IM, Mecca B (2022) The introduction of the SRF-II
method to compare hypothesis of adaptive reuse for an iconic historical building. Oper Res
22:2397–2436
25. Li J (2020) Bringing Batavia armory building back to life–community center adaptive reuse
design, Rochester Institute of Technology
26. Abastante F, Corrente S, Greco S, Lami I, Mecca B (2020) Multiple criteria decision analysis
with the srf-ii method to compare hypotheses of adaptive reuse for an iconic historical building,
ArXiv Prepr. ArXiv2001.01964
294 M. B. Andreucci and S. Karagözler

27. Shahi S, Esfahani ME, Bachmann C, Haas C (2020) A definition framework for building
adaptation projects. Sustain Cities Soc 63:102345
28. Heritage IC (2019) European quality principles for EU-funded interventions with potential
impact upon cultural heritage, Paris ICOMOS Int
29. Della Spina L (2021) Cultural heritage: a hybrid framework for ranking adaptive reuse
strategies. Buildings 11:132
30. Dell’Ovo M, Dell’Anna F, Simonelli R, Sdino L (2021) Enhancing the cultural heritage through
adaptive reuse. A multicriteria approach to evaluate the Castello Visconteo in Cusago (Italy).
Sustainability 13:4440
31. Della Spina L, Carbonara S, Stefano D, Viglianisi A (2023) Circular evaluation for ranking
adaptive reuse strategies for abandoned industrial heritage in vulnerable contexts. Buildings
13:458
32. Conejos S, Langston CA (2010) Designing for future building adaptive reuse using adaptSTAR.
In: International conference on sustainable urban development, The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, 2010, pp 1–10
33. Conejos S (2013) Designing for future building adaptive reuse
34. Kaya DI, Lu L, Pintossi N, Roders AP (2021) Operationalising the HUL tools at building
level: circular models of adaptive reuse. In: The International LDE Heritage Conference 2019
on Heritage and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), TU Delft Open, 2021: pp 315–324.
35. Foster G, Saleh R (2021) The circular city and adaptive reuse of cultural heritage index:
measuring the investment opportunity in Europe. Resour Conserv Recycl 175:105880
36. Dişli G, Ankaralıgil B (2023) Circular economy in the heritage conservation sector: an analysis
of circularity degree in existing buildings. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 56:103126
37. Chan J (2019) Economic and energy impacts of adaptive reuse building construction
38. Durukan A, Ertaş Beşir Ş, Koç Altuntaş S, Açıkel M (2021) Evaluation of sustainability prin-
ciples in adaptable re-functioning: traditional residences in Demirel complex. Sustainability
13:2514

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
 Part III
Criteria and Indicators for Circularity
in Construction
Rand Askar

Acknowledging the significance of applying Circular Economy (CE) principles

across the various scales of building composition, Part III of this book method-
ically explores circularity criteria and indicators, progressing from materials to
components, systems, and ultimately whole building design, all within a lifecycle
framework.
Materials, as the foundational elements of any building, are where circularity
begins. This involves not only their responsible sourcing but also their management
throughout the project lifecycle as they integrate into more complex components and
systems. The opening chapter of Part III delves into construction materials, outlining
both general criteria and indicators applicable to industrial products and specific
criteria tailored to the nuances of building processes and practices. It encompasses
indicators for different lifecycle stages, together with environmental aspects. The
chapter sheds light on the circularity of traditional construction materials such as
steel and concrete, alongside innovative materials that have recently emerged to
enhance sustainability and circularity.
Advancing through the hierarchy of building entities, the second chapter focuses
on products derived from construction materials and the systems formed by these
products. It examines how the condition of individual systems impacts the overall
circularity of a building, emphasising the importance of prioritising criteria for each
system, which often varies depending on the lifespan of its constituent products.
This aims to pave the way towards creating a comprehensive weighting method for
different building systems based on the relevance of circularity characteristics to be
evaluated.
The final chapter addresses the building as an integrated whole, highlighting
criteria and indicators put forth by international initiatives, European frameworks,
and national efforts aimed at optimising and disseminating circularity practices
among stakeholders across the value chain. It categorises these criteria and indicators

R. Askar
Department of Civil Engineering, ISISE, ARISE, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal
298 Part III: Criteria and Indicators for Circularity in Construction

into various aspects of buildings, including materials and resources, energy, water,
economic factors, social wellbeing, waste management, and ecosystem impact.
By systematically analysing circularity criteria and indicators—from materials
through products and systems to the building in its entirety—Part III clarifies the
intricate relationships between building elements and the different considerations
and requirements at each level of the building and each stage of the lifecycle, using
a bottom-up approach.
Chapter 12
Circularity Criteria and Indicators
at the Construction Material Level

Rocío Pineda-Martos , Rand Askar , Ferhat Karaca ,

Marilena De Simone , Ruben Paul Borg , Mirjana Malešev ,
Vlastimir Radonjanin , Bilge Bas , Ayfer Dönmez Çavdar ,
Genesis Camila Cervantes Puma , Leonardo Rosado ,
and Luís Bragança

Abstract Circular economy (CE) approaches highlight the potential of construction

materials to achieve circularity and sustainability in resource-efficient construction
systems and industries. Implementing CE at the material level involves factors such as
efficiency, durability, waste reduction through recirculation, and replacement, while

R. Pineda-Martos (B)
Departamento de Ingeniería Aeroespacial y Mecánica de Fluidos, Escuela Técnica Superior de
Ingeniería Agronómica, Universidad de Sevilla, Ctra. de Utrera, Km. 1, 41005 Sevilla, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]
R. Askar · G. C. Cervantes Puma · L. Bragança
ISISE, ARISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, 4804-533 Guimarães,
Portugal
F. Karaca
School of Engineering and Digital Sciences, Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan
M. De Simone
Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Calabria, P. Bucci, 87036 Rende, Italy
R. P. Borg
Faculty for the Built Environment, University of Malta, Msida, Malta
M. Malešev · V. Radonjanin
Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia
B. Bas
Department of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Bilgi University, Santralistanbul, Kazim Karabekir Cd.
No: 13, 34060 Istanbul, Turkey
A. D. Çavdar
Department of Forest Industry Engineering, Karaddeniz Technical University, 61080 Trabzon,
Türkiye
L. Rosado
Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, 41296
Gothenburg, Sweden

© The Author(s) 2025 299

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_12
300 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

encompassing criteria that define circularity in building materials. Understanding the

inherent characteristics and behaviours of these materials is crucial for maximising
their circularity potential. This chapter analyses key properties of traditional construc-
tion materials, such as concrete and steel, alongside novel sustainable materials like
bamboo, timber, and biomaterials. It identifies and proposes methods to promote
circularity at the material level. Additionally, the chapter explores the application of
CE principles to both traditional and innovative construction materials. Furthermore,
the chapter discusses indicators designed to assess circularity at the material level,
serving as valuable tools for informing decision-making and implementation prac-
tices in the construction sector. Various types of indicators are presented, categorised
as strategic, generic performance, performance, and water consumption indicators.
Strategies aligned with waste hierarchy principles are outlined, emphasising the
reduction of construction and demolition waste, lowering greenhouse gas emissions,
conserving energy, and optimising costs and water resources.

Keywords Circular economy · Construction materials · Built environment ·

Concrete · Low-impact cement · Recycled aggregate

12.1 The Significance of Construction Materials

in Circular Economy Systems

Circularity of materials’ inflows and outflows is essential for achieving a circular

economy (CE) in industrial systems. It is grounded in the principle of maintaining
products and material circulation through various processes like maintenance, reuse,
refurbishment, remanufacture, recycling, and composting. These strategies minimise
waste and promote sustainable resource use by maximising material lifespan. The
CE system’s objectives include waste and pollution elimination, circulating products
and materials at their highest value, and decoupling economic growth from resources
use while reducing environmental impacts such as CO2 emissions [1].
Circularity involves redesigning materials, products, and services for reduced
resource-intensity and reclaiming “waste” as a resource for new materials and prod-
ucts. It emphasises the use and reuse of materials, optimising resource efficiency,
and supporting nature’s regeneration. CE is design-driven and based on three core
principles: (i) waste and pollution reduction; (ii) circulation of products and materials
at their highest value; and (iii) natural systems regeneration. However, the systemic
success of CE depends on broader global shifts, such as the transitioning to renew-
able energy and ensuring a stable supply of responsibly sourced renewable materials
[2].
The construction sector significantly contributes to environmental degradation,
waste generation, and carbon emissions. In the European Union (EU), building
construction consumes 40% of materials and primary energy while producing 40%
of annual waste [3]. Buildings worldwide account for 33% of greenhouse gas (GHG)
12 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Construction Material Level 301

emissions and 40% of energy consumption, stemming from equipment usage, mate-
rial manufacturing and transportation [4]. In 2009, the construction sector emitted
5.7 billion tonnes of CO2 , representing 23% of global economic activity emissions
[5].
Globally, construction and demolition waste has reached approximately 2.01
billion metric tonnes per year, as reported by The World Bank. This includes both
operational and construction-related emissions, posing significant environmental and
climate challenges. However, the sector holds high circularity potential, offering
a path to a more sustainable and resilient economy by using construction mate-
rials more efficiently and effectively. The CE approach emphasises the importance
of construction materials in achieving circularity; involving processes like mainte-
nance, reuse, refurbishment, remanufacture, recycling, and composting to extend
their lifespan. By prolonging the life of materials and products, CE can reduce the
need for virgin resources, minimise waste generation, and foster a more sustainable
and resource-efficient construction industry [6].
Construction materials are at the heart of the CE system, as they enable efficiency,
waste reduction, decarbonisation, resource conservation, and value creation in the
construction industry. Selecting the appropriate building materials and components
from the early stages is important to carry out the concept’s principles along the value
chain and create a closed-loop system [7]. Embracing circularity in the sector can
lead to significant environmental and economic benefits, including reduced envi-
ronmental impact, cost savings, and new business opportunities. To achieve a CE
for building materials, several key actions have been identified, including reducing
material use, substituting high impact materials with lower impact materials, and
recirculating products or materials through reuse and recycling. By adopting these
actions, the construction sector can contribute to a more sustainable and resilient
economy while minimising its environmental footprint and preserving resources for
future generations [6].
In today’s world, sustainability has become a paramount concern for businesses
and industries across various sectors. With the global population steadily growing,
the demand for resources and products is escalating, straining the planet’s finite
resources and contributing to environmental degradation. This is where the concept
of CE steps in as a new paradigm to meet the evolving demands for sustainability and
tackle these contemporary challenges. The CE concept has gained prominence on the
agendas of many organisations striving for sustainable practices and their integra-
tion into operational frameworks. By optimising processes and implementing effi-
cient technologies, companies can significantly reduce their ecological footprint and
mitigate the negative impacts associated with resource extraction and consumption
environment [8].
Another vital principle of sustainable and circular production is the maximising
of product longevity. This entails designing products and assets with durability to
withstand wear and tear over extended periods. By advocating for reuse and recy-
cling, organisations can prolong product life cycles, decreasing the necessity for
constant manufacturing and cutting down on waste generation. This approach not
302 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

only conserves resources but also aligns with CE principles, where materials are
continuously looped back into the production cycle environment [8].
Enhancing production efficiency is another crucial element of sustainable produc-
tion. This involves improving manufacturing processes to maximise output while
minimising negative environmental and social impacts. By optimising produc-
tion techniques, reducing waste generation, and implementing cleaner technolo-
gies, companies can achieve higher productivity levels while reducing their carbon
footprint and minimising harm to local environment and communities [8].

12.2 Circularity Criteria for Construction Materials

Multiple collaborative frameworks have been developed to promote a sustainable

and circular built environment through the use of circularity strategies in materials
[8]. These frameworks encompass: (i) European and national standards and regu-
lations aimed at incorporating recyclable and natural materials; (ii) Tax incentives
and financial support for the adoption of recovered, recycled and/or more efficient
materials with reduced GHG emissions; and (iii) Differential value-added tax (VAT)
rates based on the type of materials used distinguishing between recovered and virgin
materials.
However, as the concept of CE is relatively new, further efforts are needed to
focus on defining specific conditions and establishing standards to enhance circu-
larity across the various stages of material production, utilisation, and end-of-life
management. In this regard, academia and industry are witnessing significant interest
in developing innovative materials with lower carbon footprints, aligning with the
objectives of CE. In fact, the largest share of the environmental footprint in construc-
tion activities is attributed to the use of construction materials [9], with concrete and
its primary constituent, cement, contributing the most–as they are the most widely
used construction material globally [10].
Mitigation measures for this impact include the exploitation of low-impact
cement and supplementary cementitious materials, typically industrial by-products.
Exploiting recycled aggregate as a substitute for natural aggregate is another strategy.
Replacing part or all of the natural aggregate with recycled aggregates from crushed
Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) is an effective solution aligned with the
goals of EU Directive 2008/98/EC and supports CE initiatives. Still, ongoing efforts
also address other important construction materials to increase their circularity values
including structural steel, timber, plastics, metals and finishing materials. Table 12.1
outlines the most commonly used construction materials and their applications in the
industry.
Achieving circularity in materials involves considering different life cycle
perspectives across various stages, including acquisition, extraction and procurement,
manufacturing, construction, maintenance and repair, recovery and reclamation, and
end-of-life management.
12 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Construction Material Level 303

Table 12.1 Construction materials’ uses (adapted from Ferrer et al. [8])
Material Use
Adobe –
Agglomerated cork Insulation of buildings
Alternative plastics Heating, duct, and drainage systems
Aluminium E.g., windows and other accessories/components
Cements: Concrete element
Cement–limestone and clay
Ecological cements
Concretes: Structures, exterior walls, pavements
Biological concrete
Conventional concrete
Conventional reinforced concrete
Photocatalytic concrete
Recycled concrete
Fibres Exterior and interior walls–e.g., sandwich panels
Fired claya Walls–bricks, facades and tiles
Paintings –
Plastics Insulation, pipes–e.g., polyethylene, plumbing and heating
installations (polybutylene), membranes
Steels Structures, forgings, electrical cabling, conduit/trunking,
ducting, pipework
Stone Structure, exterior and/or interior walls
Woodb Pillars, girders, beams, laminated wood walls (industrially
treated), finishes
a Heated clay at less than 950°C; b Treated, processed, certified and recycled

Numerous studies and research efforts have proposed multiple criteria sets
to define circularity in building materials. Morató et al. [11] outlined guiding
factors for the CE implementation at the material level in the built environment,
as detailed as follows: (1) Efficiency–Reducing material intensity by avoiding
over-specification with high-performance materials, notable steel and concrete; (2)
Durability–Designing and producing materials for maximum useful life extension,
superior to that of buildings and infrastructure; (3) Closing Cycles, Recircula-
tion and Reduction of Waste–Recycling materials at the end of their useful life,
e.g., designing for selective disassembly instead of demolition; and (4) Replace-
ment–Substituting materials with high carbon footprint and environmental impact
with lower-impact alternatives. Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) are
recommended as relevant step toward circularity considerations at the material-level
[12].
Additionally, Rahla et al. [7] suggested a set of CE criteria for building materials
and components based on an extensive literature review: (1) Recycled or Recovered
304 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

Content–Reducing the input of virgin materials content by partially relying on recy-

cled or recovered waste; (2) Recyclability–The ability of a material to be recyclable
through a particular process at its end-of-life (EoL); (3) Reusability–The capability of
materials to be reusable at their EoL, providing building elements with a second life;
(4) Ease of Deconstruction–Selected materials facilitating different design strate-
gies for reversibility, such as adaptability and disassembly with minimal damage;
(5) Maintainability–Characterising materials and components that can remain in use
through maintenance, repair, and refurbishment; (6) Durability–Resistance of mate-
rials and components to deterioration over time while meeting minimum require-
ments; (7) Energy Recoverability–Potential for converting building materials and
components into energy through incineration; (8) Upcycling Potential–Reintro-
ducing materials and components into the loop for higher value; and (9) Biodegrad-
ability–Ability of building elements to disintegrate in the natural environment with
no ecological damage.
These CE criteria encompass three main facets: (i) type of input; (ii) performance
during the use phase; and (iii) EoL processing. The type of input is characterised by a
single criterion–recycled or recovered content–indicating the utilisation of materials
recycled or recovered from other sources in the manufacturing of new construction
materials. An essential consideration in this context is the recovery method employed,
the process, and the application of the reclaimed material, which define the level of
relevance to CE based on its position in the waste hierarchy. The efficiency of the
recycling process, leading to usable recycled content, is an important consideration;
however, it is contingent upon the system boundary.
The use phase introduces durability and maintainability as critical criteria, advo-
cating for building materials and components with the potential for longer service
life. EoL processing scenarios include the remaining CE criteria –recyclability,
reusability, ease of deconstruction, upcycle potential, biodegradability, and energy
recoverability–to avoid landfilling.
Supplementary CE criteria, such as toxicity, embodied energy (EE), and local
availability, warrant examination. Material toxicity refers to the release of harmful
chemicals or ingredients during the production or EoL, which can directly or indi-
rectly impact the environment negatively [13]. The EE of building materials quanti-
fies all energy expended throughout material production, from resource extraction to
final manufacturing processes, transportation, and construction, expressed in MJ/kg
and convertible to carbon emissions equivalence (kg CO2 e/kg). The EE criterion may
hold greater relevance for environmental sustainability, depending on how sustain-
ability and circularity concepts are distinguished and intertwined, and considering
the overlaps in stakeholder usage. Local material availability significantly affects
cost, environmental factors and construction schedule. Distant materials incur high
transportation costs and elevated EE, potentially leading to project delays if orders
are not placed well in advance.
The classification of commonly used building materials according to chosen CE
criteria of reusability, recyclability, EE, and toxicity is presented in Table 12.2 These
selected criteria are part of the EoL group, and simultaneously, address the input
group.
12 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Construction Material Level 305

Table 12.2 Classification of commonly used building materials according to chosen CE criteria
(adopted from Akhimien et al. [13]; Hammond et al. [14]; Pacheco-Torgala and Jalali [15])
Material Reusability Recyclability EE EE-CO2 Toxicitya
(MJ/kg) (kg CO2 e/
kg)
Stone (aggregate) Yes Yes 0.083 0.0048 No
Stone (limestone Yes Yes 0.850 – No
block)
Fired clay bricks Yes Yes 3.000 0.1240 No
and blocks
Fired clay roof Yes Yes 6.500 0.4500 No
tiles
Structural concrete No Yes 1.111 0.1590 No
Structural timber Yes Yes 8.500 0.4600 No (Yes in use
phase, if
treated)
Structural steel Yes Yes 20.100 1.3700 No
Aluminium – Yes 155.000 8.2400 No
Glass No Yes 15.000 0.8500 No
Gypsum board No Yes (100%) 6.750 0.3800 No
Plastics (PVC, No Yes 77.200 2.4100 No, but has
polyvinyl fire toxicity
chloride)
Expanded No Yes 88.600 2.5500 No, but has
polystyrene (EPS) fire toxicity
insulation
Glass wool No Yes 28.000 1.3500 No, but has
insulation fire toxicity
Rock wool No Yes 16.800 1.0500 No, but has
insulation fire toxicity
aToxicity data are not concerned with building materials that contain industrial by-products and
waste materials; i.e., phosphogypsum, some blast furnace slags, and some fly ashes…

Plastics are known for their resistance and lightness. Fibre panels offer flexibility
in changing use and saving space; e.g., fibres from recycled cellulose paper have
properties similar to wood. When treated with borax salts, they acquire fire retar-
dant, antifungal and insulating properties [8]. Steel is more efficient at supporting
loads compared to concrete. The use of Ultra High-Performance Concrete (UHPC)
enhances long-term durability performance and materials efficiency, making it suit-
able for various applications, including extreme environmental conditions such as
coastal areas.
To facilitate the reuse and recycling of components and materials from demounted
structures, Cai and Waldmann [16] proposed the establishment of a material and
component bank, based on extensive literature reviews and analyses. Their study
306 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

highlighted the potential for such a bank to contribute to a more sustainable and
circular built environment.
For these purposes, understanding the inherent characteristics and behaviours
of common building materials is crucial to maximising their circularity potential
by creating suitable pathways for recovery, reuse, and recycling while adhering to
waste hierarchy principles. Table 12.3 outlines the recovery, reuse, and recycling
characteristics of common construction materials.

12.2.1 Traditional Construction Materials

Traditional building materials offer certain advantages in terms of durability and

maintainability, benefiting from extensive use in the construction sector over an
extended period, resulting in well-understood properties. Additionally, these mate-
rials often possess the advantage of local availability, aligning with circularity
principles.
Ensuring the satisfactory durability of building materials requires adherence to
specific conditions: (i) appropriate design tailored to the environmental context–i.e.,
during the design phase and (ii) meticulous manufacturing, installation, and, if neces-
sary, curing, with stringent quality control measures–i.e., during the construction
phase. Meeting these conditions allows built-in materials to retain their properties
throughout their service life without necessitating radical investments for upkeep.
The degree of deterioration or damage in traditional building materials determines
subsequent utilisation scenarios after the EoL phase. Potential scenarios include
reuse, recovery, recycling, and the least favourable, disposal.
Concrete. As the most commonly used anthropogenic building material, consists
of a matrix, typically hardened cement paste, and filler (aggregate). Its versatility
arises from the broad range of applications in binders and aggregates, resulting in
an extensive array of concrete types. The ability to combine various component
materials allows for an almost unlimited array of concrete variations, establishing it
as a universal building material with diverse applications. However, when the term
“concrete” is used, it typically refers to structural material such as plain, reinforced,
and pre-stressed concrete.
The basic properties of ordinary concrete closely resemble those of natural stone.
These properties include high compressive strength, low tensile strength, brittle-
ness and tendency to crack, relatively high modulus of elasticity, relatively high unit
mass, relatively low thermal conductivity, dimensional stability, durability, satisfac-
tory chemical inertness and low embodied carbon (per unit mass) [17]. Some of these
properties significantly limit the structural application of plain concrete, leading to the
practical use of reinforced and prestressed concrete types. Concrete exhibits specific
properties, including high shaping potential, shrinkage over time, creep under load,
and prone to carbonation. These properties together with the basic ones should be
thoroughly analysed to identify appropriate methods for fostering circularity in this
essential construction material.
12 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Construction Material Level 307

Table 12.3 Construction materials and their characteristics towards implementing CE in the built
environment (adapted from Ferrer et al. [8])
Material Characteristics and recycling, recovery and reuse potential
Adobe Limited bearing capacity. Brings benefits for the environment, such
as: low energy consumption and pollution, insulating properties,
local character
Agglomerated cork Good thermal and acoustic insulation capacity, fireproof, absorbs
moisture. Natural product–cork oak logging is not demanded
Alternative plastics Inert, sterilisable, not containing chlorine–as toxic material, and
recyclable. Polypropylene, polybutylene, polyethylene are usable
thermoplastic alternatives
Aluminium Highly recyclable
Cements: High energy manufacturing cost. There are different solutions; much
Cement–limestone and less emissions are produced when a mixture of blast furnace slag,
clay term waste and chemical and organic additives are used
Ecological cements
Concretes: Its main characteristic is the ability to grow plant organisms on its
Biological concrete surface, by accelerating the growth of fungi, microalgae and mosses
Conventional concrete that absorb CO2 . High energy manufacturing cost; it is not a good
Conventional reinforced insulator. High energy manufacturing cost; additives with
concrete polypropylene fibres, which improve the flexion in pavements and
Photocatalytic concrete the concrete resistance; accelerator additives. It produces a
Recycled concrete decontaminating effect, thanks to the addition of titanium oxide
nanomaterials; it is especially designed to be used in outdoor
elements in urban areas with high levels of pollution–i.e., polluting
agents such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides or sulphur oxides; the
incidence of sunlight and temperature are factors that favour
photocatalysis against pollution. It can be made from rubble by
adding up to 20% in reinforced concrete for new construction;
recycled aggregates increase
Fibres “Dry” construction is possible, saving water. Different recyclable
solutions based on vegetable fibres, cement residues and
petrochemical derivatives
Fired clay Good thermal inertia, absorbs moisture. Recyclable
Paintings From diverse compositions being most of them derived from
petroleum. Ecological types by replacing hydrocarbons with natural
components
Plastics Very effective for insulation. Environmentally friendly options as an
alternative to PVC (polyvinyl chloride)
Steels Highly recyclable; high energy cost of extraction and transformation;
more efficient at supporting loads than concrete; “dry” steel frame
construction does not consume water on site
(continued)
308 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

Table 12.3 (continued)

Material Characteristics and recycling, recovery and reuse potential
Stone Impact on the landscape in the extraction phase; high transportation
cost; very long-lasting material; recommended in construction
respectful of local tradition
Wood It comes from renewable sources that in turn absorb CO2 ; it is
recyclable; it is ecological if it comes from certified forests and if
sawmill waste is reused for laminated panels–e.g., waste OSB boards
(layers of aligned chips and chips)

The implementation of CE principles in concrete can be interpreted across three

distinct scales, as proposed by Marsh et al. [18]: (1) Material-scale; (2) Product-
scale–i.e., structural elements and buildings themselves; and (3) System-scale–i.e.,
the cement, concrete and construction industries.
This section aims to discuss the potential for implementing CE principles in
concrete at the material scale. To gain a comprehensive understanding of how CE
strategies can be integrated into concrete at this level, it is crucial to take into account
the following factors, as outlined by Marsh et al. [18]:
(1) Cement and concrete productions are essentially chemically irreversible
processes. Clinkerisation in Portland cement production and the hydration
reaction for setting Portland cement-based concrete involve complex chemical
reactions with several phase transformations, which are essentially irreversible.
(2) Cement production exhibits chemical versatility. There is a considerable degree
of chemical flexibility in producing cement that fulfils the required charac-
teristics. Tailoring the composition and feedstock materials offers significant
opportunities to drive down the cradle-to-gate embodied carbon and energy
of cement. Moreover, a wide range of different resources, including industrial
by-products and wastes, can be used for production.
(3) Concrete production has the capability to use a wide variety of materials as
aggregates. This diversity is advantageous from the CE perspective and can even
enhance certain physical properties of concrete. Potential sources for aggregate
substitution include industrial by-products such as coal bottom ash and blast
furnace slag; CDW like “old” concrete and fired clay bricks; waste materials
such as glass and rubber, and bio-based materials like hemp, wood and fabric
fibres. The possible implementation of CE criteria, classified in the aforemen-
tioned phases–i.e., type of input, the use phase, and the EoL scenario–, is briefly
analysed on concrete [18].
(4) Reusability (EoL scenario)–Implementing the criterion of reusability at the
material scale for concrete is not feasible. It becomes achievable only at the
product scale if the structure is designed for easy dismantling of concrete
elements, e.g., concrete precast elements such as blocks and roof tiles; and
components, e.g., prefabricated beams, columns, walls and slabs.
(5) Recover (EoL scenario)–Concrete cannot fulfil this criterion due to its chemical
irreversibility, preventing its return to basic component materials. The cement
12 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Construction Material Level 309

matrix is completely chemically irreversible, meaning that hydrated cement

paste cannot be reverted back to cement and water. However, there is a possibility
of returning aggregate to its initial state (natural aggregate) through chemical,
thermal or mechanical procedures, albeit these methods are environmentally
harmful or energy intensive.
(6) Recyclability (EoL scenario)–At a material level, the most viable solution is
recycling old concrete into aggregate. Recycled concrete aggregate (RCA),
however, has limited application compared to natural aggregate due to its infe-
rior characteristics and wide variations in quality. Additional treatment, such
as heat or carbonation treatment, is often required for RCA to be usable. It is
important to note that RCA usually represents a down-cycling process, placing
it at the bottom of the waste hierarchy in CE principles. Nonetheless, RCA can
also exemplify a recycling process. For instance, the production of Coarse RCA
of satisfactory quality is effectively used as a substitute for natural aggregate
in concrete production (recycling), while lower-quality RCA serves as base
and sub-base material (down-cycling). Fine RCA, however, has very limited
application due to its specific properties.
(7) Reduce (input phase)–At a material scale, several strategies can be implemented:
(7.1) Decrease the cement content in concrete production by optimising concrete
mixture. This can be achieved through increasing the amount of inorganic addi-
tions, such as nearly inert additives, pozzolanic or latent hydraulic additions,
using superplasticisers, and increasing aggregate content; (7.2) Reduce clinker
content in cement production by incorporating industrial by-products as supple-
mentary cementitious materials; (7.3) Decrease natural aggregate content in
concrete by substituting it with different types of recycled materials; (7.4)
Minimises clean water usage by relying on washed water and superplasti-
cisers. At a structural scale, reductions in concrete volume can be achieved
by using high-performance concrete (HPC) or high-strength concrete (HSC)
instead of conventional concrete, as well as by optimising structural elements’
cross-section design, such as employing T-section instead of rectangular section.
(8) Durability (input phase)–Increasing durability and hence, extending structural
longevity is a crucial design-stage strategy to slow resource flows by prolonging
the technical lifespan of components and products. In the context of concrete,
achieving durability involves strategies at both the material and product scales
to ensure concrete’s resilience in a given service environment. At the mate-
rial scale, these strategies encompass assessing environmental influences that
may compromise concrete durability. This assessment guides the selection of
appropriate cement types and the design of concrete mixes that strike a balance
between initial cost and resource efficiency versus longevity. Implementing
these measures not only extends service life but also reduces the consump-
tion of concrete needed for replacement structures, thereby enhancing the reuse
potential for concrete components. Given the significant concrete consumption,
it is essential to pay attention to the reduction of CO2 emission during the design
phase, despite concrete being a material with low embodied carbon.
310 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

(9) Maintenance (use phase)–Maintenance, refurbishment, repair and replacement,

all fall within the use phase and represent strategies for slowing down resource
flows by extending the technical lifespan of used material, and consequently of
products and components. In the context of concrete, these strategies vary in
interpretation depending on whether they pertain to buildings, infrastructure, or
industrial facilities, as well as the nature of the service environment exposure:
maintenance involves the general upkeep of structures and refers to preventing
material damage occurrence through planned and unpredicted measures–e.g.,
by applying protective coatings on exposed surfaces; and refurbishment entails
repairing limited damage of concrete, reinforcement, etc., within a concrete
element or replacing a damaged element with a new one.
Structural and Concrete Reinforcing Steel. Steel is one of the world’s most
important engineering and construction materials, finding application in nearly every
facet of human life, from automobiles and vessels to household appliances and uten-
sils. It stands as the third most commonly used building material, following concrete
and cement. Structural steel, a man-made material, comprises up to 98% iron, with
carbon, silicon and manganese serving as the primary alloying elements. Key proper-
ties of structural and concrete reinforcing steel include high tensile strength, hardness,
ductility, toughness, a high modulus of elasticity, weldability, substantial unit mass,
high thermal conductivity, dimensional stability, low corrosion resistance, low fire
resistance, and a high embodied carbon (per unit mass) content. Structural steel coasts
impressive CE credentials. As a material, it embodies strength, durability, versatility,
and recyclability. As a structural framing system, it embodies characteristics such as
being lightweight, flexible, adaptable and reusable. The amalgamation of strength,
recyclability, availability, versatility and affordability positions steel as an exemplary
structural material, holding great potential for implementing CE strategies.
The versatility of structural steel extends across its metallurgical and chemical
composition, as well as its utility as a construction product and structural framing
system. Firstly, steel is infinitely recyclable, ensuring sustainable and circular prac-
tices in its lifecycle. Secondly, structural steel products are durable, robust and dimen-
sionally stable elements; typically assembled through bolting, making them inher-
ently demountable and reusable. Lastly, steel structures offer ease of extension and
reconfiguration on-site, thereby prolonging building lifespans.
(1) Reusability (EoL scenario)–Structural steel sections are inherently reusable.
The concept of reusability, in contrast to the current common practice of recy-
cling structural steel through re-melting, offers significant potential, in terms of
resource efficiency and carbon emission savings. Structural steel reuse gener-
ally occurs in three main ways: (1.1) In-situ reuse, in which the steel structure
(frame) is reused, with or without alterations; (1.2) Relocation reuse, which
involves deconstruction of an existing steel structure, that is then transported
and re-erected, generally in its original form, at a different location for the same
or similar purpose; and (1.3) Component reuse, which involves careful decon-
struction of an existing structure where individual structural steel members are
reclaimed and used to construct a new permanent structure. Steel can be reused
12 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Construction Material Level 311

multiple times without comprising its metallurgical properties, thus maintaining

its performance characteristics.
(2) Recycling (EoL scenario)–Steel is 100% recyclable without any loss of its
inherent material properties, making it the most recycled industrial material
worldwide, with over 650 million tonnes recycled annually. Steel comprises
two primary components: iron ore, one of the Earth’s most abundant elements,
and recycled (scrap) steel. Using scrap as the primary input is preferred over iron
ore due to its cost-effectiveness, conservation of resources, and lower energy
consumption. However, maintaining the quality of newly produced steel is
crucial. Achieving the right balance between its two primary components, fresh
iron ore and scrap steel, is essential for producing high-quality steel. It is argued
that good-quality steel requires fresh iron ore in its composition, as scrap steel
alone cannot maintain the quality of produced steel. Theoretically, all new steel
could be produced from recycled steel. However, this is not currently feasible
because the global demand for steel exceeds the supply of scrap. This imbalance
is attributed to steel’s widespread popularity and exceptional durability; with an
estimated 75% of steel products ever manufactured still in use today.
(3) Longevity (input phase)–Achieving longevity involves designing buildings to be
more flexible and adaptable to change, facilitating deconstruction and reuse, and
implementing appropriate maintenance plans. Steel structures can be enhanced
for flexibility and adaptability through three key principles: (3.1) Structural
extension, vertically or horizontal, to accommodate changes in use or owner
requirements; (3.2) Internal flexibility to accommodate varying uses, work
patterns, or tenant/owner needs; and (3.3) Flexible building services to enable
servicing upgrades or change of building use without impacting the structure.
Designing for decomposition hinges on two crucial factors: the type of mate-
rials and components used, with products like structural steel offering higher
reusability compared to other structural materials and systems; and the method
of connection between materials and components–possibility of parsing. Steel
stands out as one of the most robust construction materials, suitable for a wide
range of projects from skyscrapers to bridges. A well-designed steel structure
can last 50 to 100 years with minimal maintenance. However, despite its dura-
bility, regular maintenance is essential to extend its lifespan. Protective coatings
like paint are commonly applied to steel elements to guard against corrosion,
while protective foams have been used to provide a level of fire protection,
with intumescent coatings tending now to be used. Proper processing and main-
tenance are crucial as steel structures can incur higher maintenance costs if
corrosion sets in. Additionally, periodic touch-ups such as repainting contribute
to maintenance expenses over time.
(4) Embedded Concrete Reinforcing Steel (EoL scenario)–Upon reaching the end of
their service life, reinforced concrete structures primarily follow a CE strategy
for their embedded reinforcement: recycling. Separating concrete from rein-
forcement involves invasive methods that often damages and deforms the steel
rods rendering them, unsuitable for reuse. Once the steel bars are extracted from
312 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

concrete waste, they are collected in scrap yards and subsequently re-melted in
furnaces.

12.2.2 Novel Sustainable Construction Materials

Collaboration within value chains, as an industrial symbiosis strategy, represents

a critical step towards transitioning to a CE within the built environment [8].
Embracing this approach, sustainable value chains can foster projects aimed at devel-
oping sustainable materials through collaborations with other sectors. For instance,
recycled polyurethane and textile fibre coatings can be repurposed as raw mate-
rials for pavement products. In this context, numerous innovative materials have
been proposed, incorporating novel ingredients to enhance their performance while
promoting circularity. This includes integrating waste materials from other industries,
reusing secondary materials, and encouraging the use of bio-based materials.
Bamboo holds great potential for use in green building concepts due to its sustain-
able sourcing and minimal environmental impact [19]. Wood is a well-known mate-
rial in green building construction. Various engineered wood-based panels, including
oriented strand board (OSB), solid wood, particleboard, medium density fibreboard
(MDF), or plywood are commonly used for non-load-bearing purposes in building
and interior applications. Moreover, structural composite lumber and timber such
as glulam, laminated veneer lumber (LVL), parallel strand lumber (PSL), oriented
strand lumber (OSL), and cross-laminated timber (CLT) are gaining popularity and
widespread acceptance among stakeholders, including architects, engineers, and
building experts worldwide.
However, Ahn et al. [20] revealed a substantial knowledge gap within the mass
timber industry regarding implementation of CE principles. They emphasised the
importance of researchers and the industry professionals sharing knowledge on the
circularity of the structural wood composites. Wood cement boards, produced by
incorporating natural fibres, wood particles or wool as fillers into cement matrix,
provide lightweight, thermal insulation, acoustic performance, and other beneficial
sustainable solutions for cementitious building materials [21].
Biomaterials derived from plant and animal extracts, often sourced from by-
products and waste materials, offer promising avenues for reducing the environ-
mental impact of the construction industry. Unlike synthetic additives, commonly
used in cement-based materials for setting retarders and plasticisers, organic addi-
tives pose a lower environmental impact. These alternatives, such as extracts from
plants and animals, can enhance the setting properties of mortars while promoting
environmentally conscious material usage.
One notable example is the use of prickly pear (Opuntia ficus-indica, OFI)
mucilage extract, a plant-derived additive with demonstrated efficacy in mortar and
concrete applications across various regions, including Meso- and South-America.
The scientific rationale behind these additives lies in the hydrating properties of the
mucilage polysaccharide complex found in OFI extracts. Aquilina et al. [22] have
12 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Construction Material Level 313

explored different forms of OFI extracts, incorporating them into cement pastes
and mortar mixtures by substituting water with OFI mucilage or cement with OFI
lyophilised powder. The findings indicate that incorporating OFI additives in cement-
based mortars enhances strength when replacing water and powder components,
albeit resulting in slightly lower strength in cement pastes. Moreover, the inclusion
of OFI additives extends the setting time for both water and powder replacements,
suggesting their potential as retarding agents in cement-based materials [22].
The potential use of Agave sisalana fibres in self-compacting concrete (SCC) and
their impact on fresh properties, early age characteristics and hardened properties of
concrete, have been investigated by Calleja and Borg [23]. Their study delved into
the effects of different fibre lengths, specifically 15, 25 and 35 mm, and varying fibre
volume percentages of 0.25, 0.5 and 1% to evaluate concrete performance across
different parameters. Fresh concrete properties indicated that the introduction of
fibres in the concrete mix reduced its self-compacting characteristics, primarily in
terms of passing ability, although the SCC still maintained significant flow character-
istics overall. Concrete and mortar underwent controlled environmental conditions
within an environmental chamber, while mortar panels were exposed to high air
flows for testing. The results indicated that adding agave fibres led to a decrease
in plastic shrinkage crack widths and delayed crack formation. Additionally, the
restrained concrete ring test demonstrated higher strains exerted on the steel ring
with higher fibre percentage. Notably, the addition of fibres resulted in decreased
density, ultrasonic pulse velocity, and compressive strength of the concrete, yet led
to enhancements in flexural peak load and tensile splitting strength [23].
The poultry production industry is a significant agricultural activity with economic
importance, but it generates substantial waste, including large quantities of feathers
that pose disposal challenges. One option is as reinforcement in cement-based
construction materials, such as low-impact concrete, addressing the principles of
CE. Feathers have been utilised in various forms in construction materials, including
whole fibres, hand-cut rachis, ground fibres, and combinations of these forms. Feather
fibre cement-based materials have been applied to create feather-board, a cost-
effective material suitable for non-structural applications. Studies on feather fibre
cement-based materials have explored their mechanical characteristics, setting time,
and hydration properties. In a study by Borg et al. [24], the potential use of feather
fibres in cement-based materials, including self-compacting concrete, was investi-
gated, focusing on their impact on fresh properties, early age characteristics, and
hardened properties, including mechanical and durability aspects. The introduction
of fibres in the concrete mix led to a reduction in the workability and self-compacting
characteristics. The influence of the bio-polymer fibre in concrete was observed
to influence the plastic shrinkage cracking in the environmental chamber and the
strain in the concrete ring test. The addition of fibres also improved the mechanical
properties including the compressive strength, among other indicators. The research
confirmed the potential of the exploitation of waste feather fibres as reinforcement
in concrete, supporting circularity in both the agricultural and construction sectors
[24].
314 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

12.3 Circularity Indicators at the Material-Level

in Buildings

Indicators and measures hold significant importance in tracking progress towards a

CE [25]. Indicators are commonly used to represent complex phenomena or aspects
that lack conventional units of measurement. These indicators serve as valuable
tools for informing and influencing decision-making and implementation processes.
However, it is essential to note that the ultimate responsibility for making these
decisions rests with managers, who rely on their value judgments [26]. This section
delves into different types of indicators designed to assess the circularity of construc-
tion materials. The study categorises these indicators into four groups: (1) Strategic
indicators based on Material Flow Analysis (MFA); (2) Generic performance indica-
tors for assessing material circularity in industrial products; (3) Performance indica-
tors to measure construction material circularity; and lastly (4) Water consumption
indicators.

12.3.1 Strategic Indicators Based on MFA

The process of MFA involves examining inputs, processes, and outputs within a
production activity or industrial sector, covering the entire value chain. This includes
raw material production, production processes and operations, and waste manage-
ment [27]. The Economy-Wide MFA method, used by Eurostat and adopted by the
statistical offices in EU countries, is instrumental in measuring circularity at the
country level.
Figure 12.1 illustrates the construction material flow at a country-level perspective,
specifically focusing on CDW associated with the industry across the entire value
chain of the focus sector. The Fig. 12.1 depicts stages that highlight the main material
flow, starting with the construction stage, followed by energy flow and waste flow
for CDW.
A deductive top-down approach is required for all stages, derived from macroe-
conomic national statistics. However, obtaining proper and accurate data for the
last stage–CDW from the construction sector at the country or EU level–may pose
high uncertainties. Therefore, a “bottom-up” method can be utilised for the last
analysis stage. This method first analyses the CDW, reuse, and recycled flow in
typical construction activities based on date from construction companies and then
extrapolates the results to the national construction sector.
In-depth knowledge and data on material flow, stocks, and quotas can be obtained
from literature and national stakeholders. This information is analysed and disag-
gregated to provide appropriate CE action options that guarantee tangible impact
improvements of the focus sector. Particular attention is required to explore the self-
supply potential of the sector through the reuse and recycling potential of construction
materials.
12 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Construction Material Level 315

Fig. 12.1 Resource flow cycle at a country-level construction sector

The construction material flow system analysis for the construction sector includes
two main streams: construction activities related to buildings and infrastructures.
Each of these subsectors includes material flows associated with new constructions,
refurbishment/modifications (R/M), and demolition/overhauling old buildings and
infrastructure. The system also encompasses material flows linked to raw material
extraction, material recycling, waste treatment, and CDW deposition. Figure 12.2
provides an overview of material flows for buildings and infrastructure related
activities.
In MFA Stage 2 (see Fig. 12.3), the energy flow analysis of the construction sector
focuses on energy usage for materials production and its associated GHG emissions.

Fig. 12.2 Material flow directions for buildings and infrastructures’ construction activities
316 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

Fig. 12.3 Strategic indicators for MFA in the construction sector

As signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC) ratification, countries are required to reduce GHG emissions by at least
15% from 2021 to 2030 compared to 1990 levels [28]. Notably, the construction,
manufacturing, and energy industries collectively contribute approximately half of
all GHG emissions. Specifically, the construction industry’s GHG emissions share
stabilised at 13% in 2017 [29]. Implementing practices like recycling construction
materials and transitioning to renewable energy sources can effectively manage GHG
levels. Key future strategies for reducing GHG emissions in the construction sector
include adopting energy-efficient equipment, switching to renewable energy sources,
and promoting the use of environmentally friendly construction materials.
In Stage 3 (see Fig. 12.3), the building and construction industry generates a
large solid waste stream, categorised as CDW. Effective management and recovery
of raw materials from this waste can meet a significant portion of supply needs.
CDW exhibits a high potential for circularity through backfilling operations and
low-grade recovery processes. To prolong the utility of products, components, and
materials while retaining their value, it is essential to implement measures to reduce,
reuse, and recycle materials within the construction sector. The EU Waste Frame-
work Directive aimed to achieve a 70% recovery rate for CDW by 2020. Several
member countries have not only met but surpassed this target. For example, Malta
successfully increased its recovery rate from 16 to 100% in just two years, while
Greece achieved full recovery of non-hazardous CDW through backfilling. However,
variations in quantification methods pose challenges in accurately comparing CDW
recovery performance across European member states [30]. Diverse waste coding
systems and differing interpretations of terms like “backfilling” further hinder cross-
country comparisons of EU-published recovery rates. The Netherlands, for instance,
has reached a CDW recycling rate of 95% since 2001, albeit with a negligible portion
devoted to recycling. Consequently, it faces challenges related to oversaturation of
12 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Construction Material Level 317

low-quality road base aggregate in the aggregates market [31]. Effective and moni-
tored CDW management are essential for achieving sustained success. Figure 12.3
summarises the strategic indicators for MFA in the construction sector based on the
provided analysis.
The analysis of the construction sector and practices among construction compa-
nies, as studied by Turkyilmaz et al. [32], revealed that recycling and reuse are key
circular actions that can greatly improve the management of CDW in many coun-
tries. The adoption of Industrialised Building Systems (IBS), such as prefabricated
materials, can significantly reduce waste generation while improving the quality
of leftover and dismantled materials for reuse and recycling. This approach aligns
with the “design for disassembly” principle, facilitating easy material separation and
reassembly. Legislative measures can play a crucial role in encouraging the use of
IBS.
Materials like asphalt, timber, and metals, widely used in construction, hold
significant potential for high-value recovery. Asphalt is fully recyclable, making
it a favourable choice for effective CDW management. Properly separated wood can
also be readily recycled or used for energy recovery. Metals such as steel, aluminium,
copper, lead, and zinc can be sold to third parties for recycling. These high-value
materials offer significant opportunities for CE improvements through business-to-
business reimbursement systems. Effective management of these materials can foster
symbiotic relationships for local industries.
However, the construction sector faces several barriers in enhancing circularity
in CDW management. Construction companies often lack expertise and best prac-
tices in this area and may not have strong relationships with recycling firms. High
waste management costs, limited inclination to reuse CDW materials, and a lack of
consistent waste management vision also pose significant barriers. Price competi-
tion and uncertainties regarding the quality of recycled materials further hinder the
adoption of CE thinking. Additionally, the absence of reliable data on the quantity
and composition of CDW material streams presents a general restriction for sectoral
analysis. Overcoming these barriers and implementing new policy measures are
essential to effectively promote the adoption of circular economic thinking within
the construction sector.

12.3.2 Generic Performance Indicators for Assessing

Material Circularity in Industrial Products

Numerous generic indicators have been developed within the CE context to assess
material and product circularity across various sectors, including their potential appli-
cation in construction materials. These indicators encompass diverse paradigms,
categorised into burden-based and value-based approaches, to measure circularity
[33] by enhancing the eco-efficiency of a certain system. They predominantly focus
on closing and slowing material loops and promoting waste hierarchy. Burden-based
318 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

indicators evaluate how burdens compare to one another, such as the ecological foot-
print [34] and the eco-indicator 99 [35]. In contrast, value-based indicators gauge the
extent to which one use generates more value than an alternative, as articulated by
Figge [36] and Franklin-Johnson et al. [26]. The following sections highlight some
prominent indicators addressing the circularity of industrial materials and products.
Resource Potential Indicator (RPI). In the quest for value-based indicators
within the framework of the CE, Park and Chertow [37] introduced the RPI. The
RPI operates within a resource-based paradigm, providing insights into the technical
feasibility of waste reuse, before considering market conditions. This perspective
treats waste as a potential resource, contingent on knowledge of where and how it
can be redirected for reuse. Notably, the RPI does not hinge on material composition
or the physical and chemical attributes. Rather, these aspects are regarded as contin-
gent on technological advancements. In essence, the more components that can be
reclaimed using available technologies, the greater the potential for reuse, and vice
versa. Factors such as toxic material composition, escalated costs, and complexity
can constrain the prospects for reuse, thereby reducing the RPI values. Given the
perpetual evolution of technological solutions for material recovery, the potential
for reuse naturally grows over time. The RPI calculation is inherently dependent on
the existing technological landscape, rendering it context-dependent, subject to local
and regional variables like material quality and technological development levels
[37]. The RPI employs a quantitative methodology to grapple with the intricacies
of products and materials, considering changes in their composition. This approach
facilitates decision-making aimed at optimising resource utilisation and reducing
waste generation, based on technical feasibility. The computed result is a value
ranging from 0 to 1, symbolising the material’s utility. A value of 0 indicates that all
materials are discarded as waste, while a value of 1 signifies that all materials are
ripe for reuse as resources. The resulting value encapsulate the percentage likelihood
that a material can be repurposed, and the complementary percentage represents the
likability of a material to be treated as waste. To calculate the RPI, the following
Eq. (12.1) is used:

RPI = a b (12.1)

where a represents the economically reusable portion of a material utilising available

technologies, and b signifies the current level of generation. Both a and b are quanti-
fied in mass units [37]. Despite the value of the RPI in addressing crucial circularity
aspects, it comes with notable limitations that require user awareness for informed
decision-making. These limitations encompass the need for extensive technical data
for accurate calculations, as well as economic considerations such as price fluctua-
tions, market applications, and transportation costs that fall outside the purview of
the calculation methodology. It is worth noting that the RPI primarily gauges the
maximum potential for material reuse from a technological perspective, which often
surpasses the real reuse rate influenced by market dynamics. Therefore, integrating
updated market analyses can provide valuable insights to complement the RPI results
[37].
12 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Construction Material Level 319

Material Circularity Indicator (MCI). Another example on value-based circu-

larity indicators at material level is the MCI, co-developed by the Ellen McArthur
Foundation [38] and Granta Design [39]. The MCI serves as a comprehensive tool to
assess material flows and restorative values associated with a product or a company.
It operates on the principle that optimal circularity is attained when 100% of mate-
rial input comes from renewable sources (non-virgin), and 100% of the output is
reusable. Consequently, the MCI provides a numerical representation of a product’s
or material’s circularity, ranging from 0 to 1. The MCI takes into account three crit-
ical criteria: the mass of virgin raw materials used in production, the mass of waste
that cannot be recovered from the product, and a utility factor that considers the
product’s usage duration and intensity. The parameters used to compute the MCI
encompass: (i) the destination after use, distinguishing between the percentages of
recycling collection rate (RCR) and reuse rate (ReR); (ii) the percentage of recycled
feedstock (RC); (iii) the efficiency of the recycling process; and (iv) the utility during
the use stage, which pertains to the product’s usage intensity compared to the industry
average. To calculate the MCI, one can utilise an Excel spreadsheet, inputting data
such as the percentage of recycled and reused materials, along with information
about the recycling process efficiency and the product’s functional performance and
lifespan relative to industry standards. The MCI is designed to be applicable at both
material and product assessment levels, recognising that the conditions for circu-
larity can vary between these two domains. Assessing product circularity is notably
more intricate than evaluating material circularity, primarily because products often
comprise multiple materials with varying interfaces which constrain the efficiency
of the recycling and lead to challenges in separating materials, resulting in increased
waste production. It is worth noting that the MCI does not directly account for the
complexities associated with material separability and the consequences of incorpo-
rating multiple materials irreversibly within complex products. To complement the
MCI, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation [38] and Granta Design [39] have developed
additional risk and impact indicators that consider factors such as toxicity, scarcity,
value chain risks, and energy.
Longevity Indicator (LI). Numerous indicators are dedicated to the idea of
slowing down the resource loop to achieve a CE, where time serves as the primary
unit of measurement to assess how extensively resources can be utilised before recy-
cling or disposal becomes necessary. One such indicator is the LI, as introduced by
Franklin-Johnson et al. [26]. The LI is a value-based metric designed to gauge the
contribution to material retention based on the duration a resource remains in active
use, with the goal of extending its value for as long as possible. This retention concept
is fundamental in maximising resource utilisation within a given product system,
encompassing both product use and reuse, as well as materials recycling. The LI
quantifies the average lifespan of product and material usage within a product, span-
ning from initial use to the end of its life cycle. Essentially, the indicator comprises
three core components: the initial lifetime, the duration earned through refurbish-
ment, and the time earned through recycling. While these components represent a
minimum cycle, additional cycles can be incorporated by continuously modelling
directional events. However, it is worth noting that since the longevity indicator is
320 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

of a generic nature, it necessitates the prior modelling of the specific product system
before the calculation can be applied [26]. The LI provides a clear expression of the
longevity of individual resources. When determining the longevity of a bundle of
resources, these values should be aggregated. By factoring in the three key longevity
drivers–product use, refurbishment, and recycling–the LI supports decision-making
and performance evaluation regarding materials and products within the context of
the CE. Its aim is to encourage longer product lifecycles, increase returns from initial
and secondary uses, and the selection of the most efficient recycling processes avail-
able. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the LI does not account for the efficiency
of recycling or the intricacies of refurbishment in its calculation. Instead, it solely
considers the proportion of the product that undergoes refurbishment or recycling.
Furthermore, the LI does not align with the waste hierarchy by assigning more weight
to the refurbished percentage. As a result, the LI serves as a complementary indicator
that should be used in conjunction with other indicators to address missing criteria and
strike the right balance among all criteria, ultimately contributing to a holistic assess-
ment of circularity. The existing LI falls short in its evaluation, as it does not account
for the number of times a resource is utilised and neglects several critical aspects
of circularity. To address these limitations, Figge et al. [25] proposed an innova-
tive methodology that integrates both longevity and circularity into a comprehensive
two-dimensional indicator for a more objective assessment. Their approach involved
refining the initial LI, which had mistakenly incorporated the amount of unrecov-
erable material rather than recoverable material in its calculations. Furthermore,
they expanded the calculation method to accommodate various scenarios, including
different frequencies of resource return, refurbishment, and recycling, which were
previously limited to just two in the initial indicator. The foundation of their circu-
larity metric lies in determining the number of times a resource is reused within a
product system. To combine both longevity and circularity metrics into a unified
indicator, they devised a matrix identifying four potential ways to combine these
two dimensions: short linear, short circular, long linear, and long circular. Despite
addressing many of the limitations of the original LI, this combined approach still
failed to consider the additional resources required for recycling and refurbishment
scenarios. Consequently, it tended to focus on specific phases of a product’s lifecycle
while overlooking others. This limitation can be overcome by integrating Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) into the methodology.
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Coupling Material Circularity-
Based and Life Cycle-Based Indicators. One such methodology, developed by
Niero and Kalbar [40], employs a MCDA model to combine material circularity
indicators with life-cycle-based indicators. They apply the Technique for Order by
Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method to integrate these two sets of indicators
and resolve potential conflicts. For their circularity calculations, Niero and Kalbar
utilised two well-established indicators in the field: the Material Reutilisation Score
(MRS) from the Cradle-to-Cradle design framework [41] and the MCI [38, 39].
The MRS, in the context of the technical cycle, quantifies a product’s recyclability
potential; considering two crucial variables: the intrinsic recyclability (IR) of the
product, which represents the percentage of the product that can be recycled at least
12 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Construction Material Level 321

once after its initial use stage, and the percentage of recycled content (RC). The MRS
is derived from a weighted average of these two variables, with the first variable
receiving twice the weight of the second; resulting in a final value that ranges from 0
to 100. The use of MCDA effectively resolves conflicts that arise when using LCA or
circularity indicators individually, allowing for a balanced evaluation that considers
trade-offs between circularity and LCA indicators. Since LCA is a burden-based
approach, integrating it with circularity value-based approaches helps identify trade-
offs that are vital for a successful implementation of CE concepts. One limitation of
this model is its relatively narrow consideration of circularity indicators, as it only
includes two. However, there is potential to expand it to encompass more circularity
indicators and various aspects, including economic considerations at different levels
of analysis, such as at the macro level, as applied to buildings.
Circular Use of Materials. This indicator measures the proportion of material
that is recovered and reintroduced to the economy, thereby reducing the need for
extracting primary raw materials in the general use of materials [11, 42]. The circular
use rate of materials is calculated as the ratio between the circular use of materials
and the overall use of the material [11, 42]. Total material use (M) is determined
by the sum of Domestic Material Consumption (DMC) and the amount of circular
material use (U), represented as Eq. (12.2), as follows:

M = DMC + U (12.2)

DMC refers to domestic material consumption as defined in economy-wide mate-

rial flow accounts. Circular use of materials (U) approximates to the amount of
waste recycled in domestic recovery plants, subtracting imported waste intended for
recovery and adding exported waste intended for recovery abroad [11, 42].
Resource Productivity. Resource productivity is defined as the added-value
created relative to the amount of material used and is standardised as the ratio of gross
domestic product (GDP) and domestic material consumption. This indicator provides
insights into how efficiently materials are used in generating economic output,
thereby highlighting the impact of production processes on material consumption
[11].

12.3.3 Performance Indicators to Measure Construction

Material Circularity

Multiple studies have developed indicators specific to the construction sector,

addressing various aspects, characteristics, and uses of construction materials
throughout the lifecycle of construction projects. The following text discusses some
of the prominent indicators in this context.
Construction Material Usage Indicators. There are various material level indi-
cators used to assess the consumption of construction materials in buildings. The
322 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

consumption of materials indicators should encompass the total lifespan of a building,

including project work, maintenance, repairs, and other related activities, relative to
the built area. These indicators should be supported by data on the respective national
consumption of materials specific to the construction sector [12].
Level(s) is an EU framework that defines core indicators for the sustainability of
office and residential buildings, with Bill of Quantities (BoQ), materials and lifespans
(Indicator 2.1) being one of sixteen defined indicators within this framework. Under
the Level(s) 2.1 indicator, the mass of construction products and materials required
for specific parts of the building is estimated and measured, presented as total amounts
and according to the material fractions analysed in the Bill of Materials (BoM). This
data is typically presented in tonnes and as a percentage of the total mass per material
type and building aspect. Optionally, the cost of materials also might be included,
adding units of thousand Euros (‘000 e) to the materials [43]. While the Level(s) 2.1
indicator mainly focuses on the construction and installation phase of the building
life cycle, it is essential to consider other life cycle phases and material lifespans for
a comprehensive assessment. In addition, the information produced with material-
level evaluation serves as a basis for upper-level indicators in the framework, such as
estimating construction waste (CW) using BoM, providing data for LCA or Carbon
Footprint (CF) studies, and other related indicators [43].
Some national institutions have developed their own circularity indicators for
the buildings, with the amount of construction materials being one such circularity
indicator. As an example, the Spain Green Building Council (SpainGBC) has defined
an indicator called Consumption of Construction Materials, which measures the total
amount (weight) of the construction materials used in a building. This indicator aims
to evaluate resource efficiency and is aligned with Level(s) indicator 2.1. It presents
the total weight of construction materials used per unit area of the building ((kg, T)/
m2 ), considering the building’s entire lifespan, including project work, maintenance,
repairs, and other activities.
It is important to note that this indicator does not differentiate between the origin
or source of the products, such as virgin or secondary raw materials [12]. When
calculating this indicator, it includes the amount of all the construction materials used,
including those that become waste during the building’s lifetime. However, it does not
account for some other relevant aspects during the use life cycle phase. For example,
the amount of concrete used for repair works. Data supporting this indicator includes
information on national material consumption specific to the construction sector, as
well as the building area information from relevant building permit documents [12].
Construction and Demolition Waste Management Indicators. Different
material-level indicators focus on assessing the generation of CDW. In this context,
Level(s) indicator 2.2 Construction and Demolition waste and materials aims to
facilitate a systemically planned management of CDW, promoting reuse, recycling
or recovery of elements, materials and wastes through segregated collection of CDW
throughout the lifetime of buildings. This indicator represents a part of the frame-
work’s macro-objective 2 of establishing resource-efficient and circular material life
cycles. Under the Level(s) 2.2 indicator, the overall quantity of waste generated is
estimated and measured, and presented both as a total amount and according to the
12 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Construction Material Level 323

main types of CDW categorised according to the European List of Waste entities.
Data collected is typically presented in kilograms (kg) and can also be expressed
as kg per unit area (kg/m2 ) [44]. Indicator 2.2 can be applied at various stages of
the project: during conceptual design stage, the information generated can shape the
outline of a Waste Management Plan (WMP); during detailed design and construc-
tion stage, estimates of CDW can inform a detailed WMP; and during the as-built
or in-use stage, actual inventory data can be collected using the same approach for
performance assessment [44].
Another example of a waste management indicator is CDW dumping, proposed
by the SpainGBC. This indicator relates to waste produced, distinguishing between
hazardous and non-hazardous waste and corresponding to their respective destina-
tions, such as material recovery, fill operations, incineration, or landfills. It is defined
as the unit of mass in relation to the annual built-up area ((kg, T)/m2 ) [12].

12.3.4 Water Consumption Indicators

Recognising water as one of the most valuable resources for construction and building
activities, the methods of obtaining, optimising use, and exploring recovery options
for reuse and recycling are critical strategies within the CE framework. Various
indicators are employed to assess water consumption in buildings, with the Level(s)
indicator 3.1 Use stage water consumption, standing out as a notable example. This
indicator measures the total water consumption during the use phase of a building,
covering water consumed inside and outside of the building. The data is presented as
the total amount per average building occupant with the option of analysing amounts
of potable and non-potable water in fractions. The collected data is presented in units
of cubic metres (m3 ) per occupant per year. Indicator 3.1 plays a vital role across
different stages of building development. During the conceptual design phase, the
information gleaned can directly or indirectly affect water consumption, especially
potable water, during the use of the building. In the detailed design and construction
phase, the influence of various design features and equipment purchases on estimates
of water consumption during the use stage can be assessed. Lastly, during the as-built
and in-use stages, fostering awareness and providing information on circular design
features and their potential future value is facilitated by this indicator [45].
Another indicator related to water consumption is defined by the SpainGBC
[12], encompassing water consumed during both the use phase of buildings and
the water used during material production. This indicator presents water consump-
tion presented in cubic metres per occupant per year (m3 /occupant/year). Additional
indicators related to water include grey water usage, rainwater usage, consumption
monitoring systems, water footprint, water consumption per building, reduction in
water consumption during the use phase, information systems, water network losses,
reuse of nutrients and recovery, system recycling rate, water collection from runoff
in the surrounding area of the building, and reduction of water consumption during
the EoL phase.
324 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

The integration of nature-based solutions (NBS) such as vertical greening systems

(VGS)–for example, ground-based green facades, wall-based green facades, pot-
based green facades, and vegetated pergola; and green roofs (GR)–including inten-
sive, extensive, semi-intensive, and bio-solar GR, supports water circularity. These
systems contribute to water circularity in buildings by promoting water retention
and infiltration. However, they also necessitate additional water for irrigation and
have embedded water within the structural elements. Rainwater harvesting, source
separation, and on-site treatment of wastewater are potential strategies to close the
water cycle at building level. Still, a comprehensive analysis is required to assess the
necessary additional infrastructure, embedded water, and additional energy demand
resulting from water supply, among other factors [46–50].

12.4 Environmental and Economic Impact of Construction

Materials

This section identifies the allocation of environmental and economic impacts of

construction materials and the changes that happen when they are transformed into
circular ones. Circularity indicators, under the umbrella of Research, Development
and innovation (R + D + i), align with a number of products with EPDs [12]. A
comprehensive method for environmental impact evaluation is the LCA. LCA is a
powerful, science-based tool for measuring and quantifying the environmental and
social impacts of products, services, and business models throughout their life cycle,
from raw material extraction to manufacturing, distribution, use, and disposal. LCA
has become a significant tool for monitoring the environmental impact of materials
used during construction.
Sustainability certifications advocate for LCAs at the building level, ensuring
that the impact of construction materials, along with the impact of the building in
use, is evaluated globally. Thus, information from materials with an EPD may be
incorporated into an inclusive assessment of buildings [12].

12.4.1 Carbon Footprint Impact of Construction Materials

As a petroleum derivative, plastics have a negative environmental impact (refer to

Table 12.4) [8]. The production of fibreboards consumes low energy (5 kW-h/m3 );
however, aluminium and steels have a high energy cost in relation to their extrac-
tion and transformation [8]. Restitution of the impact on both GHG emissions and
biodiversity is one of the key aspects of the CE principles applied in the construction
sector [8]. On a positive note, biochar-filled building materials show great potential in
reducing carbon footprint. Biochar, derived from waste biomass, is carbon negative
(−1.88 kg-CO2 -eq/kg carbon footprint) (Table 12.4) [51, 52]. Table 12.4 illustrates
12 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Construction Material Level 325

Table 12.4 Construction materials and their environmental impact (adapted from Ferrer et al. [8])
Material Positive Environmental impacta
Intermediate Negative Variable
High Medium
Adobe ◯
Agglomerated cork ◯
Alternative plastics ◯
Aluminium ●
Cements: ◯ ●
Cement–limestone and clay
Ecological cements
Concretes: ◯ ●
Biological concrete ◯ ●
Conventional concrete ◯
Conventional reinforced concrete
Photocatalytic concrete
Recycled concrete
Fibres ◯
Fired clay ◯
Paintings ◌
Plastics ◌
Steels ◯
Stone ●
Biochar ◯
Wood ◯
a◯positive (high/medium) environmental impact; ●intermediate environmental impact; ●negative
environmental impact; and ◌variable environmental impact

the environmental impact nature of common conventional construction materials,

categorised as positive, intermediate, negative, or variable.
Case Study. In this case study, adapted from Dsilva et al. [53], the authors
employed LCA due to its enormous benefits in facilitating proactive decision-
making before construction begins. This section discusses the LCA conducted for
two construction scenarios: the business-as-usual scenario and the actual scenario.
The results focus on major construction items and their impact within the product
stage A1 to A3 (A1−Raw material extract/process/supply, A2−Transport and
A3−Manufacture). The functional units in these analyses varied depending on the
type of material input, leading to the derivation of information about the amount
of embodied carbon generated per square metre of the built-up area (BUA). The
main objective of the study was to quantitatively evaluate various measures aimed at
reducing embodied carbon, which were implemented by the project team. The study
highlights the evidence collected during the construction of the three storey SEE
Institute located in The Sustainable City, at the heart of an area called DubaiLand
326 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

in Dubai, UAE. This multi-storey, multi-purpose structure was designed to accom-

modate various activities and functions and spans over 4515 m2 of gross floor area.
Two specific products were analysed: concrete (in-situ and precast) and reinforce-
ment steel. In the business-as-usual scenario, industrial average concrete mixtures
were analysed. In contrast, in the actual scenario, concrete mixtures incorporating
slag (GGBS) and silica fume (MS) as partial replacements for cement (OPC) were
utilised. Additionally, the project team opted for reinforcing bars made of recycled
steel. Table 12.5 illustrates the different material types used in each scenario.
The LCA allowed the project team to quantify embodied carbon and imple-
ment reduction strategies. A notable advantage of circularity is the carbon savings
achieved through recycled materials. Embracing circularity helps reduce emissions
even under design and materials choice constraints. Accordingly, Table 12.6 demon-
strates the CO2 emission reductions through the use of building materials with
increased recycled content in the actual scenario compared to business-as-usual
scenario.
This case study on a newly constructed three storey multi-use building demon-
strated a substantial reduction in carbon emissions (26%) through proactive material
selection and careful sourcing. The study underscores the importance of thoughtful
material selection, strategic planning, and consideration of the climatic conditions in
choosing construction materials, aiming to promote a CE and mitigate adverse envi-
ronmental impacts in the construction industry. Implementing the recommendations
discussed in this study can empower the construction sector to actively contribute to
the transition towards a sustainable and circular built environment.

Table 12.5 Incorporation of recycled content into each building material for scenarios 1 (industry
average–business-as-usual) and 2 (actual–actual scenario)
Material category Industry average Actual
Ready-mix concrete, C60 OPC + 10% recycled binders OPC + GGBS 45% + MS 5%
Ready-mix concrete, C50 OPC + 10% recycled binders OPC + GGBS 14%
Ready-mix concrete, C40 OPC + 10% recycled binders OPC + 40% recycled binders
Reinforcement steel 97% recycled steel 97% recycled steel

Table 12.6 CO2 emissions of building materials in scenarios 1 and 2

Material category Industry average Actual Reduction
Per functional unit
Ready-mix concrete, C60 442.96 kg CO2 e/m3 344.7 kg CO2 e/m3 22%
Ready-mix concrete, C50 390.09 kg CO2 e/m3 255.0 kg CO2 e/m3 35%
Ready-mix concrete, C40 355.83 kg CO2 e/m3 262.4 kg CO2 e/m3 26%
Reinforcement steel 0.62 kg CO2 e/kg 0.50 kg CO2 e/kg 19%
12 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Construction Material Level 327

12.4.2 Energy and Indoor/Outdoor Climate Impacts

of Construction Materials

The advancement of circular energy rehabilitation relies on the use of industri-

alised recyclable materials and energy-efficient technological solutions [8]. Energy
consumption associated with a building spans its entire life cycle. From construc-
tion through operation to retrofitting and demolition, these phases are crucial
considerations during the design phase.
The use phase, which typically lasts 60 to 100 years, necessitates extensive and
periodic maintenance to ensure indoor comfort. Numerous LCA studies focusing
on buildings have indicated that this phase is responsible for the highest proportion
of non-renewable energy use required for achieving comfortable indoor conditions
[54, 55].
Table 12.7 illustrates the life cycle phases of a building, emphasising the energy
consumption associated with each phase components [56].
The EE typically encompasses energy consumption during the manufacturing and
assembly phases of the materials and components. According to Crowther [57], EE is
defined as “the total energy required for building creation, including both the direct
energy used in the construction and assembly and the indirect energy needed for
manufacturing materials and components”. However, for authors like Ding [58], EE
also extends to the demolition phase.
The assessment of EE involves calculating various phases such as use, mainte-
nance, and demolition, depending on whether a cradle-to-gate or cradle-to-grave
boundary definition is used [59].

Table 12.7 Energies associated with a building during the life cycle phases [56]
Construction
Embedded energy Materials, installations, machines, etc
Construction energy Machines and transport of materials and goods
Operation
Climate Heating, cooling and ventilation
Lighting Lighting of all rooms, halls, corridors
Machines, appliances Computers, fans, washing machine, etc
Operating and control Building management systems
Transport People and goods to and from the building
Retrofit
Embedded energy Materials, installations, machines
Construction energy Machines and transport of materials and goods
Demolition
Demolition energy Machines and transport of materials and goods
328 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

In Khadim et al. [60], a comprehensive review of nano and micro-level building

circularity indicators is conducted, focusing on the Integrated Energy Performance
and Circularity (IEPC) method as proposed by Sreekumar [61]. This method refers
to all systems that consume energy to fulfil functions; such as space and domestic
hot water heating, cooling, summer comfort, air movement–e.g., fans, and lighting.
The framework, known as Resources, Reuse/cascades, and Outputs, is trans-
lated into quantifiable indicators to assess energy flows and determine the overall
circularity degree: IN 1-Energy input (both delivered and on-site generated); IN 2-
Material input (pertaining to on-site energy installations) and energy resources; IN
3-Energy reuse; IN 4-Energy output; and IN 5-Material output (related to on-site
energy installations).
Reich et al. [62] employed the DPSIR (Driving forces-Pressure-State-Impacts-
Responses) analytical framework–originally developed by the European Environ-
ment Agency (EEA)–based on an OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development) model, to compile suitable indicators.
The construction of buildings necessitates materials produced from raw resources
and energy inputs. The excavation of these virgin raw materials imposes environ-
mental pressure, as recorded by pressure indicators P1 (tonnes of virgin raw materials,
fuels and water). The response indicator R4, Heating efficiency (kWh/m2 ), should
be recorded to trace policy effectiveness.
It should be noted that measuring EE is not the same as embodied carbon. The
focus on reducing embodied carbon is laudable, and great strides are being made
within Europe to reduce embodied carbon in energy sources. However, as embodied
carbon is reduced, policymakers must not ignore EE, which will remain the same
without strides to improve energy efficiency and eliminate energy wastage. The
nature of the energy hierarchy requires society to conserve high quality energy if
energy equity for all global citizens is to be achieved.

12.5 Conclusions and Recommendations

Optimising the use of industrial materials and products is imperative for transi-
tioning industrial systems to a CE. Construction materials serve as the foundational
elements of a building, exerting substantial influence on circularity levels within the
built environment. The incorporation of innovative circular materials and the applica-
tion of circularity criteria to traditional materials, notably concrete and steel–widely
employed in construction–can profoundly impact the environmental and circular
performance of buildings. This impact is realised by advocating for waste hierarchy
and resource conservation in response to material scarcity and global environmental
challenges.
This chapter identifies overarching circularity criteria in construction materials,
delineates diverse strategies to enhance the circularity of traditional materials, and
explores novel materials that support a CE in the built environment. Four groups of
indicators from the literature are discussed, along with their potential applications to
12 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Construction Material Level 329

foster a CE in the construction sector. The chapter underscores the role of material
circularity in reducing CDW, GHG emissions, and conserving energy, costs, and
water resources through multiple strategies aligned with waste hierarchy principles.
Future research endeavours should concentrate on augmenting circular character-
istics and criteria at the material level in buildings, particularly when coupled with
circular design options. Proper design is crucial, as inadequately designed compo-
nents and systems hindering material separability and recovery limit the efficacy
of circularity even when using circular materials. Circular design ensures seamless
material outflows, facilitating waste hierarchy promotion, safe recovery, damage
minimisation, and prevention of waste generation.
Furthermore, research could prioritise identifying crucial criteria and character-
istics with the potential to enhance circularity values. A multi-criteria model could
be developed, ranking materials based on their circularity potential throughout their
lifecycle. Exploring circular approaches for utilising conventional construction mate-
rials, especially concrete, necessitates further investigation through testing and proto-
typing. This exploration aims to enhance the circularity of widely used construction
materials, addressing the significant environmental footprint of concrete and miti-
gating current down-cycling activities that contribute to the lower tiers of the waste
hierarchy. Fostering circularity for other prominent construction materials beside
concrete and steel should also be a focus for future research.
Further research is also needed to establish benchmarks in terms of reuse and
recycling among other circularity options for construction materials to achieve
maximum circularity values. Additionally, addressing more case studies showcasing
the environmental, economic, and social impacts of circular materials applications
in buildings is essential.
Lastly, the development of certification programs and dashboards to promote the
recognition and visibility of circular materials is worth investigating. This initiative
would underscore the enhancement of brand reputation linked to CE initiatives and
encourage responsible investments. Similar to green building certification, circular
material certification can be integrated into a ranking system that encourages and
rewards the use of top-performing circular materials. This approach can attract green
financing and promote global collaboration in sustainable and circular construction
practices.

References

1. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2023) Circular economy introduction. https://ellenmacarthurf

oundation.org/topics/circular-economy-introduction/overview. Accessed 23 Aug 2023
2. World Economic Forum (2023) What is the circular economy-and why is the world
less circular?. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/06/what-is-the-circular-economy/.
Accessed 23 Aug 2023
3. Sizirici B, Fseha Y, Cho C-S, Yildiz I, Byon Y-J (2021) A review of carbon footprint reduction
in construction industry, from design to operation. Materials 14(20):6094
330 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

4. Yan H, Shen Q, Fan LCH, Wang Y, Zhang L (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions in building
construction: a case study of one Peking in Hong Kong. Build Environ 45(4):949–955
5. Huang L, Krigsvoll G, Johansen F, Liu Y, Zhang X (2018) Carbon emission of global
construction sector. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 81:1906–1916
6. Rockfon (2022) Circular economy: what, why and how in construction. https://www.rockfon.
co.uk/about-us/blog/2022/circular-economy-in-construction/. Accessed 22 Aug 2023
7. Rahla KM, Mateus R, Braganca L (2021) Selection criteria for building materials and compo-
nents in line with the circular economy principles in the built environment–a review of current
trends. Electron J Infrastruct 6(49):1–35
8. Ferrer J, Herrería N, Remón A, Armas R, Díez de Rivera T, Ramos I, Sartori T, Isla M, Morató J,
Villanueva B, Batalla J, Villa M (2022) Proyecto economía circular España–Acelerando la tran-
sición en el sector de construcción. https://www.accenture.com/content/dam/accenture/final/
accenture-com/document/Accenture-EC-Espana-Informe-Sector-Construccion.pdf. Accessed
19 Aug 2023
9. Zhang L, Liu B, Du J, Liu C, Wang S (2019) CO2 emission linkage analysis in global construc-
tion sectors: alarming trends from 1995 to 2009 and possible repercussions. J Clean Prod
221:863–877
10. Scrivener KL, John VM, Gartner EM (2018) Eco-efficient cements: potential economically
viable solutions for a low-CO2 cement-based materials industry. Cem Concr Res 114:2–26
11. Morató J, Jiménez LM, Calleros-Islas A, De la Cruz JL, Díaz LD, Martínez J, P-Lagüela E,
Penagos G, Pernas JJ, Rovira S, Sanz FJ, Tollin N, Villanueva B, Woischnik A (2021) Informe
COTEC–Situación y evolución de la economía circular en España. Fundación Cotec para
la innovación, Madrid. https://cotec.es/observacion/economia-circular/f62c16db-5823-deb4-
7986-a786e5c3401c. Accessed 18 Aug 2023
12. Manyes A, Leyva B, Zambrana Vasquez D, García Tejera M, Figuerola E, Morató J, Ronquillo
L, Perero E, Rodríguez-Gironés M, Comendador P, Masseck T (2019) Indicadores para
medir la circularidad en el sector de la edificación. Green Building Council España (GBCe),
Madrid. https://gbce.es/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Informe-indicadores-EC-GBCe_v1912.
pdf. Accessed 17 Aug 2023
13. Akhimien NG, Al Tawheed AA, Latif E, Hou SS (2022) Circular economy in buildings.
In: Zhang T (ed) The circular economy–recent advances in sustainable waste management.
IntechOpen, pp 1–21
14. Hammond GP, Jones CI (2008) Embodied energy and carbon in construction materials. Proc
Inst Civ Eng-Energy 161(2):87–98
15. Pacheco-Torgala F, Jalali S (2011) Toxicity of building materials: a key issue in sustainable
construction. Int J Sustain Eng 4(3):281–287
16. Cai G, Waldmann D (2019) A material and component bank to facilitate material recycling and
component reuse for a sustainable construction: concept and preliminary study. Clean Technol
Environ Policy 21:2015–2032
17. Orr J, Gibbons O, Arnold W (2020) A brief guide to calculating embodied carbon.
Climate Emergency, Institution of Structural Engineers, London. https://www.istructe.org/ISt
ructE/media/Public/TSE-Archive/2020/A-brief-guide-to-calculating-embodied-carbon.pdf.
Accessed 1 May 2024
18. Marsh ATM, Velenturf APM, Bernal SA (2022) Circular Economy strategies for concrete:
Implementation and integration. J Clean Prod 362:1–17
19. Bahtiar ET, Denih A, Putra GR (2023) Multi-culm bamboo composites as sustainable materials
for green constructions: section properties and column behavior. Results Eng 17:100911
20. Ahn N, Dodoo A, Riggio M, Muszynski L, Schimleck L, Puettmann M (2022) Circular economy
in mass timber construction: state-of-the-art, gaps and pressing research needs. J Build Eng
53:104562
21. Cavdar AD, Yel H, Boran S, Pesman E (2017) Cement type composite panels manufactured
using paper mill sludge as filler. Constr Build Mater 142:410–416
22. Aquilina A, Borg RP, Buhagiar J (2018) The application of natural organic additives in concrete:
Opuntia ficus-indica, fib conference: sustainable concrete: materials and structures, materials
science and engineering. IOP Conf Series 442:012016
12 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Construction Material Level 331

23. Calleja A, Borg RP (2023) Bio-based agave sisalana fibres in cement based materials,
unpublished manuscript–sent for publication. University of Malta
24. Borg RP, Spiteri Cornish E, Attard E (2023) Waste feather fibre reinforcement for cement-based
materials. In: EMI 2023 ASCE international conference. Palermo, Italy, 2023/08/27–30
25. Figge F, Thorpe AS, Givry P, Canning L, Franklin-Johnson E (2018) Longevity and circularity
as indicators of eco-efficient resource use in the circular economy. Ecol Econ 150:297–306
26. Franklin-Johnson E, Figge F, Canning L (2016) Resource duration as a managerial indicator
for circular economy performance. J Clean Prod 133:589–598
27. Islam MdT, Huda N (2019) Material flow analysis (MFA) as a strategic tool in E-waste
management: Applications, trends and future directions. J Environ Manage 244:344–361
28. UNDP/GEF (2015) The second biennial report of the republic of Kazakhstan submitted in
accordance with the decision 1/СР.16 of the conference of the parties to the United Nations
framework convention on climate change. https://unfccc.int/files/national_reports/biennial_
reports_and_iar/submitted_biennial_reports/application/pdf/br-text_eng_kz.pdf. Accessed 21
Aug 2023
29. DIWECON (2020) https://igtipc.org/images/docs/2020/550258684.pdf. Accessed 21 Aug
2023
30. Zhang C, Hu M, Yang X, Miranda-Xicotencatl B, Sprecher B, Maio FD, Zhong X, Tukker
A (2020) Upgrading construction and demolition waste management from downcycling to
recycling in the Netherlands. J Clean Prod 266:121718
31. Moschen-Schimek J, Kasper T, Huber-Humer M (2023) Critical review of the recovery rates
of construction and demolition waste in the European union–an analysis of influencing factors
in selected EU countries. Waste Manage 167:150–164
32. Turkyilmaz A, Guney M, Karaca F, Bagdatkyzy Z, Sandybayeva A, Sirenova GA (2019)
Comprehensive construction and demolition waste management model using PESTEL and 3R
for construction companies operating in Central Asia. Sustainability 11(6):1593
33. Figge F, Hahn T (2004) Value-oriented impact assessment: the economics of a new approach
to impact assessment. J Environ Plan Manag 47:921e941
34. Wackernagel M, Rees WE (1996) Our ecological footprint. New Society Publishers, Gabriola
Island, BC, Reducing human impact on the Earth
35. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The eco-indicator99: a damage oriented method for life
cycle impact assessment: methodology report. Pr e Consultants, B.V, Amersfoort.
36. Figge F (2001) Environmental value added e Ein neues Maß zur Messung der e OkoEffizienz.
Z. Angew. Umweltforsch. 14:184e197
37. Park JY, Chertow MR (2014) Establishing and testing the “reuse potential” indicator for
managing wastes as resources. J Environ Manage 137:45–53
38. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Granta Design (2015) Circularity indicators: an approach to
measuring circularity non-technical case-studies. https://emf.thirdlight.com/link/ukiokhl9w
ek3-wfb5iv/@/preview/1?o. Accessed 22 July 2020
39. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Granta Design (2019) Circularity indicators: an approach to
measuring circularity, Methodology. pp 1–64. https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/material-
circularity-indicator/. Accessed 16 May 2023
40. Niero M, Kalbar PP (2019) Coupling material circularity indicators and life cycle based indi-
cators: a proposal to advance the assessment of circular economy strategies at the product level.
Resour Conserv Recycl 140:305–312
41. The Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute (2016) https://mcdonough.com/milestones/
the-non-profit-cradle-to-cradle-products-innovation-institute-is-established/. Accessed 8 Aug
2024
42. Eurostat (2021) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat. Accessed 8 July 2024
43. Donatello S, Dodd N, Cordella M (2021a) Level(s) indicator 2.1: bill of quantities, materials
and lifespans user manual: introductory briefing, instructions and guidance (Publication version
1.1)
44. Donatello S, Dodd N, Cordella M (2021c) Level(s) indicator 2.2: construction and demolition
waste and materials user manual: introductory briefing, instructions and guidance (Publication
version 1.1)
332 R. Pineda-Martos et al.

45. Donatello S, Dodd N, Cordella M (2021a) Level(s) indicator 3.1: use stage water consumption
user manual: introductory briefing, instructions and guidance (Publication version 1.1)
46. Langergraber G, Castellar JAC, Pucher B, Baganz GFM, Milosevic D, Andreucci M-B, Kearney
K, Pineda-Martos R, Atanasova N (2021) A framework for addressing circularity challenges
in cities with nature-based solutions. Water 13(17):2355
47. Langergraber G, Castellar JAC, Andersen TR, Andreucci M-B, Baganz GFM, Buttiglieri G,
Canet-Martí A, Carvalho PN, Finger DC, Griessler Bulc T, Junge R, Megyesi B, Milošević
D, Oral HV, Pearlmutter D, Pineda-Martos R, Pucher B, van Hullebusch ED, Atanasova N
(2021) Towards a cross-sectoral view of nature-based solutions for enabling circular cities.
Water 13(17):2352
48. Pearlmutter D, Pucher B, Calheiros CSC, Hoffmann KA, Aicher A, Pinho P, Stracqualursi A,
Korolova A, Pobric A, Galvão A, Tokuç A, Bas B, Theochari D, Milosevic D, Giancola E,
Bertino G, Castellar JAC, Flaszynska J, Onur M, Garcia Mateo MC, Andreucci MB, Milousi
M, Fonseca M, Di Lonardo S, Gezik V, Pitha U, Nehls T (2021) Closing water cycles in the
built environment through nature-based solutions: the contribution of vertical greening systems
and green roofs. Water 13(16):2165
49. Pineda-Martos R, Calheiros CSC (2021) Nature-based solutions in cities–contribution of the
Portuguese national association of green roofs to urban circularity. Circ Econ Sustain 1:1019–
1035
50. Pineda-Martos R, Atanasova N, Calheiros CSC, Junge R, Nickayin SS, Paço TA, Dominici L,
Comino E, Andreucci M-B, Theochari D, Pucher B, Galán González A, Carvalho PN, Langer-
graber G (2024) Implementing nature-based solutions for a circular urban built environment.
In: Bragança L, Cvetkovska M, Askar R, Ungureanu V (eds) Creating a roadmap towards
circularity in the built environment. Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering. Springer, Cham, pp
345–355
51. Gupta S, Kua HW, Dai Pang S (2018) Biochar-mortar composite: manufacturing, evaluation
of physical properties and economic viability. Constr Build Mater 167:874–889
52. Legan M, Gotvajn AŽ, Zupan K (2022) Potential of biochar use in building materials. J Environ
Manage 309:114704
53. Dsilva J, Zarmukhambetova S, Locke J (2023) Assessment of building materials in the construc-
tion sector: a case study using life cycle assessment approach to achieve the circular economy.
Heliyon 9(10):e20404
54. Khalid H, Thaheem MJ, Anwar Malik MS, Musarat MA, Alaloul WS (2021) Reducing cooling
load and lifecycle cost for residential buildings: a case of Lahore, Pakistan. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 26:2355–2374
55. Khadim N, Agliata R, Thaheem MJ, Mollo L (2023) Whole building circularity indicator:
a circular economy assessment framework for promoting circularity and sustainability in
buildings and construction. Build Environ 241:110498
56. Torcellini P, Pless S, Deru M (2006) Zero energy buildings: a critical look at the definition
preprint, NREL/CP-550–39833
57. Crowther P (1999) Design for disassembly to recover embodied energy. In: Sustaining the
future–energy ecology architecture PLEA ‘99. PLEA International, Brisbane, Australia, pp
95–100
58. Ding GKC (2004) The development of a multi-criteria approach for the measurement of sustain-
able performance for built projects and facilities. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Technology of
Sydney, Sydney, Australia. https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/20191/7/02Whole.pdf.
Accessed 16 Oct 2023
59. Mazzoli C, Corticelli R, Dragonetti L, Ferrante A, Van Oorschot J, Ritzen M (2022) Assessing
and developing circular deep renovation interventions towards decarbonisation: the Italian pilot
case of “Corte Palazzo” in Argelato. Sustainability 14:13150
12 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Construction Material Level 333

60. Khadim N, Agliata R, Marino A, Thaheem MJ, Mollo L (2022) Critical review of nano and
micro-level building circularity indicators and frameworks. J Clean Prod 357:131859
61. Sreekumar N (2019) An integrated approach towards energy performance and circu-
larity in buildings. Architecture and the Built Environment. Delft University of
Technology, https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3Ae3cf7f7a-7d04-4a21-96ff-
a8f520ed0db2. Accessed 13 Oct 2023
62. Reich RH, Alaerts L, Acker KV (2021) Circular economy indicators for buildings and housing.
In: Sustainability assessment of material life cycles, KU Leuven Kasteelpark Arenberg 44, 3001
Leuven, Belgium

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 13
Circularity Criteria and Indicators
at the Building Component and System
Level

Aidana Tleuken , Ferhat Karaca , Rand Askar , Gerald Leindecker ,

Ilker Kahraman , Christina Giarma, Genesis Camila Cervantes Puma ,
Rocío Pineda-Martos , Iskander Bolatkhanov, Michele Palermo ,
Lidiana Arrè , Ali Akbar Shah Syed, Inam Ul Ahad ,
Liljana Dimevska Sofronievska , Meri Cvetkovska , Vanessa Tavares ,
and Luís Bragança

Abstract The implementation of circular economy principles in building activi-

ties holds the potential for substantial environmental, economic, and social benefits.
Although extensive research has examined the impact of circularity strategies on
various aspects of buildings, there is a significant gap in the literature focusing specif-
ically on building components and systems (BC&S). Most existing studies develop

A. Tleuken · F. Karaca (B) · I. Bolatkhanov

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering and Digital Sciences,
Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan
e-mail: [email protected]
R. Askar · G. C. Cervantes Puma · L. Bragança
ISISE, ARISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, 4804-533 Guimarães,
Portugal
G. Leindecker
IAPL-Institut für Analytische Strukturentwicklungsplanung, University Applied Science of Upper
Austria, Wels, Austria
I. Kahraman
Izmir Ekonomi University, İzmir, Türkiye
C. Giarma
Laboratory of Building Construction and Building Physics, Department of Civil Engineering,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
R. Pineda-Martos
Departamento de Ingeniería Aeroespacial y Mecánica de Fluidos, Escuela Técnica Superior de
Ingeniería Agronómica, Universidad de Sevilla, Ctra. de Utrera, Km. 1, 41005, Sevilla, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]
M. Palermo · L. Arrè
Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and Materials Engineering (DICAM), University
of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

© The Author(s) 2025 335

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_13
336 A. Tleuken et al.

indicators applicable to buildings as a whole or solely at the materials level. This

study aims to address this gap by identifying and emphasising specific circularity
criteria for BC&S, including structure, infill, and services. The primary objective is
to elucidate the contribution of each system to the overall circularity of buildings,
thereby prioritising the most impactful circularity aspects. At the component level,
it is essential to consider the specific attributes of component assemblies that consti-
tute a system. To enhance the practical application of these findings, the study is
supplemented with relevant case studies demonstrating best practices for circularity
in BC&S. These case studies provide empirical evidence and practical examples of
how targeted circularity strategies can improve the sustainability and efficiency of
building practices, thereby advancing the goals of the circular economy.

Keywords Circular economy · Building components and systems · Circularity

criteria · Sustainability · Efficiency · Case studies

13.1 Introduction

It is widely acknowledgeable that buildings and their related activities have a signif-
icant impact on the environment. The construction industry, in particular, consumes
vast amounts of natural resources and raw materials, making it a leading resource-
intensive sector [1]. The building sector is accountable for the utilisation of 3 000
million tonnes of natural resources each year [2]. Furthermore, a study conducted by
the World Resources Institute indicated that 40% of the worldwide waste generation
is attributed to the construction industry [3].
To address these environmental challenges and promote sustainability, the concept
of the circular economy (CE) has emerged as a transformative approach aimed at
reversing the narrative by creating positive impacts on the environment, economy
and society.
Traditionally, the construction industry follows a linear supply chain often charac-
terised by a “take, make, and dispose of” model, involving activities such as mining
and extraction, processing and manufacturing, and waste management and disposal.
In contrast, the CE seeks to establish a closed-loop system where resources are
conserved and brought back into the lifecycle after use [4].

A. A. S. Syed · I. U. Ahad
The SFI Research Centre for Advanced Manufacturing, School of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering, I-Form, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
L. D. Sofronievska · M. Cvetkovska
Faculty of Civil Engineering, University “Ss. Cyril and Methodius”, Skopje, North Macedonia
V. Tavares
BUILT CoLAB Porto, Porto, Portugal
CEAU-FAUP, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 337

Buildings are essential components of urban landscapes, shaping their architec-

tural character. However, they are also complex objects comprising intricate systems
and numerous components and materials, all interconnected to ensure safety and
functionality for occupants.
The previous chapter explored the general circularity criteria for construction
materials, highlighting practices for key materials such as concrete and steel. This
chapter, however, focusses on the circularity criteria and indicators at two levels of
building assembly:
• Component level: Components are the most granular elements of buildings
after materials. They can be made of single materials shaped to connect with
surrounding components and building parts, or they can be assemblies of multiple
materials forming different building components (e.g., windows, doors, roofs,
walls, and foundations) [5].
• System level: Systems are assemblies of components and materials serving a
specific function [6].
Given the significant potential for implementing CE principles in the building
industry, this chapter sheds light on the circularity criteria and indicators for build-
ings at both the system and component levels. The chapter is structured as follows:
Following the introduction in Sects. 13.1 presents a thematic analysis on nine key
topics and strategies relevant to circularity in building components and systems
(BC&S). Section 13.2 explores the relevance of two prominent circularity models—
R-Principles and ReSOLVE—and their applicability to BC&S. Section 13.3 offers
an approach to categorising CE criteria for BC&S. Section 13.4 provides examples of
best practices for enhancing the circularity of BC&S. Lastly, Sect. 13.5 presents the
chapter conclusions, highlighting potential directions for future work and research
in this area.

13.1.1 Thematic Analysis for Building Components

and Systems (BC&S)

To evaluate the alignment of building components and systems (BC&S) with CE

principles, it is essential to explore the circularity aspects applicable to BC&S,
particularly in terms of resource efficiency, energy efficiency, and waste reduc-
tion throughout the various lifecycle stages. These aspects influence CE principles
of closing, slowing, and narrowing material loops through reusing, recycling, and
extending the lifespan of buildings and their products and materials.
This section delves into various themes of circularity and its strategies as addressed
in the literature on the construction sector, presenting a comprehensive exploration
of key elements, with a focus on BC&S. The thematic analysis navigates through
diverse topics, starting from the design stage, addressing design for adaptability,
disassembly, and durability, through the construction stage, focusing on modularity
338 A. Tleuken et al.

and standardisation, to the use stage, highlighting the advantages of adaptive building
reuse and maintainability for energy-efficient operations. Finally, at the end-of-life
(EoL) stage, it explores the principles of reducing, reusing, and recycling BC&S
and the need for adopting product responsibility throughout the lifecycle, along with
the opportunities for transitioning to circular business models through sharing and
exchanging approaches.
By dissecting these themes, readers will gain a holistic understanding of the
indicators and criteria shaping the circular construction landscape for BC&S.

13.1.2 Design for Adaptability (DfA)

Adaptability, as described in ISO 20887:2020(E), refers to the capacity to “accommo-

date changes in use type, demographics, user needs or due to the need for adaptation
to external factors, such as climate change, for resilience or futureproofing. The
initial cost may be balanced against the future cost of adaptation” ([7], p. 11). In the
literature, adaptability is described as the capacity of buildings to change in response
to varying needs [8]. These needs arise from various circumstances throughout a
building’s lifecycle, including social and local factors, environmental changes, emer-
gent technical needs, functional improvements, economic and legislative factors, and
differing stakeholder interests [8].
The term “adaptability” has been interpreted in different forms in literature studies,
depending on the context [9]. It is widely recognised that Design for Adaptability
(DfA) strategies and concepts pertain to BC&S. This relevance is evident in the
various interpretations and definitions provided by literature studies. Table 13.1
outlines some of the most common definitions and their relevance to specific BC&S.
However, all the definitions refer to strategies to address different dimensions
of change in buildings, which can include changes in size, use or function, perfor-
mance, configuration or space, location, and changeable components. The concept
of adaptability can be alternatively referred to by other terminologies that describe
specific strategies or dimensions of adaptability for particular building systems. For
example, flexibility often refers to the rearrangement of elements and systems within
the infill or building interiors [15]. In this sense, flexibility is considered a part of
adaptability, which encompass both internal and external changes.
Other terms used to refer to size adaptability include expandability, extendibility,
scalability, and elasticity. Meanwhile, terms such as transformability, changeability,
and convertibility refer to spatial changes and reconfiguration of the interior to fit
new use or function requirements. Design complexity affects the level of adaptability,
and key strategies addressing this aspect are referred to as generality, simplicity,
commonality, and open plan. All these strategies share the primary goal of supporting
change and ultimately extending the useful life of a building, therefore, they are
considered dimensions of adaptability [8].
The importance of designing buildings for adaptability within the context of the
CE lies in its potential to slow material loops by extending the service life of buildings
13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 339

Table 13.1 Common definitions of adaptability

Definition Referred systems/ Source
components
“A building that has been designed with thought of how All types of systems [10], p. 8
it might be easily altered to prolong its life.”
Structural adaptability is “The capacity of the building Structure [11], p. 2
structure to be able to undergo changes to the structure
itself, with or without only small consequences for the
remaining building storeys.”
The capacity of a building to accommodate effectively • Space plan [12], p. 3
the evolving demands of its context, thus maximising • Structural facility
value through life systems
Adaptable architecture is “an architecture from which • Space plan [13],
specific components can be changed in response to • Structure components p. 167
external stimuli, for example, the users or environment.”
“The ease with which buildings can be physically • All types of systems [14], p. 2
modified, deconstructed, refurbished, reconfigured, components
repurposed, and/or expanded”
“The capacity of a building to accommodate change in • All types of systems [8], p. 11
response to the emerging needs or varying contextual
conditions, therefore prolonging its useful life while
preserving the value for its users over time.”

despite inevitable changes over time [8, 16]. This approach is essential for avoiding
premature demolition, reducing material waste, and cutting costs, all of which are
valuable for a CE by conserving resources and minimising emissions.
Adaptability can be incorporated into building systems to address both unknown
future changes or specific anticipated change scenarios. ISO 20887:2020(E) identifies
three main dimensions of adaptability: versatility, convertibility, and expandability
[7]. These principles represent different levels of change:
1. Versatility applies to spatial systems, referring to their ability to accommodate
various functions with minor system modifications.
2. Convertibility involves making more significant modifications to meet substan-
tial changes in user needs, yet it is related to versatility as both principles involve
using single spaces for multiple purposes.
3. Expandability involves the addition of extra space horizontally or vertically,
significantly impacting the structural system, facade systems, and services needed
for the additional space.
DfA involves incorporating specific design features in building systems, enabling
them to adapt to emerging needs throughout their lifecycle. This type of adaptability,
known as “preconfigured adaptability” [17], entails integrating certain features
during the design stage to foster a building’s capacity to respond to changes during
subsequent lifecycle stages.
340 A. Tleuken et al.

However, adaptability can also be applied to buildings not originally designed with
adaptability in mind. This can be achieved through adaptive reuse strategies, which
involve the “reconfiguration” of systems during the operational stage to prevent a
premature EoL [17]. Adaptive reuse, or reconfigured adaptability, is discussed in a
later subsection in the thematic analysis.
Historically, the “open building” concept [18] is considered the foundation of the
concept of adaptability in building design. The open building approach distinguishes
between two types of building systems: support system, which is the structural core,
and infill systems, which is the flexible interior subject to user changes. These two
systems should be integrated with minimal interface problems to support adaptations
by allowing functional independence for each.
The “shearing layers” concept introduced by Brand [19] provides a different
categorisation of systems and elements in buildings. The concept is widely recognised
in the literature as a key enabler to adaptability [8, 20]. It identifies six layers of
building systems and components, as illustrated in Fig. 13.1: site (lasts forever),
structure (30 to 300 years), skin (20 to 40 years), space plan (3 to 30 years), services (7
to 20 years), and stuff (approximately ten years). These layers represent categories of
building systems according to their timescales, with each layer including components
and functions of similar lifespans. By ensuring functional independence for each of
these layers and minimising their interactions, a building can adapt and respond to
change.
A distinct categorisation of building elements was introduced by Durmisevic and
Brouwer [21], who described a three-dimensional transformation: structural, spatial,
and material. This transformation is enabled by a certain level of interdependency
and exchangeability among components. They emphasised the role of demountable
connections as a critical factor in facilitating change between four functional levels in
buildings: building, system, component, and materials. Using a top-down approach,
a building can be separated into systems, which in turn can be split into components,
and further broken down into materials. The role of demountable connections is also

Fig. 13.1 Brand’s shearing

layers of change (1994)
13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 341

emphasised by Design for Disassembly (DfD), which is seen as a supportive strategy

for DfA. DfD will be discussed in a subsequent subsection of this chapter.
Multiple frameworks to assess adaptability based on different criteria have been
proposed by studies. Table 13.2 addresses these criteria and indicators grouped into
Brand’s layers, excluding the site and stuff layers. The site is context-related and more
relevant to the building as a whole, while stuff is usually the user’s responsibility and
does not act as part of the building’s rigid entity.
Some criteria can pertain to more than one layer and can influence different
systems. Therefore, it is important to avoid double-counting these criteria, especially
when evaluating the adaptability of layers or systems separately.
The DfA criteria are typically addressed during the concept design phase using a
checklist to ensure proper planning. In a more detailed design stage, buildings can
be evaluated using a semi-quantitative approach by weighting the criteria based on
experts’ opinions to prioritise the most impactful adaptability criteria. Alternatively,
pre-weighted criteria from existing frameworks like FLEX 4.0 [24], the AdaptSTAR
model [22], or the Level(s) framework Indicator 2.3 Design for Adaptability and
Renovation [23] can be used.
At the component level, the most important characteristics to enable DfA are stan-
dardisation, durability, and reversibility [25]. Standardisation can occur at different
levels: material, component, and interfaces and connections [8]. Standardising mate-
rials used in assemblies and components provides manageable conditions for more
efficient and effective recycling processes. Standardising components or assem-
blies creates specific conditions for connections and interfaces, allowing design
simplicity. Standardising interfaces or connections is regarded as more advanta-
geous for circularity and more efficient to achieve, as it allows interchangeability and
exempts components themselves from being standardised while providing efficiency
for material disassembly [8].
Component durability can be defined by the length of product use life and the
intensity of use, addressing multiple use cycles. Component durability is also related
to the conditions of the system to which it belongs, making it important to address
accessibility for repair and replacement. More details are explained in the following
subsection on Design for Durability.
Lastly, component reversibility, which allows for the safe recovery of compo-
nents or their composing materials with minimal damage, is defined by the types
of interfaces and connections, as well as accessibility for replacement and recovery.
However, reversibility criterion significantly overlaps with DfD concepts and will be
further addressed in DfD subsection.

13.1.3 Design for Durability

Design for durability involves considerations of expected lifespan, intensive use,

maintenance requirements, and resistance to wear and tear. These parameters are
crucial in industrial construction methodologies to ensure slower material loops by
342 A. Tleuken et al.

Table 13.2 Classification of existing adaptability criteria and indicators for building systems (non-
exhaustive list)
System Criteria Framework and
source
Structure Structural Integrity-structural design of the building to cater to AdaptSTAR [22]
future uses and loads Level(s) [23]
Positioning of columns/design complexity AdaptSTAR [22]
FLEX 4.0 [24]
Level(s) [23]
Greater ceiling heights for surface routes FLEX 4.0 [24]
Level(s) [23]
Structural durability AdaptSTAR [22]
Surplus of building space/floor space FLEX 4.0 [24]
Skin Façade windows to be opened FLEX 4.0 [24]
Day light facilities
Non-load bearing facades Level(s) [23]
Façade pattern
Space plan Flexibility/multifunctional building AdaptSTAR [22]
Access to building: horizontal routing, corridors, gallery FLEX 4.0 [24]
Disassembly/disconnecting, removable, relocatable units in
building
Disassembly/disconnecting, removable, relocatable interior
walls
Disassembly/disconnecting/detailed connection interior walls
Column grid spans/structural grid AdaptSTAR [22]
Compartmentalisation/internal wall system Level(s) [23]
Compartmentalisation/the potential for segregated home
working spaces
Compartmentalisation/the potential for ground floor conversion
to a contained unit
Possibility of suspended ceilings FLEX 4.0 [24]
Possibility of raised floors
Distinction between support and infill
Unit size and access Level(s) [23]
Services Ease of access to service ducts and building services AdaptSTAR [22]
Level(s) [23]
Ease of access to plant rooms Level(s) [23]
Longitudinal ducts for service touts
Higher ceilings for service routes
Services to sub-divisions
Ease of adaptation of the distribution networks and connectors
13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 343

allowing intensive and prolonged use of BC&S, thus postponing their EoL phase.
Durability should be prioritised for structural systems, which must be robust enough
to handle various load scenarios, facilitating future adaptations [20]. In this sense,
durability is essential for adaptability, which requires structures strong enough to
meet performance requirements for changes in use, function and size [8].
Durability is also important for other systems, such as façade and interior systems,
to ensure they are used to their fullest extent, thereby reducing material inputs.
This not only extends the service life of these systems but also minimises the need
for frequent replacements and repairs, leading to lower resource consumption and
waste generation. Additionally, durable façade and interior systems contribute to
the overall energy efficiency and performance of the building, further supporting
sustainability goals. By focusing on durability across all building systems, the long-
term environmental impact and operational costs can be significantly reduced.
At the component level, durability depends on the duration and intensity of use,
defined by the service life and the number of cycles the component or product under-
goes, respectively. According to the Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) by the
Ellen MacArthur Foundation and Granta Design [26], components that last longer
than their industry average equivalents contribute to greater circularity. This is related
to component quality and the conditions of materials constituting the component. A
component’s service life is determined by the shortest lifespan among its materials;
ideally, these materials should have similar lifespans. If one material deteriorates
while the rest remain functional, the component reaches its EoL. In this sense, DfD
becomes a key complementary strategy for durability, ensuring that components can
be dismantled and their materials recovered for reuse or recycling.
Furthermore, durability is relevant to the accessibility of components for replace-
ment and maintenance. Thus, durability is again associated with DfD and easy main-
tenance strategies, which provide criteria for the accessibility of elements and their
demountability without causing damage to them or adjacent elements.

13.1.4 Design for Disassembly (DfD)

DfA encompasses several circularity strategies and associated concepts, such as flex-
ibility, convertibility, and expandability [27], which have a significant impact at the
building system level. At the component level, DfA principles are closely associ-
ated with Design for Disassembly (DfD). However, DfD is also relevant at system
level, particularly impacting shorter-life systems like services, and often overlaps
with multiple DfA strategies.
The close association between DfA and DfD is reflected in the fact that multiple
aspects of these two concepts are often approached under the same umbrella. For
example, well-known methods for assessing adaptability often consider DfD-related
issues, as seen in studies by Geraedts [24] and Conejos et al. [22]. In some cases,
these concepts are treated in a unified context (e.g., [28]). Table 13.3 presents DfD
criteria considered in DfA models, namely AdaptSTAR by Conejos et al. [22], and
344 A. Tleuken et al.

Table 13.3 Indicators related to disassembly in FLEX 4.0 and AdaptSTAR

Tool/method Indicator/criterion for DfD
FLEX 4.0 [24] Dismountable facade
Modularity of facilities
Disconnection of facility components
Accessibility of facility components
Disconnectable, removable, relocatable building units
Disconnectable, removable, relocatable interior walls
Disconnecting/detailed connection interior walls; hor/vert
AdaptSTAR [22] Disassembly-options for reuse, recycling, demountable systems, and
modularity

FLEX 4.0 by Geraedts [24]. The criteria/indicators listed are those directly referring
to the strategies of disconnection and disassembly.
DfD is a structural component of DfA since it facilitates the adaptation of BC&S in
various contexts. For example, the potential for reconfiguration of building elements
(e.g., to meet differentiated requirements of performance) and their rearrangement
(e.g., due to changes in fit-out construction) heavily depends on the feasibility and
manageability of disassembling the building elements. This also applies to the poten-
tial for repair, upgrade or substitution of electro-mechanical equipment, and the
removal of components or systems at the end of their service life or when the building
needs to adapt to new conditions.
Although DfA and DfD are evidently related, still they are identified as distinct
strategies [27, 29]. DfD is defined in various ways in the literature, with an indicative
list of definitions presented in Table 13.4. According to ISO 20887:2020 ([7], p. 3),
DfD is defined as “An approach to the design of a product or constructed asset
that facilitates disassembly at the end of its useful life, in such a way that enables
components and parts to be reused, recycled, recovered for energy or, in some other
way, diverted from the waste stream,” with the term “disassembly” standing for “non-
destructive taking-apart of a construction work or constructed asset into constituent
materials or components.”
The concept of DfD is frequently mentioned or used interchangeably with “Design
for Deconstruction” in the literature [31, 33, 34], although there are important distinc-
tions between the two concepts. O’Grady et al. [35] point out that disassembly relates
specifically to the EoL stage of a building, involving the careful dismantling of
its elements, parts, or components for reuse. In contrast, deconstruction primarily
refers to the removal of a building’s structural elements with the potential for recon-
struction, such as relocating the building. The contribution of DfD processes in
the building sector towards the implementation of CE principles is well established.
DfD facilitates maintenance, repair, and substitution of BC&S, enhances adaptability,
prolongs the service life of units integrating constituents with shorter lifespans, limits
resource consumption via the reuse of materials or components, and reduces waste
and environmental impact.
13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 345

Table 13.4 Indicative (not exhaustive) list of definitions for DfD appearing in the literature
Definition Source
“The concept of designing buildings in such a way to facilitate future dismantling, [30],
thereby reducing the generation of waste by guaranteeing the possibility of all circular p. 257
building product levels to undergo re-life options (service, reconfiguration,
redistribution, remanufacture, recycling, cascaded use, and biosphere) in a hierarchical
way, achieved by the implementation of disassembly determining factors in building
design.”
“A method to design a building/product to enable the disassembly of building/ [31],
components and reuse/recycling of its parts. The components need to be assembled in p. 572
a sequence planning suitable for maintenance and reconfiguration of their variable
parts.”
“Design which facilitates construction to be reversible, and dismantled connections [32],
and elements to be reusable following the conclusion of the design life for potential p. 2
use in another building.”

The strong interconnection between DfD-related issues and circularity implemen-

tation is demonstrated by the inclusion of DfD in several CE-related schemes, assess-
ments and monitoring frameworks. DfD can be envisioned at various scales within a
single building, including the material, component, system, and the whole-building
levels. Ensuring the feasible and easy disassembly of building components involves
addressing issues related to the materials constituting the components. Similarly,
disassembly at the system level depends on the conditions of individual components,
and the disassembly of the entire building relates to the configuration and charac-
teristics of its composing systems. This multi-level nature of DfD is reflected in
approaches that consider human factors [GP1] [36]. Realistic solutions must address
not only the technical aspects of DfD (e.g., type of connections) but also human
factors, such as accessibility and ease of disassembly. Given the interdependencies
among these different scales, DfD should be based on a holistic view of the design
product, considering the EoL of an entity and its constituent parts. This approach
must account for the different service life durations and or expectancies of BC&S.
Brand’s layering system [19] is frequently applied to address the varying lifespans
of building parts [32, 34, 36]. Longevity and durability are critical considerations,
as exposure to various deterioration mechanisms affects components and systems
differently. It is worth noting that identifying the end of service life involves not only
technical but also economic and functional criteria [37].
Table 13.5 presents a list of indicators and criteria for DfD, as encountered in
various tools and bibliographic sources. The list is not exhaustive and does not repre-
sent all existing approaches in the literature. The emphasis is on criteria addressing
the BC&S levels, with reference to the building level when relevant.
In the first model discussed in Table 13.5 [38], the criteria are categorised into eight
major groups, as shown in the table’s final column. These criteria are further analysed
in Durmisevic’s study [38] in relation to the performance levels corresponding to the
benchmarks of the assessment score scale. Moreover, these factors served as the
foundation for the Building Circularity Indicator (BCI) [40]. This indicator has since
346 A. Tleuken et al.

Table 13.5 Non-exhaustive list of indicators/criteria in design for disassembly/disassembly

potential assessment models
Source Indicator/criterion for DfD Notes
[38] Functional separation Category: functional decomposition
Functional dependence
Structure of material levels Category: systematisation
Type of clustering
Base element specification Category: base elements
Use life cycle coordination Category: lifecycle coordination
Technical life cycle coordination
The lifecycle of components and
elements in relation to the size
Type of relational pattern Category: relational pattern
Assembly direction Category: assembly
Assembly sequences
Geometry of product edge Category: geometry
Standardisation of product edge
Type of connection Category: connections
Accessibility to fixings and
intermediary
Tolerance
Morphology of joints
[39] Connections types Used in the model for the derivation of the
Connection accessibility disassembly potential of the connection
Interdependency Used in the model for the derivation of the
Geometry of product edge disassembly potential of the composition

provided the basis for modified building circularity metrics, as documented in [6].
For example, van Vliet [39] expanded upon the potential for measuring disassembly.
The second approach outlined in Table 13.5 [39] evaluates the disassembly poten-
tial of each product or element based on two key factors: (i) the disassembly potential
of the connection (derived from the first two indicators/criteria listed in the table, as
indicated in the final column) and (ii) the disassembly potential of the composition
(derived from the last two indicators/criteria listed in the table, as indicated in the
final column). At the building scale, the overall disassembly potential is determined
by the respective potential of each “layer” comprising these elements.
13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 347

13.1.5 Modular Construction and Prefabrication

Using prefabricated and modular BC&S is a strategic approach to promoting circu-

larity in buildings. These components, produced in a factory setting, can be easily
assembled and disassembled, facilitating the recovery of materials for reuse and
recycling. Modular construction is recognised as one of the Modern Methods of
Construction (MMC). The definition of MMC varies globally, reflecting regional
preferences and terminologies. In Asia, terms such as “off-site manufacturing,” “pre-
fabrication,” and “industrialised building systems” are commonly used. In contrast,
the United Kingdom refers to “MMC” as next-generation construction methods.
In the United States and Australia, the terms “off-site construction methods” and
“modular construction” are predominantly used.
Modular construction (MC) can be classified into two distinct categories: on-site
MC and off-site MC. On-site MC combines conventional or sustainable materials
with advanced production techniques like digital building modelling (e.g., Digital
Twin (DT) and additive manufacturing.) This involves the direct production and
assembly of components and systems at the construction site. In contrast, off-site
MC utilises preassembled panels or modular units fabricated within a controlled
industrial environment. These components are then transported to the construction
site for assembly [36, 41, 42]. Both on-site and off-site MC enhance construction
efficiency by streamlining the production and assembly processes.
MMC, synonymous with MC, involves the use of factory-produced BC&S in
construction [43]. Factory-based manufacturing processes improve construction effi-
ciency during both the manufacturing phase and the subsequent on-site integration
phase. MMC encompasses a wide range of technologies, including prefabrication,
additive manufacturing, Building Information Modelling (BIM), Digital Twin (DT),
and Augmented Reality. These technologies, often leveraging innovative sustain-
able construction materials, streamline the preparation and execution of construc-
tion projects. They enhance production volumes, improve quality, and decrease
procurement time, significantly benefiting the construction industry [44].
Moreover, MMC implements circular business models (CBMs) that encourage
sharing, leasing, and allocating BC&S to generate remuneration from underutilised
resources. This approach also increases the percentage of materials circularity
(PMC) by reducing carbon emissions and construction waste, and conserving natural
resources. One of the principles followed by MMC is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
[45]. LCA helps identify the most environmentally friendly materials for construc-
tion by comparing various structural designs on their environmental performance
and circularity potentials. LCA is key for addressing the Global Warming Potential
(GWP), Cumulative Energy Demand (CED), and reduction of material waste.
One of the most popular methodologies of LCA is the “Cradle to Grave” method,
which is illustrated in Fig. 13.2. This methodology is commonly implemented in
348 A. Tleuken et al.

Fig. 13.2 Cradle to grave–LCA model (adapted from [46], OSC stands for off-site construction)

construction and is integral to MMC. By adhering to the cradle-to-grave method-

ology of LCA, stakeholders involved in construction can make well-informed deci-
sions aimed at minimising the environmental impact of their projects and fostering
sustainability.
In addition, BIM can play a significant role in circular construction by facilitating
Building Circularity Assessment (BCA) in the early design stages of a building.
Through BCA, parameters and indicators such as material flows, waste generation,
and resource efficiency can be identified, aiding in the implementation of circularity
in the proposed building. This integration of BIM and BCA ensures that sustainability
is embedded from the outset, promoting a holistic approach to circular construction.

13.1.6 Adaptive Reuse

Recent studies emphasise the significant environmental benefits of adaptive reuse of

existing buildings [47, 48]. Although these benefits are not yet widely adopted in
real-world scenarios, research on specific buildings has shown substantial reductions
in energy consumption, carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
as well as decreased use of fossil fuels, fresh water, and materials [49].
Adaptive reuse retains the building but alters its usage to meet new needs, thereby
avoiding demolition. Historic buildings can be repurposed while preserving their
original features, such as facades, decorative elements, or structural systems. Cultural
building heritage in cities is particularly noteworthy due to its potential underuse and
desertion, despite its valuable historical and cultural significance. These buildings
often serve as the keystones of unique urban neighbourhoods worldwide. Adaptive
reuse allows for the preservation of historically or culturally significant buildings,
maintaining their architectural integrity, contributing to the distinctive townscape
and cultural heritage of a place. Buildings may be significant for their design and
construction quality or for the ambience they bring to a space. When forming a design
team, it is essential to consider that well-preserved buildings can be protected and
used in the future.
Adaptive reuse reduces the environmental impact associated with new construc-
tion, such as the consumption of raw materials, energy, and waste generation. By
13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 349

reusing existing structures, the embodied energy and resources invested in their
construction are conserved, resulting in lower carbon emissions and reduced landfill
waste. The interior layout and spatial configuration are modified to suit the new func-
tion while respecting existing structural constraints and features. With this regards,
open plan schemas can be beneficial in fulfilling future needs.
However, a thorough structural analysis is necessary to assess the building’s condi-
tion and evaluate its suitability for the proposed new use. Structural retrofitting may
be required to reinforce or upgrade the building’s structural system, ensuring compli-
ance with current safety standards and building codes. The building’s infrastructure
and service systems, such as electrical, plumbing, and HVAC may also need to
be upgraded or retrofitted to meet the requirements of the new use and improve
energy efficiency. In this context, encouraging stakeholder engagement is essential to
support adaptive reuse projects, which can be achieved through financial incentives,
tax credits, or grants.
When considering functional modifications, adaptive reuse encompasses diverse
possibilities, spanning residential to non-residential applications. Converting proper-
ties into non-residential public-use facilities, such as museums, libraries, and similar
entities, has been acknowledged as a sustainable approach to urban redevelopment,
particularly within a cultural setting. This approach not only prolongs the lifespan
of the building, reduces waste, and promotes energy reuse but also offers signifi-
cant economic and sociocultural benefits to the community. These benefits include
safeguarding the essence and historical significance of specific periods, preserving
the city’s identity, rich heritage, and cultural aspects, and upholding community
values for both current and future generations, whether they are permanent residents
or temporary visitors [50]. Table 13.6 summarises considerations and benefits of
implementing adaptive reuse strategies, supporting the principles of CE in BC&S.
In adaptive reuse cases, it is crucial to analyse the existing building’s original
design and conditions to appraise the most suitable strategies for adaptation based
on emerging requirements and circumstances. Multiple frameworks have been devel-
oped to assess buildings’ suitability for adaptation and support stakeholder decision-
making based on multiple dimensions of their conditions and factors influencing
their use, including functional, cultural, environmental, economic, social, political
and regulatory factors. Examples of such assessment models include the adaptive
reuse potential (ARP) model [51], IconCUR [52], and the preliminary assessment
adaptation model (PAAM) [53].

13.1.7 Easy Maintenance (Maintainability)

Easy maintenance refers to systems or products that require minimal care or upkeep
to maintain proper functionality over long periods. In the context of the CE, easy
maintenance strategies involve designing products for longevity, using components
and materials that can be reused, and ensuring they can be easily disassembled for
repair, refurbishment, or recycling [54].
350 A. Tleuken et al.

Table 13.6 Key benefits and considerations of adaptive reuse in buildings

Environmental benefits Reducing overall lifecycle energy consumption
Conserving embodied energy and resources
Lowering carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions
Decreasing fossil fuel consumption
Reducing freshwater consumption
Optimising materials use
Minimising landfill waste
Historic and cultural significance Maintaining architectural integrity
Contributing to the cultural heritage of a place
Preserving unique historical and cultural characteristics
Highlighting urban cultural heritage buildings
Structural safety assessment Retrofitting structure to meet safety standards and
building codes
Ensuring compliance with current safety standards
Infrastructure and system upgrades Upgrading electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning (HVAC) systems
Enhancing energy efficiency
Financial incentives Supporting financial incentives
Providing tax credits
Facilitating grants

Implementing easy maintenance strategies enables businesses and individuals to

extend the lifespan and performance of physical assets, prevent breakdowns, reduce
downtime, and avoid costly repairs or replacements [55, 56]. Additionally, these
strategies optimise energy efficiency and resource consumption of their equipment,
which reduces their environmental footprint and operational expenses. These bene-
fits of easy maintenance make it a compelling strategy for incorporating CE into
buildings, their systems and components. Table 13.7 outlines various concepts and
strategies that call for easy maintenance or maintainability for improved closing and
slowing material loops.
To effectively implement easy maintenance strategies in the CE, businesses and
individuals can take several actionable steps depending on each case conditions
[57]. Table 13.7 outlines some of the actions to facilitate the implementation of these
strategies.
Designing buildings with easy maintenance in mind, such as incorporating
modular components and accessible infrastructure, can simplify repairs and
upgrades, thereby extending the lifespan of the building and its components. More-
over, adopting preventive and predictive maintenance approaches allows building
owners and facility managers to proactively identify and address issues before they
escalate into major problems. Regular maintenance inspections and servicing ensure
13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 351

Table 13.7 Actions for implementing easy maintenance strategies (adapted from [57–59])
Maintenance programme Regularly maintaining products to extend their lifespan and
reduce the need for replacement
Accessibility Ensuring all components are easily accessible for inspection,
maintenance, and repair
Designing products for durability Creating products that are made to last, with component
parts or materials that can be reused
Ease of disassembly Designing products that can be easily disassembled for
repair, refurbishment, or recycling
Choosing reusable products Selecting products that can be reused for their original
purpose without significant alteration
Repairing products Fixing products when they break down instead of replacing
them
Recycling products Separating products into their component parts and recycling
them
Composting organic waste Breaking down organic waste into nutrient-rich soil that can
be used to grow new plants
Condition-based maintenance Monitoring the condition of equipment in real-time to
prevent breakdowns and optimise performance
Predictive maintenance Using data and analytics to predict when equipment will
need maintenance, allowing for proactive interventions
Remote monitoring Using sensors and other technology to monitor equipment
remotely, allowing for early detection of issues and proactive
maintenance

optimal performance and reduce the likelihood of premature replacements, thereby

conserving resources and minimising waste [59].
Additionally, embracing the CE in building maintenance can contribute to a
more sustainable materials and waste management system. Proper waste segregation,
recycling programmes, and the promotion of repair and refurbishment services can
divert materials from landfills and reduce the demand for virgin resources. Further-
more, incorporating energy-efficient technologies and renewable energy systems into
building maintenance practices can significantly reduce the environmental footprint
of buildings.

13.1.8 Component Recovery for Reuse and Recycling

DfA and DfD are important enablers of a CE in BC&S. Although these strategies are
implemented at the design stage, the full realisation of their value happens at the EoL
stage when components are recovered. Component recovery, enabled by DfA and
DfD, is essential for closing the loop by creating potential for reuse, refurbishment,
remanufacturing and recycling. However, the real value is leveraged when established
352 A. Tleuken et al.

methods for these reuse and recovery pathways are in place. This relies on regional
and national factors, including prevailing techniques and materials, market condi-
tions, stakeholder embracing, skilled labour, supporting regulations, and existing
standards indicating recycling and reuse rates.
The selection of materials from the planning phase through the design and procure-
ment phases significantly influences their reusability and recyclability at the EoL
stage. Here are key strategies to enhance component recovery for reuse and recycling:
1. Material Selection: Choose materials that are durable, recyclable, and reusable
from the outset. This ensures that at the EoL stage, materials can be efficiently
recovered and repurposed.
2. Establishing Recovery Pathways: Develop clear and efficient methods for
recovering building components at the EoL stage. This includes setting up
systems for sorting, transporting, and processing materials.
3. Lifecycle Management: Implement Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to evaluate
the environmental impact of building materials throughout their lifecycle. This
helps identify opportunities for reuse and recycling, ensuring that materials are
utilised to their fullest potential [60, 61].
4. Collaborative Networks: Foster collaboration among stakeholders, including
architects, engineers, contractors, and waste management companies. This
collaboration can lead to innovative approaches and technologies that improve
recovery processes and material reuse.
5. Regulatory Support: Advocate for policies and regulations that support the
recovery and reuse of building components. This includes incentives for using
recycled materials and penalties for improper disposal.
6. Market Conditions: Understand and adapt to market conditions that affect the
viability of reused and recycled materials. This includes creating demand for
such materials and ensuring their competitiveness in the market.
7. Stakeholder Engagement: Engage all stakeholders in the value chain to embrace
CE practices. This includes training and educating skilled labour to handle
recovery processes effectively.

13.1.9 Product Responsibility

Circularity practices for buildings aim to reduce environmental impact and resource
consumption through strategies that consider the entire lifecycle of a building.
Product responsibility plays a key role in addressing the environmental and social
challenges associated with the building lifecycle, focusing on the ethical and practical
aspects of the materials, components and products used in construction.
Responsible sourcing of materials is crucial, emphasising sustainability from
the design phase onward. Factors such as recyclability and reusability should be
integrated into Product Service Systems (PSS) to minimise environmental pollu-
tion. PSS is an innovative business model that encompasses the design, installation,
13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 353

Table 13.8 Key elements of product responsibility to enhance CE in buildings

Responsible Ensuring that materials are sustainably sourced, recyclable, renewable, and
sourcing have a low carbon footprint
Lifecycle Evaluating the environmental impacts of materials and components from
assessment production to disposal, supporting informed decisions for long-term
sustainability
Recyclability and Designing components for easy disassembly, reuse, or recycling at the end
reusability of their service life, reducing waste and promoting resource efficiency
Innovative Adopting PSS to focus on providing sustainable services covering design,
business models installation, maintenance, and deconstruction
Stakeholder Engaging suppliers, contractors, and clients to ensure sustainable practices
collaboration throughout the construction process
Regulatory Adhering to environmental regulations and standards that promote
compliance sustainable construction practices and the use of eco-friendly materials

maintenance, and deconstruction of building materials and components, providing

sustainable and efficient solutions throughout the building’s lifecycle.
An exemplary application of PSS is seen in the Moringa Company of Germany,
whose project in Hamburg HafenCity aims to construct a sustainable building using
numerous recycled materials without any pollutants [42]. Table 13.8 outlines key
elements of product responsibility for circularity in buildings.

13.1.10 Sharing and Exchange Opportunities

One of the primary objectives of implementing circularity in the construction sector

is to achieve maximum efficiency and optimise common processes by moving away
from the traditional produce-use-dispose engineering model. The closed-loop system
of the CE can be enhanced by integrating and developing a culture of Sharing and
Exchange (S&E), as proposed by the ReSOLVE framework [62], among construc-
tion industry stakeholders. By sharing common machinery, equipment, databases,
software, and by-products from various processes, or by exchanging outdated tech-
nologies with innovative ones, the construction sector can align with CE principles
[63].
However, several challenges are associated with implementing S&E opportu-
nities in the building sector. An important example is the disjointed supply chain
and inefficient information exchange between big players [64]. The resolution lies
in adopting new technologies such as Big Data Analysis (BDA), Blockchain tech-
nology (BTC), and Digital Platforms, which allow designers to investigate reusable
materials and collaborate more effectively [64]. While the implementation of these
technologies can be costly, posing a barrier for smaller companies, leading firms like
Arup are setting as example by advancing the construction industry towards these
new methods, optimised by statements like “from bin to BIM” [65].
354 A. Tleuken et al.

Sharing assets like office spaces and public facilities, also known as the collabora-
tive economy or pooling of goods, is gaining popularity in the construction industry.
A noteworthy example is the South Australian Government’s promotion of collabora-
tive use, management, and maintenance of facilities with similar inputs and outputs,
aiming to extract more value while reducing resource flow and consumption [64].
Enhancing the exchange of equipment and materials is crucial for the construc-
tion sector. Guidance for transitioning from outdated approaches to contemporary
practices can be drawn from the Industrial Symbiosis model, where large companies
share services commonly used by everyone [66]. Similarly, construction companies
can benefit from sharing machinery or equipment instead of purchasing. Equip-
ment sharing between contractors can be advantageous in terms of finances, time,
and convenience, while purchasing or renting equipment in emergencies or shortage
can delay work due to additional bureaucracy, transportation, and installation [67,
68]. Practical centralised and decentralised resource-sharing and exchange models,
considering allocation and conflict-resolution models, demonstrate the construction
sector’s progress in implementing CE concepts [68]. Table 13.9 highlights various
indicators and criteria for evaluating the implementation of CE in this context.

Table 13.9 Indicators and criteria for evaluating the implementation of the circular economy in
sharing and exchange opportunities in building components and services
Efficiency and Moving away from the traditional “produce-use-dispose” model towards
optimisation circularity
Sharing and Sharing common resources such as machinery, equipment, databases,
exchange culture software, and by-products, as well as exchanging outdated technologies
with innovative ones
Resolution of Adoption of technologies like big data analysis (BDA), Blockchain
challenges technology (BTC), and digital platforms to resolve inefficiencies and
improve collaboration
Collaborative The trend of sharing assets like office spaces and public facilities in the
economy construction industry, also known as a collaborative economy or pooling of
goods
Resource Extracting more value while reducing resource flow and consumption, a
efficiency key criterion for CE implementation
Equipment and Shifting from traditional purchasing or renting approaches to more
material exchange collaborative sharing models
Industrial Following the Industrial symbiosis model, where large companies share
symbiosis services, as a direction for transitioning from outdated to contemporary
practices in the construction sector
13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 355

13.2 Circular Economy for Building Components

and Systems: R-approaches and ReSOLVE
Framework

The principles of the CE are extensively discussed in the literature, evolving from
the basic 3R (reduce, reuse, recycle) framework to the more comprehensive 9R
framework (refuse, rethink, reduce, reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, repur-
pose, recycle, recover) [69, 70]. The core idea behind R-approaches is to establish a
waste hierarchy that prioritises the most effective strategies for minimising resource
consumption and waste production, with EoL recycling as the last circular resort.
The 3R principles can be applied to define, apprise and prioritise indicators of
circularity for BC&S. The “Reduce” approach involves optimising the number of
connections, structural elements, layers, facades components and finishing materials,
as well as selecting materials that are lightweight yet durable and maintainable. The
“Reuse” approach focuses on preserving the quality of building components from
existing buildings for use in new constructions, employing circular practices such
as dry methods of structural connections. The “Recycle” approach, as a last resort,
involves extracting valuable resources from waste for further use. Recycling can
be further categorised into three levels, ranked from most to least preferable: upcy-
cling (e.g. creating new wooden furniture from old wooden boards), recycling (e.g.
crushing demolished concrete for use as aggregate in new concrete), and downcycling
(e.g., using concrete beams for aggregates for road pavement) [71, 72].
The ReSOLVE framework outlines key actions for transitioning from linear
to circular business models: Regenerate, Share, Optimise, Loop, Virtualise, and
Exchange [63]. Each of these actions can relate to the circularity of BC&S, guiding
the decision-making process. “Regenerate” suggests selecting materials that can be
replenished naturally. “Share” advocates for business models that encourage collab-
orative use of materials, components, equipment, and technology, thus minimising
the need for new resources. “Optimise” involves reducing the number of building
components and choosing durable elements that require less maintenance. “Loop”
aims to minimise waste through reuse and recycling, applying to both the recovery
of construction and demolition waste (C&DW) at the EoL stage and the design
stage, which should consider disassembly and adaptability techniques to facili-
tate recycling/upcycling practices without extensive sorting. “Virtualise” involves
creating virtual databases to collect data on building materials and components,
content, history, and labelling, improving reuse opportunities and reducing waste
generation. “Exchange” promotes the development of reclaimed materials markets,
connecting value chain stakeholders through providing platforms for sharing, selling
or purchasing secondary construction components.
While the R-approaches and the ReSOLVE framework provide valuable guide-
lines for CE business models, other supporting factors are essential, including a robust
regulatory framework, financial incentives, stakeholder interest, and involvement.
356 A. Tleuken et al.

13.3 Classification of Circularity Criteria and Indicators

for Building Components and Systems (BC&S)

In general, the circularity criteria for BC&S can be grouped into the following cate-
gories: characteristics of a building component or system, construction and demoli-
tion waste (C&DW) management, connections conditions, regulations and documen-
tation and stakeholder involvement. These categories were derived from a compre-
hensive thematic analysis, which also highlighted additional aspects such as mate-
rial reuse potential, lifecycle assessment, and economic feasibility. Including these
aspects provides a more holistic approach to evaluating circularity in building compo-
nents and systems. These criteria categories are connected to multiple indicators of
the EU monitoring framework of CE by Eurostat [73]. This framework encompasses
five distinct thematic areas (TA): production and consumption (TA1), waste handling
(TA2), secondary raw materials (TA3), competitiveness and innovation (TA4), and
global sustainability and resilience (TA5). Table 13.10 provides information on CE
criteria and indicators for BC&S circularity criteria categories and corresponding
Eurostat indicators.

13.3.1 The Characteristics of Building Components

and Systems

These include the following indicators: maintainability (meaning they can continue
to be kept in use through maintenance) and durability [69]. It is also important to
consider the recyclability or reusability of the recycled materials to ensure they can
continue contributing to the CE beyond their current application. Talking about the
interaction with other objects in the structure, systems, and components should be
reversible, simple, and fast for connection [74]. From Eurostat circular criteria, the
following indicators can be related to BC&S:
• Circular Material Use Rate (can be used to evaluate the circularity level of BC&S
materials);
• Contribution of Recycled Materials to Raw Materials Demand
• End-of-Life Recycling Input Rates (EOL-RIR) (this indicator can be used to
evaluate the number of recycled materials used in BC&S)
• Trade in Recyclable Raw Materials (this indicator can be used to assess reuse of
materials used for BC&S)
• Material Footprint (this indicator can be related to the total amount of building
materials and structural elements used during construction and maintenance life
stages of a structure)
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Production Activities (this indicator relates
to the production of BC&S causing GHG emissions, which requires optimised
production of BC&S, as well as reuse, sharing, and recycling)
13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 357

Table 13.10 A summary of circularity criteria for buildings at component and system levels
Circularity criteria for BC&S Related indicators from
Category Criteria Source eurostat monitoring framework

Characteristics (TA1, Maintainability of the [69] Circular material use rate (cei_
TA3, TA4) components srm030)
Durability of the Contribution of recycled
components materials to raw materials
Reuse, recycling, and [74] demand-end-of-liferecycling
upcycling potential input rates (EOL-RIR) (cei_
interface: reversibility, srm010)
simplicity, speed Trade in recyclable raw
materials (cei_srm020)
Material footprint (cei_pc020)
Greenhouse gas emissions
from production activities
(cei_gsr011)
Material import dependency
(cei_gsr030)
EU self-sufficiency for raw
materials (cei_gsr020)
Construction and Total amount of [75] Waste generation per capita
demolition waste C&DW produced (cei_pc034)
(C&DW) Reuse rate Generation of waste excluding
management (TA2, Recovery rate major mineral wastes per GDP
TA3) Recycling rate unit (cei_pc032)
Separate collection rate Generation of packaging waste
Reused products from per capita (cei_pc040)
C&DW Generation of plastic
packaging waste per capita
(cei_pc050)
Recycling rate of all waste
excluding major mineral waste
(cei_wm010)
Recycling rate of packaging
waste by type of packaging
(cei_wm020)
Recycling rate of waste of
electrical and electronic
equipment (WEEE) separately
collected (cei_wm060)
Connections Reversible connections [20, 76–78] Resource productivity (cei_
conditions (TA1, Standardised [79] pc030)
TA2, TA4) connections and
fasteners
Modular construction [8, 75, 80]
Standardised labelling [81]
Minimise structural [82]
elements used
(continued)
358 A. Tleuken et al.

Table 13.10 (continued)

Circularity criteria for BC&S Related indicators from
Category Criteria Source eurostat monitoring framework

Regulations and Guides for the use of [75, 83] Private investment and gross
documentation (TA5) building materials added value related to circular
efficiently economy sectors (cei_cie012)
Protocols for Patents related to recycling and
incentivisation of CE secondary raw materials (cei_
practices use cie020)
Procurement that
covers circular
products
Voluntary agreements
Sequence of
disassembly,
recommended tools,
and safety guides
Stakeholder Initiatives on reuse [75] Persons employed in circular
involvement Construction economy sectors (cei_cie011)
companies that
prioritise the use of
circular methods and
components
Stakeholders’
engagement in the
design process
Training

• Material Import Dependency & EU Self-Sufficiency for Raw Materials (higher

import dependency of BC&S from other countries rather than use of local
resources, can lead to higher carbon footprint, this is why local materials should
be preferred for circularity).

13.3.2 Construction and Demolition Waste (C&DW)

Management

Various indicators exist for evaluating the construction and demolition waste
(C&DW) criterion, including reuse, recycling and recovery rates, the separate treat-
ment of C&DW, and the extent and frequency of the reuse of BC&S. These indicators
can be further detailed, as seen in Portugal’s action plan for the CE, which measures
the execution rate of the requirement to use a minimum of 5% recycled materials in
construction [75].
Prioritising the use of recycled or reused materials over raw materials in construc-
tion and renovation processes is beneficial for resource conservation. However, the
quality and condition of the recycled or materials to be reused materials are crucial
13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 359

in this case; therefore, it is essential to assess their quality and condition to ensure
they meet the desired standards for structural integrity, appearance, and performance
and health.
According to Eurostat’s circularity criteria, such indicators can be related to BC&S
for C&DW:
• Waste Generation per Capita: Lower waste generation per capita during the life-
cycle of BC&S indicates improved circularity, as it implies less material being
wasted.
• Generation of Waste Excluding Major Mineral Wastes per GDP Unit: This
measures how efficiently components and systems are used to minimise waste.
• Generation of Packaging Waste per Capita and generation of Plastic Packaging
Waste per Capita: These indicators relate to the packaging materials used for
delivering BC&S, with environmentally sound packaging preferred for circularity.
• Recycling Rate of All Waste Excluding Major Mineral Waste: This measures how
efficiently waste composed of components and systems is recycled for further
applications.
• Recycling Rate of Packaging Waste by Type of Packaging: This indicator relates
to the recycling of packaging materials used for delivering BC&S.
• Recycling Rate of Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Sepa-
rately Collected: This indicator relates to circularity practices in the electrical
systems of buildings.

13.3.3 Connections Conditions

In the implementation of a CE, the connections between the BC&S should be

designed as demountable units that can be easily separated and removed without
causing damage to attached elements and parts [78]. This involves using reversible
connections, such as bolts or screws, click connections, velcro connections, and
magnetic connections, instead of permanent adhesives, welds, or complex fixtures
[76, 77]. These connections facilitate the reuse of recovered elements and components
[84], and help achieve functional independence [20].
Standardisation of connections is also an important enabler for circularity, as
standardised connections and fasteners enable quick and simple assembly and disas-
sembly. Additionally, standardised connections compensate the need for standardised
components and elements, simplifying the process and further supporting circularity
[79].
The utilisation of modular construction techniques enhances circularity process
by enabling easy assembly and disassembly of building components [75, 80]. Modu-
larity is a significant enabler for adaptability, allowing for design simplicity and
facilitating spatial system modification and transformability [8].
Implementing standardised labelling systems with clear identification tags or
markings on BC&S can greatly aid in their identification, sorting, and tracking during
360 A. Tleuken et al.

disassembly [81]. This ensures that components are used to their fullest extent and
in the best way, serving circularity.
Minimising the number and variation of structural elements used can reduce the
number of connections required [82]. The Resource Productivity criterion from
the Eurostat monitoring framework for CE relates to the efficient use of struc-
tural elements, minimising possible waste and allowing further disassembly through
circular construction methods, such as dry connections and modular structures.

13.3.4 Regulation and Documentation

The development of comprehensive regulations and documentation to guide CE

implementation incentivises the stakeholders to use circular methods and engage in
circular procurement. Circular procurement involves using products that comply with
CE requirements, providing clear guidance to the whole construction value chain,
from clients to maintenance staff and disassembly teams [75, 83].
Developing appropriate information on the disassembly sequence, recommended
tools, and precautions is essential for safe and efficient disassembly. Eurostat provides
relevant criteria such as Private Investment and Gross Added Value Related to
Circular Economy Sectors. This indicator is connected to investments in circular
construction practices, which can enhance circularity in BC&S. and Patents Related
to Recycling and Secondary Raw Materials. Additionally, application of indicator
Patents Related to Recycling and Secondary Raw Materials related to innovative
BC&S construction methods can improve circularity in the construction industry.

13.3.5 Stakeholder Involvement

Stakeholders play a vital role in developing circularity-related initiatives and priori-

tising the use of circular methods and components [75]. Engaging suppliers and
manufacturers in the design process is crucial for exploring and appraising circu-
larity solutions, particularly in system/component selection, component design, and
disassembly strategies. Encouraging collaboration among value chain stakeholders
can help identify opportunities to enhance the disassembly potential of products and
systems.
The Eurostat criterion, Persons Employed in Circular Economy Sectors (cei_
cie011), is relevant to this circularity criteria category. This indicator can relate to
the workforce involved in sustainable and circular construction practices.
13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 361

13.4 Case Studies on Best Practices for Circularity

at Component and System Levels

13.4.1 Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM) for Steel

Production

The focus on the CE in metal construction production has heightened industrial

interest in novel steel production technologies, particularly Wire Arc Additive Manu-
facturing (WAAM). WAAM offers significant potential to reduce the environmental
impact of manufactured products compared to traditional subtractive approaches
[85]. The primary advantages of WAAM include reduced material waste, the flex-
ibility in designing and fabricating complex geometries, and the ability to repair
damaged components. However, relatively few studies have specifically examined
the environmental impact of WAAM due to the novelty of this manufacturing process.
Shah et al. [86] conducted a comparative cradle-to-gate Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA) to evaluate the environmental impact of a WAAM steel beam compared to a
conventionally manufactured hot-rolled steel I-beam. The study considered carbon
steel and stainless-steel materials, using a 2-m span steel I-beam as a benchmark.
The WAAM steel beams, one carbon steel and one stainless steel, were designed
using topology optimisation algorithms. The environmental impact was evaluated
using the ReCiPe 2016 method, considering eighteen midpoint impact categories.
The results showed that WAAM beams resulted in a 7% and 24% reduction in
climate impact compared to I-beams for carbon steel and stainless steel, respec-
tively. The main benefit of the WAAM beams was the significant reduction in overall
mass due to topology optimisation. For WAAM beams, the printing process was the
primary contributor to their climate impact, accounting for up to 50% of the produc-
tion impact when using carbon steel and 32% when using stainless steel. Factors
such as deposition rate, shielding gas, and electricity usage significantly influenced
the final environmental impact. The study also demonstrated that transitioning to a
100% renewable energy mix in WAAM production could result in a climate change
impact reduction of over 30%.

13.4.2 Renovation of Old Existing Buildings Using Aerogel

Insulation

Adopting CE principles in existing buildings can reduce materials used in renovation

projects, improve their energy performance and sustainability, and lower harmful
emissions embodied in building materials [87].
Key indicators for evaluating building energy performance in line with CE princi-
ples include transmission losses, heating and electricity energy consumption, GHG
emissions, thermal comfort, and maintenance costs [88, 89]. While new buildings
362 A. Tleuken et al.

can be designed for high efficiency and CE, many existing buildings fail to meet CE
criteria. The challenge lies in applying CE strategies to these buildings to enhance
sustainability, energy efficiency, and life cycle, thereby reducing CO2 emissions,
energy consumption and costs.
Older buildings, particularly those from the Modernist era, were often constructed
with inadequate thermal insulation materials. Modernist architecture, built during
the twentieth century with revolutionary new materials, abandoned traditional local
materials that had proven sustainable in the past. This shift has led to significant
problems in terms of energy efficiency, thermal comfort, and sustainability [90]. The
20th-century building stock, still in use today, continues to face issues related to high
energy consumption, pollution, and poor thermal comfort. These buildings need to
be renovated to meet the energy efficiency and CE criteria.
Proper renovation using sustainable materials with low embodied energy can
achieve both energy efficiency and circularity. However, preserving the original archi-
tectural appearance of these buildings during renovation presents an additional chal-
lenge. Selecting the right materials and applying them correctly during the renovation
process is crucial for improving energy efficiency and circularity while maintaining
the buildings’ authentic appearance.
Aerogel-based building products are currently considered to be promising insu-
lation materials mostly due to their high thermal properties and limited thickness.
They have quite low embodied energy, which is significantly lower than that of tradi-
tional insulation products [91]. Aerogel thermal plaster, with a thermal conductivity
of 0.028 W/m·K, e provides excellent insulation even in small thicknesses due to its
nano-porous structure [92]. Aerogel can be mixed to develop green building mate-
rials with unique characteristics, making it highly suitable for application in green
and sustainable buildings [93].
For historical buildings, aerogel plaster has a mild impact on authenticity, provided
it is compatible with the original materials’ chemical composition and can be easily
removed without damage, requiring no additional fastening that could harm the
original material [94]. Additionally, aerogel insulation is known for its breathability,
which is crucial for historic buildings as it helps to prevent interstitial condensation.
This breathability ensures that moisture can escape from the walls, thereby main-
taining the building’s structural integrity and longevity [95]. It offers great flexibility
for application on uneven surfaces and complex architectural details [96]. Applying
this material not only improves energy efficiency and sustainability but also protects
buildings from climate conditions and extends their lifespan. Due to its composition
and method of application, aerogel plasters can perfectly mimic different textures,
making it difficult to distinguish from the original while preserving the underlying
material Silica aerogels have numerous applications and can be modified to meet
various specific purposes required by the CE [97].
To evaluate the energy performance of buildings before and after applying aerogel
thermal plaster on the façade, a software analysis was conducted on a selected case
study building. This involved dynamic energy simulations of both the building’s
existing condition (actual scenario) and the renovated scenario using state-of-the-art
13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 363

energy analysis software. The key indicators assessed included energy consumption,
emissions, transmission losses, costs, and thermal comfort.
The analysis showed significant improvements in the building’s energy perfor-
mance in the renovated scenario with aerogel thermal plaster. The results indicated
a 65% reduction in heating energy consumption, which implies substantial finan-
cial savings for maintaining thermal comfort. This improvement in heating energy
consumption, a key indicator of energy efficiency, led lower maintenance costs and
enhanced thermal comfort.
Despite the high heating energy consumption, the building also consumed elec-
tricity for heating. In the coldest months, the heating system did not adequately
maintain thermal comfort, necessitating additional electrical heating. In addition,
the simulations revealed high energy consumption for cooling during the summer,
underscoring the building’s initial poor energy efficiency. However, in the renovated
scenario, the average monthly total electricity consumption was reduced by 40%.
Electricity consumption is a critical indicator for evaluating improvements in
energy efficiency, thermal comfort, and financial costs. The reduction in electricity
usage in the renovated scenario further supports the effectiveness of aerogel thermal
plaster. Comparisons of the building’s monthly CO2 emissions between the actual and
renovated scenario were conducted. The results showed a 50% reduction in monthly
CO2 emissions in the renovated scenario. Reducing emissions is a key indicator not
only for evaluating energy improvements but also for CE implementation through
proper building renovation.
A financial analysis of the building’s maintenance costs revealed that annual costs
for heating and cooling were reduced by 49% in the renovated scenario. The highest
costs were observed during the winter months, while the lowest were during periods
when the outside temperature was closest to the indoor temperature. This highlights
the significant role of thermal insulation in reducing maintenance costs.
The implementation of CE in culturally valuable old buildings, particularly
Modernist buildings, remains a global challenge. The analyses carried out for the
renovation of these buildings using aerogel plaster, which aligns with CE measures,
energy efficiency, sustainability, and, above all, with the conservation of their
authentic appearance, have become state-of-the-art methods for evaluating the key
indicators affecting CE practices.

13.4.3 Green Roofs Using Recycled Substrates: A Pilot

Experience at the University of Córdoba, Spain

Green roofs offer a passive thermal regulation technique by acting as natural insula-
tors that prevent solar radiation from directly affecting the underlying roof. Additional
benefits and ecosystem services delivered by green roofs include thermal and acoustic
isolations, rainwater collection and retention (which moderates flooding events and
improves runoff water quality), reduction of air pollution, aesthetic enhancement,
364 A. Tleuken et al.

protection of the roof’s waterproofing layer, increased biodiversity, and CO2 capture
[98]. Quantifying the energy-saving potential of green roofs is essential for their
effective incorporation into building construction protocols as nature-based solutions
in urban environments.
The University of Córdoba (UCO) in Spain implemented a green roof case
study to evaluate its energy performance. This involved characterising external
meteorological variables, monitoring the humidity evolution of substrates based on
meteorological conditions and the irrigation strategies, assessing thermal damping,
and measuring heat flows and energy savings in various recycled substrates. The
substrates included mixed recycled sand from a C&DW treatment plant containing
ceramic particles, concrete, plaster, more; and two typical green roof substrates
comprising organic materials (mulch, coconut, and black peat) and volcanic gravel.
Humidity and temperature sensors were installed at different depths on the green
roof.
During a summer season, Hayas et al. [99] found several key results: (i) there
was a significant difference in water retention behaviour among the substrates, with
recycled aggregates enhancing water retention capacity; (ii) green roofs reduced
maximum temperature peaks during summer, delaying the peak temperatures inside
the building; (iii) the reduction in maximum temperatures was clearly linked to the
moisture content of the substrates, as higher humidity decreased insulating effect;
and (iv) green roofs positively impacted the energy balance, offering savings between
62 and 93% compared to non-green roof.
The green roof pilot at UCO was also tested for other objectives, including eval-
uating the risk of contamination via leaching from the vegetation substrates. The
results indicated: (i) all analysed materials were classified as non-hazardous; (ii)
sulphate content in all materials exceeded the limit for inert classification; (iii) some
materials had chloride content above the inert limit; and (iv) zinc concentration in
one material exceeded the inert material limit. However, leachate from a green roof
would be diluted when mixed with rainwater and wastewater, considerably reducing
the concentration of both chloride and sulphate anions [99].

13.5 Conclusions and Remarks

This chapter has emphasised the importance of considering circularity criteria and
indicators at both the component and system levels of building assembly, aiming to
reduce environmental impact and resource consumption through reuse, recovery, and
recycling, as assessed via Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). CE principles in construc-
tion promote the selection of renewable, recyclable materials with low embodied
energy. Transitioning from high-carbon-emission materials to low-carbon-emission
alternatives is crucial for fostering CE in the construction industry. However, this
requires a shift in the mindset of stakeholders, including architects, engineers, and
builders, who must move beyond the traditional assumption of an unlimited supply
of disposable materials.
13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 365

The CE model represents a regenerative system aimed at achieving economic

growth while minimising energy consumption and resource depletion. It is founded
on three fundamental principles: eliminating waste through design, restoring
and rejuvenating natural systems, and promoting continuous material utilisation.
Assessing a building’s energy consumption during its production, operation, and
EoL phases can be achieved by collecting data on BC&S. This data helps deter-
mine the building’s energy consumption and ensures compliance with international
environmental standards and certifications. By quantifying this data using numerical
scales or qualitative approaches, BC&S can be ranked according to their circularity
levels. Unsatisfactory rankings can prompt feedback to manufacturers, designers,
and other relevant stakeholders, encouraging improvements in design, materials, or
manufacturing processes to enhance circularity. Assessment findings can be digitally
logged and shared with stakeholders to promote transparency and informed decision-
making. Regular monitoring of the building’s serviceability and health status ensures
adherence to evolving CE practices and industry standards.
Given the significant potential for implementing CE principles in the building
industry, future research should focus on developing and refining circularity criteria
and indicators tailored for BC&S to better understand their impact on overall building
circularity. It is essential to ensure that systems have functional independence, which
can be achieved through reversible connections, and to explore how incorporating
circularity principles can create new business opportunities and reduce waste disposal
costs.
Embracing circularity in building design is essential for achieving a more sustain-
able future. This involves designing for disassembly and adaptability to facilitate the
reuse and recycling of building components, using recycled materials to reduce the
embodied energy of materials, and minimising waste throughout the building’s life-
cycle. While much remains to be explored, the case studies presented demonstrate
the potential for circularity in the building industry. More research and case studies
on best practices are needed to provide evidence of the benefits of circular BC&S and
their impact on overall circularity and sustainability levels in buildings. Continued
research and implementation of circular practices will be crucial to ensuring safe,
reliable, and sustainable buildings for all.

References

1. WEF (2016) Shaping the future of construction: a breakthrough in mindset and technology.
World Economic Forum, Geneva, p 64
2. Hassan MS, Ali Y, Petrillo A, De Felice F (2023) Risk assessment of circular economy practices
in construction industry of Pakistan. Sci Total Environ 868:161418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2023.161418
3. Foster G (2020) Circular economy strategies for adaptive reuse of cultural heritage buildings
to reduce environmental impacts. Resour Conserv Recycl 152:104507
4. Benachio GLF, Freitas MDCD, Tavares SF (2020) Circular economy in the construction
industry: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 260:121046
366 A. Tleuken et al.

5. Han L, Hong T, Lee SH, Sofos M (2020) System-level key performance indicators for building
performance evaluation. Energy and Buildings 209:109703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.
2019.109703
6. Khadim N, Agliata R, Mollo L (2022) How circular is an Italian apartment building? testing of a
whole-building circularity indicator. In: Colloqui.AT.e 2022–Memoria e Innovazione. Genova,
pp 7–10
7. International Organization for Standardization (2020) ISO 20887:2020; Sustainability in
buildings and civil engineering works—design for disassembly and adaptability—principles,
requirements, and guidance. pp 3, 11
8. Askar R, Bragança L, Gervásio H (2021) Adaptability of buildings: a critical review on the
concept evolution. Appl Sci 11(10):4483. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11104483
9. Pinder JA, Schmidt R, Austin SA, Gibb A, Saker J (2017) What is meant by adaptability in
buildings? Facilities 35(1–2):2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-07-2015-0053
10. Addis W, Schouten J (2004) Principles of design for deconstruction to facilitate reuse and
recycling (CIRIA), vol 607. Construction Industry Research and Information Association
(CIRIA)
11. Gijsbers R (2006) Towards adaptability in structures to extend the functional lifespan of
buildings related to flexibility in future use of space. Adaptables 2006(1):1–5
12. Schmidt R, Eguchi T, Austin S, Gibb A (2010) What is the meaning of adaptability in the
building industry?. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on open and sustainable
buildings. pp 227–236
13. Ismail Z, Rahim AA (2011) Adaptability and modularity in housing: a case study of raines
court and next2. pp 167–186. http://irep.iium.edu.my/id/eprint/12603
14. Ross BE, Chen DA, Conejos S, Khademi A (2016) Enabling adaptable buildings: results of a
preliminary expert survey. Procedia Eng 145:420–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.
04.009
15. Gu P, Xue D, Nee AYC (2009) Adaptable design: concepts, methods, and applications. Proc
Inst Mech Eng, Part B: J Eng Manuf 223(11):1367–1387. https://doi.org/10.1243/09544054J
EM1387
16. Askar R, Bragança L, Gervásio H (2021b) Designing buildings for adaptability, flexibility and
durability. In: Bragança L, de Alvarez CE, Cabeza LF (Eds) Sustainable urban development—
topics, trends and solutions, vol 10. IOP Publishing Ltd, pp 10–10.15. https://doi.org/10.1088/
978-0-7503-3971-1ch10
17. Beadle K, Gibb A, Austin S, Madden P, Fuster A (2008) Adaptable futures: setting the agenda.
In: Proceedings of the 1st I3CON international conference. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/
2cc8/f044b6f5f5dfb446d6438cfa18db7665d150.pdf
18. Habraken NJ (1972) Supports: an alternative to mass housing. Praeger Publishers
19. Brand S (1994) How buildings learn: what happens after they’re built. Penguin Books, New
York, NY, USA. 978-0-14-013996-9
20. Graham P (2005) Design for adaptability—an introduction to the principles and basic strategies.
Environ Des Guid 66:1–9. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26148326
21. Durmisevic E, Brouwer J (2002) Design aspects of decomposable building structures
22. Conejos S, Langston C, Smith J (2013) AdaptSTAR model: a climate-friendly strategy to
promote built environment sustainability. Habitat Int 37:95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hab
itatint.2011.12.003
23. Dodd N, Donatello S, Cordella M (2021) Level(s) indicator 2.3: design for adaptability and
renovation user manual: introductory briefing, instructions, and guidance. Technical Report
1.1; JRC Technical Reports, p 23. European Commission-Joint Research Centre. https://sus
proc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/product-bureau/product-groups/412/documents
24. Geraedts R (2016) FLEX 4.0, a practical instrument to assess the adaptive capacity of buildings.
Energy Procedia 96:568–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.102
25. Askar R, Bragança L, Gervásio H (2022) Design for adaptability (DfA)—frameworks and
assessment models for enhanced circularity in buildings. Applied System Innovation 5(1):24.
https://doi.org/10.3390/asi5010024
13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 367

26. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019) Granta design circularity indicators: an approach to
measuring circularity. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Cowes, UK
27. Russell P, Moffatt S (2001) Assessing buildings for adaptability. IEA Annex 31 Energy-Related
Environmental Impact of Buildings
28. Munaro MR, Tavares SF (2023) Design for adaptability and disassembly: guidelines for
building deconstruction. Constr Innov vol ahead-of-print No ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/
10.1108/CI-10-2022-0266
29. Kręt-Grześkowiak A, Baborska-Narożny M (2023) Guidelines for disassembly and adaptation
in architectural design compared to circular economy goals-a literature review. Sustain Prod
Consum 39:1–12
30. Bakx MJM, Beurskens P, Ritzen M, Durmisevic E, Lichtenberg JJN (2016) A morphological
design and evaluation model for the development of circular facades. In: Proceedings of the
conference: sustainable built environment (SBE): Transition zero, Utrecht, The Netherlands,
6–8 April 2016. p 257
31. Munaro MR, Tavares SF, Bragança L (2022) The ecodesign methodologies to achieve buildings’
deconstruction: a review and framework. Sustain Prod Consum 30(566–583):572
32. Dams B, Maskell D, Shea A, Allen S, Driesser M, Kretschmann T, Walker P, Emmitt S
(2021) A circular construction evaluation framework to promote designing for disassembly
and adaptability. J Clean Prod 316:128122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128122
33. Bertin I, Saadé M, Le Roy R, Jaeger JM, Feraille A (2022) Environmental impacts of design
for reuse practices in the building sector. J Clean Prod 349:131228
34. Anastasiades K, Blom J, Buyle M, Audenaert A (2020) Translating the circular economy to
bridge construction: lessons learnt from a critical literature review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
117:109522
35. O’Grady T, Minunno R, Chong HY, Morrison GM (2021) Design for disassembly, deconstruc-
tion and resilience: a circular economy index for the built environment. Resour Conserv Recycl
175:105847
36. Akinade OO, Oyedele LO, Ajayi SO, Bilal M, Alaka HA, Owolabi HA, Bello SA, Jaiyeoba
BE, Kadiri KO (2017) Design for deconstruction (DfD): critical success factors for diverting
end-of-life waste from landfills. Waste Manage 60:3–13
37. Van Nunen H, Hendriks NA, Erkelens PA (2004) Service life as the main aspect in environ-
mental assessment. In: 16th CIB world building congress, May 1–7, 2004, Toronto, Canada.
In-house publishing, p 10
38. Durmisevic E (2006) Transformable building structures-design for disassembly as a way
to introduce sustainable engineering to building design & construction. Ph.D Thesis, Delft
University of Technology: The Netherlands
39. Van Vliet M, van Grinsven J, Teunizen J (2021) Circular buildings-disassembly potential
measurement method version 2.0, published by DGBC
40. Verberne JJH (2016) Building circularity indicators. Master Thesis, Eindhoven University of
Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
41. Sariatli F (2017) Linear economy versus circular economy: a comparative and analyzer study
for optimization of economy for sustainability. Visegr J Bioeconomy Sustain Dev 6(1):31–34
42. Dräger P, Letmathe P (2023) Who drives circularity?—the role of construction company
employees in achieving high circular economy efficiency. Sustain 15(9):7110
43. Lovell H, Smith SJ (2010) Agencement in housing markets: the case of the UK construction
industry. Geoforum 41(3):457–468
44. Michelini G, Moraes RN, Cunha RN, Costa JMH, Ometto AR (2017) From linear to circular
economy: PSS conducting the transition. Procedia CIRP 64:2–6
45. Bates A, Kelly P, Schoonhoven J, Riis-Tolman T, Snabe K (2021) The business case for circular
buildings: exploring the economic, environmental, and social value. World Bus Counc Sustain
Dev 49. Geneva, Switzerland
46. Hernández H, Ossio F, Silva M (2023) Assessment of sustainability and efficiency metrics in
modern methods of construction: a case study using a life cycle assessment approach. Sustain
15(7):6267
368 A. Tleuken et al.

47. Assefa G, Ambler C (2017) To demolish or not to demolish: life cycle consideration of
repurposing buildings. Sustain Cities Soc 28:146–153
48. Baker H, Moncaster A, Al-Tabbaa A (2017) Decision-making for the demolition or adaptation
of Buildings
49. Jorge-Ortiz A, Braulio-Gonzalo M, Bovea MD (2023) Exploring how waste management
is being approached in green building rating systems: a case study. Waste Manage Res
41(6):1121–1133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X221143952
50. Pan W, Sidwell R (2011) Demystifying the cost barriers to offsite construction in the UK.
Constr Manag Econ 29(11):1081–1099
51. Langston C, Wong FKW, Hui ECM, Shen L-Y (2007) Strategic assessment of building adaptive
reuse opportunities in Hong Kong. Build Environ 43:1709–1718
52. Langston C, Smith J (2012) Modelling property management decisions using ‘iconCUR.’
Autom Constr 22:406–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.10.001
53. Wilkinson S (2014) The preliminary assessment of adaptation potential in existing office
buildings. Int J Strateg Prop Manag 18(1):77–87. https://doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2013.
853705
54. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013) Towards the circular economy: economic and business
rationale for an accelerated transition
55. Çimen Ö (2023) development of a circular building lifecycle framework: inception to
circulation. Results Eng 17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100861
56. Mahpour A (2023) Building maintenance cost estimation and circular economy: the role of
machine-learning. Sustain Mater Technol 37:e00679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2023.
e00679
57. Vanegas P, Peeters JR, Cattrysse D, Tecchio P, Ardente F, Mathieux F, Dewulf W, Duflou JR
(2018) Ease of disassembly of products to support circular economy strategies. Resour Conserv
Recycl 135:323–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.06.022
58. World Green Building Council (2023) Circular economy in buildings: easy maintenance.
https://viewer.ipaper.io/worldgbc/the-circular-built-environment-playbook
59. Su S, Zhong RY, Jiang Y (2023) Digital twin and its applications in the construction industry:
a state-of-art systematic review. Digital Twin 2:15
60. Malik N, Ahmad R, Chen Y, Altaf MS, Al-Hussein M (2021) Minimizing joist cutting waste
through dynamic waste allocation in panelized floor manufacturing. Int J Constr Manag
21(10):1011–1023
61. Hussein M, Eltoukhy AEE, Karam A, Shaban IA, Zayed T (2021) Modelling in off-site
construction supply chain management: a review and future directions for sustainable modular
integrated construction. J Clean Prod 310:127503
62. Costa A, Ossmane ESRM, Santos H, Camargo J, Carvalho LC (2023) ReSOLVE framework:
when circular business models become digital. In: Internet of behaviors implementation in
organizational contexts. IGI Global, pp 313–334
63. Torgautov B, Zhanabayev A, Tleuken A, Turkyilmaz A, Mustafa M, Karaca F (2021) Circular
economy: challenges and opportunities in the construction sector of Kazakhstan. Buildings
11(11):501. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11110501
64. David AN, Ke X (2017) Toward a resource-efficient built environment: a literature review and
conceptual model. J Ind Ecol 21(3):572–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12586
65. Winther K The future is a digital, circular construction process. ARUP. https://www.arup.com/
perspectives/the-future-is-a-digital-circular-construction-process. Accessed 8 September 2023
66. John SM, Sybil D, Welsynne SA, Shauhrat SC (2017) Industrial symbiosis at the facility scale.
J Ind Ecol 21(3):559–571. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12592
67. Jiuping X, Jun M, Ziqiang Z, Shiyong W, Manbin S (2012) Resource sharing-based multiob-
jective multistage construction equipment allocation under fuzzy environment. J Constr Eng
Manag 139(2). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000593
68. Zhi L, Hogwei W, Heng L (2019) Model of equipment sharing between contractors on construc-
tion projects. J Constr Eng Manag 144(6). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.000
1485
13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 369

69. Rahla KM, Mateus R, Bragança, L Selection criteria for building materials and components in
line with the circular economy principles in the built environment—a review of current trends.
Infrastruct 6:49. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures6040049
70. van den Berg MC (2019) Managing circular building projects. Ph.D Thesis-Research UT,
graduation UT, University of Twente, University of Twente. https://doi.org/10.3990/1.978903
6547703
71. Oyenuga AA, Bhamidimarri R (2017) Upcycling ideas for sustainable construction and demo-
lition waste management: challenges, opportunities and boundaries. Int J Innov Res Sci, Eng
Technol 6(3). https://www.ijirset.com
72. Wang G, Krzywda D, Kondrashev S, Vorona-Slivinskaya L (2021) Recycling and upcycling in
the practice of waste management of construction giants. Sustain 13(2):640. MDPI AG. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su13020640
73. European Commission (n.d.) Circular economy-eurostat database. https://ec.europa.eu/eur
ostat/web/circular-economy/database
74. Antonini E, Boeri A, Lauria M, Giglio F Reversibility and durability as potential indicators for
circular building technologies. Sustain 12:7659. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187659
75. OECD (2018) Inventory of circular economy indicators. https://www.oecd.org/cfe/cities/Inv
entoryCircularEconomyIndicators.pdf
76. Crowther P (2005) Design for disassembly–themes and Principles. Environ Des Guid 1–7.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/26149108
77. Cottafava D, Ritzen M (2021) Circularity indicator for residential buildings: addressing the gap
between embodied impacts and design aspects. Resour Conserv Recycl 164:105120. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105120
78. Tleuken A, Torgautov B, Zhanabayev A, Turkyilmaz A, Mustafa M, Karaca F (2022) Design for
deconstruction and disassembly: barriers, opportunities, and practices in developing economies
of central Asia. Procedia CIRP 106:15–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.02.148
79. Geldermans RJ (2016) Design for change and circularity–accommodating circular material &
product flows in construction. Energy Procedia 96:301–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.
2016.09.153
80. Rios FC, Chong WK, Grau D (2015) Design for disassembly and deconstruction—challenges
and opportunities. Procedia Eng. 118:1296–1304
81. Johannesson A, Rimac I (2010) Marking of products and tranportation units-information
contents and marking technologies
82. Haftka RT, Gürdal Z (2012) Elements of structural optimization, vol 11. Springer Science &
Business Media
83. Koc K, Durdyev S, Tleuken A, Ekmekcioglu O, Mbachu J, Karaca F (2023) Critical success
factors for construction industry transition to circular economy: developing countries’ perspec-
tives. Eng, Constr Arch Manag ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-
02-2023-0129
84. Akanbi LA, Oyedele LO, Akinade OO, Ajayi AO, Davila Delgado M, Bilal M, Bello SA
(2018) Salvaging building materials in a circular economy: a BIM-based whole-life perfor-
mance estimator. Resour Conserv Recycl 129:175–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.
2017.10.026
85. Gardner L (2023) Metal additive manufacturing in structural engineering–review, advances,
opportunities and outlook. Structures 47:2178–2193. Elsevier.
86. Shah IH, Hadjipantelis N, Walter L, Myers RJ, Gardner L (2023) Environmental life cycle
assessment of wire arc additively manufactured steel structural components. J Clean Prod
389:136071
87. Al-Shargabi AA, Almhafdy A, Ibrahim DM, Alghieth M, Chiclana F (2022) Buildings’ energy
consumption prediction models based on buildings’ characteristics: research trends, taxonomy,
and performance measures. J Build Eng 54
88. Röck M, Ruschi M, Saade M, Balouktsi M, Rasmussen Nygaard F, Birgisdottir H, Frischknecht
R, Habert G, Lützkendorf T, Passer A (2020) Embodied GHG emissions of buildings–the hidden
challenge for effective climate change mitigation. Appl Energy 258
370 A. Tleuken et al.

89. Krstic H, Marenjak S (2020) Analysis of buildings operation and maintenance costs
90. Stratton M (1997) Conserving 20th century buildings, structure and style, 1st edn
91. Curto DD, Cinieri V (2020) Aerogel-based plasters and energy efficiency of historic build-
ings. Literature review and guidelines for manufacturing specimens destined for thermal tests.
Sustain 12:9457
92. Stahl T, Brunner S, Zimmermann M, Ghazi WK (2016) Thermohygric properties of a newly
developed aerogel based insulation rendering for both exterior and interior applications. Energy
and Buildings 44:114–117
93. Handojo DU, Xiaodong L, Eng TJN (2022) Sustainable production in circular economy: aerogel
upscaling production. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:20078–20084
94. Carty L (2017) Analysis of the effects of aerogel insulation on the thermal performance of
existing building envelopes. Edinburgh Napier University, p 09013398
95. Meliță L, Croitoru C (2019) Aerogel, a high performance material for thermal insulation-a brief
overview of the building applications. In: E3S web of conferences, vol 111. EDP Sciences, p
06069
96. Ganobjak M (2019) Aerogel materials for heritage buildings: materials, properties, and case
studies. Journal of Cultural Heritage, J Cult Herit. Elsevier
97. Castro-Díaz M, Osmani M, Cavalaro S, Parker B, Lovato T, Needham P, Thompson J, Philippe
K, Ruiz F (2022) Impact of circular silica aerogel on plasterboard recycling. Loughborough
University. Conference contribution. https://hdl.handle.net/2134/21435765.v1
98. Pineda-Martos R, Calheiros CSC (2021) Nature-based solutions in cities–contribution of
the Portuguese national association of green roofs to urban circularity. Circ Econ Sustain
1:1019−1035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00070-9
99. Hayas A, López A, Espada D, Ruiz de Adana M, Martín-Consuegra E, Peña A, Ayuso
Muñoz J, Lora González A, Giráldez JV, Laguna A, Guzmán G, Contreras V, Manzano
JR, Jiménez FJ, Cáceres V, Ramajo L, Jiménez JR, Pérez A, Vanwalleghem T (2015) Opti-
mizando el potencial de techos verdes para la rehabilitación energética de edificios: inter-
acción entre sustratos reciclados, propiedades hídricas y eficiencia energética. Córdoba:
Agencia de Obra Pública de la Junta de Andalucía, Consejería Fomento y Vivienda, Junta
de Andalucía. https://www.aopandalucia.es/inetfiles/resultados_IDI/GGI3003IDIB/memoria/
final_informe_cientifico_v3_0.pdf. Accessed 8 Oct 2023

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 14
Circularity Criteria and Indicators
at the Whole Building Design Level

Bahar Feizollahbeigi , Ricardo Mateus , Elena Goicolea Güemez ,

and Marta Gómez-Gil

Abstract The built environment accounts for approximately 50% of total raw mate-
rial extraction and 25% of all waste in the European Union, much of which comprises
materials with significant potential for reuse and recycling. Given the finite nature of
the planet’s resources, transitioning to a circular economy (CE) approach within the
built environment, particularly at the building design level, is essential for sustain-
ability. Indicators serve as vital tools for assessing circularity and guiding the imple-
mentation of CE principles in the design, construction and management of buildings
and infrastructure. This chapter examines international, European, and national poli-
cies and standards, highlighting the most pertinent circularity indicators at the whole
building design level. It provides a categorised list of the most widely used indicators
for measuring circularity. A bibliographic-analytical approach is employed to eval-
uate the prevalence and alignment of various sustainability and circularity indicators
within international and European policies and standards at the building level. The
efforts of European countries, with particular reference to Portugal and Spain, in
developing circularity frameworks for the construction sector, are also explored. The
identified indicators are classified into seven categories based on their impact areas:
Material and Resources, Energy, Water, Waste Management, Ecosystem, Social, and
Economic. Each category and its subset indicators are analysed in detail. Finally,
the chapter provides recommendations for further research to enhance the integra-
tion of CE principles into the design processes of the construction sector, thereby
contributing to a more sustainable built environment.

Keywords Circularity indicators · Building design · International policies and

standards · Circular design

B. Feizollahbeigi · R. Mateus (B)

ISISE, ARISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, 4804-533 Guimarães,
Portugal
e-mail: [email protected]
E. G. Güemez
ICATALIST, HUB Las Rozas Innova, Las Rozas de Madrid, Spain
M. Gómez-Gil
Built4Life Lab, I3A-University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

© The Author(s) 2025 371

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_14
372 B. Feizollahbeigi et al.

14.1 Introduction

This chapter undertakes an investigation on the most relevant international, Euro-

pean, and national policies, standards, and references associated with the circular
economy (CE) within the scope of building design. The aim is not just to list these
regulations and guidelines but to delve into their main principles and objectives,
significance, relevance, and implications for promoting circularity within the built
environment. By adopting an analytical approach, the frequency and alignment of
several sustainability and circularity criteria and indicators at the building design
level in national and international policies and standards have been investigated,
providing you with confident research findings.
Additionally, an analysis has been conducted on how sustainability and circularity
indicators are incorporated into those policies and standards. The chapter presents
the most relevant and commonly applied circularity indicators and criteria specific
to the building design, offering insights into how they can support the evaluation of
sustainability and resource efficiency in construction projects.

14.2 Review of Policies and Standards Related

to Circularity Indicators in Building Design-Level

14.2.1 European Policies on Circularity Indicators

in Building Design-Level

EU Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP). This Action Plan aims to estab-
lish a framework for European policies on products, emphasising sustainability by
reducing products’ consumption footprint and doubling their circular material use
rate. This initiative arises from the imperative need to transition towards a new
production model that returns to the planet more than what is extracted from it,
avoiding exhausting its natural resources [1].
Within this Action Plan, key stakeholders and product value chains—or product
markets—are identified with ‘Construction and buildings’ highlighted as a central
focus. This emphasis is due to the industry’s substantial resource requirements
and significant waste generation, leading to considerable greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions [1].
In the context of the construction and building industry, the European Commis-
sion is advancing the Strategy for a Sustainable Built Environment through this
Action Plan. This strategy encompasses criteria for recycled content, considerations
of asset longevity and adaptability, incorporation of life cycle assessments, targets
for material recovery, and efforts to reduce soil sealing. The Action Plan serves as a
framework for future actions and does not propose any specific indicators.
14 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Whole Building Design Level 373

European Taxonomy. The EU Taxonomy serves as a tool to assist investors, compa-

nies, and project promoters in navigating the shift towards an economy that is
low-carbon, resilient, and resource-efficient [2]. This Taxonomy establishes a list
of economically sustainable activities centered on environmental criteria. Aligned
with the European Green Deal, its purpose is to combat greenwashing and guarantee
that significant investments in sustainable initiatives truly support environmentally
friendly activities [3].
The EU Taxonomy Regulation establishes specific criteria for assessing the envi-
ronmental sustainability of an economic activity. According to these criteria, an
activity must meet several requirements, including being categorised under a specific
taxonomic activity by the EU, making a significant contribution to one of six specified
environmental objectives, avoiding significant harm to the remaining environmental
objectives, and adhering to a set of minimum social performance parameters [4]. The
six defined environmental objectives are [2]:
1. Climate change mitigation.
2. Climate change adaptation.
3. Protection of water and marine resources.
4. Transition to a circular economy.
5. Pollution control.
6. The protection of ecosystems.
Currently, technical screening criteria are available only for the first two objec-
tives within the EU Taxonomy. The Real Estate sector, being a major economic
activity, falls under the purview of the Taxonomy Regulation. Within this sector, the
development of new structures is included, encompassing the building design level
[5]. However, due to limitations in whole life cycle GHG emissions data, the focus
primarily centres on the operational stage rather than the other life cycle stages [6].
The EU Taxonomy for new building construction considers a structure supportive
of climate change mitigation if it exhibits markedly lower energy consumption (10%
below the specified threshold for national nearly zero-energy building requirements).
Verification of this is mandated through an Energy Performance Certificate, which
assesses airtightness and thermal integrity.
New buildings are required to adhere to “Do No Significant Harm”: criteria across
various aspects, including climate adaptation, water management, CE practices,
pollution prevention, and biodiversity. In addition to making substantial contribu-
tions to climate change adaptation, they must incorporate both physical and non-
physical solutions, known as ‘adaptation solutions,’ to effectively mitigate the most
critical physical climate risks associated with their specific activity. A comprehen-
sive climate risk and vulnerability assessment for identified physical climate risks
is also mandatory [5]. Table 14.1 presents the circularity criteria for construction
and real estate activities contributing to climate mitigation and adaptation among all
substantial contribution criteria.
374 B. Feizollahbeigi et al.

Table 14.1 Technical screening criteria regarding circularity in construction and real estate
activities
Do No Significant Harm Indicator
criteria (DNSH)
Circular economy – Construction and demolition waste (excluding naturally occurring
material referred to in category 17 May 2004 in the European List
of Waste established by Decision 2000/532/EC) generated on the
construction site is prepared for reuse, recycling, and other material
recovery, including backfilling operations using waste to substitute
other materials, in accordance with the waste hierarchy and the EU
Construction and Demolition Waste Management Protocol (296)
– Operators limit waste generation in processes related to
construction and demolition, following the EU Construction and
Demolition Waste Management Protocol, considering the best
available techniques, using selective demolition to enable removal
and safe handling of hazardous substances and facilitate reuse and
high-quality recycling by selective removal of materials, using
available sorting systems for construction and demolition waste
– Building design and construction techniques support circularity
and, in particular, demonstrate, regarding ISO 20887 (297) or
other standards for assessing the disassembly or adaptability of
buildings, how they are designed to be more resource-efficient,
adaptable, flexible, and dismantlable to enable reuse and recycling

European Green Deal. The Green Pact was launched as a comprehensive roadmap
for formulating policies and implementing measures in response to one crucial chal-
lenge: the one related to climate and environmental protection. Aligned with the
United Nation’s 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), this
document, spearheaded by the European Commission, envisions a future EU that
is prosperous, modern, fair, and capable of sustained social and economic growth
without depleting natural resources [7].
At its core, the European Green Deal defines objectives and guidelines that
underpin several European action plans and strategies. Notably, it serves as the
foundation for initiatives such as the EU Circular Economy Action Plan, which,
as previously discussed, deals with materials and resources within the construction
sector, among other aspects. Furthermore, the Green Deal promotes the Renovation
Wave strategy, aimed at accelerating and deepening sustainable building renovations,
therefore contributing to circularity within the construction sector.
Nevertheless, it is essential to note that while the European Green Deal outlines
overarching goals and strategies, it does not provide a specific framework of
indicators of circularity in the construction sector.
Level(s). Level(s) is a common European framework first introduced in 2018 to aid
professionals in the construction industry in assessing and monitoring the circularity
and sustainability of buildings throughout their entire life cycle. Its primary goal
is to act as a bridge between the objectives established in the SDGs and the Euro-
pean Green Deal, including initiatives like the Renovation Wave, the New European
14 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Whole Building Design Level 375

Bauhaus, and the Circular Economy Action Plan, and the real-world challenges faced
by the construction sector [8].
Level(s) is not a certification scheme but rather a framework designed to ensure
that all existing building sustainability assessment tools evaluate the same priorities,
enhancing consistency and homogeneity within the certification market [8]. There-
fore, it does not directly conduct sustainability evaluations of buildings and projects
but instead aims to streamline sustainability and circularity thinking by reporting
requirements on different aspects.
The Level(s) framework comprises 16 indicators (see Table 14.2), grouped into
six macro-objectives that fall under three thematic areas [8]. These fundamental
sustainability indicators assess carbon emissions, materials usage, water consump-
tion, health considerations, comfort levels, and the impacts of climate change across
the entire life cycle of a building [9]. Level(s) operates as a flexible framework
with three levels of application depending on the stage of the building project being
analysed: conceptual design, detailed design, and post-construction evaluations. In
addition, users have the flexibility to choose which indicators to use, depending on
the purpose of the assessment and the specific needs of the project.
Level(s) advocates for circularity under its macro-objective 2, aiming to establish
resource-efficient and circular material life cycles by evaluating key opportunities to
enhance resource efficiency and circularity. Implementing indicators of this macro-
objective can significantly enhance a building’s performance in line with circularity
principles, conserving and reducing the consumption of raw materials, identifying
possibilities for reuse or recycling, and ensuring buildings can be easily adapted to
meet occupants’ changing needs over time [9].
EU Circular Economy Monitoring Framework. In May 2023, the European
Commission implemented a revised EU Monitoring Framework to oversee progress
in achieving a CE, complementing its action plan. This monitoring system enables
the European Commission and policymakers to track progress and evaluate the
effectiveness of their actions [10].
This framework is split into five thematic areas that are broader in scope and do not
specifically target the built environment or any of its components, such as building
design considerations. Table 14.3 illustrates these areas along with the criteria and
indicators employed within the EU Monitoring Framework for the CE.
Eco-design Directive. The EU Eco-design Directive provides a framework requiring
manufacturers of energy-consuming products to minimise energy consumption and
mitigate adverse environmental effects throughout the product life cycle. This
directive is complemented by the Energy Labelling Directive [12].
Under the Eco-design Directive, manufacturers are required to adhere to perfor-
mance criteria to ensure the legal market entry of their products. However, the
Directive currently lacks specific measures, standards, or overarching energy-saving
targets. An updated version of the Directive expands its scope to include, in principle,
all energy-related products [12].
376 B. Feizollahbeigi et al.

Table 14.2 The level(s) macro-objectives and indicators [8]

Thematic areas Macro-objectives Indicators
Resource use and 1. Greenhouse gas emissions 1.1. Use stage energy
environmental performance along a building’s life cycle performance (kWh/m2 /year)
1.2. Life cycle Global warming
potential (CO2 eq./m2 /year)
2. Resource-efficient and 2.1. Bill of quantities,
circular material life cycles materials, and lifespans
2.2. Construction and
demolition waste
2.3. Design for adaptability and
renovation
2.4. Design for deconstruction
3. Efficient use of water 3.1. Use stage water
resources consumption (m3 /occupant/
year)
Health and comfort 4. Healthy and comfortable 4.1. Indoor air quality
spaces 4.2. Time out of thermal
comfort range
4.3. Lighting
4.4. Acoustics
Cost, value, and risk 5. Adaption and resilience to 5.1. Life cycle tools: scenarios
climate change for projected future climatic
conditions
5.2. Increased risk of extreme
weather
5.3. Sustainable drainage
6. Optimised life cycle cost and 6.1. Life cycle costs (e/m2 /
value year)
6.2. Value creation and risk
factors

While this framework primarily targets equipment and devices, typically those that
are electrical and energy-consuming, it does not specifically address the construction
industry.
Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) and Product Environmental
Footprint (PEF). The European Commission has developed the Product Envi-
ronmental Footprint (PEF) and Organisational Environmental Footprint (OEF) as
methodologies for conducting life cycle assessment (LCA), aimed at evaluating and
communicating the environmental impact of products and organisations throughout
their life cycle. Together, these methods form the basis of the EU Environmental
14 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Whole Building Design Level 377

Table 14.3 Thematic areas and circularity indicators of the EU circular economy monitoring
framework [11]
Thematic areas Criteria Indicators
1. Production and Material consumption Material footprint (tonnes per
consumption capita)
Resource productivity (index
2000 = 100)
Green public procurement
Total waste generation per
capita
Waste generation Total waste generation per
capita (Kg per capita)
Generation of waste, excluding
major mineral wastes per GDP
unit kg per thousand-euro,
chain-linked volumes (2010)
Generation of municipal waste
per capita (kg per capita)
Food waste (kg per capita)
Generation of packaging waste
per capita (kg per capita)
Generation of plastic
packaging waste per capita (kg
per capita)
2. Waste management Overall recycling rates Recycling rate of municipal
waste (%)
Recycling rate of all waste,
excluding major mineral waste
(%)
Recycling rates for specific Recycling rate of overall
waste streams packaging (%)
Recycling rate of plastic
packaging (%)
Recycling rate of Waste from
Electrical and Electronic
Equipment (WEEE) separately
collected (%)
3. Secondary raw materials Contribution of recycled Circular material uses rate (%)
materials to raw materials End-of-life recycling input
demand rates (EOL-RIR), aluminium
(%)
Trade in recyclable raw Imports from non-EU
materials countries (thousand tonnes)
Exports to non-EU countries
(thousand tonnes)
(continued)
378 B. Feizollahbeigi et al.

Table 14.3 (continued)

Thematic areas Criteria Indicators
Intra-EU trade (thousand
tonnes)
4. Competitiveness and Private investment, jobs, and Private investments (% of
innovation gross value added related to gross domestic product (GDP)
circular economy sectors at current prices)
Persons employed (% of total
employment)
Gross value-added % of gross
domestic product (GDP) at
current prices
Innovation Patents related to waste
management and recycling
(number)
5-Global sustainability and Global sustainability from the Consumption footprint (Index
resilience circular economy 2010 = 100)
GHG emissions from
production activities (kg per
capita)
Resilience from the circular Material import dependency
economy (%)
EU self-sufficiency for raw
materials, aluminium (%)

Footprint (EF), which incorporates established approaches and complies with inter-
national standards, such as the ISO 14040 series and the European International Life
Cycle Data System (ILCD) [13].
An EF study encompasses mandatory life cycle stages:
– Raw material acquisition and pre-processing.
– Manufacturing.
– Distribution.
– Use stage.
– End of life.
The PEF and OEF methodologies, developed through consensus-building
processes, require modeling all waste flows across manufacturing, distribution, use,
and end-of-life stages using the Circular Footprint Formula (CFF). This formula
comprises three elements: a material formula, an energy formula, and a disposal
formula. This comprehensive approach ensures the consideration of recycled or
recyclable materials entering or leaving the system [13].
The material component of the formula applies to every stage of the value chain
where recycled materials replace virgin raw materials. The energy aspect pertains to
the amount of material utilised for energy recovery at the end of the product’s life.
Lastly, the disposal segment of the formula computes emissions and resource usage
14 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Whole Building Design Level 379

associated with the disposal of all materials not recycled or employed for energy
recovery [13].
It’s important to note that this framework is designed broadly for all sectors,
including forestry, packaging production, agriculture, and related transportation
activities. It does not specifically target the construction sector.
Waste Framework Directive. The EU Waste Framework Directive (WFD) is a
crucial legislation in the European Union, defining fundamental concepts such as
waste management, recycling, and recovery. It sets out essential waste management
principles and mandates to ensure the proper handling of waste, aiming to European
Commission [14]:
– Safeguard human health and the environment.
– Avoids risk to water, air, soil, plants or animals.
– Prevent nuisance through noise or odours.
– Protect the countryside or places of special interest.
To meet the goals outlined in this Directive, EU member states had to implement
measures to attain the following targets:
– By 2020, increase the preparation for re-use and the recycling of household waste
materials (e.g., paper, metal, plastic, and glass) to at least 50% by weight.
– By 2020, increase the preparation for re-use, recycling, and other material
recovery, including using waste for backfilling operations in non-hazardous
construction and demolition waste, to at least 70% by weight.
– By 2025, increases the preparation for re-use and recycling of municipal waste to
at least 55% by weight, with further targets of 60% by 2030 and 65% by 2035.
Additionally, the Commission is developing end-of-waste criteria for priority
waste streams, specifically iron, steel, aluminium scrap, glass cullet, and copper
scrap [14].
While the WFD has been instrumental in improving waste management practices,
full compliance with all targets has not been achieved uniformly across EU countries.
For instance, it introduced recycling and recovery targets to be achieved by 2020 for
household waste (50%) and construction and demolition waste (70%). However, as
of 2021, only 13 EU countries had achieved the target of a 50% recycling rate for
municipal waste set by the WFD [15]. Accordingly, continued efforts and invest-
ments are necessary to enhance waste prevention, separate collection, and recycling
infrastructure to align with the directive’s objectives. Additionally, however, this
Framework Directive does not directly refer to the implementation of the CE in the
building design, it serves as a foundational piece of legislation that supports and facil-
itates the transition to a CE within the EU. By promoting waste reduction, recycling,
and responsible resource management, it aligns with the principles of circularity.
Packaging Waste. EU regulations on packaging and its waste address both the design
and management aspects of packaging. The primary goals include addressing the
rising volume of packaging waste, which exacerbates the environmental challenges,
and eliminating market barriers arising from varying packaging design rules across
380 B. Feizollahbeigi et al.

EU member states. The Packaging Directive is designed to achieve the following

goals [16]:
– Harmonise national measures related to packaging and packaging waste manage-
ment.
– Provide a high level of environmental protection.
– Ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market.
While the EU rules on packaging waste align with circularity, they do not explicitly
address indicators specific to building design aspects.

14.2.2 International Frameworks on Circularity Indicators

in Building Design-Level

Ellen MacArthur Foundation/Arup Circular Building Design Toolkit. The Ellen

MacArthur Foundation (EMF) stands as one of the foremost global organisations
advocating for the CE and developing circularity principles and indicators. It has
created various tools and frameworks to measure circularity across numerous sectors,
including construction and the built environment.
According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s definition, the CE presents a
systematic solution framework addressing pressing global challenges such as climate
change, biodiversity loss, waste, and pollution. At the design level, it operates on three
core principles [17]:
– Design out waste and pollution: This principle emphasises the need to design
products, processes, and systems in a way that eliminates waste and pollution,
aiming for a closed-loop system.
– Keep products and materials in use: The principle focuses on extending the
lifespan of products and materials through strategies like repair, reuse, refur-
bishment, and remanufacturing.
– Regenerate natural systems: This principle highlights the importance of restoring
and regenerating natural resources and ecosystems, aiming to preserve and
enhance the overall natural capital.
In cooperation with Arup, a prominent British multinational professional Engi-
neering consultancy, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation has designed a comprehensive
and practical Circular Building Design Toolkit to assess and measure the circularity
within building design. This toolkit was first introduced during COP26 Glasgow’s
climate conference. The principles, strategies, and indicators of this design toolkit
are presented in Table 14.4.
The toolkit is developed to achieve Net-zero in the built environment and help
designers, construction clients, asset owners, and operators. It provides a practical
framework and tools to enable stakeholders across the building life cycle to optimise
14 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Whole Building Design Level 381

Table 14.4 The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s/Arup circular economy principles in the built
environment [19]
Principles Strategy Indicators
Build just what is needed 1. Refuse unnecessary new Reuse of existing usable
(build nothing beyond what is construction surface:
strictly necessary) Share of reused floor area as a
percentage of total project
gross floor area (%)
Build for long-term use 2. Increase building utilisation Total building utilisation:
Cumulative hours of
occupancy, defined as total
hours*person spent in the
building on a weekly basis,
and normalised per square
meter (hrs/m2 )
3. Design for longevity Value retention and recovery
over the whole life cycle:
EU Level(s) Whole Life
Cycle Costs ($/m2 /yr)
4. Design for adaptability Adaptability potential:
Adaptability Score, defined as
per EU Level(s) Indicator 2.3.
Adaptability, Table 6
(quantitative rating resulting
from a qualitative assessment)
5. Design for disassembly Disassembly and recovery
potential:
Ease of Recovery + Ease of
Reuse and Recycling Scoring,
defined as per EU Level(s)
Indicator 2.4 Design for
deconstruction (Assessment
methodology based on DGNB
TEC1.6 Ease of recovery &
recycling)
Build efficiently 6. Refuse unnecessary Conceptual material
components efficiency:
A material used intensity
factor per functional unit over
the building life cycle (The
functional unit is to be set
depending on the building
typology, for example, total
material use intensity per
workstation/hotel bed/
resident, etc.) (kg/unit/yr)
(continued)
382 B. Feizollahbeigi et al.

Table 14.4 (continued)

Principles Strategy Indicators
7. Increase material efficiency Material use efficiency:
Total material use intensity by
area and over the whole
building life cycle, a counting
for all building materials (kg/
m2 /yr)
Build with the right materials 8. Reduce the use of virgin and Material Circularity Indicator
non-renewable materials (MCI) from the Ellen
MacArthur Foundation
9. Reduce the use of Whole life cycle GHG
carbon-intensive materials emissions:
Carbon emissions intensity
measured over the whole
building life cycle, as defined
under Level(s) Indicator 1.2
Life cycle Global Warming
Potential (kgCO2 eq/m2 /year)
10. Design out hazardous/ Environmental cost:
pollutant materials Whole life cycle
environmental impact cost per
floor area, and over the whole
life cycle period as defined by
the Dutch MPG methodology
(e/m2 /year)

assets for circularity, leading to reduced waste and carbon for a healthier planet and
people [18].

14.2.3 International and European Standards on Circularity

Indicators in Building Design-Level

CEN/TC 350—Sustainability of construction works. CEN/TC 350, a dedicated

technical committee under the European Committee for Standardisation, focuses on
developing standards related to the sustainability of both new and existing construc-
tion works. Its broader scope extends to evaluating the sustainability performance of
construction works, including buildings and civil engineering works [20].
The committee’s mandate includes creating standardised methods to assess
sustainability aspects within the framework of the UN Sustainable Development
Goals and CE principles. These methods cover the entire life cycle, from the design
and construction phases to operation and end-of-life management. This technical
committee covers the following aspects [20]:
14 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Whole Building Design Level 383

– Assessment of environmental performance, encompassing circularity princi-

ples, energy efficiency, decarbonisation, responsible resource usage (including
efficiency and waste reduction), and environmental and biodiversity preservation.
– Assessment of social performance, considering aspects such as health and
comfort, safety and security, adaptability, and accessibility in response to user
needs. Additionally, evaluating resilience against external events like the impacts
of climate change and emphasising responsible sourcing of materials.
– Assessment of economic performance, covering life cycle costs, overall expenses
throughout the lifespan, and economic value implications. This includes consid-
eration of ‘green finance’ initiatives, particularly taxonomy, and implementing
standards to align with evolving trends in digitalisation (e.g. BIM, CAD).
In all construction stages, including the design level, circularity implies opti-
mising resource use, minimising waste, and promoting the reuse, refurbishment,
and recycling of building materials and components [20]. Accordingly, the connec-
tion between CEN/TC 350 and circularity lies in the committee’s efforts to enhance
sustainability and decrease environmental impacts within the built environment. The
committee also plays a remarkable role in supporting the CE principles within the
construction industry by developing standards and guidelines and promoting aware-
ness initiatives that support the integration of circularity across various aspects and
stages of construction. Subsequent sections analyse how each main standard devel-
oped by the CEN/TC 350 committee addresses circularity at the building design
level.
EN 15804:2012+A2:2019 Sustainability of construction works—Environmental
product declarations—Core rules for the product category of construction prod-
ucts. EN 15804, a European Standard overseen by CEN/TC 350, is widely recog-
nised as the leading global standard for generating Environmental Product Decla-
rations (EPD) for construction products [21]. It establishes a standardised format
for EPDs within the construction sector, ensuring transparency and comparability of
information [22].
The EN 15804 standard offers a framework for creating type III declarations,
outlining the methodology for calculating the technical performance of construc-
tion products. It defines various modules covering the product’s entire life cycle,
addressing specific stages from raw material extraction to end-of-life considera-
tions. Calculation rules and data for a set of indicators are provided for each of the
life cycle stages [23].
It’s important to note that EN 15804 focuses solely on assessing environmental
performance at the product level and does not include evaluations of social and
economic performances. It provides a comprehensive set of environmental indicators
for this purpose as illustrated in Table 14.5 [21].
EN 15804 provides a comprehensive framework of environmental indicators
designed for assessing the environmental performance of construction products.
Many of these indicators align with those used in measuring circularity within the
384 B. Feizollahbeigi et al.

Table 14.5 The environmental indicators used in EN 15804 [21]

Category Indicators
Environmental – Global Warming Potential (GWP)
impact – Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP)
– Acidification potential (AP)
– Eutrophication potential (EP)
– Formation potential of tropospheric ozone (POCP)
– Abiotic depletion potential for non-fossil resources (ADP elements)
– Abiotic depletion potential for fossil resources (ADP-fossil fuels)
Resource use – Use of renewable primary energy, excluding renewable primary energy
resources used as raw materials
– Use of renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials
– Total use of renewable primary energy resources (primary energy and
primary energy resources used as raw materials)
– Use of non-renewable primary energy, excluding non-renewable primary
energy resources used as raw materials
– Use of non-renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials
– Total use of non-renewable primary energy resources (primary energy and
primary energy resources used as raw materials)
– Use of secondary material
– Use of renewable secondary fuels
– Use of non-renewable secondary fuels
– Use of net freshwater
Waste category – Hazardous waste disposed
– Non-hazardous waste disposed
– Radioactive waste disposed
Output flow – Components for reuse
– Materials for recycling
– Materials for energy recovery
– Exported energy

construction industry, including indicators related to resource use or waste categori-

sation. Consequently, it can be claimed that this standard is in line with the principles
of CE to a great extent.
EN 15643:2021 (WI = 00350031) Sustainability of construction works—a
framework for assessment of buildings and civil engineering works. EN 15643
comprises a set of European Standards within the scope of CEN/TC 350. These stan-
dards establish a framework for assessing the sustainability of buildings and civil
engineering works, encompassing environmental, social, and economic performance.
The assessments consider technical attributes and functionalities and employ a life
cycle approach, applicable to diverse construction endeavours. For new construc-
tions, the entire life cycle is assessed, while for existing structures, the focus shifts
to their remaining service life and eventual end-of-life stages [24].
The standard series aims to evaluate the environmental, social, and economic
performance of a building simultaneously and equitably, considering consistent tech-
nical characteristics and functionalities. This assessment incorporates various types
14 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Whole Building Design Level 385

of information, providing values for different indicators, building scenarios, and life
cycle stages, resulting in a comprehensive sustainability assessment for buildings and
civil engineering works. [25]. EN 15643-1:2010 serves as the foundational standard
for three complementary standards: prEN 15643-2, EN 15643-3, and EN 15643-4.
These standards pertain to the assessment framework for environmental, social, and
economic performance at the building and product levels [26].
EN 15643-2:2011 not only outlines the requirements for environmental assess-
ment, including the relevant life cycle phases and their constraints, but also defines the
indicators for the assessment as illustrated in Table 14.6. Additionally, prEN 15643-3
is designed to assess the social impacts and aspects associated with buildings and
their surrounding sites. Its purpose is to facilitate decision-making in sustainability
matters, focusing on social aspects such as health, well-being, and functionality [26].
EN 15643 aligns with CE principles by promoting a sustainable approach
throughout the building life cycle, from design to the end of its product life
cycle. This approach encompasses assessing environmental performance across the
building’s life cycle and encouraging resource efficiency and waste reduction, thereby
supporting the shift towards more circular and sustainable construction practices.
The nexus between EN 15643 and circularity is evident in the standard’s approach
for assessing the environmental performance of buildings, particularly through the
specifications outlined in EN 15643-2.
CEN/TC 350/SC 1—Circular Economy in the Construction Sector. In 2021,
CEN/TC 350 established a new sub-committee, CEN/TC 350/SC 1, dedicated to
developing CE standards within the built environment. This sub-committee aims
to define circularity principles, guidelines, and requirements, providing tools and
processes to support the shift towards a more sustainable CE. The standards cover
all stages of life cycles, spanning from design to deconstruction and end-of-life
scenarios. They apply to both new and existing construction works, including build-
ings, civil engineering works, products, materials, and components. CEN/TC 350/
SC 1 tackles technical aspects of circularity and addresses environmental, economic,
and social challenges [29].
The purpose of CEN/TC 350/SC 1 is to integrate CE principles into construction
practices [30]. In terms of building design, the objective is to develop materials that
facilitate the transition from a linear to a CE within the construction sector. This
supports the advancement of a climate-neutral and resource-efficient industry [18].
Although the standards of this new sub-committee are still under development, they
are geared towards achieving several macro-objectives for buildings and building
products [30]:
– Design for disassembly.
– Design for adaptability (durability, reduction of raw materials, repairability, and
preventing degradation).
– Design for reuse (reusability and recyclability).
– Next life cycle performance.
– Structural design for recyclable construction works.
386 B. Feizollahbeigi et al.

Table 14.6 EN 15643 sustainability indicators in building life cycle including design level
Parts Categories of aspects Indicators
prEN 15643-2: Environmental impacts – Acidification of land and water
Environmental assessment resources
[27] – Climate change
– Destruction of the stratospheric
ozone layer
– Autrophication
– Ormation of ground-level ozone
Material and energy use – Use of renewable resources
other than primary energy
– Use of non-renewable primary
energy
– Use of renewable primary
energy
– Use of freshwater resources
Secondary raw materials, – Materials for recycling
waste and exported energy – Materials for energy recovery
– Non-hazardous waste to
disposal
– Hazardous waste to disposal
(other than radioactive waste)
– Radioactive waste to disposal
EN 15643-3: Social aspects Accessibility – Accessibility for people with
and impacts [28] specific needs
– Access to building services
Adaptability – The ability to accommodate
individual user requirements
– The ability to accommodate the
change in user requirements
– The ability to accommodate
technical changes
– The ability to accommodate the
change of use
Health and comfort – Acoustic characteristics
– Characteristics of indoor air
quality
– Characteristics of visual
comfort
– Characteristics of water quality
– Electromagnetic characteristics
– Spatial characteristics
– Thermal characteristics
Loadings on the – Noise
neighborhood – Emissions to outdoor air, soil
and water
– Glare and overshadowing
– Shocks and vibrations
– Ocalised wind effects
Maintenance – Maintenance operations
(continued)
14 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Whole Building Design Level 387

Table 14.6 (continued)

Parts Categories of aspects Indicators
Safety/security – Resistance to climate change
(resistance to rain, wind, snow,
flood, solar radiation,
temperature)
– Resistance to accidental actions
(earthquakes; explosions; fire;
traffic impacts)
– Personal safety and security
against intruders and vandalism
– Security against interruptions
of utility supply
Sourcing of materials and – Responsible sourcing and
services traceability of products and
services
Stakeholder involvement – The opportunity for interested
parties to engage in the
decision-making process for the
realisation of a building
EN 15643-4: Economic Cost – Economic performance
aspects and impacts [25] expressed in cost terms over the
life cycle
Financial value – Economic performance
expressed in terms of financial
value over the life cycle

ISO 15392:2019 Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works—

General principles. This standard outlines general principles to facilitate the transi-
tion of buildings, civil engineering, and other construction projects toward sustainable
development. It addresses the entire life cycle of construction works, spanning from
inception to end-of-life [31].
ISO 15392 applies to both new and existing construction works, encompassing
individual and collective entities, along with materials, products, services, and
processes throughout their life cycle. The standard aims to offer universal principles
to elevate sustainability in building construction, serving as a shared framework and
guide for stakeholders in the construction industry. It seeks to encourage sustainable
practices and minimise the environmental impact of building projects at all stages,
including the design level [31]. This standard outlines six objectives for integrating
sustainability into buildings, concurrently fostering sustainable development, and
enhancing the construction sector and the built environment, namely [32]:
1. Reduction of adverse impacts while improving value.
2. Stimulation of a proactive approach.
3. Stimulation of innovation.
4. Decoupling of economic growth from increasing adverse impacts on the
environment and/or society.
388 B. Feizollahbeigi et al.

5. Reconciliation of contradictory interests or requirements arising from short-term

and long-term planning or decision-making.
To reach the abovementioned objectives, ISO 15392 applies nine general
principles, listed alphabetically as follows [32]:
a. Continual improvement.
b. Equity.
c. Global thinking and local action.
d. Holistic approach.
e. Involvement of interested parties.
f. Long-term consideration.
g. Precaution and risk.
h. Responsibility.
i. Transparency.
While these objectives and principles do not explicitly refer to circularity or
provide specific indicators, they indirectly address its principles by promoting the
necessity of decoupling economic growth from increasing adverse environmental
impacts. They are also aligned with the principles of CE in terms of setting the
priorities of designing out of waste and pollution and promoting the regeneration of
natural systems.
The standard’s focus on decoupling economic growth from worsening environ-
mental and societal impacts suggests an alignment with CE principles. In addition,
the principles of “long-term considerations” within these goals can be linked to
“Design for Longevity”, a key aspect of CE principles in building design.
ISO 21929, Sustainability in building construction Sustainability indicators.
Framework for the development of indicators and a core set of indicators
for buildings. The ISO 21929 series, including ISO 21929-1 and ISO 21929-2,
aims to establish a framework, recommendations, and guidelines for developing and
selecting suitable sustainability indicators throughout the life cycle of buildings and
construction works. The framework encompasses key environmental, social, and
economic impact indicators, with defined rules for their usage. While some indica-
tors are mandatory, others are recommended for assessing sustainability. However,
these standards do not provide guidance on the weighting or aggregation of indicator
results [26]. The proposed indicators are collected and presented in Table 14.7. They
can be applied to all building life cycle stages, including the design stage.
The connection between the ISO 21929 series and circularity lies in the attempt
of this standard to introduce a Framework for developing indicators, including a set
of environmental indicators, such as using renewable resources, water consumption,
waste production, etc., which are under the principles of the CE.
ISO/DIS 59020 Circular economy—Measuring and assessing circularity. This
standard defines an assessment framework for organisations to measure circularity,
allowing them to actively contribute to sustainable development [31]. The frame-
work offers guidance on objectively, comprehensively, and reliably measuring and
14 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Whole Building Design Level 389

Table 14.7 ISO 21929-1 overall list of sustainability core indicators in the building life cycle [32]
No. Category Indicator
1 Emissions to air – Global warming potential
– Ozone-depleting potential
2 Use of non-renewable resources Amount of non-renewable resources consumption
by type (natural raw materials and non-renewable
energy)
3 Freshwater consumption Amount of freshwater consumption
4 Waste generation Amount of waste generation by type (hazardous
and non-hazardous wastes)
5 Change of land use Change of land use, assessed with the help of
criteria
6 Access to services Access to services by type, assessed with the help
of criteria:
– public modes of transportation
– personal modes of transportation
– green and open areas
– user-relevant basic services
7 Accessibility Accessibility, assessed with the help of criteria:
– accessibility of the building site (curtilage)
– accessibility of the building
8 Indoor conditions and air quality Indoor conditions and air quality assessed with the
help of the following criteria:
– indoor thermal conditions
– indoor visual conditions
– indoor acoustic conditions
– indoor air quality
9 Adaptability Adaptability assessed with the use of the following
criteria:
– change of use or user needs
– adaptability to climate change
10 Costs Life cycle costs
11 Maintainability Maintainability assessed with the support of
different criteria
12 Safety Safety assessed with the support of the following
criteria:
– structural stability
– fire safety
– safety in use
13 Serviceability Serviceability
14 Aesthetic quality Aesthetic quality
390 B. Feizollahbeigi et al.

assessing the circularity performance of an economic system through indicators and

complementary methods. It is designed to assess the effectiveness of circular actions
by public and private organisations. The standard aims to assist organisations in gath-
ering information essential for implementing circular economic practices aimed at
minimising resource use, facilitating a circular flow of resources, and contributing
to sustainable development [31].
The framework enables the consideration of social, environmental, and economic
impacts in assessing circularity performance, incorporating input from diverse
complementary methods [31]. Considering that this standard is under development,
the specific indicators to be promoted, especially within the construction and building
design, remain uncertain at present.
Alignment of Circularity Indicators of International Standards at the Building
Design-Level
Several international and European frameworks and standards have been developed
focusing on sustainability assessments within the built environment. These frame-
works express principles and, in some cases, provide a set of indicators that are
partially compatible with CE principles. However, comparing them proves chal-
lenging as they may not all reference the same core indicators used at identical stages
of the building life cycle, specifically at the design level. Nevertheless, Table 14.8
demonstrates the alignment matrix showcasing the indicators introduced by these
standards and frameworks.

14.2.4 National-Level Standards, Policies, and Regulations

on Circularity Indicators in Building Design-Level

European countries, especially after the release of the European Union Circular
Economy Action Plan in 2015, have been actively developing national-level stan-
dards, policies, and regulations on the CE to promote sustainable practices and reduce
waste. Although these efforts are not explicitly targeting the built environment and
building lifecycle, including the design stage, they include, among others, energy
efficiency targets and water and waste plans, which can be applied for assessing the
circularity of buildings throughout their lifecycle, from design and construction to
demolition and material recovery. As an example of the ongoing efforts in imple-
menting CE indicators in the EU, this section presents the efforts carried out by
Portugal and Spain to establish national-level standards, policies, and regulations on
the CE, which can also be applied in the building design stage.
Portugal
Action Plan for Circular Economy in Portugal (APCE)-2017: In December 2017,
the Portuguese Council of Ministers adopted Portugal’s Action Plan for Circular
Economy (APCE). The plan aims to reorganise the economy in a closed loop cycle
Table 14.8 The alignment matrix of the international standards and Arup/Ellen MacArthur Foundation circularity indicators at the building design level
Arup/Ellen MacArthur CE European European Level(s) EU CE CEN/TC EN 15804 BS EN 15643 ISO TR 21929-1
principles taxonomy green monitoring 350/SC 1
deal framework
Build Build nothing – – – – – – – Change of land
only what use
you need
Build for Increase – – – – – – – –
long-term building
use utilisation
Design for – – Life – – Trade in – – – Financial – Life cycle
longevity cycle recyclable value costs
costs raw – Life cycle –
– Value materials costs Maintainability
creation – Maintenance – Serviceability
and
risk
factors
Design for – – Design for – Design for – Adaptability Adaptability
adaptability adaptability adaptability
and renovation (durability,
reduction of
raw
materials,
14 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Whole Building Design Level

repairability,
and
preventing
degradation)
Design for – – Design for – Design for – – –
Disassembly deconstruction disassembly
(continued)
391
Table 14.8 (continued)
392

Arup/Ellen MacArthur CE European European Level(s) EU CE CEN/TC EN 15804 BS EN 15643 ISO TR 21929-1
principles taxonomy green monitoring 350/SC 1
deal framework
Build Refuse – – – – – – – –
efficiently unnecessary
components
Increase – – Bill of – Material – Design for – – – Freshwater
material quantities, consumption reuse consumption
efficiency materials and – Waste (reusability,
lifespans generation recyclability)
– Overall – Structural
recycling design for
rates recyclable
– Recycling construc-
rates for tion
specific works
waste
streams
– Material
import
dependency
(%)
– EU self-
sufficiency
for raw
materials,
(%)
(continued)
B. Feizollahbeigi et al.
Table 14.8 (continued)
Arup/Ellen MacArthur CE European European Level(s) EU CE CEN/TC EN 15804 BS EN 15643 ISO TR 21929-1
principles taxonomy green monitoring 350/SC 1
deal framework
Build Reduce the use – – – Contribution – – Use of – Secondary Use of
with the of virgin and of recycled secondary raw materials, non-renewable
right non-renewable materials to material waste, and resources
materials materials raw materials – Use of exported
demand renewable energy
secondary – Sourcing of
fuels materials and
– Use of services
non-renewable – Material and
secondary energy use
fuels –
– Use of Environmental
non-renewable impacts
primary
energy
resources used
as raw
materials
– Total use of
non-renewable
primary
14 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Whole Building Design Level

energy
resources
(primary
energy and
primary
energy
resources used
as raw
393

materials)
– Use of net
fresh water
(continued)
Table 14.8 (continued)
394

Arup/Ellen MacArthur CE European European Level(s) EU CE CEN/TC EN 15804 BS EN 15643 ISO TR 21929-1
principles taxonomy green monitoring 350/SC 1
deal framework
Build Reduce the use – – Life cycle – – – Global Environmental –
with the of global Warming impacts
right carbon-intensive warming Potential
materials materials potential (GWP)
Design out – – – Total waste – – Acidification – Waste
hazardous / Construction generation per potential (AP) generation
pollutant and capita – Eutrophication – Emissions to
materials demolition potential (EP) air
waste – Formation – Indoor
potential of conditions and
tropospheric air quality
ozone (POCP) – Safety
– Hazardous
waste disposed
– Non-
hazardous
waste disposed
– Radioactive
waste disposed
B. Feizollahbeigi et al.
14 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Whole Building Design Level 395

and set targets to work towards 2050 objectives, including a carbon–neutral economy,
innovation, resilience, and societal inclusivity [33]. This action plan adopts a multi-
level approach, considering Macro, Meso, and Micro levels [34].
The APCE does not establish explicit targets; instead, it seeks to support the
achievement of goals outlined in various plans and strategies with aligned objectives.
Examples include national waste plans, water and sanitation plans, climate action
plans, energy plans, and goals advocated at the European and international levels,
such as sectoral directives, Portugal 2020, Paris Agreement, and SDGs [34].
Based on strategic macro-goals, the APCE proposes guidelines for different
sectors, particularly the built environment. Within the built environment, four guide-
lines are suggested: design, manufacture, reuse and recycling, and transversal. These
specific guidelines are prepared and adjusted based on the principles contained in
the SDGs, EU Circular Economy Action Plan, and Portuguese national policies.
Table 14.9 presents APCE indicators for the built environment. The overarching
goal of this guideline is to Ministry of Environment [34]:
– Increase the introduction of secondary raw materials into the economy.
– Reduce waste production, demand for raw materials (primary), and water.
– Consumption.
– Reduce GHG emissions.
For the building design stage, the following guidelines are proposed:
– Building renovation and use: This involves creating protocols that encourage
component reuse, using recovered or recycled materials, developing and/or using
material passports, and promoting the use of “empty” built space, whether public
or private.
– Circular construction: This guideline aims to promote public and private infras-
tructure, and projects that demonstrate the application of circular solutions (e.g.,
reuse of components, environmental product declarations, deconstruction guides,
eco-labels, cradle-to-cradle design).
Portuguese Roadmap for Carbon Neutrality (RNC2050): In 2016, during the 22nd
Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change
in Marrakech, Portugal set the goal of attaining Carbon Neutrality by 2050. This
objective provided clear directives for the substantial decarbonisation of the national

Table 14.9 APCE indicators for the built environment

Complementary No. of voluntary agreements signed, and sectors covered
indicators No. of reuse initiatives
No. of guides developed
No. of quality protocols developed (materials from CDW)
No. of projects incorporating smart design
Rate of compliance with the obligation to use at least 5% of recycled
materials in construction contracts under the Public Contracts Code
396 B. Feizollahbeigi et al.

economy, aligning with the ambitious objectives outlined in the Paris Agreement
framework [35].
The Carbon Neutrality Roadmap 2050 (RNC2050) is rooted in a strategic vision
that advocates for the decarbonisation of the economy and the transition to carbon
neutrality by 2050. This vision is founded on a democratic and equitable model of
national cohesion that fosters wealth generation and efficient resource utilisation.
Eight fundamental principles underpin this strategic vision, with the first principle
explicitly highlighting circularity. Specifically, it aims to promote the transition to
a competitive, circular, resilient, and carbon–neutral economy, fostering increased
wealth, employment, and well-being.
While RNC2050 discusses the transition to a comparative, circular, resilient, and
carbon–neutral economy and investigates the role of circularity in the transition
to carbon neutrality, the construction sector falls under the industry and industrial
processes sub-sectors. Only some construction circularity strategies are mentioned
in the document without introducing specific criteria or indicators. The RNC2050
construction circularity strategies are as follows:
– Increasing urban rehabilitation, incorporating the reuse of construction compo-
nents, and reclaimed or recycled materials.
– Using “empty” built public spaces.
– Implementing passive buildings with a zero-energy balance (NZB: Net Zero
Energy Buildings).
– Promoting multifunctional and shared buildings with reduced built area.
– Adopting new, more sophisticated, more energy efficient, and durable materials.
– Using renewable materials with a lower carbon footprint (e.g. wood and cork).
Portuguese National Waste Management Plan (PNGR2030): The PNGR2030, or
Portuguese National Waste Management Plan, is a strategic initiative promoted by
the Portuguese Environmental Agency (APA) to replace the previous PNGR2020
and guide waste management policies up to 2030. The PNGR2030 serves as the
“umbrella” of the national strategic waste policy [36]. This plan operates at a
macro level, outlining guidelines that will inform the Strategic Plan for Urban Waste
(PERSU 2030) and the Strategic Plan for Non-Urban Waste (PERNU 2030) [37].
PNGR2030, in conjunction with the Strategic Plan for Municipal Waste
(PERSU2030), primarily aims to facilitate the shift towards a more resilient and
circular economy. This goal is achieved by measures such as waste prevention and
reduction in terms of quantity and hazard, elevating recycling rates, and enhancing
materials recovery. The overall goal is to contribute to a CE and mitigate adverse envi-
ronmental impacts through integrated and sustainable waste management practices
[36].
While the objectives of PNGR2030 generally align with the CE principles, espe-
cially in strategic objective SB2, as presented in Table 14.10, where the CE is directly
addressed and can be generally extended to the construction sector, the strategies
and targets are too generic. The plan lacks specific objectives, targets, or indicators
addressing the building’s life cycle stages, including the building design level.
14 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Whole Building Design Level 397

Table 14.10 PNGR2030 objectives, targets, and indicators

Strategic objectives Target Indicator
SB2: Promote resource Decouple Economic growth Gross domestic products/
efficiency, contributing to a from material consumption domestic consumption of
circular economy materials (ke/t)
Decouple economic growth Waste generation/gross
from waste management domestic products (ke/t)
Increase the availability of Recovery (non-energy)/
waste for the economy waste generation %

PERNU 2030- Strategic Plan for Non-municipal Waste: As previously mentioned,

PERNU 2030 serves as the National Strategic Plan for the management of Non-
municipal Waste in Portugal. This strategic plan aims to promote prevention and
integrated waste management throughout the product’s life cycle, with a specific
focus on the CE and ensuring greater efficiency in natural resource consumption
through prevention and waste management practices [37].
However, while PERNU 2030 emphasises the promotion of the CE and aligns with
circularity principles to a significant extent, it can be considered too generic. Although
it highlights significant considerations in this regard, particularly concerning the
construction and construction and demolition waste management, it does not provide
principles, goals, or indicators at the building design level.
Portugal Operational Program for Sustainability and Efficient Use of Resources (PO
SEUR2020): PO SEUR 2020, formulated through an Execution Decision by the Euro-
pean Commission in 2014, is part of the programs designed to implement the Portugal
2020 Strategy (PO SEUR, 2014). This strategy represents a partnership agreement
between Portugal and the European Commission, encompassing the actions of five
European Structural and Investment Funds. The programming principles within this
agreement delineate the economic, social, and territorial development policy to be
pursued in Portugal from 2014 to 2020 [38].
PO SEUR 2020 aims to support the realisation of the Europe 2020 Strategy, specif-
ically focusing on fostering sustainable growth and addressing the transitional chal-
lenges toward a low-carbon economy through more efficient use of resources. The
envisaged strategy for PO SEUR 2020 encompasses a multidimensional perspective
of sustainability grounded in the following thematic objectives [39]:
– Supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy across all sectors.
– Promoting adaptation to climate change and risk prevention and management.
– Protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency.
While PO SEUR 2020 does not explicitly underline circularity, it briefly mentions
the promotion of the CE. Its general objectives, for instance, “protecting the envi-
ronment and promoting resource efficiency”, inherently lead to the realisation of the
principles of the CE in its general sense. Nevertheless, upon close examination of
the objectives at the sectoral level, there are no specific principles, objectives, or
398 B. Feizollahbeigi et al.

indicators that address circularity within the built environment and, consequently,
the different stages of the building life cycle, including the design level.
Spain
Circular strategy: Spain Circular 2030 establishes the groundwork for advancing
a novel production model that emphasises maximising the value of the economy’s
products, materials, and resources while minimising waste generation. The strategy
aims to use any unavoidable waste to the greatest extent possible. This strategy aligns
with Spain’s broader objectives of fostering a sustainable, decarbonised, resource-
efficient, and competitive economy. The implementation will occur through a series
of successive three-year action plans [40].
The Strategy provides a list of 21 indicators in categories of waste manage-
ment, Secondary material, competitiveness and innovation, and climate change
(Table 14.11) is closely tied to recent global initiatives aimed at ensuring envi-
ronmental well-being, including the Paris Agreement on climate change, the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development, and the Ministerial Declaration of the United
Nations Assembly on the Environment titled “Towards a Planet without Pollution,”
endorsed in December 2017 in Nairobi. Additionally, it aligns with key European
Union initiatives, such as the European Green Deal and two European Commission
Plans addressing the same concerns. Key Objectives for 2030 include [40]:

– Reduce by 30% the national consumption of materials.

– GDP, taking 2010 as the reference year.
– Reduce waste generation by 15% compared to what was generated in 2010.
– Increase reuse and preparation for reuse until reaching 10% of the municipal waste
generated.
– Reduce the emission of greenhouse gases below 10 million tonnes of CO2
equivalent.
– Improve by 10% the efficiency in water use.

14.3 Categorisation of Circularity Indicators in Building

Design-Level

The indicators presented in this chapter were classified into seven categories based on
their impact areas [42]: material and resources; energy; water; waste management;
ecosystem; social (health and well-being); and economy. As presented in Table 14.12,
the majority of indicators fall under the materials and resources, and energy cate-
gories, indicating a strong emphasis on these aspects of circularity. Conversely, the
water category exhibits the fewest circularity indicators, suggesting a comparatively
lower focus on water-related circular practices in the context discussed. At the same
time, the water category has the least number of circularity indicators.
Additionally, the Material and Resource category indicators emphasise resource
extraction and efficiency, mainly refer to refuse, reduction, and reuse of materials.
14 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Whole Building Design Level 399

Table 14.11 Indicators by category in the spanish circular economy strategy [41]
Category Indicators
Waste management Prepare for reuse Municipal waste recycling rate
(%)
Municipal waste recycling rate
excluding mining waste (%)
Recycling rate excluding mining
waste (%)
Valorisation Packaging waste recycling rate
(% t)
Plastic packaging waste recycling
rate (% t)
Timber packaging waste recycling
rate (% t)
Recycling rate for waste electrical
and electronic equipment (%
mass)
Organic waste recycling rate (Kg/
person)
Construction and demolition
waste recycling rate
Secondary material Contribution of recycled materials Recycling rates for end-of-life
to the demand for raw materials product waste (%)
Circular material rate (%)
Trade in recycled raw materials Imports to third countries
Exports to third countries
Intra-community imports
Extra-community imports
Competitiveness and Private investment, employment, Gross investments in tangible
innovation and gross value added in the assets (%)
circular economy sectors Number of jobs (%)
Added value (%)
Added value at factor cost (%)
Patents related to recycling and Number
secondary raw materials as a
representation of innovation
Climate change National Inventory of Greenhouse Contribution of greenhouse gases
Gases in the waste sector CO2 eq (kt)

These are among the 10R circular strategies to avoid or reduce the raw material
input in construction activities. The energy category mainly focuses on energy
consumption-based indicators and is divided into renewable and non-renewable
resources. Special attention is given to renewable sources, emphasising the neces-
sity of energy transition. On the other hand, indicators regarding material and
energy import and export can be applied to assess the local capacity to supply
material and energy sources endogenously, enhancing circularity through resource
self-sufficiency.
Table 14.12 Categorisation of circularity indicators in building design-level
400

Material and resources Energy Water Waste management Ecosystem Social (health and Economy
well-being)
Reduce the use of Use of renewable Characteristics Materials for Whole life cycle The ability to Value retention and
virgin and resources other than of water quality recycling GHG emissions accommodate recovery on the
non-renewable primary energy individual user entire life cycle
materials requirements
Reduce the use of Use of non-renewable Amount of Amount of waste Climate change The ability to Economic
carbon-intensive primary energy freshwater generation by type accommodate performance
materials consumption (hazardous and technical changes expressed in terms
non-hazardous of cost over the life
wastes) cycle
Refuse unnecessary Use of renewable Use of net fresh Radioactive waste Emissions to The ability to Economic
components primary energy water disposed outdoor air, soil, and accommodate the performance
water change of use expressed in terms
of financial value
over the life cycle
Increase material Materials for energy Components for Ozone Depletion Acoustic Private investment,
efficiency recovery reuse Potential (ODP) characteristics jobs, and gross
value added related
to
circular economy
sectors
Reuse of existing Use of renewable Waste generation Global Warming Thermal Life cycle costs
usable surface primary energy, Potential (GWP) characteristics
excluding renewable
primary energy
resources used as raw
materials
(continued)
B. Feizollahbeigi et al.
Table 14.12 (continued)
Material and resources Energy Water Waste management Ecosystem Social (health and Economy
well-being)
Disassembly and Use of renewable Overall recycling Formation potential Characteristics of Value creation and
recovery potential primary energy rates of tropospheric Visual Comfort risk factors
resources used as raw ozone
materials
Conceptual material Total use of renewable Recycling rates for Acidification Indoor conditions Environmental cost
efficiency primary energy specific waste potential (AP) and air quality
resources (primary streams
energy and primary
energy resources used as
raw materials)
Amount of Use of non-renewable Construction and Eutrophication Accessibility for
non-renewable primary energy, demolition waste potential (EP) people with
resources consumption excluding specific needs
by type (natural raw non-renewable primary
materials and energy resources used as
non-renewable energy) raw materials
Use of secondary Use of non-renewable Global Access to building
material primary energy sustainability from services
resources used as raw the circular
materials economy
14 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Whole Building Design Level

(continued)
401
Table 14.12 (continued)
402

Material and resources Energy Water Waste management Ecosystem Social (health and Economy
well-being)
Material consumption Total use of Design out Green public
non-renewable primary hazardous/pollutant procurement
energy resources materials
(primary energy and
primary energy
resources used as raw
materials)
Resource productivity Use of renewable
secondary fuels
Design for Use of non-renewable
deconstruction secondary fuels
Disassembly and Exported energy
recovery potential
Trade in recyclable raw Use stage energy
materials performance
Material imports Increased risk of
dependency (%) extreme weather
EU raw materials
self-sufficiency (%)
B. Feizollahbeigi et al.
14 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Whole Building Design Level 403

Water-related indicators mainly focus on freshwater consumption and quality

rather than providing more requirements. Furthermore, reviewing the indicators of
the waste management category, it is possible to conclude that it primarily refers
to the recycling strategy and focuses on the amount and characteristics of the
produced waste in terms of toxicity and radioactivity potential. Moreover, indicators
of the ecosystem category mainly highlight GHG emissions, and the environmental
impact of construction works on the ecosystem components, including acidifica-
tion and eutrophication. And lastly, the economic category underscores indicators
regarding economic performance and lifecycle costs of the construction works. To
summarise, while the reviewed references primarily focus on sustainability indicators
and do not explicitly address the concept of the CE, they partially align with circu-
larity principles. This demonstrates an interconnected relationship between circu-
larity and sustainability, indicating that circularity cannot be entirely separated from
sustainability.

14.4 Conclusion and Remarks

In conclusion, the analysis of circularity criteria and indicators at the building design
level demonstrates significant international, European, and national efforts to imple-
ment CE principles. Although various criteria and indicators exist internationally, a
unified approach is lacking due to the diversity of regulations and frameworks.
Organisations like CEN and ISO are addressing this by promoting mandates to
standardise circularity principles in the building design stage. Nationally, in some EU
countries, such as Portugal and Spain, policies are in place to support sustainability
and circularity. Still, they remain broad and lack specific indicators tailored to the
building design stage. Hence, future work should focus on developing a harmonised
set of circularity indicators and guidelines specifically for building design, ensuring
practical application across different contexts. Additionally, creating detailed, action-
able guidelines and enhancing implementation and monitoring mechanisms are
crucial to achieving circularity in building design. Efforts should also include
country-specific adaptations and capacity-building initiatives to raise awareness and
expertise in circular building practices.

Acknowlodgements This chapter is based upon work from COST Action C21103, supported by
COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology. It was partly financed by FCT / MCTES
through national funds (PIDDAC) under the R&D Unit Institute for Sustainability and Innovation
in Structural Engineering (ISISE), under reference UIDB / 04029/2020 (doi.org/10.54499/UIDB/
04029/2020), and under the Associate Laboratory Advanced Production and Intelligent Systems
ARISE under reference LA/P/0112/2020. This work was also partialy financed by national funds
through FCT – Foundation for Science and Technology, through the Project PTDC/CTA-AMB/
6629/2020 (http://doi.org/10.54499/PTDC/CTA-AMB/6629/2020), by a research grant attributed
to the 1 st author.
404 B. Feizollahbeigi et al.

References

1. European Commission. A new Circular Economy Action Plan for a cleaner and more
competitive Europe. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1583933814386&
uri=COM:2020:98:FIN
2. EU Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance (2020) Final report of the Technical Expert
What is the EU taxonomy
3. Loyensloeff (2021) The upcoming EU taxonomy: What about real estate activ-
ities? https://www.loyensloeff.com/insights/news--events/news/the-upcoming-eu-taxonomy-
what-about-real-estate-activities/
4. FISA (2022) What is the EU taxonomy and which companies are required to report?
5. Loyensloeff (2021) The upcoming EU taxonomy: What about real estate activities?
6. Baldi G (2020) Construction, real estate activities and EU Taxonomy Report
7. European Commission (2023) A green deal industrial plan for the net-zero age
8. European Commission. Level(s), a common language for building assessment. Publica-
tions Office of the European Union. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/
f5d52b58-2c95-11ec-bd8e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
9. European Commission (2021) Level(s): putting circularity into practice. Luxembourg
10. European Commission. EU circular economy monitoring framework. https://ec.europa.eu/eur
ostat/web/circular-economy/monitoring-framework
11. Eurostat. Thematic area and circularity indicators of EU Circular economy monitoring
framework. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/circular-economy/monitoring-framework
12. European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. Ecodesign directive. https://www.eceee.
org/ecodesign/process/
13. European Commission (2021) Understanding product environmental footprint and organisation
environmental footprint methods. https://doi.org/10.2760/11564
14. European Commission. Waste framework directive. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/
waste-and-recycling/waste-framework-directive_en. Amendment to the Waste Framework
Directive, Following a thorough &text = For this to happen separate, to develop new
technological solutions
15. EUR-lex (2022) EU waste management law. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/sum
mary/eu-waste-management-law.html
16. European Parliament and Council (2018) Directive 94/62/EC. Off J Eur Commun 1993(L):10–
23
17. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Circular design guid. https://www.circulardesignguide.com/
18. CEN. Construction products sustainability, safety and accessibility. https://www.cencenelec.
eu/areas-of-work/cen-sectors/construction/sustainability-safety-and-accessibility/
19. Arup and Ellen MacArthur Foundation Circular Building Design Toolkit (2021). https://www.
arup.com/news-and-events/arup-and-emf-introduce-circular-building-design-toolkit
20. CEN. CEN/TC 350—Sustainability of construction works. https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/tc/
cen/415e8b38-9bf9-455f-b531-96d83acf019d/cen-tc-350
21. CEN. CEN-EN 15804:2012+A2:2019. https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/c98
127b4-8dc2-48a4-9338-3e1366b16669/en-15804-2012a2-2019
22. Circular Ecology, EN 15804+A2 update and What it means for EPDs. https://circularecology.
com/en-15804-a2-epd-update.html
23. Ecomatters (2020) EN 15804+A2, the new revision of EN 15804 standard. https://www.eco
matters.nl/services/product-footprint/environmental-product-declaration/en-15804/
24. CEN. EN 15643:2021, Sustainability of construction works—framework for assessment
of buildings and civil engineering works. https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/b98
a1879-ace4-490b-8fa5-4f286710ae84/en-15643-2021
25. CEN. BS EN 15643-4:2012 Sustainability of construction works—assessment of buildings—
Part 4: Framework for the assessment of economic performance. Int Stand 1–36
26. Andrade J, Bragança L (2012) Sustainability assessment and standardisation—steel buildings.
In: Concepts and methods for steel intensive building projects, pp 213–224
14 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Whole Building Design Level 405

27. European Standard (2009) prEN 15643-2, Sustainability of construction works—Assessment

of buildings—Part 2: Framework for the assessment of environmental performance
28. CEN. EN 15643-3, Sustainability of construction works—Assessment of buildings—Part 3:
Framework for the assessment of social performance. Int Stand 1–36
29. CEN. CEN/TC 350/SC 1—Circular economy in the construction sector. https://standards.iteh.
ai/catalog/tc/cen/51316ef3-3dea-4483-8aab-cd1a8033cd41/cen-tc-350-sc-1
30. Jensen KG (2022) Circulairy Working Group: Highlights in circular economy standardization.
CEN-CLC SABE CE-TG workshop 1—25 February2022—virtual
31. International Standard (2019) ISO 15392:2019 sustainability in buildings and civil engineering
works—general principles
32. International Standard (2011) ISO 21929-1 sustainability in building construction—Sustain-
ability indicators
33. Ministry of Environment (2021) Leading the transition: a circular economy action plan for
Portugal
34. Ministry of Environment (2017) Action plan for circular economy in Portugal: 2017–2020
35. Ministry of the Environment and Energy Transition (2019) Roadmap for Carbon Neutrality
2050 (RNC2050) long-term strategy for carbon neutrality of the portuguese economy by 2050.
Report R 262/2019, p 102
36. Carrola A (2022) Waste management planning in Portugal. https://shorturl.at/drIhJ
37. Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente (2022) Plano Estratégico para os Resíduos Não Urbanos
38. Poseur. Portugal 2020. https://poseur.portugal2020.pt/en/Portugal-2020/
39. Ministry of Environment (2020) PO SEUR—Operational programme for sustainability and
efficient use of resources
40. Ministerio de Economía Industria y Competitividad (2018) Circular economy Spanish strategy
‘España Circular 2030’. Executive Summary, p 20
41. Ministerio de Economía Industria y Competitividad (2018) Circular economy Spanish strategy
‘España Circular 2030. Executive Summary, p 20. https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/calidad-y-
evaluacion-ambiental/temas/economia-circular/espanacircular_2030_executivesummary_en_
tcm30-510578.pdf
42. Feizollahbeigi B, Mateus R (2024) An analysis of the circularity indicators at the building
design level, pp 392–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57800-7_36

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
 Part IV
Design-Support Tools and Assessment
Frameworks for Circularity
Rand Askar

In the ongoing pursuit of sustainable development within the construction sector,

the integration of Circular Economy (CE) principles has become paramount. Part
IV of this book delves into the tools and frameworks designed to support and assess
circularity in both existing and new buildings, as well as the potential of digitalisation
to enhance these efforts. This part, composed of five chapters, offers a comprehen-
sive exploration of methodologies, tools, and frameworks that are instrumental in
advancing circularity throughout the lifecycle of buildings.
Chapter 15 focuses on existing buildings, providing a detailed analysis of circu-
larity tools and methods specifically tailored to the built environment. By examining
both quantitative and qualitative approaches, this chapter underscores the necessity of
continuously updating these tools to reflect the latest data, trends, and technologies,
thereby guiding the construction and urban development sectors towards enhanced
sustainability.
Chapter 16 shifts the focus to new buildings, highlighting the challenges and
opportunities in assessing circularity during the early stages of design and construc-
tion. It reviews existing assessment parameters and tools, discussing the need for
more practical, standardised approaches that effectively integrate circularity and
environmental performance goals.
Chapter 17 explores the synergy between digitalisation and the circular economy,
illustrating how digital tools can drive the twin transition within the construction
sector. By analysing various digital technologies, the chapter demonstrates their
potential to enhance the accuracy of life cycle assessments, facilitate stake-holder
collaboration, and ultimately contribute to a more sustainable and resilient industry.
In Chap. 18, the concept of Material and Building Passports (MPs and BPs)
is examined as a pivotal tool for enhancing circularity. The chapter discusses the
evolution and application of these passports, emphasising their role in optimising

R. Askar
Department of Civil Engineering, ISISE, ARISE, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal
410 Part IV: Design-Support Tools and Assessment Frameworks …

building processes and materials. It also addresses the challenges and barriers to
their widespread adoption, suggesting future research directions to refine their use.
The final chapter, Chap. 19, assesses the incorporation of circularity princi-
ples within internationally recognised sustainability assessment methods. Through
a critical examination of methods such as BREEAM, DGNB, LEED, Level(s),
and SBTool, this chapter reveals varying degrees of integration and highlights the
complexities involved in aligning circularity with existing sustainability frameworks.
Together, these chapters offer a holistic view of the current landscape of circularity
tools and frameworks, providing valuable insights for practitioners, researchers, and
policymakers striving to implement CE principles in the construction sector.
Chapter 15
Circularity Tools and Frameworks
for Existing Buildings

Haitham Abu-Ghaida and Leonardo Rosado

Abstract As the world embraces sustainable practices, the concept of circularity has
become increasingly important, especially in the context of existing buildings. This
chapter comprehensively analyses circularity tools and methods, focusing on their
application in the built environment. By examining a variety of tools—both quantita-
tive and qualitative—we explore their methodologies, information requirements, and
levels of detail. This structured approach systematically evaluates products, mate-
rials, and systems in terms of their potential to support a closed-loop materials flow.
Our analysis highlights the necessity of continuously updating and refining these
tools to incorporate the latest data, trends, and technologies, guiding the construc-
tion and urban development sectors toward a more sustainable future. The chapter
is a valuable resource for practitioners, researchers, and policymakers seeking to
enhance the sustainability of existing buildings.

Keywords Circularity tools · Circular economy · Existing buildings · Built

environment

15.1 Challenges and Opportunities for Circularity Tools

in Existing Buildings

The concept of circularity is gaining traction as the world shifts towards sustainable
practices [1]. Circularity tools and methods help guide industries towards more effi-
cient and sustainable practices [2]. This chapter delves into a structured analysis of

H. Abu-Ghaida
Centre for Environmental Sciences (CMK), Hasselt University, 3590 Diepenbeek, Agoralaan,
Belgium
L. Rosado (B)
Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Division of Building Technology Chalmers,
University of Technology, Sven Hultins Gata 6, SE-412 96, Gothenburg, Sweden
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2025 411

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_15
412 H. Abu-Ghaida and L. Rosado

these tools, focusing on existing buildings for the benefit of practitioners, researchers,
and policymakers.
The global emphasis on sustainability and the circular economy has necessitated
developing and refining sophisticated tools and methodologies tailored to assess
circularity within the built environment [3]. Various tools have been developed,
each underpinned by distinct methodologies, ranging from quantitative analyses
to qualitative evaluations. These tools collectively provide an intricate framework
that facilitates the systematic evaluation of the potential of products, materials, or
systems to adhere to a closed-loop materials flow paradigm, thereby aligning with
the foundational tenets of the circular economy.

15.2 Method for a Structured Analysis of Tools, Methods,

and Models for Existing Buildings

In the pursuit of a comprehensive understanding of building circularity assessment

for existing buildings, a literature review was undertaken, encompassing an array
of tools, standards, and methods available in this domain. The rationale for this
methodological approach was to discern the nuances and intricacies of each tool.
To facilitate a structured analysis and comparison, the tools, methods, and models
were categorised based on specific criteria, as shown in the subsequent sections.
Furthermore, a distinction was made between the types of methods and tools related
to their purpose. The first two types relate mainly to obtaining information to generate
data that allows the modelling of circular economy in existing buildings in terms of
flows and stocks, while the other two types focus on tools and methods that support the
implementation and analyses of circular economy strategies for the most significant
life cycle stages of the buildings: refurbishment/maintenance and end-of-life.

15.2.1 Type of Approach

The categorisation of circularity tools is fundamentally rooted in the method

of approach. Two prominent methods arise from the literature: quantitative and
qualitative.
Quantitative tools utilise mathematical and statistical analyses to generate precise
data-driven insights. Such tools often require robust datasets and offer replicable
results, which makes them essential for rigorous scientific inquiries [4].
Qualitative tools are grounded in descriptive analyses, often relying on expert
opinions, observations, or anecdotal evidence. These tools provide rich contextual
insights, allowing for a deeper understanding of specific scenarios, behaviours, or
patterns that might not be evident in purely numerical data [5].
15 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for Existing Buildings 413

15.2.2 Type of Circularity Strategy

At its core, the circular economy champions the principle of extending the value
of resources and minimising waste. A widely accepted conceptual framework that
elucidates this is the 9R model [6]. This model delineates nine strategic actions
or pathways, providing a comprehensive approach to resource optimisation. These
strategies include Refuse, Rethink, Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Refurbish, Remanufac-
ture, Recycle, and Recover. Each of these strategies presents unique opportunities
and challenges. The aim of the circular economy, as manifested in these nine strate-
gies, is to keep resources in use for as long as possible, derive maximum value from
them, and then recover and regenerate materials at the end of their service life.

15.2.3 Information Requirements

In circularity assessment tools, the granularity and comprehensiveness of required

data are paramount factors influencing their accuracy, applicability, and ease of use.
Depending on the specific tool and its intended application, the extent of information
required can vary significantly. Two primary categories emerge from the literature
based on the depth of data required:
High Data Input. Tools classified under the “High Data Input” category neces-
sitate a robust collection of detailed data, often capturing the intricate facets of a
product’s or material’s lifecycle. These tools demand quantitative and qualitative
metrics, capturing everything from raw material extraction, design, manufacturing
processes, use-phase, and end-of-life management. Such depth allows for a holistic
understanding, yielding detailed insights into potential improvement and resource
optimisation. The primary drawback is the resource-intensive nature of data collec-
tion and analysis. Furthermore, the accuracy of results is contingent upon the preci-
sion and reliability of the input data, making the data collection process critical.
Examples of tools or applications necessitating high data input include life cycle
assessments (LCAs) and detailed material flow analyses (MFAs).
Low Data Input. In contrast, “Low Data Input” tools are designed to function effec-
tively with minimalistic data sets. Their primary advantage lies in their ability to
provide swift, albeit high-level, assessments. Such tools can be particularly benefi-
cial in preliminary evaluations or when extensive data is unattainable or yet to be
gathered. They are user-friendly, accessible, and ideal for stakeholders seeking quick
insights or making rapid decisions without delving into the intricacies. The trade-
off, however, is the potential need for more depth in analysis. Given their reliance on
limited data, oversimplification is risky and might not capture the full spectrum of
circularity considerations. Screening LCAs and basic eco-footprint calculators often
fall under this category, providing stakeholders with a bird’s-eye view of a product
or process’s environmental impact.
414 H. Abu-Ghaida and L. Rosado

15.2.4 Level of Detail

Circularity assessment tools vary in their data input requirements and in the scope and
granularity of their analysis. This spectrum of detail is crucial because it dictates the
applicability and relevance of the tool to different stakeholders—from policymakers
and industry leaders to product designers and manufacturers. Two predominant levels
of detail emerge from the literature:
Macro-level. Tools and methods operating at the macro level provide overarching
insights encompassing broader systems, sectors, or entire industries. Macro-level
assessments often encapsulate regional, national, or even global perspectives, aiming
to identify trends, benchmarks, and broad-scale challenges and opportunities. By
delivering a panoramic view, these tools are essential for setting industry stan-
dards, formulating policies, and guiding large-scale sustainability initiatives. They
help stakeholders understand systemic patterns and deviations. Due to their broad
scope, macro-level tools might not offer the granular insights necessary for on-the-
ground implementation or nuanced product-level decisions. There is a potential risk
of missing localised challenges or opportunities. Examples of macro-level analyses
include economy-wide Material Flow Analysis or national Circular Economy Index
assessments.
Micro-level. On the other end of the spectrum lie micro-level tools, which zoom
in on intricate details, focusing on individual products, specific components, or
distinct materials. These tools delve deep into the nuances of a product or material,
from its design intricacies to its end-of-life implications. Micro-level tools provide
stakeholders with actionable insights for tangible changes. They can pinpoint inef-
ficiency, waste, or environmental impact areas, enabling precise interventions. They
benefit product designers, manufacturers, and businesses aiming for product-level
improvements. While they offer detailed insights, their limited scope may not capture
systemic or industry-wide challenges. Furthermore, the depth of analysis often
requires comprehensive data, which might be resource-intensive. LCA for specific
products or Detailed Component Analyses are classic examples of micro-level tools.

15.2.5 Connected Circularity Indicators

Circularity indicators are quantitative or qualitative metrics that provide insights into
the performance and potential of a product, process, or system to adhere to circular
economy principles. These indicators are pivotal, bridging the gap between abstract
circularity concepts and tangible, measurable outcomes. Their scope and relevance
can vary based on the tool or the specific objective of the assessment.
15 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for Existing Buildings 415

15.2.6 Case Studies

While comprehensive in their design, the theoretical frameworks and methodolo-

gies of circularity assessment tools gain true resonance when applied in real-world
contexts. By analysing actual applications of these tools in diverse sectors and
settings, one can garner a deeper appreciation of their operational nuances, potential
impacts, and areas of refinement.

15.3 Tools for Material Flow or on a Material Level

15.3.1 Material Circularity Indicator (MCI)

Description: The Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) is a quantitative assessment

tool used to evaluate the circularity of a system, product, or process. It is closely
related to the material flow in a circular economy, which aims to create a restora-
tive and regenerative industrial system. It was developed by the Ellen MacArthur
Foundation in 2015 [7].
Type of approach: Quantitative.
The MCI is a quantitative measure that evaluates the extent to which a linear flow
has been minimised and a restorative flow maximised for a product’s component
materials. It also considers the duration and intensity of a product’s use compared to
a similar average product.
Circularity strategy: It encompasses various strategies from the 9R model, such
as reuse, refurbishment, and recycling. The MCI measures how restorative and
regenerative the material flows of a product or company are.
Information requirement: High Data Input.
The MCI is constructed from three main product characteristics:
• The mass (m) of virgin raw material used in manufacture.
• The mass (w) of unrecoverable waste attributed to the product.
• A utility factor (u) that accounts for the length and intensity of the product’s use.
• The associated material flows for technical materials are diagrammatically, and the
MCI can be calculated using detailed knowledge of a product’s parts and materials.
The methodology may also use generic industry data or best approximations when
specific product data is unavailable.

Level of detail: Micro-level.

The MCI focuses on the intricate details of individual products, specific compo-
nents, or distinct materials. It delves deep into a product’s or material’s nuances,
416 H. Abu-Ghaida and L. Rosado

from design intricacies to end-of-life implications. This micro-level analysis provides

stakeholders with actionable insights for tangible changes, pinpointing exact areas
of inefficiency, waste, or environmental impact.
Connected Circularity Indicators:
Examples include measures of material scarcity, which impacts the value of recov-
ering the materials, and measures of toxicity, which affects the risks and costs
of manufacture, reverse logistics, and public safety liabilities. It can also include
measures of energy, water, and greenhouse gas impacts of a given product, service,
or system. For instance, increasing the circularity of a product would decrease the
energy used for raw material production and product manufacture, leading to reduced
greenhouse gas emissions.
Case Studies:
A study on the circularity of construction products available in the German envi-
ronmental database ÖKOBAUDAT [8] adapted MCI to analyse the circularity of
construction products, showing that circular material flows are most likely to be
applied to metals [9]. Another study [10] of plastic pallet manufacturers (PPM)
implemented the Nano Level MCI to assess the production process, resulting in an
average index of 0.79, indicating that the system in PPM is quite circular.

15.4 Tools for Material Stocks Modelling

15.4.1 Dynamic Material Inputs, Stocks and Outputs Model

(MISO)

Description: This modelling approach is used to study stock dynamics through time
and identify historical patterns of built environment development stocks.
Type of approach: Quantitative.
The model aims to extend the economy-wide Material Flow Accounting framework
by tracing the accumulation of processed building stock materials as in-use stocks
of manufactured capital and quantifying all processing, construction, and end-of-life
materials subsequently available for recycling [11].
Circularity strategy: Raw material demand and potential for recycling.
Data on inflows of materials is based on existing statistics at the country level, while
data on outflows is estimated based on lifetimes for products and infrastructure [12].
15 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for Existing Buildings 417

Information requirement: Detailed data input.

Economy-Wide Material Flow data; primary building stock materials; parameters
on losses and wastes occurring in processing, re-manufacturing and construction;
lifetime distributions; and recycling and downcycling rates; Cohorts of in-use stocks;
end-of-life waste; recycled and downcycled secondary material flows.
Level of detail: Macro-level.
Based on mass-balance principles with inflows, outflows, and stock data, it is used
at global and national levels with resolution at the materials level [13].
Connected Circularity Indicators: Economy-Wide MFA indicators with the addition
of annual flows of primary and secondary processed materials, processed materials
by use, in-use stocks, and end-of-life waste from stocks.
Case Studies:
A study by Wiedenhofer et al. (2019) developed and applied the MISO model to
study the world’s stock dynamics between 1900 and 2050 [11].

15.4.2 High-Resolution Maps of Material Stocks

in Buildings and Infrastructure

Description: A stock-driven method to derive materials from stock maps.

Type of approach: Quantitative.
The purpose of the model is to combine EO raster data that characterise built-up
structures, infrastructure data from crowd-sourced OSM vector data, and tabular
data on Material Intensity factors to provide high-spatial resolution for an extensive
spatial coverage for stocks of materials accumulated in the built environment [14].
Circularity strategy: Potential for recycling.
Data on stocks of materials based on material intensity for building and infrastructure
archetypes [14].
Information requirement: High data input.
Advanced Earth observation (EO) products derived from optical Copernicus
Sentinel-2 (S2) and radar Copernicus Sentinel-1 (S1) sensors; crowd-sourced data
(Open Street Map, OSM); Comprehensive database of MI factors of building types
and infrastructures, distinguishing different types of materials.
Level of detail: Meso and Macro-level.
10-m spatial resolution for seven material types at the country level.
418 H. Abu-Ghaida and L. Rosado

Connected Circularity Indicators: Total material stocks.

Case Studies:
A study by Haberl and colleagues (2021) developed and applied the model to quantify
the stocks of Germany and Austria.

15.4.3 Material Stock Estimation Using 4d-GIS

Description: This estimation method is a bottom-up approach to studying material

stock dynamics through time and space for buildings, roadways, and railways [15].
Type of approach: Quantitative.
The model’s purpose is to incorporate a four-dimensional geographical information
system (GIS) at an urban scale into material flow analysis (MFA) and material stock
analysis (MSA). This is done by quantifying the number of buildings and infras-
tructure in stock and multiplying the number of each specific product by its material
intensity [12].
Circularity strategy: Potential for recycling.
Quantifying urban material stocks (MS) and unveiling the input history of construc-
tion materials could provide a new primary dataset for urban area assessment
regarding urban morphology change. Such datasets can provide indicators based
on MFA and MSA to measure progress toward a sustainable material-cycle society.
Information requirement: High data input.
Spatial data that contains information on the geo-localisation of buildings and infras-
tructures and their attributes such as type of buildings and infrastructure or year of
construction. Material stock intensity data that informs on the material composition
of buildings and infrastructures should be specific to each building and infrastructure.
Level of detail: Micro to Macro-level.
The description of each building and infrastructure with archetypes for building
cohorts allows for detailed information about material composition at multiple levels
due to the aggregation possibilities. A very data-intensive method that can provide
information for materials and components if data to generate building passports for
archetypes is available.
Connected Circularity Indicators: Economy-Wide MFA indicators with the addition
of stocks and demolition through time.
15 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for Existing Buildings 419

Case Studies:
A study by Takinawa and Hashimoto (2010) developed and applied the model to
study the stock dynamics of Salford in the UK and Wakayama city centre in Japan
[15].

15.5 Tools for Adaptability and Refurbishment

15.5.1 Transformation Capacity (TC)

Description: The TC introduces its concept based on the high disassembly potential
of structures, aiming to be an integral part of building/systems design [16]. It is seen
as a part of an integrated life cycle design, which involves synchronising design for
disassembly (DfD) aspects throughout various decision-making loops.
Type of Approach: Both Quantitative and Qualitative.
Circularity Strategy: Rethink.
The central assumption in this research is that a high TC of building structures
relies on their high disassembly potential. TC indicates the building/system’s overall
flexibility.
Information Requirement: High data input.
A knowledge model was developed to assess the TC of building structures based
on their disassembly potential. This model uses eight aspects of deconstruction and
their sub-aspects. Each aspect’s influence on TC is built into the model by defining
weighting factors for each relation between the model variables. The model is based
on fuzzy input data representing linguistic variables and has been developed using
fuzzy logic.
Level of Detail: Micro-level.
The TC focuses on the disassembly potential of structures, which indicates the
building/system’s flexibility and environmental efficiency. High TC means high
flexibility and low environmental impact.
Connected Circularity Indicators: The research hypothesis suggests that a higher TC
results in a lower environmental impact. This is because a high transformation ability
means buildings can adapt to new requirements, and their components and materials
can be replaced, reused, reconfigured, and recycled. The aspects are arranged so that
each aspect, resulting in the demolition of components, has values between 0.1 and
0.3. Aspects indicating partial demolition and reconfiguration are graded between
0.3 and 0.6, while those indicating disassembly with potential reuse, reconfiguration,
and recycling have values between 0.6 and 0.9.
420 H. Abu-Ghaida and L. Rosado

Case Studies:
A study by Androsevic and colleagues (2019) used this method to assess the poten-
tial for reusing wooden facade systems and waste creation [17]. A recent study [18]
combined a simplified version of the TC indicator with LCA to assess the environ-
mental benefits of a single-family house designed with DfD criteria and found that
DfD criteria could lower greenhouse gas emissions of the building by up to 45% in
the best-case scenario compared to Business as Usual.

15.5.2 ISO 20887:2020 - Sustainability in Buildings

and Civil Engineering Works—Design
for Disassembly and Adaptability—Principles,
Requirements, and Guidance

Description: The ISO 20887:2020 [19] standard provides guidelines for designing
constructed assets that can adapt to changing requirements or be disassembled for
reuse or recycling. This involves considering the various layers and constituent mate-
rials, such as elements and components. It acknowledges that it might only some-
times be practical to consider that an entire building or civil engineering work should
be disassembled and reused. For instance, some components, such as a ventilation
system, might become obsolete by disassembly and may not be desirable for reuse.
Type of Approach: Qualitative.
Circularity Strategy: Rethink.
The primary goal of DfD/A is to design assets that can adapt to changing needs or
be disassembled for reuse or recycling. This involves considering the various layers
and materials, such as elements and components.
Information Requirement: High data input.
Below are the variables considered as needed input information.
• Versatility: Percentage of multi-use space without significant changes.
• Convertibility: Percentage of space designed for easy conversion.
• Expandability: Potential for adding floors or space without significant structural
changes.
• Ease of Access: A rating scale for accessibility of components and services.
• Independence: A rating scale for design options’ independence.
• Reversible Connections: Assessment of connection reversibility.
• Avoidance of Treatments: Determine if materials are recyclable or reusable
without finishes.
• Supporting Re-use: Metrics on reclaimed and recycled content and product
reusability.
15 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for Existing Buildings 421

• Simplicity: Count of parts per element and standardisation of materials.

• Standardisation: Level of uniformity in dimensions, components, and connec-
tions.
• Safety of Disassembly: Checklist on durability, accessibility, and connection
types.
• Durability: Metrics on maintenance costs and product service life.
Level of Detail: Micro-level to Macro-level.
The guidelines provided in the standard can be applied at various levels, from
individual components to entire buildings or civil engineering works. The focus
is ensuring the design can accommodate future uses and material recovery or reuse.
Connected Circularity Indicators: The standard is connected to other sustainability
indicators and guidelines, such as ISO 15392, which provides general principles for
sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works, and ISO 15686–1, which
focuses on service life planning.
Case Studies:
Sandin (2022) applied the standard to a timber building in Sweden. The study assessed
the feasibility and data requirements of applying the ISO 20887 [20]. The study found
that several indicators lacked clarity and/or were too subjective.

15.5.3 Circular Building Assessment Prototype (CBA)

Description: The CBA is a methodology that compares and assesses product and
material resource flows during the lifetime of a built asset and beyond. The prototype
was developed as part of the Buildings as Material Banks (BAMB) project [21].
Type of Approach: Both Quantitative and Qualitative.
Circularity Strategy: Rethink and Reuse.
The CBA emphasises reusing materials from previous constructions, designing for
future reuse through reversible building design, and the potential for transformation.
Information Requirement: High Data Input.
The platform allows users to upload files generated from BIM authoring software,
which the platform then uses to extract relevant data for the assessment. Where there
are data gaps, web services are developed to pre-populate information.
Level of Detail: Nano-level to Micro-level.
The CBA can be applied at various levels, from individual components to entire build-
ings, ensuring that the design can accommodate future uses and material recovery
or reuse.
422 H. Abu-Ghaida and L. Rosado

Connected Circularity Indicators:

The CBA is connected to other guidelines, such as ISO 16739 (Industry Founda-
tion Classes, IFC) [22] and COBie (Construction Operations Building Information
Exchange) [23]. The BAMB Information requirements provide a placeholder within
the BIM model for data to be stored against them, enabling the export to IFC and
COBie or a tailored implementation referred to as ‘BAMBie’ that details more on
the material level.
Case Studies:
Durmisevic and colleagues (2021) applied this tool to a Heerlen, Netherlands building
to inform stakeholders about the potential to reuse different building systems [24].

15.5.4 Building Circularity Index (BCI)

Description: The building circularity index was developed by [25] in 2016, building
on the MCI framework and aggregating material circularity results in systems and
the building. It was further developed by [26, 27].
Type of approach: Quantitative and qualitative.
The BCI is a quantitative measure that evaluates the circularity of buildings by
considering several factors related to material usage, product utility, reversibility, and
waste generation. The BCI incorporates qualitative assessments of the reversibility
of connections, which are then translated into numerical values using fuzzy number
logic, thus integrating quantitative and qualitative aspects.
Circularity strategy: Reuse, Recover and Recycling.
The BCI considers the fraction of reused (Fu,j) and recycled (Fr,j) material in its
formulation. The amount of Virgin Material for a product j, represented as Vj, is
calculated as the total mass of the product Mj minus the reused and recycled material
fractions.
Information requirement: High Data Input.
The BCI considers the following parameters:
• Virgin Material (Vj): Calculated using the formula Vj = Mj (1 - Fr,j - Fu,j).
• Product Utility (Xj): Computed by multiplying the lifetime ratio (Lj/Lav,j), which
is the product lifetime Lj over the average lifetime of similar products Lav,j, and
the intensity ratio (Uj/Uav,j), which is the intensity of use per year Uj over the
market average Uav,j. Due to data constraints, all product utilities were set to 1
in the document.
15 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for Existing Buildings 423

• Unrecoverable Waste (Wj): Computed by summing the waste from the linear
flow W0, j and the recovering process WF,j. The document assumes WF,j to be
0, indicating a perfect recovering process.
• Reversibility: the ability to reverse connections is a measure based on connection
type, accessibility, form containment, and crossings.
Level of detail: Micro-level.
The BCI focuses on individual products within a building, such as doors, windows,
tiles, furnishings, etc. It incorporates design factors to weigh each product’s impact
on the entire building’s environmental assessment.
Connected Circularity Indicators: Detectability, greenhouse gas emissions, and
embodied energy.
Case Studies:
Cottafava and Ritzen (2021) used this method in seven case studies of several build-
ings of different typologies located in different EU countries representing different
climate zones in the EU. The method was combined with a simplified screening LCA
to compare circularity scores to environmental impacts [27].

15.6 Tools for End-Of-Life (EoL)

15.6.1 Urban Mining Index (UMI)

Description: The UMI is a quantitative tool designed to measure the potential for
urban mining in each area [28]. Urban mining refers to the process of reclaiming
raw materials from products, buildings, and waste. The UMI evaluates the potential
for extracting valuable materials from urban areas, considering factors such as the
concentration of valuable materials, accessibility, and extraction technologies.
Type of Approach: Quantitative.
Circularity Strategy: Recover and Recycle.
The UMI emphasises the recovery and recycling of materials from urban environ-
ments. By identifying areas with high concentrations of valuable materials, the UMI
promotes the efficient extraction and reuse of these resources, reducing the need for
virgin material extraction.
Information Requirement: High Data Input.
The UMI parameters are the following:
• Materiality & Construction: UMI evaluates the material composition and
construction methods to determine the potential for selective dismantling.
424 H. Abu-Ghaida and L. Rosado

• Circular Material Metrics: It assesses the use of secondary or renewable resources

and their future recycling potential.
• Circular Quality Levels: UMI differentiates materials based on their potential
for closed-loop (maintaining quality) versus open-loop (diminishing quality)
recycling.
• Economic Viability: UMI considers the feasibility of selective dismantling, which
impacts the building’s circular potential.
• End-of-Life Scenarios: Assessing two scenarios: high-quality after-use and typical
after-use.
Level of Detail: Macro-level.
The UMI operates at a macro level, providing insights into the potential for urban
mining across entire cities or regions. This broad perspective allows policymakers
and industry leaders to identify areas with the highest potential for urban mining and
prioritise their efforts accordingly.
Connected Circularity Indicators: The UMI is connected to various sustainability
indicators, including resource efficiency, waste reduction, and carbon footprint reduc-
tion. The UMI contributes to more sustainable resource use and reduced environ-
mental impacts by promoting the recovery and recycling of materials from urban
areas.
Case studies: This framework was applied to The Korbach Town Hall, a historic
building redesigned. Part of the overall construction project was deconstructing the
town hall extension from the 1970s. The study [29] found that 66% of materials
would be downcycled, and at the end of life, 23% can be recycled, and only 1% can
be reused.

15.6.2 BIM-Based System for Demolition and Renovation

Waste Estimation and Planning

Description: Cheng and Ma (2013) developed a tool that leverages the capabilities
of BIM [30]. This system can extract detailed material and volume information
from building models, offering an innovative solution to the current shortfall in
waste estimation tools. The system facilitates accurate waste predictions, optimises
recycling and reuse strategies, estimates truck logistics, and calculates waste disposal
fees.
Type of approach: Quantitative.
This tool uses information from a BIM model to estimate waste generated at the end
of the life of a building.
Circularity Strategy: Recycle.
15 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for Existing Buildings 425

Information requirements: Low data input.

The tool utilises default metrics for common construction material types. It only
requires the total volume of elements within the building.
Level of detail: Macro-level.
Connected Circularity Indicators: Waste generation.
Case studies: The tool is applied on a 47-floor residential building typical in Hong
Kong. The floors and the beams are responsible for most of the waste generated from
the EoL of the building [30].

15.6.3 Circular Construction Evaluation Framework (CCEF)

Description: CCEF [31] was developed in 2021 and is used to assess and quantify
the circularity credentials of construction projects, focusing on designing for the
disassembly and reuse of building elements and components.
Type of approach: Qualitative.
The assessment is done based on a questionnaire about the construction system.
Circularity Strategy: Reuse and recover.
Information requirements: Low data input.
The CCEF parameters needed are:
• Disassembly plan
• Disassembly sequencing
• Clarity of plans
• Adaptability of design (5 aspects)
• Health and safety (2 aspects)
• Material information (durability, inventory, connections, reliability, and re-
usability)
Level of detail: Macro-level.
Connected Circularity Indicators: LCA-related indicators.
Case Studies:
Dams and colleagues (2021) applied the method to four example case study buildings.
Buildings made of timber showed the highest circularity score [31].
426 H. Abu-Ghaida and L. Rosado

15.7 Summary of Reviewed Tools and Methods

The array of tools, methods, and models explored throughout this chapter (Table 15.1)
highlights the diverse approaches to embedding circularity in existing buildings.
The TC method emphasises the importance of disassembly potential in building
structures, offering insights into the adaptability and flexibility necessary for circular
design. In contrast, the UMI method quantifies the potential for reclaiming raw
materials from urban infrastructures, providing a concrete measure of urban mining
feasibility.
These tools, varying from quantitative methods demanding high data input, such
as the MCI, to more qualitative assessments, underscore the multifaceted nature of
sustainability challenges. High data input tools offer precision and may present data
collection and interpretation challenges. On the other hand, qualitative tools afford
adaptability and are invaluable in situations where rapid assessments are crucial or
data is incomplete.
Stakeholders in the circular economy are encouraged to align the selection of
these tools with the specific requirements of their projects. Policymakers and industry
leaders need to be aware of the strengths and limitations of each tool, ensuring that
the chosen methods align with their sustainability goals.

15.8 Conclusion

The future direction of circularity within the built environment should bridge the
gap between micro-level detailed analyses and macro-level overviews. This calls for
integrated platforms that can provide scalable insights. Furthermore, as circularity
is subject to continuous evolution, these tools must be regularly updated and refined
to incorporate the latest data, trends, and technologies.
The practical application of these tools should become a standard part of proce-
dures within the construction and urban development sectors. Educational initia-
tives can further support practitioners in utilising these tools effectively, fostering a
sustainability-driven industry culture.
In summary, the transition from theoretical frameworks to actionable tools is
crucial for the shift towards a more sustainable future. These tools and methods’
collective application and ongoing enhancement are essential for creating a resilient,
adaptable, and circular built environment. This will ensure that sustainability is not
just a transient concern but a fundamental aspect of global development strategies.
Table 15.1 Summary of the reviewed circularity tools, methods, and frameworks
Tool Description Type of Approach Circularity Information Level of Detail Case Studies
Strategy Requirement
Material Circularity Quantitative tool Quantitative Reuse, High Data Input Micro-level Construction products
Indicator (MCI) evaluating material flow Refurbishment, are in the German
circularity Recycling database; Plastic
Pallet Manufacturer
Dynamic Material Quantitative model for Quantitative Raw material Detailed data Macro-level Stock dynamics of the
Inputs, Stocks and studying stock demand and input world between 1900
Outputs model dynamics and recycling potential for and 2050
(MISO) potential recycling
High-Resolution Spatially resolved Quantitative Potential for High data input Meso and Material stocks of
Maps of Material material stock maps recycling Macro-level Germany and Austria
Stocks in Buildings using earth observation
and Infrastructure data
Material stock GIS-based method for Quantitative Potential for High data input Micro to Stock dynamics of
estimation using quantifying material recycling Macro-level Salford, UK and
4d-GIS stock dynamics Wakayama, Japan
Transformation Assesses the Both Quantitative Rethink High Micro-level Reuse potential and
15 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for Existing Buildings

Capacity (TC) adaptability and and Qualitative waste creation of

disassembly potential of wooden facade
building structures systems
ISO 20887:2020 - Guidelines for design Qualitative Rethink High Micro-level to Timber building in
Sustainability in for disassembly and Macro-level Sweden
buildings and civil adaptability in buildings
engineering works
(continued)
427
Table 15.1 (continued)
428

Tool Description Type of Approach Circularity Information Level of Detail Case Studies
Strategy Requirement
Circular Building Assesses product and Both Quantitative Rethink and Reuse High Data Input Nano-level to Building in Heerlen,
Assessment Prototype material resource flows and Qualitative Micro-level The Netherlands
(CBA) during a built asset’s
lifetime
Building Circularity Evaluate the circularity Quantitative and Reuse, Recover Detailed Data Micro-level Buildings in various
Index (BCI) of buildings, focusing qualitative and Recycling Input EU countries
on material usage and
waste
Urban Mining Index Measures the potential Quantitative Recover and High Data Input Macro-level Korbach Town Hall
(UMI) for urban mining in Recycle deconstruction
urban areas
BIM-based system for Estimates demolition Quantitative Recycle Low data input Macro-level 47-floor residential
demolition and and renovation waste building in Hong
renovation waste using BIM technology Kong
estimation and
planning
Circular Construction Assesses the circularity Qualitative Reuse, Recover Low data input Macro-level four example case
Evaluation credentials of studies buildings
Framework (CCEF) construction projects
H. Abu-Ghaida and L. Rosado
15 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for Existing Buildings 429

References

1. De Wolf C, Çetin S, Bocken NMP (eds) A circular built environment in the digital age. In:
Circular economy and sustainability. Springer International Publishing, Cham. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-031-39675-5
2. Howard M, Yan X, Mustafee N, Charnley F, Böhm S, Pascucci S (2022) Going beyond
waste reduction: exploring tools and methods for circular economy adoption in small-medium
enterprises. Resour Conserv Recycl 182:106345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.
106345
3. Beanland A (2022) Measuring circular buildings–key considerations
4. Todeschini R, Baccini A (2016). Handbook of bibliometric indicators Wiley. https://doi.org/
10.1002/9783527681969
5. Fornaro CJ, Sterin K, Struloeff KL (2021) Qualitative data collection tools: Design, develop-
ment, and applications by Felice D. Billups. Current Issues Comparat Educat 23(1). https://
doi.org/10.52214/cice.v23i1.8144
6. Potting J, Hekkert MP, Worrell E, Hanemaaijer A (2017) Circular economy: measuring
innovation in the product chain
7. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2023) Circularity indicators: an approach to measuring circu-
larity, 2019. Accessed: Feb 22, 2023. https://emf.thirdlight.com/link/3jtevhlkbukz-9of4s4/@/
preview/1?o
8. Figl H, Brockmann T, Kerz N, Kusche O, Rössig S (2017) ‘Ökobaudat’, Grundlage für die
Gebäudeökobilanzierung. Bonn
9. Dräger P, Letmathe P, Reinhart L, Robineck F (2022) Measuring circularity: evaluation of
the circularity of construction products using the ÖKOBAUDAT database. Environ Sci Eur
34(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00589-0
10. Sekti IS, Singgih ML (2022) Circular economy in plastic pallet manufacturer (PPM) using
nano level material circularity indicator (MCI). In: Proceedings of the international conference
on engineering and information technology for sustainable industry, pp 1–6. https://doi.org/10.
1145/3557738.3557881
11. Wiedenhofer D, Fishman T, Lauk C, Haas W, Krausmann F (2019) Integrating material
stock dynamics into economy-wide material flow accounting: concepts, modelling, and global
application for 1900–2050. Ecol Econ 156:121–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.
09.010
12. Lanau M et al (2019) Taking stock of built environment stock studies: progress and prospects.
Environ Sci Technol 53(15):8499–8515. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06652
13. Müller E, Hilty LM, Widmer R, Schluep M, Faulstich M (2014) Modeling metal stocks and
flows: a review of dynamic material flow analysis methods. Environ Sci Technol 48(4):2102–
2113. https://doi.org/10.1021/es403506a
14. Haberl H et al (2021) High-resolution maps of material stocks in buildings and infrastructures
in Austria and Germany. Environ Sci Technol 55(5):3368–3379. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.0c05642
15. Tanikawa H, Hashimoto S (2009) Urban stock over time: spatial material stock analysis using
4d-GIS. Build Res Inf 37(5–6):483–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210903169394
16. Durmisevic E (2023) Transformable building structures: design for dissassembly as a way to
introduce sustainable engineering to building design and construction’, 2006. Accessed: Feb.
10, 2023. https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:9d2406e5-0cce-4788-8ee0-c19cbf
38ea9a/datastream/OBJ/
17. Androsevic R, Durmisevic E, Brocato M (2019) Measuring reuse potential and waste creation
of wooden façades. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 225(1):012017. https://doi.org/10.1088/
1755-1315/225/1/012017
18. Abu-Ghaida H, Ritzen M, Hollberg A, Theissen S, Attia S, Lizin S (2024) Accounting for
product recovery potential in building life cycle assessments: a disassembly network-based
approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-024-02324-8
430 H. Abu-Ghaida and L. Rosado

19. ISO, 20887: 2020 sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works—design for
disassembly and adaptability—principles, requirements and guidance 2020
20. Sandin Y (2022) Att mäta demonterbarhet och återbrukbarhet hos träbyggnader baserat på
fallstudier och ISO 20887:2020. 2022. Accessed: Jun 10, 2024. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=
urn:nbn:se:ri:diva-61482
21. ‘BAMB - Buildings As Material Banks (BAMB2020) - BAMB’. Accessed: Jun 10, 2024.
https://www.bamb2020.eu/
22. Thein V (2011) Industry foundation classes (IFC), BIM interoperability through a vendor-
independent file format, p 152
23. East W (2007) COBIE (construction-operations building information exchange), US Army
Engineer Research and Development Center, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC,
USA
24. Durmisevic E, Guerriero A, Boje C, Domange B, Bosch G (2021) Development of a conceptual
digital deconstruction platform with integrated Reversible BIM to aid decision making and
facilitate a circular economy. In: Proceedings of the the joint conference CIB W78-LDAC,
Luxembourg, 2021, pp 11–15
25. Verberne J (2023) Building circularity indicators an approach for measuring circularity of a
building’, 2016. Accessed: Feb. 22, 2023. https://pure.tue.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/46934924/
846733-1.pdf
26. van Vliet M (2018) Disassembling the steps towards building circularity’, 2018. https://www.
ofcoursecme.nl/?mdocs-file=4216
27. Cottafava D, Ritzen M (2021) Circularity indicator for residential buildings: addressing the gap
between embodied impacts and design aspects. Resour Conserv Recycl 164:105120. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105120
28. Rosen A (2021) Urban Mining Index—Planungs- und Bewertungsinstrument für zirkuläres
Bauen. Bauphysik 43(6):357–365. https://doi.org/10.1002/bapi.202100035
29. Rosen A (2021) Urban Mining Index. Fraunhofer IRB Verlag. https://doi.org/10.51202/978
3738806069
30. Cheng JCP, Ma LYH (2013) A BIM-based system for demolition and renovation waste estima-
tion and planning. Waste Manage 33(6):1539–1551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.
01.001
31. Dams B et al (2021) A circular construction evaluation framework to promote designing for
disassembly and adaptability. J Clean Prod 316:128122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.
128122

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 16
Circularity Tools and Frameworks
for New Buildings

Bengü Güngör , Akmaral Agibayeva , Ferhat Karaca , Rand Askar ,

Christina Giarma, Leonardo Rosado , Rocío Pineda-Martos ,
Philip Griffiths , and Luís Bragança

Abstract The assessment of circularity in new building projects necessitates consid-

eration of diverse factors such as material choice, design strategies, construction
methods, operational efficiency, and end-of-life practices. Various tools and method-
ologies have been developed to aid stakeholders in the construction industry in evalu-
ating these aspects and making informed decisions. With the dynamic evolution of the
circular economy, understanding current circular practices is crucial for identifying
areas needing enhancement. However, the absence of a tandardized approach poses
a challenge, with existing methods often either too broad or narrowly focused on
specific circular elements. This limits the comprehensive evaluation of system perfor-
mance. Addressing these challenges requires practical tools, particularly for early

B. Güngör
Department of Industrial Engineering, Izmir Demokrasi University, Engineering Faculty, Izmir,
Türkiye
A. Agibayeva · F. Karaca (B)
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering and Digital Sciences,
Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan
e-mail: [email protected]
R. Askar · L. Bragança
ISISE, ARISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, 4804-533 Guimarães,
Portugal
C. Giarma
Laboratory of Building Construction and Building Physics, Department of Civil Engineering,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
L. Rosado
Chalmers University of Technology, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Göteborg, Sweden
R. Pineda-Martos
Departamento de Ingeniería Aeroespacial y Mecánica de Fluidos, Escuela Técnica Superior de
Ingeniería Agronómica, Universidad de Sevilla, Ctra. de Utrera, Km. 1, 41005 Seville, Spain
P. Griffiths
School of Architecture and the Built Environment, Ulster University, Belfast, UK

© The Author(s) 2025 431

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_16
432 B. Güngör et al.

design stages, that integrate quantitative methods to ensure circularity and environ-
mental performance goals are met efficiently. This chapter reviews existing circularity
assessment parameters, discusses aggregation methods for criteria and indicators,
and evaluates available tools to guide researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in
advancing circular practices in construction.

Keywords Building circularity · Circularity assessment · Circular economy ·

Construction industry

16.1 Introduction

The efficient circularity assessment of new buildings requires a multitude of factors

that must be considered, including material selection, design strategies, construc-
tion techniques, operational efficiency, and end-of-life management. Consequently,
a range of tools and methodologies have been developed to evaluate these aspects
and support decision-making processes for stakeholders involved in the construction
industry (CI).
With the dynamic evolution of the circular economy (CE) within the sector, it is
imperative to acquire a comprehensive understanding of the circular practices that
have been introduced. This understanding is crucial for distinguishing the current
state of implementation and identifying areas that require further application or
improvement. Numerous review articles are available that identified existing tools and
methods for circularity assessment in CI [10, 12, 18, 27, 30, 60, 70]. The current chal-
lenge of circularity assessment is the lack of a standardised approach. Previous assess-
ment methods either focused on circularity as a general term or prioritised one specific
circular element. A limited scope of circularity indicators restricts the comprehensive
evaluation of the system’s performance. Consequently, using individual indicators
as the only means to assess the circular building design and disassembly potential
remains challenging, along with quantitative support being the primary method.
While the theoretical foundations of circularity are well-established, which was
also handled in various sections in this book, the CI requires more practical tools
for assessing circularity. Particularly in the early design phase, there is a demand
for quantitative methods and tools that facilitate circular designs, mitigating the
risk of rework in later phases due to issues related to circularity and environmental
performance. However, the main challenge remains in the availability of information
for circular assessments within the current design workflow, where uncertainty and
incompleteness prevail, especially in the BIM approach. To effectively guide the
design workflow, there is a need for more automated circularity assessment tools
capable of directly evaluating circularity aspects. Despite the development of frame-
works, there is a perceived lack of supportive policies to improve the reuse and
recycling in CI.
This chapter addresses the challenges and needs of circular assessment methods
for new building projects. Readers may find other relevant details about the criteria,
16 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for New Buildings 433

indicators, and implementation practices of such tools in the different chapters of the
report. However, this chapter comprehensively reviews the circularity assessment
parameters and their possible variations on indicators and factors, and then presents
quantitative and qualitative aggregation methods for the criteria and indicators to
develop guidelines, indexes, and rating methods. Finally, the available circularity
assessment tools are evaluated as complete assessment methods. By examining the
existing literature and drawing insights from case studies, this study intends to shed
light on the diverse approaches researchers, practitioners, and policymakers employ
in this rapidly evolving field.

16.2 Circularity Assessment Parameters: The Variation

of Criteria and Indicators

The identification and use of criteria and indicators are key activities in circularity
assessment. These activities have been the focus of much research in the field,
and they are essential for developing effective circularity assessment methods. This
subsection briefly overviews the criteria and indicators, typically the focal point of
all the tools used in circularity assessment methods. It highlights the thematic and
conceptual similarities and differences between the different criteria and indicators,
which will help readers understand their relationships and key roles in the circularity
assessment paradigm. For more detailed information, please refer to the dedicated
chapters on the criteria and indicators of this book.
Circularity assessment is performed through the use of various circularity indi-
cators or a specific metric that utilises single or aggregated scores [26]. However,
the lack of consensus on the definition creates confusion in distinguishing a circu-
larity indicator from other circularity metrics (e.g., index, framework). The lack of
standardisation yielded the interchangeable use of multiple circular terminology,
often hindering the result interpretation. The definition given by the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) describes an indicator as “a
quantitative or qualitative factor or variable that provides a simple and reliable means
to measure achievement, to reflect changes connected to an intervention, or to help
assess the performance of a development actor” [74].
The use of generic circularity indicators is restricted by the unique attributes
of CI. Unlike most products in the manufacturing industry, buildings have longer
service lives, incorporate diverse materials, engage multiple stakeholders, and are
highly customised and context dependent. These distinctive characteristics compli-
cate the straightforward implementation of standardised circularity indicators in the
construction sector [61]. A set of reliable indicators is vital when assessing the
progress towards the CE [34]. This section reviews only those circularity metrics
focusing on a single circularity aspect to be classified as a circularity indicator.
Numerous studies have reviewed existing circularity indicators [85]. reviewed
a set of 55 circularity indicators and classified them into ten different categories,
434 B. Güngör et al.

including CE implementation level (e.g., micro, meso, macro), loops (e.g., main-
tain, reuse/remain, recycle), performance (e.g., intrinsic, impacts), prospective (e.g.,
actual, potential), usages (e.g., improvement, benchmarking, communication), trans-
versely (e.g., generic, sector-specific), dimension (e.g., single, multiple), units (e.g.,
quantitative, qualitative), format (e.g., web-based tool, Excel), and sources (e.g.,
academic, companies, agencies) categories. However, most of the reviewed indicators
were adapted from existing methods in other sectors, specifically for the construction
sector, with the exception of the Building Circularity Index (BCI).
Khadim [60] analysed another set of 24 specific circularity indicators with 35
variations with a wide scale of application (e.g., new and existing buildings, type
of buildings, and scale of measurement). [77] reviewed common building construc-
tion and demolition waste (BCDW) indicators and classified them into four cate-
gories: process, government initiatives, market, investment, and platforms,industrial
symbiosis; and sharing economy. Likewise, [55] discussed existing trends, chal-
lenges, and perspectives of CE in CI by reviewing existing indicators and their
dimensions (e.g., environmental, economic, management/behaviour, technological,
social, innovation, and policy). The existing circularity indicators reviewed in the
literature are presented in Table 16.1. It is worth mentioning that not all indicators
are thoroughly reviewed in the text.

16.3 Development and Design of Circularity Indicators

The majority of existing circularity indicators employ quantitative measures, given

the fundamental purpose of a circularity indicator, which lies in the objective assess-
ment of critical aspects and dimensions of CE in built environments. However, there
are instances of adopting qualitative and semi-qualitative approaches in indicator
development. For example, the measurement scale developed by [73] is a qualita-
tive assessment scale that adopts selected indicators for the construction industry.
Other examples of a semi-qualitative approach include C2C by Antwi-Afari et al.
(2022) and the methodology described by [1]. Development of a new indicator can be
challenging; therefore, adopting them from existing building assessment tools (e.g.,
BREEM, LEVEL(s), LCA, LCCA, MCI, BCI) remains a more popular approach
rather than creating new indicators from scratch [57, 60]. The design of circular
indicators can be reviewed on the examples of the most commonly used indicators.
Indicators can be quantified or qualified based on observations, measurements, calcu-
lations, or a combination of complex methods. For example, the rate of virgin mate-
rials over reused materials in secondary materials used to construct new buildings is
a simple or less complex indicator,it is simply a ratio.
The Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) is another example of a more complex
indicator developed by the [37] to quantify the level of circularity for construc-
tion materials. It assesses the degree to which a product minimises linear resource
consumption and maximises materials restoration within its components. Moreover,
it evaluates the product’s duration and intensity of use in comparison to an average
16 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for New Buildings 435

Table 16.1 Summary of the circularity metrics of the reviewed literature

The existing circularity indicators References
Building Circularity Indicator (BCI) [98]
Building Circularity Indicator (Disassembly Reconsidered) (BCIDR) [96]
BIM-Based Building Circularity Assessment (BBCA) [103]
Modified Alba Concept (For Foundations) (MAC) [95]
Alba Concept BCI (ACBCI) [8]
Modified Building Circularity Indicator (MBCI) [19]
Predictive Building Circularity Indicator (PBCI) [27]
Circularity Indicator for Pedestrian Bridges (CIPB) [9]
ARCH Circular Environmental Indicator Framework (ARCHCEIF) [42]
MADASTER Circularity Indicator (MAD-CI) [67]
FLEX 4.0 [46]
Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) [37]
Circular Economy Measurement Scale (CEMS) [73]
Circular Economy Scale (CES) [73])
Circular Business Model (CBM) Based Circularity Indicator (CBMCI) [31]
Integrated Energy Performance and Circularity (IEPC) [89]
BIM-based Whole-life Performance Estimator (BBWPE) [6]
Bridge Circularity Assessment Framework (BCAF) [25]
Synthetic Economic Environmental Indicator (SEEI) [44]
Gypsum End of Life Measurement Indicator (GEOLMI) [59]
RIPAT 1.0 [93]
Framework for Circular Buildings (FCB) [63]
Platform CB’ 23 (PCB) [21]
Circularity Calculator (CC) [57]
Circular Building Assessment Prototype (CBAP) [16]
C-CALC [22]
Circulytics [38]
Circular Assessment Criteria for Envelope (CACE) [40]
Circular Construction Evaluation Framework (CCEF) [29]
Material Reutilization Part (C2C) [66]
Circle Assessment (CA) [24]
Circularity Assessment Tool (CAT) [80]
Circular Benefits Tool (CBT) [4]
Circular Economy Company Assessment Criteria (CECAC) [97]
Circular Economy Index (CEI) [3]
(continued)
436 B. Güngör et al.

Table 16.1 (continued)

The existing circularity indicators References
Circular Economy Indicators for India (CEII) [90]
Circular Economy Indicator Prototype (CEIP) [100]
Circular Economy Monitoring Framework (CEMF) [36]
Circular Economy Performance Indicator (CEPI) [56]
Circular Economy Toolkit (CET) [3]
Circular Economy Toolbox US (CETUS) [92]
Circular Economic Value (CEV) [41]
Circularity Index (CI) [56]
Circular Impacts Project EU (CIPEU) [36]
Circularity Material Cycles (CIRC) [79]
Closed Loop Calculator (CLC) [43]
Circularity Pathfinder (CP) [84]
Circularity Potential Indicator (CPI) [3]
Super-efficiency Data Envelopment Analysis Model (DEA) [103]
Evaluation of CE Development in Cities (ECEDC) [17]
Evaluation Indicator System of Circular Economy (EISCE) [3]
Indicators for Material input for CE in Europe (IMCEE) [35]
End-of-Life Recycling Rates (EoL-RRs) [37]
Environmental Protection Indicators (EPICE) in a context of CE [75]
Evaluation of Regional Circular Economy (ERCE) [22]
Eco-efficient Value Ratio (EVR) [56]
Economy-Wide Material Flow Analysis (EWMFA) [53]
Five Category Index Method (FCIM) [65]
Hybrid LCA Model (HLCAM) [45]
Indicators for Consumption for CE in Europe (ICCEE) [35]
Circularity Indicator Project (ICT) [99]
Indicators for Eco-design for CE in Europe (IECEE) [35]
Indicators of Economic Circularity in France (IECF) [68]
Integrative Evaluation on the Development of CE (IEDCE) [83]
Input–Output Balance Sheet (IOBS) [3]
Indicators for Production for CE in Europe (IPCEE) [35]
Industrial Park Circular Economy Indicator System (IPCEIS) Geng (2012)
Measuring Regional CE–Eco-Innovation (MRCEEI) Smol (2017)
National Circular Economy Indicator System (NCEIS) Geng (2012)
Product-Level Circularity Metric (PCM) [3]
Regional Circular Economy Development Index (RCEDI) [51]
(continued)
16 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for New Buildings 437

Table 16.1 (continued)

The existing circularity indicators References
Resource Duration Indicator (RDI) [3]
EU Resource Efficiency Scoreboard (RES) [34]
Recycling Indices (RIs) for the CE [37]
Resource Productivity (RP) Wen and Meng (2015)
Reuse Potential Indicator (RPI) [3]
Recycling Rates (RRs) [37]
Sustainable Circular Index (SCI) [15]
Value-based Resource Efficiency (VRE) [100]
Zero Waste Index (ZWI) [15]
Whole building circularity indicator (WBCI) [61]
Product Circularity Index (PCI), [94]
Element Circularity Index (ECI) [94]
Critical Success Factors (CSFs) [76]
[62]
Reuse Potential Indicator (RPI) [10, 78]
Whole-Life Performance Estimator (WLPE) [6]
Circular Economy Performance Indicator (CPI) [56]
Global Resource Indicator (GRI) [2]
Deconstruction, and Resilience (3DR) [75]
System Circularity Indicator (SCI) [11]
The Circular Construction Evaluation Framework (CCEF) [29]
The Disassembly and Deconstruction Analytics System (D-DAS) [5]

product within the same industry. The MCI is primarily composed of three key
product characteristics: the amount (V) of used virgin raw materials, the amount
(W) of unrecoverable waste attributed to the product, and the utility factor (X)
that accounts for the lifetime of the product. MCI is determined by considering
the proportion of material input (virgin or non-virgin), the material output (either
energy recovery or landfill disposal), and the technical lifecycle of a product. These
factors collectively represent the theoretical circular capacity of each product. To
calculate the MCI for each product, a Bill of Materials (BoM) is utilised as input.
The MCI represents 50% of the circular potential of products [11]. From this perspec-
tive, the MCI is not just a simple indicator but a more complex assessment method for
measuring material circularity. In the fourth section, the focus is driven to the specifics
of the MCI and its integration with other components to form the Building Circularity
Indicator (BCI), providing a complete methodology for circularity assessment.
438 B. Güngör et al.

16.4 Development of Circularity Indices: Aggregation

of Indicators

Generally, criteria and indicators are quantitative or qualitative measures created

from a collection of observed facts that might reflect relative positions in a certain
area [23]. They can show the change in direction across time and between various
units when it is reviewed regularly. They can also be useful in establishing policy
priorities, benchmarking, and performance monitoring. When separate indicators are
combined into a single index (sometimes called ranking, method, or tool) based on
an underlying model, the resulting indicator is generally referred to as an “index”
or aggregated indicator [86]. Ideally, the index should measure multidimensional
aspects such as competitiveness, industrialisation, sustainability, single market inte-
gration, and knowledge-based society, which a single indicator cannot adequately
represent. Table 16.2 presents a list of pros and cons of indices, which was originally
evaluated by the Joint Research Centre-European Commission in 2008.
An index quality and the validity of the information it delivers largely depend
on the framework and data used rather than only the methodology employed in its
creation [52]. Despite the employment of cutting-edge methodology in its creation,
an index built on a weak theoretical foundation or soft data with significant measure-
ment errors may produce policy statements that are open to debate. The experience
demonstrates that disagreements regarding the best way to create weights are difficult
to settle. Science may considerably contribute to ensuring that the processes of aggre-
gation are as sound and transparent as feasible, although it cannot give an objective
approach for creating the only true index to summarise a complex system. Therefore,
in this part, a generic index generation framework is given to guide aggregators like
a checklist for constructing an index (See Fig. 16.1).
Building an index begins with a strong theoretical framework step. The framework
should explicitly identify the phenomenon to be assessed and its constituent parts,
choosing distinct indicators and weights (see the previous section) that reflect the

Table 16.2 Pros and Cons of Aggregated Indicators (Indices) (Adapted from [86], OECD 2008)
Pros Cons
Indices can be used to summarise complicated Indices that are poorly constructed or evaluated
or multifaceted problems may lead to false or incomplete understandings
They can simplify classification based on The judgement required to form indices can
challenging criteria introduce subjectivity
They facilitate the interpretation of trends Indicators necessitate data, which is sometimes
across a variety of distinct metrics unavailable or inaccessible, making its
acquisition time-consuming or resulting in
inaccurate calculations
They help fit more data into the allotted space If the construction process is not transparent, it
or streamline a list of indicators may obscure serious flaws in some dimensions
and make it more difficult to identify
appropriate corrective action
16 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for New Buildings 439

Fig. 16.1 A generic framework for index generation steps (Source own elaboration)

relative weights of these components and the dimensions of the final composite. The
ideal approach would be to base this procedure on what is desirable to measure rather
than on which indicators are readily available.
Within the data selection step, the quality of the underlying variables signifi-
cantly impacts both the indices’ strengths and flaws. Variables should ideally be
chosen based on their applicability, analytical quality, timeliness, and accessibility.
With advancements in data selection and indicator development, aggregated indica-
tors’ quality and accuracy should also advance. Missing data frequently hampers the
creation of reliable indices. Both random and non-random data loss is possible. In
this situation, a step for imputation of missing data should be managed. Variance
estimations should consider the uncertainty in the imputed data. Because of this, the
analysis can now account for the impacts of imputation. Single imputation, however,
is notorious for underestimating variance because it only fully accounts for imputa-
tion uncertainty. The multiple imputation approach, which offers numerous values
for each missing value, can better capture the uncertainty brought on by imputed
data.
More decision-makers need to create aggregated indicators than ever before. In
most cases, the choice of a single indicator is made randomly, with little thought
given to how that signal may interact with other indicators. Therefore, the data set’s
applicability may be evaluated by applying multivariate analysis (MVA), which also
helps to understand how the methodological decisions will impact the results. The
most common MVA methods are Multiple Linear Regression Analysis, Principal
Components and Factor Analysis, Cronbach Coefficient Alpha, and Cluster Analysis,
which are briefly explained in Table 16.3.
440 B. Güngör et al.

Table 16.3 Multivariate analysis techniques for aggregating indicators (OECD, 2008)
Analysis Name Mathematical Formulation Advantage Disadvantage
Multiple Linear Ŷ =a+b1 X1 + · · · + bn Xn Managing many For other ranges,
Regression where Ŷ is the indicator, a diverse variables the output
is a constant, and b1 to bn uncertainty might
are the regression not hold
coefficients (weights) of
the associated
sub-indicators X1 , X2 …,
Xn
p
Principal Zj = i=1 aij Xi , j = One important feature Not usually
Components & 1,2, . . . , p in evaluating various efficient since many
Factor Analysis statistical aspects of the original variables
takes p variables X1 ,
data is the absence of are reduced to a
X2 …, Xp and finds linear
correlation small number of
combinations of these to
modified variables
produce principal
components Z1 , Z2 …, Zp
that are uncorrelated
p.r
Cronbach α = 1+(p−1).r The strength of Results can be
Coefficient Alpha number p of indicators and correlations between positively or
the average groups of negatively impacted
inter-correlation r̄ among sub-indicators can be by sample size, and
the indicators evaluated by low-reliability
researchers by using a scores are usually
coefficient of associated with
dependability, also fewer items
known as consistency
K-means J=   
Presenting an alternate Only descriptive;
Clustering K xn − μj 2 technique for grouping might not be
j=1 n∈Sj
Analysis nations and transparent if
n examples to one of k illuminating the methodological
clusters, where n is the composition of the data choices made
sample size and k set during the
investigation are not
well supported and
given adequate
context

16.4.1 Common Weighting and Aggregation Methods

The sub-indicators that are measured in various units must be converted to the same
unit before an index can be calculated. Choosing the appropriate weights is the
more challenging issue [105]. Six possible approaches to calculating an indicator are
represented by equations in Table 16.4 [87]. These vary from the most straightforward
(Method 1) to the most intricate (Method 6). There are additional ways to calculate a
composite indicator. Each method has several variations. Each of the given methods
is briefly explained in this part.
16 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for New Buildings 441

Table 16.4 Methods for calculating indices for country c (Adapted from [87])
Method Equation
N
1 Total ranking of countries CI tc = t
i=1 Rank ic
 
2 The sum of the indicators above and below the N t
xic
CI tc = i=1 sgn xt
− (1 + p)
mean for each indicator EU i
N
i=1 wi ×yic
t t
xic
3 Ratio or percentage of variance from the CI tc =  N , t =
where yic t
xEU
i=1 wi i
average
N t −xt−1
i=1 wi ×yic
t xic
4 Variation in the annual percentage CI tc =  N , t =
where yic t
xic
ic
i=1 wi
N t −xt
i=1 wi ×yic
t xic
5 Standardised values CI tc =  N , t =
where yic σEU
t
EU i
i=1 wi i
N
i=1 wi ×yic
t t −min(xt )
xic
6 Re-scaled values CI tc =  N , t =
where yic i
range(xit )
i=1 wi

* xt
is the value of indicator i for country c at time t. wi wi is the weight given to indicator i in the
ic
composite index. In Method 2, p = an arbitrarily chosen threshold above and below the mean

The first method is the simplest aggregation technique among the methods given
in Table 16.4. For each sub-indicator, the variables (e.g., countries) are ranked, and
the rankings are then added up. Therefore, ordinal levels are the foundation of this
method. Its simplicity and independence from outliers is its merits. Its drawback is
that absolute-level information is lost. Method 2 solely uses data at the nominal level
for each indicator. It only calculates the difference between the number of indicators
above and below a mean-cantered threshold. The simplicity of the procedure and the
fact that it is unaffected by outliers are its benefits. This method’s drawback is that
interval-level information is lost. Method 3 averages the ratios (or percentages) close
to each indicator’s mean. It has the benefit of allowing for the calculation of changes
in the composite indicator over time. However, there is a significant drawback to
this approach. In the presence of outliers, it is less resilient. Method 4 substitutes
the sub-indicator values for the differences between the current year and the prior
year and divides those values by the value from the prior year. Method 5 has been
frequently employed in various indexes, such as the environmental sustainability
index. The index is calculated using the standardised scores for each indicator, which
are calculated as the difference between each indicator’s score for each variable and
the mean divided by the standard error. Compared to Method 3, this approach is more
resilient when handling outliers, but it does not provide a complete solution. This
is since each indication will have a different range between the least and maximum
observed standardised scores. An indicator in the variables with extreme values is
given more weight by the approach. In contrast to Method 5, Method 6 employs
rescaled values for the constituent indicators. As a result, the standardised scores for
each indicator have the same range. Due to this, this technique is more resilient in
the presence of outliers.
Some weighting and aggregation techniques are generated from statistical models
like Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Unobserved Components Models
442 B. Güngör et al.

(UCM) or from participatory techniques like Budget Allocation Procedures (BAP),

Analytic Hierarchy Processes (AHP), and Conjoint Analysis (CA) [32, 104].
Since the indicators in a data set frequently have distinct measurement units,
normalisation is necessary before any data aggregation as part of the one-step-ahead
framework technique. The following section presents the normalisation techniques
in the context of nine different formulations.

16.4.2 Common Normalisation Methods

Normalisation is necessary before any data aggregation since the indicators in a data
set frequently have distinct measurement units [81]. There are numerous normalisa-
tion techniques, which are summarised in Table 16.5. However, choosing an appro-
priate method is not simple and requires specific consideration for potential scale
adjustments, transformations, or severely skewed indications. The data qualities and
the goals of the composite indicator should both be considered when choosing the
normalisation approach. To evaluate their effect on the results, robustness tests may
be required [69].
According to WBCSD (2018), a circularity assessment method built on a well-
liked current tool is more likely to be adopted than to produce something entirely
new. As a result, many indicators are created using already available technologies.
However, a small number of authors created their framework by defining a wide
variety of circular KPIs and employing varied research approaches, according to [60].
In the highlight of these implications, a circularity index generation methodology for
a new building process is presented as a conceptual framework design for circularity
assessment mainly due to the indicated steps in this field. The following part provides
some selected case studies of the developed tools by focusing on their methodologies.

16.5 Examples of the Circularity Indices for New Building

Assessments and Their Methodologies

This section includes MCI and BCI-based tools as well as the Circular Construc-
tion Evaluation Framework (CCEF) and Disassembly and Deconstruction Analytics
System (D-DAS). The selection of indicators, their derivatives, and specific frame-
works was based on their widespread use within the field, considering their value in
evaluating the circularity of building materials and construction processes. Each of
these chosen metrics or frameworks offers a quantifiable means to assess the effi-
ciency of resource management, reuse, and recycling within the construction industry.
The major challenge in CE lies in standardising these indicators, prompting the
combination of the most prevalent ones into a cohesive framework. This approach
16 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for New Buildings 443

Table 16.5 Generic normalisation methods analysing country c (Adapted from [87])
Method Equation
1 Ranking t =Rankx t
Iqc qc
t −xt
xqc
2 Standardisation (or t =
Iqc qc−τ
σqc−τ
t
z-score)
t −min (x 0 ) t
3 Min–Max t = xqc c q
Iqc t t
maxc (xq0 )−minc (xq0 )

t t −x 0t
t = xqc t = xqc qc−τ
4 Distance to a Iqc t0 or Iqc t0
xqc−τ xqc−τ
reference country
5 Categorical scales e.g.
t =
Iqc

t < p15 20ifp15 ≤ x t < p25 40ifp25 < x t < p95 100ifp95 ≤ x t
0ifxqc qc qc qc

6 t = {1ifw > (1 + p)0if (1 − p) ≤ w ≤ (1 + p) − 1ifw , where

Indicators above or Iqc
below the mean
xt
w = t0qc
xqc−τ

7 Cyclical indicator xt −E (xt )

t =
Iqc  qc t qc 
 t t )
(OECD) Et (xqc −Et xqc

t =
Ne
8 Balance of Iqc 100
Ne e sgne (xqc
t − x t−1 )
qc
opinions (EC)
t −xt−1
9 Percentage of t = xqc qc
Iqc t
xqc
annual differences
over consecutive
years
t is the value of indicator q for country c at time t. C is the reference country. The operator sgn
*xqc
gives the sgn of the argument (i.e. + 1 if the argument is positive and -1 if the argument is negative).
Ne is the total number of experts surveyed. pi is the i-th percentile of the distribution of the indicator
t and an arbitrary threshold around the mean
xqc

provides a unified means of evaluating circularity in the context of construction

practices.

16.5.1 Material Circularity Indicator (MCI)

The first example is the indexing method details of the MCI, which is already
discussed in the previous parts for indicator selections and developments. The MCI
value ranges from 0 to 1, with a higher number indicating a higher level of circularity.
The MCI is a multidimensional assessment that considers several factors. Firstly, the
MCI primary input is the comprehensive analysis of the proportion of resources
444 B. Güngör et al.

derived from both virgin and recycled materials, as well as components that have
been repurposed from previous usage.
Secondly, the MCI also considers utility derived during the product’s usage phase.
This evaluation involves a comparative assessment of the duration and intensity of
product use in relation to industry norms for similar product types. Along with the
product durability assessment, the analysis extends to account for scenarios involving
repair, maintenance, and shared consumption business models. Thus, the MCI can
assess if the product has the potential to exceed its planned durability, prolonging its
use in the industry.
The subsequent focus of the MCI is the post-usage phase, with a critical examina-
tion of the material destination after being used. This involves quantifying materials
designated for landfill disposal or energy recovery and those designated for recy-
cling. Moreover, the MCI identifies components with the potential to reuse, reducing
waste generation and optimising resource use. Moreover, the MCI also evaluates
the efficacy of recycling processes. This assessment considers the efficiency of recy-
cling protocols in generating and recycling input materials at the product’s end-of-life
stage, profoundly influencing product circularity and minimising resource consump-
tion and environmental impact. Finally, the detailed bill of materials is essential for
the MCI itemising and quantifying data for all components and materials. Addition-
ally, the MCI can incorporate optional risk and impact indicators for products (e.g.,
material price variation, material supply chain risk, material scarcity and toxicity,
energy usage, and CO2 emissions) to provide further insights related to the business
concerning the product [37].
Mathematically, the MCI for a product can be defined through the Linear Flow
Index (LFI) of the product, along with the factor F(X), which is constructed as a func-
tion F of the utility X. This utility factor determines the impact of the product’s utility
on its MCI [37]. There are multiple case studies that utilised the MCI for the circula-
tory assessment [60, 82]. However, MCI has a few limitations. Firstly, it focuses solely
on the materials that ultimately become finished products, neglecting any losses that
may occur during extraction, transportation, and manufacturing processes. Secondly,
the MCI tends to overestimate the quality of recovered products, assuming they are
equivalent to newly produced ones. Thirdly, it fails to consider the significance of
biological materials in the transition from a linear to a circular economy [60].
Moreover, Jiang (2022) argues that the MCI excessively relies on the mass of the
product, which may not accurately reflect the value of a specific material. This has
raised a debate about the practice of simply summing up the MCIs of individual mate-
rials to calculate the MCI of a product, as it may overestimate its circular value due
to challenges in separating materials for recovery at the end of life in many instances.
[57] modified the MCI to overcome these limitations by employing economic value
(E) as the unit of measurement and introducing a new indicator known as residual
value (R).
16 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for New Buildings 445

16.5.2 Building Circularity Indicator (BCI)-Based Tools

The first version of the Building Circularity Indicator (BCI) model was introduced
by [98] to measure the extent to which the linear flows have been minimised and
restorative flows maximised for four levels of detail in a building: Material, Product,
System, and Building. The model implies a bottom-up approach to calculate the
indicators at the four levels, scaling up from the Material Circularity Indicator (MCI),
which was first introduced by the Ellen McArthur Foundation (2015), consecutively
to the Product Circularity Indicator (PCI), then the System Circularity Indicator (SCI)
up to the overall Building Circularity Indicator (BCI). The general idea behind the
BCI is to look at the input, usage, and output. This model should also be used to
communicate between chain partners in the construction process.
The research methodology followed in this model is built upon an extensive list of
KPIs obtained from expert semi-structured interviews, then a subjective prioritisation
by the author to shorten the list, providing a set of the most important circularity
indicators that later is validated by an expert panel. The previous process resulted
in a conceptual framework that was translated into an assessment methodology and
eventually tested and validated on a case study using Excel functionality.
The final set of KPIs is categorised into three groups of indicators:
1. Technical requirements: these consider the type of input and output, the technical
lifetime, and the disassembly factors for only technical cycles
2. Preconditions: these involve aspects of material health, GHG emissions, renew-
able energy use, and environmental impact.
3. Drivers: these encompass material scarcity, potential financial value, and future
reuse possibilities
The circularity indicators only include the technical requirement of materials that
should be considered. The preconditions and drivers are designed to give principals
(organisations) the possibility to incorporate their interests even better. The precondi-
tions may provide additional information to evaluate if the changing level of material
circularity affects other impacts or interests of principals and their stakeholders (e.g.,
energy and water). Drivers could not be seen as real indicators but more as a value
proposition.
The distinction between the indicators at different hierarchical building composi-
tions of material, component, system, and full building scales of assessment allows
us to identify the relevant criteria and indicators to the materials and products sepa-
rately, but also the interconnections and physical interfaces at the assembly in a
building. At a material level (MCI), the material input and output and the utility of
a product, depending on its technical lifetime, are evaluated. At the product level
(PCI), the interfaces and connections between products and materials are considered
based on the Design for Disassembly (DfD) principles and possibilities, including
aspects of functional, technical, and physical deconstruction. At the system level, the
SCI assesses the circularity of products in a system together based on their weight of
sales revenues and makes the separation of a system based on the shearing layers to
446 B. Güngör et al.

compare systems with each other and the different lifetimes of each system. Finally,
at a building level, the BCI assesses the separate systems as a whole with a factor for
the level of importance of each system.
The overall aspects considered in the circularity calculation methodology, tech-
nically, only consist of two components: (1) the material specifications and (2) the
design for disassembly (functional, technical, and physical). The BCI by Verberne
formed the first circularity assessment tool for a whole building level and intro-
duced an important base for later building circularity models, which built upon
it and addressed some of its limitations. For example, [96] refined the BCI by
addressing certain limitations related to design for disassembly (DfD) and the
weighting of factors. [95] expanded the BCI by introducing circularity criteria for
foundations. [103] proposed an automated framework using BIM that further devel-
oped Verberne’s original BCI. [61] enhanced the model by incorporating adaptability
factors.
Cradle to Cradle Certified is among the prevalent models for assessing circu-
larity in building projects, evaluating products based on criteria such as material
health, reutilisation, renewable energy, water stewardship, and social equity [28].
BREEAM, primarily focused on environmental assessment, incorporates principles
of the circular economy related to materials use and life cycle impacts (Building
Research Establishment (BRE), n.d.). LEED, developed by the U.S. Green Building
Council, promotes sustainable practices in design, construction, and operation,
emphasising materials and resources aligned with circular economy principles [91].
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s Circulytics measures circular economy perfor-
mance across business dimensions [39]. Malaysia’s Green Building Index (GBI)
rates buildings based on sustainable material use and life cycle impacts, aligning
with circular economy principles (Green Building Index Malaysia, n.d.).
Despite their importance in advancing sustainability in construction, these models
face significant challenges. They often require substantial resources for data collec-
tion, analysis, and verification, which can be daunting for smaller organisations or
projects with limited capabilities. Moreover, their focus tends to be on inputs like
material selection and energy efficiency, rather than on assessing outputs such as
actual circularity achieved or the effectiveness of recycling and reuse processes [71].
This gap between input-focused assessments and real-world circular outcomes can
hinder their ability to comprehensively achieve sustainability goals. Furthermore,
while these models address lifecycle impacts to some extent, they may not fully
encompass critical stages such as end-of-life scenarios or the management of mate-
rials post-demolition or renovation [14]. Certification costs also pose barriers, as the
expenses associated with assessments and audits can be prohibitive, especially for
projects in developing regions [101]. Additionally, the adaptability of these models
to diverse regional contexts and regulatory frameworks varies, potentially limiting
their global applicability. Balancing complexity with practical application remains
an ongoing challenge, requiring continuous refinement to ensure these models effec-
tively support sustainable and circular practices across different scales and contexts
within the building sector.
16 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for New Buildings 447

In contrast, modern BCI-based tools offer robust features that distinguish them
from traditional building circularity models. These tools integrate comprehensive
circular economy principles throughout the building lifecycle, encompassing not only
material health and energy efficiency but also critical aspects like end-of-life recy-
cling and reuse. They adopt a holistic assessment approach that balances inputs such
as material selection with outputs like actual circularity achieved and the recyclability
of materials post-use, providing a more accurate measure of sustainable practices
[88]. Utilising advanced data analytics and digital technologies, these tools streamline
data collection, analysis, and reporting, making sustainability assessments more effi-
cient and accessible across diverse projects. Customisable criteria tailored to regional
contexts enhance their global relevance and applicability, fostering transparency and
stakeholder engagement. Furthermore, modern tools emphasise performance-based
metrics, enabling continuous improvement and benchmarking against sustainability
goals. Innovations such as digital twin simulations optimise building performance
and resource efficiency. These advancements collectively enhance the capacity of
modern building circularity indicator-based tools to drive sustainable and resilient
building practices in today’s dynamic environment.

16.5.3 HOUSEFUL’s Building Circularity Methodology

(BCM)

The Horizon 2020 HOUSEFUL project on “Innovative circular solutions and services
for new business opportunities in the EU housing sector” (2018–2022) recently
reported a methodology to evaluate circularity degree in the sector of housing to
be implemented at the earlier stages (new and retrofitted) of building design, as an
originally circularity measure via a global circularity indicator, the BCS, Building
Circularity Score [49]. The HOUSEFUL approach, using a composed circularity indi-
cator, is fundamental on the degree of circularity based on six pillars—.e., energy,
water, and material balances,social and environmental impacts; and life cycle cost
reduction. Being the proposed indicator under a life-cycle-based methodological
approach, it is aligned with common and existing methods of building sustainability,
such as the CEN Technical Committee 350 (CEN TC 350) and the European Union
(EU) LEVEL(s); including potential for improvements regarding water and energy
circularity per life cycle stage. The six pillars encompass a set of meaningful Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) and weighting factors (energy and water consump-
tion, materials usage, social added value, and life cycle economic value), which
are extensively implemented in the sustainable construction sector to result in a
single circularity KPI, the so-called BCS [49]. The methodology was applied in the
HOUSEFUL demo buildings and related projects, being tested and validated in prac-
tice with real data and in different scenarios by comparing different buildings—i.e.,
location, use, measures, etc. (González et al., n.d.).
448 B. Güngör et al.

The Building Circularity Methodology (BCM) was proposed as a multidimen-

sional model to assess and evaluate the circularity degree in residential and/or tertiary
buildings (housing sector), highlighting its implementation in the EU countries under
a Circular Economy (CE) perspective. This methodology and the BSC constitute
a consistent and reliable output aimed at applying market-usable and innovative
solutions accessible to data on current circularity degrees. Thus, it would be useful
to inform existing policies and strategies on circularity in the urban built environ-
ment and to provide recommendations to the construction sector stakeholders—e.g.,
designers, manufacturers, promoters, decision-policy, lawmakers, and end-users.
Moreover, the HOUSEFUL approach and indicator, which is based on easy and
objective metrics, would bring green funding opportunities under the umbrella of
administrations and other public bodies and tenders and novel project calls towards
the implementation, achievement and promotion of CE principles in the urban built
environment. The BSC would be automatically calculated by providing input data
on the HOUSEFUL web-based Circularity Tool (CT), as a Software-as-a-Service
(SaaS) tool facilitating decision-making and future planning and the design at the
construction phase [49].
As highlighted above, the HOUSEFUL’s Building Circularity methodology was
developed by considering the CE principles of recyclability, reusability and waste
management related to materials and buildings on energy and water life cycles, and
economic and social performance, as well as circular solutions feasibility. More-
over, new and existing methodologies on CE pillars were considered—e.g., Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Cost (LCC), and Social Life Cycle Assess-
ment (S-LCA). Additionally, the HOUSEFUL approach is also well-matched with
sustainable building certifications—e.g., LEED, BREAM, WELL [49]. The compre-
hensive circularity calculation, at building level characterisation and its indicators,
complements the BCS by the above-mentioned six-pillar consideration. Thus, circu-
larity degree valuation at the lifecycle stage level would provide and identify solid
knowledge on improvements and solutions among different CE aspects (pillars), thus
improving and unifying building circularity [47].

16.5.4 Circular Construction Evaluation Framework (CCEF)

The Circular Construction Evaluation Framework (CCEF), proposed relatively

recently by [29], aims at evaluating the degree of a project’s circularity. It addresses
both existing and new (proposed) design and construction projects and can be used
by a variety of contributors and participants in a project’s development (e.g., clients
and other professionals in the sector). Its methodological approach consists of the
quantification of the level of the examined project’s circularity with regard to several
relevant criteria.
The assessment takes place on a whole-building basis and at the level of building
elements. The circularity credentials for each one of these levels are quantified by
16 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for New Buildings 449

different criteria organised in broader groups. Specifically, when the whole building
is considered, 14 criteria are employed, classified under four groups [29]:
• Recorded information design, data, and materials: 1. Disassembly plan included
in design drawings and specifications, 2. Disassembly sequencing information, 3.
Clarity and transferability of plans and specifications,
• Adaptability in design: 4. Versatility (in regular use, cosmetic change), 5.
Convertibility (partition/space changes), 6. Expandability (vertical, without major
foundation modification), 7. Expandability (horizontal, compatible foundations)
• Simplicity in design: 8. Parts per element, 9. Standardisation and modularity of
elements (dimensions), 10. Standardisation and modularity of elements (compo-
nent variation), 11. Standardisation and modularity of elements (connections), 12.
Degree of element independence and classification of construction
• Health and safety: 13. Toxicity/synthetic chemicals, 14. Ease of access, construc-
tion, and disassembly
The respective structure at the assessment level of elements comprises 11 criteria
that are classified into three groups and three criteria not belonging to a larger thematic
area [29]:
• Durability: 1. Number of previous design lives/uses, 2. Length of previous design
lives, 3. Predicted length of current design life
• Material inventory: 4. Suppliers and production, 5. Warranties, 6. Donor
building(s), 7. Reclaimed and/or recycled content, 8. Involvement of reuse in
cleaning or restoration work, 9. Life Cycle Analysis with end-of-life Scenario
and Environmental Product Declaration
• Finishes/Treatment: 10. Synthetic/chemical/wet resins/adhesives? (yes/no
response) 11. Chemical coatings, 12. Reversibility of connections, 13. Reusable
(without restoration or modification), 14. Recyclable (no downgrading)
The rating in the context of each criterion ranges from 0 to 5, with higher scores
indicating a higher degree of circularity. This scoring scale is also used for criteria of
a qualitative nature (e.g., yes/no reply), so that quantitative final results are achieved.
The evaluations at the element- and at the whole building level take place separately
and result in two separate scores. Regarding the objectivity of the results, the authors
formulating the framework point out the possibility of “an element of bias” [29], p. 6).
The structure of the framework’s computational implementation provides the possi-
bility for weightings’ determination and introduction (however, such development is
unavoidably accompanied by a subjectivity factor).
As indicated by the aforementioned criteria, circularity aspects heavily considered
within this framework are, among others, design for adaptability and disassembly, as
well as materials’ reuse. LCA/EPDs related issues, durability and reusability, toxic or
synthetic substances creating health risks or preventing direct reuse of components,
and several other parameters (simplicity, methods of construction), all seen under the
light of a lifecycle approach also considering past and future design lives and uses,
are also included in the performed assessments.
450 B. Güngör et al.

16.5.5 Disassembly and Deconstruction Analytics System

(D-DAS)

The disassembly and deconstruction analytics system (D-DAS) is a framework

enabling the integration of end-of-life performance evaluation/consideration into
the buildings’ design stage and process [5]. The system’s main target evolves around
the selection of materials, already in the building’s design stage, that will contribute
not only to efficient materials’ use but also to the reduction of waste at the end-of-life
with regard to the built environment. D-DAS uses and builds upon the capabilities of
building information modelling (BIM). Allowing the consideration of various alter-
native solutions for the building design at various levels (materials selection, etc.) and
providing the possibility for access to extensive information on the building as well
as for complex computational processes, visualisation, and simulation, this system
can serve as a decision support tool.
Four layers of D-DAS architecture work together as a single system. The data,
based on which the calculations are made, are related to building design (para-
metric building models, materials, etc.), to the building materials’ specification
(materials’ properties and status), as well as to deconstruction and demolition
information (historical data). The system comprises five functional models and
analytics: (i) Building Whole Life Performance Analytics, related to the calculation/
estimation of the building’s performance over time; (ii) Building Element Decon-
struction Analytics, resulting in an evaluation of the building design with regard to
whether and to which degree design for deconstruction is supported (the applied
model is based on Deconstructibility Assessment Score [7], (iii) Deconstruction
Arising Analytics, forming the basis for the Pre-Deconstruction Audit generation (iv)
Design for Deconstruction Advisor, which identifies possible optimisation points in
the design (building components- and materials wise) regarding the materials reuse
and the reduction of waste, and provides alternative solutions; (v) Deconstruction
Visualisation, providing the plan of the deconstruction process, as well as its visu-
alisation (along with the disassembly process). Each one of these entities supports a
different functionality. According to [5], D-DAS can be implemented either as a plug-
in for an existing BIM or as a standalone application (visualisation and simulation
tools-based).
The implementation of D-DAS presented by [5] is a plug-in to Autodesk Revit,
including the functional modules (i), (ii), and (iii). It was validated through the exam-
ination of three alternative scenarios for a building. However, important assumptions
and simplifications were adopted in this process [13], creating the need for further
testing and validation of the system.
16 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for New Buildings 451

16.6 Insights for Future Work and Further Improvements

This section offers valuable insights into the challenges faced by the construction
industry in developing circularity assessment tools. To promote more sustainable
construction practices and advance the field of circularity assessment, we need to
identify several areas for future improvements.
• Standardisation of Circularity Assessment: The critical review in this section
highlights that one of the main challenges is the lack of a standardised approach
to circularity assessment. Therefore, future research should focus on developing
sector-wide standards and guidelines for assessing circularity in construction
projects. This would streamline the evaluation process and make it easier to
compare different projects.
• Development of Automated Tools: As mentioned, there is a need for more
automated circularity assessment tools, especially in the early design phase.
Researchers and software developers should work together to create user-friendly
software that integrates circularity assessment seamlessly into Building Informa-
tion Modelling (BIM) workflows. This will help architects and designers make
informed decisions from the outset, reducing the risk of rework in later project
phases.
• Enhanced Data Availability: The circular economy addresses the importance of
data sharing and availability within the current design workflow, where uncer-
tainty and incompleteness prevail, and is addressed in this review as a signifi-
cant challenge. Future research should explore ways to improve data collection
and sharing, possibly through collaborative platforms and databases specifically
tailored for circularity assessment in construction.
• Policy Support: The section also mentions a perceived lack of supportive policies
to improve reuse and recycling in the construction industry. Advocacy for and
development of policies that incentivise circular construction practices, such as tax
incentives or procurement regulations, can significantly accelerate the adoption
of circularity principles.
• Circularity Indicator Classification and Standardisation: There is a confusion
arising from the interchangeable use of circular terminology. Future work should
focus on classifying and standardising circularity indicators, indices, and frame-
works to provide a clear and consistent language for circularity assessment in the
construction sector.
• Innovative Circularity Indicators: Researchers should explore and develop new
circularity indicators tailored to the construction industry’s unique attributes.
These indicators should consider factors such as building service life, diverse
materials, stakeholder involvement, and customisation.
• Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Circular construction is a complex field that
requires expertise in materials science, architecture, engineering, policy, and
economics. Encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration among these experts
can help foster a holistic approach towards assessing circularity and promoting
innovation.
452 B. Güngör et al.

• Qualitative and Semi-Qualitative Approaches: While quantitative indicators

are essential, it is equally crucial to explore qualitative and semi-qualitative
approaches for circularity assessment. These approaches may offer a better under-
standing of the social and environmental dimensions of circular construction.
• Education and Training: To promote the adoption of circularity in the construc-
tion industry, it is vital to develop training programmes and educational resources
for professionals and stakeholders. Building a skilled workforce that understands
the principles and benefits of circularity is essential.
• Longitudinal Studies: Longitudinal studies that track the impact of circular
construction practices over time can provide valuable insights into their effective-
ness. Monitoring the performance and environmental impact of circular buildings
throughout their lifecycle and integrating them into existing assessment tools can
be a useful strategy.
In conclusion, the construction industry is undergoing a transformation towards
circular economy principles. However, to further advance this shift, it is essen-
tial to address challenges like standardisation, data availability, policy support, and
the development of innovative tools and indicators. With these improvements, the
construction industry can become a more sustainable and circular sector, contributing
to a greener future.

References

1. Abadi M, Moore D (2022) Selection of circular proposals in Building Projects: An MCDM

model for lifecycle circularity assessments using AHP. Buildings 12(8):1110. https://doi.org/
10.3390/buildings12081110
2. Adibi N, Lafhaj Z, Yehya M, Payet J (2017) Global Resource Indicator for life cycle impact
assessment: Applied in wind turbine case study. J Clean Prod 165:1517–1528. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.226
3. Acampora A, Preziosi M, Merli R and Lucchetti MC (2017) Environmental management
systems in the wine industry: Identification of best practices toward a circular economy. In:
Proceedings of the 23rd International Sustainable Development Research Society Confer-
ence, Bogotá, Colombia 14–16. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Environmental-Man
agement-Systems-in-the-Wine-of-a-Acampora-Preziosi/9e3e93ae323e02f1eb567c796fde29
698c79bbcc.
4. Advancing Sustainability LLP (2013) Circular benefits tool. https://www.advancingsustainab
ility.com/wwd-sustainability#circular-economy.
5. Akanbi LA, Oyedele LO, Omoteso K, Bilal M, Akinade OO, Ajayi AO, Davila Delgado
JM, Owolabi HA (2019) Disassembly and deconstruction analytics system (D-DAS) for
construction in a circular economy. J Clean Prod 223:386–396
6. Akanbi LA, Oyedele LO, Akinade OO, Ajayi AO, Delgado MD, Bilal M, Bello SA (2018)
Salvaging building materials in a circular economy: A BIM-based whole-life performance
estimator. Resour Conserv Recycl 129:175–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.
10.026
7. Akinade OO, Oyedele LO, Bilal M, Ajayi SO, Owolabi HA, Alaka HA, Bello SA (2015)
Waste minimisation through deconstruction: A BIM based Deconstructability Assessment
Score (BIM-DAS). Resour Conserv Recycl 105:167–176
16 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for New Buildings 453

8. Alba (2018) Building Circularity Index (BCI). https://albaconcepts.nl/building-circularity-

index/
9. Anastasiades K, Van Hul K, Audenaert A, Blom J (2020) A Circularity Indicator for Pedestrian
Bridges. In: Prog Winter Glob Bus Conf Winter Glob Educ, Teach & Learn Conf, 8–22, Tignes
10. Anastasiades K, Blom J, Audenaert A (2023) Circular construction indicator: Assessing circu-
larity in the design, construction, and end-of-life phase. Recycling 8(2):29. https://doi.org/10.
3390/recycling8020029
11. Andriulaitytė I, Valentukeviciene M (2020) Circular economy in buildings in Budownictwo o
Zoptymalizowanym Potencjale Energetycznym 10 (2/2020): 23–29. https://doi.org/10.17512/
bozpe.2020.2.03.
12. Antwi-Afari P, Ng ST, Hossain MdU (2021) A review of the circularity gap in the construction
industry through Scientometric analysis. J Clean Prod 298:126870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2021.126870
13. Askar R, Bragança L, Gervásio H (2022) Design for adaptability (DfA)—frameworks and
assessment models for enhanced circularity in buildings. Appl Syst Innov 5(1):24
14. Attia S, Al-Obaidy M, Mori M, Campain C, Giannasi E, van Vliet M, Gasparri E (2024)
Disassembly calculation criteria and methods for circular construction. Autom Constr
165:105521
15. Azevedo SG, Godina R, Matias JCDO (2017) Proposal of a sustainable circular index for
manufacturing companies. Resources 6(4):63
16. BAMB (2018) Circular Building Assessment Prototype. Retrieved from https://www.bam
b2020.eu/post/cba-prototype/
17. Banaite D (2016) Towards circular economy: analysis of indicators in the context of
sustainable development. Soc Transformations Contemp Soc 2016:4
18. Benachio GL, Freitas M, do, Tavares SF, (2020) Circular economy in the construction industry:
A Systematic Literature Review. J Clean Prod 260:121046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2020.121046
19. Braakman L, Bhochhibhoya S, de Graaf R (2021) Exploring the relationship between the
level of circularity and the life cycle costs of a one-family house. Resour Conserv Recycl
164:105149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105149
20 Building Research Establishment (BRE) (n.d) https://breeam.com/about.
21. C.B.’23 Platform (2020) Circular Construction; Unambiguous Terms and Definitions, Version
2.0. https://platformcb23.nl/english.
22. Chun-Rong J, Jun Z (2011) Evaluation of regional circular economy based on matter element
analysis. Procedia Environ Sci 11:637–642
23. Ciegis R, Ramanauskiene J, Startiene G (2009) Theoretical reasoning of the use of indicators
and indices for sustainable development assessment. Engineering Economics 63(3).
24. Circle Economy, PGGM (2014a) Circle Assessment. https://www.circle-economy.com/ass
essing-circular-trade-offs/#.Wic7PHlryM8.
25. Coenen TB, Santos J, Fennis SA, Halman JI (2021) Development of a bridge circularity
assessment framework to promote resource efficiency in infrastructure projects. J Ind Ecol
25(2):288–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13102
26. Corona B, Shen L, Reike D, Rosales Carreón J, Worrell E (2019) Towards sustainable devel-
opment through the circular economy—a review and critical assessment on current circu-
larity metrics. Resour Conserv Recycl 151:104498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.
104498
27. Cottafava D, Ritzen M (2021) Circularity indicator for residential buildings: Addressing the
gap between embodied impacts and design aspects. Resour Conserv Recycl 164:105120.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105120
28. Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute (2024) https://c2ccertified.org/articles/introd
ucing-c2c-certified-r-version-4-1
29. Dams B, Maskell D, Shea A, Allen S, Driesser M, Kretschmann WP, Emmitt S (2021)
A circular construction evaluation framework to promote designing for disassembly and
adaptability. J Clean Prod 316:128122
454 B. Güngör et al.

30. De Pascale A, Arbolino R, Szopik-Depczyńska K, Limosani M, Ioppolo G (2021) A systematic

review for measuring circular economy: The 61 indicators. J Clean Prod 281:124942. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124942
31. Di Biccari C, Abualdenien J, Borrmann A, Corallo A (2019) A BIM-based framework to
visually evaluate Circularity and Life Cycle Cost of buildings. In: IOP conference series:
earth and environmental science 290(1), p 012043). IOP Publishing
32. Dominguez JA, Dante AW, Agbossou K, Henao N, Campillo J, Cardenas A, Kelouwani
S (2020) Optimal charging scheduling of electric vehicles based on principal component
analysis and convex optimisation. In: IEEE 29th Int Symp Ind Electron (ISIE). https://ieeexp
lore.ieee.org/document/9152292 [Accessed 10 July 2023]
33. Dräger P, Letmathe P, Reinhart L, Robineck F (2022) Measuring circularity: evaluation of the
circularity of construction products using the ÖKOBAUDAT database. Environ Sci Eur 34(1)
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00589-0
34. EC-European Commission (2015b) Resource efficiency scoreboard. http://ec.europa.eu/eur
ostat/web/environmental-data-centre-on-natural-resources/resourceefficiency-indicators/res
ource-efficiency-scoreboard
35. EC-European Commission (2016) Circular Impacts Project EU. http://circularimpacts.eu/start
36. EC-European Commission (2017) Eurostat: Circular Economy Overview. http://ec.europa.
eu/eurostat/web/circular-economy/overview
37. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015) Circularity Indicators Methodology. Circularity Indica-
tors: An approach to measuring circularity. https://emf.thirdlight.com/link/3jtevhlkbukz-9of
4s4/@/preview/1?o
38. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2020) Circulytics: method introduction
39. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2023) https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/resources/cir
culytics/resources
40. Finch G, Marriage G, Pelosi A, Gjerde M (2021) Building envelope systems for the circular
economy; Evaluation parameters, current performance and key challenges. Sustain Cities Soc
64:102561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102561
41. Fogarassy C, Kovács A, Horváth B, Böröcz M (2017) The development of a circular evaluation
(CEV) tool–case study for the 2024 Budapest Olympics. Hung Agric Eng 31:10–20
42. Foster G, Kreinin H, Stagl S (2020) The future of circular environmental impact indicators
for cultural heritage buildings in Europe. Environ Sci Eur 32(1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12
302-020-00411-9
43. Franklin-Johnson E, Figge F, Canning L (2016) Resource duration as a managerial indicator
for Circular Economy performance. J Clean Prod 133:589–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcl
epro.2016.05.023
44. Fregonara E, Giordano R, Ferrando DG, Pattono S (2017) Economic-environmental indicators
to support investment decisions: A focus on the buildings’ end-of-life stage. Buildings 7(3):65.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings7030065
45. Genovese A, Acquaye AA, Figueroa A, Koh SL (2017) Sustainable supply chain manage-
ment and the transition towards a circular economy: Evidence and some applications. Omega
66:344–357
46. Geraedts RP, Remøy HT, Hermans MH, Van Rijn E (2014) Adaptive capacity of buildings:
A determination method to promote flexible and sustainable construction. In: UIA2014: 25th
International Union of Architects World Congress “Architecture otherwhere”, Durban, South
Africa, 3–7 August 2014. https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:3c57e976-5af4-
4e05-a66d-723604ded852?collection=research
47. González Juncà A, Surroca V, Herena A, Campoverde L, Silva L (2023) Technical
Article—HOUSEFUL Project: BCM as a tool to increase building circularity. BUILD
UP—European Commission: European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Exec-
utive Agency. https://build-up.ec.europa.eu/en/resources-and-tools/articles/technical-article-
houseful-project-bcm-tool-increase-building [Accessed 09 October 2023]
48. González A, Herena A, Surroca V (n.d.) HOUSEFUL—D2.6: Description of the BCM
methodology and implementation rules in real scenarios
16 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for New Buildings 455

49. González A, Verdaguer S, Fusté S, Samperio A, Hernández G, Díez G, Alfaro L, Louiws

R, Oberhuber S (2020) HOUSEFUL—D2.5: First approach of the BCM methodology and
implementation in theoretical scenarios. https://houseful.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/
First-approach-of-the-BCM-Methodology-and-implementation-in-theoretical-scenarios.pdf
[Accessed 09 October 2023]
50. Green Building Index Malaysia (n.d) https://www.greenbuildingindex.org/gbi-tools
51. Guogang J and Jing C (2011) Research on evaluation of circular economy development. In
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Innovation & Management. Kitakyushu,
Japan (pp. 153–157)
52. Hák T, Janoušková S, Moldan B (2016) Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant
indicators. Ecol Ind 60:565–573
53. Haas W, Krausmann F, Wiedenhofer D, Heinz M (2015) How circular is the global economy?:
An assessment of material flows, waste production, and recycling in the European Union and
the world in 2005. J Ind Ecol 19(5):765–777
54. Heisel F, Rau-Oberhuber S (2020) Calculation and evaluation of circularity indicators for the
built environment using the case studies of Umar and Madaster. J Clean Prod 243:118482.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118482
55. Hossain MdU, Ng ST, Antwi-Afari P, Amor B (2020) Circular economy and the construction
industry: Existing trends, challenges and prospective framework for Sustainable Construction.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 130:109948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109948
56. Huysman S, De Schaepmeester J, Ragaert K, Dewulf J, De Meester S (2017) Performance
indicators for a circular economy: A case study on post-industrial plastic waste. Resour
Conserv Recycl 120:46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.013
57. Jiang L, Bhochhibhoya S, Slot N, de Graaf R (2022) Measuring product-level circularity
performance: An economic value-based metric with the indicator of residual value. Resour
Conserv Recycl 186:106541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106541
58. Jiang L (2020) Measuring product-level circularity performance based on the Material Circu-
larity Indicator: An economic value-based metric with the indicator of residual value (Master’s
thesis, University of Twente)
59. Jiménez-Rivero A, García-Navarro J (2016) Indicators to measure the management perfor-
mance of end-of-life gypsum: from deconstruction to production of recycled gypsum. Waste
Biomass Valorization 7:913–927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-016-9561-x
60. Khadim N, Agliata R, Marino A, Thaheem MJ, Mollo L (2022) Critical review of nano and
micro-level building circularity indicators and frameworks. J Clean Prod 357:131859. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131859
61. Khadim N, Agliata R, Thaheem MJ, Mollo L (2023) Whole building circularity indicator: A
circular economy assessment framework for promoting circularity and sustainability in build-
ings and construction. Build Environ 241:110498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.
110498
62. Koc K, Durdyev S, Tleuken A, Ekmekcioglu O, Mbachu J, Karaca F (2023) Critical
success factors for construction industry transition to circular economy: Developing countries’
perspectives. Eng Constr Archit Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-02-2023-0129
63. Kubbinga B, Bamberger M, Van Noort E, Van den Reek D, Blok M, Roemers G, Faes K
(2018) A framework for circular buildings—indicators for possible inclusion in BREEAM.
Circle Economy, DGBC, Metabolic and SGS, Netherlands, 52.
64. Lam WC, Claes S, Ritzen M (2022) Exploring the missing link between life cycle assessment
and circularity assessment in the built environment. Buildings 12(12):2152. https://doi.org/
10.3390/buildings12122152
65. Li RH, Su CH (2012) Evaluation of the circular economy development level of Chinese
chemical enterprises. Procedia Environ Sci 13:1595–1601
66. Linder M, Sarasini S, van Loon P (2017) A metric for quantifying product-level circularity.
J Ind Ecol 21(3):545–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12552
67. Madaster U (2018) Madaster circularity indicator explained. Madaster Services BV Utrecht,
The Netherlands
456 B. Güngör et al.

68. Magnier C (2017) 10 Key Indicators for monitoring the circular economy. Monit Stat Dir,
Paris
69. Mazziotta M, Pareto A (2017) Synthesis of indicators: The composite indicators approach.
Complexity in society: From indicators construction to their synthesis, 70. Springer Cham
70. Munaro MR, Tavares SF, Bragança L (2020) Towards circular and more sustainable buildings:
A systematic literature review on the circular economy in the built environment. J Clean Prod
260:121134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121134
71. Nazareth AP (2019) How close is the built environment to achieving circularity?. In: IOP
Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 225, p. 012070. IOP Publishing.
72. Niu LC, Sun XH, Zuo XB (2012) Circularity calculation of sand and stone particles based on
Matlab image processing. Hunningtu(Concrete), (1): 10–12
73. Nuñez-Cacho P, Górecki J, Molina-Moreno V, Corpas-Iglesias F (2018) What gets measured,
gets done: Development of a circular economy measurement scale for building industry.
Sustainability 10(7):2340. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072340
74. OECD (2014) A review of challenges and practices among DAC members and observers.
Measuring and managing results in development co-operation. https://www.oecd.org/develo
pment/peer-reviews/measuring-and-managing-results.pdf.
75. O’Grady T, Minunno R, Chong HY, Morrison GM (2021) Design for disassembly, decon-
struction and resilience: A circular economy index for the built environment. Resour Conserv
Recycl 175:105847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105847
76. Oluleye BI, Chan DWM, Antwi-Afari P, Olawumi TO (2023) Modeling the principal success
factors for attaining systemic circularity in the building construction industry: An international
survey of Circular Economy Experts. Sustain Prod Consum 37:268–283. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.spc.2023.03.008
77. Oluleye BI, Chan DWM, Saka AB, Olawumi TO (2022) Circular economy research on
building construction and Demolition Waste: A review of current trends and Future Research
Directions. J Clean Prod 357:131927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131927
78. Park JY, Chertow MR (2014) Establishing and testing the “reuse potential” indicator for
managing wastes as resources. J Environ Manage 137:45–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen
vman.2013.11.053
79. Pauliuk S, Kondo Y, Nakamura S, Nakajima K (2017) Regional distribution and losses of end-
of-life steel throughout multiple product life cycles e insights from the global multiregional
MaTrace model. Resour Conserv Recycl 116:84–93
80. PGGM (2015) Circularity Assessment Tool. https://www.circle-economy.com/actiam-launch
ing-customer-for-circularity-assessment-tool/#.Wic4cnlryM8.
81. Pollesch NL, Dale VH (2016) Normalisation in sustainability assessment: Methods and
implications. Ecol Econ 130:195–208
82. Poolsawad N, Chom-in T, Samneangngam J, Suksatit P, Songma K, Thamnawat S, Kanok-
sirirath S, Mungcharoen T (2023) Material circularity indicator for accelerating low-carbon
circular economy in Thailand’s building and construction sector. Environ Prog & Sustain
Energy 42(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.14105.
83. Qing Y, Qiongqiong G, Mingyue C (2011) Study and integrative evaluation on the development
of circular economy of Shaanxi province. Energy Procedia 5:1568–1577
84. Saidani M, Yannou B, Leroy Y, Cluzel F (2017) How to assess product performance in
the circular economy? Proposed requirements for the design of a circularity measurement
framework. Recycling 2(1):6. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling2010006
85. Saidani M, Yannou B, Leroy Y, Cluzel F, Kendall A (2019) A taxonomy of circular economy
indicators. J Clean Prod 207:542–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.014
86. Saisana M, Tarantola S (2016) State-of-the-art report on current methodologies and practices
for composite indicator development. Ispra: European Commission, Joint Research Centre,
Institute for the Protection and the Security of the Citizen, Technological and Economic Risk
Management Unit
87. Saisana M, Tarantola S, Saltelli A (2003) Exploratory Research Report: The Integration
of Thematic Composite Indicators. Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen
Technological and Economic Risk Management, Ispra, Italy
16 Circularity Tools and Frameworks for New Buildings 457

88. Schmidt Rivera XC, Balcombe P, Niero M (2021) Life cycle assessment as a metric for circular
economy
89. Sreekumar N (2019) An integrated approach towards energy performance and circularity in
buildings
90. Talwar S (2017) Circular Economy indicators for India: a scientific macro assessment of 5
circular economic measures, and their comparative performance to global industrial hubs. In
ISIE-ISSST 2017 Conference: Science in Support of Sustainable and Resilient Communities,
Chicago, USA
91. U.S. Green Building Council (2024) https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.usgbc.org/
resources/leed-v5-public-comment-draft-building-design-and-construction-new-construct
ion&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1718727173903975&usg=AOvVaw0pAEOLg9vRdQ-Ij4_
FxjMR
92. US Chamber Foundation (2017) Measuring circular economy, circular economy
toolbox, USA. https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/circular-economytoolbox/about-circul
arity/measuring-circular-economy
93. Valdebenito G, Vásquez V, Prieto AJ, Alvial J (2021) The paradigm of circular economy in
heritage preservation of southern Chile. Arquiteturarevista 17(1):73–89. https://doi.org/10.
4013/arq.2021.171.05
94. van der Zwaag M, Wang T, Bakker H, van Nederveen S, Schuurman ACB, Bosma D (2023)
Evaluating building circularity in the early design phase. Autom Constr 152:104941. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2023.104941
95. van Schaik C (2019) Circular building foundations: A structural exploration of the possibilities
for making building foundations contribute to a circular economy. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/
uuid:70bad27f-d276-482c-9d54-2f19e4aab7c6
96. van Vliet M (2018) Disassembling the steps towards Building Circularity. Eind-
hoven Univ. Technol.Eindhoven. https://pure.tue.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/122509202/Vliet_
0946226_thesis.pdf
97. VBDO (2015) Circular Economy. Company Assessment Criteria, Utrecht, Netherlands
98. Verberne JJ (2016) Building Circularity Indicators: an Approach for Measuring Circularity
of a Building, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven
99. Viktoria Swedish ICT (2015) Measuring business model circularity as a means to promote
resource productivity. Gothenburg
100. Walker S, Coleman N, Hodgson P, Collins N, Brimacombe L (2018) Evaluating the envi-
ronmental dimension of material efficiency strategies relating to the circular economy.
Sustainability 10(3):666
101. Wang K, Vanassche S, Ribeiro A, Peters M, Oseyran J (2017) Business models for building
material circularity: learnings from frontrunner cases. In: International HISER Conference on
Advances in Recycling and Management of Construction and Demolition Waste, pp 21–23.
Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology
102. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), EIT Climate-KIC (2018)
Circular metrics, landscape analysis. Eur Inst Innov Technol (EIT)
103. Zhai J (2020) BIM-based building circularity assessment from the early design stages. Eindh
Univ Technol
104. Zhou L, Tokos H, Krajnc D, Yang Y (2012) Sustainability performance evaluation in industry
by composite sustainability index. Clean Technol Environ Policy 14:789–803
105. Zhou P, Ang BW (2009) Comparing MCDA aggregation methods in constructing composite
indicators using the Shannon-Spearman measure. Soc Indic Res 94:83–96
458 B. Güngör et al.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 17
Driving the Built Environment Twin
Transition: Synergising Circular
Economy and Digital Tools

Rand Askar , Ferhat Karaca , Adriana Salles , Artyom Lukyanenko,

Genesis Camila Cervantes Puma , Vanessa Tavares ,
Assemay Khaidarova, Ana Nadaždi , Rocío Pineda-Martos ,
Juan Manuel Díaz-Cabrera , Meliha Honic , Catherine de Wolf ,
Emriye Cinar Resulogulari , Ibrahim Karatas , Helena Gervásio ,
and Luís Bragança

Abstract This chapter offers a comprehensive analysis of the intersection between

digitalisation and the circular economy (CE) within the construction sector. It under-
scores the transformative potential of integrating digital tools to advance circularity
objectives across managerial, environmental, economic, and social dimensions. The

R. Askar (B) · A. Salles · G. C. Cervantes Puma · L. Bragança

ISISE, ARISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, 4804-533 Guimarães,
Portugal
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
F. Karaca · A. Lukyanenko · A. Khaidarova
School of Engineering and Digital Sciences, Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan
V. Tavares
BUILT CoLAB and Faculty of Architecture, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
A. Nadaždi
Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Belgrade, Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73, Belgrade,
Serbia
R. Pineda-Martos
Departamento de Ingeniería Aeroespacial y Mecánica de Fluidos, Escuela Técnica Superior de
Ingeniería Agronómica, Universidad de Sevilla, Ctra. de Utrera, km. 1, 41005 Sevilla, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]
J. M. Díaz-Cabrera
Department of Electric and Automatic Engineering, University of Córdoba, Campus de
Rabanales, University of Córdoba, 14071 Córdoba, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]
M. Honic · C. de Wolf
Circular Engineering for Architecture, Institute of Construction and Infrastructure Management,
Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geomatic Engineering, ETH Zurich, Stefano-Franscini
Platz 5, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland

© The Author(s) 2025 459

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_17
460 R. Askar et al.

chapter discusses fourteen digital tools and technologies, which play a pivotal role
in CE by streamlining data integration and visualisation, enhancing the accuracy
of Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) assessments, and
supporting the adoption of CE strategies. Moreover, it explores how digital tools
can facilitate collaboration among stakeholders, fostering knowledge sharing and
effective communication throughout the project lifecycle. Nevertheless, challenges
such as the absence of standardised methods, data interoperability issues, and the
need for well-defined system boundaries remain. The chapter highlights the crit-
ical role of digitalisation in advancing the transition towards CE in the construction
sector, emphasising the necessity of overcoming technical and systemic obstacles to
fully harness the potential of digital tools in implementing CE. This transition aligns
with the broader ambitions of the European Green Deal and the EU Digital Strategy,
aiming to create a more sustainable, efficient, and resilient construction industry.
By addressing these challenges and leveraging digitalisation, the construction sector
can make a significant contribution to a sustainable and circular economy, ultimately
benefiting both the environment and society.

Keywords Digitalisation · Circular economy · Digital tools · Key enabling

technologies · Twin transition

17.1 Introduction

17.1.1 The Twin Transition—Green and Digital

The European Green Deal initiated the green transition within its sustainable growth
agenda, with the aim of reframing the challenge of climate change into a unique
opportunity. As stated by the European Commission, this green transition is pivotal
for two primary objectives: firstly, to mitigate the consequences of climate change
and environmental degradation, and secondly, to strengthen the European Union’s
(EU) energy self-sufficiency. At the heart of the European Green Deal’s roadmap lies
the Circular Economy (CE), a critical policy area intended to champion the efficient
use of resources and stimulate sustainable economic growth, with a particular focus
on the seven most resource-intensive sectors, including construction and building
[1].

E. Cinar Resulogulari · I. Karatas

Department of Civil Engineering, Osmaniye Korkut Ata University, 80000 Osmaniye, Türkiye
H. Gervásio
ISISE, ARISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, 3030-788 Coimbra,
Portugal
e-mail: [email protected]
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 461

Simultaneously, Industry 4.0 presents another essential transition in line with its
objectives, referring to the profound changes in the design, production, operation,
and servicing of manufacturing systems and products, marking the world’s fourth
industrial revolution [2]. Known as digital transition, this transformation hinges on
several innovative technological advancements:
• Information and communication technology (ICT) to digitalise and seamlessly
integrate information across the product life cycle and various sources, including
different actors and companies.
• Cyber-physical systems, encompassing sensors and robots, which support
additive manufacturing.
• Network communications linking devices, products, systems, and individuals.
• Simulation, modelling and virtualisation techniques.
• Data collection, big data analysis, and cloud computing.
• Support human workers, incorporating robots, augmented reality, and intelligent
tools.
The Industry 4.0-driven digital transition offers significant growth potential for
Europe across two principal dimensions: firstly, through the adoption of innovative
solutions by businesses and citizens, and secondly, by enhancing the accessibility and
efficiency of both private and public services. As outlined in the EU’s digital transition
plan, this transformation opens up new opportunities for businesses, encourage the
development of trustworthy technology, foster an open and democratic society, enable
a vibrant and sustainable economy, help fight climate change and achieve the green
transition [3].
Furthermore, following Industry 4.0, Industry 5.0 is a new technological revolu-
tion that aims to enhance the transformation of the industrial sector into intelligent
spaces based on the Internet of Things and cognitive computing. It is human-centric,
sustainable, and resilient and relies on putting artificial intelligence at the service of
people, bringing machines and humans together. The main difference between these
two concepts lies in the role technology plays in each. In Industry 4.0, it is humans
who monopolise the generation of knowledge and intelligence, using technology
only as a support mechanism. However, in Industry 5.0, machines take on a different
role, becoming the ones who also generate knowledge and intelligence, using artifi-
cial intelligence to be at the service of people. The main benefits of industry 5.0 are
[4]:
• Reduce cost due to resource efficiency
• Empowered workers remaining in control
• Improved safety and well-being
• Competitive edge in new markets
• Adapted training for evolving skills
• Competitive industry by attracting best talent
• A solution provider for people and for our planet
The EU aspires to become a sustainable and competitive economy. To realise this
vision, it is imperative for the European construction industry to embrace the practices
462 R. Askar et al.

of Industry 4.0 and CE, given their profound impact on the economy [5], environment
and social communities. These two paradigms hold the potential to revolutionise the
construction sector, enabling more sustainable and efficient practices that support the
dual green and digital transitions. This is particularly critical because the construction
industry stands as one of the largest consumers of raw materials and energy while
concurrently generating a significant volume of waste and emissions [6].
The concept of twin transition, encompassing green and digital shifts, has been
presented by the EU as the cornerstone of the transformations that will define the EU’s
future. This twin transition, propelled by a top-down approach and holding a promi-
nent place on the political agenda, signifies the transformation necessary to attain
green and digital objectives. The synergy arising from the amalgamation of both
transitions goes well beyond their individual impacts. Digitalisation can amplify the
green transition, and it is indispensable in comprehending, evaluating, and comparing
alternatives, thereby challenging the prevailing business-as-usual (BaU) approach
and charting new paths towards a more sustainable, circular, and digital future, span-
ning the three core dimensions of sustainable development: social, economic and
environmental.
Aligned with the European Green Deal and the EU Digital Strategy several
research projects have been supported by the EU, namely the GREEN AT YOU
project from the EntreComp Community, an initiative that focuses on addressing
the challenges and opportunities associated with the green and digital transition in
Europe, aiming to make green job opportunities more inclusive and accessible to
people in vulnerable situations, supporting the European Commission’s agenda for
a cleaner environment, green economy, and digitalisation, aligning with this twin
transition [7].
For a successful twin transition, the Strategic Foresight Report [8] has identified
ten key areas of action, including:
1. Strengthening resilience and open strategic autonomy in critical sectors.
2. Stepping up green and digital diplomacy.
3. Strategically managing the supply of critical materials and commodities.
4. Strengthening economic and social cohesion.
5. Adapting education and training systems.
6. Mobilising additional future-proof investment into new technologies and
infrastructures.
7. Developing monitoring frameworks.
8. Ensuring a future-proof regulatory framework for the Single Market.
9. Stepping up a global approach to standard-setting.
10. Promoting robust cybersecurity and secure data-sharing framework.
In the “Towards a Green and Digital Future” report [9], the key requirements for
the twin transition are grouped into five thematic clusters:
1. Social, to ensure a just transition, increase societal engagement in the change,
and ensure privacy and ethical technology use.
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 463

2. Technological, implementing innovation infrastructure, building a technology

ecosystem, and ensuring data availability and security.
3. Environmental, avoiding rebound effects, and reducing the impact of green-
digital technologies.
4. Economic, to create enabling markets, ensure diversity of market players, and
equip labour with relevant skills.
5. Political, implementing adequate standards, ensuring policy coherence, and
channelling investment into green-digital solutions.
This study underscores the significance of the buildings and construction sector
in the green transition. Within an industry characterised by lower and relatively
stagnant productivity compared to other manufacturing sectors and a shortage of
skilled labour, the digitalisation and industrialisation of the construction process
provide an opportunity to address both challenges. This can be achieved by reducing
dependence on labour and increasing productivity.

17.1.2 Key Enabling Technologies (KETs)

Key enabling technologies (KETs) represent the catalyst for rapid and far-reaching
technological advances that reshape our economy, ushering in new markets and stake-
holders [10]. Aligned with the objective of addressing paramount societal concerns,
including the environment, energy, mobility, health and well-being, food and nutri-
tion, security, privacy, inclusion, and equality, the European Commission champions
six KETs organised into three primary domains:
1. Production technologies:
• Advanced manufacturing
• Advanced materials
• Life-science technologies
2. Digital technologies:
• Micro/nano-electronics and photonics
• Artificial intelligence
3. Cyber technologies
• Security and connectivity
A subset of these KETs is intimately intertwined with digitalisation technologies
within the construction sector, which will be expounded upon in subsequent sections.
The analytical report from the European Construction Sector Observatory [11]
entitled “Digitalisation in the Construction Sector,” presents an overview of the most
pertinent digital technologies in the construction sector, categorised into three distinct
areas:
464 R. Askar et al.

• Data acquisition: sensors, Internet of Things (IoT), and 3D scanning.

• Automating processes: robotics, 3D printing and drones; and
• Digital information and analysis: Building Information Modelling (BIM), Virtual/
Augmented Reality (VR and AR), Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Digital Twins
(DT).
Governments have exhibited robust support for the digitalisation of the Archi-
tecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry, resulting in an encouraging
acceleration. This momentum is underpinned by a confluence of factors, including
political priorities and financial backing, the imperative to enhance productivity
while reducing costs, and the market demand for digital technologies. Nevertheless,
several main challenges must be overcome, notably the scarcity of skilled labour and
awareness, as well as the expenses associated with equipment and software.
The most relevant digitalisation technologies in the construction sector are
elaborated in the European Commission’s report “Supporting Digitalisation of
the Construction Sector and SMEs: Including Building Information Modelling”
[12]. Key technologies outlined in this document encompass Building Informa-
tion Modelling (BIM), Additive Manufacturing, Robotisation, Drones, 3D Scanning,
Sensors, and IoT. Within this document, BIM is not merely regarded as a technology
but as a comprehensive methodology that underpins and harmonises the entire suite
of digital advancements.

17.2 Analysis of Existing Key Enabling Digital

Technologies for the Construction Sector

Within the realm of circular built environments, digital technologies and transfor-
mations have emerged as vital enablers in closing, slowing, and narrowing material
loops. Aligning circular and digital transitions is believed to bring multiple bene-
fits to environment, economy and society. In this regard, numerous studies have
explored the best practices for implementing CE in the construction sector through
digitalisation, shedding light on several tools, innovative products, applications, and
services that have demonstrated significant benefits. Together, they create a dynamic
ecosystem of digital technologies that fuel socio-economic transformation [13]. This
chapter specifically highlights 14 key enabling digital technologies that play a pivotal
role as drivers for the digital CE within the built environment.

17.2.1 Building Information Modelling (BIM)

Building Information Modelling or Building Information Management (BIM) is

a methodological approach that revolves around creating a parametric 3D virtual
model, or multiple linked models, to consolidate information about a building. This
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 465

process begins in the early stages, such as commissioning or conceptual design, and
ideally extends throughout the entire life cycle of the structure. The BIM model starts
by representing existing conditions (the existing building or site), serves as a tool
during the design phase to centralise and coordinate various aspects like architec-
ture, engineering, and landscaping, and continues to be a valuable resource during
construction, offering support for construction management and design modifica-
tions. This evolving model, often referred to as an “as-built BIM model”, remains
relevant after being delivered to the client or facility management team, supporting
use and maintenance activities. Ultimately, it is ideally employed in the end-of-
life (EoL) phase, assisting with demolition or, preferably, dismantlement and waste
management. Throughout the building’s life cycle, the BIM model enables various
analyses, such as energy efficiency, material usage, layout planning, and sun expo-
sure, providing data for various alternative scenarios and informing decision-making
[14].
The BIM methodological approach hinges on data exchange and digital informa-
tion interoperability. This entails seamless data sharing among different stakeholders
with minimal or no information loss. The concept of “Open BIM” in contrast to
proprietary software and data formats, is championed by the international organisa-
tion BuildingSMART, which promotes data exchange [15]. BuildingSMART is an
international organisation dedicated to advancing research and knowledge in devel-
oping interoperable, open, and international BIM standards. Industry Foundation
Classes (IFC) stands out as the widely accepted standard governing how building
information is communicated and shared among stakeholders and applications using
a Common Data Environment (CDE). A CDE is a common digital space that hosts
the relevant information for collaboration, exchange, and communication to deliver a
project, and comprises two components: the Data Standard (what is the information
required and how the information is structured for sharing and collaboration within a
common data environment to deliver a project) and the Data Platform (the computer
system or technology platform that the data and information is stored, shared and
collaborated on in a CDE) [16].
The BIM model can be developed with various levels of detail or level of develop-
ment (LoD). It starts at LoD 100 with only basic graphical data and may progress to
LoD 500, which includes detailed graphical and non-graphical data and information,
as follows:
• LOD 100, Conceptual Design: At this level, the focus is on the physical appearance
and visual or conceptual design, accounting for approximately 20% of the total
data.
• LOD 200, Approximate Geometry: This level involves basic or schematic repre-
sentations with parameterised dimensional information, constituting about 40%
of the total information.
• LOD 300, Precise Geometry: Here, the model includes specific functions
in addition to geometric dimensions, making up roughly 60% of the total
information.
466 R. Askar et al.

• LOD 400, Fabrication: This level encompasses the parameters necessary for a
particular model and is typically considered at the contracting or construction
project level, representing around 80% of the total information.
• LOD 500, “As Built”: This level refers to a highly detailed model that closely
replicates the actual building as constructed, comprising 100% of the total
information.
The European standard ISO 19650-1 substitutes this LOD definition (more
commonly used in the USA) by Level of Information (LoI) needed. In the UK the
different levels of LoI are more granular and related with different project stages,
according the exchange information requirements (EIR), that includes the technical
aspects (such as details of software platforms, definitions of levels of detail etc.),
management aspects (such as details of management processes to be adopted in
connection with BIM on a project); and commercial aspects (such as details of BIM
Model deliverables, timing of data exchange and definitions of information purpose)
[17]. By using these different LoD levels, BIM models can cater to a range of project
phases and requirements, from initial concepts to the faithful representation of the
final built structure.
BIM models are often associated with various dimensions. The journey begins in
a pre-BIM stage with a 3D model, and additional dimensions include the 4th dimen-
sion, time, introduced through project planning; the 5th dimension, cost, for esti-
mating and cost control; the 6th dimension, sustainability, focusing on impacts and
energy estimation; and the 7th dimension, utilisation, aligned with facility manage-
ment (FM). The concept of nD extends to consider additional dimensions, with
the eighth dimension potentially connected to circularity and EoL activities [18].
Presently, these dimensions are often referenced as BIM model functionalities or
uses. Figure 17.1 illustrates the established BIM dimensions and their respective
applications.
According to MacLeamy curve [19], incorporating BIM into the building design
and construction process shifts the primary effort from the construction phase, where
most effort traditionally occurs, to an earlier stage during design. This phase is crit-
ical because it offers the highest potential for influencing overall costs and functional

Fig. 17.1 3D to 7D dimensions of BIM

17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 467

Fig. 17.2 Time versus effort along the building’s life cycle: incorporating BIM use (based on
MacLeamy curve) and adopting circular principles

capabilities while keeping the cost of potential future changes relatively low. There-
fore, adopting BIM at an early design stage can leverage the adoption of circularity
strategies such as design for adaptability and design for disassembly with minimal
or no associated costs. This underscores the importance of embracing BIM in design
and introducing circularity principles at an early stage when change-related burdens
are relatively low, while maintaining the ability to introduce change in later lifecycle
stages remains high, as depicted in Fig. 17.2.

17.2.2 Digital Twin

A digital twin (DT) represents a virtual model of a real-world product or building

which consists of the actual geometry, structure and physical characteristics [20]. A
DT can also be referred to as a 3D digital copy of a real-world physical asset [21].
During the construction phase, the BIM model (previously developed during
design and preparation phases) should be constantly updated in a so-called “as-built
BIM”. After the conclusion of the works, the final BIM model becomes a digital
twin, representing the physical asset and playing an important role in managing the
real building.
DTs are distinguished by the smooth integration of the cyber and physical spaces as
well as virtual data throughout a product or building lifecycle [22]. They find appli-
cation in several areas such as product design, production planning and assembly
[22]. In the built environment, having a DT of a real-world asset would allow
tracking aspects like energy management, indoor comfort, and safety [23]. Besides
enabling the monitoring of the current state, it facilitates predicting future state,
468 R. Askar et al.

allowing proactive measures for optimal operation [24]. Considering these capa-
bilities, DTs are instrumental in assessing building performance and alternatives,
supporting optimisation analysis, and enhancing reliability opportunities [25].
In the context of circularity, DTs are essential as they consist of information about
the built-in materials of a building, which is relevant for implementing circularity
practices [26]. When combined with Material Passports, DTs can help extend the
lifetime of building elements through predictive maintenance [27] and facilitate the
reuse of materials and elements at the end-of-life stage [28].

17.2.3 Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing)

Additive manufacturing, commonly referred to as 3D printing, has emerged as a

transformative force in various industries, offering a multitude of benefits. Unlike
conventional manufacturing methods that involve subtracting material from a larger
piece to create parts and products, additive manufacturing stands out for its ability
to reduce waste in production processes, promote decentralised manufacturing, and
facilitate increased repair and remanufacturing. The primary value drivers of 3D
printing encompass simplified manufacturing processes, swift prototyping, inno-
vative design capabilities, product customisation, use of recycled materials, less
waste generation, on-demand production, spare parts availability, and cost efficiency
[29, 30].
The applications of additive manufacturing span diverse sectors. In the realm of
manufacturing and industry, it is employed for rapid prototyping and has gradually
expanded into full-scale production, thereby reducing lead times and development
costs for prototypes [31]. In the medical field, 3D printing has revolutionised the
production of medical devices, prosthetics, implants, and even the bioprinting of
human tissue and organs [31]. The construction industry has also embraced additive
manufacturing for tasks such as concrete printing and the fabrication of building
components from metals and polymers. This enables resource optimisation, waste
reduction, the creation of lightweight structures, and the use of recycled materials.
Furthermore, additive manufacturing has made significant contributions to the auto-
motive and aerospace sectors, exemplified by Boeing’s use of 3D printing to produce
over 50,000 units of more than 900 distinct parts [13]. Other industries benefiting from
additive manufacturing include jewellery, where intricate and personalised designs
are made possible, as well as the food industry, where advancements in 3D printing
technology enable the creation of unique shapes and designs.
In the OECD Digital Economy Outlook, 3D printing is recognised as an appli-
cation empowered by AI, big data, and simulations [32]. Digitalisation in addi-
tive manufacturing provides a range of advantages and plays a pivotal role in
advancing circular construction practices as outlined by Antikainen, Uusitalo and
Kivikytö-Reponen [33].
Firstly, digital additive manufacturing enables design optimisation through the use
of advanced software tools, such as parametric modelling (e.g., BIM) and generative
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 469

design algorithms. Architects and designers can create intricate, customised shapes
that maximise material efficiency and minimise waste. Additive manufacturing tech-
niques, like 3D printing, can then directly translate these optimised designs into
physical structures.
Secondly, digitalisation promotes material efficiency by facilitating the precise
layer-by-layer deposition of advanced materials and composites. This precision
reduces waste during the construction process. Additionally, digitalisation allows
for the analysis of material properties and performance, ensuring the selection of
suitable materials for specific building components.
Another important role of digital additive manufacturing is on-demand manufac-
turing. This implies that building components are produced only when required,
reducing the need for excess inventory and minimising waste. Furthermore,
producing components in close proximity to the construction site reduces trans-
portation costs and the carbon emissions associated with traditional supply chains.
Modularity and customisation are also encouraged through additive manufac-
turing and digitalisation. Modular building components can be easily assembled and
disassembled, promoting the reusability and recyclability of materials. Digitalisa-
tion plays a vital role in designing and coordinating these modular systems, ensuring
compatibility and efficient assembly.
Reduced energy consumption is another benefit of digitalisation and addi-
tive manufacturing. By optimising designs, reducing material waste, and enabling
on-demand manufacturing, the overall energy required for construction can be
minimised. Additionally, additive manufacturing techniques can incorporate energy-
efficient features, such as complex geometries for natural ventilation or the integration
of insulation materials [30].

17.2.4 Blockchain Technology (BCT)

Blockchain is a geographically dispersed and shared database, known as a distributed

ledger. It operates within a peer-to-peer network, employing a consensus mecha-
nism to maintain the integrity and accuracy of data, allowing for replication across
computer nodes (participants). Consequently, any information exchanged between
participants remains confidential, transparent, and auditable [34].
As a decentralised and transparent system designed to accommodate a vast and
continually expanding volume of data, BCT holds considerable potential for applica-
tions in the built environment. Specifically, it can facilitate sustainable development
and accelerate the transition to a CE, support data-driven decision-making across all
stages of a product’s life cycle and address the productivity challenges typical of the
construction sector. Consequently, over the past decade, it has garnered significant
attention from scholars. Nonetheless, the full adoption and broader application of
BCT concepts remain limited, with the majority of research existing in the conceptual
domain, complemented by only a few pilot studies such as the life cycle of HVAC
[35] and additive manufacturing [36].
470 R. Askar et al.

Thus far, the academic consensus primarily revolves around two key points.
Firstly, the potential applications of BCT offer numerous advantages, including the
design of mechanisms to incentivise environmentally friendly behaviour, increasing
system efficiency and transparency throughout the entire product life cycle, reducing
capital and operational costs, and promoting sustainability performance monitoring
and reporting within supply chain networks [37]. Secondly, the use of BCT as a stan-
dalone tool in a circular built environment is seldom recommended. Instead, it is often
suggested in conjunction with other digital technologies, such as the IoT [38, 39], Big
Data Analytics [39], BIM [40], Digital Twins (DT) [38], Material Passports [41, 42]
and additive manufacturing [36]. One of the earliest concepts introduced involved
the integration of IoT, big data analytics, and BCT to conduct life-cycle assessments
in energy savings, ecosystem quality management, and waste management [39].
A limited number of studies utilising BCT as a standalone tool have concentrated
on enhancing waste management systems. In these studies, BCT was employed to
optimise the system and foster greater trust between citizens and waste management
operators. Two frameworks were introduced for this purpose: the first was focused
on the management of urban waste streams in its entirety [43], while the second
was concentrated on construction waste exclusively [44]. Both systems have the
potential to enable the tracking and verification of significant data sets, including but
not limited to the volume of waste generated or treated and associated rewards. These
data are generated by various stakeholders within waste management systems.
Other frameworks explore the integration of BCT with BIM [40] and with DT
[38]. The first framework promotes the CE by encouraging collaboration between
stakeholders, sharing information about building components and materials, and
developing repositories of reusable BIM families while motivating designers to utilise
them. The second framework integrates IoT, BIM, and DT throughout the various
phases of a project’s life cycle. During the design phase of the Decentralised DT
Cycle, 3D BIM data and design parameters are stored on the BC, while 4D BIM and
procurement data are retained during the construction phase, and 6D BIM and IoT
data are maintained during the operational phase.

17.2.5 Scanning Technologies

Scanning technologies, commonly known as laser scanning or Light Detection and

Ranging (LiDAR), are advanced systems designed to determine the distances to
various points surrounding a laser scanner by measuring the time it takes for a light
pulse to travel to and from an object [45]. These technologies primarily provide
local coordinates, which are subsequently cross-referenced with known geographic
coordinates of objects. Laser scanners can be either static (terrestrial, positioned on
the ground) or mobile (portable, mounted on drones, aircraft, or vehicles) and are
capable of collecting vast amounts of data, necessitating intensive pre-processing
before further applications.
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 471

In the realm of the built environment, scanning technologies are predominantly

employed for purposes such as inspection, site monitoring, and 3D reconstruction
[46]. Their application contributes significantly to enhancing circularity within the
built environment by facilitating the 3D reconstruction of objects and the creation of
BIMs and City Information Models (CIMs). These models are enriched with valuable
information, enabling them to support local governance and various smart city and
CE initiatives [47].
The academic literature on laser scanning technologies, in the context of their
support for the CE, varies in terms of the scanning area and the level of detail
(LoD). For instance, LoD 1 entails representing a building with basic information
such as its footprint area, height, and flat roof, while LoD 2 includes a more precise
representation that accounts for roof slopes. As a general rule, the larger the scanning
area, the lower the level of detail.
Laser scanning technology has been applied across a wide range of projects, from
assessing the geometry for single buildings in Vienna [48] to scanning 1,361 buildings
in Hong Kong [47]. It has also been employed for projecting mineral Construction
and Demolition Waste (CDW) flows [49] and conducting life cycle assessments for
entire cities in Luxembourg [50]. Recent advancements in this field include the devel-
opment of a methodological framework for semi-automated reconstruction at higher
levels of detail for existing buildings, aimed at creating CE passports [51]. Another
notable initiative involves the reconstruction of building facades to facilitate energy-
based simulations for retrofitting existing structures [52]. These applications high-
light the versatility and significance of scanning technologies, not only in improving
circularity but also in advancing sustainable practices in the built environment.
In addition to providing information about the geometry and surface materials,
laser scanning is employed to facilitate circularity practices such as preservation,
reuse, and recycling. However, for a comprehensive understanding of building
elements’ material composition, it becomes essential to delve beyond surface mate-
rials. Addressing this need, a study by Honic et al. [53] used Ground Penetrating
Radar (GPR) to identify material types within walls and slabs, generating Material
Passports (MPs) for a building. GPR, a near-surface geophysical tool, allows non-
destructive characterisation of shallow subsurface targets by detecting changes in
the electromagnetic properties of materials [54]. Its non-destructive nature has been
extensively applied in archaeological studies over the past decades. In the context of
CE and the built environment, GPR holds significant promise for detecting built-in
materials without causing damage. This capability aligns with the circularity princi-
ples of preservation, reuse, and recycling, making GPR a valuable tool for sustainable
practices in construction and material management.

17.2.6 Internet of Things (IoT)

The Internet of Things (IoT) can be described as a networked system of sensors and
actuators integrated with a computing system, enabling internet connectivity among
472 R. Askar et al.

sensor-equipped devices for autonomous data collection and analysis [55]. This tech-
nology facilitates the monitoring and management of the health and activities of
interconnected objects and machines.
In the context of CE, IoT has the potential to revolutionise various industries,
including construction, services, manufacturing, logistics, and supply chains [55]. It
facilitates stakeholder connection throughout the value chain by leveraging sensor-
collected data [56]. By enabling autonomous data collection and analysis, IoT helps
reduce waste, losses, and expenses, while also enhancing the tracking and traceability
of materials throughout the supply chain [29], thus supporting the implementation
of CE principles [56]. In urban environments, the concept of smart cities exemplifies
how IoT contributes to CE improvement by enabling data gathering and interpretation
for sustainable solutions, efficiency enhancement, pollution reduction, and promotion
of eco-friendly consumption [57].
Reuter [58] highlights the transformative potential of IoT within CE by facilitating
digitalisation and optimisation of systems through measurements and quantification
tools. Moreover, IoT enables CE models to incorporate dynamic feedback control
loops, connecting all system stakeholders and allowing for the assessment of the
impact of actions taken by different actors throughout the lifecycle of physical prod-
ucts [56]. Real-time data and information provided by IoT can lead to the optimisa-
tion of products, goods, services, and policy formulation, resulting in a significant
reduction in the environmental footprint of the CE systems.
The digitisation of the CE information through IoT brings about transformative
changes in business models and the introduction of CE-based marketing strategies.
This partnership aims to establish a business and consumption model rooted in social
responsibility, reduced consumption, and efficient management of product life cycles,
with a strong emphasis on reuse, recycling, and reduction. Transitioning from the
traditional marketing mix to the green marketing mix is considered a profitable and
sustainable management process and a key business strategy of the future [59]. As
argued by McDaniel and Rylander [60], green marketing has become a crucial factor
in the mission, vision, and values of companies. Furthermore, the implementation
of the circular and digital economy model relies on the effective utilisation of the
4Ps (price, product, placement, and promotion), with IoT playing a significant role
in this process. In this regard, IoT provides the necessary support for companies
to achieve a CE with long-term effects. For instance, LCA is one area where IoT’s
impact is evident, as it is a widely used method for quantifying sustainability within
organisations [59].
The transition to a CE with the assistance of IoT is significantly influenced by the
supply–demand relationship. The market’s responsiveness to consumer preferences
is a driving force behind the digitisation of production and consumption processes.
This integration has the potential to enhance productivity and sustainability in both
local and global economies, as well as in various business models. IoT and the CE
share a common focus on the entire product life cycle, demanding product designs
that align with present and future market expectations while adhering to the 17 UN
Sustainable Development Goals [59].
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 473

17.2.7 Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is one of the main technologies that can accelerate the tran-
sition towards a CE [61]. McKinsey Global Institute [62] estimated that AI could
potentially generate a staggering $13 trillion in global economic impact by 2030.
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation [63] underscores the transformative power of AI
in imbuing inanimate objects with intelligence. Its integration into design, infras-
tructure, and business models is driving the creation of regenerative systems. This
2019 report identifies several ways in which AI can expedite the transition to a CE:
• Enhancing Problem Solving: Advanced AI enables complex problem-solving in
significantly less time, with algorithms trained and applied to real-life challenges
throughout the development process.
• Unlocking CE opportunities: AI contributes to more efficient design and opti-
misation of business models and infrastructure, hastening the establishment of a
CE.
• AI can potentially unlock three main CE opportunities: (1) Circular product,
material, and component design; (2) Circular business model operations; and (3)
Infrastructure optimisation to facilitate the circular flow of materials and products.
A substantial volume of data is generated at various stages of the product devel-
opment lifecycle, from manufacturing to utilisation and EoL [64]. AI can play a
pivotal role in analysing and further enhancing these processes. Furthermore, the
integration of circular design tools and methods with AI can significantly enhance
product circularity within a business context [65].
AI excels in the analysis of large datasets, saving time through high-performance
computing. Despite its dynamic and complex nature with numerous parameters, AI
applications in the construction sector offer substantial opportunities. Notable current
and actively researched AI applications in construction include: safety measures,
automated monitoring of structural health for buildings, bridges, and road pavements,
detection of safety risks at construction sites, activity recognition at construction sites,
modelling of energy demand for buildings, construction cost prediction, computer
vision, intelligent optimisation of scheduling, planning, and design [66–68]. AI
technologies are also employed in green buildings for monitoring building health,
safety, and risk assessment, sustainability ranking, CDW management, resource
optimisation, and lifecycle cost reduction [69].
Future trends in the construction sector include the development of construction
robots to reduce workforce dependency and improve efficiency, the utilisation of
cloud-based virtual and augmented reality for enhanced inspection and safety, AI of
things (AIoT), DT, 4D printing, and BCT [67]. Currently, the main challenges for
AI application within the construction sector encompass site management, financial
expenses, security concerns, data availability, and the disparity between the accuracy
of machine learning algorithms and practical application [66, 68].
474 R. Askar et al.

Designing construction site layouts remains a challenging problem in construc-

tion projects. Spatial and temporal parameters of site layouts are crucial for effi-
cient site management [70, 71]. These parameters include access routes, material
storage, material handling methods, administrative buildings, and job equipment.
While defining an optimal layout has proven difficult [70], a valuable research direc-
tion is to determine an optimal site layout with circularity in mind. Although machine
learning has been applied to job site optimisation, the use of satellite images and
explanatory visualisation techniques to identify site similarities remains unexplored.
Despite advancements in the CE, deep learning has not seen widespread use in this
field, primarily due to the absence of large-scale multimodal datasets. Existing assess-
ments and indexes heavily rely on open datasets available in municipalities, such as
material flow data in industrial sectors [72, 73]. This reliance introduces limitations
and accuracy issues, particularly for developing and less developed countries.

17.2.8 Big Data Analytics (BDA)

In the past decade, deep learning has emerged as a powerful AI methodology, effec-
tively addressing a wide range of challenges across various domains. These appli-
cations include object detection in visual data, automatic speech recognition, neural
translation, and tumour segmentation in computer tomography scans. While artifi-
cial neural networks (ANNs), the precursor of deep learning, trace their roots back
to the 1960s, it was in the 2010s that deep learning systems experienced a remark-
able surge in performance. This transformation was facilitated by the availability
of graphical processing units for computation and the advent of Big Data Analytics
(BDA). This is the process of examining and analysing concealed patterns, correla-
tions, trends, and insights within these vast data collections, with the primary objec-
tive of extracting valuable information and knowledge. This information is then
utilised to drive data-informed decision-making, enhance business processes, and
tackle intricate challenges.
In the field of CE, the application of BDA is seen as a promising methodology for
harnessing information gleaned from various systems of record, including sensors
and IoT devices. This empowers decision-making capabilities, especially in logistics
and supply chain management (SCM), which is pivotal for the successful imple-
mentation of CE and the advancement of its comprehensive principles [74]. It’s
worth noting that Big Data is often treated not as an isolated concept but rather as
an analytical approach applied to analyse extensive data originating from diverse
sources. Through the integration of comprehensive and lifelong information, Big
Data facilitates the implementation of innovative strategies [56].
From the perspective of stakeholders, the adoption of BDA would significantly
enhance decision-making across a spectrum of business sectors. However, the
existing literature faces a challenge in understanding how BDA contributes to better
decision-making, primarily due to a lack of detailed investigation [75]. This can be
partially attributed to the varying interpretations of the CE concept among scholars.
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 475

For instance, some studies characterise CE as the management of closed loops in

linear industrial production [76], while others believe in the spiral-loop system
concept as in [77]. According to Tseng et al. [78], the central concept of SCM,
the “closing-loops” strategy, has conventionally been employed in linear production
systems, typically within a single supply chain and connected with vertically inte-
grated decision-making systems. Nonetheless, this “closing loops” approach is also
applicable in industrial and urban symbiosis within multi-supply-chain networks,
involving cross-industry decision-making.

17.2.9 Cloud Computing and Applications

Cloud computing is a revolutionary paradigm for managing and utilising both hard-
ware and software resources. It empowers businesses to share various aspects of
their information technology infrastructure (IT), including both physical and non-
physical components. Integrating an enterprise’s IT infrastructure into projects can
lead to substantial reductions in initial investment costs [79]. Despite its potential,
the construction industry has been hesitant to embrace these new technologies due
to high upfront costs, resulting in limited cloud computing applications [80].
The potential benefits of cloud computing technology in construction are
numerous:
• Economic Efficiency: It offers economic benefits by decreasing the operational
costs for construction companies [79].
• Level Playing Field: It creates a level playing field for small and medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs) to compete with larger corporations without significant
upfront investments [81].
• Secure Data Storage: It ensures the secure storage of construction data, meeting
the required security standards for IT infrastructures [79].
• Remote Data Access: It facilitates remote storage and retrieval of vast construction
data without space and time limitations [79].
• Centralised Data Repository: It creates a central repository system for construction
data, facilitating stakeholder integration [82].
The impact of cloud computing applications on CE in construction has gained
significant recognition [83–85] due to their role in reducing material waste at
construction sites, minimising incorrect deliveries, and streamlining file organisation,
contributing to cost reduction and improved project timelines [86–88].
Construction sites are inherently hazardous due to their dynamic and complex
structures, which increases risks without real-time on-site safety information.
However, leveraging cloud technology to provide instant access to safety information
can reduce occupational accidents [89, 90]. Sustainability goals are also achievable
by managing energy consumption and reducing CO2 emissions through cloud tech-
nologies, which enable the efficient management of building energy information
alongside safety data [91]. Timely material supply to construction sites significantly
476 R. Askar et al.

influences project cost and duration. In this regards, cloud technologies and IoT
sensors play critical role in ensuring efficient and timely delivery by monitoring
material supply movements [92] and enhancing cooperation and communication
among numerous stakeholders [84].

17.2.10 Virtual and Augmented Reality (VR/AR)

Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) are two technologies that have
the potential to support and enhance the CE. AR technology overlays digital content,
including images, videos, and 3D models, onto real-life environments and physical
objects, enhancing the user perception of reality by transforming their immediate
surroundings into an interactive learning environment with virtual elements [93]. In
contrast, VR immerses users in a simulated environment [94], offering a completely
virtual experience with diverse applications, including education and training. In the
context of the CE, both AR and VR can be employed to provide information and
guidance on recycling, waste sorting, sustainable consumption, and to simulate and
visualise sustainable practices and processes [93].
Several applications of VR in promoting the CE in the construction sector include
the integration of VR and BIM for effective construction planning and enhanced
safety. This BIM-based system enables advanced simulation and communication,
offering an immersive experience to all project stakeholders. Real-time synchro-
nisation between BIM and VR models allows for automatic updates, streamlining
decision-making during construction.
Combining VR with BIM and LCA contributes to the assessment and reduction
of carbon footprints in construction projects. During the conceptual design phase,
VR and BIM play a pivotal role in generating LCA and cost assessments that assist
designers and clients in making well-informed decisions. Experiments have shown
that users prefer economical solutions without compromising aesthetics, and their
concern for sustainability increases when exposed to LCA data. Moreover, simplified
cost and carbon footprint results have been found to influence users’ perceptions. This
underscores the potential of VR-BIM-LCA integration in making informed decisions
regarding material selection and sustainable solutions.
Augmented Reality (AR) technology has the potential to enable environmental
designers, urban planners, and other infrastructure development roles within the built
environment to help key decision-makers invest in a CE for their city or community.
AR can be used to explore CE solutions, enabling key audiences and actors to be
engaged in a more active way [95], by fostering their interest perception on CE
principles. Additionally, AR can serve as an engagement tool to increase end-users’
interest and engagement with CE principles, educating the public about CE and
promoting sustainable practices [96].
Moreover, AR technology can be used for disaster training and response. AR
mobile applications can effectively engage both citizens and disaster response author-
ities, thereby enhancing their preparedness and response capabilities. By leveraging
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 477

AR technology, disaster training and response efforts can provide immersive, real-life
scenario simulations, leading to more effective emergency response [97].

17.2.11 Geographic Information System (GIS)

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are advanced computer systems designed

to collect, store, manipulate, analyse, manage, and map various types of geographi-
cally referenced information [98, 99]. Within GIS, data is seamlessly integrated with
descriptive information on a map, which aids users in identifying patterns, relation-
ships, and geographical contexts [99]. Notably, GIS combines data with cartographic
elements, creating a synergy of spatial attributes and contextual descriptions that
greatly enhance the understanding of spatial patterns, relationships, and geographic
contexts [100]. The versatility of GIS extends across a broad spectrum of fields
and industries, making it an invaluable tool for cartographic production, analytical
inquiries, information dissemination, and the resolution of complex challenges.
The literature strongly supports the idea that GIS can play a pivotal role in
promoting the adoption of a CE in the built environment. Firstly, GIS solutions
actively facilitate circular logistics planning and environmental and economic impact
assessments in the built environment [101]. By integrating data related to waste gener-
ation, material flows, and resource availability, GIS can effectively identify opportu-
nities to optimise resource utilisation, reduce waste, and encourage circular practices.
Secondly, GIS can be employed to map and manage resources in the built environ-
ment, including emissions, air pollution, and waste. It is instrumental in identifying
and locating sources of reclaimed materials, such as salvaged building components
or recycled materials, and streamlining their incorporation into construction projects
[48, 98]. Thirdly, GIS can be seamlessly integrated into decision support systems
for CE initiatives in the built environment. It offers decision-makers a compre-
hensive view by combining spatial data with other relevant information, such as
economic factors, environmental impacts, and regulatory requirements [101]. This
aids in evaluating the feasibility and potential benefits of CE strategies.
Furthermore, GIS can support the monitoring and evaluation of CE initiatives
in the built environment. It can track project progress, measure resource efficiency,
and assess the environmental and economic impacts of circular practices [48]. GIS
also facilitates data sharing and collaboration among stakeholders, enabling better
coordination and communication in CE projects. Finally, GIS serves as a valuable tool
for engaging stakeholders in CE initiatives. By visualising data and scenarios, GIS
effectively communicates the benefits and potential outcomes of circular practices to
various stakeholders, promoting awareness, participation, and collaboration [101].
478 R. Askar et al.

17.2.12 City Information Modelling (CIM)

City Information Modelling (CIM) is a novel concept that encompasses the use of
intelligent urban models with high quality geospatial information and an update and
comprehensive database [102]. CIM can also be defined as a digital representation
of a city that integrates various data sources, including spatial data, infrastructure
information, and environmental data [103, 104]. This integration enables the visu-
alisation, analysis, and simulation of urban systems, empowering decision-making
processes [102, 105].
The literature presents various interpretations and definitions of the CIM concept.
In general, CIM aligns with the use of geospatial information and digital technologies
[106]. As presented by Kehmlani [107], one of the early adopters of the acronym, CIM
can be likened to BIM but specifically applied to urban environments. In this regard,
intelligent city models should closely resemble intelligent building and infrastructure
models, providing comprehensive information to simulate various aspects of cities,
such as traffic flows, energy use, and natural disaster impacts [107]. Stojanovski et al.
[108] propose that the CIM concept blends elements of GIS, Computer-Aided Design
(CAD), and BIM, forming the basis for digital tools to plan and design smart cities.
Xu et al. [109] state that CIM is inspired by BIM and should include all aspects
of city information, establishing the integration of BIM and GIS, where building
information is provided through BIM and external information is provided by GIS.
Almeida and Andrade [110] perceive CIM as an intelligent computational model that
incorporates processes, policies, and technologies, facilitating collaboration among
various stakeholders to develop sustainable, participatory, and competitive cities.
Dall’O’ et al. [111] consider CIM the “latest advancement of BIM” and highlight its
potential for analysing city components and creating richly informative 3D models.
They also emphasise the benefits of using CIM for decision-making, management,
monitoring, control, and maintenance in the energy sector. Thompson et al. [112]
discuss the planning of future cities and consider CIM as the practical application of
the digital processes for the management and planning of cities, involving the active
participation of citizens and stakeholders. Sirakova [113] proposes that the CIM
model can be seen as a continuous process of development and renewal, mirroring
how cities evolve like living organisms. Wang and Tian [114] define CIM as an
organic synthesis of 3D models and urban information, integrating BIM, GIS, IoT,
and other technologies. According to the authors, CIM exhibits four main character-
istics: multidimensionality, visualisation, openness, and perception. Based on their
findings, city information models should be based on the integration of data across
various spatial scales, emphasising the importance of BIM, GIS, and IoT as key
technologies for CIM.
While a consensus on the CIM concept is lacking, the literature indicates an
understanding of its equivalence to the BIM concept, but with a focus on urban
environments, and a tendency to associate CIM with the integration of BIM and GIS.
Although not universally embraced by urban planners, researchers, and the software
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 479

industry, it is noteworthy that CIM has garnered increased attention, evidenced by

the growing body of research published on the topic in recent years.

17.2.13 Digital Platforms and Market Places

An online or virtual platform is a digital service based on a software system that

operates via the internet, facilitating interactions among and between independent
users [13]. These platforms bring together diverse user groups, forming multi-sided
networks that enable data collection and use through various modes of production,
consumption, collaboration, and sharing [13, 32].
Online digital platforms provide valuable opportunities for visualising distribu-
tion channels, including online shops and market places, as well as the exchange
digital products and services [115]. These platforms are believed to have positive
environmental and circularity impacts [116], by promoting the closing, slowing, and
narrowing of material loops [117]. The environmental benefits and CE value arise
from the information provided by these platforms regarding product availability and
location. This information enhances users’ access to shared use through sharing plat-
forms and facilitates the exchange of goods via digital marketplaces. Furthermore,
these digital platforms support increased data collection, promoting better end-of-
life management, and enhancing residual value by enabling improved maintenance,
repair, refurbishment, remanufacturing, and recycling [33, 115, 117, 118].
Online platforms provide a means to create new markets for secondary materials
within the context of the CE, connecting supply and demand for various stake-
holders, including individuals and companies [13, 33]. They can also play a crucial
role in supporting innovative circular business models for product-service systems
[117, 118] particularly in the construction industry, enhancing competitiveness and
efficiency across the value chain [13, 119].
Depending on their operational context, digital platforms offer two primary types
of exchanges: business-to-business (B2B) interactions, such as the Excess Material
Exchange in the Netherlands [120], which promotes the elevated-value reuse of mate-
rials and waste across industries, and business-to-consumer (B2C) exchanges, like
the Enviromate platform in the UK [121], which connects consumers with providers
of leftover construction materials to encourage closed-loop resource utilisation.
The availability of these platforms and markets significantly influences social
aspects [13], impacting user behaviours towards accepting CE products such as
secondary construction materials and reclaimed goods, by creating favourable market
conditions. These platforms also empower communities to co-create circular prod-
ucts and services [117] and support other social factors by serving as venues
for job advertisements and demands for construction service providers within the
construction industry.
The use of digital marketplaces and online platforms is widely supported by
national and European legislation, exemplified by the EU’s Digital Single Market
strategy [119]. While many CE experts emphasise the value of establishing digital
480 R. Askar et al.

platforms for circular material flows, the low number of users remains a significant
challenge to the widespread adoption of these tools [118].
Despite the numerous advantages of digital platforms, only a few studies in the
literature have addressed their potential, identifying two primary approaches. The
first approach is known as tool-based platforms, which focus on the production
processes of buildings, with BIM playing a key role. The second approach is collab-
oration platforms, which engage various stakeholders to improve the management
aspects of building projects [117, 118].

17.2.14 Material Passports (MP)

Material Passports (MP), also known as digital passports or cradle-to-cradle pass-

ports, are comprehensive digital records that accompany physical products, serving as
an auditable account of a product’s entire lifecycle from design to EoL stages. These
passports provide vital information about the product’s composition, embedded mate-
rial types, and grades [118]. They enumerate all the materials integrated into a product
or construction project throughout its lifecycle. The primary objective of digital MPs
is to facilitate circularity decisions in supply chain management by enabling the
identification of opportunities for recovery, recycling, and re-use. The digitisation
process plays a pivotal role in promoting circular buildings, with digital MPs serving
as a crucial enabler in this transformative shift.
In the EU regulation, these passports are known as Digital Product Passports
(DPPs) and are defined as “a structured collection of product-related data” encom-
passing “information related to sustainability, circularity, and value retention for
reuse, remanufacturing, and recycling.” As per the regulation, DPPs are required to
furnish details regarding the origin and composition of materials, options for repair
and disassembly, as well as avenues for recycling and disposal at the end of the
product’s life cycle [122]. However, for the effective implementation of DPPs in
practical applications, there is a crucial need for a standardised format, structure,
and terminology for these passports, which is currently lacking [123].
Digital MPs offer several advantages that contribute to improved sustainability,
supply chain management, and compliance with regulations. Initially, they enhance
data accessibility by providing comprehensive information about materials used in
products or construction projects. This easily shareable data can be accessed by
stakeholders throughout the supply chain, facilitating informed decision-making and
promoting transparency. Digital MPs enable efficient material traceability, ensuring
compliance with regulations and effective material management. By tracking mate-
rials throughout their lifecycle, these passports help ascertain their origins, a crit-
ical aspect in meeting regulatory requirements. This, in turn, promotes resource
efficiency, reduces waste generation, and contributes to a more sustainable approach.
One of the significant advantages of digitalisation lies in its capacity to visualise
the environmental impact along the entire value chain. Through the use of digital
technologies such as BIM, stakeholders can make well-informed decisions regarding
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 481

intelligent design, production, and usage that enhance material and eco-efficiency.
This visualisation aids in identifying opportunities to minimise waste and optimise
resource utilisation, ultimately leading to more sustainable construction practices
[124]. BIM has been widely investigated to develop digital MP that enhances design
efficiency by minimising waste and environmental impacts. The key benefit of this
automated approach lies in its ability to facilitate comparisons among various design
variants. However, successful automation of MP generation necessitates accurate
modelling in BIM, encompassing the appropriate use of BIM objects, geometry,
materials, and other relevant components [125].
Costa and Hoolahan [126] provide guidance and a policy framework on imple-
menting MPs to facilitate a CE in construction. Their recommendations include
conducting pre-redevelopment audits, leading to pre-demolition/refurbishment
audits, followed by the gathering of metric data, the implementation of an MP
strategy, and incorporation of reused materials before construction commences. A
deconstruction plan is then drafted before the building is handed over for use. The
proposed MP strategy can be used to constitute Product Passports, which can subse-
quently be combined to produce System Passports. The MPs are based upon ‘types’,
similar to ‘levels’ terminology used in other frameworks. These types were aligned
with the Uniclass classification system and can then be combined into Element
Passports and/or Building Passports.

17.3 The Role and Benefits of Digitalisation in Promoting

More Circular Buildings

17.3.1 Managerial Value

Information Transfer for Improved Value Chain Management. Industry 4.0 has
brought forth multiple technologies to aid sustainable and circular supply chain
management by providing tools to support decision-making for the realisation of
circular development in the construction industry [127]. The role of digitalisation in
enabling efficient and cost-effective information transfer to support proper manage-
ment is essential for fostering the CE and maximising its potential [128]. Informa-
tion transfer among stakeholders across value chains remains a major challenge in
implementing CE practices [129]. Fortunately, digital tools, platforms, databases,
and other technological solutions can address this challenge by facilitating interac-
tions between products, processes, and stakeholders throughout a project’s lifecycle
[130], thereby promoting closed material loops. These tools and solutions have the
added advantage of collecting vast amounts of data, which is vital for implementing
CE strategies such as maintenance, repair, lifecycle extension, and adaptive reuse of
buildings.
Efficient information flow regarding sourcing, usage, durability, disposal, and
recycling potential is crucial for optimising circular usage of products and materials
482 R. Askar et al.

throughout their lifecycles. Seamless data transfer and sharing empower various
stakeholders in the value chain, including suppliers, service providers, contractors,
engineers, users, and waste operators, to adopt circular practices such as repair,
maintenance, reuse, recycling, and proper disposal [129]. Digitalisation can offer
opportunities for collaboration and integration among stakeholders in the construc-
tion industry, leading to business opportunities [129]. Information sharing platforms
and BIM systems enable project teams to collaborate effectively and embed circu-
larity objectives throughout the entire project lifecycle. By facilitating communica-
tion and knowledge exchange, digital technologies create an environment conducive
to sustainable and circular transformation in the construction sector through circular
feedback systems.
The synergies between CE and centralised management models in a digitalised
environment, such as in BIM models, are highly appreciated for efficient informa-
tion management and informed decision-making at various stages of a construction
project’s lifecycle, including planning, design, supply chain integration among other.
The use of digital tools empowers stakeholders to make well-informed choices that
align with circularity principles and promote sustainability at any stage of a project’s
lifecycle. While CE initiatives alone may not adequately address the complexity
of systems and strategies to provide smart solutions for (EoL) and waste manage-
ment, the integration of CE strategies within digitalised systems can enhance their
effectiveness and efficiency [131].
Data Management. In today’s resource-efficient CE, digitalisation and data avail-
ability are paramount for achieving optimal results. By harnessing digital tools,
processes, and logistics in CE practices, they can be optimised, leading to increased
efficiency and sustainability [132]. Online platforms, digital data, and product pass-
ports, among others, are revolutionising the way information is documented and
shared, filling the gap of poor documentation and information loss that used to
occur throughout the lifecycle of a building and its components due to changes
that take place during different stages. These platforms and tools also serve certifica-
tion purposes and are highly valued by academics and industry professionals as vital
assets for maximising circularity potential in buildings and the built environment.
A fundamental aspect of data management in the CE is the creation of digital
representations of buildings and their components, along with associated informa-
tion. This approach offers several advantages for stakeholders involved in circular
planning, design, and EoL solutions. Centralised digital models, such as BIM, have
emerged as valuable tools for integrating diverse information related to buildings,
elements, and geometry [133]. Stakeholders can access and leverage the informa-
tion stored in these models to make informed decisions throughout the lifecycle of a
building.
The development of digital technologies to monitor material flows and track data
has been significantly amplified by BCTs. BCT plays a pivotal role in enabling effi-
cient and effective reuse and recycling processes by securely storing, recording, and
sharing important information about various materials and elements [133]. Through
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 483

BCs, the transparency and traceability of materials are enhanced, fostering trust
among stakeholders and facilitating the implementation of circular practices.
Optimising individual processing steps and material flows along the value chain
is critical for efficient resource management [132]. Digital data analytics plays a
vital role in this regard by providing insights to predict materials requirements and
enabling efficient supply–demand processes, resulting in significant time and cost
savings. However, the extent of digitalisation determines the full potential of existing
data. The higher the level of digitalisation, the more data can be processed and inte-
grated for meaningful analysis. Increased data integration through digitalisation also
facilitates the establishment of a historical path, offering valuable insights for future
decision-making. Building such a data and digital wisdom requires a systematic data
strategy that integrates multiple types of tools throughout the entire process, enabling
robust and timely reactions to upcoming requirements.

17.3.2 Environmental Value

Circularity Implementation and Assessment Throughout the Building Life-

cycle. The pivotal role of digitalisation in fostering the transition to a CE cannot
be overstated. It harnesses the potential of digital technologies and interconnected
objects, promising substantial reductions in resource consumption and the realisation
of circular feedback systems [134].
Given the intricacy of buildings and the enormous resources they encapsulate,
addressing the challenges of the building lifecycle necessitates a comprehensive,
four-phase approach encompassing production, construction, operation, and EoL
stages [26]. Although the operational phase of buildings is the longest and often the
most environmentally impactful, it is crucial to recognise that the decisions made
during the pre-use and design phases are pivotal. They significantly influence the
operational performance of buildings, leading to substantial resource savings and
reduced carbon emissions [26].
At the product level, digitalisation’s role is particularly pronounced, offering
easy access to product information critical for reducing resource consumption and
optimising the product lifecycle. This accessibility empowers circularity options
[135].
During the design phase, digital technologies play a critical role in implementing
circularity strategies, expanding their impact on operational efficiency. Notably,
digital parametric design tools are essential instruments for crafting regenerative
building designs, while AI technologies, when integrated, enable extensive data
interpretation and its application to design practices [26]. Moreover, digital tools
support stakeholders to harness the value of circularity in buildings where circularity
assessment necessities the handling of a large amount of information and data. Digital
tools are perceived as great enablers for this process given their ability to address
collection and management of data in a timely manner for efficient and effective
assessments [136]. BIM provides a potential tool due to its potential to incorporate
484 R. Askar et al.

complex data and automatise the assessment [137]. Recently, BIM-based circularity
indicators have been introduced [138], e.g., Zhai [136] proposed a BIM framework
to automate the circularity assessment of buildings from the early design stage. In
the use phase, digital technologies play a vital role in extending a building’s lifetime,
thereby slowing the loop. They support repair and maintenance activities, offering
scheduled maintenance and planned replacements. Moreover, they provide insights
on how to safely replace and recover broken or EoL elements.
The EoL phase is a critical juncture for reintroducing building materials and
resources into further cycles, in alignment with the waste hierarchy principles of
reduce, reuse, and recycle, ultimately closing the loop. Multiple platforms and add-
ins have been developed to facilitate and measure material recovery possibilities [26].
Integrating BIM into project processes opens new avenues for circularity, allowing
the exploration and simulation of design and EoL options that enhance resource
efficiency and minimise emissions. BIM acts as a decision-support tool by simulating
and comparing multiple scenarios efficiently. It also automates various processes and
calculations essential for making decisions at any stage of a building’s lifecycle.
BIM’s ability to centralise design and associated information empowers the exam-
ination of disassembly and deconstruction potential, paving the way for resource
recovery at the end of a building’s life [139]. For instance, the Disassembly
and Deconstruction Analytics System (D-DAS) plug-in offers design engineers a
powerful tool to assess EoL performance in the context of the CE [139]. The Design
for Disassembly (DfD) functionality within this plug-in serves as a pivotal decision-
support instrument, illustrating the impact of design and material choices on waste
generation in the EoL phase.
Lifecycle Analysis (LCA) and Environmental Impacts. In the context of envi-
ronmental sustainability, digitalisation plays a crucial role in decoupling economic
activities from the depletion of natural resources and mitigating their environmental
consequences. This objective aligns closely with the principles of a CE [13]. The
fusion of circularity practices with digital technologies not only enhances environ-
mental benefits but also provides a means to visualise the environmental impacts
associated with different stages of the product life cycle along the value chain. This
visualisation, in turn, facilitates environmentally-conscious design, production, and
usage, ultimately increasing eco-efficiency [140].
Additive manufacturing tools like 3D printing help minimise the carbon footprint
of some construction materials such as concrete. Comparing to conventional building
techniques, 3D printing can significantly reduce emissions and energy consumption
[140].
The integration of digital management models such as BIM and MPs with methods
like Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and Material Flow Analysis (MFA) holds the poten-
tial to significantly improve the efficiency of assessing a project’s environmental
performance [140]. By incorporating LCA methodologies into the design phase,
these technologies enable the measurement and evaluation of resource consump-
tion and environmental footprints right from the outset. Traditional manual LCA
processes have been criticised for their time-consuming nature, but when integrated
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 485

into BIM, early assessment becomes possible, facilitating informed decision-making

and highlighting opportunities for improvement. This, in turn, encourages the adop-
tion of more sustainable practices. By continually tracking and monitoring resource
usage throughout the construction process, digital technologies play a vital role in
promoting circularity and minimising environmental impacts.
Numerous studies have explored the application of BIM-based LCA for evalu-
ating and appraising design alternatives, starting from the early stages of a project’s
lifecycle, as exemplified by [141]. This approach extends the traditional use of LCA,
which typically reported environmental impact and energy use at a specific point
in a building’s lifecycle for sustainability assessment and certification purposes.
By incorporating LCA into the decision-making process, stakeholders can optimise
material choices and design alternatives in line with circular construction principles.
This approach addresses the previous constraint of time-consuming traditional LCA
processes.
While many studies have focused on using BIM-supported LCA techniques for
sustainability studies, the integration’s potential has primarily revolved around certi-
fication purposes [141]. However, only a few have extended this research direction
to support the circular design process and promote the use of circular materials.
Another study has integrated the LCA in the BIM-based MP which enabled a
comparison between the environmental impacts and the reusability potential of build-
ings. The combined approach allows for optimisations of the building design in earlier
design stages without neglecting the LCA or circularity impacts [142].
Multiple tools and BIM software plug-ins have been developed to enable BIM-
based LCA by linking material libraries from BIM software with an LCA database.
This integration permits the assessment of environmental impacts at different stages
of a building’s lifecycle. Many studies recognise the potential for extending this
use to promote the implementation of CE principles. Such integration would enable
stakeholders to achieve their circularity objectives without compromising other crit-
ical emissions and environmental aspects or, at the very least, minimise the trade-offs
between these essential concepts.
Efficient Resource and Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) Manage-
ment. Fostering effective CDW management requires the use of advanced technolo-
gies that facilitate the efficient tracking of building elements. This, in turn, enables
more streamlined and effective waste collection, separation, and redirection into
circularity paths, including reuse, remanufacturing, repurposing, and recycling.
Sensor technologies, when combined with digital tools, offer the capability to
plan waste routes and collections in real-time, based on demand [132]. An example
of this combination is the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags, which inte-
grate sensors and identification technology through internet connectivity [13]. These
RFID tags can be affixed to waste and recycling containers, facilitating the imple-
mentation of “Pay-as-you-throw” waste programmes in select cities, optimising
municipal waste collection. These technologies provide real-time data storage, cloud
processing, and seamless exchange of information between the cloud, waste collec-
tion vehicles, containers, recycling facilities, and secondary material retailers. This
486 R. Askar et al.

comprehensive tracking system monitors container content characteristics and condi-

tions, managing routes and productivity to ensure safe and cost-efficient sorting,
reuse, and recycling [13].
In the pursuit of efficient CDW management, the role of IoT and BCT cannot
be understated, as they play a pivotal role in storing, recording, and sharing critical
information about various materials and elements [133].
Moreover, digital marking of materials, combined with AI, enhances the effective-
ness of recycling processes, while digital marketplaces and platforms create channels
and market conditions that promote the use of reclaimed materials [132].
BIM also plays a crucial role in establishing circular waste management chan-
nels. This tool, through a central information approach, aggregates data from diverse
sources, including documents, on-site investigations, and the potential for reusing
various building elements. This, in turn, aids in the accurate identification of compo-
nents with circular value for recovery and urban mining [143]. By streamlining
processes and promoting CE practices, BIM simplifies interconnected issues in the
waste management landscape.
In the face of the challenges that stakeholders encounter when striving for high-
quality work, maintaining efficiency, and addressing crucial aspects such as certifi-
cation and waste management promotion, digital technologies continue to evolve,
persistently offering solutions to tackle these concerns.

17.3.3 Economic Value

Cost Analysis and Life Cycle Costing (LCC). Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is a
methodology employed to calculate the comprehensive expenses incurred throughout
a product or system’s entire life cycle. This aids in informed decision-making during
the product development process [144, 145, 146]. LCC analysis allows for the
comparison of products or systems in terms of the estimated costs involved over the
project’s entire life cycle. It therefore helps promote the most cost-effective design
and process alternatives to achieve closed loop building life cycles. LCC contributes
to managing circular businesses, cost reduction, and the mitigation of environmental
impacts [144].
Applying LCC within a CE framework involves regarding products as composite
entities comprising components and parts with distinct and multiple use cycles. In
this context, evaluating products within a CE perspective necessitates extending
their lifespan, with a focus on design elements such as repair, reuse, upgradability,
disassembly, and recycling. Consequently, value retention processes (VRPs) become
central in extending product lifespans and should be integrated into the evaluation.
This approach encompasses post-use processes, providing practical and actionable
insights to all stakeholders involved and enabling alignment with LCA methodologies
[145].
A review of the literature highlights the possibilities, advantages, and challenges
of integrating BIM and LCC [144, 147, 148]. While tools for integrating LCC and
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 487

LCA within BIM are available, it is important to note that these tools predominantly
focus on new construction projects and lack examples demonstrating the assessment
of circularity strategies’ implications in existing assets, such as material salvaging
and recycling [144]. Still, BIM can serve as a valuable tool for assessing LCC within
a CE model in new and existing construction.
BIM streamlines the integration and visualisation of project data, enhancing the
precision of LCC assessments. By connecting cost data to specific building elements
and components, it enables precise calculations throughout the life cycle. Further-
more, BIM’s parametric modelling capabilities support iterative design processes,
optimising both performance and cost aspects [148, 149]. It offers early-stage deci-
sion support by evaluating the life cycle costs of design options and material choices,
thereby facilitating the adoption of CE strategies for optimised resource utilisation
and waste reduction [144]. BIM, in this way, fosters collaboration among stake-
holders, promoting knowledge sharing and effective communication. This collabo-
rative environment ensures that LCC considerations are integrated throughout the
project life cycle, thereby enhancing transparency and informed decision-making
[147]. During the operational phase, BIM’s integration with facility management
systems facilitates ongoing LCC evaluation. By monitoring energy consumption,
maintenance costs, and performance data, BIM supports well-informed decisions
regarding retrofits and renovations costs implications, thereby enhancing a building’s
CE performance [144].
Several challenges arise when implementing LCC and BIM integration, including
the absence of standardised LCC cost estimation methods, unstructured and non-
standardised data formats, interoperability issues, consistent and interpretable data
sets, limitations on stakeholders directly involved in the model, and the need to clearly
define system boundaries [145, 147].
New Business Models. Circular business models (CBMs) represent an innovative
approach to harnessing the latent economic value present in products by extending
their utility through closed material loops within an economic system [116]. These
models outline how organisations create, deliver, and capture value within these
closed loops, which consist of both forward and reverse supply chains that reintegrate
reclaimed products [135]. CBMs promote product longevity, product reuse, residual
value extraction from by-products, and enhancing product design and manufacturing
efficiency [150]. They pivot around core elements of value proposition, delivery,
creation, and capture, with an ever-growing emphasis on sustainability and circularity
[151].
CBMs extend beyond environmental concerns, focusing on maximising product
lifecycles across the entire supply chain. They aim to transform unusable products
into new sources of value within the same or other supply chains. Effective collabora-
tion between policymakers and companies is pivotal in either facilitating or hindering
the development of CBMs through regulatory norms [152]. Hence, collaboration with
a network of stakeholders, including suppliers, is vital for the development of circular
solutions. CBM innovation is a system-wide phenomenon that demands interaction
488 R. Askar et al.

among all stakeholders, encompassing both the core business network and external
participants [153].
Nevertheless, businesses are often restrained by cost-centric models and existing
partnerships that impede their engagement with circularity. A shift towards long-
term value creation and consideration of non-economic benefits is imperative [151].
Current business modelling tools and methodologies often lack the requisite compo-
nents for innovating CBMs comprehensively and disruptively. Embracing circularity
requires maximising the value of products and materials, thereby reducing resource
consumption and fostering positive societal and environmental outcomes. Incre-
mental changes alone are inadequate; radical and transformative business models
are indispensable to tackle prevailing challenges and usher in a CE.
A pivotal step is for companies to perceive their customers not as mere buyers
but as users, thereby emphasising a shift from a product-centric approach to that of
service provision. This transformation necessitates a redesign of value networks and
associated business models to accommodate new players and evolving roles [153].
The core principles and components of CBMs can be drawn from the foundational
principles of the CE. Numerous frameworks and definitions elucidate and charac-
terise these components, including the ReSOLVE framework, circular value creation,
normative prerequisites, and areas for integration [116]. Consequently, fundamental
facets of CBMs encompass durability, renewability, reusability, repairability, upgrad-
ability, refurbishment, servitisation (e.g., product as a service like air conditioning),
capacity sharing, and dematerialisation [152].
Digitalisation, driven by AI, IoT, big data, and online platforms, is revolution-
ising value chains across industries. These technologies can monitor and manage
physical objects, generating extensive data on materials, products, and processes.
By enabling optimised production systems and smarter products and services and
creating a continuous information flow that mitigates market inefficiencies, digital
tools can lead to reduced waste, longer product lifespans, and circular design. Thus,
digitalisation fosters value creation and a more sustainable economy [154].
The commitment of managerial leadership is pivotal to the successful co-creation
and co-capture of value [152]. CBMs thrive on a foundation of data and knowledge
management. Different models require specific information at various stages of the
value chain. In this regard, the use of digital tools can facilitate the adoption of CBM
by:
• Sharing models (e.g., logistics, retail) rely on data like asset location and condi-
tion to connect users with what they need. Understanding user behaviour fuels
personalised experiences.
• Product life extension models leverage data on product health and materials to
optimise repair and reuse, keeping resources in circulation longer.
• Circular supply models depend on material composition and origin data to ensure
transparency and efficient closed-loop systems. BCT plays a key role here.
• Resource recovery models (recycling, industrial symbiosis) require data on waste
composition and reusability, along with knowledge about material life cycles, to
transform waste into valuable secondary materials.
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 489

• Product service systems focus on providing access to services, not ownership. Data
on product availability and condition, coupled with knowledge of user preferences,
is crucial for smooth operation [154].
Effectively managing data and knowledge is essential for the success of diverse
CBMs. It empowers them to operate efficiently and contribute to a more sustainable
future. Each digital technology, through its combinatorial power and data processing
capabilities, can address specific market failures that impede the scalability of circular
activities. For example, combining online platforms, BCT, and AI can enable the
creation of digital sourcing platforms that facilitate the exchange of products and
materials at their optimal reuse potential [154].
Consequently, the implementation of CBMs necessitates a holistic perspective
that spans all dimensions of value and encompasses numerous relationships along
the value chain. Active engagement of stakeholders is imperative for value creation.
Nonetheless, empirical evidence regarding the application of digital technologies
for achieving CE goals remains limited. The transition to CBMs calls for ongoing
monitoring, verification of achieved objectives, and prompt corrective measures. In
this context, policymakers play a crucial role in steering the shift from a linear to a
circular production model [152].

17.3.4 Social Value

Digital transformation stands as a widely recognised catalyst for economic and social
progress. It serves as a potent instrument for unlocking the advantages of inclusive
and sustainable growth, ultimately leading to enhanced societal well-being [13]. The
advocacy for a digital CE in the construction and building industry brings forth
numerous social advantages for both labourers and residents, contributing to the
development of more inclusive and liveable communities. Digitalisation not only
empowers consumers by involving them in product and service innovation but also
enables companies to engage with their customers more effectively than ever before
[153]. The integration of digital intelligence provides opportunities to disseminate
knowledge, structure, ownership, and varying degrees of customisation, leading to
more connected and enduring relationships with customers and end users [134].
Furthermore, by enabling digitalised planning, visualisation, and simulation of
building and construction projects, professionals can enhance safety and comfort
measures. Certain digital tools can also function as monitoring systems to ensure
process quality and compliance with standards. The adoption of digital tools for
circular construction necessitates a diverse range of skill sets, thereby creating
new employment opportunities in the sector. However, this transformation calls
for investment in training programmes to cultivate a skilled workforce capable of
driving the transition towards a circular, sustainable built environment fortified with
technological resilience.
490 R. Askar et al.

Another critical dimension addressed by these tools is the challenge of access to

affordable housing. By embracing circular design strategies that enable incremental
construction, potential cost reductions can be realised. Additionally, the promotion
of material health and the integration of principles to enhance air quality, passive
techniques for thermal comfort, and energy efficiency needs can result in circular
buildings that offer healthier living environments and comfortable spaces, positively
impacting user well-being and overall quality of life.

17.4 Barriers and Critical Success Factors (CSF)

for Digitalisation

17.4.1 Technical and Technological Challenges

Complexity of Buildings. The construction of buildings is an intricate and multi-

faceted process that involves the collaboration of various stakeholders throughout its
different phases. Consequently, the complexity and fragmentation of the construc-
tion industry present a significant challenge for the successful integration of digital
technologies [118]. To enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of construction
projects through digitalisation, it is imperative that all stakeholders embrace digital
transformation strategies for their internal and collaborative processes.
A critical issue highlighted by Berlak et al. [155] is the prevalence of imbalances
within the industry. This imbalance arises when one company invests in digital tech-
nologies, while another remains resistant to such investments. The resistance of the
latter inhibits the overall progress of digitalisation within the construction sector,
irrespective of the efforts made by individual companies. This dynamic sheds light
on why the level of digital adoption remains relatively low within the construction
industry [155].
Lack of Integration and Interoperability Among Digital Tools. Numerous digital
tools play a pivotal role in streamlining the construction process. However, a signifi-
cant challenge arises from the lack of compatibility between these tools and the inad-
equate integration of hardware, software, and data channels. This integration shortfall
hampers the full utilisation of digitalisation for specific construction purposes and
inhibits its seamless application throughout the entire construction life cycle. Conse-
quently, these tools often function independently, diminishing the overall effective-
ness of digitisation [156]. This challenge of integration is further underscored by the
findings of Yu et al. [101] and Zhang et al. [157], who highlighted the pressing need
for seamless interoperability between digital tools to ensure uninterrupted opera-
tions. According to Yu et al. [101], the current level of technological integration falls
short of facilitating the effective integration of a CE within the construction industry.
Lack of Standardisation. The digitalisation of the construction industry presents
a significant challenge in the realm of standardisation for digital tools and devices.
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 491

This challenge stems from the fact that various digital transformation devices possess
diverse requirements and constraints relating to energy consumption, data processing,
security, and computational capabilities. Standardisation plays a pivotal role in
harmonising these discrepancies in requirements and, in turn, streamlining the digi-
talisation process. However, the rapid pace of digital transformation often hinders
the development of these much-needed standards [158].
As indicated by Olanipekun and Sutrisna [156], the absence of standardised prac-
tices restricts the effective implementation of digital tools within the construction
sector. Without universally accepted guidelines for technology integration, compa-
nies face a reduced array of options when selecting digital tools for their ecosystem.
This dearth of standardisation also poses a challenge when it comes to assessing the
overall effectiveness of digitalisation efforts.
Zhang et al. [157] highlighted China’s noteworthy contributions to the develop-
ment of ISO standards for BIM. However, Olanipekun and Sutrisna [156] argued
that the ISO guidelines for construction digital tools tend to overemphasise stan-
dardisation, neglecting the need for specific standards tailored to technologies
widely employed across multiple industries. A prime example is 3D printing, which
finds applications not only in construction but also in the manufacturing sector.
Consequently, there is a need for a more nuanced approach to standardisation that
accommodates the diverse needs of these multifaceted technologies.
Data Fragmentation and Insecurity. A large number of stakeholders throughout
the construction value chain also creates the challenge of data fragmentation and
its management. In a study of Bon-Gang et al. [159], the experts from Singapore
construction companies identified data and information sharing as a critical chal-
lenge for effective smart technologies integration. They stated that this issue has a
direct effect on the misuse and loss of data, misunderstanding within the team and
inefficiencies within the project. Another study of Zhang et al. [157] revealed that
data fragmentation is the most crucial challenge among technological barriers. The
data fragmentation results in limitations in data sharing and negatively affect the
digitisation of construction. This in turn leads to inefficient data sharing and data
gap, miscommunication and conflicts, problematic information exchange between
different stages, and data security.
With construction and built environment digitalisation processes, another crucial
aspect that must be addressed is cyber-security. This broad and pressing topic presents
several critical challenges. The challenge of data security is discussed in a study of
Jemal et al. [130]. With the digitalisation of construction industry, a complex cyber
network is created, that is prone to cyber-attacks. Nevertheless, the importance of
data security has been neglected and led to significant threats of cyberattack. There-
fore, the digitisation requires a proper cyber security infrastructure for construction
companies. To mitigate these risks, various technologies can be leveraged. Encryp-
tion protocols, distributed database technology, cloud security, and BCT are instru-
mental in safeguarding key BIM components such as data ownership, data sharing,
model federation, information workflows, data security, network security, and system
security [160].
492 R. Askar et al.

17.4.2 Resource Challenges

High Implementation Cost. Cost and investment capabilities are pivotal consid-
erations for leaders in the construction industry when contemplating digital trans-
formation [161]. Research underscores that the digitalisation of the construction
sector incurs a substantial implementation cost, which is recognised as the most
significant economic challenge faced by companies [157]. This high implementa-
tion cost is primarily attributed to the expensive equipment and extensive data storage
requirements [158].
Lack of Expertise. The process of digitising the construction industry demands
a proficient workforce equipped with cutting-edge digital skills. Unfortunately, a
notable shortfall of digital technology experts in the construction sector has been
documented in recent studies [162, 163]. The successful digital transformation of
the construction field necessitates professionals specialising in machine learning, AI,
data analytics, as well as hardware and software engineering [157]. This scarcity of
skilled expertise has adverse repercussions on data processing and hinders the overall
progress of digitalisation within the construction industry.

17.4.3 Cultural Challenges

It is essential to acknowledge that realising the full potential of digitalisation in

promoting circular buildings necessitates more than just technological advance-
ments. Institutional, behavioural, and socio-economic system changes are imper-
ative to affect a transition towards a circular and digital economy. Collaborative
efforts among various stakeholders, including policymakers, industry professionals,
and consumers, are indispensable in creating a supportive environment that encour-
ages circular building practices and maximises the benefits of digitalisation. In the
construction industry, stakeholders often exhibit resistance to embracing technolog-
ical advancements and tend to rely on existing tools and conventional practices. This
resistance has a detrimental impact on the digitisation of the construction sector
[101]. Bon-Gang et al. [159] identified the reluctance to adopt new technologies as
a primary organisational challenge faced by construction companies. The resistance
among stakeholders can be attributed to several factors, including a lack of expertise
in modern digital technologies and their potential benefits, the presence of high risks
and penalties associated with unsuccessful project completion, as well as deeply
entrenched organisational cultures [101, 163]. Furthermore, this hesitation to adopt
digital solutions is not confined to a specific level of the organisation. This reluc-
tance has been also observed among both employees and top management [161].
Adding to the complexity of this issue, it has been also found that there is often
insufficient support from company leadership, exacerbating employees’ resistance
to the adoption of digital technologies [162].
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 493

17.4.4 Critical Success Factors (CSF)

Given the barriers and challenges associated with the extensive integration of digi-
talisation within the construction and building sector, several critical success factors
have emerged as pivotal in overcoming these hurdles, as follows:
Collaboration and Communication. Effective collaboration is a crucial element
for successfully addressing the inherent complexities of the construction industry.
Collaboration and communication are essential for fostering a shared vision and
common interests among stakeholders and encouraging the collaborative imple-
mentation of digital technologies. This cooperative effort also serves to mitigate
the challenges associated with data sharing, system integration, and standardisation
[156, 159].
Professional Trainings. In today’s rapidly evolving landscape, professional training
in digital technologies is of paramount importance for the construction industry. This
training not only equips the workforce with essential skills but also significantly
amplifies the effectiveness of digitisation efforts within the sector. By elevating the
understanding of digital transformation and its associated advantages, we empower
individuals to become proficient experts and simultaneously diminish the barriers to
embracing technological change. This transformative approach is pivotal in driving
progress within the construction industry [159].
Government Incentives. In addition to organisations, it is imperative for govern-
ments to play an active role in promoting shared values and fostering digital literacy
across the entire value chain. Furthermore, government incentives are pivotal in
aiding companies to surmount the elevated integration costs associated with digi-
tisation. With government support, businesses can harness their investment capa-
bilities for professional training and preliminary testing. A noteworthy example of
the effectiveness of government incentives can be found in Singapore’s construc-
tion industry, which boasts a sophisticated BIM integration compared to many other
countries [159].

17.5 Discussion and Conclusions

The technologies advanced by Industry 4.0 hold immense potential for bolstering CE
models within the built environment. This study sheds light on the pivotal roles played
by 14 digital technologies in supporting the dual transition towards sustainability
and digitalisation. The analysis shows the numerous benefits of implementing these
technologies to support an efficient and effective application of multiple circularity
strategies by enabling real-time monitoring and control of production processes,
enhance supply chain management, facilitate material reuse and recycling, and extend
the lifespan of products [29]. Ultimately, these measures reduce the environmental
494 R. Askar et al.

impact of economic activities, among other environmental, economic, and social

benefits.
It is worth noting that the digital toolbox extends beyond the technologies
discussed in this study. Among the additional digital tools and technologies with
potential applications in the construction and building sector are:
• Robotics and Automation: These technologies enhance the efficiency, precision,
and productivity of manufacturing processes. They also enable the implementation
of flexible and agile manufacturing systems, allowing for product customisation
and adaptation, thus reducing the need for new production [29]. Additionally,
automated processes reduce errors and minimise waste generation.
• Cybersecurity: Cybersecurity measures are vital for protecting systems against
unauthorised access and cyber threats. This is achieved through encryption,
authentication protocols, regular system updates, and employee training in
cybersecurity best practices.
Among the various technologies explored in this study, BIM stands out as the
most prevalent technology in the construction sector. Nevertheless, BIM exhibits
significant interactions with most of the other technologies, resulting in increased
efficiency, effectiveness, and objectivity.
The analysis of diverse digital tools and technologies applicable to the construction
sector reveals that their successful implementation necessitates collaboration among
different stakeholders, including manufacturers, suppliers, and consumers [164]. It
also demands a holistic approach that takes into account the entire life cycle of
projects and associated products. This is because these digital technologies exhibit
varying levels of interdependence throughout the life cycle of buildings, interacting
with or depending on each other during the execution of specific tasks [118] which
restricts their standalone use.
It is vital to acknowledge that, despite the numerous advantages and benefits
these technologies offer to the environment, economy, and society, their improper
application and mismanagement can introduce several threats at multiple levels. For
instance, the increased connectivity of Industry 4.0 technologies may give rise to
potential environmental risks that must be addressed to ensure sustainable CE prac-
tices. Some of these risks encompass increased energy consumption if the use of
connected devices is not adequately managed, potentially leading to elevated green-
house gas emissions and contributing to climate change [29]. Another risk involves
the generation of electronic waste (e-waste), posing environmental hazards due to the
presence of hazardous materials [29]. Furthermore, the heightened connectivity and
data sharing in Industry 4.0 systems make them vulnerable to cybersecurity threats,
which, if breached, can have environmental consequences, such as unauthorised
access to control systems resulting in accidents or disruptions [29].
To mitigate these environmental risks and foster sustainable CE practices, several
measures can be implemented as outlined by Laskurain-Iturbe et al. [29]:
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 495

• Enhancing energy efficiency practices and technologies to minimise the energy

consumption of Industry 4.0 systems. This may involve optimising algorithms,
utilising energy-efficient hardware, and adopting renewable energy sources.
• Establishing effective e-waste management systems that promote recycling, refur-
bishment, and responsible disposal of electronic devices. This may include imple-
menting collection programmes, designing products for easy disassembly and
recycling, and promoting the use of recycled materials in manufacturing.
• Implementing robust cybersecurity measures to safeguard Industry 4.0 systems
against unauthorised access and cyber threats. This can encompass encryp-
tion, authentication protocols, regular system updates, and employee training on
cybersecurity best practices.
• Conducting life cycle assessments of Industry 4.0 technologies and systems
to identify and mitigate potential environmental impacts. This can help opti-
mise resource utilisation, reduce waste generation, and identify opportunities for
improvement throughout the product life cycle.
• Developing and enforcing regulations and standards that promote sustainable
practices in the adoption and implementation of Industry 4.0 technologies. These
regulations may include requirements for energy efficiency, e-waste management,
and cybersecurity measures.
By addressing these environmental risks and implementing these measures, the
integration of Industry 4.0 technologies into CE practices can be achieved sustainably
and with a responsible approach.
Another essential challenge hindering the successful implementation of digital
technologies in CE models is the absence of a well-defined regulatory framework that
both upholds CE principles and promotes sustainable practices of digital technologies
and tools. This obstacle is exacerbated by the substantial requirement for investments
in novel technologies and infrastructure. Additionally, fostering a significant shift in
mindset and culture is imperative, a task that proves challenging without robust
leadership and active stakeholder engagement [164].
Despite these challenges, the thoughtful combination of Industry 4.0 and the CE
in construction offers several benefits, including:
• Improved Resource Efficiency: Enhancing resource efficiency [6, 29, 165].
• Enhanced Sustainable Business Performance: Reducing demand for natural
resources and extending product life cycles [165].
• Positive Environmental Impact: Minimising waste generation and promoting
reuse and recycling of materials, resulting in a reduced environmental footprint
[165].
• Collaboration and Transparency: Encouraging increased collaboration and trans-
parency [165].
• Competitive Advantage: Offering a distinctive competitive advantage for compa-
nies [165].
• Improved Operational Performance: Increasing efficiency, productivity, and
quality in operations [165].
496 R. Askar et al.

All of these factors contribute to improved economic performance for compa-

nies, driven by synergistic effects between the CE and digitalisation, leading to
increased resource efficiency, cost savings, and enhanced competitiveness [165].
Moreover, this approach also has the potential to reduce the demand for natural
resources, decrease environmental impact, create local employment opportunities,
and contribute to economic development in the region [165].
Nonetheless, further research and effort are required to:
• Identify the primary drivers and obstacles in the adoption of digital tools and
technologies for promoting circularity practices in the construction sector.
• Explore innovative business models that facilitate the transition to a digital circular
economy.
• Investigate the role of digital technologies and platforms, not only those addressed
in this study but also potential ones.
• Assess the environmental and economic impact of digitalisation on circularity
practices to provide compelling evidence of their benefits and guide decision-
making.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of existing policies and regulations in advancing the
shift towards a digital CE and pinpoint areas requiring improvement.
• Develop strategies to encourage collaboration and engagement among diverse
stakeholders, including businesses, governments, and consumers, to drive the
adoption of digitalised circular practices [165].

References

1. European Commission and Directorate-General for Communication (2020) Circular economy

action plan—for a cleaner and more competitive Europe. Publications Office of the European
Union. https://doi.org/10.2779/05068
2. Davies R (2015) Industry 4.0: digitalisation for productivity and growth. European Parlia-
mentary Research Service. Accessed 25 Oct 2023. [Online]. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/
RegData/etudes/BRIE/2015/568337/EPRS_BRI(2015)568337_EN.pdf
3. European Commission, Digital Transition. Accessed 24 Oct 2023. [Online]. https://reform-
support.ec.europa.eu/what-we-do/digital-transition_en#digital-economy-research-and-inn
ovation
4. European Commission (2021) Directorate-general for research and innovation. In: Breque
M, De Nul L, Petridis A (eds) Industry 5.0—towards a sustainable, human-centric and
resilient European industry. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.
2777/308407
5. Findik D, Tirgil A, Özbuğday FC (2023) Industry 4.0 as an enabler of circular economy
practices: evidence from European SMEs. J Clean Prod 410:137281. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2023.137281
6. Viles E, Kalemkerian F, Garza-Reyes JA, Antony J, Santos J (2022) Theorizing the principles
of sustainable production in the context of circular economy and Industry 4.0. Sustain Prod
Consum 33:1043–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.08.024
7. GREEN AT YOU (2023) GREEN AT YOU—social innovations for inclusive green and digital
jobs. Accessed 10 Nov 2023. [Online]. https://all-digital.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Pre
sentation-Letter-Final_English-version.pdf
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 497

8. European Commission, 2023 Strategic foresight report: sustainability and wellbeing at the
heart of Europe’s Open Strategic Autonomy. Accessed 24 Oct 2023. [Online]. https://ec.eur
opa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_3623
9. Muench S, Stoermer E, Jensen K, Asikainen T, Salvi M, Scapolo F (2022) Towards a green &
digital future. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (Luxembourg), Antic-
ipation and foresight KJ-NA-31075-EN-N (online), KJ-NA-31075-EN-C (print). https://doi.
org/10.2760/977331 (online), 10. 2760/54 (print)
10. European Commission, Key enabling technologies. Accessed 25 Oct 2023. [Online]. https://
research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/industrial-research-and-innovation/key-
enabling-technologies_en
11. European Construction Sector Observatory (2021) Digitalisation in the construction sector.
Accessed 24 Oct 2023. [Online]. https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/45547
12. Executive Agency for Small and Medium sized Enterprises (2019) Supporting digitalisation
of the construction sector and SMEs: including building information modelling. Publications
Office, LU. Accessed 25 Oct 2023. [Online]. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2826/422658
13. E. Barteková and P. Börkey, “Digitalisation for the transition to a resource efficient and circular
economy,” OECD Environment Working Papers 192, Mar. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1787/6f6
d18e7-en
14. Eastman C, Teicholz P, Sacks R, Liston K (2011) BIM handbook: a guide to building infor-
mation modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers and contractors, 2nd edn. Wiley,
Hoboken
15. buildingSMART International. Accessed 10 Nov 2023. [Online]. https://www.buildingsmart.
org/
16. Fitch Ratings (2021) Housing and development board. Accessed 10 Nov 2023.
[Online]. https://www.fitchratings.com/research/international-public-finance/housing-develo
pment-board-14-12-2021
17. EUBIM Taskgroup (2019) Handbook for the introduction of building information modelling
by the European Public Sector. Accessed 10 Nov 2023. [Online]. https://www.ukbimfram
ework.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/EU_BIM_Task_Group_Handbook.pdf
18. Charef R (2022) The use of building information modelling in the circular economy context:
several models and a new dimension of BIM (8D). Clean Eng Technol 7:100414. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.clet.2022.100414
19. CURT (2004) Collaboration, integrated information, and the project lifecycle in building
design, construction and operation
20. Wang Y, Wang S, Yang B, Zhu L, Liu F (2020) Big data driven hierarchical digital twin
predictive remanufacturing paradigm: architecture, control mechanism, application scenario
and benefits. J Clean Prod 248:119299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119299
21. Atta N (2023) Remanufacturing towards circularity in the construction sector: the role of
digital technologies. In: Arbizzani E, Cangelli E, Clemente C, Cumo F, Giofrè F, Giovenale
AM, Palme M, Paris S (eds) Technological imagination in the green and digital transition.
The urban book series. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 493–503. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-031-29515-7_45
22. Tao F, Zhang H, Liu A, Nee AYC (2019) Digital Twin in industry: state-of-the-art. IEEE Trans
Ind Inform 15(4):2405–2415. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2018.2873186
23. Jia M, Komeily A, Wang Y, Srinivasan RS (2019) Adopting Internet of Things for the devel-
opment of smart buildings: a review of enabling technologies and applications. Autom Constr
101:111–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.01.023
24. Eneyew DD, Capretz MAM, Bitsuamlak GT (2022) Toward smart-building digital twins: BIM
and IoT data integration. IEEE Access 10:130487–130506. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.
2022.3229370
25. buildingSMART International (2020) Enabling an ecosystem of digital twins. Accessed 10
Nov 2023. [Online]. https://f3h3w7a5.rocketcdn.me/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Enabling-
Digital-Twins-Positioning-Paper-Final.pdf
498 R. Askar et al.

26. Çetin S, De Wolf C, Bocken N (2021) Circular digital built environment: an emerging
framework. Sustainability Switzerland 13(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116348
27. Kedir F, Bucher DF, Hall DM (2021) A proposed material passport ontology to enable
circularity for industrialized construction. Presented at the 2021 European Conference on
computing in construction, pp 91–98. https://doi.org/10.35490/EC3.2021.159
28. Landahl J, Panarotto M, Johannesson H, Isaksson O, Lööf J (2018) Towards adopting
digital twins to support design reuse during platform concept development. In: DS 91:
Proceedings of NordDesign 2018, Linköping, Sweden, 14th–17th August 2018. Accessed
9 Jan 2024. [Online]. https://www.designsociety.org/publication/40917/Towards+Adopting+
Digital+Twins+to+Support+Design+Reuse+during+Platform+Concept+Development
29. Laskurain-Iturbe I, Arana-Landín G, Landeta-Manzano B, Uriarte-Gallastegi N (2021)
Exploring the influence of industry 4.0 technologies on the circular economy. J Clean Prod
321:128944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128944
30. Sauerwein M, Doubrovski E, Balkenende R, Bakker C (2019) Exploring the potential of
additive manufacturing for product design in a circular economy. J Clean Prod 226:1138–1149.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.108
31. Ngo TD, Kashani A, Imbalzano G, Nguyen KTQ, Hui D (2018) Additive manufacturing (3D
printing): a review of materials, methods, applications and challenges. Compos Part B Eng
143:172–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.012
32. OECD (2017) OECD digital economy outlook 2017. [Online]. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/
content/publication/9789264276284-en
33. Antikainen M, Uusitalo T, Kivikytö-Reponen P (2018) Digitalisation as an enabler of circular
economy. Presented at the Procedia CIRP, Elsevier B.V., pp 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
procir.2018.04.027
34. Morkunas VJ, Paschen J, Boon E (2019) How blockchain technologies impact your business
model. Bus Horiz 62(3):295–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.01.009
35. Shojaei A, Ketabi R, Razkenari M, Hakim H, Wang J (2021) Enabling a circular economy
in the built environment sector through blockchain technology. J Clean Prod 294:126352.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126352
36. Ferreira IA, Godina R, Pinto A, Pinto P, Carvalho H (2023) Boosting additive circular economy
ecosystems using blockchain: an exploratory case study. Comput Ind Eng 175:108916. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108916
37. Esmaeilian B, Sarkis J, Lewis K, Behdad S (2020) Blockchain for the future of sustainable
supply chain management in Industry 4.0. Resour Conserv Recycl 163:105064. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105064
38. Teisserenc B, Sepasgozar S (2021) Adoption of blockchain technology through digital twins
in the construction Industry 4.0: a PESTELS approach. Buildings 11(12). https://doi.org/10.
3390/buildings11120670
39. Zhang A, Zhong RY, Farooque M, Kang K, Venkatesh VG (2020) Blockchain-based life cycle
assessment: an implementation framework and system architecture. Resour Conserv Recycl
152:104512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104512
40. Elghaish F, Hosseini MR, Kocaturk T, Arashpour M, Bararzadeh Ledari M (2023) Digitalised
circular construction supply chain: an integrated BIM-Blockchain solution. Autom Constr
148:104746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2023.104746
41. Böckel A, Nuzum A-K, Weissbrod I (2021) Blockchain for the circular economy: analysis of
the research-practice gap. Sustain Prod Consum 25:525–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.
2020.12.006
42. Hunhevicz JJ, Bucher DF, Soman RK, Honic M, Hall DM, De Wolf C (2023) Web3-based role
and token data access: the case of building material passports. Presented at the 2023 European
conference on computing in construction and the 40th international CIB W78 conference.
https://doi.org/10.35490/EC3.2023.217
43. Castiglione A, Cimmino L, Di Nardo M, Murino T (2023) A framework for achieving a
circular economy using the blockchain technology in a sustainable waste management system.
Comput Ind Eng 180:109263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2023.109263
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 499

44. Liu Z, Wu T, Wang F, Osmani M, Demian P (2022) Blockchain enhanced construction waste
information management: a conceptual framework. Sustainability 14(19). https://doi.org/10.
3390/su141912145
45. Ton A, Lee M, Vos S, Gawehn M, den Heijer K, Aarninkhof S (2020) 27—Beach and
nearshore monitoring techniques. In: Jackson DWT, Short AD (eds) Sandy Beach Morpho-
dynamics. Elsevier, pp 659–687. [Online]. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
B9780081029275000278
46. Song C, Chen Z, Wang K, Luo H, Cheng JCP (2022) BIM-supported scan and flight planning
for fully autonomous LiDAR-carrying UAVs. Autom Constr 142:104533. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.autcon.2022.104533
47. Chen K, Lu W, Xue F, Tang P, Li LH (2018) Automatic building information model reconstruc-
tion in high-density urban areas: augmenting multi-source data with architectural knowledge.
Autom Constr 93:22–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.05.009
48. Honic M et al (2023) Framework for the assessment of the existing building stock through
BIM and GIS. Dev Built Environ 13:100110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2022.100110
49. Bogoviku L, Waldmann D (2021) Modelling of mineral construction and demolition waste
dynamics through a combination of geospatial and image analysis. J Environ Manag
282:111879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111879
50. Mastrucci A, Pérez-López P, Benetto E, Leopold U, Blanc I (2017) Global sensitivity analysis
as a support for the generation of simplified building stock energy models. Energy Build
149:368–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.05.022
51. Petojevic Z, Nadazdi A, Isailovic D, Visnjevac N (2023) An integrated solution for increased
circularity in buildings: a method. In: Proceedings of the 6th IPMA SENET project manage-
ment conference “digital transformation and sustainable development in project manage-
ment,” International Project Management Association, IPMA Publications, and Faculty of
Civil Engineering, University of Zagreb, Croatia, pp 259–272. https://doi.org/10.5592/CO/
SENET.2022.18
52. O’Donnell J, Truong-Hong L, Boyle N, Corry E, Cao J, Laefer DF (2019) LiDAR point-
cloud mapping of building façades for building energy performance simulation. Autom Constr
107:102905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102905
53. Honic M, Kovacic I, Aschenbrenner P, Ragossnig A (2021) Material passports for the end-of-
life stage of buildings: challenges and potentials. J Clean Prod 319:128702. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128702
54. Davis JL, Annan AP (1989) Ground-penetrating radar for high-resolution mapping of soil and
rock stratigraphy1 . Geophys Prospect 37(5):531–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.
1989.tb02221.x
55. Ali Z, Ali H, Badawy M (2015) Internet of Things (IoT): definitions, challenges and recent
research directions. Int J Comput Appl 128(1):37–47. https://doi.org/10.5120/ijca2015906430
56. Pagoropoulos A, Pigosso DCA, McAloone TC (2017) The emergent role of digital technolo-
gies in the circular economy: a review. Procedia CIRP 64:19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
procir.2017.02.047
57. Talari S, Shafie-khah M, Siano P, Loia V, Tommasetti A, Catalão J (2017) A review of smart
cities based on the internet of things concept. Energies 10(4):421. https://doi.org/10.3390/en1
0040421
58. Reuter MA (2016) Digitalizing the circular economy. Metall Mater Trans B 47(6):3194–3220.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-016-0735-5
59. Botea-Muntean D-R, Constantinescu R (2023) Internet of things—one of the digital steps that
companies should consider towards circular economy and sustainability an exploratory case
study defined by the sustainable retrospective of one of the top global retail groups. Proc Int
Conf Bus Excell 17(1):89–101. https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2023-0011
60. McDaniel SW, Rylander DH (1993) Strategic green marketing. J Consum Mark 10(3):4–10.
https://doi.org/10.1108/07363769310041929
61. Noman AA, Akter UH, Pranto TH, Haque AB (2022) Machine learning and artificial intel-
ligence in circular economy: a bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review. Ann
Emerg Technol Comput 6(2):13–40. https://doi.org/10.33166/AETiC.2022.02.002
500 R. Askar et al.

62. McKinsey Global Institute (2018) Notes from the AI frontier modeling the impact of AI on the
world economy. McKinsey Global Institute. Accessed 26 Oct 2023. [Online]. https://www.
mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insights/artificial%20intelligence/notes%20f
rom%20the%20ai%20frontier%20applications%20and%20value%20of%20deep%20lear
ning/notes-from-the-ai-frontier-insights-from-hundreds-of-use-cases-discussion-paper.ashx
63. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019) Artificial intelligence and the circular economy—AI as
a tool to accelerate the transition. [Online]. https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/artificial-int
elligence-and-the-circular-economy
64. Ramadoss TS, Alam H, Seeram R (2018) Artificial intelligence and internet of things enabled
circular economy. Int J Eng Sci IJES 7(9 Ver.III):55–63. https://doi.org/10.9790/1813-070
9035563
65. Ghoreishi M, Happonen A (2020) New promises AI brings into circular economy acceler-
ated product design: a review on supporting literature. In: Baltrėnaitė-Gedienė E, Iticescu C
(eds) Presented at the 7th international conference on environment pollution and prevention
(ICEPP 2019), E3S web of conferences, 2020, p 06002. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202
015806002
66. Akinosho TD et al (2020) Deep learning in the construction industry: a review of present
status and future innovations. J Build Eng 32:101827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.
101827
67. Pan Y, Zhang L (2021) Roles of artificial intelligence in construction engineering and manage-
ment: a critical review and future trends. Autom Constr 122:103517. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.autcon.2020.103517
68. Xu Y, Zhou Y, Sekula P, Ding L (2021) Machine learning in construction: from shallow to
deep learning. Dev Build Environ 6(Complete). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2021.100045
69. Debrah C, Chan APC, Darko A (2022) Artificial intelligence in green building. Autom Constr
137:104192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104192
70. Mawdesley Michael J, Al-jibouri Saad H, Hongbo Y (2002) Genetic algorithms for construc-
tion site layout in project planning. J Constr Eng Manag 128(5):418–426. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2002)128:5(418)
71. Papadaki IN, Chassiakos AP (2016) Multi-objective construction site layout planning using
genetic algorithms. Procedia Eng 164:20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.11.587
72. Moraga G et al (2019) Circular economy indicators: what do they measure? Resour Conserv
Recycl 146:452–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.045
73. Muscillo A et al (2021) Circular city index: an open data analysis to assess the urban circularity
preparedness of cities to address the green transition—a study on the Italian municipalities
74. Gupta S, Chen H, Hazen BT, Kaur S, Santibañez Gonzalez EDR (2019) Circular economy
and big data analytics: a stakeholder perspective. Technol Forecast Soc Change 144:466–474.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.030
75. Acharya A, Singh SK, Pereira V, Singh P (2018) Big data, knowledge co-creation and decision
making in fashion industry. Int J Inf Manag 42:90–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.
2018.06.008
76. Awan U, Kanwal N, Bhutta MKS (2020) A literature analysis of definitions for a circular
economy. In: Golinska-Dawson P (ed) Logistics operations and management for recycling
and reuse. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp 19–34. [Online]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
642-33857-1_2
77. Stahel WR, Reday-Mulvey G (1981) Jobs for tomorrow: the potential for substituting
manpower for energy. Vantage Press, New York
78. Tseng M-L, Tan RR, Chiu ASF, Chien C-F, Kuo TC (2018) Circular economy meets industry
4.0: can big data drive industrial symbiosis? Resour Conserv Recycl 131:146–147. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.12.028
79. Bello SA et al (2021) Cloud computing in construction industry: use cases, benefits and
challenges. Autom Constr 122:103441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103441
80. Oesterreich TD, 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
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 501

agenda for the construction industry. Comput Ind 83:121–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.com

pind.2016.09.006
81. Alreshidi E, Mourshed M, Rezgui Y (2018) Requirements for cloud-based BIM governance
solutions to facilitate team collaboration in construction projects. Requir Eng 23(1):1–31.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-016-0254-6
82. Li Y, Ma X (2017) Research on the informatization management of green construction based
on cloud-BIM. [Online]. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:215922238
83. Awan U, Sroufe R, Shahbaz M (2021) Industry 4.0 and the circular economy: a literature
review and recommendations for future research. Bus Strat Environ 30(4):2038–2060. https://
doi.org/10.1002/bse.2731
84. Bressanelli G, Adrodegari F, Pigosso DCA, Parida V (2022) Circular economy in the digital
age. Sustainability 14(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095565
85. Voulgaridis K, Lagkas T, Angelopoulos CM, Nikoletseas SE (2022) IoT and digital circular
economy: principles, applications, and challenges. Comput Netw 219:109456. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.comnet.2022.109456
86. John AO, Itodo DE (2013) Professionals’ views of material wastage on construction sites and
cost overruns. Org Technol Manag Constr Int J 5:747–757
87. Redmond A (2011) Developing a cloud integrated life cycle costing analysis model through
BIM. https://doi.org/10.21427/SV92-W825
88. Redmond A, Hore A, Alshawi M, Underwood J, West R (2011) Identifying cost savings for
the UK building industry through cloud computing and BIM software. Presented at the RICS
construction and property conference, pp 494–504
89. Kim C, Park T, Lim H, Kim H (2013) On-site construction management using mobile
computing technology. Autom Constr 35:415–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.
05.027
90. Teizer J (2016) The role of automation in right-time construction safety. In: Auburn A, Satti-
neni U, Auburn S, Azhar U, Georgia D, Castro TU (eds) Proceedings of the 33rd international
symposium on automation and robotics in construction (ISARC), Auburn, USA. International
Association for Automation and Robotics in Construction (IAARC), pp 191–199. https://doi.
org/10.22260/ISARC2016/0024
91. Rawai NM, Fathi MS, Abedi M, Rambat S (2013) Cloud computing for green construc-
tion management. In: 2013 Third international conference on intelligent system design and
engineering applications, pp 432–435
92. Ko HS, Azambuja M, Felix Lee H (2016) Cloud-based materials tracking system prototype
integrated with radio frequency identification tagging technology. Autom Constr 63:144–154.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.12.011
93. Noghabaei M, Heydarian A, Balali V, Han K (2020) Trend analysis on adoption of virtual
and augmented reality in the architecture, engineering, and construction industry. Data 5(1).
https://doi.org/10.3390/data5010026
94. Özacar K, Ortakcı Y, Küçükkara MY (2023) VRArchEducation: redesigning building survey
process in architectural education using collaborative virtual reality. Comput Graph Pergamon
113:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2023.04.008
95. Rajaratnam D, Weerasinghe DMLP, Abeynayake M, Perera BAKS, Ochoa JJ (2022) Potential
use of augmented reality in pre-contract design communication in construction projects. Intell
Build Int 14(6):661–678. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2021.1911776
96. Ramos F, Trilles S, Torres-Sospedra J, Perales FJ (2018) New trends in using augmented
reality apps for smart city contexts. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf 7(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi71
20478
97. Chi HL, Kang SC, Wang X (2013) Research trends and opportunities of augmented reality
applications in architecture, engineering, and construction. Autom Constr 33:116–122. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.12.017
98. Zhu X (2014) GIS and urban mining. Resources 3(1):235–247. https://doi.org/10.3390/res
ources3010235
502 R. Askar et al.

99. Esri, What is GIS? Accessed 26 Sep 2023. [Online]. https://www.esri.com/en-us/what-is-gis/

overview
100. National Geographic, GIS (Geographic Information System). Accessed 2 Oct 2023. [Online].
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/geographic-information-system-gis/
101. Yu Y, Yazan DM, Junjan V, Iacob M-E (2022) Circular economy in the construction industry:
a review of decision support tools based on information & communication technologies. J
Clean Prod 349:131335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131335
102. Salles A, Salati M, Bragança L (2023) Analyzing the feasibility of integrating urban sustain-
ability assessment indicators with city information modelling (CIM). Appl Syst Innov 6(2),
Art no 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi6020045
103. Simonelli L, Amorim AL (2018) City information modeling: general aspects and conceptu-
alization. Am J Eng Res AJER 7(10):319–324
104. Xu Z, Qi M, Wu Y, Hao X, Yang Y (2021) City Information modeling: state of the art. Appl
Sci 11(19):9333. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11199333
105. Souza L, Bueno C (2022) City information modelling as a support decision tool for planning
and management of cities: a systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Build
Environ 207:108403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108403
106. Gil J (2020) City information modelling: digital planning for sustainable cities. Built Environ
46(4):497–500. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.46.4.497
107. Kehmlani L (2016) City information modeling. Accessed 16 Dec 2021. [Online]. https://
www.aecbytes.com/feature/2016/CityInformationModeling.html
108. Stojanovski T, Partanen J, Samuels I, Sanders P, Peters C (2020) Viewpoint: City Information
Modelling (CIM) and digitizing urban design practices. Built Environ 46(4):637–646. https://
doi.org/10.2148/BENV.46.4.637
109. Xu X, Ding L, Luo H, Ma L (2013) From building information modeling to city information
modeling. J Inf Technol Constr 19(December 2013):292–307
110. Almeida F, de Andrade MLVX (2018) Considerações Sobre O Conceito De City Information
Modeling. InSitu 1(4):21–38
111. Dall’O’ G, Zichi A, Torri M (2020) Green BIM and CIM: sustainable planning using building
information modelling. In: Research for development, pp 383–409. [Online]. http://link.spr
inger.com/10.1007/978-3-030-41072-8_17
112. Thompson EM, Greenhalgh P, Muldoon-Smith K, Charlton J, Dolník M (2016) Planners in
the future city: using city information modelling to support planners as market actors. Urban
Plan 1(1):79–94. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v1i1.556
113. Sirakova TA (2018) Urban planning: from GIS and BIM straight to CIM. Practical application
in the urban area of Porto. Dissertação de Mestrado, Universidade do Porto
114. Wang B, Tian Y (2021) Research on key technologies of city information modeling. In: IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol 693, no 1, p 012129. https://doi.
org/10.1088/1755-1315/693/1/012129
115. Asadullah A, Faik I, Kankanhalli A (2023) Digital platforms: a review and future directions.
[Online]. https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/conference_contribution/Digital_platforms_
a_review_and_future_directions/24081825
116. Lewandowski M (2016) Designing the business models for circular economy—towards the
conceptual framework. Sustainability 8(1):43. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010043
117. Konietzko J, Bocken N, Hultink EJ (2019) Online platforms and the circular economy. In:
Bocken N, Ritala P, Albareda L, Verburg R (eds) Innovation for sustainability: business
transformations towards a better world. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 435–450.
[Online]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97385-2_23
118. Çetin S, De Wolf C, Bocken N (2021) Circular digital built environment: an emerging
framework. Sustainability 13(11), Art no 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116348
119. European Commission, Shaping Europe’s digital future—online Platforms. Accessed 20 Oct
2023. [Online]. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/online-platforms
120. Enfield Council, Excess material exchange. Accessed 20 Oct 2023. [Online]. https://excess
materialsexchange.com/en_us/
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 503

121. Enviromate Reuse Ltd, Enviromate. Accessed 20 Oct 2023. [Online]. https://www.enviro
mate.co.uk/
122. European Commission, Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the
council establishing a framework for setting ecodesign requirements for sustainable products
and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC. [Online]. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022PC0142
123. Honic M, Magalhães PM, Van Den Bosch P (2024) From data templates to material passports
and digital product passports. In: De Wolf C, Çetin S, Bocken NMP (eds) A circular built
environment in the digital age. Circular economy and sustainability. Springer International
Publishing, Cham, pp 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39675-5_5
124. Göswein V, Carvalho S, Cerqueira C, Lorena A (2022) Circular material passports for build-
ings—providing a robust methodology for promoting circular buildings. Presented at the IOP
conference series: earth and environmental science, Institute of Physics. https://doi.org/10.
1088/1755-1315/1122/1/012049
125. Honic M, Kovacic I, Sibenik G, Rechberger H (2019) Data- and stakeholder management
framework for the implementation of BIM-based material passports. J Build Eng 23:341–350.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.01.017
126. Costa AR, Hoolahan R, Martin M (2024) Accelerating material reuse in construction. In:
Circular economy for the built environment, 1st edn. Routledge, London, pp 231–249. https://
doi.org/10.1201/9781003450023-15
127. Liu L, Song W, Liu Y (2023) Leveraging digital capabilities toward a circular economy:
reinforcing sustainable supply chain management with Industry 4.0 technologies. Comput
Ind Eng 178:109113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2023.109113
128. Chauhan C, Parida V, Dhir A (2022) Linking circular economy and digitalisation technologies:
a systematic literature review of past achievements and future promises. Technol Forecast Soc
Change 177:121508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121508
129. Šipka S, Hedberg A Building a circular economy: the role of information transfer. Euro-
pean Policy Centre. [Online]. https://www.epc.eu/content/PDF/2021/DP_the_role_of_info
rmation_transfer.pdf
130. Jemal KM et al (2023) Facilitating circular economy strategies using digital construction tools:
framework development. Sustainability 15(1), Art no 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010877
131. Ismail Z-AB (2022) A critical study of the existing issues in circular economy practices during
movement control order: can BIM fill the gap? Eng Constr Arch Manag. https://doi.org/10.
1108/ECAM-08-2021-0676
132. Ramesohl S, Berg H, Wirtz J (2022) The circular economy and digitalisation: strategies for a
digital-ecological industry transformation. Wupp Inst Clim Environ Energy. Accessed 7 Jul
2023. [Online]. https://epub.wupperinst.org/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/7900/file/7900_C
ircular_Economy.pdf
133. Çetin S, Gruis V, Straub A (2022) Digitalization for a circular economy in the building
industry: multiple-case study of Dutch social housing organizations. Resour Conserv Recycl
Adv 15:200110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcradv.2022.200110
134. Moreno M, Charnley F (2016) Can re-distributed manufacturing and digital intelligence enable
a regenerative economy? An integrative literature review. In: Setchi R, Howlett RJ, Liu Y,
Theobald P (eds) Sustainable design and manufacturing 2016, vol 52; Smart innovation,
systems and technologies, vol 52. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 563–575.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32098-4_48
135. Antikainen M, Uusitalo T, Kivikytö-Reponen P (2018) Digitalisation as an enabler of circular
economy. Procedia CIRP 73:45–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.04.027
136. Zhai J (2020) A BIM-based framework for automating the building circularity assessment
from different levels of a building’s composition and providing the decision-making support
on the design of circular building from the early design stages
137. Rahla KM, Bragança L, Mateus R (2019) Obstacles and barriers for measuring building’s
circularity. In: IOP conference series: earth and environmental science, vol 225, p 012058.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/225/1/012058
504 R. Askar et al.

138. Khadim N, Agliata R, Marino A, Thaheem MJ, Mollo L (2022) Critical review of nano and
micro-level building circularity indicators and frameworks. J Clean Prod 357:131859. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131859
139. Akanbi LA et al (2019) Disassembly and deconstruction analytics system (D-DAS) for
construction in a circular economy. J Clean Prod 223:386–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcl
epro.2019.03.172
140. Cramer J (2023) How circular economy and digital technologies can support the building
sector to cope with its worldwide environmental challenge? Npj Urban Sustain 3(1):28. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s42949-023-00109-w
141. Feng H, Chen Q, García De Soto B, Arashpour M (2022) Using BIM and LCA to eval-
uate material circularity: contributions to building design improvements. Presented at the
39th international symposium on automation and robotics in construction. https://doi.org/10.
22260/ISARC2022/0004
142. Honic M, Kovacic I, Rechberger H (2019) Concept for a BIM-based material passport for
buildings. Presented at the IOP conference series: earth and environmental science. https://
doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/225/1/012073
143. Koutamanis A, Van Reijn B, Van Bueren E (2018) Urban mining and buildings: a review of
possibilities and limitations. Resour Conserv Recycl 138:32–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.res
conrec.2018.06.024
144. Di Biccari C, Abualdenien J, Borrmann A, Corallo A (2019) A BIM-based framework to
visually evaluate circularity and life cycle cost of buildings. In: IOP conference series: earth
and environmental science, vol 290, no 1, p 012043. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/290/
1/012043
145. Wouterszoon Jansen B, Van Stijn A, Gruis V, Van Bortel G (2020) A circular economy life
cycle costing model (CE-LCC) for building components. Resour Conserv Recycl 161:104857.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104857
146. Kambanou ML, Sakao T (2020) Using life cycle costing (LCC) to select circular measures:
a discussion and practical approach. Resour Conserv Recycl 155:104650. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.resconrec.2019.104650
147. Alasmari E, Martinez-Vazquez P, Baniotopoulos C (2022) A systematic literature review of
the adoption of building information modelling (BIM) on life cycle cost (LCC). Buildings
12(11), Art no 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12111829
148. Altaf M, Alaloul WS, Musarat MA, Bukhari H, Saad S, Ammad S (2020) BIM implication of
life cycle cost analysis in construction project: a systematic review. In: 2020 Second interna-
tional sustainability and resilience conference: technology and innovation in building designs
(51154), pp 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEECONF51154.2020.9319970
149. Santos R, Costa AA, Silvestre JD, Pyl L (2019) Integration of LCA and LCC analysis within a
BIM-based environment. Autom Constr 103:127–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.
02.011
150. Bocken N, Strupeit L, Whalen K, Nußholz J (2019) A review and evaluation of circular
business model innovation tools. Sustainability 11(8), Art no 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1
1082210
151. Buser M, Andersson R (2021) Circular building and new business models: what opportunity
for the contractors? Accessed 4 Jul 2023. [Online]. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/
Circular-Building-and-New-Business-Models%3A-What-for-Buser-Andersson/7f313c06b
264f0b0d8f526c5e5e4737d570cf6e1
152. Centobelli P, Cerchione R, Chiaroni D, Del Vecchio P, Urbinati A (2020) Designing business
models in circular economy: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Bus Strat
Environ 29(4):1734–1749. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2466
153. Antikainen M, Valkokari K (2016) A framework for sustainable circular business model
innovation. Technol Innov Manag Rev 6(7):5–12
154. OECD (2022) Digitalisation for the transition to a resource efficient and circular economy.
OECD environment working papers 192. Accessed 30 Jun 2024. [Online]. https://www.
oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/digitalisation-for-the-transition-to-a-resource-efficient-and-
circular-economy_6f6d18e7-en
17 Driving the Built Environment Twin Transition: Synergising Circular … 505

155. Berlak J, Hafner S, Kuppelwieser VG (2021) Digitalization’s impacts on productivity: a

model-based approach and evaluation in Germany’s building construction industry. Prod Plan
Control 32(4):335–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1740815
156. Olanipekun AO, Sutrisna M (2021) Facilitating digital transformation in construction—a
systematic review of the current state of the art. Front Built Environ 7. [Online]. https://www.
frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbuil.2021.660758
157. Zhang N, Ye J, Zhong Y, Chen Z (2023) Digital transformation in the Chinese construction
industry: status, barriers, and impact. Buildings 13(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings130
41092
158. Bajpai A, Misra SC (2021) Barriers to implementing digitalization in the Indian construction
industry. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 39(10):2438–2464. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-09-
2020-0318
159. Bon-Gang H, Jasmine N, Kang TJZ (2022) Challenges and strategies for the adoption of smart
technologies in the construction industry: the case of Singapore. J Manag Eng 38(1):05021014.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000986
160. Das M, Tao X, Cheng JCP (2021) BIM security: a critical review and recommendations using
encryption strategy and blockchain. Autom Constr 126:103682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aut
con.2021.103682
161. Zulu SL, Saad AM, Ajayi SO, Dulaimi M, Unuigbe M (2023) Digital leadership enactment
in the construction industry: barriers undermining effective transformation. Eng Constr Arch
Manag, ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-05-2022-0491
162. Wang K, Guo F, Zhang C, Schaefer D (2022) From Industry 4.0 to Construction 4.0: barriers
to the digital transformation of engineering and construction sectors. Eng Constr Arch Manag,
ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-05-2022-0383
163. Shojaei RS, Burgess G (2022) Non-technical inhibitors: exploring the adoption of digital
innovation in the UK construction industry. Technol Forecast Soc Change 185:122036. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122036
164. Piscitelli G, Ferazzoli A, Petrillo A, Cioffi R, Parmentola A, Travaglioni M (2020) Circular
economy models in the Industry 4.0 era: a review of the last decade. Procedia Manuf 42:227–
234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.02.074
165. Lopes De Sousa Jabbour AB, Chiappetta Jabbour CJ, Choi T-M, Latan H (2022) ‘Better
together’: evidence on the joint adoption of circular economy and industry 4.0 technologies.
Int J Prod Econ 252:108581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108581

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 18
Material and Building Passports
as Supportive Tools for Enhancing
Circularity in Buildings

Gerald Leindecker , Rand Askar , Bengü Güngör , Teresa Blázquez ,

Nika Turbina , Marta Gómez-Gil , Aikaterina Karanafti ,
Luís Bragança , and Catherine De Wolf

Abstract The twin transition driven by European agendas emphasises the dual bene-
fits of integrating digital technologies with green sustainability concepts. In the built
environment and construction sector, this integration is exemplified by leveraging
digitalisation to enhance circularity in construction processes. This chapter explores
this synergy by focusing on the development and application of Material and Building
Passports (MPs and BPs). It discusses how these passports are digitally utilised to
optimise circularity aspects of buildings and construction materials. The chapter

G. Leindecker (B)
IAPL- Institute for Analytical Planning, University of Applied Science of Upper Austria, Wels,
Austria
e-mail: [email protected]
R. Askar · L. Bragança
ISISE, ARISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, 4804-533 Guimarães,
Portugal
B. Güngör
Department of Industrial Engineering, Izmir Demokrasi University, 335140 Izmir, Turkey
T. Blázquez
Departamento de Química-Física y Termodinámica Aplicada, Escuela Politécnica Superior,
Universidad de Córdoba, Campus de Rabanales, 14071 Córdoba, Spain
N. Turbina
Czech Technical University in Prague, University Centre for Energy Efficient Buildings,
Třinecká„ 1024, 273 43 Buštěhrad, Czech Republic
M. Gómez-Gil
Built4Life Lab, University of Zaragoza - I3A, 50108 Zaragoza, Spain
A. Karanafti
Laboratory of Building Construction and Building Physics, Civil Engineering Department,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
C. De Wolf
Circular Engineering for Architecture (CEA), ETH Zürich, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland

© The Author(s) 2025 507

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_18
508 G. Leindecker et al.

delineates the evolution of MPs and BPs, clarifying their various definitions, vari-
ants, and potential applications to support the sector’s twin transition. Additionally,
it examines numerous initiatives and pilot projects aimed at defining the passports,
including their requirements and conditions, and the standardisation efforts to ensure
their widespread adoption through a unified content structure. The roles of MPs and
BPs across different lifecycle stages are elaborated, with a particular emphasis on
the enhanced functionalities enabled by Building Information Modelling (BIM).
Moreover, the chapter identifies several barriers impeding the full adoption of these
passports, such as legislative and standardisation challenges, information security
concerns, lack of collaboration, and issues with information accessibility and sharing.
It concludes by suggesting future research directions to further refine the passports
for optimised use by construction industry stakeholders.

18.1 Introduction

18.1.1 Motivation

Current trends reveal an alarming pattern of resource consumption surpassing

sustainable limits. The European Commission, in its new European Circular
Economy Action Plan (ECEAP) (2020) foresee a potential doubling of mineral,
biomass, metal, and fossil fuel consumption in the next four decades, coupled with a
70% surge in annual waste generation by 2050. The recent energy crisis sparked by
Russia’s war in Ukraine underscores the imperative for European countries to estab-
lish robust independence from external resources, emphasising the need to harness
internal resources to create a more sustainable system [60]. In response to this chal-
lenge, the Circular economy (CE) emerges as a pivotal solution for resource preser-
vation [85]. This approach focuses on minimising both resource consumption and
waste generation, thereby mitigating environmental impact of industries.
At the core of the European Union’s strategies for the forthcoming years is the
ambitious goal of achieving total decarbonisation by 2050 included in The European
Green Deal [40]. According to the EU report Closing the Loop—An EU Action Plan
for the Circular Economy [39], to realise this objective, one of the key strategies
for CE involves maximising recycling and renovation rates. By doing so, the aim is
to diminish reliance on primary resources [9]. The ECEAP (2020) takes a compre-
hensive approach, intending to transform consumption patterns and prevent waste
generation. It emphasises the creation of a well-functioning internal market for high
quality secondary raw materials, reinforcing reusing and recycling efforts. In this
sense, Europe is committed to leading the global transition to a CE, offering influ-
ence, expertise and financial resources to achieve the 2030 Sustainable Development
Goals in accordance with Agenda 2030.
18 Material and Building Passports as Supportive Tools for Enhancing … 509

18.1.2 Circular Economy in the Construction Sector

The construction sector, a fundamental pillar of the global economy, is one of the
largest energy consumers and contributors to environmental degradation and resource
consumption. It accounts for 37% of global energy-related CO2 emissions [35], 40–
50% of raw material consumption worldwide and over 35% of all waste generated
in the EU, as reported by Eurostats 2016 in the EU report for a cleaner and more
competitive Europe (2020). Given this significant impact, there is a pressing need to
address energy and resource consumption by rethinking building related-practices
and operations. This includes accelerating building renovations and extending the
value of construction materials and components, aligning with CE principles.
Current EU renovation rates do not exceed 0.2% for energy renovations on
average, while EU targets outlined in the report for A Renovation Wave for Europe
(2020) aim to double these figures by 2030, and foster deep renovations (Sibileau
et al. 2021). One of the recognised CE strategies to that aim is urban mining, which
according to [84], involves the exploration and observation of materials “in the infras-
tructure, buildings, and movables” (p. 667), as well as mining of waste, already
included in the classic concept of recycling. In words of Munaro and Tavares [102],
“the concept of urban mining (…) are closely related to the CE as an effort to reduce
resource consumption while keeping goods and products as long as possible in the
economic cycle” (p. 776).
Further advancing CE in construction involves the adoption of flexible building
designs to accommodate future modifications. This is facilitated by developing tools
and methods that support circular building design, such as design for disassembly
and design for adaptability. These approaches enable efficient material tracking along
value chains, optimising resource use and supporting circular pathways like recy-
cling, reuse, refurbishment, and remanufacturing. Essential to these efforts are Mate-
rial and Building Passports (MPs and BPs), which serve as critical tools guiding the
management of materials and buildings throughout their life cycles.

18.1.3 Digital Technologies for the Construction Sector

Digitalisation in construction is one of the major goals in the EU digitalisation action

plan. Digital technologies have been widely investigated as important enablers to
foster efficient construction-related processes and operations. Tools such as big data,
artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain and the Internet of things (IoT), among others,
are witnessing ongoing efforts to be employed in serving construction processes with
a focus on the implementation of CE principles [26]. A special focus is given to
Building Information Modelling (BIM) for its capacity to enhance multiple aspects
of building sustainability, circularity and management during the entire lifecycle.
BIM plays key role in the design phase by appraising the best alternatives, in the use
phase by planning effective maintenance, and in the end-of-life phase by managing
510 G. Leindecker et al.

deconstruction and material recovery and reuse. Moreover, BIM is often used in
collaboration with other digital tools to synergise their capabilities for enhanced
decision-making. A prominent example is the synergy between BIM and MPs, which
brings benefits in tracking materials and providing information on how they can be
used most effectively in terms of sustainability and circularity. The role of digital
technologies transcends the focus on optimising the technical aspects of construction
to also promote process aspects, including ensuring the connectivity of value chain
stakeholders by providing access to information through centralised systems. The
multiple capabilities of digital technologies provide the construction sector with new
opportunities to shift from traditional business models to circular business models.
One such model is the Product-service system (PSS), which has been acknowledged
as an important business model innovation for achieving a digitalisation-enabled CE
[26].

18.1.4 Twin Transition Through Digitalised Circularity

Circularity can significantly enhance the quality of products in terms of function-

ality, safety, efficiency, affordability, and durability, particularly through designing
for reuse, repair and recycling. Concurrently, the ECEAP (2020) states that digi-
talisation is intended to “bring about a better quality of life, innovative jobs and
upgraded knowledge and skills” (p. 2). The twin transition to a green and digital
built environment can be exemplified through synergising CE principles with digital
technologies, thereby amplifying the individual impacts of each concept.
Digital tools hold significant potential to support CE in Architecture, Engineering
and Construction (AEC) in multiple ways, such as resource assessment and the
prediction and optimisation of upcoming waste and recycling masses [88]. This
is achieved by leveraging digitalisation capabilities to foster efficient use of circu-
larity concepts by enabling real-time monitoring, enhanced management, proactive
planning and scenario simulation and comparison for effective decision-making.
The chapter sheds light on one example of digitalisation and CE synergies through
the use of MPs and BPs—CE-promoted concepts—within a digital environment. This
collaboration enhances circularity in building processes and materials, providing
multiple benefits and showcasing the potential of integrated approaches in driving
sustainable practices in the construction sector.

18.1.5 Study Scope and Structure

MPs and BPs provide high potential in the transition to a CE and digitalisation. This
includes raising awareness of building performance among all involved stakeholders
and end users, digitally storing large amounts of information, serving as consultation
tools for stakeholders before any lifecycle intervention or renovation action, aiding
18 Material and Building Passports as Supportive Tools for Enhancing … 511

in energy management, recording building operation activities and material data, and
providing a common language for all stakeholders through standardisation of data
and indicators.
The role and importance of MPs and BPs have been widely recognised in recent
literature on digital tools and technologies enabling circularity in buildings. Examples
include review studies on digital tools such as those by [20, 23, 122], and [72],
which underscore the role of passports in driving digital transformation. Conversely,
other studies highlight the passports’ role in supporting circularity concepts and the
implementation of lifecycle thinking, such as those by Benachio et al. [52], Luscuere
[94], and Liu & Ramakrishna [91].
Given this context, the need for passports is easily justified by their role in
supporting the twin transition to a circular and digital built environment. This chapter
sheds light on the roles and benefits of passports. Section 2 presents the historical
background on the development of passports and their variants, including different
definitions and terminological variations introduced by literature studies, along with
standardisation and regulatory initiatives. Section 3 provides an overview of passport
applications at various scales in the built environment, including composition require-
ments and methods for data collection. Section 4 offers insights into the four main
roles of passports in supporting circularity in buildings and material value chains.
Section 5 explores examples of synergies between passports and BIM applications.
Section 6 details examples of passport applications and commercialisation efforts.
Section 7 highlights the main barriers and challenges to the uptake of passports and
the leveraging of their full potential. Finally, Sect. 8 discusses and concludes with
avenues for further development in this research field.

18.2 Passports Development and Variations

18.2.1 Historical Background and Passports Evolution

The term Building Passport have existed in Europe for decades. Its origin dates
back nearly 30 years, to the mid-90 s, when the “Building Passport” appeared in
Germany [118] and the “Det digitaleenergimærke” arose in Denmark [41]. Despite
these old roots, there is no universally agreed-upon definition of the tool, and different
approaches—from energy performance to technological data—have coexisted across
various European regions [118]. What seems to be unanimous is that BPs are tools
that provide relevant information on buildings to various stakeholders in the building
sector, from users to technicians, financiers, or insurers. However, the content and
format differ among the various initiatives.
In 2002, Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) were introduced through the
first Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) -Directive 22/91/EC-, with
the aim of making the assessment of the energy performance of European buildings
512 G. Leindecker et al.

more transparent [50]. However, its update, Directive 2010/31/EU (“Energy Perfor-
mance of Buildings Directive” or “EPBD”), became the main legal instrument in the
European Union to provide binding standards. In 2019, the Commission issued two
recommendations on building renovation and on building modernisation based on the
2018 EPBD revision to facilitate the Directive’s by member states. Furthermore, the
EPBD expanded the scope of technical building systems subject to mandatory regular
inspections or alternative measures based on automation and control, or electronic
monitoring in certain non-residential buildings. The “Fit for 55” Package mandates
that all new buildings should be transformed into zero-emission buildings by 2030,
and existing buildings should be transformed into zero-emission buildings by 2050.
The European parliament formally adopted the laws on April 18th 2023.
This event was very relevant for the development of BPs, since some authors
consider that EPCs were the predecessors of a BP typology: The Building Renovation
Passport (BRP) [118]. What differentiates them is that, in addition to providing a
diagnosis of the building with a focus on energy performance, BRPs go one step
further, detailing the measures needed to transform the assessed building into a
zero-emission building by 2050 [46].
Unlike the BP, which was relegated to national or regional initiatives, the BRP
has been included in European legislation due to its potential to trigger building
renovation, which is a European priority. In 2021, through the first version of the
proposal for the EPBD recast, the BRP was given an officially agreed-upon defini-
tion—slightly modified in the 2023 amended version of the Directive—and an agreed
common scheme will be developed to be applicable to all EU Member States in the
near future.
The recent development around the BRP contrasts with the fact that the first
scientific article addressing the BRP dates back to 1982 [36]. However, no significant
developments were identified until 2016, when the Buildings Performance Institute
Europe (BPIE) proposed a non-official definition of the tool [50].
In parallel, in recent years, another type of similar passports, known as the Material
Passport, has been developed. MPs have the objective of gathering and storing data on
the materials that make up buildings, providing valuable information to analyse build-
ings’ circularity and facilitate decision-making on recovery, recycling and reuse [68].
The concept of MPs traces back to earlier discussions on similar concepts; notably,
[108] referred to a similar idea as the “Product Passport”. However, [11] assert that
the concept first appeared in Germany in 1997. The term “Material Passport” was
formally introduced by McDonough and Braungart (2003) who envisioned it as a
tracking code with molecular markers. Currently, this concept is being introduced
into European legislation as the Digital Product Passport (DPP), whose definition
and content are detailed in the proposal for a new Ecodesign for Sustainable Products
Regulation (ESPR), published in 2022 [45. While the DPP does not focus specifically
on building materials specifically, it includes them.
As stated by [18], MPs can stand alone or be an integral part of a multifunctional
system, such BPs. In this regard, the European Commission is developing a new
tool—the European Digital Building Logbook (DBL)— that will serve as a repository
18 Material and Building Passports as Supportive Tools for Enhancing … 513

for all data, documents and certificates related to buildings, such as EPCs, BRPs and
MPs-DPPs.
Despite the fact that the DBL has often been considered one of the two components
that make up the BRP, it was introduced as an autonomous tool at the European scale
in the Renovation Wave strategy in 2020 [55]. The first definition of the DBL was
provided in the initial proposal for the EPBD recast in 2021.

18.2.2 Definitions and Terminologies for Passport Variants

Many formal and informal definitions and terminologies have been proposed for the
passports, resulting in different variants. However, while the term “Material Passport”
is the most commonly used, “Product Passport” is technically more accurate. This
is because the most valuable passports encompass a broader range of information
beyond basic material data (such as type, geometric dimensions, mass, or volume),
including lifecycle and circularity-related product information, such as reuse and
recycling potentials [123]. This aligns with the common goal of the passports,
which is to provide information on the composition of components and materials,
the origin (whether from primary or secondary source), reuse and recycling value,
and other circularity features (e.g., disassembly guidelines, hazardous content). The
passports enable dynamic accessibility to this information by relevant stakeholders
throughout an element’s lifecycle, providing a history timeline and future pathways.
Some studies offer variations in definitions to highlight specific purposes, such as
“Recycling Passports” focusing on the recycling phase and related aspects [66],
or “Building Renovation Passports” concentrating on renovation requirements and
relevant information.
At the building scale, multiple passport variants have emerged to highlight
building cases at specific lifecycle stages or specific condition to help manage
building operation and other process. Among those are:
• Digital Building Logbook: A comprehensive dataset containing all relevant
building data, including data related to energy performance such as energy perfor-
mance certificates, renovation passports and smart readiness indicators, as well as
data related to the lifecycle GWP, which facilitates informed decision making and
information sharing within the construction sector, and among building owners
and occupants, financial institutions and public bodies (Directive (EU) 2024/
1275).
• Building passport): This passport collects the most important performance char-
acteristics and technological data of a building as well as various building-related
documents (plans, calculations, lists and declarations of materials and products
used, operating and maintenance guidelines, etc. [118].
• Building renovation passport: The term first used by Eichstadt [36], referring to
existing buildings. Like the BP, it consists of the DBL to store the data, and a
roadmap to guide end users through a step-by-step retrofit process.
514 G. Leindecker et al.

• Roadmap for Building Renovation: A guiding document tailored to particular

cases, fitting user needs and intervention possibilities at specific points in the
lifecycle [50].
At the material scale, various definitions and types of passports address multiple
aspects to enhance product traceability and integrate the CE philosophy into supply
chain management [123]. MPs can be manual records of materials, including their
impacts and supply chains, or they can be digitally represented on an online plat-
form linked to a Structured Query Language (SQL) database. SQL is a relational
database that organises structured tables with highly detailed information, enabling
the creation, storage, updating and retrieval of data. Some of the definitions of
passport variants in materials are:
• Material passport: A qualitative and quantitative documentation of the mate-
rial composition of a building, highlighting embedded materials, their recycling
potential, and environmental impact [7].
• Product Passport: A MP with a digital interface that provides a certified identity
of a single product by accessing product-linked life cycle registrations. It offers
insights into the sustainability and circularity characteristics, circularity value
estimation, and circularity opportunities for both the product and its components
[123].
• Digital Product Passport: Defined by the EC as a digital data set accessible through
a data carrier to electronically register, process and share product-related informa-
tion among supply chain businesses, authorities and consumers. The DPP would
provide information on the origin, composition, and repair and disassembly possi-
bilities of a product, including how the various components can be recycled or
disposed of at end of life. This information can enable the upscaling of CE strate-
gies such as predictive maintenance, repair, remanufacturing and recycling. It also
informs consumers and other stakeholders of the sustainability characteristics of
products and materials [60].
• Nutrient Passport: Introduced by [62], this passport highlights the importance of
reclaimed materials as nutrients for other industrial processes.
• Recycling Passport: A detailed yet straightforward information source for profes-
sional dismantling and disposal. It provides essential data on material composi-
tion, appliance weight, accessibility, and hazardous substances. Spanning four to
five pages, it focuses on product identification, details the removal of device cover
plates, and includes supportive illustrations [66].
• Resource Passport: a standardised format that records data about a product or
material, such as composition, origin, volume, and quality. It serves as a centralised
information system, giving each product or material a unique identity, similar to
an ID card, and enabling easy comparison and use across value chains [30].
Despite the lack of standardisation and agreed-upon definition, these passports
play a crucial role in advancing the CE by providing detailed information on material
composition, recycling potential, and environmental impact. They facilitate better
decision-making across the supply chain, promote sustainability, and enable efficient
18 Material and Building Passports as Supportive Tools for Enhancing … 515

resource management. As the industry continues to evolve, developing a standardised

framework for these passports will be essential to ensure consistency, interoperability,
and widespread adoption, ultimately enhancing the transparency and circularity of
material flows in the built environment.

18.2.3 Regulations and Standards

The role of standards in harmonising technical requirements and facilitating the

adoption of MPs and BPs has been significant. These standards are crucial for their
recognition and uptake across the industry and value chain stakeholders. The recast
of the EPBD had a strong effect on harmonising the key building energy metrics,
culminating in the development of practical BPs.
The new Standard EN 17,680 (European Standard: Final Draft: Sustainability
of construction works—Evaluation of the potential for sustainable refurbishment
of buildings FprEN 17,680) stands as a benchmark for circularity in the building
sector. It introduces a system for the sustainability assessment of buildings through
a lifecycle approach. The adoption of EN 17,680 serves as a new guide for evalu-
ating existing buildings and outlining steps for circular refurbishment processes. Its
classification system is designed to aid in identifying subsequent actions in renova-
tion projects, thus providing critical data for BPs. However, this standard sometimes
overlooks local climate conditions and traditional architectural styles. For instance,
the lack of an air conditioning system in a building is classified as a Class 3 indicator,
denoting a “Catastrophic and Action Needed” status. Such generalisations indicate
that while the standard is promising, it requires refinement to ensure it is both realistic
and applicable in diverse contexts.
In parallel, MPs are addressed under ISO 37 101 (Sustainable development in
communities—Management system for sustainable development—Requirements
with guidance for use), which aims to evaluate performance. Yet, this standard falls
short of providing a clear metric for the indexing of materials, which remains a
critical gap for effective implementation.
Regarding regulatory terminology within the EU, the term “Product Passport”
has become standard. The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR)
introduces the Digital Product Passport (DPP) as a pivotal tool for enhancing the
traceability of products and their components. Despite its potential, the DPP primarily
targets products rather than building materials, failing to fully address the intricacies
of material indexing within the construction sector. This distinction underscores the
need for ongoing refinement in regulations to ensure they effectively encompass the
specific needs and complexities of building materials and sustainability assessments.
516 G. Leindecker et al.

18.3 Application Scope and Requirements

18.3.1 Application Scales

The passports can be used to promote circularity at different scales, from materials
through individual buildings to urban clusters and cities. Their application on a
larger urban scale can support the estimation of current stock of certain materials
important to circularity, such as steel, and facilitate their urban mining. The smart
city initiative follows this approach in a reversed way, progressing from regional
level to the building scale.
MPs are important tools to support circularity practices in all stages of a building’s
lifecycle. During the design phase, passports guarantee that all materials and compo-
nents in a building are designed for easy reuse, recovery and repair in the future.
This helps conceptualise buildings as material banks, optimising the design while
minimising the use of primary resources. By ensuring that all materials and compo-
nents are designed for disassembly, a waste-free CE can be achieved. The novelty
of MPs at this stage lies in providing precise determination of embedded materials,
which helps optimise the design. In the operation phase, passports serve as key tools
for efficient maintenance and repair. They provide detailed information on material
composition and condition, allowing for proactive management and extending the
lifespan of building components. At the end-of-life phase, passports offer circular
pathways for environmentally-sound alternatives through reuse, upcycle and recover.
They promote the most advantageous circularity options, ensuring that materials are
effectively repurposed and waste is reduced.
Ideally, passports should be prepared and used before the construction phase.
In this case, they serve to create specific scenarios for informed decision-making
strategies for data management and governance. However, developing passports for
existing buildings using other digital tools like scanning and technologies and plan
analysis can greatly benefit stakeholders by aiding maintenance decisions and under-
standing the current quality of specific materials. This is also important for renovation
projects by evaluating and comparing scenarios.

18.3.2 Outlines and Structure

Almost every passport relies on a digital representation of the physical composition

and technical characteristics of an object. Although there is a wide variety of MP
variants with multiple characteristics and types of information, the most frequent
contents include quality conditions, service history, maintenance guidelines, safety
recommendations, recycling potential and guidelines, object value, environmental
performance indicators, Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), and energy
certificates [123]. Other circularity features and indicators may also be incorporated,
although this is not commonly adopted by existing studies.
18 Material and Building Passports as Supportive Tools for Enhancing … 517

Given the large number of BPs worldwide, each with its own structure, presenting
a precise outline and structure is challenging. However, there is growing interest in
creating a common EU-wide BRP. In this regard, the BPIE [50] proposed a common
structure applicable throughout the EU, which has been widely accepted in the liter-
ature. The BRP has usually been considered to be made up of two parts: a data
repository or DBL and a renovation roadmap, which details all the steps needed to
achieve the final goal, based on the data stored in the DBL.
Currently, efforts are underway to define a European DBL model, aiming to
specify the indicators or data fields that the document must include. Although there
is still no consensus on these indicators, the categories that should be included are
becoming clearer.

18.3.3 Data Sources and Data Acquisition Methods

There are numerous databases that provide valuable information to feed BPs creation.
Among these are national cadastres and land registries, as well as EPC registries.
However, in some countries, different sources exist at the national and/or regional
level, making it difficult to create a comprehensive picture of the situation across
Europe. Furthermore, although there are databases at the European scale, such as
those included in the Building Stock Observatory (BSO), they host very scarce data.
To collect information that is not stored or accessible through existing databases,
new data sources have been identified in the literature. These include the use of new
technologies for data acquisition, such as 3D scanning and smart monitoring, and the
use of upcoming EU tools to support circularity and energy efficiency, such as the
Level(s) framework or the Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI). These tools are expected
to generate valuable data on the building stock [56].
Defining the exact material volume and composition in an existing building to
build its MPs can be a challenging procedure due to the lack of existing data. This chal-
lenge is amplified by the wide range of data required for each material, the involve-
ment of various stakeholders in the data collection process, and the need to keep this
information constantly updated throughout the building’s life cycle [102]. Various
methods can be used to obtain the required data, such as using of Ground Penetrating
Radar (GPR) to define materials composition [67]. GPR sends and receives electro-
magnetic waves, illustrating the waves’ energy. Through this procedure, the material
densities collected can be compared with material inventories, however, this method
contains a degree of uncertainty.
When the MP aims to facilitate the demolition of a building and waste manage-
ment, techniques like coupling Geographic Information System (GIS) with street
photographs to define cladding materials and roof type can be found in the litera-
ture [83]. In another study, a building’s material identification was conducted via a
Demolition Acquisition (DA) and an Urban Mining Assessment (UMA) [70]. DA
is a survey conducted during the pre-demolition waste audit, during which data is
collected through visual assessment, while additional chemical analyses can also be
518 G. Leindecker et al.

conducted. These methods can be combined with other invasive techniques to acquire
a more precise view of the elements’ stratification and the materials’ composition if
the building is about to be demolished.
A very useful framework has been developed for existing social housing stocks,
where data sources have been defined for each data category, along with all the
involved stakeholders [25]. In particular, for the general building information, public
records can be used, while general information regarding products can be retrieved
from third-party websites. General product properties can be defined by scanning
techniques used by site inspectors, while product properties regarding hazardous
materials, safety and environmental issues can be defined using drone and satellite
images, along with data retrieved by waste repositories. All the collected data anal-
ysed by safety inspectors, and the operational condition of the products can also be
retrieved from housing images. Finally, images and scanning technologies can be
used by engineers and reuse companies to determine the end-of-life aspects.

18.3.4 Inventory Supply Chain and Data Management Tools

for Passports

The characteristics of inventory supply chains in the construction industry necessitate

a variety of information and collaboration system requirements, including afford-
ability and system adaptability. Construction inventory supply chains are distin-
guished by the participation of numerous businesses from a wide range of crafts [74].
Therefore, coordination and transparency are necessary for information sharing and
system integration [112]. Due to the dynamic nature of construction supply chains and
the frequent changes in organisational structure and project teams, it is challenging
for project participants to work together long enough to develop sufficient trust and
openly share knowledge. To achieve high recycling rates in the building sector, it is
crucial to gather comprehensive information regarding the material composition of
buildings. Since buildings are typically unique projects tailored to specific factors
such as location, climate, orientation, and available technologies, understanding their
material composition is essential [69]. Therefore, there is a necessity for new inven-
tory supply chain methods and tools to establish a secondary raw materials registry
that catalogs the materials integrated into the building stock. Early design stages
are critical for determining the future recycling potential of buildings because deci-
sions on material composition are made during this phase. To enhance the recy-
cling potential of buildings, planners require innovative design-oriented tools and
methodologies. The primary challenge hindering the assessment of recycling poten-
tial is the absence of methods to visualise the material composition and evaluate the
recyclability of buildings.
Numerous initiatives are being undertaken in the manufacturing sector to develop
strategies, technologies, and tools to facilitate communication and collaboration
among supply chain actors. Some companies use Electronic Data Change (EDI)
18 Material and Building Passports as Supportive Tools for Enhancing … 519

or Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems to support various company opera-

tions. Accessing and combining these dispersed data sources and systems should be
possible through a supply chain integration system. Nevertheless, different projects
may require various system functions based on factors such as project organisations,
planning and management scopes, hardware and software used by stakeholders, and
the materials and components involved in the project [99]. The functionality of a
pre-packaged commercial ERP system is often complex and expensive to adjust
for business applications in building projects. Application Programming Interfaces
(APIs) are widely used to extend the functionality of software programmes like CAD
applications. The usability of systems will be substantially improved if collaborative
systems for enterprise-wide integration can easily extend their capabilities [127].
The Internet and information technology are now being used to enhance cross-
organisational partnerships in the construction sector. Examples include web-based
design and learning collaborations, document and information management, and
project monitoring and management [32]. Current methods of web-based commu-
nication and collaboration in the construction sector are categorised in Fig. 18.1.
More and more construction projects are using Construction Project Extranets (CPE)
and Web-based Project Management Systems (WPMS) to assist communication.
Web-based project management systems (WPMS) and construction project extranets
(CPE) in particular are being utilised more frequently to assist communication in
construction projects [14, 107, 125]. However, constraints such as security concerns,
a lack of management commitment, high costs, and deployment rigidity often prevent
the use of these tools in the construction business [92]. The literature discusses
Service-oriented Architecture (SOA) as a viable solution to this issue.
In this strategy, information sources and software features are provided as sepa-
rate, stand-alone service units, which are then dispersed across a network and inte-
grated to construct business applications to tackle challenging issues. SOA allows
supply chains to be dynamically reconfigured, making them more flexible to changing
business models, expanding internationalisation, and improving coordination [81].
Using the SOA methodology, information sources and systems are transformed into
modular service components that they can be found, used, and discovered by other

Fig. 18.1 Generic form of web-based collaborative tools for communication and information
sharing (Adapted from [27])
520 G. Leindecker et al.

Fig. 18.2 Service-oriented architecture framework (Adapted from [79])

applications via a standard protocol [111]. The service’s component parts can be used
by other applications or network-based services. The essential elements of service-
oriented architecture are the services on which applications are based. For example, a
collaboration service, or CollServ X, is an application that calls the ServiceA_client
and the ServiceB_client, as shown in Fig. 18.2.
Each customer will call the appropriate service in turn. A service can also be an
orchestration of other services, as is the case with CollServ Y, which orchestrates
Services C, D, and F. Various languages can be used for specifying CollServ Y when
Web service technology is used to implement SOA, such as BPEL (Business Process
Execution Language) or BPEL4WS (Business Process Execution Language for Web
Services), and BPML (Business Process Management Language).
Web portal technology allows for the aggregation of dispersed web services. A web
portal is a web-based platform that serves as a doorway to a more extensive system
or network of web applications [29]. It is a valuable tool for combining dispersed,
distributed information and services into a single point of access, regardless of their
location or storage method. Web portlets, which are small programmes that contain
one or more web applications, are the fundamental operational components of a
portal system. Portlets need to be housed in a portal system in order to be visible and
accessible because they only produce a portion of a complete HTML code. Multiple
information sources and applications can be retrieved, accessed, and merged into
one another through the portal system. In other words, web portals are frequently
used to create intranets for managing material and documents within businesses.
They function as a collection point for data storage, publication, and retrieval. Web
portals enable system administrators to manage vast amounts of data in a consolidated
manner while allowing users to securely access sensitive personal information, thanks
to their security and customisability. Building portal systems for cross-organisational
collaboration is another current trend.
18 Material and Building Passports as Supportive Tools for Enhancing … 521

18.4 Passports Values in Promoting Circularity

in Buildings

Numerous benefits of MPs and BPs have been highlighted by literature studies
and practical examples, demonstrating their potential to support the digital-enabled
circular transition in the construction sector. These benefits encompass both technical
and process-related aspects. Technically, passports facilitate a better understanding
of circularity practices for materials and buildings, enabling efficient calculations and
scenario comparisons across different lifecycle stages. Process-wise, they enhance
efficiency through data sharing and improved accessibility for stakeholders. In the
following paragraphs four main uses of MPs and BPs in supporting both technical
and process aspects are discussed.

18.4.1 Certification and Integration into Sustainability

Schemes

Several tools and methodologies have been developed in recent years to facilitate
early-stage building design with an emphasis on sustainability through life-cycle
assessment (LCA). These tools aim to evaluate the environmental, economic, and
social impacts of building designs. Some of the tools use a building element tool,
that is a material catalogue in combination with construction properties.
The BIM-LCA Method by Basbagill et al. from 2013 integrates Building Infor-
mation Modelling (BIM), LCA, and energy simulation. This method is designed
to help architects rapidly determine the building components that contribute the
most to embodied impact. It uses a combination of user inputs and a proprietary
AEC database to perform carbon footprint calculations, energy simulations, and an
embodied carbon sensitivity analysis.
Hollberg et al. in 2020 developed a Parametric LCA Tool that provides LCA
estimates from minimal inputs and becomes more accurate as more detailed data is
provided. The tool’s data spans across four levels of detail, namely building, element,
component, and material. If certain data is missing, the tool approximates that infor-
mation from the next highest level of detail. It accesses material data through a
Grasshopper plugin, sourcing from the Bombyx and Swiss Bauteilkatalog databases.
Furthermore, the BIM-LCA Workflow proposed by Kaushal et al. in 2022 investi-
gates the current BIM-LCA workflows and suggests potential workflows for different
design phases. The methodology they proposed includes a two-phase design process:
The project specification phase and the competition design phase. They also offer
guidelines on BIM-based LCA for various stakeholders, ranging from architects to
national organisations.
Among the various tools mentioned, BauteilKatalog stands out as a web-based
tool designed for early design stages. It offers LCA calculations based on the KBOB
database. Eco-Sai and Minergie Eco are additional tools that facilitate LCA and
522 G. Leindecker et al.

energy simulations at different design stages, drawing information from databases

such as KBOB and Okobaudat. The web-based application, One Click LCA, is
versatile and caters to all design stages, providing LCA calculations using the KBOB
database. For thermal calculations in the late design stage, Enercad and Enerweb are
prominent tools leveraging the KBOB database.
A notable method introduced by Soust-Verdaguer et al. in 2022 is the BIM-based
Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA). This method suggests a way to link
Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) file components in BIM models to a specific
cost estimation data structure known as BCCA. They emphasised the potential of
modelling foundational and structural elements in the early design stages. Following
this, Llatas et al. in 2020 presented an implementation of this method that links IFC
properties in BIM to a variety of data sources, which then evaluate the design in
terms of environmental, economic, and employment data.
The trend is clearly moving towards integrating BIM with LCA in the early design
stages, ensuring that buildings are designed with sustainability and environmental
consciousness in mind.
Information from sustainability certification schemes such as LEED, BREEAM,
DGNB or other framework such as Level(s), its individual criteria, building’s Energy
Performance Certificate (EPC) and modelling, conducting material flow analysis
(MFA), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Cost (LCC), could be easily
incorporated into MPs and BPs [64].
For example, DGNB (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen, in English
the German Sustainable Building Council) is a German certification system devel-
oped for evaluating the sustainability of buildings. At the annual digital congress
dedicated to the development of the DGNB, a key tool for collecting documenta-
tion—the new Building Material Passport—was launched. The official website has
published a full version and a short version, depending on how much building infor-
mation is available. The MP is presented as a fillable template based on a building
component catalogue, BIM model export or building cataloguing in appropriate
tools. It comprises six main categories and 25 aspects, both mandatory and optional.
Looking forward, this passport serves as the foundation for a sustainable closed-loop
economy in construction, where all lifecycle stages, from design to reuse and recy-
cling, are closely linked and interconnected. Transparency regarding material data,
cost and origin is essential [33].
In 2019, the BREEAM Approved Innovative Applications project developed the
Building Materials Passport through a parametric translation process to create a prac-
tical and widespread application of the concept [17]. This initiative utilised existing
BIM data, and through the creation of a parametric translation script, successfully
converted this data into a format suitable for the Building Materials Passport. This
pioneering work not only demonstrated the feasibility of the concept but also showed
its scalability and potential for wider application. Furthermore, the inclusion of this
innovative project in the BREEAM list of approved innovative applications demon-
strates its recognition in the field of sustainable construction and will soon appear in
the evaluation manuals.
18 Material and Building Passports as Supportive Tools for Enhancing … 523

Göswein et al. [59] proposed a new framework for Circular Material Passport
(CMP) harmonised with the EU Level(s) framework using basic sustainability indi-
cators for buildings. This framework can be used as a theoretical guideline to
further development of CMPs. The design considers relevant indicators within the
Level(s) framework, viewed through the “Resource Efficient and Circular Material
Life Cycles” macro objective. It aims to provide detailed information regarding the
use, location and amount of the materials, their method of connection, as well as
their potential for future reuse, recovery or recycling.

18.4.2 End-Of-Life and CDW Management

When analysing end-of-life and Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) manage-
ment in a CE, the first point of reference should be the waste hierarchy, part of the
Waste Framework Directive, which defines the most effective ways of managing
waste [47, 86]. The hierarchy emphasises waste prevention as the most effective
method of waste management [1]. For CDW, this could involve leveraging modern
technologies such as additive manufacturing for building applications [98]. Regula-
tory documents advocate considering such alternatives connected with methods of
production for construction elements or whole structures. Following the hierarchy,
the next appropriate form of waste management is reuse. For CDW management,
modularity and ease of assembly and disassembly of building elements are crucial
for maximising recovery [11, 114]. Effective product reuse requires the use of MPs
containing information about parameters for reusing particular elements. Notably,
this waste management approach is typically more economical than conventional
recycling, making it appealing to companies [85]. In all these cases, MPs should
be linked with lifecycle inventory data to evaluate the environmental impacts of the
building materials and guide best practices for deconstruction [97].
The subsequent steps in the waste hierarchy are recycling and energy recovery.
While these methods should be used when prevention and reuse are not possible,
they remain the most practical methods for CDW management and should be devel-
oped further. Recycling CDW is challenging due to the variety of materials used in
construction and their local specifications [51]. Designing a comprehensive method
for separating and recycling these materials is a daunting task. In this regard, MPs
can facilitate the processing of CDW by providing detailed information on mate-
rial composition. Moreover, documents such as Waste Material Passports (WMPs)
can aid in cross-jurisdictional trading and minimise information asymmetry between
parties [93, 126] These documents should include information such as material types,
properties, circularity options, handling history, and more, with the potential for
further expansion [93].
Overall, in the context of end-of-life and CDW management, MP methods are key
in providing recycling potential and assessing the environmental impact of materials
embedded in buildings. They ensure the selection of the most suitable route for waste
management for a building at its end-of-life stage [70].
524 G. Leindecker et al.

18.4.3 Renovation and Rehabilitation Projects

The building sector plays a crucial role in achieving the EU’s decarbonisation objec-
tives, as the current European building stock is highly inefficient. Renovating build-
ings is the most effective way to improve their energy efficiency. However, the current
renovation rate is very low (around 0.4–1.2%), far below the 3% recommended by
the European Commission (EPBD (EU) 2018/844).
Several barriers hinder the increase in renovation rates, including technical chal-
lenges, administrative burdens, a lack of construction professionals, and difficulty in
accessing funding. Additionally, according to [49, 118], a recurring issue is the lack
of knowledge about which measures to implement in a renovation process and how
to execute them effectively.
BPs or BRPs play a crucial role in addressing these challenges. They collect all
the relevant data on a building and provide a tailored renovation roadmap, guiding
the building owner through the entire renovation process. This helps overcome the
barriers to renovation by offering clear, actionable information and support.

18.5 Integrating Material and Building Passports into BIM

Models

The construction sector is a prolific consumer of resources, energy, and carbon,

surpassing other industrial sectors. This intensive consumption results in substan-
tial construction and demolition waste (CDW), which represents up to 30% of the
EU’s waste stream [4]. CDW is generated at various stages of a building’s life cycle,
including during construction due to design faults, on-site errors, workflow confu-
sion, unexpected equipment failures, rehabilitation, and at the end of the lifecycle
(EoL) when the building’s service life concludes [4, 10, 61]. The evaluation of the
effects of each building component on overall waste reduction rate in buildings has
been poorly implemented due to existing standard quantitative control methodolo-
gies [121]. Consequently, there has not been a thorough inspection of landfill sites
using the typical CE model procedures to mitigate landfill risk and prevent illegal
building waste heaps during the Movement Control Order (MCO) period [77].
To address these challenges, innovative approaches are necessary, including inte-
grated design and the adoption of automated technologies to effectively manage
CDW. Intelligent waste recycling management systems, which benefit from advance-
ments in waste reduction information and clean technologies, significantly improve
the design and material efficiency of waste processing or treatment facilities and
supply chain construction plans.
Resource conservation, waste reduction and salvaging building materials are
cornerstones of the CE. In this regards, similar to MPs and BPs, BIM has been
widely investigated as technological advancements to achieve these CE objectives.
BIM plays an integral role in promoting waste hierarchy strategies across different
18 Material and Building Passports as Supportive Tools for Enhancing … 525

Fig. 18.3 The scheme of

Building Information
Modelling (BIM) dimensions
(Adapted from [4])

building lifecycle stages, with a particular emphasis on end-of-life management

strategies such as deconstruction (see Fig. 18.3 for the different dimensions of BIM
supporting CE objectives).
BIM is an intelligent, object-oriented model that ensures any changes in object
properties (quantity or quality) are automatically updated across all model views,
sections, and schedules. It facilitates the automatic calculation of the total volume of
materials, their qualities, and object dimensions.
Significant literature underscores BIM’s potential in this area. Akanbi et al. (2018)
developed a BIM-based whole-life performance estimator aimed at maximising the
lifespan and utility of building materials, treating buildings and their components as
potential resource mines even after their primary lifecycle ends (Lismont & Allacker
2019). Akinade et al. [5] introduced a BIM-based Deconstructability Assessment
Score (BIM-DAS), showcasing the potential of BIM. Furthermore, Sanchez et al.
(2021) proposed a BIM-based framework to support the disassembly and reuse of
building components. Additionally, Cheng and Ma (2013) discussed a BIM-based
system specifically designed for estimating and planning demolition and renovation
waste, highlighting BIM’s capability in resource estimation and waste reduction.
Arora et al. (2020) explored the use of BIM to effectively identify and optimise
urban mining opportunities, emphasising the potential to recover and reuse building
components. [65] investigated the calculation and evaluation of circularity indica-
tors using BIM, highlighting its relevance in understanding the built environment’s
sustainability metrics.
Given the potential opportunities of using BIM to enhance CE strategies, the inte-
gration of MPs and BPs into BIM models offers a promising pathway for advancing
circularity principles in the construction sector. BIM’s robust capabilities, combined
with the tracking systems and data collection provided by MPs and BPs, enable stake-
holders to make more informed decisions that align with CE principles. This ensures
efficient resource usage and significant waste reduction. This section explores the
value of integrating MPs and BPs within BIM and discusses the practical applications
of this integration for enhancing circularity and sustainability in construction.
526 G. Leindecker et al.

18.5.1 BIM-Based Material Passports

MPs promote circularity, sustainability, and waste reduction in the construction

sector. Their contribution and effectiveness can be significantly enhanced with new
technologies such as BIM. The integration of MPs in BIM models is a field gathering
a surging research interest. Currently, international literature shows efforts to connect
MPs with BIM for both new and existing buildings, using various technologies.
For existing buildings, an as-built BIM model was created within the framework
of the SCI_BIM project. Researchers evaluated a building’s energy performance,
optimised it, and examined its recycling potential [67]. They used laser scanning
to record the building’s geometry and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) scanning
to detect and evaluate the building’s material composition. The BIM model was
generated based on the point cloud data gathered during the scanning processes. Two
discipline models were then generated to assess energy consumption and the building
material use. After optimising the building’s energy performance, they created an MP
for its materials composition and recycling potential. Through gamification, building
users could interact with the BIM model containing all this information. Challenges
with GPR scanning in existing buildings include interference from furniture and
users, and a pre-demolition audit may be necessary for more precise perception of
the building materials [70, 87].
For new constructions, Honic et al. [69] developed a BIM-based MP to assess
the environmental impact and recycling potential of construction materials. They
used BIM software for building modelling and the Material Inventory and Analysis
Tool BuildingOne (BO) for bi-directional data communication and synchronisation
between the BIM model and the MP, opting not to use the IFC format due to its
limitations in this regard. They used the Austrian IBO database and developed a data-
stakeholder management framework to address challenges in data and stakeholder
management. [11] incorporated the MPs into BIM models using Revit, creating
twelve shared parameters to automate sustainability assessment. They modelled
sustainability indicators with the Dynamo visual programming tool and validated
their approach in a building case study, recording reduced calculation time and error
elimination with the digitalised MPs. Reference [21] created an MP for a sandwich
panel using the BAMB framework, integrating it into a BIM model developed in
Revit, which can generate IFC files. They worked on LOD500 (Level of Develop-
ment) to associate MP data with the BIM model, manually correlating MP parameters
with Revit fields due to inconsistencies. The required data were exported in a.txt file
and the process was repeated for the rest of the products.
The integration of MPs into BIM models is a developing field, with many
researchers working on relevant models to promote circularity. Such models can
also be useful for the assessment of agricultural waste for suitability as construc-
tion material substitutes [124], potentially eliminating hazardous substances. [115]
proposed the integration of BIM-based MPs in architectural, civil engineering and
environmental engineering school curricula to raise awareness and familiarisation
with circularity and sustainability measures among students.
18 Material and Building Passports as Supportive Tools for Enhancing … 527

18.5.2 BIM-Based Building Passports

Unlike the numerous studies existing on the integration of the MPs into BIM, only a
few examine the combination of BPs with BIMs. BPs encompass a wider range
of information about a building than BIMs. Consequently, most existing litera-
ture focusses on linking BIMs to DBLs as a data source. According to Gomez-Gil
et al. [55], BIMs, as part of Digital Twins development, can provide various data
about a construction, including general information, architectural survey/geometry,
construction details, material inventory, predictive maintenance plans, building
systems features, accessibility conditions, what-if analysis, performance optimi-
sation, real-time energy use measurement, behavioural insights, water resources
assessment, health and comfort assessment, and lifecycle optimisation.
Among the different forms developed for the DBL within European projects,
the one created by the BIM4EEB project was designed to be stored in the BIM
Management System (BIMMS). This allows all involved stakeholders access to the
data, which can be updated or enriched at any time [31]. The DBL proposed by the
EUB SuperHub Horizon project consists of eight main categories, with the eighth
named “Building Documentation BIM”. Various documents related to the building
and a BIM model are inserted into the DBL using IFC files to manage the latter
(MalinovecPucek et al. 2023). A similar category for the DBL structure was proposed
in the ALDREN BuildLog, whose sixth module is named “Documentation and BIM”
[119]. Other developed DBLs, like X-Tendo Logbook and Study EU DBL can also
be integrated into BIM models, with BIM forming an indicator in both [55].
Another example is the LdE-e tool, which aims to enhance multifamily building
renovations by combining the BRP and Scheduled Renovations Roadmap into one
tool [38]. The integration of BIM and blockchain technologies into LdE-e promises
optimal results. The technology, already adopted by Spanish regulations based on
the eCOB standard of the IFC files, is used to achieve the desired integration of
BIM into the LdE-e. The hierarchal “tree structure” of the IFC files facilitates the
exchange of building data. The BIM files can be stored in the tool’s Warehouse (P0),
accessible to all involved stakeholders. However, BIM’s integration is feasible only
for new constructions and their future renovations, as existing buildings typically
lack precise and detailed data.
Coupling BIM models and BPs remains an active research field. Interoperability
is crucial for a successful connection between these two technologies. The IFC data
format is the most commonly identified solution in existing studies, though other
options are available or under development. For instance, the Ecodomus software
developed by Siemens supports BIM-based digital twins using data from BIMs or
point clouds, allowing for data export to excel files [55].
The construction sector seems eager to employ BIM in design for deconstruction
(DfD) tools to enhance lifecycle management and data transparency. The collabora-
tive nature of BIM is particularly appealing to those involved in BIM-based building
projects. However, it the capability of BIM tools to hold extensive information that is
528 G. Leindecker et al.

Fig. 18.4 A modified framework of the interconnection between deconstruction, DfD and
secondary material streams with the Materials/Components Bank (M/C Bank) (Adapted from [19])

more attractive to professionals working in DfD [13, 78, 106]. Figure 18.4 provides
an example of the information necessary for DfD models.
This is partially due to the massive amount of documentation required for DfD
and the uncertainty regarding the timing of future deconstruction actions, when such
documents must be provided. Considering EoL scenarios, it is feasible to add a layer
of information to each BIM item to prepare for future EoL applications, such as
deconstruction guidelines, guarantees, environmental assessment scores, and legal
requirements [5, 103]. As part of a sustainable and circular Building Stock 4.0, BIM
not only aids in deconstruction planning and execution but also fosters a culture of
digital deconstruction [22].
18 Material and Building Passports as Supportive Tools for Enhancing … 529

18.6 MPs and BPs European Initiatives and Pilots

Several initiatives and pilot platforms were developed to introduce and refine
proposals for the generation, composition, and utilisation patterns of passports. These
initiatives provided insights into the requirements, usage conditions, and challenges
associated with passports.
For BPs, various H2020 projects were developed before the tool was introduced
by continental legislation:
• iBRoad—Individual Building (Renovation) Roadmaps (IBRoad 2023). This
project aims to address the barriers to building renovation by implementing Indi-
vidual Building Renovation Roadmaps. These roadmaps guide building owners
through the renovation process providing tailored step-by-step plans (iBRoad-
Plan), designed using data from a building logbook (iBRoad-Log), which acts as
a data repository. The primary focus of iBRoad’s is on single-family houses. Pilot
tests of this initiative were conducted in Bulgaria, Poland, and Portugal.
• ALDREN Project—Alliance for Deep RENovation in Buildings (ALDREN
2023). ALDREN aims to overcome market barriers hindering growth of renova-
tion projects by proposing a voluntary, modular framework that implements the
European Voluntary Certification Scheme (EVCS) to assess the energy perfor-
mance of buildings on a unified European basis. The framework consists of four
standalone modules: Energy Rating and Target, Energy Verification, Comfort and
Well-being, and Cost Value Risk. It also includes two reporting tools: the Euro-
pean Voluntary Certificate (EVC) and the Building Renovation Passport (BRP),
which features the ALDREN BuildLog (a data repository), and the ALDREN
RenoMap. This framework is tailored for non-residential buildings, mainly hotels
and offices, and was tested in France, Spain, Slovakia, the United Kingdom, and
Italy.
As for MPs, multiple initiatives were made providing online platforms and
applications of the passports. Examples include:
• The BAMB Project: The “BAMB2020 - Building As Material Banks” project,
initiated under the EU’s Horizon 2020 framework, represents a pioneering effort in
the adoption of circular construction practices. The project is noted for developing
an electronic MP, serving as a comprehensive repository for material information
crucial for recovery and reuse. This passport includes detailed data on mate-
rials’ physical, chemical, and biological characteristics, health data, transporta-
tion details, and more, aimed at facilitating effective evaluation and certification
[64].
• Although historically the concept of MP was first introduced in 1997 in Germany,
encapsulating information about operational costs, quality of use, building
services, and technical properties [11], The BAMB2020’s approach is consid-
ered the first exhaustive implementation of such a passport in the construction
sector. Significant outcomes of the BAMB project include the establishment of
MP reports that enhance the industry’s capacity to leverage materials for reuse
530 G. Leindecker et al.

and waste reduction. Currently, the BAMB platform is in prototype mode and
available exclusively to industry partners for testing purposes.
• Madaster Platform: Madaster exemplifies the commercial application of Building
Material Passports (BMPs). This digital platform, based in the Netherlands, acts as
an extensive online library for materials and products accounting (Madaster 2023).
The Madaster platform supports both BIM files and traditional Excel spreadsheets.
An MP is created from a set of source files uploaded to the platform. The platform
allows the creation of several databases at different levels, and categorisation of
materials based on the six shearing layers of buildings as identified in Brand’s
model: Site, Structure, Skin, Services, Space plan and Stuff [16]. Through this
platform, stakeholders can ascertain the financial and residual value of materials,
manage material cycles, and calculate circularity indicators for the construction,
use and end-of-life phases [65]. Circularise Platform: Circularise is a commer-
cial blockchain-based Digital Product Passport (DPP) platform originating from
the Netherlands. It provides worldwide companies with traceability software
to monitor product and material details such as origin, certification, and CO2
emissions. The platform enhances supply chain transparency by using tangible
data carriers and ensures the confidentiality of information among supply chain
members. This feature potentially optimises communication between value chain
stakeholders, making interactions easier and faster. The project has successfully
collaborated with the municipality of Amsterdam in the construction industry. Its
software facilitated detailed traceability throughout the supply chain of a concrete
manufacturer and a company that converts workwear into polymer infrastructure
elements. The project securely transferred vital data to the City of Amsterdam
without compromising data confidentiality [28].
Positive pilot cases show, that sharing MPs in a digital platform could form an
Internet of Materials that would support designers and engineers in developing more
sustainable and circular products [109].

18.7 Barriers and Challenges Against the Uptake

of the Passports

18.7.1 Lack of Legislations and Standards

The absence of standardised guidelines for passports hinders their widespread adop-
tion and practicality. Currently, there is no official agreement on a unified definition
of passports and their defining features [123]. Various types of passports exist, each
with different information formats, categorisations, taxonomies, terminologies, and
guidelines. These differences lead to varying scopes and system boundaries for the
information provided [69].
18 Material and Building Passports as Supportive Tools for Enhancing … 531

Standardisation in passports is crucial to facilitate data linkage and exchange

among different passport stakeholders across supply and value chains [123].
However, achieving this standardisation poses significant challenges due to diverse
stakeholder requirements, varying degrees of detail, and the need for proper categori-
sation of information. Additionally, recording continuous data updates throughout
the system lifecycle can be complex, especially when materials or components are
reused across cycles, creating issues with transferring relevant information.
Moreover, evolving regulations can impact data consistency, particularly in long-
life products like buildings [101, 102, 123] (Munaro et al. 2019; Munaro& Tavares
2021; [123]). To mitigate data variability and enhance compatibility, standardised
building catalogues and classification systems are utilised. These measures ensure
accuracy in data interoperability, exchange, and linkage.
An effective approach involves supporting these standardised systems with a
central registry that issues a Unified Object Identifier (UOI) for each main object.
This enables stakeholders to access all relevant information about an object or any
of its elements without the need for central data registration [123]. Such a system
streamlines access and promotes efficient data handling for all involved parties.
Given the fact that there is no standard definition of BRPs, Sesana and Salvalai
[118] gathered together the potentialities and barriers regarding the BRPs in their
review of different ongoing and proposed initiatives. The review is aimed at finding
a definition of this particular tool based on what has been already developed by
different countries.
Regulations and perceptions on quality also play a key role [120]. In Munaro et al.
[101], the main challenges for the introduction of BMP are discussed, emphasising
the need for joint action based on political initiatives and regulations that allow and
facilitate circularity practices in construction. Besides, ISO endeavours and stan-
dardisation, and creation of Product Circularity Data Sheet (PCDS) can be found in
[100]. The importance of policy development for the promotion of a standardised
and regulated use of this tool needs to be highlighted [59]. A major concern is that
such WMPs are not issued by authorities that can guarantee authentication [126].
Furthermore, the Indexing of material into a numbering schema is a considerable
barrier and needs to be addressed in further standardisation efforts.

18.7.2 Insufficient Stakeholders Collaboration

and Unbalanced Responsibilities

The identification of involved actors along with their respective roles in the passports
creation and operation is crucial to support proper governance throughout a product’s
lifecycle, including extraction and origin, manufacturing, transportation, utilisation
and maintenance and lastly disposal, recycling or reuse [123]. To achieve this objec-
tive, a multi-stakeholder network must collaborate and hold various responsibilities
532 G. Leindecker et al.

to provide required data to meet information flow in multiple chains including owner-
ship, governance, financial and production chains that are associated with the main
value chain [123]. These information requirements must be provided by and circu-
lated among the stakeholders involved in each of the four aforementioned chains to
ensure proper management to support decision-making regarding acquisition, main-
tenance and user requirements. The imposed barrier in this context is the lack of
collaboration among the stakeholders in terms of balancing the responsibilities. This
happens when a specific group of stakeholders deals with the information acquisition
and registration while the others only benefit from the provided registry for their own
interests.
The data and stakeholder management framework presents the required collabo-
ration of various stakeholders in order to achieve a successful implementation of the
MP in the AEC industry [69]. Furthermore, the vertical integration of trades and long-
term relationships with suppliers improve transparency and reduce fragmentation in
information flow [80].

18.7.3 Lack of Data Availability and Accessibility

A significant body of research highlights the challenges in data availability and

accessibility within the context of digitalisation and the CE. [26] conducted a litera-
ture review on digitalisation technologies and their integration into CE, identifying
several barriers. These include policy-related factors, unpredictability, psycholog-
ical factors and vulnerability in information security, which collectively impede the
digitalisation-led CE transition.
Furthermore, studies on the specific availability and accessibility of MP-relevant
information have been conducted. For instance, [80] analysed data practices at a
prominent Swedish industrialised housing construction firm, uncovering a critical
lack of accessible and shared information about materials. Similarly, Panza, Faveto,
et al. [109] pointed out a significant gap in shared material information, which is
crucial for enhancing transparency and efficiency. The research also underscores
the necessity of systematic data collection and public data provision to ensure the
practical applicability of CE strategies. Schützenhofer et al. [116] emphasised this
in the context of lacking data, which hinders effective implementation. Additionally,
Munaro et al. [101] identified barriers in developing Building Material Passports
(BMP) concerning life cycle assessment (LCA) data and end-of-life material infor-
mation, highlighting the complexities involved in data management throughout a
building’s lifecycle.
Gómez-Gil et al. [57, 58] further explored the challenges associated with data
acquisition for MPs and BPs, which are essential tools for accumulating and
managing data across a building’s lifespan. They noted that much of the required data
remains paper-based or locked within private databases, complicating data collec-
tion efforts. Moreover, the lack of interoperability among numerous public open data
sources presents additional obstacles to data sharing and integration.
18 Material and Building Passports as Supportive Tools for Enhancing … 533

Overall, addressing these challenges requires developing strategic approaches to

manage and correlate the vast amounts of data generated during a building’s lifecycle,
ensuring the effectiveness of MPs and BPs as gateways to sustainable construction
practices.

18.7.4 Financial Barriers

The widespread adoption of MPs faces significant economic challenges, primarily

stemming from the high capital and operational costs [102, 123]. Although the bene-
fits of passports can be substantial in the long term, many stakeholders may not
perceive the initial data registration costs as justified, especially those seeking short-
term profitability [123]. Some stakeholders view passports as a potential threat, as
they reveal data that can create a competitive disadvantage for their businesses [120].
To address this conflict, it is essential to ensure that the benefits of MPs are shared
among all value chain stakeholders. Developing appropriate business models can
help achieve this goal [102, 120, 123].
However, integrating critical information about circularity into passports may
face challenges due to limited interest in materials reuse and the narrow adoption of
secondary materials. These materials often have lower safety standards, uncertain
service life, and may not be as profitable for market players, which can influence
circularity practices such as recycling and material recovery through disassembly
[123]. In relation to cost efficiency, there is a financial barrier to overcome as storage,
transport, and handling of recycled material can be, in some cases, costlier than the
use of fresh material (e.g., recycled concrete).
To minimise the financial risks associated with passport adoption, the govern-
ment’s role becomes crucial. By providing regulatory frameworks for market uptake
and ensuring the prevention of unpleasant behaviour from certain commercial entities
that control information exchange, governments can foster a conducive environment
for the successful use of passports [123].

18.7.5 Lack of Knowledge and Expertise

Kirchherr [82] thoroughly analysed the absence of a precise definition of the CE

concept and how this ambiguity can serve as a barrier to its full implementation.
This issue is also applicable to MPs and BPs, where many stakeholders, including
developers, architects, and builders, remain unfamiliar with the benefits and opera-
tional aspects of these tools. Currently, the primary tool widely used in this sector
that implicitly promotes building improvement is the Energy Performance Certificate
(EPC). However, the EPC is limited in its ability to provide tailored information to
encourage renovation [49]. As Kirchherr [82] pointed out, “it is oftentimes not high-
lighted that CE necessitates a systemic shift” (p. 221) and not merely the adoption
534 G. Leindecker et al.

of the recycle-reduce-reuse concept (the 3R framework). One of the most frequently

cited barriers is the lack of knowledge regarding where to begin, what actions to take,
and the sequence in which measures should be implemented. The underdevelopment
of techniques, standard definitions, and guidelines for their application continues to
impede the full adoption of CE within an industry that is traditionally conservative
and resistant to adopting new practices and technologies without clear short-term
benefits [82].
Challenges and barriers related to the lack of knowledge and expertise on MPs
and BPs are well documented in the literature. Munaro [102] concluded that there
is a dearth of information on best practices and examples that could facilitate the
implementation of these tools in the construction sector. Theoretical guidance is
needed for actors involved in supply chains to enable them to harness the benefits
of MPs. It should be clearly articulated how MPs will contribute to making the
system more sustainable, as well as how they will foster new business opportunities,
innovation strategies, and communication technology systems.
Regarding the digital transition, [24] identified twelve challenges that impede the
broader adoption of digital technologies including the passports in the social housing
sector. Among these challenges, those related to unfamiliarity with technological
aspects revealed that interviewees were uncertain about data requirements and lacked
guidance on data management mechanisms. Furthermore, as noted by Kirchherr
[82], there is often a reluctance within the social housing sector to adopt advanced
technologies in day-to-day operations. This reluctance is compounded by a corporate
culture that is not committed to making significant investment decisions necessary
for systemic change. Market challenges arise when organisations fail to see short-
term benefits in developing full MPs for new buildings that will be utilised in the
long term, and they often find it more feasible to develop MPs for existing buildings
prior to demolition. However, the question remains: how can the new and existing
building sectors be brought together to adopt circular strategies?
The rapid evolution of technologies and construction methods necessitates that
passport systems be continuously updated, which presents a challenge. Additionally,
in the context of achieving a circular system, the updating of information on the
materials and components of a building throughout its lifecycle must be encouraged,
which is an ongoing and time-consuming task. Overall, the adoption of these tools and
their full implementation within the system must be part of a strategy of continuous
technological evolution. As Selman and Gade [117] observed, CE remains a complex
issue with many unresolved aspects, and it is imperative that stakeholders act as true
intermediaries, raising awareness of progress towards sustainability objectives.

18.8 Discussion and Conclusions

MPs and BPs represent pivotal tools in the design of circular buildings. The MP
serves as a comprehensive record, aimed at facilitating the implementation and moni-
toring of buildings’ circularity by gathering and preserving data about the materials
18 Material and Building Passports as Supportive Tools for Enhancing … 535

constituting buildings, aiding in decisions regarding recovery, recycling, and reuse.

However, the adoption of MPs is hindered by significant challenges such as the need
for transparency and the protection of data confidentiality. Ensuring that the data
in MPs is accessible to relevant stakeholders is essential for driving practical and
actionable outcomes.
On the other hand, BPs have been acknowledged as instrumental in providing
essential information to various players in the building sector, including users, tech-
nicians, financiers, and insurers. Yet, these tools vary significantly in format and
content across different projects.
The evolution of the BP has laid a foundation for assessing building energy
performance in a standardised format. However, the standardisation of MPs, while
progressing, lacks the same level of detail and international consensus seen in
other standards, such as those demonstrated by initiatives like BAMB2020. There
remains no comprehensive international standard for indexing building mate-
rials for circularity. Furthermore, the proper management of this data requires
robust information exchange among all stakeholders involved in the lifecycle of
a building, from construction to maintenance to decommissioning, to facilitate
informed decision-making.
Financial barriers also play a critical role, as the costs associated with the transport,
storage, and upgrading of used building materials must be evaluated to offset potential
quality reductions from reuse and recycling. Government involvement is crucial in
mitigating the financial risks associated with the adoption of passports, through the
establishment of regulatory frameworks that encourage market adoption and prevent
monopolistic practices by firms controlling information exchanges.
Furthermore, the literature suggests leveraging BIM as comprehensive reposito-
ries of building data, which could enhance the utility of MPs by providing accurate
and detailed information (Khosakitchalert, Yabuki, and Fukuda 2019). However,
challenges persist, especially in existing buildings where BIM-based quantity take-
off needs significant accuracy improvements for complex elements to ensure the
reliability of the data within MPs.
Additional barriers include the lack of market knowledge and unclear stakeholder
responsibilities. Some stakeholders perceive passports as a threat to their competitive
edge due to the transparency they bring. To overcome these challenges, the benefits
of passports must be equitably distributed among all stakeholders in the value chain.
From current practices, it is evident that standardising the format and ensuring
interoperability of data in MPs and BPs is necessary. Adopting a light set of open data
standards—either directly by the industry or through the development of European
and global standards—could catalyse this harmonisation. Given the global chal-
lenges of resource scarcity and climate change, which have shifted societal values
and heightened demands for sectoral transparency, it is imperative to align produc-
tion and consumption patterns with sustainable development goals. Stakeholders are
increasingly committed to environmental and societal responsibilities, making the
availability of measurable, reportable, and verifiable data crucial. Such data not only
supports investment and financial decisions but also aids in setting baselines and
targets for climate-related strategies in both developed and developing markets.
536 G. Leindecker et al.

References

1. Adami L, Schiavon M (2021) From circular economy to circular ecology: a review on the
solution of environmental problems through circular waste management approaches. Sustain-
Basel 13(2):925. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020925
2. Aguiar A, Vonk R, Kamp F (2019) BIM and circular design. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ
Sci 225:012068. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/225/1/012068
3. Akbarieh A, Carbone W, Schäfer M, Waldmann D, Teferle FN (2020) Extended producer
responsibility in the construction sector through blockchain, BIM and smart contract tech-
nologies. In: WCST 2020 Conference Papers Index, 8–10 December 2020, London, UK.
https://infonomics-society.org/wcst-2020/wcst-abstract-4/. Accessed 18 Aug 2023
4. Akbarieh A, Jayasinghe LB, Waldmann D, Teferle FN (2020) BIM-based end-of-lifecycle
decision making and digital deconstruction: literature review. Sustain-Basel 12(7):2670.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072670
5. Akinade OO, Oyedele LO, Ajayi SO, Bilal M, Alaka HA, Owolabi HA, Sururah AB,
Babatunde EJ, Kadiri KO (2017) Design for Deconstruction (DfD): Critical success factors
for diverting end-of-life waste from landfills. Waste Manage 60:3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2016.08.017
6. ALDREN, ALliance for Deep RENovation in Buildings. (n.d.). https://aldren.eu/. Accessed
1 Sep 2023
7. Almusaed A, Almssad A, Homod RZ, Yitmen I (2020) Environmental profile on building
material passports for hot climates. Sustain-Basel 12(9):3720. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1
2093720
8. Almusaed A, Yitmen I, Almsaad A, Akiner İ, Akiner ME (2021) Coherent investigation on a
smart kinetic wooden façade based on material passport concepts and environmental profile
inquiry. Materials 14(14):3771. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14143771
9. Andersen MS (2007) An introductory note on the environmental economics of the circular
economy. Sustain Sci 2(1):133–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-006-0013-6
10. Ansah MK, Chen X, Yang H, Lu L, Lam PT (2021) Developing an automated BIM-based
life cycle assessment approach for modularly designed high-rise buildings. Environ Impact
Asses 90:106618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106618
11. Atta I, Bakhoum ES, Marzouk MM (2021) Digitizing material passport for sustainable
construction projects using BIM. J Build Eng 43(2):103233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.
2021.103233
12. BAMB, Buildings As Material Banks (2020) https://www.bamb2020.eu/. Accessed 1 Sep
2023
13. Basta A, Serror MH, Marzouk M (2020) A BIM-based framework for quantitative assessment
of steel structure deconstructability. Automat Constr 111:103064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2019.103064
14. Becerik B (2004) A review on past, present, and future of web-based project management
and collaboration tools and their adoption by the US AEC industry. Int J IT Architect Engin
Construct 2(3):233–248
15. BPIE, Buildings Performance Institute Europe (2021) Deep renovation: shifting from excep-
tion to standard practice in EU Policy. https://www.bpie.eu/publication/deep-renovation-shi
fting-from-exception-to-standard-practice-in-eu-policy/. Accessed 28 Sep 2023
16. Brand S (1994) How buildings learn: what happens after they are built. Viking, New York
17. BREEAM, Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology.
(n.d.). Knowledge base. https://kb.breeam.com/knowledgebase/approved-breeam-innova
tion-applications-2/. Accessed 29 Sep 2023
18. Buchholz M, Lützkendorf T (2022) Building passports and material inventories – concepts,
trends, job sharing. In IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 1122:012038. https://doi.org/10.1088/
1755-1315/1122/1/012038
18 Material and Building Passports as Supportive Tools for Enhancing … 537

19. Cai G, Waldmann DA (2019) Material and component bank to facilitate material recycling
and component reuse for a sustainable construction: concept and preliminary study. Clean
Technol Envir 21:2015–2032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-019-01758-1
20. Caldas LR, Silva MV, Silva VP, Carvalho MTM, Filho RDT (2022) How different tools
contribute to climate change mitigation in a circular building environment? Syst Literat Rev
Sustain-Basel 14(7):3759. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073759
21. Caroli T (2023) Soft technologies for the circular transition: practical experimentation of the
product “material passport”. In: Arbizzani E, Cangelli E, Clemente C, Cumo F, Giofrè F,
Giovenale AM, Palme M, Paris S (eds) Technological Imagination in the Green and Digital
Transition. CONF.ITECH 2022. The Urban Book Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-031-29515-7_40
22. Casini M (2021) Construction 4.0: advanced technology, tools, and materials for the digital
transformation of the construction industry, vol 1. Woodhead Publishing
23. Çetin S, De Wolf C, Bocken N (2021) Circular digital built environment: an emerging
framework. Sustain-Basel 13(11):6348. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116348
24. Çetin S, Gruis V, Straub A (2022) Digitalization for a circular economy in the building
industry: multiple-case study of Dutch social housing organizations. Resour Conserv Recy
15:200110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcradv.2022.200110
25. Çetin S, Raghu D, Honic M, Straub A, Gruis V (2023) Data requirements and availabilities
for material passports: a digitally enabled framework for improving the circularity of existing
buildings. Sustain Prod Consum 40:422–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.07.011
26. Chauhan C, Parida V, Dhir A (2022) Linking circular economy and digitalisation technologies:
a systematic literature review of past achievements and future promises. Technol Forecast Soc
177:121508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121508
27. Cheng JC, Law KH, Bjornsson H, Jones A, Sriram R (2010) A service-oriented framework
for construction supply chain integration. Automat Constr 19(2):245–260. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.autcon.2009.10.003
28. Circularise (n.d.) https://www.circularise.com/. Accessed 29 Sep 2023
29. Clarke I III, Flaherty TB (2003) Web-based B2B portals. Ind Market Manag 32(1):15–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(01)00199-7
30. Damen MA (2012) A resources passport for a circular economy (Master Thesis)
31. Daniotti B, Masera G, Bolognesi CM, Spagnolo SL, Pavan A, Iannaccone G, Signorini M,
Ciuffreda S, Mirarchi C, Lucky M, Cucuzza M (2022) The development of a BIM-based
interoperable toolkit for efficient renovation in buildings: from BIM to digital twin. Buildings
12(2):231. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12020231
32. Dave B, Koskela L (2009) Collaborative knowledge management—a construction case study.
Automat Constr 18(7):894–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2009.03.015
33. DGNB, German Sustainable Building Council (n.d.) Building resource passport. Document
key information on all life cycle phases of a building. https://www.dgnb.de/en/nachhaltiges-
bauen/zirkulaeres-bauen/building-resource-passport. Accessed 29 Sep 2023
34. Dounas T, Jabi W, Lombardi D (2021) Topology generated non-fungible tokens:
Blockchain as infrastructure for a circular economy in architectural design. In:
Globa A, van Ameijde J, Fingrut A, Kim N, Lo TTS (eds) The association for
computer-aided architectural design research in Asia (CAADRIA), vol 2, pp 151–
160. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85104870069&partnerID=40&
md5=7ca9912d4089dad7cc5ed3c10d227a63. Accessed 28 Sep 2023
35. Dyson A, Keena N, Lokko M, Reck BK, Ciardullo C (2023) Building materials and the climate:
constructing a new future. In: United Nations environment programme, & Yale Center for
Ecosystems + Architecture. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/43293. Accessed
13 Jun 2024
36. Eichstädt J (1982) Modernisation rationalisée des usines. Batiment Int, Build Res Pract
10(3):177–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218208551081
37. Entrop B (2022) The road to circularity: a framework for and experiences in collecting road
data in a circular renovation process. Acta Polytech CTU Proc 38:275–280. https://doi.org/
10.14311/APP.2022.38.0275
538 G. Leindecker et al.

38. Espinoza-Zambrano P, Marmolejo-Duarte C, García-Hooghuis A (2023) Libro del Edificio

Electrónico (LdE-e): Advancing towards a comprehensive tool for the management and reno-
vation of multifamily buildings in Spain. Sustain-Basel 154(4):2957. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su15042957
39. European Commission (2015, December 2) Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and
the Committee of the Regions: Closing the Loop - An EU Action Plan for the Circular
Economy (Report COM/2015/614). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=
CELEX%3A52015DC0614
40. European Commission (2019, December 11) Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions: The European Green Deal (Report COM/2019/640). https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2019%3A640%3AFIN
41. European Commission (2020, March 11) Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and
the Committee of the Regions: A new Circular Economy Action Plan For a cleaner and
more competitive Europe (Report COM/2020/98). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/
EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0098
42. European Commission (2020, March) Circular Economy Action Plan. For a cleaner and
more competitive Europe. Publications Office of the European Union. https://op.europa.eu/
en/publication-detail/-/publication/45cc30f6-cd57-11ea-adf7-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/
format-PDF/source-170854112
43. European Commission (2020, May) Technical study on the possible introduction of
optional building renovation passports: final report. Publications Office of the Euro-
pean Union. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a38ea088-aead-11ea-
bb7a-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
44. European Commission (2020, October 14) Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions: A Renovation Wave for Europe (Report COM/2020/662). https://
eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0662
45. European Commission (2022, March 30) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council establishing a framework for setting eco-design requirements for
sustainable products and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC (Report COM/2022/142). https://
eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A0142%3AFIN
46. European Commission (2023, March 14) Amendments adopted by the European Parliament
on 14 March 2023 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the energy performance of buildings (recast). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/
doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0068_EN.html
47. European Parliament and the Council (2008, November 19) Directive 2008/98/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing
Certain Directives (Text with EEA Relevance). http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/98/oj
48. European Standard Institution (2023, April) FprEN 17680. Sustainability of construction
works - Evaluation of the potential for sustainable refurbishment of buildings. Technical
Committee CEN/TC 350
49. Fabbri M (2017) Understanding building renovation passports: customized solutions to boost
deep renovation and increase comfort in a decarbonized Europe. In: Proceedings of ECEEE
2017 summer study consumption, efficiency and limits, 29 May-3 June 2017, Belambra Les
Criques, Toulon: Hyères, France.
50. Fabbri M, De Groote M, Rapf O (2016) Building renovation passport - customised roadmaps
towards deep renovation and better homes. Buildings Performance Institute Europe - BPIE
Publisher. https://www.bpie.eu/publication/renovation-passports/. Accessed 28 Sep 2023
51. Figiela B, Brudny K, Lin W-T, Korniejenko K (2002) Investigation of mechanical properties
and microstructure of construction- and demolition-waste-based geopolymers. J Compos Sci
6:191. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs6070191
18 Material and Building Passports as Supportive Tools for Enhancing … 539

52. Fritz-Benachio GL, Duarte-Freitas MC, Tavares SF (2020) Circular economy in the construc-
tion industry: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 260:121046. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2020.121046
53. Futas N, Rajput K, Schiano-Phan R (2019) Cradle to cradle and whole-life carbon assess-
ment—barriers and opportunities towards a circular economic building sector. IOP Conf Ser:
Earth Environ Sci 225(1):012036. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/225/1/012036
54. GABC, Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (2016) Towards zero-emission effi-
cient and resilient buildings. Global status report. https://worldgbc.org/wp-content/uploads/
2022/03/GABC_Global_Status_Report_V09_november_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 28 Sep 2023
55. Gómez-Gil M, Espinosa-Fernández A, López-Mesa B (2022) Review and analysis of models
for a European digital building logbook. Energies 15:1994. https://doi.org/10.3390/en1506
1994
56. Gómez-Gil M, Espinosa-Fernández A, López-Mesa B (2022) Contribution of new digital
technologies to the digital building logbook. Buildings 12(12):2129. https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings12122129
57. Gómez-Gil M, Espinosa-Fernández A, López-Mesa B (2024) A new functionality for the
digital building logbook: assessing the progress of decarbonisation of national building
sectors. Environ Impact Asses 105:107393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107393
58. Gómez-Gil M, Sesana MM, Salvalai G, Espinosa-Fernández A, López-Mesa B (2023) The
Digital Building Logbook as a gateway linked to existing national data sources: the cases of
Spain and Italy. J Build Eng 63(A):105461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105461
59. Göswein V, Carvalho S, Cerqueira C, Lorena A (2022) Circular material passports for build-
ings. Providing a robust methodology for promoting circular buildings. In: IOP Conf Ser:
Earth Environ Sci 1122(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1122/1/012049
60. Götz T, Berg H, Jansen M, Adisorn T, Cembrero D, Markkanen S, Chowdhury T (2022)
Digital product passport: the ticket to achieving a climate neutral and circular Euro-
pean economy? https://circulareconomy.europa.eu/platform/en/knowledge/digital-product-
passport-ticket-achieving-climate-neutral-and-circular-european-economy. Accessed 28 Sep
2023
61. Hamidi B, Bulbul T (2013) A comparative analysis of sustainable approaches to building end-
of-lifecycle: underlying deconstruction principles in theory and practice. In: ICSDEC 2012:
developing the frontier of sustainable design, engineering, and construction, 7–9 November
2012, Fort Worth, Texas, USA, pp 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412688.018
62. Hansen K, Braungart M, Mulhall D (2012) Resource repletion, role of buildings. Springer
New York, pp 9025–9049
63. Hansen K, Braungart M, Mulhall D (2018) Materials banking and resource repletion, role of
buildings, and materials passports. In: Meyers R (ed) Encyclopedia of sustainability science
and technology. Springer, New York, pp 9025–9049. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-
2493-6_420-3
64. Heinrich M, Lang W (2019) Material passports–best practice–innovative solutions for a transi-
tion to a circular economy in the built environment. TUM University, Monaco. bamb2020.eu/
wp-content/uploads/2019/02/BAMB_MaterialsPassports_BestPractice.pdf. Accessed 20 Jun
2024
65. Heisel F, Rau-Oberhuber S (2020) Calculation and evaluation of circularity indicators for the
built environment using the case studies of UMAR and Madaster. J Clean Prod 243:118482.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118482
66. Hesselbach J, Herrmann C, Ohlendorf M, Graf R (2001) Approach of substance flow oriented
closed loop supply chain management in the electrical and electronic equipment industry.
In: Proceedings second international symposium on environmentally conscious design and
inverse manufacturing. IEEE, pp 725–728. https://doi.org/10.1109/ECODIM.2001.992458
67. Honic M, Kovacic I (2020) Model and data management issues in the integrated assessment of
existing building stocks. Organizat Technol Manag Construct Int J 12(1):2148–2157. https://
doi.org/10.2478/otmcj-2020-0011
540 G. Leindecker et al.

68. Honic M, Kovacic I, Rechberger H (2019) Concept for a BIM-based Material Passport for
buildings. In: IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 225(1):SBE19 Brussels - BAMB-CIRCPATH
“buildings as material banks - a pathway for a circular future”, 5–7 February 2019, Brussels,
Belgium. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/225/1/012073
69. Honic M, Kovacic I, Rechberger H (2019) Improving the recycling potential of buildings
through Material Passports (MP): An Austrian case study. J Clean Prod 217:787–797. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.212
70. Honic M, Kovacic I, Aschenbrenner P, Ragossnig A (2021) Material Passports for the end-
of-life stage of buildings: challenges and potentials. J Clean Prod 319(4):128702. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128702
71. Honic M, Kovacic I, Sibenik G, Rechberger H (2019) Data and stakeholder management
framework for the implementation of BIM-based material passports. J Build Eng 23:341–350.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.01.017
72. Hoosain MS, Paul BS, Ramakrishna S (2020) The impact of 4ir digital technologies
and circular thinking on the United Nations sustainable development goals. Sustain-Basel
12(23):1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310143
73. Hoosain MS, Paul BS, Raza SM, Ramakrishna S (2021) Material passports and circular
economy. In: Liu L, Ramakrishna S (eds) An introduction to circular economy. Springer,
Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8510-4_8
74. Horvath A (2004) Construction materials and the environment. Annu Rev Env Resour 29:181–
204. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.29.062403.102215
75. iBRoad, Individual Building (Renovation) Roadmaps (n.d.) https://ibroad-project.eu/.
Accessed 1 Sep 2023
76. Incorvaja D, Celik Y, Petri I, Rana O (2022) Circular economy and construction supply chains.
In: Proceedings of IEEE/ACM international conference on big data computing, applications
and technologies (BDCAT), 6–9 December 2022, pp 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1109/BDCAT5
6447.2022.00019
77. Ismail R, Said I, Mohamad-Soblee WNH (2021) Construction companies confront issues
associated with movement control orders. Turkish Online J Qualit Inquiry 12(8). https://
www.tojqi.net/index.php/journal/article/view/4702/3272. Accessed 18 Aug 2023
78. Jalaei F, Zoghi M, Khoshand A (2019) Life cycle environmental impact assessment to manage
and optimize construction waste using Building Information Modeling (BIM). Int J Constr
Manag 21(8):784–801. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1583850
79. Jerstad I, Dustdar S, Thanh DV (2005) A service-oriented architecture framework for collabo-
rative services. In: 14th IEEE international workshops on enabling technologies: infrastructure
for collaborative enterprise (WETICE’05). IEEE, pp 121–125. https://doi.org/10.1109/WET
ICE.2005.11
80. Kedir F, Hall DM, Brantvall S, Lessing J, Hollberg A, Soman RK (2023) Circular informa-
tion flows in industrialized housing construction: the case of a multi-family housing product
platform in Sweden. Constr Innov. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-08-2022-0199
81. Kindström D, Kowalkowski C (2015) Service driven business model innovation: organizing
the shift from a product-based to a service-centric business model. In: Business model innova-
tion: the organizational dimension. Oxford University Press, UK. https://academic.oup.com/
book/11032/chapter-abstract/159381601?redirectedFrom=fulltext. Accessed 21 Aug 2023
82. Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis
of 114 definitions. Resour Conserv Recy 127:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.
2017.09.005
83. Kleemann F, Lederer J, Aschenbrenner P, Rechberger H, Fellner J (2014) A method for
determining buildings’ material composition prior to demolition. Build Res Inf 44(1):51–62.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.979029
84. Klinglmair M, Fellner J (2010) Urban mining in times of raw material shortage: copper
management in Austria during World War I. J Ind Ecol 14(4):666–679. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00257
18 Material and Building Passports as Supportive Tools for Enhancing … 541

85. Korhonen J, Honkasalo A, Seppälä J (2018) Circular economy: the concept and its limitations.
Ecol Econ 143:37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041
86. Korniejenko K, Kozub B, Bąk A, Balamurugan P, Uthayakumar M, Furtos G (2021) Tackling
the circular economy challenges—composites recycling: used tyres, wind turbine blades, and
solar panels. J Compos Sci 5:24. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs5090243
87. Kovacic I, Honic M (2021) Scanning and data capturing for BIM-supported resources assess-
ment: a case study. J Inf Technol Constr 26:624–638. https://doi.org/10.36680/j.itcon.202
1.032
88. Kovacic I, Honic M, Sreckovic M (2020) Digital platform for circular economy in aec industry.
Engin Project Organizat J 9:1–16. https://doi.org/10.25219/epoj.2020.00107
89. Kragh MK, Jakica N (2021) Circular economy in facades. In: Gasparri E, Brambilla A,
Lobaccaro G, Goia F, Andaloro A, Sangiorgio A (eds) (2022) Rethinking building skins
transformative technologies and research trajectories, pp 519–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-822477-9.00016-4
90. Li Q, Wang Y (2021) Blockchain’s role in supporting circular supply chains in the built
environment. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on blockchain (Blockchain),
6–8 December 2021, pp 578–583. https://doi.org/10.1109/Blockchain53845.2021.00087
91. Liu L, Ramakrishna S (2021) Future outlook. In: Liu L, Ramakrishna S (eds) An introduction
to circular economy. Springer: Singapore, pp 623–631. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-
8510-4_30
92. Love PED, Irani Z (2004) An exploratory study of information technology evaluation
and benefits management practices of SMEs in the construction industry. Inform Manage
42(1):227–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.12.011
93. Lu W, Peng Z, Webster C, Wu L (2023) Developing a construction waste material ‘passport’
for cross-jurisdictional trading. J Clean Prod 414:137509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2023.137509
94. Luscuere LM (2017) Materials passports: optimizing value recovery from materials. Proc
Instit Civil Engin: Waste Resour Manag 170(1):25–28. https://doi.org/10.1680/jwarm.16.
00016
95. Madaster: the cadastre for materials and products. (n.d.). https://madaster.com/. Accessed 29
Sep 2023
96. MalinovecPuček M, Khoja A, Bazzan E, Gyuris PA (2022) Data structure for digital building
logbooks: achieving energy efficiency, sustainability, and smartness in buildings across the
EU. Buildings 13(4):1082. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13041082
97. Maraqa MJ, Spatari S (2022) BIM material passport to support building deconstruc-
tion and a circular economy. In: Proceedings of the twelth international conference
on construction in the 21st century (CITC-12), Amman, Jordan | March 7 – 10
2022 https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85148360996&partnerID=40&
md5=faa6c5b0216d5dcbd034ac50c54e95c4
98. Mierzwiński D, Łach M, Gądek S, Lin WT, Hung-Tran D, Korniejenko K (2023) A brief
overview of the use of additive manufacturing of concrete materials in construction. Acta
Innovat 48:22–37. https://doi.org/10.32933/ActaInnovations.48.2
99. Moustafaev J (2014) Project scope management: a practical guide to requirements for
engineering, product, construction, IT, and enterprise projects. CRC Press
100. Mulhall D, Ayed A-C, Schroeder J, Hansen K, Wautelet T (2022) The product circularity data
sheet. a standardized digital fingerprint for circular economy data about products. Energies,
15(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093397
101. Munaro MR, Fischer AC, Azevedo NC, Tavares SF (2019) Proposal of a building material
passport and its application feasibility to the wood frame constructive system in Brazil. In:
IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 225(1), SBE19 Brussels - BAMB-CIRCPATH “Buildings as
Material Banks - A Pathway For A Circular Future”, 5–7 February 2019, Brussels, Belgium.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/225/1/012018
102. Munaro MR, Tavares SF (2021) Materials passport’s review: challenges and opportunities
toward a circular economy building sector. Built Environ Project Asset Manag 11(4):767–782.
https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-02-2020-0027
542 G. Leindecker et al.

103. Munaro MR, Tavares SF (2023) Design for adaptability and disassembly: guidelines for
building deconstruction. Construct Innovat 1471–4175
104. Negendahl K, Barholm-Hansen A, Andersen R (2022) Parametric stock flow modelling of
historical building typologies. Buildings 12(9):1423. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings120
91423
105. Nemeth I, Schneider-Marin P, Figl H, Fellner M, Asam C (2022) Circularity evaluation as
guidance for building design. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 1078(1):012082. https://doi.
org/10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012082
106. Nikmehr B, Hosseini MR, Wang J, Chileshe N, Rameezdeen R (2021) BIM-based tools
for managing construction and demolition waste (CDW): a scoping review. Sustain-Basel
13(15):8427. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158427
107. Nitithamyong P, Skibniewski MJ (2004) Web-based construction project management
systems: how to make them successful? Automat Constr 13(4):491–506. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.autcon.2004.02.003
108. O’Shea P (1995) Dealing with emi/rfi: Emi/rfi test labs provide your product’s passport to
Europe. EE-Eval Eng 34(11):124–133
109. Panza L, Bruno G, Lombardi F (2022) A collaborative architecture to support circular economy
through digital material passports and internet of materials. IFAC-PapersOnLine 55(10):1491–
1496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2022.09.601
110. Panza L, Faveto A, Bruno G, Lombardi F (2022) Open product development to support circular
economy through a material lifecycle management framework. Int J Product Lifecycle Manag
14(2–3):255–281. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijplm.2022.125826
111. Papazoglou MP, van den Heuvel WJ (2007) Service oriented architectures: approaches,
technologies and research issues. VLDB J 16:389–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00778-007-
0044-3
112. Pradeep ASE, Yiu TW, Zou Y, Amor R (2021) Blockchain-aided information exchange records
for design liability control and improved security. Automat Constr 126:103667. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103667
113. Schaubroeck S, Dewil R, Allacker K (2022) Circularity and LCA - material pathways: the
cascade potential and cascade database of an in-use building product. In: IOP Conf Ser:
Earth Environ Sci, 1122(1), SBEfin2022 emerging concepts for sustainable built environment,
23–25 November 2022, 1122(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1122/1/012040
114. Schaubroeck S, Dewil R, Allacker K (2022) Circularity of building stocks: modelling building
joints and their disassembly in a 3D city model. Procedia CIRP 105:712–720. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.procir.2022.02.119
115. Schützenhofer S, Honic M, Kovacic I (2020) Design optimisation via BIM supported material
passports. In: Werner L, Koering D (eds) Anthropologic: architecture and fabrication in the
cognitive age - proceedings of the 38th eCAADe conference, TU Berlin, 16–18 September
2020, Germany, pp 289–296
116. Schützenhofer S, Kovacic I, Rechberger H (2022) Assessment of sustainable use of material
resources in the architecture, engineering and construction industry ˗ a conceptual framework
proposal for Austria. J Sustain Develop Energy, Water Environ Syst 10(4):1100417. https://
doi.org/10.13044/j.sdewes.d10.0417
117. Selman AD, Gade AN (2020) Barriers of incorporating circular economy in building design
in a Danish context. In: Proceedings of association of researchers in construction manage-
ment annual conference, pp 665–674. http://www.arcom.ac.uk/-docs/archive/2020-Indexed-
Papers.pdf. Accessed 28 Sep 2023
118. Sesana MM, Salvalai G (2018) A review on building renovation passport: potentialities and
barriers on current initiatives. Energ Buildings 173:195–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enb
uild.2018.05.027
119. Sesana MM, Salvalai G, Brutti D, Mandin C, Wei WA (2021) ALDREN: a methodological
framework to support decision-making and investments in deep energy renovation of non-
residential buildings. Buildings 11(1):3. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11010003
18 Material and Building Passports as Supportive Tools for Enhancing … 543

120. Smeets A, Wang K, Drewniok MP (2019) Can material passports lower financial barriers
for structural steel re-use? In: IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci, 225(1), SBE19 Brussels
- BAMB-CIRCPATH “buildings as material banks - a pathway for a circular future”, 5–7
February 2019, Brussels, Belgium. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/225/1/012006
121. Suermann PC, Issa RR (2009) Evaluating industry perceptions of building information
modelling (BIM) impact on construction. J Inf Technol Construct (ITcon) 14(37):574–594
122. Talla A, McIlwaine S (2022) Industry 4.0 and the circular economy: Using design-stage
digital technology to reduce construction waste. Smart Sustain Built Environ. https://doi.org/
10.1108/SASBE-03-2022-0050
123. van Capelleveen G, Vegter D, Olthaar M, van Hillegersberg J (2023) The anatomy of a
passport for the circular economy: a conceptual definition, vision, and structured literature
review. Resour Conserv Recy 17:200131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200131
124. Wandiga CA (2020) Methodological review: Socio-cultural analysis criteria for BIM modeling
and material passport tracking of agriwaste as a building construction raw material. MRS
Energy Sustain 7(1):25. https://doi.org/10.1557/mre.2020.29
125. Wilkinson P (2005) Construction collaboration technologies: the extranet evolution, 1st edn.
Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203004791
126. Wu L, Lu W, Peng Z, Webster C (2023) A blockchain non-fungible token-enabled ‘passport’
for construction waste material cross-jurisdictional trading. Automat Constr 149:104783.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2023.104783
127. Yang JB, Wu CT, Tsai CH (2007) Selection of an ERP system for a construction firm in
Taiwan: a case study. Automat Constr 16(6):787–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2007.
02.001
128. Zhang N, Han Q, de Vries B (2021) Building circularity assessment in the architecture, engi-
neering, and construction industry: a new framework. Sustain-Basel 13(22):12466. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su132212466

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 19
Implementation and Consideration
of Circularity Within International
Sustainability Assessment Methods

Christina Giarma, Patrizia Lombardi , Rand Askar , Nika Trubina ,

Daniela Santana Tovar , Adriana Salles , Hasan Volkan Oral ,
Rocío Pineda-Martos , Aikaterina Karanafti , Bahar Feizollahbeigi ,
Ricardo Mateus , Sara Torabi Moghadam , Janez Turk ,
Ruben Paul Borg , and Luís Bragança

Abstract The construction sector is a major contributor to environmental degrada-

tion, prompting the need for integrating sustainability into its practices. This need
has driven the development of sustainability assessment methods across various
scales of the built environment. Simultaneously, the recent emphasis on Circular

C. Giarma (B) · A. Karanafti

Laboratory of Building Construction and Building Physics, Department of Civil Engineering,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
e-mail: [email protected]
P. Lombardi · D. Santana Tovar · S. Torabi Moghadam
Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning, Polytechnic University
of Turin, Turin, Italy
R. Askar · A. Salles · B. Feizollahbeigi · R. Mateus · L. Bragança
ISISE, ARISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, 4804-533 Guimarães,
Portugal
N. Trubina
University Centre for Energy Efficient Buildings, Czech Technical University in Prague,
Buštěhrad, Czech Republic
H. V. Oral
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, İstanbul Aydın University, Florya
Besyol Kampus, İstanbul, Türkiye
R. Pineda-Martos
Departamento de Ingeniería Aeroespacial y Mecánica de Fluidos, Escuela Técnica Superior de
Ingeniería Agronómica, Área de Ingeniería Agroforestal, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain
J. Turk
Slovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia
R. P. Borg
Faculty for the Built Environment, University of Malta, Msida, Malta

© The Author(s) 2025 545

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_19
546 C. Giarma et al.

Economy (CE) principles has introduced challenges in translating these principles

into measurable outcomes within the construction sector. This study aims to investi-
gate the extent to which circularity principles are embedded within existing sustain-
ability assessment methods for new buildings. The study begins by addressing the
interrelationships and distinctions between circularity and sustainability concepts,
establishing a foundation for the subsequent analysis. Five internationally recognised
sustainability assessment methods for new buildings—BREEAM, DGNB, LEED,
Level(s), SBTool—were examined to assess their incorporation of circularity aspects.
Each component of these methods was scrutinised for alignment with the 10 circu-
larity strategies outlined in the well-established 10-R framework of waste hierarchy.
Expert groups, consisting of CircularB COST Action members, independently eval-
uated the methods and provided opinions on the direct and indirect associations
between the assessed components and the 10-R principles. Disagreements were
resolved through group discussions. The analysis revealed varying degrees of inte-
gration and explicit reference to circularity principles across the assessed methods.
The study also highlighted the subjectivity inherent in identifying correlations and the
challenges connected to linking certain circularity-related concepts in the built envi-
ronment—such as resilience and adaptability—with the 10-R strategies. The findings
underscore the need for a more in-depth analysis before making direct comparisons
of the integration of circularity principles among different sustainability assessment
methods, given their methodological differences. The study also identifies directions
for future research.

Keywords Circular economy · Sustainability · Buildings’ Sustainability

assessment · 10-R Framework

19.1 Introduction

The main aim of this chapter is to investigate the extent to which circular economy-
related aspects and strategies are integrated in the evaluation process supported and
performed by well-known sustainability assessment methods of buildings.
The need for this investigation arises from the intersection of COST Action
CircularB’s objectives and the evolving role and nature of sustainability assessment
methods in the built environment. Among the core targets of CircularB Action is
the proposal of appropriate circularity indicators for evaluating the built environ-
ment. These indicators may be existing ones, modified versions, or entirely new
proposals, and their effective development and application should be supported by
robust data and frameworks, including regulatory standards. In parallel, Level(s)
framework represents one of this Action’s main interests, with the effective inte-
gration of circularity indicators into its structure being one of the foreseen research
areas. Although Level(s) has distinct characteristics, it shares important similarities
with other sustainability assessment methods used in the built environment.
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 547

Over the past decades, sustainability assessment methods for the built environ-
ment have evolved significantly and gained widespread adoption and recognition
globally. These methods are crucial for embedding sustainability principles into the
built environment. They essentially comprise sets of criteria and or indicators well-
structured, relevant to the built environment and accompanied by grids of standards,
data and regulations.
The combination of these factors, along with the recognition that sustainability,
while closely related, is not synonymous with circularity, underscores the importance
of the work presented in this chapter. The concepts and scopes of circularity and
sustainability are discussed in Sect. 19.2, primarily through a comparative lens that
highlights their interrelationships and distinctions.
This study involved the selection of five widely recognised sustainability assess-
ment methods for buildings and their examination within the context of a circular
economy framework. The methods considered are: BREEAM, DGNB, LEED,
Level(s), and SBTool.
In both academic and practical settings, various R-frameworks have been
employed to define strategies encompassed by the circular economy concept. At
the European Union level, the 4-R framework (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recover),
which forms the core of the EU Waste Framework Directive [18], was expanded
with the introduction of the EU’s Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) in 2015
and the updated CEAP in 2020 (European Commission, 2020). These developments
are integral to the EU Industrial Strategy, a key component of the European Green
Deal. A more comprehensive framework, as presented by [28], includes 10 common
circular economy (CE) strategies as illustrated in Fig. 19.1: Refuse, Rethink, Reduce,
Reuse, Repair, Refurbish, Remanufacture, Repurpose, Recycle, and Recover. This
framework was adopted in this study to scrutinise all the aspects covered by the
selected assessment protocols in terms of circularity, given its clear and nearly
exhaustive representation of existing CE strategies. It is worth noting that other
similar frameworks exist in the literature, such as those proposed by [34] and [38].
The investigation focused on analysing whether, to what extent, and how circu-
larity principles and strategies are implemented in the examined sustainability assess-
ment methods. This analysis was conducted at the most granular, self-contained,
distinct, and scored level within each method’s assessment structure, as explained
in the respective sections. The methodology involved conducting expert focus
group exercises with five sub-groups (corresponding to the five examined methods),
composed of researchers contributing to this study. Participation in each sub-group
was voluntary, with the number of members varying; some researchers participated
in multiple sub-groups, while others were involved in only one. Detailed information
regarding the number of contributors in each sub-group is provided in the respective
sections of this chapter.
Each sub-group analysed a specific protocol/assessment method by studying the
technical manuals, guides, or descriptive materials accompanying each method,
which contain comprehensive descriptions of the content, benchmarks, and intended
goals of the assessment levels under consideration. For SBTool, the analysis was
based on the study of the method’s computational tools (Excel-type files). The
548 C. Giarma et al.

Fig. 19.1 The employed 10-R framework (adapted from [28])

members of each subgroup independently provided their opinions on whether and

which of the strategies outlined in the 10-R framework are reflected in the examined
components of the analysed method. It is important to note that, for this correlation
to be meaningful and effective in the context of individual buildings, the investiga-
tion centred on assessing building products and buildings as products through the
lens of the 10-R framework. Differences in estimations and assessments within each
sub-group were resolved through discussions. Through this process, two types of
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 549

associations were established: direct and indirect. Direct associations are based on
direct, explicit references to one or more of the employed framework’s strategies/
principles within the content, aim, indicators, and overall structure of the examined
component. Indirect associations reflect relationships where no explicit references
were found, but correlations could be inferred on a consequential basis. More detailed
classifications, and information on each method’s unique features influencing the
treatment of this issue, are provided in the sections presenting the results for the
examined methods.
The results are presented in tables listing the components of each method directly
and indirectly associated with the 10-R strategies. The discussion of the findings
follows. This approach outlines the consideration of various circular strategies in
the context of the examined methods, highlighting the differences and similarities
among the adopted approaches. An important outcome of this analysis pertains to the
challenge of distinguishing between sustainability and circularity and the resulting
variations in the related interpretations.
The structure of the chapter is as follows: Sect. 19.2 discusses the interrelation-
ships and distinctions between circularity and sustainability. Section 19.3 provides
an overview of sustainability assessment methods for the built environment and anal-
yses the integration of circularity in five international methods: BREEAM, DGNB,
LEED, Level(s), and SBTool. Finally, Sect. 4 concludes the chapter.

19.2 Sustainability Versus Circularity

The relationship between the concepts of circular economy (CE) and sustainability
has sparked an ongoing debate [33]. However, the lack of clear boundaries defining
each concept has fueled this conflict, despite their widespread use among scholars
and practitioners. Unfortunately, this lack of clarity hinders the effective application
of these concepts in both theory and practice [22]. Sustainability can be defined as
the balanced integration of economic performance, social value, and environmental
resilience, benefiting both present and future generations [22]. On the other hand,
the circular economy is defined as an industrial system intentionally designed for
restoration and regeneration. It aims to replace the concept of disposal “end-of-
life” with regenerative growth, prioritise renewable energy, eliminate toxic chem-
icals that hinder reuse, and strive for waste elimination through superior mate-
rial, product, system, and business model design [17]. While various scholars have
proposed multiple definitions of circular economy, the definition put forth by the
Ellen MacArthur Foundation is the most accepted [23, 28].
While both sustainability and circular economy share concerns about technolog-
ical advancements, industrial practices, and consumption patterns, they also highlight
the importance of integrating environmental and social dimensions with economic
progress [22]. Despite these similarities, the two approaches differ significantly in
their origins, objectives, scopes, motivations, institutionalisations, timespans, and
beneficiaries [22]. Sustainability embodies a more open-ended essence in the context
550 C. Giarma et al.

of sustainable development compared to a circular economy [22, 46]. It encompasses

a wide range of goals that can be reframed over time to align with the interests of
involved parties. Conversely, the circular economy is more specific in defining its
goals and aspirations for closed-loop systems that eliminate waste and minimise
emissions. These goals are to be achieved within defined theoretical and practical
thresholds [17].
Scholars diverge into two directions regarding the relationship between CE and
sustainability. The first direction argues that CE surpasses the linear thinking models
of sustainability and offers prospective solutions to its shortcomings [28, 40]. Geiss-
doerfer et al. [22] provide a more comprehensive perspective, acknowledging both
positions. They identify three major types of relationships between sustainability
and circular economy: (1) circular economy as a condition for sustainability, (2)
a mutually beneficial relation, or (3) a trade-off. These relationship patterns foster
diversity and encourage the deployment of a wide range of complementary strategies.
According to Brundtland Report (1987), sustainable development is defined as devel-
opment that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs. This definition highlights that sustainable devel-
opment is an ever-evolving goal for our planet and society. A circular economy, in
this regard, establishes new sustainability benchmarks to meet modern-day goals for
sustainable development. However, employing the circular economy without consid-
ering sustainability would lead to undesirable results. For example, multiple cycles
of reusing or recycling a product may eventually either produce more emissions or
consume more energy than producing a new one. Therefore, it is crucial to strike the
right balance between resource circularity and their environmental, economic, and
social impacts, taking into account case-specific requirements.
The relationship between circular economy and sustainability also extends to
the built environment, particularly the building sector [27]. However, while sustain-
ability has often been associated with “doing less bad” instead of good, the CE has
been all about “doing good”. Sustainability comes from the gradual optimisation of
things, whilst the circular economy is about new business models that sell services
rather than products [27]. Many literature studies on circular economy prioritise
environmental improvements, neglecting a systemic integration of all three pillars of
sustainability. The strong relationship between circular economy and environmental
sustainability lies in the efficient solutions that circular economy concepts provide to
alleviate the pressure of human activities on natural ecosystems [33]. However, most
cases tend to link the environmental focus with economic aspects, paying marginal
attention to social and institutional levels. The social value brought by the circular
economy is often overlooked, with discussions mainly centred around job creation.
This limited coverage of social aspects reflects a blurred perception of the circular
economy’s ability to contribute to subjective well-being [22]. The marginal attention
given to social issues in circular economy studies may be attributed to their focus on an
industrial context [12]. Consequently, the circular economy should broaden its scope
to include societal concerns, which require a radical shift in consumer and stake-
holders’ attitudes. However, recent studies show a growing awareness of the need for
a more inclusive approach that embraces the triple bottom line of sustainability [33].
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 551

Table 19.1 Differences between sustainability and circular economy on various levels
Aspects Sustainability Circular economy
Objective More open-ended essence More specific in defining its goals and
regarding sustainable aspirations for closed-loop systems that
development eliminate waste and minimise emissions
Impact “doing less bad” “doing good”
Focus Focuses on the triple bottom Focuses on Resource Cycles
line: People, the Planet and the
Economy
Practice ground The practice of sustainability is The practice of circularity is grounded in
grounded in and focused on the and focused on the Techno and Bio spheres
Biosphere
Responsibility Responsibility is shared but not More defined responsibility primarily
clearly defined focusing on private businesses, regulators
and policymakers
Beneficiaries Main beneficiaries: the Main beneficiaries: the economic actors
environment, the economy, and that implement the system
society
Interests Interests are aligned between Interests prioritise financial advantages for
stakeholders and can be companies
reframed over time
Prioritised Comes around the gradual Prioritises improvements on the
aspects optimisation of things environmental aspect while the social
aspect is marginally addressed

Table 19.1 summarises the differences between sustainability and circular economy
in terms of objective, impact, focus, practice ground, responsibility, beneficiaries,
interest and prioritised aspects.

19.3 Analysis of Circularity Implementation in Five

Well-Known International Methods (BREEAM,
DGNB, LEED, Level(S), SBTool)

19.3.1 General Information

Over the past few decades, sustainability assessment methods for buildings have
evolved into a critical asset for implementing sustainability principles in the building
sector. These methods have gained significant acceptance and recognition interna-
tionally across various stakeholders. The 1990s marked the inception of environ-
mental performance assessment methods for buildings, with the first versions of
BREEAM and LEED being published in 1990 and 1998, respectively [1, 41]. Addi-
tionally, GBTool, later known as SBTool, was initially launched in 1998 following
552 C. Giarma et al.

an international development effort that began in 1996 [11]. In subsequent years,

numerous sustainability assessment methods have been developed by organisations,
institutions, and researchers across various countries and continents [4, 45, 16].
These methods exhibit varying degrees of similarity and differentiation in terms
of their philosophy, scope of application (whether international or national, building
uses addressed, etc.), range of criteria, and methodological structure. Notably,
some differences can also be observed among the successive versions of these
methods themselves, as they continuously evolve, expand in scope, and adapt to
new challenges and conditions, which is key to their effectiveness and relevance.
When considering trends in the sustainability assessment of the built environment,
it is important to note the growing interest in scales larger than individual buildings.
Methods addressing neighbourhood or even city scales have emerged as early as
the 2000s, with their development receiving continuous and intensive enhancement.
While many issues at the building scale are being adequately addressed (with room for
improvement), the broader scope offers greater opportunities and challenges, leading
to a focus on larger entities within the built environment. Moreover, the principles of
the Circular Economy can be effectively applied not only at the building scale but also
at the neighbourhood and urban scales, considering key factors of circularity in the
built environment. Prominent sustainability assessment methods for buildings, such
as BREEAM, LEED, DGNB, and CASBEE, have expanded to develop tools for the
urban scale (e.g., BREEAM Communities, LEED for Neighborhood Development,
DGNB for Urban Districts, and CASBEE for Urban Development, respectively).
Another example of a multi-scale approach is CESBA (Common European
Sustainable Built Environment Assessments), which extends the reliability of SBTool
to both the building and neighbourhood scales. CESBA represents a bottom-up
initiative aimed at promoting the harmonisation of sustainability assessments across
Europe, from buildings to neighbourhoods and regions. It particularly emphasises
a neighbourhood-level approach to developing synergies in energy efficiency1 .
However, the analysis in this work focuses on the building scale.
A significant number of comparative reviews of building sustainability assessment
methods can be found in the literature, addressing their basic characteristics or their
approaches to specific performance aspects (for example, see [2–6, 10, 15, 21, 24,
35–37, 39, 41, 45]. Detailed information about comparative review studies of such
tools can also be found in various works, e.g., in [30]. Some of the most widely
known and applied sustainability assessment methods appear more frequently in
these review studies, highlighting their importance and influence. It is evident that
the simultaneous, critical, and comparative consideration of multiple methods has
been a focal point in scientific efforts aimed at improving these tools since their early
development.
In this review, the analysis focuses on four sustainability assessment methods for
buildings: BREEAM, DGNB, LEED, and SBTool. The versions studied are the most

1 The CESBA SNTool led to the MED Passport enabling the comparison of the performances of
buildings and neighbourhoods, in line with the EC COM 2014 445. A CESBA MED network of
cities was setup in order to maximise the transferability of results [9].
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 553

recent, applicable to new buildings and suitable for international use. Where different
schemes exist for tertiary and residential buildings, the tertiary sector version is
examined. These methods were selected based on their widespread use in Europe and
their international scope. Additionally, Level(s) is included in this review. Although
Level(s) differs in some aspects of its philosophy compared to the other “typical”
methods examined, it is a constantly evolving common European framework that may
serve as a common axis for implementing sustainability assessment principles and
procedures in the building sector and construction practices in the future. Moreover,
given that Level(s) is a focal point of CircularB Action’s interests, its inclusion
alongside the other methods is essential.

19.3.2 BREEAM

Introductory remarks. BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environ-

mental Assessment Method) is a widely recognised environmental assessment
method and rating system used to evaluate and measure the sustainability perfor-
mance of various building types. Developed by the Building Research Establishment
(BRE) in the United Kingdom in 1990, BREEAM has continuously evolved, adapting
to advancements in sustainability practices and expanding its scope [7]. The system
employs established performance indicators that adhere to defined standards and
benchmarks, assessing the technical performance, design, construction, and ongoing
use of buildings. These indicators encompass a broad range of factors, from energy
consumption to ecological impact, covering multiple dimensions of environmental
performance.
BREEAM’s holistic approach and continuous development have enabled it to be
successfully adapted to almost any building type and to various scales within the
built environment. The method includes applications for different scenarios, such as
evaluating new sustainable building projects through BREEAM New Construction
or its international counterpart, assessing existing non-domestic, commercial, indus-
trial, retail, and institutional buildings using the BREEAM In-Use scheme, applying
a sustainable assessment method for refurbishment projects with BREEAM Refur-
bishment, and even planning for the creation of neighbourhoods and urban areas for
new communities through BREEAM Communities [7].
This analysis focuses on the BREEAM International New Construction 2021
scheme (BRE [8]). BREEAM currently categorises its assessment into nine envi-
ronmental sections: (i) Management, (ii) Health and Wellbeing, (iii) Energy, (iv)
Transport, (v) Water, (vi) Materials, (vii) Waste, (viii) Land Use and Ecology, (ix)
Pollution and an additional one – (x) Innovation. Each environmental section contains
a varying number of specific issues. For example, the Management section includes
five issues; Health and Wellbeing comprises nine issues; Energy covers 11 issues;
Transport includes seven issues; both Water and Materials comprise four issues each;
Land Use and Ecology and Waste cover four and seven issues respectively; Pollution
554 C. Giarma et al.

Fig. 19.2 BREEAM rating benchmarks for new construction [7]

includes five issues; and the Innovation category, while not containing specific issues,
contributes to the overall assessment.2
The assessment process in BREEAM is based on evaluating each issue against
specific criteria. Each of the ten major BREEAM categories is assigned a certain
number of credits based on its compliance with the relevant sustainability criteria,
with each issue accompanied by a number of available credits. The total number of
points awarded for each environmental section is divided by the total number of points
available for it, and this ratio is multiplied by the section’s relative weighting. The sum
of these weighted scores, along with the potential contribution from the Innovation
section, determines the overall BREEAM score, expressed as a percentage. This
percentage score corresponds to a range of ratings, from “Pass” for basic levels
of sustainability to “Outstanding” for exceptional and comprehensive sustainability
performance (Fig. 19.2).
To achieve a “Pass” rating, a building must meet minimum standards in critical
areas such as energy and water, with the requirements varying by building typology.
As the rating level increases, the mandatory criteria and percentage scores required
for each ranking become progressively broader.
Circularity implementation. In this study, the investigation of circularity imple-
mentation is conducted at the most granular rated level of BREEAM’s structure,
which is the level of individual issues. Each issue is examined based on specific
assessment criteria, and, as outlined in the introductory remarks, credits are awarded
or withheld depending on compliance with these criteria.
To identify the issues associated with circular economy-related strategies and prin-
ciples, as defined in the employed framework, a comprehensive review of the entire
BREEAM assessment structure was conducted. The identified issues are presented in
Tables 19.2 and 19.3, which show criteria directly associated with circular economy
principles and those that are indirectly related, respectively. The content of each issue,
including assessment criteria and compliance conditions, was thoroughly analysed
to determine the nature and type of association (direct or indirect).
Additionally, the tables provide information on the specific circular principles
and strategies that are reflected within each issue, along with estimations regarding

2 The numbers of the issues mentioned as being part of BREEAM’s environmental sections exclude

the ones that are not addressed as stand-alone issues in the context of the examined version of the
method. Furthermore, it is noted that if an issue is differentiated for two types of building uses (e.g.,
Ene2a and Ene2b), it is counted as being two individual items (in the previous example, Ene 2a and
Ene 2b are counted as two issues – and are treated as such in Tables 19.2 and 19.3).
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 555

Table 19.2 Issues which are directly3 associated with circularity (circular principles as reflected
in the employed framework)
Environmental Issue Association with circularity Level (site, material,
section (employed framework) design, construction,
management)
Management Man 02 Life cycle cost REDUCE primary materials and Material & design &
(Man) and service resources consumption (weaker management
life planning direct association, since this
principle is addressed through the
LCC planning and the service life
considerations)
Health and Hea 02 Indoor air REDUCE: doing more with the Site & design
wellbeing quality same system (flexibility and
(Hea) adaptability of ventilation system
is considered) is promoted
RETHINK existing building
ventilation strategy is designed to
be flexible and adaptable to
potential building occupant needs
and climatic scenarios
Hea 04 Thermal REDUCE: doing more with the Design
comfort same system (adaptability to a
projected climate change scenario
is considered) is promoted
REFURBISH: in case that the
response to the projected climate
change scenario is not
satisfactory, then adaptation
potential using passive strategies
must be demonstrated for the
related credit to be awarded
RETHINK existing design
solutions in order to be easily
adapted in the future
Energy (Ene) Ene 01 Reduction of REDUCE consumption of energy Design
energy use for operation (resources) (site, material and
and carbon management issues
emissions are involved)
Ene 03 External REFUSE external lighting Design &
lighting RETHINK existing design and management
management approach of external
lighting in order to prevent
operation during daylight hours
(continued)

3 Direct association: direct reference/description in the intent, indicator, benchmarks, and generally, in
the structure and content of the criterion.
556 C. Giarma et al.

Table 19.2 (continued)

Environmental Issue Association with circularity Level (site, material,
section (employed framework) design, construction,
management)
Ene 04 Low carbon REDUCE non-renewable energy Design
design consumption (passive design and
low or zero carbon technologies)
Ene 05 Energy REDUCE consumption of energy Materials &
efficient cold (resources) design &
storage management
Ene 06 Energy REDUCE consumption of energy Design &
efficient (resources) management (in
transportation terms of how the
systems transportation
systems are fitted
and work)
Ene 07 Energy REDUCE consumption of energy Design &
efficient (resources) management
laboratory
systems
Ene 08 Energy REDUCE consumption of energy Materials (in the
efficient (resources) sense of appliances/
equipment systems) & design
Trasport (Tra) Tra 01 Public REFUSE private transport use Site & design
transport (objective as a whole)
accessibility REDUCE: refusing, in
consequence reduce
transport-related pollution and
emissions
Tra 03a Alternative RETHINK: car sharing is Site & design
modes of considered in the context of one
transport option
REDUCE: more indirectly
associated in comparison to the
other elements of the 10-Rs; the
use of high carbon transport
modes and individual journeys is
considered in the objective as a
whole
REFUSE using previous
approach of using inefficient
modes of transport
(continued)
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 557

Table 19.2 (continued)

Environmental Issue Association with circularity Level (site, material,
section (employed framework) design, construction,
management)
Tra 03b Alternative RETHINK: car sharing is Site & design
modes of considered in the context of one
transport option
REDUCE: more indirectly
associated in comparison to the
other elements of the 10-Rs; the
use of high carbon transport
modes and individual journeys is
considered in the objective as a
whole
REFUSE using previous
approach of using inefficient
modes of transport
Water (Wat) Wat 01 Water REDUCE: water consumption Design &
consumption (use of efficient systems is also management
considered), consuming fewer (some site-related
water resources aspects are also
RECYCLE & REUSE: taken into
greywater/ rainwater (the consideration)
existence of such systems is
taken into consideration)-REUSE
water as a “product”
RETHINK: multifunctional
systems for efficient water
consumption
Wat 03 Water leak REPAIR: as a result of detecting Design &
detection and problems management
prevention REDUCE: water consumption by
preventing leaks
Wat 04 Water REDUCE: water consumption Design
efficient (use of efficient systems is also
equipment considered)
(continued)
558 C. Giarma et al.

Table 19.2 (continued)

Environmental Issue Association with circularity Level (site, material,
section (employed framework) design, construction,
management)
Materials Mat 01 Life cycle This issue is concerned with the Material & design
(Mat) impacts use of LCA on the project, and
the robustness of the method or
tools used. At present the
performance is not benchmarked
As such:
RETHINK & REDUCE, since
the reliable consideration of the
life cycle impact is promoted.
Furthermore, performance of
LCA studies may lead to the
examination of more alternatives
and the adoption of
environmentally friendly
solutions
REDUCE: by calculating life
cycle impact, using data from the
EPDs and conducting this
analysis, environmental
emissions-related impacts could
be reduced
Mat 05 Designing for REDUCE raw materials Material & design
durability and consumption (resilient and
resilience durable structures requiring
fewer repairs): resilience and
(raw materials consumption) -
durability; frequent repairs
Mat 06 Material RETHINK: increase of materials’ Material & design
efficiency and their use’s efficiency is (some
promoted management-related
REDUCE: increase of materials issues are taken into
efficiency, reduce impacts and consideration)
waste and, use of primary
materials
REUSE: of existing materials is
considered
RECYCLE: the procurement of
materials with higher levels of
recycled content is included
among the potential practices for
increased efficiency in use of
recycled content
(continued)
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 559

Table 19.2 (continued)

Environmental Issue Association with circularity Level (site, material,
section (employed framework) design, construction,
management)
Waste (Wst) Wst 01 Construction REDUCE: construction waste Material,
waste reduction and consuming fewer construction &
management materials management
REUSE & RECYCLE:
construction waste and key
refurbishment and demolition
materials
RECOVER of waste materials is
considered
Wst 02 Recycled RECYCLE: aggregates Material
aggregates REPURPOSE of secondary
aggregates
REDUCE: raw materials
consumption and primary sources
(as a consequence of the above)
Wst 03a Operational RECYCLE: the enabling and Design &
waste facilitation of operational waste management (some
recycling is considered material-related
RETHINK: old approaches to the issues are also taken
space for the provision of into consideration)
recycling-related facilities and
spaces
Wst 03b Operational RECYCLE: the enabling and Design &
waste facilitation of operational waste management (some
(residential recycling is considered material-related and
only) RETHINK old approaches to the urban site-related
space for the provision of issues are also taken
recycling-related facilities and into consideration)
spaces
Wst 04 Speculative REDUCE the unnecessary waste Material
finishes of materials and refurbish in
future
(continued)
560 C. Giarma et al.

Table 19.2 (continued)

Environmental Issue Association with circularity Level (site, material,
section (employed framework) design, construction,
management)
Wst 05 Adaptation to REDUCE resources consumption Design
climate (reduced need for repair and
change reconfiguration as structural and
fabric resilience is under
consideration, with adaptation to
climate change being also
included as an exemplary credit)
RETHINK: the previous design
approach by conducting a climate
change adaptation strategy, as
one of the principles of circular
construction, appraisal for
structural and fabric resilience by
the end of Concept Design
Wst 06 Functional REDUCE resources consumption Material, design &
adaptability for future adaptations and change management (in the
of use (adaptability is under sense of preparing a
consideration) functional
REFURBISH as the facilitation adaptation strategy
of an “update” of the building study)
uses in the context of its
adaptability
RETHINK: the previous design
approach by introducing
functional adaptation measures,
as one of the principles of
circular construction, through the
finalisation of the technical
design
Land use and LE 01 Site selection REUSE land—as a consequence: Site
ecology (LE) REDUCE the consumption
(“occupation”) of previously
unoccupied land
REUSE/REPURPOSE in terms
of brownfields
REFURBISH (in the sense of
restoring) contaminated land

the level at which these associations occur (e.g., site, material, design, construc-
tion, management). It is important to note that general circularity principles, such as
adaptability and resilience, have also been considered in this analysis, even though
they are not explicitly mentioned in the 10-R framework used. Where applicable,
these general principles were correlated with one or more of the 10 strategies in the
framework, and the related information is included in the tables.
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 561

Table 19.3 Issues which are indirectly4 associated with circularity (circular principles as reflected
in the employed framework)
Environmental Issue Association with circularity Level (site,
section (employed framework) material,
design,
construction,
management)
Management Man 03 Responsible REDUCE: Environmental Site, material,
(Man) construction impacts as result of monitoring design,
practices site impacts like waste or water construction &
management
Man 05 Aftercare REDUCE: water and energy Design &
consumption (setting targets for management
those items in the context of the
exemplary level criteria)
RETHINK: by increasing
multifunctionality, existing
approach and start providing
aftercare to ensure the building
operates and adapts for future
needs
Health and Hea 09 Water quality REDUCE water contamination by Design &
wellbeing increasing efficiency in product or management
(Hea) system manufacture—e.g.,
greywater treatment at the
building scale
Energy (Ene) Ene 02a Energy REDUCE: energy consumption Management
monitoring by monitoring energy input and
output (energy cycling process)
Ene 02b Energy REDUCE: energy consumption Management
monitoring by monitoring energy input and
output (energy cycling process)
Ene 10 Flexible REDUCE: energy consumption Design &
demand side reduction due to flexible demand management
response side response capability for
electricity, which is promoted.
(adaptability/flexibility aspect
issue)
Trasport (Tra) Tra 02 Proximity to REDUCE transport use and as Site & design
amenities result its impacts (objective as a
whole), the need to access
amenities elsewhere
RETHINK the space in the
neighbourhood
(continued)

4 Indirect association: no reference/description in the intent, indicator, benchmarks, and generally,

in the structure and content of the criterion. However, a clear connection of the following type can
be seen: if this criterion is met, then, as a consequence, a circularity principle will be served.
562 C. Giarma et al.

Table 19.3 (continued)

Environmental Issue Association with circularity Level (site,
section (employed framework) material,
design,
construction,
management)
Tra 05 Travel plan REDUCE reliance on and, Site & design
therefore, use of forms of travel
and transportation that have the
highest environmental impact
(objective as a whole)
RETHINK existing travel plan
issues
Tra 06 Home office REDUCE/REFUSE Site & design
transportation use to and from
work as result its negative impacts
(objective as a whole)
Water (Wat) Wat 02 Water REDUCE water consumption by Management
monitoring monitoring water input and output
Pollution (Pol) Pol 03 Surface RETHINK: multifunctionality of Site & design
water run-off green roofs
REDUCE resources consumption
in the sense of promoting flood
resilience

As with all the methods examined in this study, the results presented reflect the
estimations and opinions of the sub-groups that worked on them. The determination
of whether an association was direct or indirect was the outcome of discussions
among sub-group members. These discussions led to a consensus on each issue;
in cases where disagreements persisted, the majority opinion was recorded. The
associations listed in the relevant columns of the tables indicate the principles that at
least one sub-group member identified as being reflected in the respective BREEAM
criteria.
The BREEAM study was conducted by a sub-group consisting of three researchers
working on this chapter. As with the other methods examined, the researchers’
opinions exhibited varying degrees of agreement and divergence. This variability
is expected, given the inherent subjectivity in interpreting and estimating whether
certain issues are more closely related to sustainability or circularity.
Based on the results shown in Tables 19.2 and 19.3, a key conclusion is that
all the major environmental sections of the BREEAM method are represented to
some extent, although with varying degrees of emphasis. It is important to note that
the Innovation is neither included in Table 19.4 nor in the preceding analysis. This
exclusion is due to the fact that credits in the Innovation section are awarded either
for exemplary performance in certain issues (as defined in the BREEAM manual [8])
or when a “particular building technology or feature, design, construction method, or
process” [8], p. 35, is recognised as innovative. In the first case, these associations are
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 563

considered within the context of the respective issues, while the second case cannot
be easily categorised or included in this type of analysis.
Regarding the nine environmental sections examined, it is evident that some are
more strongly represented in Tables 19.2 and 19.3 than others. Specifically, direct
associations were identified for all issues (seven out of seven) in the Waste environ-
mental section. Another strongly represented environmental section is Water, where
three out of four issues have direct associations, with the remaining issue being
indirectly related to the employed circular economy framework. The Energy section
presents a similar image, with seven directly and three indirectly associated issues
among the ten ones that are included in it. The Transport section also shows a signif-
icant connection to circularity, with three direct and three indirect associations out
of a total of seven issues. The Materials section is similarly well-represented, with
three of its four issues included in Table 19.2.
In contrast, Health and Well-being section and the Management section are less
represented in Table 19.2, with only two out of nine and one out of five issues, respec-
tively, showing direct associations. The same pattern is observed in Table 19.3, where
only one of the nine Health and Well-being issues and two of the five Management
issues are indirectly related to circularity. The Land Use and Ecology section is repre-
sented by one issue in Table 19.2, while the Pollution section shows even weaker
representation, with only one indirect association identified.
Overall, direct associations outnumber indirect ones. However, it is important to
remember that BREEAM uses weighted scores, meaning that some issues contribute
more to the final score than others. For instance, the fact that three out of nine Health
and Well-being issues are associated with circularity does not imply that one-third
of the available credits in this section are linked to circular principles or strategies.
Moreover, within any given issue, only a portion of the available credits may be
related to circularity. Additionally, each environmental section has its own relative
weighting, which affects its contribution to the final score.
The results in Tables 19.2 and 19.3 also indicate that certain strategies and
principles are more strongly represented than others in the identified associations.
For example, the “Reduce” principle appears frequently across different sections.
“Rethink” is also commonly found in both tables, while “Recycle” and “Reuse” are
strongly represented among the direct associations.
All levels examined (site, material, design, construction, management) appear
in Tables 19.2 and 19.3, with some levels being more frequently encountered than
others. It is expected that the design level is the most frequently referenced, given
that the examined BREEAM method primarily addresses new constructions.

19.3.3 DGNB

Introductory remarks. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DGNB)

System is a buildings’ environmental performance assessment system developed by
the German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB in German). The rating system was
Table 19.4 Criteria which are directly5 associated with circularity (circular principles as reflected in the employed framework)
564

Topic Criteria group Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site,
material,
design,
construction,
management)
Environmental ENV1-Effects on the ENV1.1 Building life REUSE: reusing components or structural elements is taken Material &
quality (ENV) global and local cycle into consideration (indicator 3) design &
environment assessment REDUCE: resources consumption (energy, materials) is construction
considered (indicator 3)
RECYCLE & RECOVER: taken into consideration within
LCA (indicator 3)
REPAIR: more indirect association in comparison to the other
3, detected in the fact that service-life considerations are
included in LCA
ENV1.3 Sustainable REDUCE the primary raw materials extraction (indicator 2) Material
resource RECYCLE: for secondary raw materials use (indicator 2)
extraction
ENV2-Resource ENV2.2 Potable water REDUCE waste water production and potable water Site & design
consumption and waste demand and consumption (indicator 1)
generation wastewater RECYCLE greywater & rainwater (indicator 1)
volume
ENV2.3 Land use REPURPOSE/REUSE land and REDUCE “consumption” of Site & design
free land (indicator 1)
REPAIR land in case of contamination (CE bonus)
(continued)

5Direct association: direct reference/description in the intent, indicator, benchmarks, and generally, in the structure and content of the criterion. Also, CE
association declared in the manual or CE bonus available.
C. Giarma et al.
Table 19.4 (continued)
Topic Criteria group Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site,
material,
design,
construction,
management)
Economic ECO1-Life cycle costs ECO1.1 Life cycle cost REUSE of building components is taken into consideration (CE Material &
quality (ECO) bonus) design &
RECYCLE & RECOVER taken into consideration (CE bonus) management
REPAIR & REDUCE: more indirect association in comparison
to the other 3 detected in the fact that service-life
considerations are taken into consideration in LCC analysis
ECO2-Economic ECO2.1 Flexibility and REDUCE: doing more with the same building (all indicators) Design
development adaptability RETHINK: high intensity of use (CE bonus),
REUSE & REPURPOSE via the flexibility and adaptability
promotion (all indicators)
ECO2.2 Commercial RETHINK: contribution to circular economy by at least one Design &
viability party (CE bonus) management
note: the association of this criterion with circular economy is
not considered to be as clear as in the other cases; its inclusion
in this table is established by the fact that within its framework,
a CE bonus is offered
(continued)
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International …
565
Table 19.4 (continued)
566

Topic Criteria group Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site,
material,
design,
construction,
management)
Technical TEC1-Technical quality TEC1.4 Use and REDUCE: promoting the reduction of non-renewable energy Design &
quality (TEC) integration of consumption by the integration of passive systems (indicators management
building 1,2,4 and CE bonusses)
technology REPAIR: All components of the technical facilities are easily
accessible for repair. The technical facilities have a sufficient
number of sufficiently large mounting openings, doors and
corridors to minimise unnecessary interaction with materials
during repair or maintenance
REFURBISH: promoting the accessibility of the building
technologies (indicator 3)
TEC1.6 Ease of REDUCE the primary resources required (CE Bonus 1.2-and Materials &
recovery and general aim of the criterion) design
recycling REUSE of building components taken into consideration (CE
bonus 1.3),
RECYCLE: easy to recycle materials (indicator 1),
REFUSE: avoiding use of building components (CE bonus 1.3),
RECOVER: the CE bonus promotes reuse and recovery of
materials. The criteria assess the ability of building structures to
be easily recoverable - ease of disassembly and ease of
separation of building components in terms of max. possible
material content (indicator 2)
(continued)
C. Giarma et al.
Table 19.4 (continued)
Topic Criteria group Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site,
material,
design,
construction,
management)
TEC3.1 Mobility REFUSE: refuse to use inefficient mobility infrastructure and Site & design
infrastructure old approaches - instead use bicycles, electric vehicles & management
(indicator 1,3); refuse to use personal vehicles - instead use the
concept of sharing. (CE bonus 2.1)
RETHINK: mobility sharing is promoted (CE bonus 2.1)
REDUCE: more indirect association in comparison to the
previous ones, as resources consumption may be achieved, e.g.
with the provision of bicycle parking facilities (indicators 1–4,
taking into account the references in Innovation area)
Process quality PRO1-Technical quality PRO1.4 Sustainability REUSE & REPURPOSE & RECYCLE: not excluding and or Material &
(PRO) aspects in enhancing at the tender phase the use and or reuse of recycled management
tender phase and or secondary materials for specific applications is promoted
(CE bonus 1.2)
PRO2-Construction PRO2.1 Construction REDUCE the amount of generated waste (indicator 4, CE Site &
quality assurance site / bonus 4.4.) management
construction
process
Site quality SITE1-Site quality SITE1.4 Access to RETHINK the space and its possible uses (CE bonus) Site & design
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International …

(SITE) amenities note: the association of this criterion with circular economy is
not considered to be as clear as in the other cases; its inclusion
in this table is established by the fact that within its framework,
a CE bonus is offered
567
568 C. Giarma et al.

initially launched in 2008 [4, 15], with its first version addressing the sustainability
assessment of new administrative and office buildings in Germany. The certification
scheme was used for the first time in the market in 2009 [15]. In the following years,
the constantly evolving method expanded to involve additional building uses and life-
cycle stages. Currently, schemes / differentiated versions of the method are available
for buildings of a plethora of uses, with regard to different stages of their lifecycle,
and to areas of application of more specific interest (e.g. “Interiors”) are available.
A DGNB system for the evaluation of built environment entities at larger scales
(districts) has also been developed, encompassing schemes for business districts,
event areas, commercial areas, industrial sites, urban districts and other cases (resorts
and vertical cities) [15]. DGNB method can be applied also outside Germany (adap-
tation to local conditions, employment of international standards). The application
of the method across Europe, but also in other continents keeps increasing.
In this review, DGNB System for new buildings version 2020 (international)
[14] is examined. The method addresses various building uses (office, education,
residential, hotel, consumer market, shopping centre, department store, logistics,
production, assembly buildings) and has an international scope of application. The
aspects of the building that are evaluated (and, consequently, the assessment criteria)
are classified into six major topics: (i) Environmental Quality (including six criteria),
(ii) Economic Quality (incl. three criteria), (iii) Sociocultural and functional Quality
(incl. eight criteria), (iv) Technical Quality (incl. eight criteria), (v) Process Quality
(incl. nine criteria) and (vi) Site Quality (incl. four criteria). Within each one of those
topics, the criteria are organised into criteria groups. Each criterion includes a set
of indicators, which form the basis for its assessment. Each indicator is associated
with a maximum number of available points, which are awarded fully, partially
or not at all to the assessed building, depending on whether and to which degree
this building complies with the requirements and or conditions implemented in the
examined indicator’s structure and content. The maximum number of available points
accompanying each indicator may differ for the various building uses. The score of
each criterion is derived based on the points awarded to the building in the context of
the indicators integrated in this criterion. Regarding the maximum number of points
available to be awarded within each criterion, 100 is a key value; for some criteria
100 points can be achieved, for others more than 100 can be achieved but only 100
can be awarded, while in the context of several criteria additional (in regard to 100)
bonus points can be “obtained” by the building. Based on the points achieved in the
context of each criterion and its weighting factor,6 the scores of the higher levels of the
method’s structure are calculated. Taking into consideration the derived performance
indices and the relative weightings of the six major topics (Environmental Quality:
22,5%; Economic Quality: 22,5%; Sociocultural and Functional Quality: 22,5%;
Technical Quality: 15%; Process Quality: 12,5% and Site Quality: 5%), an overall
performance score is calculated (total performance index). This overall performance

6 Each criterion is accompanied by a weighting factor, which is associated with its share in the total
score. The value of this weighting factor remains the same across all building uses for some criteria,
while for others some differentiations appear for specific uses.
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 569

Fig. 19.3 Levels of certification (ranking classes) of buildings assessed with the application of
DGNB System (adapted from [13, 14])

score in combination with the individual performance indices calculated for the six
major topics, all expressed as percentages, result in the classification of the buildings
into a ranking level (platinum, gold or silver) as depicted in Fig. 19.3.
It is noted that there are a few performance requirements within certain criteria
that must be met by the building in order for the assessment as a whole to be carried
out.
Circularity implementation. The investigation of the circularity implementation
is taking place at the level of criteria, i.e. the lowest rated level of the method’s
structure—where the evaluation takes place via the examined indicators for each
criterion).
The criteria integrated in DGNB’s assessment structure, which are additionally
associated with the circular economy-related strategies/principles that are outlined in
the employed framework, are listed in Tables 19.4 and 19.5. Specifically, Table 19.4
includes the directly associated criteria, while in Table 19.5. the indirectly related
ones are shown. The additional information appearing in those tables is of the same
types as the ones analytically explained for the respective tables (Tables 19.2 and 19.3)
appearing in BREEAM’s analysis. Following a uniform methodological approach
for all the examined methods, the nature of the association is established based on the
whole content of each criterion (indicators, benchmarks, aim, etc.) and the consid-
eration of general circularity principles (adaptability, resilience, etc.) has also been
attempted. In total, the information appearing in the following tables (Tables 19.4
and 19.5) reflects the analysis conducted by the sub-group of researchers involved
in it, via the process described for BREEAM.
The sub-group working on DGNB consisted of four members. The fact that the
opinions expressed by those researchers were characterised by differences and simi-
larities of a smaller or larger degree, since subjectivity was inherent in the interpre-
tations and the attempted estimations, with several issues lying in the limit between
being considered as “sustainability-related” rather than “circularity-related” or vice
versa. Specifically, for DGNB, the detection of the criteria association was facili-
tated by the fact that certain of them are accompanied by circular economy bonuses
in the structure of the method itself. In those cases, a direct association with circular
economy and, consequently, with one or more of the principles outlined in the
employed framework is de facto established. However, it has to be pointed out that
570 C. Giarma et al.

Table 19.5 Criteria which are indirectly7 associated with circularity (circular principles as
reflected in the employed framework)
Topic Criteria group Criterion Association with Level (site,
circularity (employed material,
framework) design,
construction,
management)
Process PRO1-Technical PRO1.5 Documentation REPAIR/REFURBISH: Management
quality quality for sustainable prolonging the lifespan of
(PRO) management the building or of specific
elements (indicator 1.1)
PRO2- PRO2.2 Quality REDUCE/RECYCLE: Site& design
Construction assurance of with regard to the &
quality the requirement lists on the construction
assurance construction construction site fulfilling &
ENV1.3 criteria (indicator management
3.1)
PRO2.5 FM-compliant REDUCE energy Management
planning consumption for
buildings’ future operation
Site SITE1-Site SITE Local Resilience is under Site & design
quality quality 1.1 environment consideration; as such, &
(SITE) REDUCE (resources management
consumption for
retrofitting),
REUSE (facilities /
buildings that have already
been impacted by extreme
events),
REFURBISH (instead of
demolishing constructions
beyond repair) and
RETHINK (the old design
approaches and
considering adaptability
strategies, as one of the
main circular principles,
regarding the natural
effects),
can be referred to

the associations detected in this study are not limited to the criteria, in the context
of which circular economy bonuses are offered.
One of the basic observations resulting from Tables 19.4 and 19.5 is that the vast
majority of the criteria in DGNB are estimated to be directly related to the exam-
ined principles. This is partly due to the fact that circular economy strategies and

7 Indirect association: no reference/description in the intent, indicator, benchmarks, and generally,

in the structure and content of the criterion. However, a clear connection of the following type can
be seen: if this criterion is met, then, as a consequence, a circularity principle will be served.
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 571

requirements are explicitly dealt with and considered in this assessment method.
Furthermore, it is noted that several of the criteria (four out of six) belonging to the
Environmental Quality topic and all of the criteria constituting Economic Quality
are found to be directly associated with circularity. This is not the case for Sociocul-
tural and Functional Quality (no associations were identified), while three out of the
eight criteria included in Technical Quality are determined to be characterised by
direct relationship with the employed circular economy framework. Process Quality
is also represented in Tables 19.4 and 19.5 (two of the nine criteria of this topic
are estimated to present direct associations, with additional three ones being charac-
terised by indirect relationships), with Site Quality also participating with two out of
its four criteria. At this point, it has to be mentioned that the presented numbers do
not account for an exact outline of the contribution of the estimated to be associated
criteria to the building’s total score; indeed, each criterion in DGNB is accompanied
by a relevance factor (i.e. a type of weighting) varying for the different building
uses and, furthermore, a relative weight is set by the method for each topic (see
“Introductory remarks” for DGNB).
Additionally, the results shown in the tables above indicate that certain principles
seem to be more frequently encountered than others in the identified associations. For
example, “Reduce” appears in almost all associations, with “Reuse” and “Recycle”
having a considerable impact as well. Of course, other principles/strategies are also
reflected in the provided estimations.
Finally, more than one level (site, material, design, construction, management)
seem to be aimed at by the vast majority of the criteria presenting a kind of association
with circular economy.

19.3.4 LEED

Introductory remarks. In 1998, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

(LEED) was introduced by the US Green Building Council, as a pilot programme and
became an official rating system in 2000. LEED certification serves as a framework
for promoting healthy, highly efficient, and cost-saving green buildings, which deliver
various environmental, social, and governance benefits. Recognised globally as a
symbol of sustainability achievement, LEED certification is supported by a dedicated
network of organisations and individuals driving market transformation [44].
LEED-certified buildings can play a key role in addressing climate change,
achieving environmental, social and governance (ESG) goals, promoting resilience,
and fostering equitable communities. Unlike a narrow focus on specific building
elements like energy, water, or health, LEED takes a holistic approach, considering
all essential aspects that contribute to creating better buildings [42].
The objective of LEED is to construct superior buildings that:
• Mitigate the impact on global climate change
• Enhance the well-being of individuals
572 C. Giarma et al.

• Safeguard and restore water resources

• Preserve and enrich biodiversity and ecosystem services
• Promote sustainable and regenerative material cycles
• Improve the quality of life for communities
Within the LEED framework, 35% of credits are dedicated to climate change,
20% directly impact human health, 15% focus on water resources, 10% address
biodiversity, 10% contribute to the green economy, and 5% impact community and
natural resources. In LEED v4.1 Building Design and Construction (the version
examined in this report [43]) the majority of credits revolve around operational and
embodied carbon considerations. Additionally, LEED categories can contribute to
the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations [42].
The examined performance aspects by the rating systems are divided into cate-
gories, which vary depending on the rating system. Each category has prerequi-
sites, that are mandatory, and credits. Credits and prerequisites constitute the lowest
autonomous scored level of the method’s structure. To obtain LEED certification, a
project accumulates points by meeting prerequisites and credits related to carbon,
energy, water, waste, transportation, materials, health, and indoor environmental
quality. These projects undergo a thorough verification and review process conducted
by the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI), which assigns points based on
their performance. The number of points attained determines the level of LEED
certification awarded: Certified (40–49 points), Silver (50–59 points), Gold (60–79
points), and Platinum (80 + points) [42]. Figure 19.4 illustrates the levels of LEED
certification.
Circularity implementation. As mentioned previously, to evaluate the relation-
ship of circularity and the LEED certification, the Building Design and Construction
(BD + C) rating system was chosen as the baseline for evaluation. All categories,
credits, and prerequisites from BD + C were considered in the analysis.
The circular economy-related strategies and principles, along with their asso-
ciated credits and prerequisites, are detailed in Tables 19.6 and 19.7. Table 19.6
outlines the directly related credits and prerequisites, while Table 19.7 covers the
indirectly related ones. The comprehensive content of each credit and prerequisite,
including intent, assessment criteria, and compliance conditions, serves as the basis
for identifying the nature and type of association (direct or indirect). Tables 19.6 and
19.7 also provide information on the specific principles/strategies associated with
each credit/prerequisite, along with estimations of the corresponding category (Inte-
grative Process, Location and Transportation, Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency,

Fig. 19.4 Levels of LEED certification (adapted from [42])

19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 573

Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality,

and Innovation) linked to this association. General circularity principles such as
adaptability and resilience have been considered, although not explicitly addressed
by the employed 10-R framework. The taken approach involves correlating these
general principles with one or more of the 10 strategies employed in the framework,
and this information is presented in the tables for reference.
The results presented in the following tables indicate the estimations and opinions
of the sub-group working on LEED. The process followed for the formulation of the
listed results is the same as the one adopted for BREEAM and DGNB, including the
way the associations presented in Tables 19.6 and 19.7 were identified.
The LEED sub-group comprised five members who expressed a range of opinions,
varying in degree of similarity and difference. Notably, for LEED, the identification
of circular economy association was facilitated by the presence of circular economy
criteria and indicators accompanying certain credits/prerequisites. This established
a direct link between circular economy and one or more principles outlined in the
employed framework.
An important observation from Tables 19.6 and 19.7 is that approximately one-
third of LEED credits/prerequisites are estimated to be directly related to the exam-
ined principles. However, some categories primarily address sustainability concerns
rather than circular economy strategies and requirements. For instance, the Indoor
Environmental Quality category focuses mainly on user comfort, rather than the
circularity of resources. This is the reason why only one of its 12 credits/prerequisites
is estimated to present an association (in fact an indirect association) with the
employed framework. Sustainable Sites category follows, accounting for five credits/
prerequisites estimated to present some kind of association (among which two are
directly related and three indirectly) out of the 13 examined ones. In this cate-
gory most of the concerns addressed are related to sustainability and site inherit
characteristics.
On the other hand, the two categories presenting the highest number of credits/
prerequisites directly related to the circularity framework, accounting for six credits/
prerequisites each, are (i) Materials and (ii) Water Efficiency. In the case of Mate-
rials category, a total of 11 credits/prerequisites are available in the rating system,
six of which are found to be directly related to circularity. This is due to the fact
that those credits/prerequisites are based on CE principles, like Design for Flexi-
bility, Construction and Demolition Waste Management, Building Life-Cycle Impact
Reduction, and so on. “Rethink”, “Reduce”, and “Recycle” are the most associ-
ated principles/strategies with those credits/ prerequisites. It is important to remark
that those identified as non-related in Materials category are credits specifically for
healthcare facilities, not for the other typology of buildings. In regard to the Water
Efficiency category, six of the total seven available credits/ prerequisites are esti-
mated to be directly associated. “Reduce” is the principle that appears in all of the
credits/prerequisites, once the main aim of the category is water reduction.
Location and Transportation as well as Energy and Atmosphere categories are
estimated to be mostly related to the “Reduce” principle. Indirect associations were
identified for five out of the existing eight credits/prerequisites in Location and
574 C. Giarma et al.

Table 19.6 Credits/prerequisites which are directly8 associated with circularity (circular principles
as reflected in the employed framework)
Category Credit Association with circularity (employed Level (site,
or prerequisite framework) material,
design,
construction,
management)
Integrative Integrative RETHINK: in terms maximising Site & design
Process (IP) project planning opportunities for integrated design.
and design Utilising innovative approaches and
techniques
REDUCE: IPPD can contribute to
circularity by encouraging stakeholders to
consider resource efficiency from the early
planning stages of a project through
optimising the use of materials, energy, and
other resources and cost-effective adoption
of green design and construction strategies
REUSE: by emphasising the importance of
reusing materials and products whenever
possible
REFURBISH & REMANUFACTURE:
incorporate to circularity by designing
products or systems that are easy to
maintain, upgrade, or repair
RECYCLE: promote recycling as a way to
keep materials and resources in circulation
Integrative RETHINK: Utilising innovative Site & design
process approaches and techniques
REDUCE: the integrative process
encourages all stakeholders including
architects, engineers, and builders to work
together to consult and design buildings in
the early design stages to implement
resource-efficiency which can lead to
reducing the overall use of materials,
energy, and water, consequently
minimising resource consumption
REUSE: Under this step, it is important to
make the necessary integration according
to Reuse principles
(continued)

8 Direct association: direct reference/description in the intent, indicator, benchmarks, and generally,
in the structure and content of the criterion.
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 575

Table 19.6 (continued)

Category Credit Association with circularity (employed Level (site,
or prerequisite framework) material,
design,
construction,
management)
Sustainable Rainwater REUSE & RECYCLE: water as a Site & design
Sites (SS) management “product”, apply rainwater management
strategies such as using rainwater
harvesting technologies can lead to water
reuse and increase water efficiency
REDUCE: runoff volume, flooding
downstream
RECOVER & REPAIR: Collecting
rainwater, keeping it for a certain period of
time for the necessary sanitation process,
and then using it is important for recovery
& repair
Joint use of RETHINK: rethink of traditional practices, Site & design
facilities emphasising the efficient use of resources, &
space, and infrastructure and promoting management
sharing as a concept
REDUCE: the need for multiple entities to
build and maintain separate infrastructure,
such as buildings, utilities, and
transportation systems, and as a result -
resource consumption, energy use, and
land use
Water Outdoor water RETHINK: multifunctional systems for Site & design
Efficiency use reduction efficient water consumption, develop &
(WE) landscape design strategies for harvesting management
and using rain water for non-potable
purposes
REDUCE water consumption and outdoor
potable water
REUSE: use captured rainwater or
recycled water for irrigation purposes
RECYCLE: recycle water
Indoor water use RETHINK: developing design strategies Design &
reduction for optimising and reduce water management
consumption
REDUCE: water consumption
REUSE: use captured rainwater/ or
recycled water for non-potable uses
RECYCLE: recycle water
Building-Level RETHINK & REDUCE: metering Design &
water metering provides an index that can help to predict management
and identify management strategies to
reduce water consumption in the future
(continued)
576 C. Giarma et al.

Table 19.6 (continued)

Category Credit Association with circularity (employed Level (site,
or prerequisite framework) material,
design,
construction,
management)
Outdoor water RETHINK: multifunctional systems for Site & design
use Reduction efficient water consumption, develop &
landscape design strategies for harvesting management
and using rain water for non-potable
purposes
REDUCE water consumption and outdoor
potable water
REUSE: use captured rainwater or
recycled water for irrigation purposes
RECYCLE: recycle water
Indoor water use REDUCE: water consumption Design &
reduction REFUSE: using inefficient equipment management
(kitchen, washing mashines) which causes
bigger water consumption
Optimize process RETHINK: design strategies to reduce Design &
Water Use water consumption management
REDUCE water consumption
REUSE: installing water treatment
facilities to circulate indoor wastewater,
use alternative water for cooling
RECYCLE: recycle water
Water metering RETHINK & REDUCE: metering Design &
provides an index that can help to predict management
and identify management strategies to
reduce water consumption in the future
Energy and Minimum energy RETHINK & REDUCE: adopting design Design &
Atmosphere performance strategies to optimise and reduce energy management
(EA) consumption
Optimize energy RETHINK & REDUCE: adopting design Design &
performance strategies to optimise and reduce energy management
consumption and resources, as a result
environmental and economic harms
associated with excessive energy use and
greenhouse gas emissions
Renewable RETHINK: adopting strategies for Site & design
energy transition to renewable & clean energy &
sources management
REDUCE fossil fuel consumption, GHG
emission & carbon footprint
(continued)
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 577

Table 19.6 (continued)

Category Credit Association with circularity (employed Level (site,
or prerequisite framework) material,
design,
construction,
management)
Materials and Storage and RECYCLE: promote recycling practices Design &
Resources collection of by providing dedicated areas for collection management
(MR) recyclables and storage of recyclable materials
REDUCE: waste storage and collection
can lead to a reduction in the demand for
new materials
REMANUFACTURE: by adopting these
strategies, valuable materials can be
Remanufactured
Building RETHINK: by using innovative and Material &
Life-Cycle eco-friendly design principles and design &
impact reduction encouraging adaptive reuse construction
REDUCE: reduce the environmental
impact of construction and operation by
using fewer materials and resources
REUSE: adopting strategies for reusing
materials and components from existing
buildings
RECYCLE: encourage recycling of
construction materials, such as concrete,
steel, and wood
Sourcing of raw REFUSE: by encouraging and supporting Material &
materials products and materials from responsible design &
sources, which provides materials with construction
lower environmental impact. And by
refusing irresponsible sources
RETHINK: design strategies, products and
materials. And selecting materials that are
easier to disassemble, repair, or recycle
REDUCE: responsible sourcing
contributes to circularity by promoting the
closed-loop use of materials and reducing
the demand for new raw materials
REUSE: reused materials are encouraged
RECYCLE: by encouraging the use of
materials/ products with recycled content
Material REFUSE: by preventing hazardous Material &
ingredients materials use design &
RETHINK: design strategies, products and construction
materials. By knowing information about
the product, it is assumed that this product
can last longer, not be harmful to users and
reduce the need to replace it
(continued)
578 C. Giarma et al.

Table 19.6 (continued)

Category Credit Association with circularity (employed Level (site,
or prerequisite framework) material,
design,
construction,
management)
Design for RETHINK/ REPURPOSE: by encouraging Material &
flexibility adaptive reuse, flexibility and adaptability, design &
and possibly reducing the repair needs construction
REDUCE: by implementing strategies to
increase building flexibility
Construction and RETHINK/ REPURPOSE: by applying Material &
demolition waste design strategies to use CDW design &
management REDUCE: by adopting waste management construction
strategies to reduce the generation of waste
REUSE/ RECYCLE: reusing and recycling
of demolition waste like metal, wood,
glass, etc

Transportation category, while seven out of 10 credits/prerequisites (in which three

are directly related and four indirectly) of Energy and Atmosphere category are
included in Tables 19.6 and 19.7.
It is important to note, that as the LEED system is based on points awarded under
the categories, and the number of possible points varies from credit to credit, the
number of associations -by itself- within the circularity framework does not neces-
sarily reflect the percentage of the available points that can be potentially achieved
in the context of those credits.
Furthermore, the results presented in the tables highlight that certain principles,
such as “Reduce” and “Rethink,” appear in nearly all associations, while “Reuse” and
“Recycle” also have a significant impact. Evidently, other principles and strategies
have been listed in the preceding tables as well, outlining almost the whole spectrum
of the considered framework.

19.3.5 Level(s)

Introductory remarks. The Level(s) framework is a comprehensive EU frame-

work developed to establish a common language towards sustainability assessment
in both new-built and renovation projects, with a particular focus on office and resi-
dential buildings. It is designed to align with the circular economy action plan and
incorporates a lifecycle approach from cradle to cradle to ensure long-term resource
efficiency. The framework also utilises a value and risk rating system to emphasise
the importance of sustainability. While the core sustainability indicators of Level(s)
primarily concentrate on the environmental performance of buildings throughout
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 579

Table 19.7 Credits/prerequisites which are indirectly9 associated with circularity (circular princi-
ples as reflected in the employed framework)
Category Credit Association with circularity (employed Level (site,
or Prerequisite framework) material, design,
construction,
management)
Location and LEED for REFUSE: reduce vehicle distance Site & design
Transportation neighborhood travelled, avoid development on
(LT) development inappropriate sites
location RETHINK: design strategies
REDUCE: encourage the reduction of
automobile usage, adopting
cost-effective strategies
Sensitive land RETHINK: by promoting compact, Site
protection mixed-use developments can reduce
urban sprawl, preserve open space, and
promoting efficient land use patterns
REUSE: redevelopment of previously
contaminated or underutilised areas
can promote urban revitalisation and
reusing existing infrastructure
High-priority REUSE/RECOVER: by encouraging Site
site and developments in Previously Developed
equitable Land and promoting the remediation
development of brownfields
REDUCE: undeveloped land use
(continued)

9 Indirect association: no reference/description in the intent, indicator, benchmarks, and generally,

in the structure and content of the criterion. However, a clear connection of the following type can
be seen: if this criterion is met, then, as a consequence, a circularity principle will be served.
580 C. Giarma et al.

Table 19.7 (continued)

Category Credit Association with circularity (employed Level (site,
or Prerequisite framework) material, design,
construction,
management)
Surrounding REFUSE: promoting the reduction of Site
density and vehicle distance travelled by
diverse uses encouraging development in areas with
infrastructure
RETHINK: design strategies
REDUCE the use of the automobile by
adopting cost-effective strategies
REUSE: by promoting existing
infrastructure. Higher urban density
can reduce the overall consumption of
land and resources per capita. Efficient
land use minimises the need for
transportation, lowers energy demand,
and reduces the environmental
footprint of urban areas
REUSE/ REPURPOSE: diverse urban
neighbourhoods often have older
buildings that can be repurposed or
adaptively reused for new functions
which can preserve existing structures
and reduce the need for new
construction
RECYCLE: urban areas with diverse
uses can support robust recycling
programs, allowing for the efficient
collection and recycling of materials
like paper, glass, and plastics
Access to REDUCE/ REFUSE: reduce car Site
quality transit dependency. Quality transit systems
are typically more energy-efficient
than private vehicles, which can lead to
resource recovery and reduced energy
consumption
REPAIR/ REFUSBISH: regular
maintenance and rehabilitation of
transit vehicles and infrastructure
extend their useful lifespan, allow for
the reuse of existing assets rather than
replacing them entirely, and reduce
waste
(continued)
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 581

Table 19.7 (continued)

Category Credit Association with circularity (employed Level (site,
or Prerequisite framework) material, design,
construction,
management)
Sustainable Protect or REUSE: Environmental Site Site
Sites (SS) restore habitat Assessment promotes the preservation
of natural site features like wetlands,
forests, and topography, which can be
considered as a form of reuse by
maintaining the ecological functions of
the site
Site master plan REUSE: by encouraging the Site & design
preservation and adaptive reuse of
existing natural and built features on
the site, such as trees, historic
structures, or infrastructures. It can
also reduce waste and conserve
resources
Tenant design REDUCE/ REPAIR: Development of Design &
and construction such plans, which include management
guidelines recommendations for maintenance,
description of design solutions -
prolong the life of materials and
building
Energy and Fundamental RETHINK: commissioning plan can Design &
Atmosphere commissioning implement strategies to extend construction &
(EA) and verification product’s life, and reduce management
material-water-energy consumption
REDUCE: the Operations and
Maintenance Plan could reduce
unnecessary repair/ refurbish for
equipment and plan maintenance
activities carefully
Building-level RETHINK/ REDUCE: by identifying Design &
energy metering opportunities for energy savings. management
Metering provides an index that can
help to predict and develop
management strategies to optimise
energy consumption in the future
Enhanced RETHINK: commissioning plan, Design &
commissioning strategies to extend product’s life construction &
management
(continued)
582 C. Giarma et al.

Table 19.7 (continued)

Category Credit Association with circularity (employed Level (site,
or Prerequisite framework) material, design,
construction,
management)
Advanced RETHINK/ REDUCE: by identifying Design &
energy metering opportunities for energy savings. management
Metering provides an index that can
help to predict and develop
management strategies to optimise
energy consumption in the future
Indoor Daylight RETHINK/ REDUCE: by applying Design
environmental design strategies to use more natural
Quality (EQ) light reduce energy consumption for
lighting

their lifecycle, the framework also encompasses aspects related to comfort, health,
and lifecycle costs.
By adopting six macro-objectives, Level(s) translates them into 16 measuring
indicators that contribute to key target areas set by the EU, such as energy effi-
ciency, resource consumption, waste generation, water usage, indoor comfort and
cost and risk assessments. This holistic approach allows the framework to provide
building performance reports on individual aspects accompanying a project profes-
sional course since the conceptual design, through implementation and construction
up to completion and operation. The end-of-life stage is also considered, particu-
larly in macro-objective 2: Resource efficient and circular material life cycles, which
includes indicators like design for adaptability (DfA) and design for disassembly
(DfD). Additionally, the methodology incorporates a simplified Life Cycle Anal-
ysis (LCA) that encompasses inputs from macro-objectives 1, 2, and 3 as well as
Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) in macro-objective 6. Table 19.8 presents an
overview of the six macro-objectives of Level(s) framework along with their scope
and objectives.
Level(s) framework supports the project development at three levels of perfor-
mance assessment:
• Level 1: Conceptual design, which employs a qualitative assessment methodology
primarily using simple checklists to report the intended implementation concepts.
• Level 2: Detailed design and construction performance, which utilises a quantita-
tive assessment methodology to evaluate the designed performance and monitor
construction according to standardised units and methods.
• Level 3: As-built and in-use performance assessment, which also employs a quan-
titative assessment for monitoring and surveying activities during the building’s
use stage after completion.
These levels enable a progression in terms of reporting accuracy and exper-
tise, empowering stakeholders to continuously refine and improve the sustainability
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 583

Table 19.8 Level(s) Macro objectives scope

Macro objective Scope
MO1. Greenhouse Gas Aims to reduce a building’s carbon footprint. Considering all
Emissions Along a Building’s life cycle stages of buildings, greenhouse gas emissions
Life Cycle contributing to global warming potential are evaluated. These
emissions are referred to as whole life cycle carbon and apply to
building materials and their management processes (embodied
carbon emissions) as well as operational carbon emissions.
Improvement of the building’s carbon footprint can refer to
optimisation of material flows, enhancing productivity, reducing
delays, eliminating waste, and minimising energy usage for
heating and cooling
MO2. Resource Efficient and Aims to improve building’s performance by considering
Circular Material Life Cycles circularity principles, limiting the use of raw materials,
identifying opportunities for reuse or recycling, and ensuring
that buildings can be readily adapted to occupants’ needs change
over time. The aim of macro-objective 3 (efficient use of water
resources) is to make use of water resources more efficiently,
particularly in areas of identified long-term or projected water
stress [13]. Macro-objective 4 (healthy and comfortable spaces)
aims to create buildings more comfortable, attractive, and
productive to live and work in. In these ways, human health
protection can be improved [13]. Macro-objective 5 (adaptation
and resilience to climate change) aims to make new building
resilient against projected climate changes and thus protect the
health and comfort of occupiers. Moreover, long-term risks to
property values and investments can be minimised [13].
Macro-objective 6 aims to optimise the life cycle cost and value
of buildings. Considering this approach, the potential for
long-term performance is improved. Moreover, costs related to
inclusion of acquisition, operation, maintenance, refurbishment,
disposal, and end-of-life treatment are reduced [13]
MO3. Efficient Use of Water Aims to make use of water resources more efficiently,
Resources particularly in areas of identified long-term or projected water
stress [13]
MO4. Healthy and Aims to create buildings more comfortable, attractive, and
Comfortable Spaces productive to live and work in. In these ways, human health
protection can be improved [13]
MO5. Adaptation and Aims to make new building resilient against projected climate
Resilience to Climate Change changes and thus protect the health and comfort of occupiers.
Moreover, long-term risks to property values and investments
can be minimised [13]
MO6. Optimised life Cycle Aims to optimise the life cycle cost and value of buildings.
Cost and Value Considering this approach, the potential for long-term
performance is improved. Moreover, costs related to inclusion of
acquisition, operation, maintenance, refurbishment, disposal,
and end-of-life treatment are reduced [13]
584 C. Giarma et al.

performance of their buildings. The Level(s) common framework offers multiple

advantages for three main groups of stakeholders: (1) Project design teams, including
architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, and specialist consultants; (2) Clients and
investors, such as property owners, developers, managers, and investors; and (3)
Public policy makers and procurers at national, regional, and local levels.
To calculate each indicator at the three levels of assessment, Level(s) provides
specific instructions and guidelines. These can be found in the respective user manuals
for each indicator. To ensure comparability between buildings with the same func-
tion, the framework recommends the use of national tools and standards, along with
renowned private ones, utilising common measurement units for indicator calcula-
tion. The manual for each indicator provides these recommendations. The frame-
work does not introduce a new methodology for sustainability calculation; instead,
it emphasises the importance of reporting and using appropriate tools and methods
for fixed key parameters throughout the lifecycle using the three levels of assess-
ment. The measurement unit varies across indicators, and the final scores are neither
normalised nor accumulated to provide an overall sustainability or circularity score
for benchmarking building performance.
To utilise the framework, a Level(s) project plan must be established by following
these steps:
• Step 1: Define the macro-objectives to be addressed in the project and identify
the indicators to be used for performance assessment and reporting under each
macro objective.
• Step 2: Determine the performance level of assessment for the preselected
indicators.
• Step 3: Plan the workflow requirements and resources needed for assessment at
different lifecycle stages, including defining roles and responsibilities of stake-
holders, discussing expertise, and training requirements, establishing manage-
ment models for information and data acquisition and flow, and setting specific
deadlines.
The framework provides multiple tables and reporting formats to support the
development of these steps. Additionally, it offers a specific format for a complete
building description, which includes information on location and climate, typology
and age, building usage, and building model and characteristics. This informa-
tion is necessary for the calculation of multiple indicators within the framework.
Detailed guidance and supportive information are provided to assist in developing a
comprehensive building description.
The level or levels of assessment can be determined based on the project’s needs
and priorities. It is possible to assess only one level or progress up to a specific
level. Combining certain levels is also an option. The level definition can be applied
to different indicators, allowing for assessment at various levels. However, the more
levels that are addressed, the more accurate the understanding of the project’s perfor-
mance will be, including any gaps between design and the reality of the completed
building. The framework also provides opportunities to further optimise performance
in most indicators. This can be achieved by using input data with higher granularity,
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 585

considering additional design and performance aspects, testing and comparing addi-
tional scenarios, or utilising more advanced calculation methods. Table 19.9 presents
the main points addressed in each of the three levels of assessment in terms of project
stages, assessment approach, reporting rules and steps, optional additional steps, and
the need for a full building description.
Circularity implementation. The analysis of circularity implementation in this
section focuses on the indicator level, which constitutes the third tier of the frame-
work, following the thematic areas and macro-objectives, consequently. The exam-
ination involves assessing the alignment of 16 indicators in Level(s) V1.1, inte-
grated within the six macro-objectives, with the 10-Rs principles. The findings of
this assessment are summarised in Tables 19.10 and 19.11.
Table 19.10 provides an in-depth analysis of the direct relationships between the
indicator scope, criteria, guidelines, and objectives within the 10-R framework. In
contrast, Table 19.11 delves into the secondary impacts that indirectly contribute to
circularity. In both tables, each of the 16 indicators is evaluated for its relevance to
the 10-Rs circularity principles, with the results detailed in the final column in each
table. Only the principles that are pertinent to each indicator are mentioned.
It is important to note that the examination results represent a consensus among
three researchers in the field. However, these findings aim to provide a broad overview
of the indicator framework’s alignment with circularity principles without speci-
fying their specific relationship to one or more of the three assessment levels of the
framework. This is because all three assessment levels complement one another and
ultimately support the same overarching logic and goal.
The sub-group working on Level(s) comprised three researchers in the field.
The opinions expressed by these researchers shared notable similarities while also
exhibiting some low to moderate differences on certain indicators. The primary
points of contention revolved around the indirect relationships of specific indicators
with circularity. Nevertheless, these differences predominantly arose due to varying
subjective interpretations of sustainability and circularity concepts, and the inherent,
undefined interplay between them without clear delineation of their scope. However,
it is important to note that these differences in opinions were expected and were
effectively addressed through extensive discussions and the exchange of perspec-
tives to refine the results and determine which indicators had a direct association and
which had an indirect connection to the 10-R principles of circularity.
The indicators that exhibit the strongest direct links to circularity implementation
are the four indicators within Macro Objective 2, “Resource-efficient and circular
material life cycles.“ These indicators concentrate on design and engineering to
promote lean and circular material flows, extend product service life and material
utility, and minimise environmental impacts. However, it is important to recognise
that the majority of the remaining circularity-relevant indicators in the other Macro
Objectives are influenced by the indicators within Macro Objective 2.
A more detailed explanation on the indicators that establish direct circularity
association (Indicators 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4) and their indirect impact on the frame-
work’s other indicators is provided in the subsequent paragraphs. This is followed
by paragraphs explaining LCA and LCC indicators in Macro Objectives 1 and 6,
586 C. Giarma et al.

Table 19.9 Important aspects addressed in each of the three levels of assessment in Level(s)
framework
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Conceptual design Detailed design and As-built and in-use
construction
Project stages • L1a. Project • L2a. Outline design • L3a. As-built design
definition and brief (spatial planning and • L3b. Commissioning
• L1b. Concept design permitting) and testing
• L2b. Detailed design • L3c. Completion and
(tendering) handover
• L2c. Technical • L3d. Occupation and
design (construction) use
Assessment type Qualitative assessment Quantitative assessment using the provided
using checklists and reference calculation methods and the common
reporting formats units of measurement
Reporting rules • Complete a Level(s) • Complete a Level(s) • Complete a Level(s)
and steps project plan, project plan, project plan,
following steps 1–3 following steps 1–3 following steps 1–3
• Specify which design (if not done before) (if not done before)
concepts have been • Complete the • Complete the
addressed building description building description
• For renovation • For renovation (if not done before)
projects, report on the projects, report on the • Report on the results
baseline survey, using baseline survey, using of the assessment of
the format provided the format provided each indicator using
• Report on the results the respective formats
of the assessment of • Report on the method
each indicator using used and the
the respective formats sampling strategy
• Report on the method used for each
used and the main indicator using the
assumptions for each respective formats
indicator using the
respective formats
Optional • Select and report on • Select and report on • Select and report on
additional steps the results of steps the results of the use of any of the
that go further recommended recommended
optimisation steps in optimisation steps in
indicators’ manuals indicators’ manuals
• Report on the results
of surveys of
occupant satisfaction
The need for a No Yes Yes
complete building
description
Table 19.10 Criteria which are directly associated with circularity (circular principles as reflected in the employed framework)
Thematic Area Macro objective Indicator Association with circularity
(employed framework)
1. Resource use and MO1. Greenhouse gas 1.1 Use Stage Energy REDUCE:
environmental emissions along a Performance (kWh/ • The primary goal of this indicator is to promote the reduction of energy consumption and the associated
performance building’s life cycle m2 /year) environmental impacts, such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, during a building’s operational stage
• Reducing energy consumption during the usage stage is closely linked to resource efficiency. Lower energy use
translates to reduced resource consumption for energy production
1.2 Life Cycle Global REDUCE:
Warming Potential • The indicator aims to reduce the building’s life-cycle GWP and embodied carbon levels
(CO2 eq./m2 /year) • Products with lower GWP often require fewer resources, such as raw materials and energy, during their
production and use
• Contemplating adaptive reuse and renovation in this indicator helps reduce the additional resources required for
these activities and therefore reduces the lifecycle GWP compared to a new building
(continued)
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International …
587
Table 19.10 (continued)
588

Thematic Area Macro objective Indicator Association with circularity

(employed framework)
MO2. Resource 2.1 Bill of Quantities, RETHINK:
efficient and circular Materials and • The indicator aims to achieve material savings by considering shared elements
material life cycles Lifespans REDUCE:
• The indicator aims to achieve material savings by reducing floor-to-ceiling heights to minimise structural material
use and save resources
• The indicator aims at reducing the material footprint by incorporating passive thermal devices and renewable
energies to lower the energy consumption, cost and carbon emissions
• The indicator aims at optimising the use of fit-out materials that cater to occupants’ needs while avoiding
unnecessary materials that might end up as waste
• By using materials efficiently, minimising waste production during construction, and designing for
deconstruction, the industry can reduce its impact on resource consumption
REUSE:
• The indicator aims to enhancing material efficiency by optimising the load-bearing capacity of structural
elements (beams, columns and floor plates) to facilitate a building’s future adaptive reuse
• It promotes the compliance with design for disassembly requirements and future element reuse, reducing the need
for new resources
REPAIR:
• The indicator aims at enhancing material durability to extend the building life service by designing for easy repair
• The indicator allows to record material and component service lifespans, and schedule replacement and repair
• Repairing and maintaining existing structures can extend their lifespan and reduce the need for demolition,
reconstruction and new construction
REFURBISH:
• The indicator aims at enhancing material durability to extend the building life service and support potential
refurbishments
• The indicator suggests using recycled content from reclaimed resources to support building refurbishment projects
REMANUFACTURE:
• The indicator suggests using recycled content from reclaimed resources in product remanufacturing and
integration into new or renovated building projects
REPURPOSE:
• The indicator suggests using recycled content from reclaimed resources supporting product repurpose to be used
in the same or different industry
(continued)
C. Giarma et al.
Table 19.10 (continued)
Thematic Area Macro objective Indicator Association with circularity
(employed framework)
2.2 Construction and REDUCE:
Demolition Waste • The indicator aims to shape the outline Waste Management Plan (WMP) and thus allowing to reduce the
quantities of CDW generated
REUSE:
• The indicator aims to promote and allow users to systematically plan for the reuse of materials and waste
REPAIR:
• The indicator aims to promote and allow users to systematically plan for elements repair and maintenance
REFURBISH:
• The indicator aims to promote and allow users to systematically plan for elements and building systems
refurbishment
REMANUFACTURE:
• The indicator aims to promote and allow users to systematically plan for elements recovery and therefore
facilitating their remanufacturing
REPURPOSE:
• The indicator aims to promote and allow users to systematically plan for safe elements recovery and therefore
facilitating their repurposing for different applications
RECYCLE:
• The indicator aims to promote and allow users to systematically plan for facilitated recycling
RECOVER:
• The indicator aims to promote and allow users to systematically plan for possible material and energy recovery
from CDW
(continued)
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International …
589
Table 19.10 (continued)
590

Thematic Area Macro objective Indicator Association with circularity

(employed framework)
2.3 Design for RETHINK:
Adaptability and • The aim of this indicator is to motivate designers to think about multiple alternatives and appraise the ones that
Renovation facilitate potential adaptability and renovation
REDUCE:
• By promoting the design of buildings with extended lifespan, a great reduction in resource consumption, waste
generation and environmental impact occur
REUSE:
• Extending the lifetime of buildings entails facilitates multiple uses and adaptive reuse
REPAIR:
• Applying the principles of DfA enables facilitated access to elements to repair, maintenance and replacement
REFURBISH:
• DfA allows to extend the lifetime of building by facilitating refurbishment and renovation
(continued)
C. Giarma et al.
Table 19.10 (continued)
Thematic Area Macro objective Indicator Association with circularity
(employed framework)
2.4 Design for REFUSE:
Deconstruction • This indicator allows to achieve circularity by enabling the recovery of components for reuse in multiple cycles
possibly in multiple buildings or building systems
RETHINK:
• The intentional design of buildings for deconstruction implies an upfront lifecycle thinking on how to use
building components and products to their highest extent
REDUCE:
• DfD aligns with the reduce principle of circularity by minimising the amount of resources needed and waste
generated during a building’s or product’s life cycle
REUSE:
• This indicator promotes circularity by enabling the recovery of building elements for future reuse
REPAIR:
• DfD facilitates easy repair and maintenance through access zones
REFURBISH:
• Easy recovery of building elements and products facilitate their refurbishment
• Easy access to damaged elements that need replacement of maintenance provide proper conditions for efficient
building refurbishments
REMANUFACTURE:
• DfD principles enable facilitated elements recovery and use of discarded products or products part to
manufacture new products with similar function
REPURPOSE:
• DfD principles enable facilitated elements recovery and use of discarded products or products part to
manufacture new products with different functions
RECYCLE:
• DfD encourages easy separation and recycling of materials and components and continuous circulation into the
production process
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International …

(continued)
591
Table 19.10 (continued)
592

Thematic Area Macro objective Indicator Association with circularity

(employed framework)
MO3. Efficient use of 3.1 Use Stage Water RETHINK:
water resources Consumption (m3 / • The indicator supports appraising lower water consumption alternatives over water-intensive processes or
occupant/year) products considering a full lifecycle perspective
REDUCE:
• The indicator contemplates reducing water consumption during the use stage for more efficient use of this critical
resource, especially in areas with water scarcity
• Reducing water consumption will reduce the embodied environmental impacts of delivering water to the point of
demand
2. Health and comfort MO4. Healthy and 4.1 Indoor Air N/A
comfortable spaces Quality
4.2 Time Out of N/A
Thermal Comfort
Range
4.3 Lighting REDUCE:
• Applying design strategies as to allow more natural light to enter spaces reduces energy consumption for lighting
and the associated GHG emissions
4.4 Acoustics RETHINK:
• Acoustics performance is directly related to material used and structural architecture of the building
(continued)
C. Giarma et al.
Table 19.10 (continued)
Thematic Area Macro objective Indicator Association with circularity
(employed framework)
RE3. Cost, value and MO5. Adaption and 5.1 Life Cycle Tools: RETHINK:
risk resilience to climate Scenarios for • The information provided by life cycle tools for climate scenarios can help appraise among multiple design
change Projected Future options the alternative that better suits its environment minimising resource consumption and environmental
Climatic Conditions impact
REDUCE:
• If the building is designed to meet future climate change, its lifetime will be extended and the probability of
maintenance and repair will be lower reducing resource consumption and environmental impact
5.2 Increased Risk of RETHINK:
Extreme Weather • The consideration of the increased risk of extreme weather can help appraise among multiple design options the
alternative that better suits its context minimising therefore resource consumption and environmental impact
REDUCE:
• If the building is designed to meet future climate change particularly the risk of extreme weather, its lifetime will
be extended and the probability of maintenance and repair will be lower thus reducing resource consumption and
environmental impact
5.3 Sustainable RETHINK:
Drainage • The indicator implies a creative approach to how sustainable drainage systems can mitigate the increased risk of
flooding caused by urbanisation
(continued)
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International …
593
Table 19.10 (continued)
594

Thematic Area Macro objective Indicator Association with circularity

(employed framework)
MO6. Optimised life 6.1 Life Cycle Costs REDUCE:
cycle cost and value (e/m2 /year) • LCC analysis considers the total costs related to resource consumption over the lifecycle of a product, which can
help to optimise and reduce resources consumption
6.2 Value Creation RETHINK:
and Risk Factors • The appraisal of product selection based on their future value help minimise risks, costs and resources
REDUCE:
• If an asset is designed to maximise its value and value retention over time, the probability of its lifetime to be
extended will be higher. This will indirectly contribute to the reduction of resource consumption and
environmental impact
C. Giarma et al.
Table 19.11 Criteria which are indirectly associated with circularity (circular principles as reflected in the employed framework)
Thematic Area Macro Indicator Association with circularity
Objective (employed framework)
1. Resource use MO1. 1.1 Use Stage RECYCLE:
and environ- Greenhouse gas Energy • Energy efficiency can indirectly impact recycling. Products that consume less energy during their
mental emissions along Performance usage stage might have a reduced carbon footprint, making them more environmentally friendly in
performance a building’s life (kWh/m2 /year) terms of recycling processes. However, recycling energy-intensive products can pose greater
cycle challenges
(continued)
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International …
595
Table 19.11 (continued)
596

Thematic Area Macro Indicator Association with circularity

Objective (employed framework)
1.2 Life Cycle REUSE:
Global Warming • The indicator contemplates future adaptive reuse, which, in comparison to new construction, will
Potential (CO2 result in lower embodied and operational GHG emissions and GWP
eq./m2 /year) • Products with low GWP may have a minimal environmental footprint over their lifecycle, making
them more likely to be reused
REPAIR:
• The indicator contemplates future adaptive reuse, which, in comparison to new construction, will
create a circular path of preserved and recovered materials to be repaired
REFURBISH:
• The indicator considers future adaptive reuse of existing buildings and materials to be refurbished,
aiming to reduce both embodied and operational GHG emissions and GWP
REMANUFACTURE:
• The indicator contemplates future adaptive reuse, which, in comparison to new construction, will
create a circular path of recovered materials to be remanufactured
• Products with low GWP are better candidates for remanufacturing because they have a smaller
carbon footprint
REPURPOSE:
• The indicator contemplates future adaptive reuse, which, in comparison to new construction, will
create a circular path of recovered materials to be repurposed
RECYCLE:
• The indicator contemplates future adaptive reuse, which, in comparison to new construction, will
create a circular path of recovered materials to be recycled. Recycling products with low GWP can
help reduce the overall carbon emissions in the product lifecycle
(continued)
C. Giarma et al.
Table 19.11 (continued)
Thematic Area Macro Indicator Association with circularity
Objective (employed framework)
MO2. Resource 2.1 Bill of RECYCLE:
efficient and Quantities, • Compiling a BoQ properly support facilitated and efficient recycling of construction and
circular (BoQ) Materials demolition waste
material life and Lifespans RECOVER:
cycles • Compiling a BoQ properly facilitate the streaming of non-recyclable or non-reusable components
of construction and demolition waste for energy recovery
2.2 Construction The elements listed in Table 19.1 under indicator 2.2 can be categorised as having both direct and
and Demolition indirect impacts on circularity
Waste
2.3 Design for REDUCE:
Adaptability and • Creating buildings and products that can be easily adapted and renovated rather than replaced, can
Renovation reduce the need for new resource consumption and minimises waste
REUSE:
• Applying reusable products and material in buildings promote their adaptability and lifespan
extension
RECYCLE:
• Designing buildings for adaptability and renovation often involves the use of recyclable materials
and components which ensure that materials can be recycled at the end of their life, reducing waste
and conserving resources
2.4 Design for RECOVER:
Deconstruction • DfD minimises CDW to be sent to energy recovery. However, it facilities the process by efficient
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International …

and effective separation of recoverable and unrecoverable waste for the last to be streamed for
energy recovery
(continued)
597
Table 19.11 (continued)
598

Thematic Area Macro Indicator Association with circularity

Objective (employed framework)
MO3. Efficient 3.1 Use Stage REDUCE & REUSE:
use of water Water • Employing technologies such as rainwater harvesting and grey water filtering supports the reduce
resources Consumption and reuse principle
(m3 /occupant/ REDUCE & REPAIR:
year) • Repairing water infrastructure such as leaky pipes or malfunctioning water systems, can help
reduce water waste during the Use stage
2. Health and MO4. Healthy 4.1 Indoor Air N/A
comfort and comfortable Quality
spaces 4.2 Time Out of REDUCE:
Thermal • Applying strategies such as passive energy technologies for heating and cooling provides thermal
Comfort Range comfort while reduces energy consumption and GHG emissions
4.3 Lighting N/A
4.4 Acoustics N/A
3. Cost, value MO5. Adaption 5.1 Life Cycle N/A
and risk and resilience to Tools: Scenarios
climate change for Projected
Future Climatic
Conditions
5.2 Increased RETHINK:
Risk of Extreme • The consideration of the increased risk of extreme weather can help appraise among multiple
Weather design options the alternative that better suits its context minimising therefore resource
consumption and environmental impact
REDUCE:
• If the building is designed to meet future climate change particularly the risk of extreme weather,
its lifetime will be extended and the probability of maintenance and repair will be lower thus
reducing resource consumption and environmental impact
(continued)
C. Giarma et al.
Table 19.11 (continued)
Thematic Area Macro Indicator Association with circularity
Objective (employed framework)
5.3 Sustainable REDUCE:
Drainage • It indirectly allows to reduce the use of freshwater in the building
REUSE:
• Sustainable drainage practices like rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling can promote
water reuse for irrigation or non-potable uses
MO6. 6.1 Life Cycle REDUCE:
Optimised life Costs (e/m2 / • The indicator can contribute to achieving a reduced environmental impact because higher initial
cycle cost and year) capital costs may be required to achieve lower life cycle running costs
value • The development of a maintenance and replacement plan by applying circularity design and
material concepts can support more cost effective management of assets and subsequently, reduced
overall building-associated costs through the whole lifecycle
REUSE:
• The indicator encourages the reuse of materials when it is cost-effective
RECYCLE:
• The indicator encourages the recycle of materials when it is cost-effective
6.2 Value RECYCLE:
Creation and • A value can be created when contemplating recycling of waste
Risk Factors
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International …
599
600 C. Giarma et al.

respectively, which are also of great importance to circularity particularly the (R2)
Reduce strategy, despite being well known for sustainability assessments.
Indicator 2.1. Bill of quantities, materials and lifespans. The scope of this indi-
cator encompasses data for all construction products and materials procured for
constructing new buildings or renovating existing ones. With regard to circularity,
this indicator offers recommendations for the following project aspects:
1. Achieving material savings by considering shared elements (Rethink R1) based
on building typology, such as common sidewalls, and by reducing floor-to-ceiling
heights to minimise structural material use (Reduce R2).
2. Enhancing material efficiency by optimising the load-bearing capacity of beams,
columns and floor plates to align with client needs. These decisions influence the
future options for adaptability and renovation (indicator 2.3) facilitating adaptive
reuse of the building (Reuse R3).
3. Reducing the material footprint by incorporating passive thermal devices and
renewable energies to lower the energy consumption, cost and carbon emissions
(Reduce R2).
4. Enhancing material durability to extend the building life service by designing
for accessibility for repair (R4), disassembly (indicator 2.4), and potential
refurbishment (R5) to support adaptability (indicator 2.3).
5. Optimising the use of fit-out materials that cater to occupants’ needs while
avoiding unnecessary materials that might end up as waste (Reduce R2), as
calculated in indicator 2.2 Construction and demolition waste.
6. Ensuring compliance with design for disassembly requirements and future
element reuse (R3). The indicator also suggests using recycled content from
reclaimed resources (supporting product refurbishment (R5), remanufacture
(R6) and repurpose (R7)) and integrating it into new or renovated building
projects.
While this indicator does not rely on specific inputs from other indicators, the
information gathered for it provides reporting requirements to several other Level(s)
indicators, notably:
• 1.2. Life cycle global warming potential and/or any Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
by supplying material and product life service information as inputs to LCA anal-
ysis, controlling and reducing (R2) environmental impacts and carbon footprints
through links between BoQ with LCA inventories or environmental databases like
EPD.
• 2.2. Construction and demolition waste and materials by converting the BoQ to
bill of materials (BoM), aiming to minimise and reduce (R2) waste production
and natural resource usage.
• 6.1. Life Cycle Costs (LCC) analysis by providing material and product life service
information, enabling BoQ to BoM conversion for costs breakdowns of each
material or product, critical for cost control and reduction (R2).
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 601

Decisions made in this indicator regarding material selection significantly impact

the efficiency of other circularity design indicators, specifically, 2.3 Design for adapt-
ability and renovation and 2.4 Design for deconstruction for which material and
product lifespans supply crucial inputs.
Indicator 2.2. Construction and demolition waste and materials. In line with
the waste hierarchy, this indicator assesses the total volume of waste and materials
generated from construction, renovation, and demolition activities. This assessment
subsequently helps facilitate and enable systematic planning for waste reduction
(R2) as well as the reuse (R3), recycling (R8), or recovery of components for
repair (R4), refurbishment (R5), remanufacturing (R6), and repurposing (R7)
of materials and waste through the separate collection of CDW during construction,
renovation, and demolition activities. For unrecoverable waste, the indicator helps
streamline unrecoverable waste for material and energy recovery (R9).
This indicator relies on critical inputs from indicator 2.1. Bill of quantities,
materials and lifespans. It also closely relates to indicators 2.3 “Design for Adapt-
ability and Renovation” and 2.4 “Design for Deconstruction,” as the design concept
significantly influences waste management throughout construction, utilisation, and
end-of-life stages.
Indicator 2.3. Design for adaptability and renovation. The projected service life of
a building holds significant implications for the extent of functional utility achievable
through the initial investment of materials and resources in its construction. Delib-
erate considerations in designing a building for future adaptability indicate a primary
focus on optimising resource utilisation to maximise the building’s functionality over
an extended period (Rethink R1).
Incorporating contemplations of future flexibility and adaptability from the early
design stages holds tremendous potential in effectively addressing emerging changes
over the building’s lifecycle. Consequently, this approach contributes to the reduc-
tion (R2) of environmental impacts and material consumption throughout the entire
lifecycle of both the building and its constituent elements.
The concept of Design for Adaptability (DfA) enables more efficient utilisation
of space and building structures by providing the essential prerequisites to extend the
lifespan of the main building structure and components. This extension facilitates
multiple applications through adaptive reuse (R3), repair (R4), and refurbishment
(R5). In essence, this indicator plays a pivotal role in mitigating CDW (Indicator
2.2), which typically arises from premature demolition when a building no longer
aligns with evolving user and environmental requirements.
DfA goes hand in hand with DfD (indicator 2.4) as both indicators share some
important design concepts such as accessibility to services for easy maintenance,
repair (R4) and replacement of components.
Indicator 2.4. Design for Deconstruction. The indicator evaluates the capacity of
a building’s design to enable the efficient recovery of materials for future reuse or
recycling. It involves assessing the ease of disassembling essential building compo-
nents, followed by evaluating the ease of reusing and recycling these parts, as well
as their associated sub-assemblies and materials.
602 C. Giarma et al.

This indicator allows to achieve circularity by enabling the recovery of compo-

nents for reuse (R3) in multiple cycles possibly in multiple buildings or building
systems refuse (R0).
Ensuring easy accessibility to the different elements allows for easy repair
(R4) and recovery of components that can be reused (R3), refurbished (R5),
remanufactured (R6), repurposed (R7) and recycled (R8).
The intentional design of buildings for deconstruction implies an upfront life-
cycle thinking on how to use building components and products to their highest
extent (Rethink R1) which is essential to reduce (R2) the environmental impacts
and material use and resource consumption subsequently impacting the amount of
waste generated from multiple building activities during construction, operation and
maintenance and end-of-life phases (indicator 2.2).
Furthermore, the circularity indicators namely design for adaptability and reno-
vation (indicator 2.3) and design for deconstruction (2.4) have an important indirect
impact on the indicators in macro objective 4 by enabling facilitated possibilities to
meet the healthy and comfort requirements to users by allowing a certain level of
flexibility and upgradability to meet any emergent needs to meet these requirements
along the lifecycle of a building.
Indicator 1.1 Use stage energy performance. This indicator measures the energy
performance of a building based on the calculated (in design stage) or actual energy
consumption (in operational stage) in order to meet the various energy requirements
associated with its use. Reporting on this indicator can provide useful insights on the
implication of circularity practices on production and use stages related to material
use, replacement and refurbishment. By balancing the relationship between circu-
larity and environmental impacts, the most beneficial circularity design and material
selection options can be appraised to reduce (R2) the environmental impacts since the
early design decisions by proactive thinking about the whole lifecycle performance.
Indicator 1.2 Life cycle Global warming potential. This indicator measures the
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the global warming contribution associated
with the building at different stages along the life cycle from cradle through to grave.
Cradle to grave consideration allows contemplating the most beneficial design solu-
tions to balance the levels of embodied carbon and use stage carbon emissions. It
helps identify design and material aspects that contribute the most to GHG emissions
along a building lifecycle. It therefore, helps improve the design concepts and mate-
rial selection by recommending relevant circularity aspects to reduce the embodied
carbon and use stage emissions. Applying the circularity design and material concepts
(Macro objective 2) since the design stage has great influence on reducing (R2)
embodied carbon levels by contemplating future adaptive reuse of the building itself
during the operational stage and creating circular path of recovered materials through
reuse, recycling and disposal in the end-of-life deconstruction stage.
Indicator 6.1 Life cycle costs. Life Cycle Costing is a technique that enables
comparative cost assessments to be made over a specified period of time, taking
into account initial capital costs and future operational and asset replacement cost. It
is particularly relevant to achieving an improved environmental performance (rele-
vance with Macro objective 1 indicators 1.1 and 1.2) because higher initial capital
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 603

costs may be required to achieve lower life cycle running costs (Reduce R2). This
indicator allows stakeholders to understand the relationship between upfront capital
costs and use stage costs. The development of a medium to long-term maintenance
and replacement plan by applying circularity design and material concepts (Macro
objective 2 indicators) can support more cost-effective management of assets and
subsequently, reduced overall building-associated costs through the whole lifecycle.
In the conceptual design stage, this indicator recommends implementing a lifecycle
thinking to appraise specific design and material decisions (relevance to Macro objec-
tive 2 indictors and indicators 1.1 and 3.1) based on their long-term impact on the
overall lifecycle costs.
Indicator 3.1 Use stage water consumption. In addition to the previous indica-
tors, indicator 3.1 Use stage water consumption also establishes an important direct
connection to circularity. This indicator measures the total consumption of water
for an average building occupant, with the option to split this value into potable and
non-potable water. From a lifecycle perspective, this indicator helps appraising lower
water consumption alternatives over water-intensive processes or products (Rethink
R1). Reducing water consumption will reduce the embodied environmental impacts
of delivering water to the point of demand (Reduce R2).

19.3.6 SBTool

Introductory remarks. SBTool (Sustainable Building Tool) is a constantly evolving

international framework for the assessment of buildings’ environmental performance,
under the responsibility of iiSBE (international initiative for a Sustainable Built
Environment) since 2002. It is the successor (in essence, the evolution) of GBTool,
which constituted the computational implementation of the GBC (Green Building
Challenge) assessment method. The contribution of researchers and organisations of
several countries has been one of the basic pillars for the development of the method
and its evolution over time. One important aspect is that SBTool is a generic rating
framework or toolbox that only becomes efficient after contextualising the scope,
weights and benchmarks [31]. It has been reported to have been used in several
countries and regions [31]. Fully functional, adjusted to the local conditions and
priorities versions of the method are available for, among others, Italy (Protocollo
ITACA), Portugal (SBTool-PT) and Czech Republic (SBTool-CZ).
The process of contextualisation consists of the selection of the most relevant
criteria, the allocation of weights to each criterion to reflect local priorities, and
the definition of benchmarks based on local conditions. This tool was specifically
designed to allow users to reflect on different priorities and to adapt it to the envi-
ronmental, socio-cultural, economic and technological context for its application
[32]. The result is a framework that can measure the sustainability level of buildings,
concerning the context in which it is located.
The family of iiSBE frameworks entails specific tools for buildings, neigh-
bourhoods, and other applications allowing to assign sustainability scores in those
604 C. Giarma et al.

different scales. The tools’ structure consists of a hierarchy of parameters with the
following main characteristics: all the examined parameters (for each scale a different
set of problems are examined) are classified into major performance issues (referred
to also as issues from now on); each issue includes several performance categories,
which, in turn, are consisted of a number of performance criteria (referred to also as
categories and criteria, respectively, in the following). The latter represent the level
of the tool’s structure where the assessment takes place via the examination of the
respective indicator and assessment scale.
SBTool for Buildings 2022 [25], which is examined in this work, is consisted
of seven issues (i. Site Regeneration and Development; ii. Energy and Resources
Consumption; iii. Environmental Loading; iv. Indoor Environmental Quality; v.
Service Quality; vi. Social Cultural and Perceptual Aspects; vii. Costs and Economic
Aspects), 20 categories, and more than 100 potentially active criteria (depending on
the scope of the analysis selected, on the phase of the life cycle of the building, on the
building uses and on other factors). The methodology also dictates that in the context
of the contextualisation, KPIs need to be determined [26]. The evaluation performed
by SBTool can be applied to the four fundamental phases of the construction cycle:
pre-design, design, construction or operations, and up to three different occupancy
types separately or in a single project can be taken into account. It also considers
new or renovation projects.
As previously mentioned, the assessment takes place at the criteria level. Each
criterion is assigned a score ranging from -1 to + 5 (with the exception of those
characterised as mandatory, for which the minimum potential score is higher than 1, to
a degree decided by the third party contextualising the tool). In this assessment scale,
the benchmark of score “0” corresponds to the minimum acceptable performance
(established by legislation, standards, or existing performance levels) and 5 represents
a value for excellent or ideal performance (where 3 identifies a best-practice value). In
other words, each “score” is the outcome of a comparison between the building under
consideration and national / regional references. Databases from many sources are
used to calculate the score of each criterion. For the calculation of the scores of higher
structural levels (performance categories and issues, total score), the approach used
in the SBTool is to weigh the scores of the individual criteria and apply a weighted
aggregation process. The weighting variables are set at the national/ regional level, in
order to achieve the tool’s adjustment to the local conditions. The approach adopted
enables international comparisons of buildings from various countries [32].
Obviously, the process of weighing and benchmarking are fundamental stages
of the process of contextualisation for further assessment on a local/national level.
Different weighting systems are used in different adapted versions of the generic
tool; in the one reviewed in this study, the weighting takes place at the criteria level.
The application (adaptation) of SBTool is divided in 4 steps:
1. Selection of criteria (local authorities or applicant, among others: selection of
issues, criteria and indicators)
2. Weight definition
3. Benchmark definition
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 605

4. Indicators assessment
The framework is materialised in two interconnected Microsoft Excel workbooks.
The first one (file A) is used to set locally relevant weights, benchmarks, laws,
and standards for generic building types in their own region; in other words, this
workbook forms the frame, the basis and the context for each local assessment, it is
the centre of the methods’ contextualisation and adjustment to local conditions (the
input in the first file, where the region, occupancy type, weights and benchmarks
are determined, are in the local context). The second workbook (file B) is used to
compile information about a single project during the assessment. The second file
contains particular project weights and benchmarks that are used to perform project
information, performance targets, and simulations. A single file A can correspond to
any number of files B; for example, file A for office buildings in a given region can
be used for the evaluation of any number of office buildings (each one corresponding
to its own file B) in this area.
The assessment results contain an extended set of data regarding the performance
of the examined building [29]. Specifically, the results of the assessment are repre-
sented by a spider web diagram that describes the sustainability level achieved in
each one of the issues and an overall score of the sustainability performance of
the building. Other important aspects of the examined building’s performance are
summarised in the results report, such as the individual scoring by issue, and the
project information. It is important to note that not only the derived values rela-
tive to the zero benchmark are provided, but also absolute results are shown. Also,
occupancy-specific outcomes are provided [29]. In the results report, data regarding
central components of the assessment (e.g. relative weights of the active issues) is
also presented.
Circularity implementation. The implementation of circularity criteria is devel-
oped with a detailed evaluation of each indicator in the SBTool framework. This
issue is crucial and is at the core of this report. The intention is to understand HOW
this circularity is put forward, in practice, or implemented within the framework of
analysis.
The criteria listed in SBTool are associated with the circular economy 10-R
framework of circular economy strategies and are classified in Tables 19.12 and
19.13. Table 19.12, consists of the criteria that have been found to have a direct
association with CE, while Table 19.13 shows the criteria that have an indirect rela-
tion. The association was established based on the description and evaluation of each
criterion (aim, benchmark, indicators, etc.). Additionally, the tables mention which
specific principles/strategies were associated with each one of the criteria, as well as
the step of the building life cycle in which it is situated. A significant clarification in
relation to the referred strategies is that general circularity principles (adaptability,
resilience, etc.) have also been considered; in fact, they were “correlated” with one
or more of the 10 strategies involved in the employed 10-R framework and appear
accordingly in the following tables.
The same approach as in the other methods was employed in cases where disagree-
ments among the members of the sub-group working on SBTool occurred regarding
Table 19.12 Criteria which are directly10 associated with circularity (circular principles as reflected in the 10-R framework)
606

Issue Category Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site,
material, design,
construction,
management)
A. Urban, site and A.1 Site A1.1 Protection and restoration of REPAIR / REFURBISH: restoring damaged wetland provides higher scores Site
infrastructure systems regeneration and wetlands within the assessment scale of the criterion
development A1.2 Protection and restoration of REPAIR/ REFURBISH: restoring damaged coastal environments provides Site
coastal environments higher scores within the assessment scale of the criterion
A1.3 Reforestation for carbon REPAIR/ REFURBISH: restoring damaged forested areas provides higher Site
sequestration, soil stability scores within the assessment scale of the criterion
and biodiversity
A1.5 Remediation of contaminated REPAIR/ REFURBISH: the restoration of contaminated soil is promoted Site
soil, groundwater or surface REMANUFACTURE: Strategies of treating contaminated soil or
water groundwater consist in the remanufacturing of contaminated matter
A.2 Urban design A2.1 Maximising efficiency of REDUCE use of land (considering land as a resource) Site & design
land use through RETHINK urban environments for a more efficient use of urban land and
development density services
(continued)

10 Direct association: direct reference/description in the intent, indicator, benchmarks, and generally, in the structure and content of the criterion.
C. Giarma et al.
Table 19.12 (continued)
Issue Category Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site,
material, design,
construction,
management)
A.3 Project A3.1 Supply, storage and RETHINK: the redistribution of surplus thermal energy from buildings in the Site & design &
infrastructure and distribution of surplus zone to other buildings (aiming at the optimisation of its supply, storage and management
services thermal energy amongst distribution for space heating amongst groups of buildings) is under
groups of buildings consideration
REDUCE: Rethink strategies can be focused on energy consumption
reduction
A3.2 Supply, storage and RETHINK: the redistribution of surplus electrical energy generated by PV in Site & design &
distribution of surplus the zone to other buildings (aiming at the optimisation of its supply, storage management
photovoltaic energy amongst and distribution amongst groups of buildings) is under consideration
groups of buildings REDUCE Rethink strategies can be focused on energy consumption reduction
(continued)
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International …
607
Table 19.12 (continued)
608

Issue Category Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site,
material, design,
construction,
management)
A3.3 Supply, storage and RETHINK: the redistribution of surplus hot water generated from photovoltaic Site & design &
distribution of surplus hot sources on site among buildings (aiming at the optimisation of its supply, management
water amongst groups of storage and distribution amongst groups of buildings) is under consideration
buildings REDUCE: Rethink strategies can be focused on resources consumption
reduction
A3.4 Supply, storage and RETHINK: the redistribution to other buildings of the surplus rainwater and Site & design &
distribution of surplus greywater generated from roof or site catchment areas or from sanitary waste management
rainwater and greywater in is considered
groups of buildings REDUCE: Rethink strategies can be focused on resources consumption
reduction
(continued)
C. Giarma et al.
Table 19.12 (continued)
Issue Category Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site,
material, design,
construction,
management)
A3.7 Composting and re-use of REUSE: the existence of an effective composting facility in the project to Site & design &
organic sludge handle the organic sludge produced and measures regarding its reuse in or off management
site are assessed
RECYCLE: if composting will be considered as a type of recycling
A3.8 Provision of split grey / REDUCE the use of potable water Site & design &
potable water services REUSE greywater management
A3.10 On-site treatment of REDUCE the use of potable water Site & design &
rainwater, stormwater and REUSE & RECYCLE greywater/rainwater management
greywater
B. Energy and resource B1. Total life cycle B1.1 Embodied non-renewable REDUCE resources consumption (the non-renewable embodied energy, as Materials
consumption non-renewable energy in original estimated by an acceptable LCA method, is assessed)
energy construction materials
B1.2 Embodied non-renewable REDUCE resources consumption (the non-renewable embodied energy, as Materials
energy in construction estimated by an acceptable LCA method, is assessed)
materials for maintenance or
replacement(s)
(continued)
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International …
609
Table 19.12 (continued)
610

Issue Category Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site,
material, design,
construction,
management)
B1.4 Consumption of renewable REDUCE resources consumption (criteria: renewable energy for building Design &
energy for all building operations) management
operations
B3. Use of materials B3.1 Degree of re-use of suitable REUSE/REDUCE of existing structures for new constructions. Reduce Design
existing structure(s) where embodied energy and construction costs
available
B3.3 Material efficiency of REDUCE: Reduce the need for new materials, reduce embodied energy and Design &
structural and building costs. (Increase efficiency of materials) materials
envelope components
B3.4 Use of virgin non-renewable REDUCE: Reduce consumption of non-renewable resources and encourage Design &
materials the use of recycled/refurbished/remanufactured products materials
B3.5 Efficient use of finishing REDUCE resources consumption (elimination or reduction in use of finishing Design &
materials materials, whether virgin, re-used or recycled) materials
B3.6 Ease of disassembly, re-use REDUCE/RECYCLE: Promotes recycling, reusing, refurbishing, and Design &
or recycling repurposing of building components materials
(continued)
C. Giarma et al.
Table 19.12 (continued)
Issue Category Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site,
material, design,
construction,
management)
B.4 Use of potable B4.2 Use of water for occupant REDUCE water consumption Design
water, stormwater needs during operations
and greywater B4.3 Use of water for irrigation REDUCE/RECYCLE: Reduce potable water consumption, encourage reuse Design &
purposes and repurpose of greywater and rainwater for irrigation management
B4.4 Use of water for building REDUCE: Reduce the use of potable water, encourage reuse and repurpose of Design &
systems greywater and rainwater management
C. Environmental C.3 Solid and liquid C3.1 Solid waste from the REDUCE: Reduce solid waste from construction diverted to the waste Materials &
loadings wastes construction and demolition management system construction
process retained on the site RECYCLE/REUSE: Recycling and reuse of construction waste
C3.5 Liquid effluents from REDUCE Liquid waste sent off site for treatment Construction
building operations that are
sent off the site
C.4 Impacts on C4.3 Recharge of groundwater REPAIR/REFURBISH: Recharging restoring groundwater Site & design
project site through permeable paving or
landscaping
E. Service quality E.2 Functionality & E2.7 Spatial efficiency RETHINK: Optimise spatial use of building Design
efficiency E2.8 Volumetric efficiency RETHINK: Optimise spatial use of building Design
(continued)
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International …
611
Table 19.12 (continued)
612

Issue Category Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site,
material, design,
construction,
management)
E.4 Flexibility and E4.1 Ability for building operator REPURPOSE/REMANUFACTURE of spaces in the building by the Design
adaptability or tenant to modify facility possibility to relocate HVAC, lighting and control systems
technical systems
E4.2 Potential for horizontal or REPURPOSE/RETHINK: flexibility of the structure design to be extended Design
vertical extension of structure when needed. Reduce resources consumption when extension is needed
E4.3 Adaptability constraints REPURPOSE/REMANUFACTURE of spaces in the building by the Design
imposed by structure or possibility to adapt to other uses
floor-to-floor heights
E.4.4 Adaptability constraints REPURPOSE/REMANUFACTURE of building envelope and HVAC and Design
imposed by building electrical systems in the building by the possibility to adapt to other uses
envelope and technical
systems
E4.5 Adaptability to future REPURPOSE/REMANUFACTURE of spaces in the building by the Design
changes in type of energy possibility to update energy systems
supply
(continued)
C. Giarma et al.
Table 19.12 (continued)
Issue Category Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site,
material, design,
construction,
management)
E.5 Optimization E5.2 Adequacy of the building REDUCE the need for maintenance by ensuring durable design of building Design
and maintenance of envelope for maintenance of envelope
operating long-term performance
performance E5.4 Existence and RETHINK/REDUCE: Ensure the reduction of energy and water consumption Design &
implementation of a over time by developing a maintenance plan management
maintenance management
plan
G. Cost and economic G.1 Cost and G1.3 Life-cycle cost REDUCE/RETHINK: Life cycle assessment is implied in circular economy Design,
aspects economics construction &
management
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International …
613
614 C. Giarma et al.

Table 19.13 Criteria which are indirectly11 associated with circularity (circular principles as
reflected in the 10-R framework)
Issue Category Criterion Association with Level (site,
circularity (employed material,
framework) design,
construction,
management)
A. Urban, site A.1 Site A1.6 Shading of REDUCE: reduce Site
and regeneration building(s) by energy needed for
infrastructure and deciduous trees cooling of buildings
systems development RETHINK The use of
trees for carbon
sequestration
A1.7 Use of REPAIR / Site
vegetation to REFURBISH: restoring
provide damaged wetland
ambient provides higher scores
outdoor cooling within the assessment
scale of the criterion
A1.10 Provision and REDUCE: Indirect Site
quality of relation with the
children’s play reduction of fuel
area(s) consumption/CO2
emissions by reducing
transportation needs
A1.12 Provision and REDUCE: indirect Site
quality of relation with the
bicycle reduction of fuel
pathways and consumption/CO2
parking emissions by reducing
transportation needs
A.2 Urban A2.2 Reducing need REDUCE: indirect Site
design for commuting relation with the
transport reduction of fuel
through consumption/CO2
provision of emissions by reducing
mixed uses transportation needs
A2.3 Impact of REDUCE energy Design
orientation on consumption via passive
the passive solar systems
solar potential
of building(s)
(continued)

11 Indirect association: no reference/description in the intent, indicator, benchmarks, and generally, in the
structure and content of the criterion. However, we see a clear connection of the type: if this criterion is
met, then, as a consequence, a circularity principle will be served.
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 615

Table 19.13 (continued)

Issue Category Criterion Association with Level (site,
circularity (employed material,
framework) design,
construction,
management)
A2.5 Impact of site REDUCE energy Design
and building consumption from the
orientation on need of mechanical
natural ventilation systems
ventilation of
building(s)
during warm
season(s)
A2.6 Impact of site REDUCE energy Design
and building consumption from the
orientation on need of mechanical
natural ventilation systems
ventilation of
building(s)
during cold
season(s)
A.3 Project A3.9 Provision of REDUCE the impact of Design
infrastructure surface water water sewage systems
and services management RETHINK: improve
system flood resilience capacity
of the site
A3.13 Provision of REDUCE: indirect Design
on-site parking relation with the
facilities for reduction of fuel
private vehicles consumption/CO2
emissions by reducing
transportation needs
B. Energy and B1. Total life B1.3 Consumption of REDUCE: reduces Design &
resource cycle non-renewable resources consumption management
consumption non-renewable energy for all
energy building
operations
B2.Electrical B2.1 Electrical peak REDUCE: reduce Design
peak demand demand for resources consumption,
building often obtained from
operations fossil-fuel generated
electrical power
(continued)
616 C. Giarma et al.

Table 19.13 (continued)

Issue Category Criterion Association with Level (site,
circularity (employed material,
framework) design,
construction,
management)
B2.2 Scheduling of REDUCE: Related with Management
building indicator B1.1
operations to
reduce peak
loads on
generating
facilities
C. C.1 C1.1 GHG emissions REDUCE: Reduction of Materials
Environmental Greenhouse from energy GHG emissions
loadings gas emissions embodied in considering the entire
original life cycle of materials
construction
materials
C1.2 GHG emissions REDUCE: Reduction of Materials &
from energy GHG emissions management
embodied in considering the entire
construction life cycle of materials
materials used
for maintenance
or
replacement(s)
C1.3 GHG emissions REDUCE: Reduction of Materials,
from primary GHG emissions from construction
energy used for calculated energy use in &
all purposes in the building management
facility
operations
C.2 Other C2.1 Emissions of REDUCE: reduction of Design &
atmospheric ozone-depleting emissions, which are management
emissions substances considered as an impact,
during facility consequence of the
operations implementation of other
circularity indicators
C2.2 Emissions of REDUCE: reduction of Design &
acidifying emissions, which are management
emissions considered as an impact,
during facility consequence of the
operations implementation of other
circularity indicators
C2.3 Emissions REDUCE: reduction of Design &
leading to emissions, which are management
photo-oxidants considered as an impact,
during facility consequence of the
operations implementation of other
circularity indicators
(continued)
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 617

Table 19.13 (continued)

Issue Category Criterion Association with Level (site,
circularity (employed material,
framework) design,
construction,
management)
C.3 Solid and C3.2 Solid RECYCLE: considering Materials &
liquid wastes non-hazardous future recycling of construction
waste from construction waste
facility
operations sent
off the site
C.5 Other C5.1 Impact on REDUCE of resources Site & design
local and access to consumption
regional daylight or considering solar power
impacts solar energy potential
potential of
adjacent
property
E. Service E.1 Safety and E1.3 Risk to Related to resilience as Site & design
quality security occupants and a general circular
facilities from economy principle.
flooding Hence, associations
with principles of the
employed framework
are implied:
REDUCE resources
consumption for repair
REUSE/REPAIR
facilities
E1.4 Risk to Related to resilience as Site & design
occupants and a general circular
facilities from economy principle.
windstorms Hence, associations
with principles of the
employed framework
are implied:
REDUCE resources
consumption for repair
REUSE/REPAIR
facilities
E1.9 Maintenance of REDUCE: related to Management
core building resilience
functions
during power
outages
E.3 E3.1 Effectiveness of REDUCE (indirect
Controllability facility impact on energy
management consumption)
control system
(continued)
618 C. Giarma et al.

Table 19.13 (continued)

Issue Category Criterion Association with Level (site,
circularity (employed material,
framework) design,
construction,
management)
E3.2 Capability for REDUCE (indirect Design &
partial impact on energy management
operation of consumption)
facility
technical
systems
E3.3 Degree of local REDUCE (indirect Design &
control of impact on energy management
lighting consumption)
systems
E3.4 Degree of REDUCE (indirect Design &
personal control impact on energy management
of technical consumption)
systems by
occupants
E.5 E5.5 On-going REDUCE: ensure the Management
Optimization monitoring and reduction of energy and
& verification of water consumption over
maintenance performance time
of operating
performance
F. Social, F.2 Culture F2.4 Use of REDUCE: could Design &
cultural and and heritage traditional local encourage reduction of construction
perceptual materials and the use of high
aspects techniques embodied energy
materials, raw-materials
consumption
G. Cost and G.1 Cost and G1.2 Operating and REDUCE water and Management
Economic economics maintenance energy consumption
aspects cost

the existence and type of association of each criterion with the 10-R framework. As
also indicated in all other methods, the outlined associations in the following tables
are those that were estimated to exist for each criterion by at least one member of
the sub-group working on SBTool.
The sub-group working on SBTool consisted of five members. In the analysis of
each of the criteria many differences were found between the members of the sub-
group, mainly in the indirect association with circular economy due to the subjectivity
of interpretation of the criteria. In SBTool, there is no direct mention of circular
economy or consideration of CE in the evaluation of the criteria but is implied in the
formulation of the tool since it considers criteria for the entire life cycle process of
buildings.
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 619

The criteria that were more evidently related to CE to all the members of the group,
were the ones that considered life cycle assessment and that were oriented to optimi-
sation, flexibility and adaptability, reduction and efficiency strategies. Finally, just
over a quarter of the total number of criteria considered are presented in Table 19.12
indicating the direct association.12 For instance, within the Flexibility and Adapt-
ability category, all five criteria were found to be directly associated with circularity.
A similar approach emerged in the Use of Materials category, where all five criteria
(with the exception of one underdeveloped criterion, aligned with the principles of
optimisation and minimisation, which was not considered in the present analysis
anyway) are directly contributing to the circular economy concept. The following
categories were also represented by a large number of criteria with a direct asso-
ciation in Table 19.12: Use of Potable Water, Stormwater and Greywater (all three
criteria available), Project Infrastructure and Services (seven out of 11 available),
Total Life Cycle Non-Renewable Energy (three out of 4 available). As well as some
specific single criteria of the following categories are present in Table 19.12: Urban
Design, Solid and Liquid Wastes, Impacts on Project Site, Optimization and Main-
tenance of Operating Performance, Life-cycle cost and others. Regarding the seven
examined issues, it is evident that some of them, like A. Urban, Site and Infrastructure
Systems and B. Energy and Resource Consumption are more strongly represented
in Tables 19.12 and 19.13 than for example G. Cost and Economic Aspects. It is
also important to note that this domination could be also related to the number of
accompanied credits in each issue.
The criteria that were defined with an indirect relationship and approximately
account for just over one-sixth of the total number of criteria, are the ones related
with the GHG, energy consumption and waste reduction since there was a discussion
in the differentiation between circularity and sustainability. This is demonstrated in
categories such as Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Other Atmospheric Emissions
(all three criteria in each category), Controllability (all four criteria), and Electrical
peak demand (all two criteria). In the above-mentioned Urban Design category
there are also criteria with indirect association, which account for the majority of
those available for assessment (four out of five criteria). Site Regeneration and
Development is characterised by the same number of direct and indirect associations
concerning circularity, four for each type out of twelve possible. The remaining
criteria are found individually within their respective categories.
The concept of “Reduce” dominates in indirect associations, while in direct asso-
ciations, it occurs, but not so often, typically in combination with other concepts of
the employed framework. Additionally, there are some criteria that can be included
as CE strategies but do not meet the requirements of proposed methodology, as they
could not be related to the strategies of the 10-R framework, but could be included
in a new aspect, resilience, as seen in the case of the Service Quality issue.

12 The numbers of criteria referred to in this section are based on the maximum scope of application
of the examined version of SBTool for new buildngs; the underdeveloped criteria were not included
in the analysis, while no separate or in any sense special consideration was provided for criteria
applicable for specific cases (large projects, etc.).
620 C. Giarma et al.

In the issue A. Urban site and infrastructure, the most common associations
are with the strategies of “Repair” or”Refurbish”, regarding site regeneration and
“Reduce” or ‘Rethink” when it comes to criteria related to resources consump-
tion for the urban adaptation of buildings. Also, regarding the issues B. Energy and
resource consumption, C. Environmental loadings and G. Cost and economic aspects,
the association with CE is mainly regarding the reduction of resources consumption.

19.4 Conclusions

In this chapter, a first approach to the investigation of the way circularity principles
and concepts are implemented into the structure of well-known buildings’ sustain-
ability assessment methods is attempted. Under this light, observations related to the
sustainability and circularity relationship, as well as the latter’s representation in the
examined methods can be drawn.
A first conclusion lies in the difficulty of establishing clear expert opinions of
what is actually circular within a sustainability-oriented context when specific issues
and criteria are examined. This difficulty was expected, also based on the various
approaches existing for the relationship between sustainability and circularity and
its complex nature, as analysed in the respective section of the chapter. Indeed, as
noted in the respective sections, disagreements among the members of each expert
group examining a method arose. In fact, an absolute consensus in every case was
not reached, at least easily. Indicative of the various expert opinions expressed is
the fact that the specific principles found to be associated with each criterion by the
individual members of each expert group were not the same in all cases.
Of course, differences in the expressed opinions, in terms of whether a type and
a scale (and which one) of association exists for specific issues, can be detected in
the results derived by each group. However, the central issues do present a degree of
homogeneity in the way they were approached in each method. At this point it has to
be highlighted that the whole content of the examined level of each method (crite-
rion, issue) was taken into consideration; this explains the fact that while a criterion
in one tool seems to be associated with the employed CE framework, a criterion
with a similar title in another tool does not. Differentiations among the evaluation
implementation and obstacles encountered for the examined methods arose also due
to the fact that their structures are varying, and that the examination took place at the
lowest autonomously scored level. For example, for DGNB this means the criterion
level, with each criterion encompassing a number of different indicators, while for
SBTool it corresponds to the criterion level, with each criterion being based on one
indicator (i.e., in fact having a narrower scope). Some differentiations were based
on the approaches adopted in each method; for example, in DGNB CE bonuses are
explicitly related to specific criteria.
Another challenge that arose during the process consisted in associating widely
accepted building circularity principles (such as adaptability and resilience) or other
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 621

concepts (e.g. upcycling) with specific circularity strategies of the employed frame-
work. Relevant expert comments and explanations can be found in the “circularity
implementation” section of each method, in the tables and or in the text. One possible
explanation for this difficulty could be related to the fact that the employed 10-
R framework is not oriented towards the building sector exclusively; however, it is
important to note that the scope of the analysis considered both building products and
buildings as products, mitigating this issue for the majority of cases. Clear matching
in such cases may warrant further research and discussion. Furthermore, the devel-
opment of frameworks capable of comprehensively addressing the complexities of
the built environment may be a future goal.
It is interesting to note that the age of the tools may also, to some degree, be
reflected in the language used in its assessment. Early tools such as BREEAM were
created when the waste hierarchy consisted of three levels, reduce, reuse and recycle.
On the other hand, Level(s)’ more explicit alignment with 10-R principles could be
related to its more recent formation, and its adoption of the expanded waste hierarchy
from the literature. In the context of the afore-mentioned example including the oldest
and the most recent methods among the assessed ones in this work, it is worth noting
that i) the head of the Building Research Establishment is reported in stating that
BREEAM will be aligned with Level(s) and ii) BREEAM have recently expanded
their tool to be more explicit in measuring circularity. The latter fact shows the
flexibility which all these tools exhibit, allowing them to adapt and improve on their
sustainability measurements.
Finally, in the majority of the criteria estimated to have an association with circular
economy, more than one level (site, material, design, construction, management) was
found to be implicated. This fact reveals the complexity of the involved issues and
scopes.
It’s worth noting that alternative approaches could have been adopted in the context
of this work, employing a more “narrow” or “broad” interpretation of whether and to
which degree circularity is represented in each criterion. In any case, the presented
results should be treated as indications and preliminary findings, as well as a potential
basis for future work. This might include the broader participation from stakeholders
and researchers, as well as expanded examination of the different methods by a larger
and more diverse group of experts, with almost equivalent number of examiners for
each method. Furthermore, the scope of the study could be extended to encompass
other sustainability assessment methods, other aspects (e.g., existing buildings), and
other scales (e.g., neighbourhood or urban scale).

Acknowledgements The authors extend their sincere gratitude to Prof. Ferhat Karaca for his
invaluable ideas and comments during the initial discussions that shaped the approach employed in
this chapter.
622 C. Giarma et al.

References

1. Ade R, Rehm M (2020) The unwritten history of green building rating tools: a personal view
from some of the “founding fathers.” Build Res & Inf 48(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/096
13218.2019.1627179
2. Awadh O (2017) Sustainability and green building rating systems: LEED, BREEAM, GSAS
and Estidama critical analysis. J Build Eng 11:25–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.
03.010
3. Bernardi E, Carlucci S, Cornaro C, Bohne RA (2017) An analysis of the most adopted rating
systems for assessing the environmental impact of buildings. Sustainability 9(7):1226. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su9071226
4. Bisegna F, Evangelisti L, Gori P, Guattari C, Mattoni B (2018) From efficient to sustainable
and zero energy consumption buildings. In: Asdrubali F and Desideri U (eds) Handb Energy
Effic Build: Life Cycle Approach, pp. 75–205. Elsevier (imprint: Butterworth-Heinemann)
5. Bitsiou E, Giarma C (2020) Parameters related to building components’ life-cycle analysis in
methods for buildings’ environmental performance assessment. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ
Sci 410:012066. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/410/1/012066
6. Braulio-Gonzalo M, Jorge-Ortiz A, Bovea MD (2022) How are indicators in Green Building
Rating Systems addressing sustainability dimensions and life cycle frameworks in residential
buildings? Environ Impact Assess Rev 95:106793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106793
7. BREEAM (n.d.), https://bregroup.com/products/breeam/, last accessed 2023/9/6
8. BRE Global (2021). BREEAM international new construction version 6 (Technical Manual –
SD250)
9. CESBA med common european sustainable built environment assessments (n.d.), https://cesba-
med.research.um.edu.mt/, last accessed 2023/9/18
10. Cole RJ (2005) Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles.
Build Res & Inf 33(5):455–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210500219063
11. Cole RJ, Larsson NK (1999) GBC ’98 and GBTool: background. Build Res & Inf 27(4–5):221–
229. https://doi.org/10.1080/096132199369345
12. D’Amato D, Droste N, Allen B, Kettunen M, Lähtinen K, Korhonen J, Leskinen P, Matthies
BD, Toppinen A (2017) Green, circular, bio economy: A comparative analysis of sustainability
avenues. J Clean Prod 168: 716–734 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.053
13. De Wolf C, Cordella M, Dodd N, Byers B, Donatello S (2023) Whole life cycle environmental
impact assessment of buildings: Developing software tool and database support for the EU
framework Level(s). Resour Conserv Recycl 188:106642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.
2022.106642
14. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (German Sustainable Building Council) (2020).
DGNB system new construction, buildings Criteria Set- version 2020 International
15. DGNB (n.d.), https://www.dgnb.de/, last accessed 2023/7/17
16. Ding GKC (2008) Sustainable construction—The role of environmental assessment tools. J
Environ Manag 86(3): 451–464 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.025
17. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013) Towards the Circular Economy Vol. 1: Economic and
business rationale for an accelerated transition (No. 1; p. 98). Ellen MacArthur Founda-
tion. Available from: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publicati
ons/Ellen-MacArthur-Foundation-Towards-the-Circular-Economy-vol.1.pdf
18. European Commission (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European parliament and of the
council of 19 November 2008 on Waste and repealing certain directives
19. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32008L0098,
last accessed 2023/10/27
20. European Commission (2020) COM/2020/98 final. Communication from the commission to
the european parliament, the council, the european economic and social committee and the
committee of the regions. A new Circular Economy Action Plan for a cleaner and more competi-
tive Europe. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?qid=158393381
4386&uri=COM:2020:98:FIN, Last accessed 2023/10/27
19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 623

21. Ferreira A, Pinheiro MD, Brito JD, Mateus R (2023) A critical analysis of LEED, BREEAM
and DGNB as sustainability assessment methods for retail buildings. Journal of Building
Engineering 66:105825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.105825
22. Geissdoerfer M, Savaget P, Bocken NMP, Hultink EJ (2017) The Circular Economy—A new
sustainability paradigm? J Clean Prod 143:757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.
12.048
23. Ghisellini P, Cialani C, Ulgiati S (2016) A review on circular economy: the expected transition
to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J Clean Prod 114:11–32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007
24. Illankoon IMCS, Tam VWE, Le KN, Shen L (2017) Key credit criteria among international
green building rating tools. J Clean Prod 164:209–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.
06.206
25. iiSBE (2022). SBTool _30Mar22. Available from: https://www.iisbe.org/sbmethod, last
accessed 2023/6/16.
26. iiSBE (n.d.): https://www.iisbe.org/, last accessed 2023/6/16.
27. Kanters J (2020) Circular building design: an analysis of barriers and drivers for a circular
building sector. Buildings 10(4):77. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10040077
28. Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis
of 114 definitions. Resour Conserv Recycl 127:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.
2017.09.005
29. Larsson N (2022) iiSBE tools for performance assessment. Available from: https://www.iisbe.
org/sbmethod, last accessed 2023/6/16
30. Lazar N, Chithra K (2021) Comprehensive bibliometric mapping of publication trends in the
development of Building Sustainability Assessment Systems. Environ Dev Sustain 23(4):4899–
4923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00796-w
31. Mao X, Lu H, Li Q (2009) A Comparison Study of Mainstream Sustainable/Green Building
Rating Tools in the World. In proceedings of 2009 International Conference on Management
and Service Science, pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMSS.2009.5303546
32. Mateus R, Bragança L (2011) Sustainability assessment and rating of buildings: Developing
the methodology SBToolPT–H. Build Environ 46(10):1962–1971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2011.04.023
33. Merli R, Preziosi M, Acampora A (2018) How do scholars approach the circular economy? A
systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 178:703–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.
12.112
34. Morseletto P (2020) Targets for a circular economy. Resour Conserv Recycl 153:104553.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104553
35. Ng ST, Chen Y, Wong JMW (2013) Variability of building environmental assessment tools on
evaluating carbon emissions. Environ Impact Assess Rev 38:131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.eiar.2012.07.003
36. Park J, Yoon J, Kim K-H (2017) Critical review of the material criteria of building sustainability
assessment tools. Sustainability 9(2):186. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020186
37. Ramani A, García de Soto B (2021) Estidama and the pearl rating system: a comprehensive
review and alignment with LCA. Sustainability 13(9):5041. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1309
5041
38. Reike D, Vermeulen WJV, Witjes S (2018) The circular economy: New or Refurbished as CE
3.0?—exploring controversies in the conceptualization of the circular economy through a focus
on history and resource value retention options. Resour Conserv Recycl 135:246–264. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.027
39. Sánchez Cordero A, Gómez Melgar S, Andújar Márquez JM (2019) Green building rating
systems and the new framework Level(s): a critical review of sustainability certification within
Europe. Energies 13(1):66. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13010066
40. Sauvé S, Bernard S, Sloan P (2016) Environmental sciences, sustainable development
and circular economy: Alternative concepts for trans-disciplinary research. Environmental
Development 17:48–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.09.002
624 C. Giarma et al.

41. Sev A (2011) A comparative analysis of building environmental assessment tools and sugges-
tions for regional adaptations. Civ Eng Environ Syst 28(3):231–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10286608.2011.588327
42. USGBC (n.d.), https://www.usgbc.org/, last accessed 2023/10/16
43. USGBC (2023). LEED v4.1 Building design and construction (Getting started guide for beta
participants)
44. USGBC (2021) More than One Billion Square Feet of Green Building Space Recertified
under LEED. Available from: https://www.usgbc.org/articles/more-one-billion-square-feet-
green-building-space-recertified-under-leed, last accessed 2023/10/20.
45. Wei W, Ramalho O, Mandin C (2015) Indoor air quality requirements in green building
certifications. Build Environ 92:10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.03.035
46. Yuan Z, Bi J, Moriguichi Y (2006) The circular economy: a new development strategy in China.
J Ind Ecol 10(1–2):4–8. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819806775545321

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
 Part V
Stakeholders and Circular Value Chain
Management Editorial
Diana Bajare and Gabriel Zsembinszki

In the constantly changing landscape of sustainable development, the role of stake-

holders and the integration of circular value chain management stand as central focal
points. As we explore further into the complex interconnections between stakeholders
and circular value chain management, it becomes increasingly evident that collabo-
ration, engagement, and overcoming obstacles are critical to driving the transition to
a circular economy. Within this framework, the principles of the circular economy
serve as guiding stars, illuminating the roles stakeholders play, their challenges, and
the opportunities they present. From exploring the significance of locality in enabling
circular solutions to defining project lifecycle stages and identifying decision-making
activities, each facet offers valuable insights into the complex relationship between
stakeholders and circular value chain management. It also delves into the realm of
project life cycle stages, illuminating the decision-making activities underpinning
the journey toward sustainable development. As the narrative develops, the focus
shifts to specific contexts where stakeholders face unique challenges and regulatory
landscapes in their efforts to implement a circular economy, particularly within the
construction sector. For instance, the barriers and opportunities in construction high-
light the urgent need for transformative action. At the same time, case studies from
diverse regions provide inspiring examples of effective strategies and best practices in
circular economy management. Moreover, education and digitalisation have emerged
as powerful tools for fostering relationship-building and shared learning, catalysing
the adoption of circular and sustainable approaches in the construction sector. By
examining various case studies and best practices, it emphasises how the dissemi-
nation of knowledge and initiatives aimed at building capacity have the potential to

D. Bajare
Institute of Sustainable Building Materials and Engineering Systems, Riga Technical University,
Riga, Latvia
e-mail: [email protected]
G. Zsembinszki
GREiA Research Group, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
628 Part V: Stakeholders and Circular Value Chain Management Editorial

drive significant systemic change. Through a comprehensive assessment of stake-

holder opinions, influences, and interrelationships, valuable information is obtained
on the costs and benefits of implementing the circular economy in the construction
value chain. By fostering collaboration, innovation, and shared learning, we can pave
the way toward a more resilient, inclusive, and sustainable future where the circular
economy is a cornerstone of progress and prosperity for all.
Chapter 20
Stakeholders’ Role, Inter-Relationships,
and Obstacles in the Implementation
of Circular Economy

Diana Bajare , Gabriel Zsembinszki , Stylianos Yiatros ,

Sakdirat Kaewunruen , Mustafa Selcuk Cidik , Georg Schiller ,
Ning Zhang , Agatino Rizzo , Tatjana Tambovceva ,
Mennatullah Hendawy , Ayfer Donmez Cavdar , and Paul Ruben Borg

Abstract The building sector contributes around 39% of global carbon dioxide
emissions and consumes nearly 40% of all the energy produced. Over the whole life
cycle, the building sector yields over 35% of the EU’s total waste generation. These

D. Bajare
Institute of Sustainable Building Materials and Engineering Systems, Riga Technical University,
Riga, Latvia
G. Zsembinszki
GREiA Research Group, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
S. Yiatros
Department of Civil Engineering and Geomatics, Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol,
Cyprus
S. Kaewunruen (B)
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of Birmingham,
Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
e-mail: [email protected]
M. S. Cidik
Bartlett School of Sustainable Construction, University College London, London, UK
G. Schiller · N. Zhang
Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development, Dresden, Germany
A. Rizzo
Architecture Research Group, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources
Engineering, Lulea University of Technology, Lulea, Sweden
T. Tambovceva
Faculty of Engineering Economics and Management, Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
M. Hendawy
Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
Impact Circles E.V., Berlin, Germany

© The Author(s) 2025 629

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_20
630 D. Bajare et al.

facts substantiate the necessity to implement circular economy in the built environ-
ments, in order to mitigate global warming and climate change emergency. This
chapter highlights the state-of-the-art knowledge and research gap with respect to
the stakeholders’ influences, inter-relationships, and obstacles for circular economy
implementation on building stocks. In this chapter, a robust critical literature review
of key documentations such as research articles, industry standards, policy reports,
strategic roadmaps, case studies, and white papers has been rigorously conducted
together with expert interviews. The state-of-the-art review addresses multi scales of
CE practices adopted within the built environments. This chapter spells out current
challenges and obstacles often encountered by various stakeholders. Case studies
related to circular economy implementation have been drawn in order to promote
such the CE practices across value chains in different regions and counties; and to
overcome the barriers for circular economy implementation.

Keywords Circular economy · Stakeholder analysis · Value chain ·

Interrelationship · Buildings

20.1 Principles of the Circular Economy

The circular economy aims to minimize waste, maximize resource efficiency, and
uphold sustainable development. It is based on several fundamental principles that
guide the transition from a linear “take-make-dispose” model to a more regenerative
and restorative system. The Circular Design Guidelines (CDG) have been introduced
by IDEO and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) as tools to help people wanting
to start contributing to the planet in transition into a circular economy [1]. The
guidelines could be stimulated by an issue related to an increasing global population
and the amount of consumption of resources that has resulted in negative impacts on
the environment. This is caused by a one-way (linear) production and consumption
model, where goods are produced from raw materials, sold, used, and then burned or
disposed of as wastes. Circular design (CD) acts as the pivotal point in implementing
circular economy (CE) strategies. In this case, IDEO and EMF start to support people
who share common goals to contribute to the transition to CE using the CDG. The
CDG was published in 2017 [1].
The core principles of the circular economy are as follows:
• Design out waste, toxicity, and pollution: The circular economy promotes the
design and production of products and services, focusing on reducing waste,

Center for Advanced Internet Studies (CAIS) gGmbH, Bochum, Germany

A. D. Cavdar
Epartment of Forest Industry Engineering, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey
P. R. Borg
Faculty for the Built Environment, University of Malta, Msida, Malta
20 Stakeholders’ Role, Inter-Relationships, and Obstacles … 631

pollution, and the use of non-renewable resources. It involves incorporating dura-

bility, modularity, reusability, and recyclability principles into product design and
manufacturing processes [2].
• Keep products and materials in use: This principle emphasizes the importance
of prolonging the lifespan of products and materials by promoting reuse, repair,
and refurbishment. It encourages businesses and consumers to extend the useful
life of products through sharing, leasing, and remanufacturing, thereby reducing
the need for new resource extraction and minimizing waste generation [1].
• Regenerate natural systems: The circular economy recognizes the importance
of preserving and restoring natural resources and ecosystems. It aims to mini-
mize environmental impacts and promote sustainable practices, such as adopting
renewable energy sources, regenerative agriculture, and ecosystem restoration
initiatives [3].
• Foster collaboration and stakeholder engagement: The circular economy
emphasizes the need for collaboration and cooperation among stakeholders at
all levels. This includes engaging businesses, governments, consumers, research
institutions, NGOs, and communities to drive collective action, share knowledge,
and develop innovative solutions to systemic challenges [1].
• Shift to a systems perspective: The circular economy encourages a holistic and
systemic approach to resource management. It promotes a shift from a linear
supply chain perspective to a more integrated and interconnected system where
materials and resources circulate in closed loops. This involves considering the
entire lifecycle of products, from sourcing and production to consumption and
end-of-life treatment [3].
• Use digital technology and data for optimization: Digital technologies, such
as the Internet of Things (IoT), big data analytics, and blockchain, can be crucial
in optimizing resource use, improving efficiency, and enabling transparency in
the circular economy. These technologies can facilitate the tracking and tracing
of materials, allow sharing platforms, and support decision-making for resource
management [4, 5].
By applying these principles, the circular economy aims to create a more sustain-
able and resilient economic system that reduces environmental impacts, promotes
social well-being, and ensures long-term prosperity. It seeks to decouple economic
growth from resource consumption and waste generation, ultimately leading to a
more regenerative and restorative approach to economic development.
In addition, the complexity of circular economy practices for existing ageing
building stocks is much more critical than those for new buildings. This is because
the modification or renovation actions applied to existing building stocks can occur at
any stage (such as after ten years of service, 20 years of service, or 50 years of service),
which can typically happen due to a change of use. These aspects have raised the
complications and impart uncertainties in decision-making and effective technical
solutions that could seamlessly enable the transition to net zero. Figure 20.1 displays
the uniqueness between circular economy implementation practices for new and
existing building stocks. When dealing with existing or ageing building stocks, the
632 D. Bajare et al.

Fig. 20.1 Comparison of lifecycle and circular economy implementation between new and existing
building stocks

sophisticated and refined scope of circular economy implementation can be observed.

The decision-making mechanisms and influences among stakeholders could be more
delicate and bespoke. It is thus very challenging to establish practical policies in order
to promote and incentivize the adoption of circular economy practices underpinning
net zero.
Reaching net-zero emissions will need transformative strategies for the global
economy. Notably, emissions by energy generation also comprise 83% of CO2 emis-
sions across land-use systems. Indeed, McKinsey [6] reported that ‘Effective de-
carbonization actions include shifting the energy mix away from fossil fuels and
toward zero-emissions electricity and other low-emissions energy carriers such as
hydrogen; adapting industrial and agricultural processes; increasing energy efficiency
and managing energy demand; utilizing the circular economy; consuming fewer
emissions-intensive goods; deploying carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCS)
technology; and enhancing sinks of both long-lived and short-lived greenhouse gases’
[6]. An approach to achieving a status of NZEBs (Net Zero Energy Buildings) for new
buildings and existing buildings is to promote the development, implementation, and
automation of circular economy strategies by creating a cohesive network of market
actors using Industry 4.0 Technologies via digital transformation, by assuring active
stakeholder engagement, and by implementing a series of diverse outreach activities
(see Figs. 20.2 and 20.3). These strategies can be further automated to optimize energy
consumption within the building stocks to reach net zero emission (or beyond) by
20 Stakeholders’ Role, Inter-Relationships, and Obstacles … 633

Fig. 20.2 Circular economy perspectives for the new building sector

adopting digital twins and artificial intelligence. To overcome market barriers beyond
NZEBs, new strategies are required to simplify the whole process of design, retrofit,
and renovation. To reduce emissions in the construction and commissioning stages,
pre-simulations could be undertaken using a digital twining platform that is capable
of the analyses for appropriate strategies for near zero energy buildings (NZEB)
or zero energy buildings (ZEB) or even energy-positive buildings (EPB), life cycle
costing and attractive zero-emission/zero-pollution co-benefits [7].

20.2 Stakeholder Roles in Driving the Transition to CE:

Collaboration, Challenges, and Opportunities

Stakeholders are crucial in driving the transition to CE by collaborating and coordi-

nating their efforts. They display inter-relationships that can significantly influence
progress or present obstacles. Stakeholders can foster innovation, establish sustain-
able value chains, and contribute to developing a regenerative and circular economic
system through their respective roles.
Key roles of different stakeholders:
• National and Local Governments and Policy Makers:
– Develop and enforce regulations, policies, and frameworks that promote
circular economy principles.
– Provide incentives, funding, and support for research and development of
circular technologies and practices.
634 D. Bajare et al.

Fig. 20.3 Circular economy perspectives for the existing building sector

– Collaborate with other stakeholders to drive systemic change and create an

enabling environment for the circular economy [8].
• Businesses and Industries:
– Adopt circular business models and practices to minimise waste, promote
resource efficiency, and extend product lifecycles.
– Design products for durability, reparability, and recyclability.
– Collaborate with suppliers, consumers, and other businesses to establish
closed-loop supply chains and value networks.
– Invest in innovative technologies and processes to enable the circular economy.
– Contractors/subcontractors
– Use innovative solutions and efficient technologies for resource efficiency,
waste reduction, and circular business models.
– Creates and implements the organization’s waste management policy
– Creates and maintains site conditions for waste management on-site.
– Supplies of recyclable waste to recycling facilities.
– Creates a supportive organizational culture.
– Responsible for the knowledge and skills of staff, i.e., providing education and
training.
• Consumers and End Users:
– Make sustainable purchasing decisions by choosing durable, repairable, and
eco-friendly products.
20 Stakeholders’ Role, Inter-Relationships, and Obstacles … 635

– Embrace sharing, renting, and second-hand markets to reduce consumption

and extend product lifespans.
– Practice responsible waste management through recycling, composting, and
proper disposal.
– Demand transparency and information about the environmental impact of
products and services [8].
• Research Institutions and Academia:
– Research to advance circular economy knowledge, technologies, and best
practices.
– Develop innovative solutions for resource efficiency, waste reduction, and
circular business models.
– Provide expertise, training, and education to support the adoption of circular
principles by businesses and other stakeholders.
• Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Civil Society:
– Raise awareness about the benefits of the circular economy and advocate for
its implementation.
– Promote sustainable consumption and behaviour change among consumers.
– Map, monitor, and provide feedback on the progress and implementation of
circular initiatives.
– Collaborate with other stakeholders to drive policy changes and influence
corporate practices.
– Develop and revise international standards for circular economy innovation to
be inclusive and agile.
• Waste Management and Recycling Industry:
– Collect, sort, and process waste materials for recycling, upcycling, and energy
recovery.
– Invest in infrastructure and technologies to improve waste management and
recycling capabilities.
– Collaborate with businesses and governments to establish efficient collection
systems and closed-loop material flows.
Governments and policymakers are responsible for creating regulations, policies,
and frameworks that support the transition to CE. They work with other stakeholders
to develop and enforce these regulations, provide incentives, and support research and
development. However, challenges can arise due to political resistance, conflicting
priorities, and limited awareness or understanding of the circular economy concept.
Businesses and industries drive the implementation of circular economy prin-
ciples. They adopt sustainable production methods, design products for longevity
and recyclability, and prioritize resource efficiency. Collaboration with govern-
ment bodies, suppliers, consumers, and waste management entities is essential for
establishing efficient material flows and promoting resource reuse, recycling, and
636 D. Bajare et al.

upcycling. Business challenges include high upfront costs, technological obstacles,

resistance to change, and a potential lack of market demand for circular products.
Consumers and end users have a significant impact on the circular economy
through their purchasing decisions. They can drive positive change by supporting
sustainable products and services, embracing reuse and recycling, and demanding
environmentally friendly options. Consumer interactions with businesses and govern-
ments, such as expressing their preferences through purchasing power and providing
feedback on product design and disposal systems, are crucial. Challenges for
consumers include limited awareness of the circular economy, concerns about
affordability, convenience factors, and resistance to behavioral changes.
Research institutions and academia contribute to the circular economy by
conducting studies, developing innovative technologies, and sharing knowledge and
expertise. Collaboration with businesses, governments, and non-governmental orga-
nizations allows for the development and dissemination of best practices, research
projects, and training and education. However, limited funding, research gaps, and
the time required to translate academic findings into practical applications can present
obstacles.
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Civil Society organizations play
a significant role in advocating for the circular economy, raising awareness, driving
behavioral change, and monitoring progress. They engage with governments, busi-
nesses, and consumers to promote sustainable practices, influence policies, and
provide feedback on implementation. Challenges for NGOs and civil society include
limited resources, conflicting interests among organizations, and differing priorities,
making coordination and consensus challenging.
The waste management and recycling industry is vital in the circular economy.
They collect, sort, process, and reintroduce materials into the value chain. Collabora-
tion with businesses, governments, and consumers helps establish efficient collection
systems, invest in recycling infrastructure, and promote circular waste management
practices. However, challenges include insufficient infrastructure, lack of standard-
ized processes, and difficulties in managing complex waste streams, which can impact
achieving high recycling rates.
Finally, International, Regional, and National Standardization organizations are
responsible for creating standard methods and processes for the circular economy,
which will support the correct implementation of these processes and ensure a coor-
dinated effort to transition to a circular economy. They develop such standards with
regulators, academia, industry, and consumers. The European Standardization Orga-
nization (CEN) already has a designated subcommittee to develop a standard for
circular economy in the construction sector.
These stakeholders are interconnected and reliant on each other for successful
circular economy implementation. Collaboration, dialogue, and alignment of goals
are crucial to overcoming obstacles and driving systemic change toward a sustainable
and circular future. While the core stakeholders in the circular economy can be similar
across different countries, the specific organizations, industries, and individuals may
vary depending on the local context and priorities. The particular organizations,
associations, and individuals may vary depending on the local context. Additionally,
20 Stakeholders’ Role, Inter-Relationships, and Obstacles … 637

the level of maturity and engagement in circular practices can differ among countries,
influenced by factors such as policy frameworks, infrastructure development, cultural
norms, scale of activities, and economic conditions.
Based on the critical literature review and desktop study, the stakeholders have
been grouped by commercial purpose into industry and non-industry stakeholders.
Table 20.1 defines the detailed stakeholders of existing building sectors across
Europe. Consequently, the survey through the interview has been conducted to gain
further crucial information for later data analyses, including (i) ranking for influence,
(ii) inter-relationship correlation, and (iii) barrier identification.

20.3 Stakeholder Engagement and Collaboration

in Circular Value Chain Management

In Circular Value Chain Management, various stakeholders play distinct roles that
contribute to optimizing and coordinating material and resource flows within the
circular economy. These stakeholders include suppliers, raw material providers,
manufacturers and producers, distributors and retailers, consumers, waste manage-
ment and recycling industry, reverse logistics, and circular service providers.

Stakeholders Circular value chain management

Suppliers and raw material These stakeholders are responsible for supplying the necessary
providers raw materials, components, and resources for production. In the
circular value chain, they play a crucial role in sourcing
sustainable and recyclable materials that can be reused or
regenerated in the value chain
Manufacturers and producers Manufacturers and producers transform raw materials into
finished products. In the circular economy, they adopt design
principles that promote product disassembly, reusability, and
recyclability. They also explore opportunities for
remanufacturing or refurbishment to extend the product’s
lifespan
Distributors and retailers Distributors and retailers facilitate the efficient movement of
products from manufacturers to consumers. In the circular value
chain, they can contribute by promoting products with longer
lifespans, offering repair services, or implementing take-back
programs for recycling or proper disposal
Developers/contractors Developers/contractors are responsible for defining the goal and
incorporating circularity requirements in construction projects.
Their role is crucial in making decisions and actions that will
affect the consumer
Consumers Consumers and end users are critical in circular value chain
management through their purchasing decisions and behaviors.
In the circular economy, consumers can actively participate by
making conscious choices, opting for durable and repairable
products, and engaging in sharing or rental platforms
(continued)
638 D. Bajare et al.

(continued)
Stakeholders Circular value chain management
Waste management and The waste management and recycling industry is responsible for
recycling industry collecting, sorting, and processing waste materials for reuse,
recycling, or energy recovery. They collaborate with
manufacturers, retailers, and consumers to establish efficient
waste collection systems and transform discarded materials into
valuable resources
Reverse logistics and circular These stakeholders handle the reverse flow of products,
service providers materials, and components in the value chain. They manage
product take-back, repair, refurbishment, and remanufacturing
activities. Their role is crucial in enabling the return of products
or components to the value chain for further use or recycling.
Besides, standards organizations and regulators play a role in
characterizing and valorizing waste

A deeper knowledge of stakeholder participation in the CE context enables more

informed decision-making when integrating CE into organizational processes and the
supply chain. This may also assist practitioners in reconsidering and assessing their
stakeholder engagement activities. Implementing circular stakeholder engagement
strategies is critical for transitioning to CE in industrial enterprises [9]. To effectively
engage and collaborate with different stakeholders with varying roles in the transition
to CE, several approaches can be adopted.
Firstly, establish a multi-stakeholder platform where representatives from various
stakeholder groups can exchange knowledge, share experiences, and discuss chal-
lenges and opportunities related to the circular economy. This platform facilitates
collaboration, builds trust, and encourages collective action [3].
Open and transparent communication channels should be fostered among stake-
holders. Regular meetings, workshops, and conferences allow stakeholders to
interact, understand each other’s perspectives, and find common ground. Clear
and consistent communication helps align goals, address concerns, and build
partnerships.
Identifying shared objectives and interests among stakeholders is crucial. Collab-
oratively defining goals and outcomes that align with the principles of the circular
economy creates a shared vision, fostering cooperation and a sense of purpose.
Encourage stakeholders to actively participate in the co-creation and co-
innovation of circular solutions. This involves different stakeholders in designing
and developing strategies, policies, and projects related to the circular economy. By
including diverse perspectives, innovative and effective solutions can be created.
Partnerships and collaborations among stakeholders should be encouraged. Lever-
aging the strengths and expertise of each stakeholder group through collabo-
rative projects, joint ventures, and knowledge-sharing initiatives accelerates the
implementation of circular economy practices.
Recognizing and promoting best practices implemented by different stakeholders
is essential. Highlighting successful circular economy initiatives and examples
20 Stakeholders’ Role, Inter-Relationships, and Obstacles … 639

Table 20.1 Key stakeholders in building sectors are classified by the life cycle stage (Data Source
expert discussion with CircularB project members)
Stage of the life Who are the What are the key What are Stage of the life
cycle: stakeholders for contributors to emerging CE cycle:
residential and CO2 e? strategies/tools/
non-residential
buildings?
Planning & Owners/investors Energy Deep renovation Living cost
design Financial Urban wind Financial burden
institution Photovoltaic No incentives to
Local councils/ technology (PV) improve
urban planners Solar thermal No governmental
Architects/ energy directives
engineers LCA/Digital Risk-averse
twins/BIM attitude
Design for reuse/
repurpose
Construction/ Construction Materials Material Limited
retrofit/renewal/ companies (1. Concrete; circularity (e.g. technologies
refurbishment/ manufacturers 2. Steel; material options/no
renovation engineers experts/ 3. Plastics) passport/BIM) incentives
researchers/ Machineries Component No legislation/
standardization Water circularity (e.g. standards/
organizations Waste digital twins) specification
Energy Renewable
energy grid
Waste reduction
(e.g. BREEAM)
Operation/use Asset owners Water Resource Limited methods
Residences Waste efficiency for service life
(dwellers) Energy Energy assessment
Maintainers efficiency Human behaviors
Experts/ Waste No incentives
researchers management
End of life Asset owners Waste (building Material Toxicity
Demolition materials, circularity Uncertainties
companies electrical Net zero target Limited recycling
Waste managers appliances, Material technologies
Experts/ furniture) recycling Limited Standards
researchers Energy and specifications
Intervention Exporter of wastes Residuals Energy recovery Landfill
phase (dealing Environmentalists factor (ERF) Toxicity
with residues)

inspires others, creates positive models, and motivates stakeholders to adopt similar
approaches.
Support capacity-building initiatives that enhance stakeholders’ knowledge and
skills in circular economy principles and practices. Providing training programs,
640 D. Bajare et al.

workshops, and educational resources enables stakeholders to contribute effectively

to the circular economy.
Advocate for supportive policies and regulations by collaborating with stake-
holders. Engage with policymakers and decision-makers to influence the devel-
opment of frameworks that incentivize circular business models and sustainable
practices.
By adopting these approaches, stakeholders can foster collaboration, leverage
their respective roles and expertise, and work together to implement the circular
economy successfully.

20.4 Strategies for Overcoming Stakeholder Obstacles

in the Implementation of the Circular Economy

Limiting obstacles in implementing the circular economy that may arise from stake-
holders requires proactive engagement, effective communication, and addressing
their concerns. Here are some strategies to mitigate the barriers:
Stakeholder Identification and Analysis: Conduct a comprehensive stakeholder
analysis to identify and understand key stakeholders who may impact the implemen-
tation of the circular economy. This analysis should consider their interests, concerns,
and potential obstacles they might pose [10]. Organizations can tailor their engage-
ment strategies by gaining insights into stakeholder perspectives. The analysis should
also consider the scale of the ecosystem within which the stakeholders operate.
Stakeholder Engagement: Engage stakeholders from the outset of the circular
economy implementation process. Encourage open dialogue, active participation,
and collaboration to build shared ownership and trust [9]. Involving stakeholders in
decision-making processes and seeking their input can help address concerns and
foster a sense of inclusion and commitment.
Awareness and Education: Raise awareness about the circular economy and
its benefits among stakeholders through targeted communication, educational, and
training initiatives. Provide resources, training programs, and case studies to enhance
stakeholders’ understanding of circular economy principles and practices [11]. Effec-
tive communication can help overcome resistance or misconceptions arising from
limited awareness.
Addressing Concerns: Actively listen to and address stakeholders’ concerns
through transparent and honest communication. Provide evidence-based informa-
tion on the potential benefits and risks of circular economy initiatives, assuaging any
apprehensions [12]. This can help alleviate stakeholders’ fears and build support for
implementing circular practices.
Incentives and Support: Provide incentives and support mechanisms to encourage
stakeholders’ active participation in circular economy initiatives. This may include
financial incentives, grants, or access to resources and expertise [13, 14]. Tailoring
20 Stakeholders’ Role, Inter-Relationships, and Obstacles … 641

incentives to stakeholders’ needs can encourage their buy-in and commitment to

circular practices [15].
Collaboration and Partnerships: Foster collaboration and partnerships among
stakeholders to jointly develop and implement circular economy initiatives. This
can involve forming multi-stakeholder platforms, partnerships between businesses
and NGOs, or public–private collaborations [16]. Collaborative efforts can leverage
diverse perspectives, resources, and expertise to address complex challenges associ-
ated with the circular economy.
Continuous Monitoring and Evaluation: Establish mechanisms for contin-
uous monitoring and evaluation of circular economy initiatives, including feedback
loops with stakeholders. Regularly assess progress, gather stakeholder insights, and
adapt strategies accordingly. This iterative approach allows for timely adjustments,
addressing emerging obstacles and maximizing the effectiveness of circular economy
implementation.
By actively engaging stakeholders, addressing their concerns, and fostering
collaboration, the implementation of the circular economy can be facilitated. Incor-
porating the diverse perspectives of stakeholders contributes to developing more
robust and inclusive circular strategies. In addition, it is essential to consider these
interventions in terms of uniqueness (or appropriateness) for the scale and specificity
of the region/ecosystem to which it will be applied to.

20.5 Exploring the Significance of Locality in Enabling

Circular Solutions in the Built Environment

20.5.1 Exploring the Significance of Locality in Enabling

Circular Solutions in the Built Environment

Meanwhile, an emerging interest is in harnessing local knowledge, resources, and

stakeholders to achieve tailored and effective circular solutions in the built envi-
ronment. This can be traced to the broader research on sustainability and socio-
technical transitions, which tells us the importance of understanding and working
with the ‘local context’ to achieve the desired outcomes [17]. To gain a circular built
environment, understanding and working with the local context, including stake-
holders, knowledge, and resources, is essential (e.g., [18]). Therefore, while previ-
ously described literature and case studies predominantly emphasize the importance
of clear centralized guidance, models, and regulations, there is also an emerging
recognition that ‘local context’ is crucial for implementing practical and customized
circular solutions in the built environment [19]. However, currently, there is a lack
of conceptual discussion and empirical evidence to define and address ‘locality’ in
the context of circular economy in the built environment [20].
This section discusses two key aspects of ‘locality’ for effective development and
implementation of circular solutions in the built environment: space (both physical
642 D. Bajare et al.

and social) and knowledge. It also connects with the broader circular economy liter-
ature, which sees cities as the locus of circular transitions by suggesting that cities
localize space and expertise. Therefore, this section serves as a starting point for
structuring research that aims to enhance our understanding of:
– The role of space and knowledge co-production in achieving a circular built
environment.
– The relevant local stakeholders involved in circularity initiatives.
– City-level governance of locality to support a circular built environment.

20.5.2 Locality of Physical Space

The physical/material aspects of the built environment have numerous location-

specific features that are critical to consider when developing and deploying circular
solutions in the built environment. First, the built environment consists of immovable
buildings and infrastructure predominantly consisting of bulk mineral materials with
relatively low-cost unit prices and high transportation costs [21]. For these reasons,
any innovation in material flows requires considering the physical aspects of space
[22]. For example, the availability and distance of raw and used materials, the terrain
type, and building density are all important parameters that can affect the optimum
circular solution for building materials in a given location [21]. This also means
that different spatial features can determine whether narrowing, slowing, or closing
material flows would be more advantageous in a given location [23]. Notably, such
location-specific determinants become even more influential with decreasing spatial
scale as the alternatives to access raw and secondary materials decrease with the
decreasing spatial scale.

20.5.3 Locality of Social Space/place

A socially focused understanding of space (i.e., place) refers to the specific set of
social relations and social constructions that participate in the (re)production of social
structures, social actions, and relations of power and resistance that shape actions and
direct behavior in a given locality [24]. The literature on circular economy implies the
importance of understanding and working with socio-spatial relationships in a given
locality for effective development and implementation of circular solutions in the
built environment. Such a consideration of socio-spatial relationships is important
for at least two reasons.
First, they can act as enablers or barriers during circular solution development
and practical implementation by encouraging or discouraging acceptance/adoption.
Socio-spatial relationships determine various actors’ resources, incentives, interests,
and visions. Thus, depending on how much these are aligned or misaligned deter-
mines whether the developed circular solutions could be established in practice.
20 Stakeholders’ Role, Inter-Relationships, and Obstacles … 643

Second, socio-spatial relationships are important to understand and work with to

develop and deploy circular solutions that can bring genuine benefits to the affected
local people and places instead of exploiting them for the benefit of only a few
powerful actors. Since the circular economy is as political and economic as it is oper-
ational and technical, there needs to be an in-depth consideration of the impact of
circular solutions on the social and economic structures, actions, and power dynamics
in a given locality [25–27].

20.5.4 Locality of Knowledge and Circular Economy

Broader sustainability research suggests that harnessing the knowledge of people

affected by sustainability transitions is essential in addressing the complex chal-
lenges of such transitions (e.g., [28]). Co-producing knowledge to define, develop
and implement sustainability visions and solutions has been increasingly recognized
as the recipe for achieving the desired positive societal impact through sustainability
transitions. In this context, knowledge co-production can be defined as “iterative and
collaborative processes involving diverse types of expertise, knowledge, and actors
to produce context-specific knowledge and pathways towards a sustainable future”
[29].
Arguably, this line of thinking also applies to implementing a circular economy
in the built environment, thus highlighting the criticality of harnessing local knowl-
edge in developing and devising circular solutions in the built environment. The
built environment has a unique and intimate relationship with society as it provides
people’s livelihood. As mentioned in the previous section, people have unique/local
social and material experiences in the built environment, which manifest through
their local knowledge of living, interacting, and travelling in specific ways. In re-
inventing the economics of the built environment to make it more circular, such
knowledge needs to be harnessed as a valuable resource to develop effective solu-
tions with positive societal impact. As stated by Fratini et al. [30] (p.4), “knowledge
and power are inevitably interlinked in the governance of urban transformation”, and
thus, delivering a just green transition through a circular economy requires severe
locality consideration of knowledge.

20.5.5 Localizing Role of Cities and Circular Economy

In referencing prior research and delving into the pivotal role of cities within the
context of the circular built environment, it is imperative to underscore their signif-
icant role in localizing this transition. The prevailing discourse within the broader
circular economy literature posits that cities serve as the epicenter of the circular
transition, primarily owing to their formidable accumulations of resources, capital,
and talent, as previously articulated. Additionally, cities exhibit a distinct advantage
644 D. Bajare et al.

in this transition due to their pre-existing infrastructure and governance mechanisms,

which are poised to regulate and facilitate the necessary economic activities.
As mentioned before, broader literature on circular economy has identified cities
as the locus of circular transition due to high concentrations of resources, capital,
and talent [1]. In line with this argument, and following the discussion in previous
sections, it could be argued that cities deserve special attention because of their role
in localizing space and knowledge, especially in the case of implementing a circular
economy in the built environment. As stated by Rizzo and Sordi [31], if one considers
circularity as the nexus between resource flows and sociocultural processes of urban-
ization (which involves urban planning and construction), then cities become partic-
ularly relevant in understanding how physical space, citizens, and their knowledge
interact and play out.
Regarding land use/physical space planning, cities can support closing resource
loops by optimizing the locations of interdependent actors in various value streams
[22]. There have been several examples of this globally [32, 33]. A similar approach
to the built environment can support the implementation of a circular economy in
the built environment, for example, by facilitating the matching of material demand
and supply (e.g., [34]) and addressing the lack of physical space for waste sorting
and recycling [35].
From a socio-economic-cultural perspective, reasonable consideration of socio-
spatial relationships and knowledge co-production is crucial to address multiple
interests in an urban context holistically. In recognition of this, broader research in
the circular economy started to adopt more holistic concepts, such as ‘circular devel-
opment,’ instead of ‘circular economy’ [36]. This advocates for merging land-use
considerations with socially-and knowledge-driven considerations such as market
capacity building, partnership building, and new regulations. However, it is currently
unclear how circularity in the built environment could be best supported by such a
holistic approach at the city level.

References

1. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017). https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/. Accessed 2

May 2023
2. Kaewunruen S (2023). Keynote lecture: circular asset management safeguarding railway
systems beyond net zero. In: Abstract from the 6th international conference on key technologies
in railway engineering (ICRE 2023). Beijing, China
3. Ghisellini P, Cialani C, Ulgiati S (2016) A review on circular economy: the expected transition
to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J Clean Prod 114:11–32
4. Geissdoerfer M, Vladimirova D, Evans S (2018) Sustainable business model innovation: a
review. J Clean Prod 198:401–416
5. Sresakoolchai J, Kaewunruen S (2023) Interactive reinforcement learning innovation to reduce
carbon emissions in railway infrastructure maintenance. Dev Built Environ 15:100193
6. McKinsey (2022) The net-zero challenge: accelerating decarbonisation worldwide. https://
www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-challenge-accelerat
ing-decarbonization-worldwide. Accessed 01 July 2023
20 Stakeholders’ Role, Inter-Relationships, and Obstacles … 645

7. Kaewunruen S, Rungskunroch P, Welsh J (2019) A digital-twin evaluation of net zero energy

building for existing buildings. Sustain 11(1):159
8. European Commission (2019) Circular economy. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/cir
cular-economy_en. Accessed 01 Dec 2019
9. Fobbe L, Hilletofth P (2023) Moving toward a circular economy in manufacturing organiza-
tions: the role of circular stakeholder engagement practices. Int J Logist Manag 34(3):674–698
10. Gregory AJ, Atkins JP, Midgley G, Hodgson AM (2020) Stakeholder identification and
engagement in problem structuring interventions. Eur J Oper Res 283(1):321–340
11. Keramitsoglou K, Litseselidis T, Kardimaki A (2023) Raising effective awareness for circular
economy and sustainability concepts through students’ involvement in a virtual enterprise.
Front Sustain 4:1060860
12. Padilla-Rivera A, Russo-Garrido S, Merveille N (2020) Addressing the social aspects of a
circular economy: a systematic literature review. Sustain 12(19):7912
13. Aslam MS, Huang B, Cui L (2020) Review of construction and demolition waste management
in China and USA. J Environ Manage 264:110445
14. Ghisellini P, Ji X, Liu G, Ulgiati S (2018) Evaluating the transition towards cleaner production
in the construction and demolition sector of China: a review. J Clean Prod 195:418–434
15. Williams J (2019) Circular cities: challenges to implementing looping actions. Sustain
11(2):423
16. Eisenreich A, Füller J, Stuchtey M (2021) Open circular innovation: how companies can develop
circular innovations in collaboration with stakeholders. Sustain 13(23):13456
17. Hodson M, Marvin S (2010) Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how would we
know if they were? Res Policy 39(4):477–485
18. Oyinlola M, Whitehead T, Abuzeinab A, Ade A, Akinola Y, Anafi F, Farukh F, Jegede O,
Kandan K, Kim B, Mosugu E (2018) Bottle house: a case study of transdisciplinary research
for tackling global challenges. Habitat Int 79:18–29
19. Hubmann G (2022) The socio-spatial effects of circular urban systems. IOP Conf Ser: Earth
Environ Sci 1078(1):012010
20. Rahla KM, Mateus R, Bragança L (2021) Implementing circular economy strategies in
buildings—from theory to practice. Appl Syst Innov 4(2):26
21. Schiller G, Gruhler K, Ortlepp R (2017) Continuous material flow analysis approach for bulk
nonmetallic mineral building materials applied to the German building sector. J Ind Ecol
21(3):673–688
22. Williams J (2020) The role of spatial planning in transitioning to circular urban development.
Urban Geogr 41(6):915–919
23. Schiller G, Bimesmeier T, Pham AT (2020) Method for quantifying supply and demand of
construction minerals in urban regions—a case study of Hanoi and its hinterland. Sustain
12(11):4358
24. Gotham KF (2003) Toward an understanding of the spatiality of urban poverty: the urban poor
as spatial actors. Int J Urban Reg Res 27(3):723–737
25. Monstadt J, Coutard O (2019) Cities in an era of interfacing infrastructures: politics and
spatialities of the urban nexus. Urban Stud 56(11):2191–2206
26. Bassens D, Kębłowski W, Lambert D (2020) Placing cities in the circular economy: neoliberal
urbanism or spaces of socio-ecological transition? Urban Geogr 41(6):893–897
27. Kębłowski W, Lambert D, Bassens D (2020) Circular economy and the city: an urban political
economy agenda. Cult Organ 26(2):142–158
28. Polk M (ed.) (2015) Co-producing knowledge for sustainable urban development: joining forces
for change. ISBN 9780367599799. Routledge, London
29. Norström AV, Cvitanovic C, Löf MF, West S, Wyborn C, Balvanera P, Bednarek AT, Bennett
EM, Biggs R, de Bremond A, Campbell BM, Canadell JG, Carpenter SR, Folke C, Fulton EA,
Gaffney O, Gelcich S, Jouffray J-B, Leach M, Le Tissier M, Martín-López B, Louder R, Loutre
M-F, Meadow AM, Nagendra H, Payne D, Peterson GD, Reyers B, Scholes R, Ifejika Speranza
C, Spierenburg M, Stafford-Smith M, Tengö M, van der Hel S, van Putten I, Österblom H (2020)
Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat Sustain 3(3):182−190
646 D. Bajare et al.

30. Fratini CF, Georg S, Jørgensen MS (2019) Exploring circular economy imaginaries in European
cities: a research agenda for the governance of urban sustainability transitions. J Clean Prod
228:974–989
31. Rizzo A, Sordi J (2020) Resources and urbanization in the global periphery: perspectives from
urban and landscape studies. Cities 100:102647
32. Stockholm County Council (2015) RUFS 2050-programme for a new regional development
plan for the county of Stockholm
33. Greater London Authority (2020) London plan. City Hall, London
34. Arora M, Raspall F, Cheah L, Silva A (2019) Residential building material stocks and
component-level circularity: the case of Singapore. J Clean Prod 216:239–248
35. Tambovceva T, Bajare D, Tereshina MV, Titko J, Shvetsova I (2021) Awareness and atti-
tude of Latvian construction companies towards sustainability and waste recycling. J Sib Fed
University Hum & Soc Sci 14(7):942–955.
36. Williams J (2023) Circular cities: planning for circular development in European cities. Eur
Plan Stud 31(1):14–35

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 21
Defining the Project’s Lifecycle Stages
and Their Related Decision-Making
Activities

Diana Bajare , Gabriel Zsembinszki , Pedro Frazão Pedroso ,

Marco Frazão Pedroso , Dorina Kripa , Xhesila Nano ,
Tatjana Tambovceva , and Ruben Paul Borg

Abstract Large infrastructure projects are significant for societal and economic
development, involving different types of infrastructure and many stakeholders.
This chapter outlines the stages of the project life cycle, emphasizing the impor-
tance of stakeholder engagement at all stages for successful project outcomes. The
stages include initiation, planning, execution, monitoring and control, and closure,
each with defined objectives, outcomes, and decision-making activities. Due to the
complexity of infrastructure projects, effective stakeholder relationship manage-
ment is essential. The chapter emphasizes the need for continuous communication,
strategic engagement, and proactive risk management to align project objectives
with stakeholder interests. Case studies and literature reviews show how stakeholder
participation improves project performance, sustainability, and societal impact. The
findings highlight the importance of integrating stakeholder perspectives to achieve
effective project management and meet performance indicators, ultimately leading to
successful project implementation and long-term societal benefits. In order to charac-
terize the role of stakeholders, mutual relations and obstacles to the implementation

D. Bajare (B)
Institute of Sustainable Building Materials and Engineering Systems, Riga Technical University,
Riga, Latvia
e-mail: [email protected]
G. Zsembinszki
GREiA Research Group, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
P. Frazão Pedroso · M. Frazão Pedroso
Institute of Higher Technology, CERIS, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
D. Kripa · X. Nano
Faculty of Economy, University of Tirana, Tirana, Albania
T. Tambovceva
Faculty of Engineering Economics and Management, Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
R. P. Borg
Faculty for the Built Environment, University of Malta, Msida, Malta

© The Author(s) 2025 647

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_21
648 D. Bajare et al.

of the circular economy outside the European Union, the case of Albania, which
will soon become a potential member state of the European Union, is analyzed. The
problems with the involvement of interested parties in the implementation of the
infrastructure project and the benefits and obstacles are similar for both the member
state of the European Union and the countries that are just about to become one.

Keywords Infrastructure projects · Project lifecycle · Stakeholder engagement ·

Project management · Risk management · Sustainability

21.1 Identification of the Project Lifecycle Stages

Large infrastructure projects have gained significant importance in recent years for
societal and economic development [1]. The availability of infrastructure is strongly
correlated with economic growth and plays a vital role in socio-economic devel-
opment [2]. These projects encompass various types of infrastructure, including
complex (e.g., transportation, transmission) and soft (e.g., cultural, healthcare) infras-
tructure [3, 4]. The scale of these projects is extensive, covering broad geograph-
ical regions and involving multiple stakeholders [3]. Stakeholders are individuals or
groups who can significantly impact the project or are affected by its activities. In
the project closure stage, stakeholders play a significant role as they may have been
actively involved throughout the project or may be affected by its completion [5].
However, large-scale infrastructure projects face challenges due to their
complexity, involving multiple stakeholders with opposing requirements [6]. These
complexities and insufficient stakeholder involvement can lead to time and cost over-
runs [7]. Research indicates that a significant number of projects fail to achieve
stakeholder satisfaction or meet planned goals [8, 9]. Recognizing the need for
improved stakeholder engagement, scholars emphasize the importance of involving
stakeholders throughout the project lifecycle [10].
The analysis of project information plays a crucial role in identifying and
addressing problems, dysfunctions, and issues that arise during project implemen-
tation. However, when a project is successfully completed, the project structure is
dismantled, and team members regroup to undertake new projects, this information
is usually lost. It should serve as a valuable learning experience for future projects
and be appropriately documented and archived.
For a project to positively impact the organization or community where it is
implemented, it must align with the established strategy, deliver added value, and be
continuously monitored to ensure that the achieved results align with the expected
outcomes. Evaluating project performance also involves considering the perspective
of stakeholders who can influence or are affected by the project. Clear roles, effective
communication channels, and well-defined reporting mechanisms are essential to
ensure the organization’s and project’s economic success.
21 Defining the Project’s Lifecycle Stages and Their Related … 649

Organizing and coordinating a project involves aligning its activities with stake-
holder interests to achieve efficient project management and fulfil the project objec-
tives. This part of Chapter aims to address the integrated approach of stakeholders.
It proposes harmonizing project outcomes with stakeholder objectives.
To achieve the objectives and fulfil the performance indicators of a project, effec-
tive management of stakeholder influences is crucial for the project manager and
the project team. Stakeholders play a significant role in the success of a project and
should not be disregarded by the project management team. However, managing
stakeholders can be complex, particularly when they have diverse nationalities and
cultural backgrounds, which can pose challenges in the communication process.
Stakeholders may have different, even opposing, goals, creating additional difficulties
in managing stakeholders.
During the actual development of the project, stakeholders hold varying levels
of authority and responsibility, which can fluctuate throughout the project lifecycle.
Their active or passive involvement, ranging from occasional participation in studies
and analysis to providing financial or legal support, can significantly impact the
project’s success.
Strategic project management approaches should be employed to effectively
engage stakeholders in the project and ensure efficient communication. By recog-
nizing the influence and importance of stakeholders, project teams can navigate the
complexities of stakeholder dynamics and optimize their contributions to project
success.
The project lifecycle consists of several stages that encompass the planning, execu-
tion, monitoring, and closure of a project. Each stage has specific objectives, deliv-
erables, and decision-making activities. The following are commonly recognized
project lifecycle stages: Initiation, Planning, Execution, Monitoring and Control,
and Closure.
Initiation: This stage involves defining the project’s purpose, goals, and objectives.
It includes conducting feasibility studies, identifying stakeholders, and determining
the project scope. Decision-making activities in this stage include project selection,
prioritization, and obtaining approvals.
The findings by Prebanić and Vukomanović [11] led to the development of a frame-
work model for stakeholder engagement in infrastructure projects, highlighting the
importance of multiple management levels and project success criteria. The research
also revealed the need to consider trade-offs between long-term societal success and
short-term efficiency in project delivery and the immaturity of stakeholder engage-
ment practices in construction infrastructure projects. The complexity of infrastruc-
ture projects and the role of public clients as initiators of engagement activities were
identified as influential factors. The framework model provides practical implications
for project managers to enhance their competencies and suggests potential changes
in procurement and tender processes to enable early and comprehensive stakeholder
involvement. Further research is needed to refine the framework and explore its
applicability to different types of infrastructure projects and contexts.
650 D. Bajare et al.

Stage I: Sustainable Project Development—Main Activities Should Be

Implemented
The project’s initiation stage involved extensive stakeholder involvement to
ensure alignment with diverse interests and needs.
• Stakeholder Identification: A comprehensive stakeholder analysis must
be conducted to identify and categorise key stakeholders, including local
residents, transportation authorities, environmental organisations, business
associations, and government agencies. This step will help identify the range
of interests, concerns, and expertise within the stakeholder landscape.
• Defining Project Objectives: Stakeholder consultation workshops should
be organised to define the project purpose, goals, and objectives. During
these workshops, stakeholders will be invited to provide input on the
desired outcomes, environmental considerations, and community impact.
This collaborative approach ensures that stakeholder perspectives will be
integrated into the project’s vision and mission.
• Gathering Stakeholder Input: Various engagement techniques, such as
interviews, focus groups, and surveys, will employed to gather stakeholder
input. Through these interactions, stakeholders will express their views on
the project’s potential benefits, potential risks, and preferred strategies. Their
input will provide valuable insights for identifying project constraints and
opportunities.
• Assessing Feasibility and Viability: Feasibility studies should be
conducted with the active participation of stakeholders. Technical experts
should collaborate with stakeholders to assess the environmental, economic,
and social feasibility of alternative project options. Stakeholders will
provide data, local knowledge, and contextual information that will influ-
ence the selection and evaluation of potential project scenarios.
• Securing Stakeholder Support: Throughout the initiation stage, contin-
uous communication and collaboration will secure stakeholder support.
Regular stakeholder meetings should be organised to share project updates,
address concerns, and clarify expectations. Stakeholders should actively
participate in the approval process, providing feedback and endorsing the
project proposal.
This example demonstrates how stakeholders could be involved in the initi-
ation stage and contribute to a more inclusive, sustainable, and contextually
appropriate infrastructure development project. By actively engaging stake-
holders, the project team will be able to align the project’s purpose, goals, and
objectives with the diverse interests of the stakeholder community.
21 Defining the Project’s Lifecycle Stages and Their Related … 651

Planning: In the planning stage, project managers develop a detailed project plan
that outlines the approach, activities, resources, timelines, and budget. Decision-
making activities include defining project milestones, identifying potential risks,
and establishing communication and procurement strategies.
Stakeholder involvement in project planning is crucial. Engaging external stake-
holders early on is important, rather than just during the implementation phase. This
ensures their input on critical decisions and allows a better understanding of their
perspectives, values, and interests. By involving stakeholders in the planning process,
project managers can address potential conflicts, incorporate diverse viewpoints, and
enhance the credibility and success of the project.
The study by Heravi et al. [12] examined the current level of stakeholder involve-
ment during the project’s planning process. Stakeholders often provide the needed
resources and can control the interaction and resource flows in the network. They
also ultimately have a substantial impact on a construction organization’s survival.
Therefore, appropriate management and involvement of key stakeholders should be
an essential part of any project management plan.
A series of literature reviews were conducted to identify and categorize significant
activities involved in the project planning stage. For data collection, a questionnaire
survey was designed and distributed amongst nearly 200 companies involved in
Australia’s residential building sector. The analysis results demonstrate the engage-
ment levels of the four stakeholder groups involved in the planning process and
establish a basis for further stakeholder involvement improvement.

Stage II: Project Planning—Main Activities Should Be Implemented

• Defining Project Approach and Activities: To ensure an ideal and desired

project outcome, stakeholders, including local community representatives,
environmental groups, and energy regulators, should actively participate
in workshops and focus group discussions. These collaborative interactions
define the project’s approach and activities, considering crucial factors such
as environmental impact assessments, land use planning, and community
engagement strategies. By involving stakeholders, valuable insights can be
gained regarding local sensitivities, environmental concerns, and commu-
nity expectations, enabling a project that aligns with the interests and needs
of all involved parties.
• Resource and Timeline Planning: The input of stakeholders, including
representatives from engineering firms, construction contractors, and equip-
ment suppliers, is essential in determining the resources required and time-
lines for the project. Through meaningful discussions and leveraging stake-
holders’ expertise and knowledge, estimates can be made regarding resource
requirements, construction timelines, and potential bottlenecks. This collab-
orative approach allows for developing a realistic project schedule and
652 D. Bajare et al.

resource allocation plan, ensuring the project progresses efficiently and

effectively.
• Budget Development: To achieve an ideal budget for the project, stake-
holders from finance and accounting departments, project sponsors, and
financial institutions should be consulted during the budget development
process. By involving these stakeholders, valuable insights can be gath-
ered regarding the costs associated with land acquisition, infrastructure
development, equipment procurement, and ongoing operational expenses.
Their financial expertise and market analysis contribute to informed budget
decisions and support cost-effective project planning, optimally allocating
financial resources.
• Risk Identification and Mitigation: In order to mitigate potential risks
and achieve a desired outcome, stakeholders such as risk management
experts, environmental consultants, and local community representatives
should actively participate in risk identification workshops. Various risks
related to land use conflicts, wildlife protection, regulatory compliance,
and community acceptance can be identified through these collaborative
discussions. Engaging stakeholders in risk mitigation strategies and contin-
gency planning can proactively address potential project risks, minimising
their impact on the project’s success.
• Communication and Procurement Strategies: Effective communication
and transparent procurement processes are essential for an ideal project
outcome. Stakeholders from communication and procurement departments,
local authorities, and community representatives are crucial in devel-
oping communication and procurement strategies. Their input is vital
in determining effective communication channels, engaging with local
communities, and establishing fair and transparent procurement practices.
Furthermore, stakeholders can contribute to identifying potential local
suppliers, fostering regional economic benefits, and ensuring that procure-
ment practices are conducted with integrity and fairness, promoting positive
stakeholder relationships and project success.
This example demonstrates how stakeholder involvement in the planning
stage of a building project facilitated comprehensive project design, minimized
conflicts, and enhanced the project’s overall feasibility and success.

Execution: The execution stage involves the implementation of the project plan.
Activities include coordinating resources, managing stakeholders, and monitoring
project progress. Decision-making activities in this stage include addressing changes,
resolving conflicts, and ensuring the project stays on track.
According to the research of Bizon-Górecka and Górecki [13], the relationships
between stakeholders significantly impact the project’s efficiency, timeliness, and
21 Defining the Project’s Lifecycle Stages and Their Related … 653

quality. Managing these relationships should be a key element of project risk manage-
ment. The investor plays a central role in the project and bears legal and finan-
cial responsibilities. The investor’s representative, or supervision inspector, ensures
compliance with the construction design and building permit and is responsible for
the timely execution of the project. The designer develops the construction design
following regulations, norms, and technical expertise. The site manager, as the imme-
diate representative of the contractor, oversees the construction works and ensures
compliance with construction laws. These stakeholders work together to ensure a
harmonious and successful construction process.

Stage III: Construction Project Execution—Main Activities Should Be

Implemented
By analyzing different case studies, valuable insights can be gained into how
stakeholder involvement during the execution stage of construction projects can
lead to improved project outcomes, enhanced sustainability performance, and
stronger relationships among project participants. Understanding the strategies
and approaches stakeholders employ in these projects can inform the best
practices and inspire future initiatives in the construction sector
• Coordinating Resources: Stakeholders can actively collaborate to optimise
resource allocation and streamline construction activities. Regular meetings
and communication channels will ensure timely materials, equipment, and
skilled labor availability.
• Managing Stakeholders: Effective stakeholder management will foster
positive relationships and address concerns. Stakeholders, including
community representatives and regulatory authorities, will provide input
on environmental compliance, safety measures, and community impact
management.
• Monitoring Project Progress: Stakeholder involvement will be vital for
monitoring project milestones and ensuring adherence. Progress review
meetings will engage stakeholders, enabling feedback on construction
quality, compliance, and project timelines.
• Addressing Changes and Resolving Conflicts: Stakeholders will be
critical in addressing and resolving conflicts. Their expertise and input
from architects, engineers, and regulatory agencies will facilitate prompt
decision-making and necessary modifications.
• Ensuring Project Compliance: Stakeholders from quality assurance,
safety, and regulatory departments will actively ensure project compli-
ance with standards, regulations, and certifications. Their involvement
will support quality control, safety protocols, and sustainable construction
practices, aligning the project with environmental and social requirements.
654 D. Bajare et al.

Monitoring and Control: During this stage, project performance should be continu-
ously measured, and progress should be monitored against the project plan. Decision-
making activities include analyzing data, identifying variances, and taking corrective
actions to address deviations from the plan.
A study examined the stakeholder engagement and participation in monitoring and
evaluating processes in local government project delivery in Ghana [14]. Six main
stakeholders were identified, including the client, contractors, consultants, material
suppliers, local authority service providers, and the beneficiary community. However,
the study found that only three stakeholders, namely the client, contractor, and consul-
tant, actively participated in the monitoring and evaluation at all stages of the project
implementation. This indicates a high engagement level but a poor participation level
in monitoring and evaluating.
The lack of stakeholder participation in monitoring and evaluating has contributed
to various challenges in local government project delivery in Ghana. These chal-
lenges include procurement issues leading to payment delays, non-compliance with
project specifications, project delays, inadequate health and safety practices, client
dissatisfaction, and corruption in the construction sector.

Stage IV: The Monitoring and Control Stage of the Project—Main

Activities Should Be Implemented
• To achieve ideal project transparency and stakeholder engagement, regular
stakeholder reporting should be conducted during the monitoring and
control stage. Stakeholders, including project sponsors, regulatory author-
ities, and community representatives, should receive periodic updates on
project status, milestones achieved, and any deviations from the planned
schedule. Their active participation in review meetings will allow for
valuable feedback, address concerns, and ensure alignment with project
objectives and compliance requirements.
• Performance Measurement: Collaboration with stakeholders will be
crucial in establishing meaningful performance measurement metrics and
indicators during the monitoring and control stage. A comprehensive project
performance assessment will be achieved by involving stakeholders in
defining key performance indicators (KPIs), such as cost, quality, safety,
and environmental impact. Stakeholders will provide valuable insights into
appropriate measurement criteria and benchmarks, facilitating accurate
monitoring and evaluation of project progress.
• Risk Management: The active involvement of stakeholders is essential in
effective risk management during the monitoring and control stage. Through
risk review meetings with stakeholders from various departments, including
project management, safety, environmental, and legal, emerging risks will
be identified, assessed, and addressed promptly. Risk response strategies
should be developed by leveraging stakeholders’ expertise and perspectives,
ensuring proactive risk mitigation and informed decision-making.
21 Defining the Project’s Lifecycle Stages and Their Related … 655

• Quality Assurance: Stakeholder involvement is vital for maintaining high-

quality standards during the monitoring and control stage. Engaging stake-
holders such as quality control inspectors, contractors, and end-users in
quality inspections, audits, and reviews will validate compliance with
quality standards. Stakeholders’ input will seek to identify potential issues
or deficiencies and implement corrective actions, guaranteeing project
deliverables meet stakeholder expectations and ensuring overall project
success.
• Change Control: Stakeholder involvement is crucial in effective change
control processes during the monitoring and control stage. As changes
or deviations occur, consulting stakeholders, including project sponsors,
designers, and end-users, allow for a comprehensive evaluation of their
impact and the proposal of suitable alternatives. Collaborating with stake-
holders will inform decision-makers, minimize disruptions, and ensure
project progress remains aligned with stakeholder needs and expectations.

This example demonstrates how stakeholder involvement in an infrastructure

development project’s monitoring and control stage contributed to stakeholder
reporting, performance measurement, risk management, quality assurance, and
change control. The stakeholder collaboration supported effective project oversight,
timely decision-making, and adherence to project objectives
Closure: The closure stage marks the completion of the project. It includes formal-
izing project deliverables, conducting final inspections, and obtaining client accep-
tance. Decision-making activities in this stage involve transitioning project outputs
to operations, conducting lessons learned, and performing project reviews.
Caibula et al. [5] concluded that a project’s closing phase is vital in evaluating its
success based on various criteria, including meeting deadlines, efficiently utilizing
allocated resources, and overall performance. During the closing phase, a compre-
hensive analysis of the implemented project must be conducted, considering four key
elements: activities undertaken, achieved results compared to initial plans, resources
invested, and the impact on direct and indirect beneficiaries.
To ensure the successful completion of a project, careful identification and analysis
of project stakeholders are essential. Stakeholders encompass individuals and enti-
ties from the project’s community’s internal and external environments. The stake-
holder identification and analyzing process involves analyzing their level of influence,
interests, interdependencies, and potential connections with other stakeholders.
This analysis process, conducted at the project’s outset, enables the project
manager to allocate appropriate attention and focus to each stakeholder, thereby
maximizing project outcomes during implementation and closure. Stakeholder iden-
tification and analysis are qualitative research processes aimed at understanding and
analyzing their roles in shaping project policies and methodologies. The impor-
tance of efficient stakeholder management is emphasized the higher the complexity
656 D. Bajare et al.

of a project, as ineffective relationship management can negatively impact project

implementation and potentially lead to project failure.

Stage V: The Closure stage of the Project—Main Activities Should Be

Implemented
• Project Evaluation: Stakeholders, including project team members,
management representatives, and end-users, must be involved in project
evaluation activities during the closure stage. Evaluation workshops and
surveys should be conducted to gather feedback on project performance,
outcomes, and lessons learned. Stakeholders will provide insights into the
project’s strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement.
• Knowledge Transfer: Stakeholders will be crucial in knowledge transfer
during the closure stage. Lessons learned sessions and documentation
reviews will be conducted with stakeholders from various departments,
such as design, engineering, marketing, and customer support. Stakeholders
will share their experiences, best practices, and recommendations for future
projects. Their input will contribute to organisational learning and the
retention of valuable project knowledge.
• Stakeholder Satisfaction Assessment: Stakeholders, including project
sponsors, customers, and end-users, should be engaged in assessing stake-
holder satisfaction during the closure stage. Surveys, interviews, or focus
group discussions should be conducted to gauge stakeholder perceptions
of project success, alignment with expectations, and overall satisfaction.
Stakeholder feedback will help identify areas for improvement and provide
insights for future stakeholder engagement strategies.
• Transition Planning: Stakeholders from different departments, such as
operations, maintenance, and customer service, collaborated during the
closure stage to ensure a smooth transition from the project phase to ongoing
operations. Stakeholder input will seek to develop transition plans, including
activities such as training, documentation handover, and support processes.
Stakeholders contributed their expertise to facilitate a seamless transition
and ensure the project’s deliverables should be effectively utilised.
• Celebrating Achievements: Stakeholders should be involved in celebrating
project achievements and recognising contributions during the closure stage.
Appreciation events, project showcases, or award ceremonies should be
organised to acknowledge the efforts and accomplishments of project team
members, stakeholders, and collaborators. Stakeholders’ involvement in
these celebrations will foster a sense of pride and enhanced stakeholder
relationships.

This example demonstrates how stakeholder involvement in the closure stage of

a project development project contributed to project evaluation, knowledge transfer,
21 Defining the Project’s Lifecycle Stages and Their Related … 657

stakeholder satisfaction assessment, transition planning, and celebrating achieve-

ments. The stakeholder collaboration facilitated organizational learning, knowledge
retention, and positive stakeholder experiences
The involvement of stakeholders in the project’s lifecycle stages and related
decision-making activities can vary depending on the project management method-
ology or framework being used. Different methodologies have their approaches
to stakeholder engagement, which can influence when and how stakeholders are
involved in the project.
Here are some reasons why specific stages and activities for involving stake-
holders may vary based on the project management methodology or frame-
work:
• Emphasis on stakeholder collaboration: Some methodologies, such as agile or
collaborative project management approaches, prioritise continuous stakeholder
collaboration throughout the project. These methodologies often involve stake-
holders in iterative feedback cycles, regular meetings, and collective decision-
making processes. This allows for more frequent and immediate stakeholder input
and involvement.
• Sequential nature of traditional methodologies: Traditional project manage-
ment methodologies, such as the waterfall approach, follow a sequential and
linear progression of project stages. Stakeholder involvement in these method-
ologies may be more concentrated during specific stages, such as project initi-
ation, requirements gathering, or project review meetings. The decision-making
activities related to stakeholder involvement are aligned with these particular
stages.
• Tailoring to project complexity: Different projects have varying levels of
complexity, and the chosen project management methodology or framework may
be tailored accordingly. PRINCE2 or PMBOK may be employed for complex
projects, providing specific stages for stakeholder identification, analysis, and
engagement. These methodologies emphasise structured stakeholder management
processes to ensure effective communication and stakeholder alignment.
• Flexibility and adaptability: Some project management methodologies, such as
hybrid approaches or customised frameworks, offer flexibility in adapting to the
project’s specific needs. Stakeholder involvement and decision-making activities
can be tailored based on the project’s unique characteristics, stakeholder require-
ments, and the organisation’s preferences. This allows for a more customised
approach to stakeholder engagement throughout the project’s lifecycle.
• Organizational culture and practices: The chosen project management method-
ology or framework may align with the organisation’s culture and practices.
Some organisations have established frameworks or methodologies that prescribe
specific stages and activities for stakeholder involvement. These organisa-
tions may have their guidelines, templates, or best practices that dictate how
stakeholders are engaged and involved at different stages of the project.
658 D. Bajare et al.

The specific stages and activities for involving stakeholders and related decision-
making activities may vary depending on the project management methodology or
framework being used. Factors such as the methodology’s approach to stakeholder
collaboration, the sequential or iterative nature of the methodology, the project’s
complexity, the flexibility of the chosen approach, and the organization’s culture and
practices all influence how stakeholders are engaged and when their input is sought
throughout the project’s lifecycle.

21.2 Stakeholders Role, Inter-Relationships and Obstacles

in the Implementation of Circular Economy
in Albania

21.2.1 Connection of the Construction Sector with Other

Economy Sectors

The construction sector is interconnected with other sectors of the economy in terms
of using inputs and cooperation with different sectors throughout the construction
process and even after finishing construction. The development of the construc-
tion sector or its slowdown affects the performance indicators of other sectors. Any
economic changes may also affect other sectors, including the construction sector,
and vice versa [15]. The construction sector is connected to the transport sector
(for the extraction/transport of raw materials), the production sector of construction
materials as well as the trade sector of construction materials that are imported, such
as iron, cement, inert materials of production points, electrical materials, plumbing
materials, paving and cladding tiles, doors and windows, with apartment and office
furniture, and also with heating and cooling equipment and appliances, kitchen appli-
ances, waterproofing materials, etc. [16]. When the construction sector is working
efficiently, there are high demands for the above-mentioned materials and equipment,
so other sectors of the economy are put to work. This implies that as construction
activity increases, there is a greater demand for trading these materials and equipment.
The opposite happens when the construction sector is stagnant.
The economic environment includes some macroeconomic indicators. Economic
factors have an impact on construction businesses and their performance. An impor-
tant economic factor that can affect the economic performance of construction
companies is the change in demand, which can occur due to several factors, ranging
from economic (such as varying growth or interest rates) to demographic (migrations
or lower/higher natality).
The construction sector is also influenced by social factors or social pressure,
such as the credibility of construction companies. Buyers do not know every detail
or information about the quality and type of materials used in the construction of a
building. Therefore, a construction company’s reliability, credibility, or good name
21 Defining the Project’s Lifecycle Stages and Their Related … 659

plays an important role in buying or selling buildings. Everyone wants to feel confi-
dent about the quality of the construction work carried out in the buildings. Therefore,
many construction firms work to change themselves by creating a good image and
perceived credibility with all interest groups.
In almost the majority of cases, buyers’ decisions to purchase a residential premise
or to invest in real estate are influenced by the proximity to the main facilities that
people need in their daily lives, such as transport facilities, proximity to schools/
hospitals/ commercial complexes/ sports centers, etc.
The decision to purchase a specific residential premise can affect the development
of the whole neighborhood/area and contribute towards opening new businesses
necessary for people to live a comfortable life on their premises. In this context,
different economic sectors are interconnected in contributing towards a better life
for citizens, creating a closed loop in which every chain link contributes to the next
one.

21.2.2 Stakeholders in the Construction Sector and Their

Important Role

A crucial step in integrating the circular economy principles in the construction

sector is understanding the different stakeholders’ roles, interactions, needs, and the
influence they can exert on the process.
There are different types of stakeholders in the construction sector, which can
be grouped as construction businesses (including workers, designers, architects,
engineers, investors, employees, investors), suppliers, governmental institutions
(including legal authorities, line ministries, municipalities, regional development
agencies), public (including citizens, NGOs, civil society organizations, researchers,
media, academics, owners, consumers, external experts, external/public auditors).
In the case of Albania, not every group of stakeholders is invested in talking about
CE or taking concrete steps towards implementing the CE approach in the construc-
tion sector. The CE approach is mostly mentioned, analyzed, and advised by external
experts/researchers, including economy, technology, and environmental experts. The
collaboration between these different groups of stakeholders within the process of
CE implementation is necessary for the application and integration of the CE princi-
ples in the construction sector: to reduce waste and minimize resource depletion by
recycling and reusing building materials, to optimize the use of materials and reduce
the environmental impact of projects and in the choices of materials during the entire
life cycle.
Governmental institutions can play a very important role in incentivizing construc-
tion businesses towards the CE approach; in Albania, some steps were made in
drafting policies and strategies regarding managing waste (even construction and
demolition waste (CDW)), but these efforts remain new and are not inclusive in
terms of creating the right habitat for the CE approach to evolve, or do not present
660 D. Bajare et al.

clear and strong opportunities for construction businesses. The Albanian Government
has drafted the Strategy for Integrated Waste Management (2020–2035) published in
2020 [17], which was developed on the vision or perception of the concept of “zero
waste” so that waste is collected and treated as raw materials and management is
done under the concept of circulation systems. The key objectives are waste preven-
tion, separate collection of waste, and large-scale recycling. Another legislative tool
that aims to regulate the process of administration of construction waste is the Alba-
nian Regulation No. 1 for the Treatment of Construction Waste from Creation to its
Disposal [18], which predicts the separation of construction and demolition waste
and their recovery.

21.2.3 Regulatory Efforts and Albanian—EU Projects

to Apply CE to the Construction Sector

In cooperation with the European Union, the Albanian Government notified in 2022
that thirty-five million euros be provided for integrated waste management and six
million euros for the “Europe for Nature” program, which consists of the protection
of nature identified as one of the leading environmental priorities by the Albanian
Government [19]. IPA III includes two major projects: the CE focuses on integrated
waste management, and the second program focuses on nature and protected areas
[19]. Thirty-five million euros have been provided for the first circular economy
program to strengthen Albania’s steps in the European action of green growth for a
clean Albania as part of the worldwide challenge for integrated waste management.
A challenge that is part of the most advanced European countries has identified the
roadmap of how the consumer society should manage the waste it produces. The
IPA program implements models for integrated waste management and the closure
of illegal landfills in the waste management areas for the two counties (Kukës and
Gjirokastra) where the program is focused. These two models are focus on the feasi-
bility study carried out by the European Union funds for integrated waste manage-
ment from the waste producer to the final point of solid waste treatment with a partic-
ular emphasis on source separation, recycling, and environmental education. Overall,
IPA III program focuses on waste management, not specifically on the construction
sector or even CDW. Waste management has been an utmost Governmental priority
in recent years. In the Circular Economy approach, Albanian authorities have few
to no specific economic instruments to promote recycling and prevent waste gener-
ation. The main challenges relate to the implementation of the waste management
legislation, where significant financial resources are needed for infrastructure, and
sufficient administrative capacity is unavailable both at the national and a local level.
At the local level, separate waste collection is not correctly done, and recycling is
mainly carried out sporadically by the private sector. There are more than hundred-
ninety illegal dumpsites that need to be safely rehabilitated or closed to comply with
EU standards.
21 Defining the Project’s Lifecycle Stages and Their Related … 661

Regarding the activities and operations of the construction business, the Govern-
ment must monitor the changes that occur due to outside factors or influences that
impact the operation of the business, considering that these factors significantly affect
the work and performance of the construction business. Despite the development in
Albania, a lot needs to be done if construction companies are to adopt CE princi-
ples in their processes. The Government must take measures to minimize the impact
of threats imposed by the environment (economic, social, and political) and create
a favorable environment for the construction business to increase sustainability and
longevity in the market with the products and services that the construction companies
themselves offer.
In Albania, some construction businesses have made some steps forward in using
simple CE concepts in their supply chain of construction, but it is worth mentioning
that these businesses are classified as “large businesses”. “Contact” Construction
Company uses the ISO 9001 standard in the design and implementation of construc-
tion works. Furthermore, the information on its official website declares that it
carries out construction works respecting the environment with low construction
intensity and green spaces. “Kastrati” Group, another large construction company,
claims to strive to maintain the highest standards of integrity in all its endeavors by
delivering premium-quality products and services to the benefit of all stakeholders
and supporting long-term economic growth, social stability & progress. “BALFIN”
Group, an another company that operates in the construction sector, declares that it
works to meet its objectives by adhering to its values: Accountability, Partnership,
Innovation, and Consideration. In compliance with these values and the internal Code
of Conduct, as well as according to international best practices, BALFIN Group
has established four pillars of corporate responsibility: Education, Health and Well-
Being, Environment, and Poverty Alleviation. In fact, companies of BALFIN Group
have long since been active with projects benefiting society. Considering their respec-
tive sectors and the geographical reach of their activity, they are focused on several
directions and act as representatives of Group’s Corporate Social Responsibility.
Their projects are built around these pillars. “Orion” Construction Company has
built its vision and mission on three pillars, two of them being related to environ-
ment and ecological solutions, such as green spaces, natural light and ventilation,
and ecological materials, to guarantee absolute quality, longevity and to respect
the environment, materials used for refinishing and plastering in the projects which
are certified as ecological materials, solar panels, recyclable and eco-compatible
materials together with renewable energy.
“Matrix” Construction Company claims that their projects provide more green
spaces, use environmentally friendly materials, and provide alternative solutions for
energy management.
All these construction businesses are considered as large companies in the Alba-
nian economy; hence these tentative towards circular economy approach require
financial resources and innovative technologies, which are hard to implement by
small businesses.
Overall in Albania, the construction sector is poorly studied in terms of CE
concepts and implementation of CE approach, concluding in a lack of information
662 D. Bajare et al.

for inter-relationships of different stakeholders and obstacles in the implementation

of CE.

21.2.4 Obstacles in the Implementation of CE

in the Construction Sector

When analyzing the construction sector and the overall situation of the Albanian
economy, several types of obstacles can be identified: economic, political, institu-
tional, technological, and informational. By overlooking the system, not only in the
construction sector, but in general, citizens and workers lack information on the CE
approach, its concept, and its elements. Small construction businesses cannot afford
to use CE technology, presenting one of the most important obstacles in this context:
financial obstacles to upgrading technology. Furthermore, when detailing the legisla-
tive framework, it can be observed that even the legislative authorities consider the
CE approach in its simplest form: waste recycling. No further steps have been taken
legislatively to advance the CE concept in different areas of Albania’s economy.
Political obstacles are crucial, as each Government defines the key strategies for
the upcoming years and does not apply a long-term vision, which is needed for the
CE application. During these recent years in Albania, strategies were drafted by
considering the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and European integration of
Albania in the EU [17]. Even though these strategies cite the SDGs and are gener-
ally in line with the EU acquis, in general, despite some paragraphs that mention
and include these goals, little effort is made to implement them. As policies and
strategies are considered key in pushing the construction sector towards using the
CE approach, their lack poses one of the greatest obstacles to the Albanian economy.
The lack of communication between different stakeholders such as: govern-
mental institutions, construction businesses, economy/technology/CE experts, citi-
zens, construction workers, municipality, external/public auditors, etc., is a key
obstacle in implementing the CE approach in Albania. Furthermore, the absence
of digital ways of interacting with stakeholders contributes negatively to the
lack of communication between these different groups. Each chain link presents
numerous challenges, from identifying the different stakeholders to managing their
relationships.
Joint action is needed between key stakeholders that aim to apply CE in this
sector. This can be done by organizing and attending different workshops or activ-
ities where stakeholders can present their challenges, barriers, ideas, and possible
solutions. Today in the era of digitalization, where the data can flow and the infor-
mation is widely distributed, the right information should be shared at the right
time and to the people concerned and involved. All stakeholders should be identi-
fied very carefully to ensure the success of a construction project. While it can be
straightforward to identify the internal stakeholders of a project, the external ones
can be more complex and insidious, as many parties are involved, and also because of
21 Defining the Project’s Lifecycle Stages and Their Related … 663

the interconnection of the construction sector with other economic sectors. In order
to identify these stakeholders, action is needed to detail the interconnection of the
construction sector with other sectors (such as transport/technology/financial sector,
etc.) and raise capacities or awareness regarding the stakeholders’ importance and
their actions.
Understanding how and when to communicate with each of them is paramount.
Often, in Albania, there are ways of communicating that are unsuitable for the work
being carried out, producing improper involvement of stakeholders in the project
and creating a significant obstacle to implementing new approaches like CE in the
construction sector.
Concerning cultural obstacles, Albania has a long history of recycling to use CE
principles during years before capitalism. The integrated management of waste and
their differentiation in an organized way is estimated to have legal beginnings in
Albania in the 1960s, but it is thought to be an earlier process. The industrialization
of the country, the need for raw materials, the tendency to provide alternative sources
for raw materials, the reduction of costs, and the general interest are estimated to have
been some of the main reasons why in Albania in those years there was integrated
waste management; where recycling and resource allocation by the population as a
whole was foreseen. Furthermore, especially after the 1980s, a new type of activity
developed that can be considered the beginning of Albania’s circular economy. Under
pressure from the lack of raw materials and low profitability, various enterprises
began to produce small (fine) products using the waste from their basic production.
After the fall of communism and the beginning of democracy in Albania, the culture
of recycling diminished, especially during the first years of democracy. As Albania
entered a new phase, consumption multiplied while recycling/waste management
or other CE principles faded. Culturally, these principles were considered part of
the past in these years. Nowadays, things have changed, and people are more prone
to recycling and protecting the environment, but the approach of considering CE
principles as something that culturally belongs to the past or the communism phase
is still present.
When taking into consideration financial and cultural obstacles, which are of
great importance, especially in countries similar to Albania (regarding economic
challenges and also the lack of information on the CE approach), the limited access
to financial markets is a hurdle, especially for small and medium enterprises, which
hinders their participation in the process of transforming the economy in a sustainable
way. Also, financial decision-making processes do not adequately consider long-
term challenges, such as climate change or environmental issues. Albanian public
opinion is not yet sufficiently informed on the relevance of environmental threats to
the economy’s stability and the financial system. As mentioned before, although our
strategies cite numerous SDGs, we are far from reaching these goals.
664 D. Bajare et al.

References

1. Kumaraswamy M, Wong KKW, Chung J (2017) Focusing megaproject strategies on sustainable

best value of stakeholders. Built Environ Project Asset Manag 7(4):441–455
2. Ninan J, Mahalingam A, Clegg S (2020) Power and strategies in the external stakeholder
management of megaprojects: a circuitry framework. Eng Project Organ J 9:1–20
3. Safa M, Sabet A, MacGillivray S, Davidson M, Kaczmarczyk K, Haas CT, Gibson GE, Rayside
D (2015) Classification of construction projects. World Acad Sci, Eng Technol. Int J Civil,
Environ, Struct, Construct Archit Eng 9(6):721–729
4. Dyer M, Dyer R, Weng MH, Wu S, Grey T, Gleeson R, Ferrari TG (2019) Framework for
soft and hard city infrastructures. In: Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers—urban
design and planning, vol 172, no 6, pp 219–227
5. Caibula MN, Militaru C, Răzvan T, Dumitrache C, Dumitrache R (2021) The particularities of
the closing processes of project in the context of sustainability requirements. Postmod Open
12(1):115–127
6. Mok KY, Shen GQ, Yang RJ, Li CZ (2017) Investigating key challenges in major public
engineering projects by a network-theory based analysis of stakeholder concerns: a case study.
Int J Project Manag 35(1):78–94
7. Rezvani A, Khosravi P, Ashkanasy NM (2018) Examining the interdependencies among
emotional intelligence, trust, and performance in infrastructure projects: a multilevel study.
Int J Project Manag 36:1034–1046
8. Nguyen TS, Mohamed S, Mostafa S (2021) Project stakeholder’s engagement and performance:
a comparison between complex and non-complex projects using SEM. Built Environ Project
Asset Manag 11(5):804–818
9. Prebanić KR, Vukomanović M (2021) Realizing the need for digital transformation of
stakeholder management: a systematic review in the construction industry. Sustainability
13(22):12690
10. Luo L, He Q, Jaselskis EJ, Xie J (2017) Construction project complexity: research trends and
implications. J Constr Eng Manag 143(7):04017019
11. Prebanić KR, Vukomanović M (2023) Exploring stakeholder engagement process as the success
factor for infrastructure projects. Buildings 13(7):1785
12. Heravi A, Coffey V, Trigunarsyah B (2015) Evaluating the level of stakeholder involvement
during the project planning processes of building projects. Int J Project Manag 33(5):985–997
13. Górecki J, Jadwiga Bizon-Górecka J (2017) Risk management in construction project: taking
fairness into account. In: IOP conference series materials science and engineering, vol 245, no
7, p 072024
14. Tengan C, Aigbavboa C (2017) Level of stakeholder engagement and participation in
monitoring and evaluation of construction projects in Ghana. Procedia Eng 196:630–637
15. Gnanothayan JG, Kauskale L (2022) Development of the construction industry and its inter-
connection with the development of national economy of Sri Lanka. Baltic J Real Estate Econ
Construct Manag 10(1):106–112
16. Korsi Z (2017) Rëndësia e sektorit të ndërtimit në ekonominë shqiptare–analizë cilësore dhe
sasiore sipas modelit input-output. PhD thesis, European University of Tirana, https://uet.edu.
al/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Zaim_Korsi.pdf. Accessed 20 Sept 2023
17. Ministry of Tourism and Environment, Strategy for Integrated Waste Management
(2020–2035). https://turizmi.gov.al/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Dokumenti-i-Politikave-Str
ategjike_AL.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2023
18. Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration and Ministry of Public Works,
Transport and Telecommunications. Albanian Regulation No. 1 for the Treatment of Construc-
tion Waste from Creation to its Disposal. https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/alb144070.pdf.
Accessed 15 July 2023, Accessed 20 Sept 2023
19. European Commission (2022) Report on IPA III/2021/ 043-666/3—Annex 3—EU
for Nature. https://www.gtai.de/resource/blob/799246/346dc0a67d643f073e9c37cd98cf2d09/
PRO20220211799224%20-%20Annex3.PDF. Accessed 25 July 2024
21 Defining the Project’s Lifecycle Stages and Their Related … 665

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 22
Circular Value Chain
Management—Barriers
and Opportunities

Diana Bajare , Gabriel Zsembinszki , Denis Rizaov,

Tatjana Tambovceva , Natālija Cudečka-Purina , Dzintra Atstāja ,
Sakdirat Kaewunruen , Dorina Kripa , Xhesila Nano ,
Orestes Marangos, Olympia Nisiforou, Stylianos Yiatros ,
Marco Lamperti Tornaghi , Aidana Tleuken , Luís Bragança ,
Adriana Salles , Rand Askar , Ali Turkyilmaz , Thomas Laudal ,
Christina Giarma, Dina Azhgaliyeva , Ferhat Karaca ,
and Ayfer Donmez Cavdar

Abstract This section is devoted to analyzing the construction industry as one of

the significant industries within the economy of any country with a high poten-
tial for circularity. According to Huovila and Westerholm [1], the buildings and
construction sector is an essential contributor to environmental impacts and wealth

D. Bajare
Institute of Sustainable Building Materials and Engineering Systems, Riga Technical University,
Riga, Latvia
G. Zsembinszki
GREiA Research Group, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
D. Rizaov
GD Granit AD Skopje, Skopje, North Macedonia
T. Tambovceva (B)
Faculty of Engineering Economics and Management, Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
e-mail: [email protected]
N. Cudečka-Purina · D. Atstāja
BA School of Business and Finance, Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia
S. Kaewunruen
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of Birmingham,
Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
D. Kripa · X. Nano
Faculty of Economy, University of Tirana, Tirana, Albania
O. Marangos · S. Yiatros
Department of Civil Engineering and Geomatics, Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol,
Cyprus

© The Author(s) 2025 667

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_22
668 D. Bajare et al.

creation in society, with social consequences. Globally, construction uses 36% of

the energy, produces 39% of emissions, up to 40% of waste, and uses 50% of all the
extracted materials. This undoubtedly emphasizes the significance of the industry
and the necessity to transform it from a linear business model development towards
a circular one to maintain the higher added value of the resources already currently in
the economic cycle and significantly impact the consumption of primary resources.
This section will provide an overview of different obstacles in the industry, followed
by gaps in awareness and knowledge of the stakeholders and various case studies
carried out during the research to highlight the potential solutions for shifting the
mindsets and business models operating within the construction sector. The section
also provides high-quality examples of successful study courses that can be inte-
grated into different study programs to prepare highly-professional specialists in the
construction industry or provide general knowledge on the industry and it’s potential
for circularity for any other stakeholders.

Keywords Circularity · Construction industry · CDW · Stakeholders · Barriers

O. Nisiforou
Department of Shipping, Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus
M. L. Tornaghi
Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Ispra, Italy
A. Tleuken
Civil Engineering Department, School of Engineering and Digital Sciences, Nazarbayev
University, Astana, Kazakhstan
L. Bragança · A. Salles · R. Askar
ISISE, ARISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, 4804-533 Guimarães,
Portugal
A. Turkyilmaz · T. Laudal
UiS School of Business and Law, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway
C. Giarma
Laboratory of Building Construction and Building Physics, Department of Civil Engineering,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
D. Azhgaliyeva
Asian Development Bank Institute, Tokyo, Japan
F. Karaca
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering and Digital Sciences,
Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan
A. D. Cavdar
Department of Forest Industry Engineering, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 669

22.1 Identification of the Barriers and Opportunities

in the Construction

The construction sector (buildings and infrastructure) is a key sector for the EU
economy and represents a major source of employment. It accounts for 9% of the
EU’s GDP and provides 18 million direct jobs [2]. The construction industry is
widely recognized for its significant environmental impacts, encompassing resource
consumption, waste generation, and greenhouse gas emissions [3]. As a result, the
transition towards a circular production and consumption system is imperative to
mitigate these adverse effects. However, the construction sector faces formidable
challenges in implementing circular practices due to the intricate nature of its value
chain and the lack of clarity surrounding the principles of the circular economy (CE).
To address this complexity and facilitate the adoption of circular practices in the
construction sector, this systematic literature review aims to analyses the barriers,
drivers, and stakeholders that influence the implementation of CE [4–7]. The iden-
tified barriers and drivers are categorized into several factors, including economic,
informational, institutional, political, and technological aspects. These categories
encompass a comprehensive range of challenges and opportunities in the sector.
Compared to other industrial mass markets, the peculiarity of Construction sectors
should be focused on, i.e., very long-term life cycles of the “products.”
Among the identified factors, political and technological barriers emerge as partic-
ularly prominent obstacles to implementing CE principles in the construction sector.
This emphasizes the critical need for a governance policy incorporating regulatory
measures and tax incentives. Additionally, prompt and sufficient information and
integration of construction products at their end-of-life or demolition stage must be
integrated wisely into the waste management system, allowing space for a circular
value chain.
The review also underscores the importance of raising awareness and improving
communication regarding CE principles within the construction sector. Enhancing
the understanding and dissemination of CE concepts is essential for stakeholders to
embrace and support the necessary changes.
Effective collaboration between the government and construction stakeholders is
paramount for a successful transition towards CE. This collaboration can be facili-
tated through the establishment of public–private partnerships and the implementa-
tion of targeted communication strategies. By working together, these stakeholders
can jointly address the challenges posed by the construction sector’s value chain and
capitalize on the opportunities presented by circular value chain management.
The construction sector faces significant environmental challenges that require
adopting circular practices. The barriers and drivers identified highlight the need
for a comprehensive approach that addresses economic, informational, institutional,
political, and technological aspects. By overcoming these barriers and leveraging
the opportunities, the construction sector can transition towards CE and mitigate its
environmental impact while fostering sustainable development.
670 D. Bajare et al.

Several classifications of barriers and drivers for implementing CE have been

proposed in the literature. For instance, de Jesus and Mendonça [8] classified them
as complex factors (technical and economic) and soft factors (institutional and
social). Guldmann and Huulgaard [9] grouped the barriers into four levels: market
and institutional, value chain, organizational, and employee levels. Kirchherr et al.
[10] defined barrier categories (cultural, regulatory, market, and technological) as
nested. Hart et al. [11] adopted cultural, regulatory, financial, and sectoral barriers.
Other classifications include financial, structural, operational, attitudinal, and tech-
nological barriers [12] and financial, institutional, infrastructural, societal, and tech-
nical barriers [13]. Govindan and Hasanagic [14] proposed different classifications,
with five clusters for drivers (policy and economy, health, environmental protection,
society, and product development) and seven clusters for barriers (governmental,
technological, knowledge and skill, management, CE framework, culture, and social,
and market). This analysis shows that there is no unified approach, no common inter-
pretation of barriers exists, and that CE integration in the construction field is linked
with various obstacles from different stakeholder groups and PESTLE factors.
The review of Munaro and Tavares [4] highlighted a more significant number of
CE barriers and drivers in the construction sector and a shared responsibility between
the government and project professionals as agents of change. The political issues
were the most representative in the review and focused on developing a governance
plan that promotes the CE. Many local authorities focus on short-term economic
benefits and consider rapid industrial development their main political contribution
[15]. Also, compliance with environmental regulations is inefficient due to a lack
of budget and qualified employees. Decision-makers are regularly re-elected and do
not necessarily have the ambition to establish long-term strategies for circularity
or to maintain established strategies [16]. Municipal decision-making on waste and
resource strategies is often fragmented between departments and other municipalities
[17]. Since material flows extend beyond city limits, and material standards and
regulations are usually determined at the national or regional level, it is difficult for
municipal decision-makers to enact circularity without broader political integration
[18].
According to the literature review, several main barriers can be drawn:
• Lack of awareness and understanding: Many organisations may not fully
comprehend the circular value chain management concept and its potential
benefits. This lack of awareness can hinder their willingness to adopt circular
practices.
• Technological challenges: Implementing circular value chain management often
requires advanced technologies for tracking, tracing, and recycling materials and
the adaptability, reuse, and deconstruction of whole buildings. Adopting these
technologies may present technical and financial challenges for organisations or
society.
• Regulatory barriers: Existing regulations and policies may not always support or
incentivise circular practices. Organisations may face legal and regulatory barriers
that restrict or discourage the adoption of circular value chain management.
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 671

• Limited collaboration and coordination: Circular value chain management

often involves multiple stakeholders across different value chain stages. Lack of
collaboration and coordination among these stakeholders can impede the effective
implementation of circular practices.
• Financial considerations: Transitioning to a circular value chain may require
upfront infrastructure, technology, and training investments. Some organisa-
tions may face financial constraints or perceive a lack of short-term economic
incentives, making it challenging to initiate circular initiatives.
• Consumer behaviour and demand: Shifting consumer behaviour and demand
towards circular products and services can be a barrier. If customers are not suffi-
ciently aware or willing to support circular initiatives, organisations may struggle
to create a demand for circular products in the market.
While barriers exist, organizations that successfully overcome them can leverage
the numerous opportunities offered by circular value chain management, leading to
improved sustainability, resource efficiency, and competitive advantage.
Government regulations and fiscal actions are imperative to achieve an effective
Design for Disassembly (DfD) and play an essential role in the current national
and global sustainability agenda [19]. A policy emphasizing circular measures has
synergistic potential with global climate change agreements. It has to be taken into
account that different countries have different policies. For instance, some countries
forbid potentially recyclable materials from being disposed of in landfills. In contrast,
others are more flexible with restrictions, although they can leverage an increase in
landfill disposal tax, which may also impose waste minimization activities and create
business opportunities [20]. For example, the disposal of potentially recyclable mate-
rials is not allowed in the Nederland (without taxes). Local government agencies can
raise awareness of the benefits of circular alternatives to encourage companies to
change their modes of operation. This may require establishing a circular manage-
ment group or appointing a coordinator who can maintain an overview of the state
or city strategy [16]. Creating partnerships between actors in different sectors should
also be encouraged, providing access to networks, organizing workshops or meetings,
or establishing centers [16]. Support can also be provided by accessing the infras-
tructure and technologies available in other developed countries and from training
organizations to instruct the culture of sustainability among them [21].
Although the literature considers technological issues as relatively minor chal-
lenges [10], the integration of design in circular processes is a challenge due to the
lack of knowledge of the appropriate technologies and how to apply them, especially
in the integration of receiving systems and reverse logistics [18]. This emphasizes
that organizations lack the technological know-how to support the implementation
of sustainability-oriented innovation [21]. The use of Building Information Model
(BIM) associated with DfD can improve collaboration between stakeholders, the
visualization of the deconstruction process, identify recoverable materials, develop
a construction/deconstruction plan, analyses performance, and simulate End-of-Life
(EOL) product alternatives [19, 22]. Cruz-Rios and Grau [23] pointed out the symbi-
otic relationship between the pre-fabrication, DfD, and product-service system (PSS)
672 D. Bajare et al.

model to allow the return, repair, and remanufacturing of building materials. Mate-
rial Passports are one tool that will involve different stakeholders and information
during the stages of the building’s life cycle and track standardized information on
the environmental performance of the products and materials [24].
Reward measures for circular projects or penalties on waste generation rates must
be incorporated into public policies [25, 26]. These measures will stimulate the
development of new recycling technologies to consider the systematic planning of
recycling facilities and the environmental compatibility of recycled products, which
depend on the distances to the recycling plants [26]. A greater understanding of the
cost–benefit of applying the CE principles to each stakeholder is essential. If the real
cost of consuming greenfield areas, virgin, and finite resources were paid, there would
be a financial justification for investing in support systems for reuse, recycling, and
energy recovery [17]. The lack of structural solutions to direct fractions of the waste
stream to the relevant beneficiaries causes uncertainty regarding the continuity of the
supply of material resources. Achieving the effect of economies of scale becomes
impracticable and often leads to an increase in the secondary material price [27]. The
lack of public subsidies for secondary materials could be offset by the mandatory
application of LCC for a building and tax exemptions for certified buildings with
an ecological character [27]. Paiho et al. [16] questioned that the initial investment
costs needed to switch to circular systems could be a challenge for both companies
and municipalities, who may have vested interests in maintaining current linear
production processes such as waste incineration companies, in addition to the risk in
investing in new infrastructure.
Inertia and reluctance to diverge from everyday business practices suggest that
discussions about CE are often restricted to a company’s corporate social responsi-
bility and/or environmental divisions [10]. The lack of a close connection between
sectors delays the circular transition required for all sectors. For example, the real
estate developer, who does not intend to own the building, can negatively influence
the circularity decisions of the construction, as well as the financial sector, which is
mainly traditional and does not consider the EOL materials value [28].
According to the literature review, several main opportunities can be drawn:
• Resource efficiency and cost savings: Circular value chain management can lead
to significant resource efficiencies and cost savings. Organisations can reduce their
reliance on virgin materials and lower production costs by optimising material use,
recycling, and reusing resources. However, this can be achieved only in combi-
nation with national policy that increases the price for extraction or consumption
of primary resources and thus boosts the market for secondary raw materials. A
fascinating discussion for policymakers could raise the question: what happens if
the two targets diverge? For example, if recycled materials cost more than virgin
materials or have a (slightly) higher CO2 emission. Which target will prevail?
• New business models: Circular value chain management opens up opportunities
for innovative business models such as product-as-a-service, sharing economy
platforms, and remanufacturing. These models can generate new revenue streams
and create a competitive advantage.
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 673

• Enhanced brand reputation: Embracing circular practices can enhance an organ-

isation’s brand reputation and appeal to environmentally conscious consumers. It
can demonstrate a commitment to sustainability, leading to increased customer
loyalty and market differentiation.
• Access to new markets: Circular value chain management can enable organi-
sations to tap into new markets and customer segments. A growing demand for
circular products and services creates opportunities for organisations to expand
their customer base.
• Collaboration and partnerships: Circular value chain management often
requires collaboration and partnerships across stakeholders. By forming strategic
alliances, organisations can access shared knowledge, resources, and expertise,
enabling more effective implementation of circular practices.
• Regulatory support and incentives: Governments and regulatory bodies increas-
ingly recognise CE principles’ importance. There may be opportunities for organ-
isations to receive support, incentives, and favourable policies that facilitate the
adoption of circular value chain management.
Different scientists conducted several systematic reviews to examine the barriers,
drivers, and stakeholder roles in implementing the CE in the construction sector.
The findings indicate that CE has gained significance in the sector, but collabora-
tive efforts and interdisciplinary action between construction stakeholders and the
government are necessary to drive sustainable changes. The studies highlight the
need for a well-defined governance plan, an efficient construction and demolition
waste management (CDWM) program, and improved awareness and communication
regarding circular principles. Implementing CE effectively requires a clear under-
standing of how circular actions can impact sustainability, supply chains, business
models, and information and communication technology (ICT) systems. Integrating
CE thinking into the early design stages of buildings can contribute to selecting
appropriate strategies and tools.
Based on the relationships identified among CE barriers, drivers, and stakeholders,
practical implications suggest exploring synergistic opportunities to create value and
profits within the construction value chain while fostering stakeholder integration and
closing the materials loop.
The review emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive and integrative CE
framework that combines top-down and bottom-up approaches. Balancing these
approaches is crucial to provide a competitive advantage. Top-down approaches
help standardize and streamline CE implementation in the sector. At the same time,
self-organized processes enable the formation of business models, highlighting the
ongoing need for a market-oriented approach. Internal stakeholders play a significant
role in driving sectoral change. Command and control policies can motivate partic-
ipation in symbiotic activities, incentivizing economic benefits from construction
and demolition waste (CDW) reuse, offering financial subsidies, and pressures from
stricter environmental standards.
674 D. Bajare et al.

22.2 Case Study Albania—Actual Situation of Albanian

Economy in General and Construction Sector
in Particular

In Albania, the construction sector is taking a primary role in the economy, as the
area permitted for construction has increased significantly, and the real estate market
has expanded, especially in Tirana, Albania’s capital. During recent years in Albania,
engineering works and new constructions have dominated the building sector, espe-
cially when it comes to residential buildings; another signal of this growth is given
by the increasing number of constructions permits issued by the Albanian authori-
ties each year. Continuous growth can be observed when analyzing the construction
sector data (Table 22.1).
According to Albanian Institute of Statistics (INSTAT) in 2022, the area granted
for construction in the capital was 2.6 million square meters, a record level since
2010 of which nearly 80% of permits were for residential construction (Table 22.2).
Since 2017, the area of building permits has increased significantly, peaking in 2022
at the highest historical level since the 1990s. The same trend continued in the first
months of 2023, when almost 652,136 m2 area was granted for construction of new
buildings. Tirana received 70% of all construction permits granted in the country in
the corresponding period. Even though the population has shown a shrinking trend
year after year, the residential construction sector is continuing its activity, where in
2022, the total area of the construction permits reached a record level in the last 6
years.
In recent years, the main income item of the Municipality of Tirana is the
“Infrastructure impact tax from new constructions”, which is subject to all enti-
ties that seek to be provided with a development permit and a construction permit for
residential, administrative, production facilities, and other services. From granting
building permits, the municipality collects about a third of the income it collects in
total from taxes and fees. Based on the municipality’s draft budget, this momentum
is expected to continue. In 2023, from this item, the municipality expects to collect
5.6 billion ALL in revenue, which consists of 34% of the total revenue of the munic-
ipality. Even in 2024 and 2025, the construction momentum is expected to continue,
as the municipality anticipates about 6.2 billion ALL in income for each year.
Figure 22.1 indicates the yearly growth of the construction sector in Albania for
the last five years. During recent years, the construction sector in Albania has shown

Table 22.1 Indicators on construction sector, 2017–2022

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Construction permits 819 1194 1094 961 1369
Construction area (000/m2 ) 869 1443 2022 1608 2317
Approximate value of constructions (billion ALL) 49.1 59.0 80.8 76.6 99.2
Source INSTAT [29]
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 675

Table 22.2 Summary of construction permit issuance, 2017–2022

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Construction permits 819 1194 1094 961 1396 1420
– Residential buildings 524 770 741 660 1063 1113
– Non-residential buildings 295 424 353 301 333 307
Construction area (000/m2 ) 869 1443 2022 1608 2317 2667
– Residential buildings 533 910 1241 1189 1761 2071
– Non-residential buildings 336 533 781 419 556 596
Approximate value of construction (billion 49.12 59.02 80.84 76.60 99.24 113.14
ALL)
– Residential buildings 26.01 29.32 44.57 41.50 61.16 72.79
– Non-residential buildings 11.15 18.78 26.22 16.40 19.28 24.98
– Civil engineering works 11.97 10.91 10.05 18.70 18.80 15.37
Source INSTAT [29]

consistent growth, except for the year 2020, when the pandemic situation impacted
the whole economy and inhibited the growth of this sector. From 2021 to 2022,
the construction sector has grown 15% more. INSTAT data refer to the construction
sector growing over the past year, but the contribution to total employment was 7.6%,
from 8.1% in 2022. Most of the work processes in the sector are based on the labor
force, but the expansion of the sector has not affected either employment or budget
revenues.

Fig. 22.1 The yearly growth of construction sector, 2018–2022 (Source INSTAT [29])
676 D. Bajare et al.

The construction sector suffers from high informality, which appears to have
increased further in the past year. Studies by the International Labor Organi-
zation (ILO) estimate that construction has the highest informality among the
non-agricultural sectors, with around 60%.
Although the supply has increased rapidly, the prices have followed the same
trend, reflecting both an increase in construction costs and the high supply that has
been driven by both credit (for average apartments purchased by the middle class)
and informal money, which is mainly transferred into expensive apartments that are
sold mainly in cash.
The Bank of Albania announced that in 2022 alone, real estate prices increased at
a record pace of almost 40% compared to the previous year. On average, an apartment
in Tirana costs from 800 to 900 euros/m2 in the suburbs, 1500–2500 euros/m2 in the
areas near the center, up to 5000 euros/m2 in the elite areas and the towers that are
being constructed in the center of Tirana.
The Construction Cost Index, which measures the price performance of construc-
tion materials, labor costs, machinery, transportation, energy and other costs used
in the construction of a typical dwelling (8–10 floors), reflects changes in the costs
of construction work performed during the reference period compared with the base
period (Q4/2020 = 100). It has six expenditure groups:
• Material Expenditures;
• Salary Expenditures;
• Machinery Expenditures;
• Transport Expenditures;
• Energy Expenditures;
• Other costs.
The Material Expenditure Index measures the performance of the prices of the
main construction materials. This group consists of three subgroups: construction
materials, electric and communication materials, and hydro-sanitary materials. The
Labor Cost Index measures the performance of the wage bill for engineers, techni-
cians and laborers. As seen from the data in Table 22.3, the Construction Cost Index
has increased during 2017–2021.
The index of each group of expenses has increased, except for material expenses,
which have decreased until 2020, but in 2021, they experienced an increase of
2.4%. The figures re-emphasize the importance of proper management of construc-
tion materials, with the aim of reducing costs and obtaining acceptable prices for
consumers, by knowing that according to the Bank of Albania, the Fischer Index
of housing prices increased by 9% on an annual basis on 2021. This change shows
that, especially during the second half of 2021, the increase in housing prices has
accelerated significantly until reaching index of total cost of 108.4 in 2022.
From year 2021 to year 2022 there exists a significant raise in all elements of
Construction Index Cost, as described in the Table 22.4. Energy expenditures have
increased with 14.21%, the biggest increase in all the elements, in the same line with
energy price increase in the global markets during 2022.
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 677

Table 22.3 Construction Cost Index, 2017–2022

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Total cost 99.1 99.7 99.9 100.1 101.9 108.4
Material expenditures (a + b + c) 102.0 101.6 100.9 100.0 102.4 109.7
a. Construction materials 102.8 102.3 101.4 100.1 102.4 110.1
b. Electric and communication materials 100.1 99.3 100.2 100.0 102.7 107.9
c. Hydro-sanitary materials 98.7 99.2 98.7 99.7 101.6 109.5
Salary expenditures 99.7 100.7 101.7 100.3 102.2 106.1
Machinery expenditures 97.8 97.7 98.6 99.3 100.1 104.5
Transport expenditures 98.4 100.5 99.8 101.0 103.1 105.0
Energy expenditures 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.7 115.0
Other costs 95.7 98.0 98.8 100.4 102.4 109.1
Source INSTAT [29]

Table 22.4 Construction

Total cost 6.38%
Cost Index change from 2021
to 2022 Material expenses 7.14%
Construction materials 7.50%
Electric and communication materials 5.08%
Hydro-sanitary materials 7.81%
Salary expenses 3.77%
Machinery expenses 4.40%
Transport exp 1.87%
Energy exp 14.21%
Other costs 6.50%
Source INSTAT [29]

22.3 Summary of Barriers and Tentative for Implementing

CE Approach

As concluded from the analyzed data, the construction sector in Albania experi-
enced significant growth, along with its costs, during the last six years, which leads
to possessing a challenge in managing construction waste. In view of the challenge of
incentivizing construction businesses towards the CE approach, the Albanian govern-
ment, as a key stakeholder, has drafted the Strategy for Integrated Waste Management
(2020–2035) published in 2020 [30]. It is the main planning document in the field
of municipal, non-municipal, and hazardous waste management in Albania. This
revised Strategy was developed on the vision or perception of the concept of “zero
waste” so that waste is collected and treated as raw materials, and management
is done under the concept of circulation systems, serving the criteria of using and
678 D. Bajare et al.

preserving raw material resources in accordance with the concept of CE systems, to

benefit from the standardized use and storage of raw materials. Under the new vision,
the Strategy lays out the way to meet the obligations arising from all the changes in
the EU Waste Directives, including the objectives of the Circular Economy Package.
The key objectives are:
• waste prevention;
• separate collection of waste; and
• large-scale recycling.
According to the National Action Plan, part of this Strategy, until 2025 is targeted
30% recycling/reduction of construction waste, until 2030 is targeted 50% recycling/
reduction, and 70% recycling/reduction is targeted in 2035. Regarding the concept
of “zero waste”, five ways of managing urban waste are defined: burning for energy,
burning for disposal, recycling, depositing in landfills, and depositing outside land-
fills. Most of urban waste is deposited in landfills, which does not present a circular
approach in managing waste. Waste management, not only construction waste, lacks
the circular concept from which could benefit the whole society. Overall, this strategy,
even though it declares that it has a circular approach regarding managing waste,
in reality, is far from CE concepts. Incinerators, landfills, or even recycling waste
are concepts not in full compliance with the circular approach, which should be
implemented by businesses when choosing their inputs in the production process.
In this regard, another tool drafted by the government is the Albanian Regula-
tion No. 1 for the Treatment of Construction Waste from Creation to its Disposal.
This regulation aims to discipline the process of administration of waste from the
construction field, establishing concrete rules and requirements for all entities that
operate in the field of construction and the treatment of waste generated by it.
The most important provision in this regulation is the sorting of construction and
demolition waste and their recovery. Municipalities are responsible for determining
the sites for temporary treatment and storage plants. Based on this regulation, local
government bodies, environmental inspectorates, and construction police must exer-
cise continuous control over construction waste generators, storage sites, and their
treatment plants. As an instrument to enforce the regulation, a financial guarantee
(minimum 5% of the value of the construction works) is provided to be deposited with
the local government to obtain a construction and demolition permit. The deposit
is returned only if the requirements of the regulation regarding the management of
the waste are met. No public data on these deposits were found during our research.
INSTAT data indicates that in the last five years, managed urban waste has had a
steadily decreasing trend. Inert, on the other hand, shows a stable trend with a slight
decrease in 2021. Compared to managed urban waste, inert waste is more stable as
it has grown more than urban waste in relative terms. For the last five years (2017–
2021, as for 2022, there is still no data published from INSTAT), on average, inert
made up approximately 7.2% of total managed urban waste.
Albanian economy possesses numerous challenges especially regarding the
construction sector. International Monetary Fund paid special attention to the
construction sector for the first time during the last statement on Albania and advised
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 679

taking precautionary measures regarding the impact that the momentum of construc-
tions and the expansion of the real estate market can have on the stability of the
financial sector, as they call for close monitoring and management of potential risks
from high credit growth in recent years, including increased foreign currency lending.
The data of the Bank of Albania show that the loan for housing has slowed down
in 2022 after the increase in interest rates, which are approaching the level of 5%,
or 1.5 percentage points more than a year ago. In October 2022, the new credit for
the purchase of real estate was worth 2.95 billion ALL (Albanian Lek), the lowest
value since January 2022 and 8.6% less than the same period a year ago. Real estate
agents expect that there will be less demand for apartments from young families, as a
result of inflation, rising interest rates and the high level of housing prices. Although
construction businesses have been hit by rising costs and high supply, their hope is
that a Fiscal Amnesty from the Albanian Government will keep the demand high.
In general, in Albania, some construction businesses have taken some steps
forward in using environmentally friendly materials or providing alternative solu-
tions for energy management. Even though, when analyzing the construction sector
businesses, only the largest market players have made some progress in this context.
Other construction businesses do not have the financial capacities in investing towards
green construction or in using circular approach models. When taking into consid-
eration the Albanian economy, there are a number of challenges in using the CE
approach, including financial aspect, lack of technical and professional expertise, lack
of support from governmental policies/strategies in terms of incentivizing using CE
principles or governmental grants that could be used in this context. Albanian govern-
mental institutions have not yet made legislative changes in order to push construction
businesses in using CE approach. The only policies and strategies drafted until now
are linked with waste management, including construction and demolition waste,
yet these legal acts remain in the simplest form of circularity: recycling waste or
incinerating it.

22.4 Comparison of Albania and Countries of EU in Terms

of CE (in Construction Sector)

As mentioned in the previous section, the most important obstacles to implementing

the CE approach to the construction sector in Albania are political, cultural, and
financial barriers, which are also the ones with significant impact on the economy.
European Court of Auditors (ECA) in 2023 has commented that overall, the EU has
made very little progress in its transition to CE. Between 2015 and 2021, the average
circularity rate for all twenty-seven EU countries increased by only 0.4 percentage
points. According to the ECA report, EU measures and billions of euros have had
little impact on EU countries’ transition, particularly where the circular design of
products and manufacturing processes is concerned [31].
680 D. Bajare et al.

As cited in the ECA report, the EU has made little progress towards achieving a CE
approach in different industries. Meanwhile, in Albania, the situation is presented as
much worse. In 2015, the EU Commission issued its first Circular Economy Action
Plan, comprising measures to establish the supporting regulatory framework and
policy orientation, allocate EU funding, and monitor the EU’s transition to CE. In
2020, in response to the European Green Deal, the Commission issued a new action
plan, building on the previous one and setting an aspirational target of doubling the
EU’s share of material recycled and fed back into the economy by 2030. By June
2022, nearly all EU countries had a national CE strategy or were in the process
of developing one [31]. The EU adopted a broad range of directives on the CE,
meanwhile in Albania, until 2023 there has not been drafted a national strategy for
CE in different sectors of the economy. The only legislative framework regarding
the concept of zero waste is that of managing waste (the concept of zero waste
presented at is primitive steps like incinerating), where construction and demolition
waste is mentioned as one of the kinds of waste generated in our country. Until 2023,
no strategy or policy for CE has been developed in Albania, as well as there are
no grants provided by the government in order to help construction businesses in
implementing CE principles.
The EU Commission has started systematically mainstreaming the sustainability
requirements for circular product and production design in its legislative proposals,
which were finalized in the Green Deal Industrial Plan 2023, such as:
• A proposal for a sustainable product policy initiative;
• Under the circular electronics initiative, a proposal for a common charger solution
and a system to reward consumers for returning their old devices;
• A proposal for a revision of the Industrial Emissions Directive, including the
incorporation of CE practices into upcoming ‘best available techniques’ reference
documents; and
• A review of the 2011 Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive and guid-
ance to clarify its links with the 2006 regulation on the registration, evaluation,
authorisation and restriction of chemicals and eco-design requirements.
During last years, member states of EU have showed increasing focus on CE, but
slow progress and issues with monitoring. On the contrary, in Albania, the govern-
mental policies are still at early stages of being drafted, and far from implementation
phase and monitoring phase.
ECA audit report states that progress in this context varied substantially among
member states, and against this background, the EU’s ambition to double the circu-
larity rate by 2030 looks very challenging [31]. In conclusion, as EU member states
present such difficulties in implementing a CE approach, for Albania it seems too
optimistic to make progress in these terms. CE in Albania is widely influenced not
only by political decisions, but also by the cultural and financial matters, making it
quite difficult to make little progress in the upcoming years.
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 681

22.5 Relationship-Building and Shared Learning Through

Training, Education and Digitalization to Promote
the Implementation of Circular and Sustainable
Approaches in Construction

One of the significant barriers to implementing CE in society is the general popu-

lation’s lack of awareness and understanding. Many people, even professionals, are
unfamiliar with the concept of CE, which aims to minimize waste and keep resources
in use for as long as possible. Without proper education and awareness, individuals
may not recognize the importance of sustainable practices or how they can contribute
to CE daily.
Education plays a pivotal role in addressing this barrier. Educational institutions,
government agencies, and non-profit organisations can collaborate to launch compre-
hensive awareness campaigns. These campaigns should target various age groups
and demographics, emphasising the benefits of CE, such as reducing environmental
impact, conserving resources, and creating sustainable business opportunities. Indi-
viduals become informed consumers and active participants in CE initiatives by
educating the public.
Traditional education systems often prioritise linear thinking and consumption
patterns, hindering the transition to CE. Outdated curricula and teaching methods
may not adequately prepare students with the skills and mindset required for sustain-
able, circular practices. To overcome this barrier, educational institutions can revamp
their curricula to include CE principles. Integrating sustainability and circularity
into various subjects, from science and engineering to economics and business, can
equip students with the knowledge and skills to drive circular innovations in their
future careers. Additionally, experiential learning opportunities, such as internships,
summer schools, and projects focused on circular practices, can provide practical
experience. Some examples will be provided in this chapter.
Resistance to change is another challenge when it comes to implementing CE
principles. People are often accustomed to the convenience of disposable products
and may resist adopting new habits or embracing product durability and reparability.
Education can address this barrier by fostering behavioural change. Public campaigns
and educational programs can emphasise the benefits of long-lasting products, repara-
bility, and the satisfaction of reducing waste. Schools and communities can organise
workshops and events that teach practical skills, such as upcycling and repair, making
circular practices more accessible and appealing.
A shortage of professionals with expertise in CE principles and practices can
impede the adoption of circular models in businesses and organisations. To address
this barrier, educational institutions and vocational training centres can develop
specialised programs and courses focusing on CE strategies, business models, and
supply chain management. These programs can prepare new professionals with the
knowledge and skills required to drive circular initiatives across industries.
Education plays a dual role in the transition to CE. It can be a barrier due to a lack
of awareness, outdated curricula, and an opportunity through awareness campaigns,
682 D. Bajare et al.

Fig. 22.2 The four pillars for implementation of CE

curriculum transformation, behavioral change education, and specialized training

programs. By investing in CE education, society can foster a sustainable mindset and
equip individuals with the tools to participate in circular practices actively, ultimately
contributing to a more sustainable and resilient future (see Fig. 22.2).

22.5.1 Training to Promote Circular Economy

and Sustainable Approaches

Together with three other components, the real-life learning tasks for a professional in
the Circular Industry led to the “Four components of Competence-Based education”
[32]:
• Component 1: Learning tasks—aim for an integration of skills and knowledge.
Provide authentic, whole-task experiences based on authentic tasks that represent
professional practice. The learning tasks are integrative in nature (like daily prac-
tice) and are aimed at transferring everything needed to carry out these learning
tasks.
• Component 2: Supportive information—all information that is helpful for
working on the learning tasks, especially the problem-solving and reasoning
processes that are important for them.
• Component 3: Information—all information that is necessary for performing the
learning tasks, such as step-by-step instructions while working on the learning
tasks by a mentor and/or electronic system for workplace support.
• Component 4: Practice—provides additional practice in competency that need a
lot of practice. Using these subtasks, the cognitive context of a task is repeated,
and information is (repeatedly) practised in its correct context.
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 683

22.5.2 Study Course Program “Sustainable Management

of CDW”, the Case of Latvia

In the European Union, more than 800 million tons of CDW are generated every year
in Latvia—about 300,000 tons of CDW (State Waste Management Plan for 2021–
2028). Until 2035, the amount of municipal waste to be landfilled must not exceed
10% of the generated waste, accordingly, the importance of recycling increases signif-
icantly. However, up to 95% of CDW can be recycled or reused [25], and a large
proportion of CDW is still landfilled, i.e., most commonly mixed with household
waste. At the same time, sustainability factors and their integration into the business
management model are increasingly important in policymaking and business.
Although the EU and national policy planning documents set ambitious goals for
reducing the amount of waste to be disposed of, in Latvia, a large part of CDW ends
up in a landfill. The existing regulations of the European Union and Latvia do not
promote the management of CDW based on CE principles. The CDW circulation
ecosystem does not create the preconditions for CDW inclusion in the circulation
cycle. At the same time, sustainability factors and their integration into the busi-
ness management model are increasingly important in policymaking and business. It
should be noted that the lack of a sustainable construction waste management system
in Latvia has caused a lack of understanding among stakeholders and issues at all
stages of construction, i.e., in the development of procurement documentation, the
collection and use of recycled waste for the production of new building materials,
the design process and the entire construction stage.
According to Latvian legislation, CDW—is waste generated by construction
because of construction or demolition [33]. Construction waste must be handed
over to the operator who has received the appropriate permits for waste collection,
transportation, and recovery. Each shipment of construction waste by legal persons
must be registered in the waste transportation accounting system. In addition, recy-
cling waste in the construction site must be foreseen within the construction projects
in advance. Another important aspect is that backfilling is not waste regeneration
itself, although materials that have been regenerated can be used to fill the spaces.
Although the system is well established, the field of CDW faces a range of different
problems. Some of the most common ones are listed below:
• The builder cannot present documents to prove that it has handed over construction
waste to the waste management company;
• The construction waste is handed over to the company that did not receive a waste
transportation permit or has received the permit but has not submitted financial
security and cannot operate;
• Construction projects foresee the use of construction waste, but the construction
project does not provide the conditions for the quality of the materials used;
• Transportation of construction waste is not registered in the waste transportation
accounting system;
• Construction waste has been dumped in forests and meadows or any other illegal
areas.
684 D. Bajare et al.

The discrepancies mentioned above are currently being addressed under the
project financed by the Latvian Environmental Protection Fund: “Development of
uniform guidelines and public education on proper management of construction
waste and the use of materials obtained from recycled construction waste as valuable
resources and raw materials in construction”, Reg. No. 1-08/185/2020, in accor-
dance with the decision of the Latvian Environmental Protection Fund Council of
February 24, 2021, protocol no. 3 § 1.3, and up to now, several activities have been
implemented. Gaps in construction waste management were identified using various
methods, and educational materials were developed for the sustainable development
of the field for different stakeholders.
As success stories, we should mention the development of the Unified guide-
lines for understanding construction waste management, stakeholder surveys and
interviews, as well as a new study program for interested stakeholders.
The Unified guidelines have been prepared to create a common understanding and
provide information about construction and procedures for the management of waste
generated during the demolition of buildings (hereinafter referred to as BBNA), for
the activities to be performed, division of duties and responsibilities. The guide-
lines are intended for those working in the construction sector, waste management
service providers, and the supervisory and controlling institutions of the construc-
tion processes and waste management sector. A separate section is dedicated to the
management of household construction waste (hereinafter referred to as MBBNA).
Guidelines consider construction waste circulation from the moment of the devel-
opment of the construction project, which reflects the planned BBNA volumes and
their management, until the final recycling, recovery or disposal of BBNA.
The general management principles of BBNA are as follows:
• BBNA takes into account the hierarchy of waste management activities;
• BBNA has to be managed in such a way that they do not pose a threat to the
environment, human health, and real estate;
• The task of the involved parties is to ensure the BBNA defined in the regulatory
acts achieving recycling and recovery goals;
• BBNA is managed according to waste management acts regulating the manage-
ment sector.
To solve the situation, a study program in the scope of 6 ECTS was developed. The
purpose of the study course is to create an understanding of construction waste—
waste resulting from the construction, renovation and demolition of buildings, as
well as leftovers and damaged materials resulting from the construction process or
materials on the construction site that are used temporarily. Construction waste from
residential buildings typically contains concrete, wood, metals, plasterboard, oils,
chemicals, and roofing materials.
The aim of the course is to create theoretical and practical knowledge about
the process of sustainable use and management of CDW, as well as to ensure that
students acquire the necessary knowledge, skills and competencies in the process of
sustainable use and management of construction demolition waste.
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 685

Study course results (knowledge, skills, competencies): To acquire a compre-

hension of the essence of construction waste sorting, recycling, and management
processes.
Terms used:
• Construction works—a part of the construction process works that are carried
out on a construction site or in a building to create a structure, place a pre-made
structure or its part, rebuild, restore, restore, conserve, demolish a structure or
install an engineering network;
• Building—a physical object (building or engineering structure) connected to the
ground or a bed, which has been determined as a result of construction works;
As a result of the course, students are able to make responsible decisions for a
sustainable choice in the process of construction, repair, building reconstruction or
area improvement.
The content of the study courses is as follows (the thematic plan of the study
course):
1. Waste management in construction. BREEAM, BIS and APUS.
2. Understanding the definition of construction waste and regulatory framework
(in the country, municipalities).
3. Substances are hazardous to the environment and human health in construction
waste—classification of hazardous substances and environmental impact.
4. Dismantling process planning and risks.
5. Procedures for the management of waste generated during construction and
demolition of buildings (hereinafter referred to as BBNA), actions to be
performed, obligations and distribution of responsibility.
6. Construction and demolition waste management organizations and their compe-
tencies.
7. Management of household construction waste (hereinafter referred to as
MBBNA).
8. Distribution of duties and responsibilities of the parties involved.
9. Analysis of situations.
10. Classification, exceptions and by-products of construction and demolition waste
(hereinafter referred to as BBNA).
11. Peculiarities of accounting for household waste when switching from volume
to weight units.
12. Volumetric weight of BBNA types and individual material flows, its application.
13. Accounting of construction waste. Product life cycle and compliance.
14. BBNA management and examples of good management practices. Circularity
and sustainability of CDW.
15. Experience of other countries (Austria, Finland, Israel, Estonia, etc.) Final exam.
The study course is based on the EU and Latvia regulatory base, scientific liter-
ature, and examples of good practice. Industry professionals are involved in the
teaching process. The Table 22.5 shows the evaluation criteria and the achievable
686 D. Bajare et al.

result. As it can be observed, various teaching methods and research elements are
used in the learning process.

Table 22.5 The requirements of the study “Sustainable Management of Construction Demolition
waste”
Requirements for study course acquisition and evaluation of results
No. Study course Assessment Evaluation criteria
result method/s Minimum Average level High level Brilliant
level (65–84%) (85–94%) (95–100%)
(40–64%)
1 Understands Discussion Understands Understands Understands Understands
the the nature of the nature of the nature of the nature of
construction base terms concepts, but concepts and is construction
process there are able to argue on processes
difficulties them and
discussing concepts at
them a level that
can be
explained to
others
2 Understands Test Understands Understand Is able to Knows how
the legal normative rights, choose the to apply
framework for hierarchy obligations requirements normative
the and binding in the acts at user
construction responsibilities relevant local level
process government
3 Comprehensive Test Understands Understands Have a good Understands
knowledge of the principles but understanding the rubbish
construction principles has difficulty and knowledge hierarchy
waste of the base discussing of key that you can
them principles and explain
issues them to
others
4 Understands Analysis of Understands Understands Understands the Understand
the nature of the the the nature of nature of the and apply
the process of situation principles the process, process and is them
dismantling of the base but there are able to debate it practically,
buildings difficulties can explain
discussing them to
them others
5 Understands Test Understands Understands Understands Understands
the nature of business the but does not and is able to the concepts
the assessment game exam principles apply argue and nature
of responsible of the base knowledge in argumentatively of
conduct practice responsible
behavior at
a level that
can be
explained to
others
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 687

The initiators and authors of the course believe that the more all the stakeholders
are informed about CDW, the faster this area of waste management will be settled,
and the transition to CE will be integrated within the construction sector.

22.5.3 Case Study in Malta for Education in Circular

Economy (CPD—Continuous Professional
Development)

Training Course: Decarbonization in the Construction Sector.

A course organized by the Building Industry Consultative Council, Government of
Malta with the contribution in CE. The course is organized every few months for
different professionals in Malta, online and in person.
Module 2: Design for Sustainability is Specifically on CE and Sustainable Construc-
tion, Resources and Waste.
The course is Obligatory for energy performance certificate (EPC) Auditors in Malta
and a CPD for all professionals (Engineering and Architecture, Energy Efficiency).
It was carried out over various cycles during 2021–2023 to date. Examples are below.
CPD COURSE—Concepts for the Decarbonization of the Building Industry Mqf6
(Malta Qualification Framework Level 6)
The Building Industry Education and Training Research Centre together with the
Building Construction Authority will soon start a new CPD course for professionals
on decarbonization aspects (renovation and deep renovation). This course is part of
the initiative of the Ministry for the Environment, Sustainable Development, and
Climate Change in an effort to assist in Malta’s Long Term Renovation Strategy
2050.
In collaboration with the BICC, the BCA has the obligation that every assessor gets
the necessary training in ‘energy performance of buildings’ assessments to continue
their professional growth in line with the country’s long-term renovation strategy
2050 targets.
Given the above, the BCA is inviting current assessors to attend a sponsored
course provided by the BICC—Award in concepts for the decarbonization of the
building industry (Fig. 22.3). The course is based on a two-day seminar at Project
House, Florian (26 and 27 January 2023). After completion of the course, assessors
will be awarded the skill card that will become a mandatory requirement to act as a
registered performance of building assessors.
Course overview: This comprehensive learning course on CE in Construction is
designed to give participants a deep understanding of CE principles and their applica-
tion within the construction sector. Through well-structured lessons, participants will
688 D. Bajare et al.

Fig. 22.3 Available courses for circular economy in Malta [34]

22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 689

explore key concepts, regulations, and practical strategies to promote sustainability

and circularity in construction projects.
The program aims to increase the learners’ knowledge of CE principles, tech-
niques, and practices applied to construction. This improved knowledge will allow
construction workers to apply their existing skills to achieve relevant green circular
techniques and standards.
Objectives:
• Understand how the key CE policy drivers impact each construction sector
profession.
• List and describe the key phases, principles, and methods related to life cycle
assessment and costings to support CE in the construction sector.
• Identify best practices in several standard construction methods and systems rele-
vant to life cycle assessments and recognize work practices that fall below this
standard.
• Describe some key challenges of implementing CE projects and how to apply
specific solutions to meet those challenges.
• Outline the guidelines for the EU Construction and Demolition Waste manage-
ment protocol with reference to minimizing the quantities of other resources being
used.
• Understand why there is a need to talk and discuss with other trades to achieve
circular buildings through collaborative teamwork.
Course content:
1. Introduction.
2. European & National Drive. EU CE Principles. Green Policies for Construction.
National Regulations.
3. Introduction to CE. Introduction to Sustainability. Embodied Carbon in the built
environment. Principles of CE.
4. CE and Construction. Circular interventions. Sustainable Development Goals.
Green Certification Schemes and circularity.
5. Waste and Resource Management. Waste Management. Pre-demolition, pre-
development audits. Demolition, reuse, recycle, repurpose.
6. Adaptable Materials and Systems. Circular materials and systems in buildings.
Construction Techniques for Circular.
7. Water Management. Water Management Plan. Water Management on site.
8. LEAN and Modular Construction. Lean Construction. Modular Construction.
9. Life Cycle Assessment. Introduction to LCA, LCA and Level(s) Building
Certifications.
10. Life Cycle Costing. Introduction to LCC. LCC Strategy.
11. Collaboration and Communications. Collaboration Roles and Responsibilities.
Communication Tools.
12. Green Procurement. Introduction to GPP. Tendering and Circular Procurement.
Certification and Eco Labels.
690 D. Bajare et al.

13. Certification in Construction. Environmental Product Declaration (EPD).

Product Environmental Footprint (PEF). Ecolabels.
14. Using Building Circularity Tools. Building Circularity Tools (LCA & LCC).
Calculation Methodology.
Module 1: Introduction to CE in Construction (https://constructionblueprint.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2023/07/01.-Introduction-1.pdf).

22.5.4 Case Study Summer School—EPICENTRE.

Educational Platform Life Cycle Assessment
Structures

Project Call: EIT Raw Materials, implementation started at January 2024.

The study course will be developed by the Project Consortium: Aarhus Univer-
sity, Lulea University of Technology, Riga Technical University (Project leader),
Tallinn University of Technology, Slovenian National Building and Civil Engineering
Institute.
The “EPICENTRE” Ph.D., winter/summer school on Life Cycle Assessment/
Costing (LCA/LCC) and new business development addressed the lack of under-
standing and communication regarding LCA/LCC analysis and promoted sustainable
practices in the Raw Materials sector to support the EU Green Deal. It will be imple-
mented through a comprehensive and dynamic educational platform combining e-
learning, simulations, and workshops to provide an innovative and engaging learning
experience for candidates from industry and academia.
The EU has committed under the EU Green Deal to become the first carbon–
neutral continent by 2050 by introducing innovation and relevant education. This
is a three-year EIT project that will lead to the establishment of a four-level Pan-
European PhD winter/summer school program. The program will focus on LCA/LCC
and new business development, which are in high demand from EU industry partners.
Emphasizing converting the acquired knowledge into actionable entrepreneurship.
This program will prepare the talents with innovative solutions/ideas to apply for
entrepreneurship funding in other EIT activities like Jumpstarter while also providing
them with the necessary skills and knowledge in LCA/LCC and new business devel-
opment. Our goal is to support the EU’s efforts to achieve its carbon-neutrality objec-
tive by enabling the next generation of green entrepreneurs to develop sustainable
business practices. The uniqueness of the course lies with one of the biggest chal-
lenges for the industry and those who perform the LCA/LCC analysis, which is the
lack of understanding of a common “language” and methodologies and what infor-
mation is required from the industry to perform proper LCA/LCC analysis to support
the green transition. Industrial associate partners and start-ups will be sourcing
real LCA/LCC case studies for the course to enable students to co-create through
open innovation feasible solutions while supporting networking and match-making
opportunities.
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 691

Background of the project EIT project (three years) will result in a four-level Pan-
European Ph.D., winter/summer school on Life Cycle Assessment/costing (LCA/
LCC) and new business development immensely demanded from EU industry part-
ners with a sharp focus on converting gained knowledge to actionable Entrepreneur-
ship as depicted below including preparing the talents to apply with their innovative
solutions/ideas for entrepreneurship funding in other EIT activities like Jumpstarter,
etc.
The program will focus on converting gained knowledge into actionable funnel
entrepreneurship with a sharp emphasis on preparing talents to apply their inno-
vative solutions/ideas for entrepreneurship funding in other EIT activities such as
Jumpstarter.
The main goal is to equip the next generation of green entrepreneurs with the
necessary skills and knowledge in LCA/LCC and new business development to
promote sustainable business practices and support the EU’s efforts to achieve its
carbon neutrality objective. The uniqueness of the course lies with one of the biggest
challenges for the industry and those who perform the LCA/LCC analysis, which is
the lack of understanding of a common “language” and methodologies of how it is
done. The course pedagogical approach is challenge-based and has strong support
from the composite material and building industry (see letters of support).
After the course, the candidates will understand the process of performing the
LCA/LCC analysis and thus will have the ability to communicate with different
players about the information it requires. This will allow the industry to collect the
necessary information significantly quicker and efficiently organize data collection
to support their green transition. The increase in knowledge of LCA/LCC analysis
will allow the industry to perform quicker analysis regarding the impact on the envi-
ronment and choose more sustainable, non-toxic raw materials and manufacturing
processes for the end products. This will allow EU innovations to move towards more
sustainable choices.
The Ph.D., winter/summer school is designed to be suitable for candidates both
from the materials industry and engineering/material academia. In addition, it is
supported with case studies and financial both from industrial partners and leading
universities.
The project differs from existing projects outside the KIC as it aims to provide
a comprehensive and dynamic educational platform for LCA/LCC methodolo-
gies combining e-learning modules, simulations, digital tools, best practices for
data collection/analysis, and hands-on workshops to provide a more engaging and
effective learning experience.
The project aims to fill a critical gap in the sector’s education and training
programs by providing an innovative and dynamic platform for learning, assessing,
and improving LCA/LCC methodologies. The RM sector faces various sustainability
challenges, including environmental, social, and economic impacts of extracting,
processing and using raw materials.
Project objective and scope: (1) Initiate triangle networking between EU
academia, students, and industries (KICN02-10) on the development of LCA/LCC
procedures and practices, meanwhile creating “safe” cross-disciplinary working
692 D. Bajare et al.

environments to enable the development of disruptive open innovation solutions

within the course, ready to meet the global market/business demands; (2) Create a
comprehensive online education blended course for training in LCA/LCC for light
structural materials, which will allow PhD students from all EU countries and partic-
ularly the Baltic RIS countries (KICN01-04) to use marketing channels such as
university networks, science communities, trade unions other rooftop organizations,
etc. web pages (https://phdcourses.dk).
The students will gain crucial expertise through challenge-based education; (3)
Develop an open forum for discussion related to standardization and execution of
LCA/LCC for a wide range of materials/products, thus involving all participants
in networking (KICN02-01) and stimulating interdisciplinarity; (4) Establish LCA
blended learning resources for educating professionals at partner universities, which
will also be offered after the project ends; (5) Prepare young professionals who are
ready to communicate using language used by LCA and LCC experts and use their
new knowledge to enhance sustainability at EU companies (KICN01-17, KICN01-
18), as well as empower them to move their ideas from knowledge to application via
new business development.

22.5.5 Case Study—Digitalization, Latvia

There are many types of engineers specializing in different sectors with one goal
to build a better world. Digitalization skills are one of the significant challenges
that the construction sector has to overcome to improve the human capital of the
sector, which is rapidly developing. Further, Artificial Intelligence (AI) or rather
human-supervised and enhanced AI, is where the technology is moving.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the development of digitalization progressed
at the speed of light and provided a crucial role in education. Every day, millions
of people were online working, educating and training. The digital transformation
plans and online shared platforms that were planned for later on were implemented
with the speed of light.
In the post-pandemic, there is a race to digitalization of the construction. Construc-
tion companies and consulting companies are using more and more digital and
human-guided AI tools.
The construction sector is facing many challenges, such as a shortage of skilled
personnel, project delays, productivity, and rising costs of materials, energy and trans-
port. In these circumstances, digitalization in construction is complex and moving
forward. Most used is Building Information Modelling (BIM) software and it is
becoming a standard practice in the industry. Further, online document management
systems cloud to manage large infrastructural projects from various aspects of digital
documentation.
Case Study Module 1: Introduction to Digitalization in Construction (https://constr
uctionblueprint.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/01.-Introduction.pdf)
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 693

The aim of the program is to increase the learners’ knowledge of digital tools,
techniques and practices applied to the construction sector.
Objectives:
1. List and describe the key policy and legislative drivers relevant to digitalisation
in the construction sector.
2. Identify the need and benefits of digitalisation for the construction sector.
3. List and describe the key digital tools, techniques and practices used to support
the construction of quality buildings.
4. Identify best practice of a number of construction methods and details using
digital tools and techniques to achieve quality buildings.
5. Identify best practices of a number of service methods and installations using
digital tools, techniques and technologies to achieve quality buildings.
6. Understand how to communicate with other trades using collaborative digital
tools and techniques to achieve quality buildings.
7. Understand how to apply digital problem-solving workflows and solutions on-
site.
Available Case Study Courses for Digitalization: https://constructionblueprint.eu/tra
ining-curricula.
Course content:
1. Introduction.
2. European & National Drive. EU Digitalization Policies. National digitalization.
3. Introduction to Digital Tools. Communication Tools. Collaborative Tools.
4. Introduction to Digital Technologies. On-site Technologies. Off-site Technolo-
gies.
5. Data Protection. Cyber Security. Digital Data management and storage.
6. Introduction to BIM. BIM Fundamentals. BIM Principles. BIM Uses and
Software.
7. BIM Uses in Construction. BIM Objects. Maturity levels. Use of BIM in each
Phase.
8. BIM and Collaboration. Accessing info through the cloud. Accessing info
with mobile devices (apps, QR, etc.). BIM review and problem solving.
Quantification and Clash Detection.
9. Roles and Knowledge Transfer. Roles BIM and file structure. Digital Workflows.
System thinking.
10. Introduction to Quality Checks. Quality Control and Checks. Building Compli-
ance.
11. Quality Checks on Site. Building Fabric. Checks Building. Services Checks.
12. Automation and Artificial Intelligence. Automation. Artificial Intelligence and
3D Printing. Wearables and Extended Reality. Smart Controls.
13. Construction 2030. Quantum Computing and Blockchain. Digital in the Future.
Future Choices.
14. Tools for Energy Efficiency. Energy Efficiency Tools. Energy Simulation Tools.
694 D. Bajare et al.

15. Tools for CE. Sustainable Construction. BIM checks for LCA. BIM checks for
LCC.
16. Introduction to Digital Passports. Digital Logbooks. Digital Building Passports.
Digital Renovation Building Passports.

22.5.6 Educational Case Studies: Sustainability Competency

Requirements Within an Engineering Degree
in the UK

The UK Engineering Council [35] sets the overall requirements for the Accreditation
of Higher Education Programs (AHEP) in engineering, in line with the UK Standard
for Professional Engineering Competence (UK-SPEC). AHEP sets out the standard
for degree accreditation. It also outlines the purpose and application process for
universities that wish to secure or maintain accreditation of their programs. The
standard for engineering degrees has been developed through consultation with the
engineering profession and includes input from employers and academics. Degree
accreditation is undertaken by sector-specific professional engineering institutions
under license from the Engineering Council. These institutions interpret the standards
as appropriate for their own sector of the profession and use them when deciding
whether degree programs meet the requirements to be awarded ‘Engineering Council
accredited degree’ status. The learning outcomes for all engineering students and
apprentices have been revised for the most recent fourth edition of AHEP (AHEP4).
They now have a sharper focus on inclusive design and innovation, as well as the
coverage of areas such as sustainability and ethics. The coverage of equality, diversity
and inclusion is also strengthened to reflect the importance of these matters to society
as a whole and within the engineering profession. To reflect a reality of modern
society, there is now explicit treatment of security and the mitigation of security risks.
With special attention to CE implementation, sustainability of engineering practice is
an issue of concern for the profession and every Higher Education Academy (HEA)
is encouraged to make use of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals,
and Engineering Council Guidance on Sustainability in program design and delivery.
The Engineering Council guidance can be found at: www.engc.org.uk/sustainability.
According to the UK Engineering Council [35], the UN Sustainable Develop-
ment Goals are part of engineering professional requirements (e.g. for Attribute 5:
Sustainable Development according to the Institution of Civil Engineers). As part of
the Engineering Council’s institutions, all engineers need to understand and demon-
strate their knowledge and experience around this attribute, whether they are applying
for Incorporated or Chartered Membership. The following tables present the funda-
mental knowledge and understanding requirements in sustainability and CE. These
sustainability requirements and learning outcomes are essential for the Approval and
Accreditation of Qualifications and Apprenticeships (AAQA) across all engineering
programs in the United Kingdom (Table 22.6).
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 695

Table 22.6 Sustainability requirements for engineering education and practices across the UK
Sustainability Leaning outcomes, knowledge and understanding requirements
The engineer Engineering activity can have a significant societal impact and engineers must
and society operate in a responsible and ethical manner, recognize the importance of
diversity, and help ensure that the benefits of innovation and progress are
shared equitably and do not compromise the natural environment or deplete
natural resources to the detriment of future generations
Professional Incorporated engineer
level
Area of Foundation degrees, Bachelors top-up degrees Bachelor’s degrees and
learning higher national and equivalents Bachelors (Honors) and
diplomas and equivalents
equivalents
Competency Evaluate the Learning outcome related Evaluate the environmental
requirement environmental and to sustainability achieved at and societal impact of
societal impact of previous level of study solutions to
solutions to broadly-defined problems
broadly-defined
problems
Professional Chartered engineer
level
Area of Bachelors (Honors) Masters degrees other than Integrated Masters degrees
learning degrees and the Integrated Masters and and equivalents
equivalents Doctoral programs and
equivalents
Competency Evaluate the Evaluate the environmental Evaluate the environmental
requirement environmental and and societal impact of and societal impact of
societal impact of solutions to complex solutions to complex
solutions to problems (to include the problems (to include the
complex problems entire life-cycle of a entire life-cycle of a
and minimize product or process) and product or process) and
adverse impacts minimize adverse impacts minimize adverse impacts

22.5.7 Educational Case Studies: CESBA Med eLearning

Platform (Malta)

The CESBA MED Interreg Med project [36] tested 10 case studies from all over
Europe. A common sustainability assessment framework at the urban and building
scale was selected after the testing phase to support the development of energy
efficiency plans for public buildings in the context of their surrounding neighborhood.
The tool covers various indicators, including resource use and CE.
The CESBA eLearning platform developed by the University of Malta has the
objective of improving stakeholder’s skills by offering targeted training courses as
an essential component of CESBA MED strategic overview. Two courses are offered
according to the identified target groups and the two scales, the building scale and the
urban scale. One course is intended for decision-makers (policymakers, investors,
696 D. Bajare et al.

developers). The training course is targeted for decision-makers and consists of three
modules. The second course is intended for all training material is available in English
and in other five engineers and technical coordinators. The course is targeted for the
users of the CESBA MED SNTools and consists of eight technical-level modules. At
the end of this course, one may take a test and on successful completion, a certificate
is awarded. The tool is available in different languages besides English (Italian,
Spanish, French, Greek, Croatian). These courses are organized using Moodle which
is an open-source e-learning platform, and were developed as part of the CESBA
MED Project, with free access to any interested individual or organization from the
MED area.

22.5.8 Educational Case Study—Turkish Circular Economy

Platform

Since 2016, BCSD Turkey and EBRD have joined forces to create awareness and
accelerate the transition to a circular economy in Turkey by providing tools and
technical support that enable businesses to move away from the traditional ineffective
way/concept to a more powerful way of doing business. The journey started with
Turkish Materials Marketplace, which was instrumental in creating an ecosystem
around the circular economy.
Through the course of the past four-year platform felt the need to create a space
where anything and everything on circular economy is explained in detail. The main
aim of the Turkish Circular Economy Platform [37] is to provide practical solutions,
incentives, news and opportunities in the field of circular economy. The platform
includes a knowledge hub, an e-commerce platform (Turkish Materials Market-
place), measurement tools, and offers training, financial opportunities, and consul-
tancy services for companies that are truly looking to accelerate their transition to
circular.
About BCSD Turkey
Business Council for Sustainable Development Turkey (BCSD Turkey) is the
global network partner of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD).
BCSD Turkey was established in 2004 to contribute to better understanding, adop-
tion and implementation of the basic principles of sustainable development in Turkey.
Our purpose is to increase the awareness of businesses about sustainable development
and to extend their influence. With this purpose in mind, BCSD focuses activities
on the five main areas within the framework of the UN’s Sustainable Development
Goals, and we work with the leading companies of Turkey on sustainability.
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 697

About EBRD
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) was established
in 1991 as an international financial institution to support the countries of central and
Eastern Europe in transitioning to a market economy after the collapse of communism
in the region. EBRD is currently active in nearly 40 countries from central Europe
to central Asia and the southern and eastern Mediterranean, plus the West Bank
and Gaza. EBRD’s shareholders are 69 countries from five continents, including the
European Union and the European Investment Bank.
In 2015, the EBRD adopted the Green Economy Transition (GET) approach to
put investments that bring environmental benefits at the heart of its mandate. The
objective is to increase the financing of projects that advance the transition to an
environmentally sustainable, low-carbon economy, and help prevent economies from
being locked into a carbon-intensive, polluting pathway that depletes natural assets.
About CIRCO
CIRCO is a Dutch circular design program, helping companies to take the first step
in the process for circular business.
CIRCO, is supported by the Government of Netherlands, providing circular design
training programs to create circular products, services and business models for
companies. Participants from Turkey’s leading companies had the opportunity to
learn the pressure cooker version of the “Creating Business Through Circular Design”
methodology by the experienced instructors of CIRCO.
Some of the issues covered during the workshop were the role of product design in
the circular economy, how important it is and how it provides circularity in business.
All participants had an opportunity to experience the required steps to apply CIRCO’s
circular economy business models and design strategies for their own businesses and
understand their role in the circular economy by practicing a re-design process of a
product. We would like to thank all TMM members who participated in this special
event, which is a rather short version of the original 3-day CIRCO methodology
workshop.
Circular Business Design
CIRCO Circular Business Track powers the development of the Circular Economy,
driven by design principles. Companies work together with designers to develop
circular products, services and business models. They do so by sharing knowledge,
experience and inspiration with their network.
“Creating business through circular design” is a project that inspires and facilitates
the manufacturing industry to ‘Go Circular’, using a circular design approach. The
mission of this track is to make the circular design the new default for production.
CIRCO Demo
There is a demo to explain to the basics of the track. The DEMO is a short, 1–2 h,
interactive workshop as an introduction to the CIRCO methodology. The ones who
698 D. Bajare et al.

are Interested in “Circular Business Model Design” can join and learn more details
about this track.
About the Program
Circular economy is an interesting though still rather abstract concept. The DEMO
demonstrates the CIRCO design process in a pressure cooker format, making circular
business concrete and providing a circular dimension to your innovation process.
Participants will get acquainted with a circular way of working and experience how
to:
• Identify circular business opportunities;
• Apply circular business models;
• Use circular design strategies:
– Learn about circular cases and the CIRCO cumulative experience;
– Meet other companies and stakeholder starting their circular journey;
– Get curious and inspired.

Creating Business Through Circular Design Workshop

“Creating Business Through Circular Design” was held on the 16th of November in
collaboration with CIRCO and The Government of Netherlands, which is a pioneer
in the field of circular economy.
The Consulate General of the Kingdom of Netherlands, organized a series of
design events in Istanbul, presented as ‘Co-Design’ between 20 September-20
November under the theme of “Designing Our Liveable Cities Together”. Within
the program, a special workshop was organized by CIRCO for BCSD Turkey and
TMM members.
The workshop was held in Palais de Hollande with the participation of The Consul
General of the Kingdom of Netherlands, Bart van Bolhuis, BCSD Turkey team,
CIRCO experts and TMM members.
Benefit of Participants
Participants explore new circular business opportunities for their companies through
platform’s circular design methodology with the help of three-day workshops.
At the end of day three, participants will have developed a new circular propo-
sition, enclosing a business model, product (re) design and additional services/
processes. During the workshop participants will gather new knowledge about the
circular economy in general, circular design and circular business models. Further-
more, interaction with the other participating companies during the process offer
new insights and open opportunities for potential collaboration.
For which institutions is the event beneficial?
Manufacturing companies that aspire to develop a (more) circular and sustainable
business are the most important candidates. In each track, up to 10 companies can
participate.
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 699

A designer/business developer/engineer and someone from the business part of the

organization, familiar with the market, customers and preferably other stakeholders
can be participants from companies. Per company only two employees can enroll in
the workshop.
Much added value derives from combining innovative circular product design
with business models.
Daytime activities are organized in such a way that participants can find enough
time to work as much as possible on their own circular case.
This is done in a mix of:
• Transferring relevant circular knowledge, design process components and tools;
• Working independently with two people from a company;
• Working together with other participating companies.
Daily Program of the workshop:
• Day 1: Initiate. This workshop delves deeper into the (design) principals of the
circular economy. Together with other companies and designers, loss of valuable
materials, products and components across the current value chain is mapped out
and resulting circular business opportunities are identified and selected;
• Day 2: Ideate. The most interesting circular opportunity from the first workshop
will be elaborated further using circular design strategies and business models.
This results in a circular customer proposition with a business model, product (re)
design and additional services.
• Day 3: Implement. Day three is all about implementation. Every company
designs an implementation roadmap to bring its circular proposition to market. To
finish off with a bang, participants pitch their new Circular Business proposition.

22.6 Barriers and Opportunities in the Field of CDW

Management

22.6.1 Case Study—Circularity of Household-Generated

Construction and Demolition Waste: Management
Principles for Green Transition in Latvia

The research under the case study presents the study of principles of circularity
of household-generated waste based on data analysis gained out of the survey to
draw practical suggestions for professionals towards sustainable development in the
short-term and long-term future. The systematic literature study is grounded in text
analytics, and the best practices from Austria and Scandinavia were explored. The
collected data on construction waste in Latvia was analyzed by applying statistical
methods. The research results revealed a significant increase in building construc-
tion and demolition waste and their lack of circularity. The authors conclude that it
700 D. Bajare et al.

is necessary to use best practices on how to apply circularity in building construc-

tion and demolition waste management, and how to develop the cooperation links
between local building authorities and householders using digital solutions for the
green transition.
Latvia does not collect separate statistics on the CDW collection generated by
industry and the household sector. However, it is assumed that within the household
sector, there might be a higher probability of a lack of information on appropriate
and more cost-efficient management of this type of waste with minimal harm to the
environment, which leads to the necessity of improvement in education.
To carry out the research and see which areas require significant improvement of
awareness and education activities, a survey has been developed. This country-wide
survey for Latvia covered permanent residents of Latvia between the ages of 18 and
75. The survey’s sample size is 2005 respondents, of whom 67% have been directly
involved in the construction, repair, improvement, and/or demolition of their own
or family real estate. The survey was structured in a way to gain comprehension of
the overall knowledge level of the society on the construction and demolition waste
subject, as well as to identify the main gaps in the management of this particular
waste stream. Overall, the survey consisted of 65 questions. The following section
will provide an analysis of the obtained results of the survey and later form a set of
conclusions and recommendations.
According to the results of a survey of the population of Latvia, slightly more
than 2/3 of respondents (67%) have carried out repair or construction work in their
household in the last 5 years, which resulted in discarded repair and/or construction
waste. From the respondents, the distribution in detail was as follows:
1. Currently doing—5%;
2. Have carried out in the last year—25%;
3. Have carried out 1–2 years ago—16%;
4. Have carried out 3–5 years ago—21%.
However, almost 1/3 of respondents (32%) have not carried out any repairs,
resulting in repair or construction waste. The results show that it is quite common
to do some minor renovation or construction works in a timely manner in Latvian
society.
When analyzing the type of repair works performed (Fig. 22.4), it can be summa-
rized that the most common type of repair or construction work performed is cosmetic
repair, such as painting, changing tiles or plumbing, etc. (78% of respondents did
this). Other jobs or activities are mentioned relatively less frequently. Of course,
for this type of activity, the households do not need to receive any approval from
the building authority institution, which makes the process less bureaucratic and
complex. On the other hand, it assumes that society is aware of all information
publicly available on managing construction and demolition waste. To support the
above-mentioned, most respondents (73%) who have carried out repair or construc-
tion work in their household in the last five years, which resulted in the generation of
discarded repair and/or construction waste, did not carry out such work that required
approval from the building authority. 17% of respondents made an agreement with
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 701

the construction board for those works that required it, but 3% of respondents indi-
cated that the works were only partially coordinated with the building board—not
all works that required approval were agreed upon. 7% of respondents state that they
do not know whether the works performed require approval from the building board
(Fig. 22.5).

Fig. 22.4 Type of repair or construction work, Answer to the survey question “What type of repair
or construction work did you/your household do?” Base: respondents who have carried out repair
or construction work in their household during the last five years, which resulted in the generation
of disposable repair and/or construction waste, n = 1350 Multiple choice question (% sum > 100)

Fig. 22.5 The answer to the survey question “Did you sort the repair and construction waste
for disposal, for example, to reduce costs?” Base: respondents who have carried out repair or
construction work in their household during the last five years, which resulted in the generation of
disposable repair and/or construction waste, n = 1350 Multiple choice question (% sum > 100)
702 D. Bajare et al.

Figure 22.6 provides a comprehensive visualization of the approach that the citi-
zens chose for performing repair and construction works at their individual real estate.
In addition, this figure represents the scale of the construction or repair works carried
out, showing that in most cases, the responses covered really small scale-works that
do not require certain approval, and this also means that these particular households
did not have a chance to receive more explicit information on the management of
construction and demolition waste that could be received by the ones who undergo
the official process due to the scale of the works. Meaning that the households either
must be educated enough to know where to look for required information, or the
municipalities must have this information provided to the inhabitants to make sure
that they discard construction and demolition waste in the most resource-efficient
manner while still complying with all applicable regulations.
The survey carried out by the authors also addressed the question of waste gener-
ation. From the analysis of the responses, it has been concluded that more than half
of the respondents (57%) indicate that they generated up to 1 m3 or ten large bags of

Fig. 22.6 Response distribution for the question, “Were the repair and/or construction works you
carried out approved by the local building authority?”
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 703

waste when carrying out repair or construction work. More than one cubic meter of
waste was generated by 29% of respondents:
• 1–4 m3 —20%;
• More than 4 m3 —9%.
It can be observed that the amount of waste was smaller for those respondents
who carried out repairs in the apartment. The next section of the survey also covered
the discharge of construction and demolition waste, which is important to assess and
reveal tipping points, if any. According to the survey’s results, most often, respondents
get rid of repair and construction waste by throwing it into the common household
waste container (34%) or burning it (29%). These results are undoubtedly revealing
a significant gap in access to information in the overall education of the society, for
instance, it is forbidden to discharge construction and demolition waste into common
household waste containers for unsorted waste, not to mention waste incineration—
which is forbidden on the legislative level.
Respondents also tend to get rid of repair and construction waste by taking it to
the landfill with a special container for construction waste (19%), taking it to the
landfill themselves (16%), contracting a company or private person that they found
on the Internet or by other people recommendations to transport the waste to the
landfills (16%). It is worth noting that there are also responses that can be biased,
i.e., 14% of the respondents got rid of the repair and construction waste by using it
for strengthening the road, and 10%—used it for filling low (wet) places. It is quite
important to highlight that these activities, if performed on a larger scale and not in
the real estate owned by the same person, require specific permits.
Respondents also got rid of repair and construction waste by taking it to the
landfill with special construction waste bags (6%), selling (4%), burying it (3%),
and throwing it in a forest, quarry, ditch, or similar places (1%). 17% of respondents
stated that the waste (or part of it) is still stored with them. This was the central
question from the survey, revealing also illegal activities, like burying and throwing
in the forest. The authors conclude that these actions are caused by a range of reasons,
such as:
• Lack of information on the management of construction and demolition waste;
• High cost of construction and demolition waste management.
It can be concluded that both problems have quite clear and straightforward
solutions. Lack of information can be tackled by:
• Revising the information on the municipality web resources;
• Enhancing cooperation between municipalities and waste management companies
to provide more educational materials, communication with society, etc.;
• Informing the society on waste sorting activities concerning construction and
demolition waste as well (as generally waste sorting is associated with municipal
waste solely), to decrease the volume of the waste discharged and thus using the
waste sorting points or stations for sorted waste, which is collected free of charge.
704 D. Bajare et al.

Although, according to the survey results, this covers only a small proportion of
the respondents, this result cannot be neglected as it directly impacts environmental
pollution.
A positive aspect is that a little <2/3 of respondents (63%) have sorted the repair
and construction waste for disposal, for example, to reduce costs. However, almost
1/3 of respondents (31%) have not done so in general. Notably, out of this 31, 10%
did not sort waste but knew that this way could reduce costs, and 21% out of the
respondents stated that they previously did not know that this way could reduce costs.
It can be observed that repair and construction waste was sorted more often by
those respondents who carried out repairs in a private house and summer house/
garden house, as well as respondents living outside of Riga:
• The most convenient way for respondents to obtain information about the disposal
of repair/construction waste is on their municipality’s website or by calling the
municipality’s hotline (48%). Likewise, respondents would gladly obtain such
information by following means:
• Contacting the company that takes care of the respondent’s household waste
removal (34%); finding the most advantageous offer for them in internet
advertisements, for example, private advertisement platform ss.com (27%);
• In printed informational materials (21%);
• From friends or acquaintances (17%).
Another topic that has been addressed within the survey is secondary use of mate-
rials. Here, 41% of the respondents believe that there is a generally high possibility
that the leftover materials after repair or construction would be offered to others on
a special portal (rather high—26%, very high—15%). However, 1/3 of respondents
(33%) indicate that the likelihood of offering leftover repair/construction materials
to others is generally low or none (rather low—13%, very low—11%, none—9%).
It has been assumed that such distribution of the results is explained by the limited
availability of information on potential re-use and by the lack of legislative support or
explanations i.e., on municipal or waste management company resources, providing
information on what are the legal and permitted actions that individual can do with
construction and demolition waste to foster re-use.
One positive aspect that the survey has revealed is that almost half of all respon-
dents (48%) generally know places in their neighbourhood where people (individuals)
can hand over various repair and construction waste (know where—22%, roughly
guess where it could be—26%). However, 45% of the respondents indicated that they
do not know if and where people in the neighbourhood can hand over various repair
and construction waste. 7% of respondents indicated that they know that there is no
such place in their neighbourhood to hand over repair and construction waste. Those
living in Riga and those respondents who have not carried out repair or construction
work in the last five years, more often stated that they do not know if and where
people in the neighbourhood can hand over various repair and construction waste.
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 705

Having identified the main outcomes of the survey’s results as lacking compre-
hensive and available information to the public, the authors considered using quali-
tative research based on text information analysis. They applied their own developed
program to scan municipal websites to evaluate the level of available information.

22.6.2 Case Study—Stakeholder Opinion About CDW

Management in Latvia

This case study was conducted for the purpose of obtaining a deeper understanding
of the background and the internal environment within the construction sector in
Latvia, as well as the attitudes and the present level of provision of education about
construction waste management among the professionals involved in the industry.
Owing to the current conditions resulting from the restrictions of interviewing face-
to-face, as an alternative, the equally effective mechanism of primary data collection
was chosen as a questionnaire-based collection of data.
Firstly, an extensive analysis of the research and publications focused on the back-
ground of construction waste management and its current and emerging trends has
been done to understand the present situation in the sphere of construction waste
management, acquire a comprehension of the legislations on building debris in the
EU and the attitude of specialists involved in the managing thereof. Secondly, the
questionnaire for target group construction companies was designed after studying
the precedent surveys conducted within a similar topic in other countries to evaluate
the perception and/or existing situation in the construction waste industry. The ques-
tionnaire (adopted from Tambovceva et al. [5]) was then addressed to be internally
published to the members of the Latvian Civil Engineers Association (LBS). Where
engineers, construction managers, and architects within the selected companies who
directly or indirectly related to the management of the waste produced as the result
of the construction or demolition work. For reliable data interpretation, questions
included in the questionnaire were multiple-choice, some of the answers were set in
accordance with the Likert Scale from 1 to 5. The authors also assumed that neither
of the answers might be a proper interpretation of the desired response. Therefore,
most of the questions included an open answer or “other”, which allowed people in
the survey to specify their point of view.
There were also a few constraints identified:
• The questionnaire was anonymous. Therefore, the data collected could not be
sorted by the type of profession (architects, engineers, managers, etc.) among the
respondents. This fact makes this research limited to understanding the construc-
tion sphere professionals’ perceptions and therefore restrains differentiating the
result by occupation;
• The research was limited to a questionnaire-based data collection only, without
following face-to-face interviews;
706 D. Bajare et al.

• The geographical limitation is enclosed in targeting professionals involved in the

related sphere in Latvia.
Questionnaire’s results interpretation and analysis:
To receive reliable data and understanding, there was a need to find out:
• To what extent professionals are aware of the general situation on construction
and demolition waste (CDW) and related sustainability concepts?
• To what extent specialists engaged in the construction sphere are satisfied with
the opportunities and conditions provided?
• Are professionals motivated and willing to implement sustainable approaches
while managing CDW?
• What are the opportunities and obstacles in improving the management of
construction-related waste?
Considering the experience and insider knowledge of the respondents, it is also
important to notice that respondents were allowed to specify additional answers that
authors might not have accounted for when designing the questionnaire. Therefore,
the questionnaire can be considered as more or less flexible and able to adapt to the
people interviewed and obtain a better and more reliable result.
A total of 94 respondents took part in the survey, which is sufficient to obtain
a reliable analysis. The questionnaire had 12 mandatory questions and respondents
answered all of them.
The results of the answers of the respondents following:
To obtain answers about their attitude towards CDW recycling from respondents, they
were asked to use a 4-point Likert scale from “Not important” to “Very important”.
The majority of respondents (see Fig. 22.7) express concerns about the recy-
cling of construction waste and its management in projects. About 39% of respon-
dents, consider recycling important, while 26 and 25% believe recycling construction
waste is very and moderately important, respectively. The data indicates a notable
concern among professionals in Latvia regarding the recycling of construction and
demolition waste (CDW). However, 10% of individuals view CDW recycling in
their construction projects as a non-significant issue. Previous research [38] reveals
factors influencing the reluctance to take responsibility for proper CW manage-
ment or a lack of understanding on how to implement it. Despite this, there is an
overall positive response, suggesting that specialists recognize the importance of
CDW recycling, reflecting a commendable level of awareness and consciousness
regarding CDW-related issues.
Information with regard to knowledge of the percentage allocated to construction
sector waste is summarized in Fig. 22.8.
This question was designed to provide insight into how aware companies are of
their impact on the generation of CW in the EU. Worldwide waste generation amount
statistics [39], construction waste in 2018 made up 36% of total waste generated in
the EU. The result shows that most (49%) of construction professionals have precise
knowledge about the CW generation amounts across European countries. Moreover,
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 707

26%
Very important
39%
Important

10%
Not important

25%
Moderately important

Fig. 22.7 Is it important for you how the waste generated under your construction projects is
recycled?

Fig. 22.8 To your mind,

what approximate 10% 13%
percentage of all waste in the
EU is allocated to the
construction sector? 28%

49%

0 - 20% 20- 40% 40-60% 60-80%

the majority were mainly distributed around the answer, which is relatively close
to the right 20–40% and 40–60%. The minorities have been equally distributed on
both ends of the extremes, which account for the least close to the correct answer of
0–20% and 60–80% CW generation, respectively. It may be, therefore, figured out,
that specialists are aware of the trend in waste generation and know their impact in
terms of CW production.
Respondents were asked to self-assess and give information about the approximate
level of their knowledge about sustainable management practices, if they can apply
their expertise in practice, and what is also important to teach others.
The data collected for this question is summarized in Fig. 22.9 the pie chart indi-
cates that about 38 and 33% of the respondents either possess vague knowledge
without practical application skills or have limited experience and lack confidence
in applying their skills independently. In contrast, 21% (17 + 4%) of the participants
can apply their knowledge on their own, and only 4% of all respondents feel confi-
dent enough to teach others. This suggests a potential hesitation among individuals
regarding their ability to effectively manage waste. Site managers may perceive waste
management as a lower priority, possibly conflicting with other business objectives.
The constant pressure to achieve goals related to expenses, time, and quality may
708 D. Bajare et al.

Able to practice independently

17%

33% Able to practice independently and

4% teach others
Know nothing
8%
Know something, no experience

Some experience, still require

38% supervision

Fig. 22.9 Self-assessment on sustainable construction waste management

contribute to this perception. In such a scenario, their confidence in the return on

effort for waste management could be compromised.
Question 4 aims to uncover the motivations behind construction professionals or
companies expressing concern about construction waste production. Specifically, it
delves into the reasons respondents feel compelled to take responsibility for managing
waste stemming from construction and demolition activities. The question also seeks
to identify potential drivers and control mechanisms influencing respondents in the
implementation of sustainable CW management practices.
According to the pie chart (see Fig. 22.10) more than half of the responses indicate
that companies are concerned about the waste issue due to an understanding of its
adverse impact on the environment. Approximately a third of the respondents view
waste as a source of additional expenses, a valid concern given that CW can constitute
up to 30% of project expenses in some countries. Notably, 10% of specialists express
the opinion that CW is not their concern, suggesting that it should be addressed by
waste management companies.

Fig. 22.10 Reasons for taking the responsibility for CW production

22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 709

In addition, a minority of 3% of respondents cite government obligations as

their primary reason for considering waste management, emphasizing the regulatory
aspect imposed on them. Another group, comprising 2%, highlights their commit-
ment to responsible practices by referencing the application of BREEAM certifica-
tion and the ISO 14001 standard. This indicates a conscientious approach, possibly
driven by both environmental and financial considerations.
Question 5 focused on eliciting information about the current or potential condi-
tions for implementing waste minimization strategies within the respondents’ compa-
nies. The responses aimed to reveal whether participants were planning, had already
implemented, or had no intention of adopting construction waste minimization strate-
gies, along with the reasons behind their decisions. The question also allowed for an
open response if none of the provided options were suitable.
Figure 22.11 presents a summary of the collected data, indicating that approxi-
mately one-third of the responses are related to the future implementation of sustain-
able waste minimization methods. This suggests a significant interest or intention
among respondents to adopt strategies for minimizing construction waste in the
future.
Approximately 25% of respondents express satisfaction with their current tech-
nologies. Interestingly, those content with their technologies also admit to a lack of
knowledge about sustainable waste management and an inability to implement such
practices. This suggests that despite their satisfaction, the waste management tech-
nologies employed by these companies may not meet the criteria for sustainability. A
notable correlation emerges from respondents indicating that current governmental
requirements compel them to manage waste. The majority of this group expresses
environmental concerns, revealing a conflicting relationship between their responses
to questions 4 and 5. A more coherent correlation is observed among those who

Fig. 22.11 Conditions for applying CDW minimization methods: “Have you been planning to
minimize the waste produced during the construction and demolition works?”
710 D. Bajare et al.

Fig. 22.12 The primary channels through which respondents gather information about waste
minimization

express concerns about either environmental or financial issues and have subse-
quently implemented the ISO 14001 standard (22%). An intriguing contradiction
arises when a respondent claims to train young civil engineers on proper construc-
tion waste management but concurrently states having “some knowledge, no expe-
rience” in question 3. This duality in responses adds a layer of complexity to the
understanding of the respondent’s expertise in waste management.
The Fig. 22.12 provides an overview of the primary information sources utilized
by the respondents in question.
Given the ease of accessing information through online sources, understanding
the preferred methods for acquiring knowledge about construction waste minimiza-
tion in Latvia was crucial. According to the summarized data, the majority of practi-
tioners prefer drawing insights from the experiences of other construction companies.
Notably, some respondents specifically highlighted a preference for relying on the
experiences of other European Union (EU) countries, with these responses consoli-
dated under the category “Experience of other construction companies” for stream-
lined data management. The second most utilized source of information is the knowl-
edge available within various Latvian associations, such as Latvijas Būvinženieru
Savienība (LBS), Latvijas Arhitektu Savienība (LAS), or any similar associations.
Additionally, 22% of respondents opt for the Latvian National Database of Stan-
dards (lvs.lv) website to gather relevant information. A portion of the respondents
(16%) turns to social media platforms, while a smaller percentage (2%) relies on
local legislation to guide them in understanding the concepts of CW minimization.
This question acknowledged the diversity of perspectives and attitudes regarding
responsibility by allowing survey participants to select multiple answers. Recog-
nizing that cultural influences, company policies, and the perspectives of various
professional groups can shape attitudes, the survey aimed to capture a comprehensive
understanding of respondents’ views on responsibility.
Certainly, identifying the primary responsible stakeholder(s) remains crucial, as
highlighted by Osmani et al. [38]. In the current survey, it was found that the majority,
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 711

comprising 79.8% (75 out of 94 respondents), do not attribute responsibility for

construction waste minimization to architects (Fig. 22.13). Specifically, the preva-
lent combination of answers points toward Construction and Waste management
companies, or the same two entities, with an additional emphasis on the respon-
sibility of suppliers and contractors. In contrast, 22.3% (21 respondents) believe
that architects can play a role in influencing waste reduction, particularly during the
design stage. This data sets the stage for the subsequent question, aiming to unveil
respondents’ opinions on the stage at which most construction waste is generated.
The findings from this question contribute valuable insights for establishing key
assertions regarding the responsibilities of stakeholders in CW minimization efforts.
As it was assumed above, it is logical that most construction waste is produced
within the stage of project implementation (see Fig. 22.13), where 87% of the profes-
sionals assign construction waste production to construction execution, and only 5
and 8% think that CW may arise during either the design stage or project completion.
Here can be observed similarities with the research made by Osmani [40] revealing
that, indeed, the project stage is one of the key components in CW generation.
However, very often other stages are not taken into account due to traditional percep-
tions of waste as a. Inevitable and b. Ignoring other causative factors of CW, which
occur in other phases of the project rather than during execution only (Fig. 22.14).

Fig. 22.13 Stakeholder responsible for construction waste minimization

Fig. 22.14 Project stages

causing the most CW
production
712 D. Bajare et al.

Fig. 22.15 Aspects contributing to material wastage

The research tried to identify the factors leading to waste. Four high contributory
factors to material waste at construction sites are revealed in the study presented in
Fig. 22.15.
The impact of demolition works ranked highest in material wastage, aligning
with the results obtained in Question 8. On-site works secured the second-highest
rank, consistent with previous findings. Procurement of surplus/wrong materials
emerged as a concern for 42% of respondents, while the lack of construction waste
management was identified as a significant contributor to material wastage, according
to specialists. Other options, including design changes and material damage, were
deemed to have a moderate impact, ranging from 20 to 23%. Interestingly, respon-
dents perceive material wastage to be less prevalent during restoration works and
project closure.
This aligns with a study by Oko and Emannuel Itodo [41], which emphasizes
the substantial contribution of on-site works, including workmanship, storage facil-
ities, and rework, to materials wastage. The findings underscore the importance of
comprehensive training for all on-site participants, from site managers to construction
workers, to effectively address material waste on-site. As emphasized by Ekanayake
and Ofori [42], the most effective waste management strategy is to prevent waste in
the initial stages of construction.
Understanding the importance of implementing methods that can help to cut off
the waste generation in construction instead of conventional approaches is essen-
tial. The responses are outlined in Fig. 22.16, where interviewees were asked to
rate each approach from “never” or “occasionally used” to “use in every project”.
As the diagram suggests, almost a third of the respondents use waste sorting on-site,
followed workers’ training (28 respondents), use of standard dimensions, and prefab-
ricated elements. Only eight respondents specified the use of recycled elements in
every project and other methods like a design for deconstruction, material reuse,
and estimation of waste at the design stage applied at an average of 13 respondents.
Occasional use of the aforementioned methods, however, is more widespread among
professionals. The most popular here is in contrary use of recycled materials, reuse,
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 713

(I) Other
12 38 43
(H) Application of excessive/ wasted materials 20
for other purposes (reuse) 19 54
(G) Training of on-site workers on the issues 29
of waste minimization 28 36
(F) Waste separation on-site 16
35 42
(E) Use of recycled materials 22 63
8
(D) Use of prefabricated elements 19 50
24
(C) Use of standard dimensions 41
42
25
(B) Design for future deconstruction 41
41
11
(A) Waste estimation at the design stages
15 35 43

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Never used Occasionally, when it is feasible to apply Use in every project

Fig. 22.16 Waste minimization methods ranking

and prefabricated construction. All other methods were also occasionally applied
and were chosen by almost a third of respondents.
Nevertheless, it could be noticed, that the mean the approximate total of never
used methods were chosen by another half of the interviewees.
Having researched the main barriers in implementing sustainable waste manage-
ment approaches within the construction sector, it was essential to understand the
barriers within the industry that professionals face in Latvia. The respondents were
asked to choose the main hindrances in minimizing material wastage. The infor-
mation obtained is summarized in Fig. 22.16. This question seeks to determine
whether the obstacles are internal, like the company’s standard approach, attitudes
towards waste, or external, such as governmental or stakeholders’ encouragement,
or insufficient standards.
As it can be seen in Fig. 22.17 the prevailing number of responses stands for
external factors to be a primary barrier in implementing waste minimization. The
most significant, though, is the indifference of stakeholders to minimize material
wastage and the perception of waste to be unavoidable. Another external factor that
gains major votes in the absence of a standardized approach and lack of incentives
from the government. It is crucial to emphasize that some respondents noted the
government to be motivating on paper, but not helping construction companies to
make a real step forward in achieving the results in sustainable construction.
In the concluding question, the author investigates whether cost is a significant
barrier preventing companies from implementing sustainable technologies to reduce
material wastage. According to the summary presented in Fig. 22.18, nearly half
714 D. Bajare et al.

Company’s standard approach in project

implementation
27% (25)

Lack of governmental encouragement 29% (27)

Absence of special normative, requirements,
standards for waste minimization in 31.2% (29)
construction
Considering waste as unavoidable at any
project 54% (50)

Lack of stakeholders’ consciousness/interest 59% (55)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Fig. 22.17 Hindrances for CW minimization methods implementation (respondents’ opinion)

of the participants express a willingness to adopt sustainable technologies in their

construction practices.
The findings indicate that, despite the potential long-term environmental and
economic benefits, nearly half of the respondents are willing to incur additional
expenses for the implementation of sustainable technologies. The remaining half of
the responses are almost evenly split between those who prefer to maintain their
current methods and those who would consider a change only if mandated by the
government. This suggests a conscious and adaptable mindset within the construction
industry. However, the observed hesitation to change may be attributed to the obsta-
cles identified in question 11, implying a need for a more conducive environment to
foster the flourishing of sustainable waste management approaches in the construc-
tion sector. The results highlight the importance of addressing existing challenges
and creating a supportive framework to encourage the wider adoption of sustainable
practices.

Fig. 22.18 Cost versus implementation of sustainable technologies (respondents’ opinion)

22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 715

22.6.3 Case Study—Stakeholder Opinion About CDW

Management in Cyprus

The project, under the name “Build CIRCULAR Up: Circular Transformation of the
Construction Industry,” was set to revolutionize the construction sectors in Bulgaria,
Cyprus, and Malta. Funded by EIT Climate KICK, the initiative focuses on advancing
a Circular Economy (CE). It planned to achieve this through the development of a
cutting-edge digital innovation tool tailored for stakeholders, the establishment of a
Green Construction Hub, and the facilitation of international knowledge exchange.
The project’s core objectives encompass promoting sustainable practices, enhancing
resource efficiency, fostering collaboration among industry players, assessing readi-
ness for transformative measures, and laying the groundwork for a systemic shift
towards circularity within the construction sector. This sub-study performed for
Cyprus by Cyprus University of Technology and authors Dr. Nisiforou Olympia,
Dr. Stylianos Yiatros, Dr. Orestes Marangos, and Dr. Costas Andreou. This study
delves into user attitudes and practices concerning Circular Economy (CE), exploring
opportunities, needs, and concerns associated with CE. The research involved 36
participants, and the questionnaire was structured into distinct sections: (a) demo-
graphics, (b) comprehension of and attitude toward CE, (c) CE practices, and (d)
Opportunities, needs, and worries linked to CE in the Case Study of Cyprus. The
quantitative data collected were subsequently analyzed using Excel.
Demographics
The survey outcomes present a demographic snapshot of Cyprus’ Construction and
Demolition Waste (CDW) sector, with participants typically in their early 30 s and
a majority (65.7%) being male. Small to Middle-sized companies dominate the
sector, and participants, often with a high level of education, showcase substantial
experience, with a typical tenure spanning 5–10 years.
Regarding CE awareness, approximately 60% of respondents possess a basic
understanding, while 63% demonstrate a somewhat deep or deep comprehension.
This positive trend extends to CE practices, with 41% of companies actively engaging
in partnerships across the supply chain where CE practices are applied and one-third
reporting profits from the sale of recycled materials.
However, the survey reveals notable gaps in awareness within the CDW sector.
About 26% of participants are unaware of the legal obligations of CDW producers,
emphasizing the need for targeted outreach. Misconceptions exist, with some partic-
ipants believing that waste from the sector is primarily inert and can be handled
casually on-site.
Challenges and opportunities are elucidated through numerical insights. While
66% of participants engage in the separation of CDW, 17% do not separate waste
at all. Concerns about cultural attitudes, insufficient training, and the absence of
standards for recycled materials are expressed by respondents. Nevertheless, 52.9%
of companies engineer their products to minimize waste, highlighting a positive
inclination.
716 D. Bajare et al.

In conclusion, the survey provides quantitative insights into the demographic

profile, CE awareness, and practices within Cyprus’ CDW sector. The detailed docu-
ment, featuring illustrative graphs and specific numerical data, is accessible in the
appendix for a more in-depth exploration.
The provided graphs depict the demographic data obtained from the survey. In
the context of the survey, the CDW sector in Cyprus is predominantly represented
by individuals in their early 30 s, characterized by a high level of education, with the
majority being male participants (65.7%).
In Cyprus, the CDW sector is predominantly composed of Small to Middle-sized
companies. The majority of participants are employed in construction companies
or engineering consultancies (design bureaus). Additionally, participants exhibit a
considerable amount of experience in these sectors, with a typical tenure ranging
from 5 to 10 years.
Understanding of and Attitude Towards the CE
The survey results reveal that participants generally possess a basic understanding of
the CE, with 60% having basic knowledge and 12% having never heard of it. Approx-
imately 63% of respondents claim to have a somewhat deep or deep understanding
of CE. Companies show a growing interest in implementing CE practices, and this
trend extends to their supply chain partners. The major key findings showed that
regarding familiarity with CE, 60% of participants have a basic knowledge, while
12% have not heard of it.
Depth of Understanding in CE—63% of respondents demonstrate a somewhat
deep or deep understanding of CE. Interest in CE within Companies—Companies
exhibit interest in CE, with respondents recognising significant interest within their
supply chain partners.
74% of participants are aware that CDW producers are required to be part of a
collective CDW management system or operate their own licensed CDW manage-
ment system (Fig. 22.19). There is a prevailing misconception in the CDW industry
that waste is predominantly inert, leading to a relaxed handling approach. This
emphasises the need for outreach and training. Participants exhibit awareness of
legal obligations for waste management, with around half acknowledging the owner’s
ability to transfer waste management liability to other licensed entities.
Companies are demonstrating a keen interest in the CE concept and actively
engaging in the implementation of CE practices. Additionally, they acknowledge
that companies within their supply chain also exhibit a notable interest in adopting
CE practices.
CE Practices
The survey findings reveal a diverse landscape in adopting CE practices among partic-
ipating companies. Almost half of the companies lack partnerships throughout the
supply chain for CE practices, with reasons ranging from a lack of interest within the
company to the absence of interest among their partners. Despite this, one-third of
participants report deriving profits from the sale of recycled materials, underscoring
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 717

Fig. 22.19 Diagram

illustrating the respondents’
awareness level in terms of
their management system
(retrieved from Survey
Report—Build Circular Up
[43])

a positive economic impact. Approximately 65% of respondents engage in the sepa-

ration of CDW, while 17% do not separate waste at all. Primary materials used
and recycled encompass aggregates, concrete, metals, bricks, tiles, building stone,
wood, and plastic. Moreover, 66% of participants are members of a collective CDW
management system, and over half of the companies have established proprietary
waste management systems. Notably, 52.9% of companies engineer their products
to minimise waste during the manufacturing process, showcasing a commitment to
sustainability and waste reduction.
Opportunities, Needs, and Worries Related to the CE
For an industry with high uncertainty and low profit margins, cost minimization by
adopting CE practices is identified by the participants as a major benefit for the
companies. The participants in the study highlight cost minimization as a significant
benefit for companies adopting CE practices in an industry characterized by high
uncertainty and low profit margins. They identified benefits in implementing CE
practices, emphasizing the importance of cost reduction for companies. Additionally,
a noteworthy 15.2% of companies lack awareness of the source of their materials,
while 18.2% express uncertainty about material origin (Fig. 22.20).
The CDW sector in Cyprus faces obstacles to recycling and reusing materials, with
participants citing cultural attitudes, insufficient training on CE, absence of standards
for recycled materials, and inadequate infrastructure as barriers. Figures 22.21 and
22.22 illustrate the identified barriers to implementing CE practices.
Transport costs and disposal of CDW emerge as significant concerns (Fig. 22.23),
while participants express varying levels of knowledge regarding standards and
regulations for CDW (Fig. 22.24).
The overall understanding of CE is foundational, with participants expressing a
somewhat deep comprehension, and companies show considerable interest in imple-
menting CE practices across their supply chains. Identified benefits and barriers
to using or selling recycled waste are crucial illustrations reflecting the perceived
advantages and challenges associated with CE practices in the CDW sector in Cyprus.
Participants highlight cultural attitudes towards Circular Economy (CE) and
environmental protection, insufficient training and information on CE, the absence
718 D. Bajare et al.

Fig. 22.20 The participants’

knowledge about where the
materials their company uses
come from [43]

Fig. 22.21 The participants

identified barriers in
recycling waste [43]

Fig. 22.22 The participants

identified barriers in
recycling waste [43]
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 719

Fig. 22.23 The participants’

views on transport costs and
disposal of CDW [43]

Fig. 22.24 The participants’

knowledge level according to
standards and regulations for
CDW

of standards for recycled materials, and inadequate infrastructure as barriers. The

primary challenges reported are the costs associated with transporting and disposing
of CDW, leading to on-site waste treatment. Furthermore, the cost and the absence of
standards are identified as significant concerns when considering the use of recycled
materials. While some participants are aware of the existence of certain standards,
they lack familiarity with their specific context.
The escalating global population exerts tremendous pressure on the environment
and natural resources. The construction sector in Europe, marked by intense activities,
generates substantial amounts of Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW). Our
fixation on producing and consuming at minimal costs has fostered a linear economy,
where items are briefly utilized and then discarded as waste.
According to the findings of this study, participants generally possess a foun-
dational understanding of Circular Economy (CE), expressing a somewhat deep
720 D. Bajare et al.

comprehension. The companies represented by the respondents exhibit a consider-

able capacity and interest in implementing CE practices, extending to their supply
chains.
Furthermore, the survey results reveal that most participants are aware of the
existing management system in Cyprus. However, there is a prevalent misconception
that waste from this sector is primarily inert and can be handled casually by leaving
it on site.
The survey underscores existing barriers in the CDW sector hindering the devel-
opment of CE practices. Participants find the survey highly useful, with some
requesting more information related to CE in the CDW context. It is acknowledged
that implementing CE concepts in Cyprus requires time, resources, and synergies
[44].
As a result, prioritizing the enhancement of the waste management system to
reduce CW and promote CE is crucial. Investment in consultation schemes is deemed
valuable, as they have the potential to induce behavioral change, fostering improved
waste management and a shift from a linear to a Circular Economy.

22.7 Comparisons of Stakeholders’ Influences,

Inter-Relationships, and Obstacles
in the Implementation of Circular Economy
on Existing Building Sectors in Europe

22.7.1 Review of Current Market Barriers to Building

Retrofit and Renovation

CE practices for existing, ageing built environments are mainly influenced by specific
targets, including (i) prolonged service life of components through enhanced mainte-
nance and retrofit; (ii) minimized energy consumption through deep renovation; (iii)
elimination of residual waste by increased recycling and repurposing; (iv) climate
change adaptation and reduction of external risks and uncertainties by additional
retrofit and reconditioning; and (v) enhancement of structural condition and archi-
tectural aesthetics by redevelopment and refurbishment. These CE actions, espe-
cially for retrofit and renovation, are often motivated to achieve energy indepen-
dence or zero energy buildings (ZEB), near-zero energy buildings (NZEB), and
even energy-positive buildings (EPB). However, the commercial market for ZEB,
NZEB, and EPB concepts is still relatively emerging, particularly in the existing
building segment. Existing collaboration structures have yet to enable long-term
success beyond exemplary new buildings and some cosmetic renovation projects.
Challenges and obstacles to renovation processes have been identified, including
financial constraints and the unwillingness of local councils or local govern-
ments to prioritize energy-efficient or circular buildings. Limited awareness and
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 721

personal engagement of municipal officials, inadequate public policy instruments,

and the absence of established CE and energy-efficient standards further obstruct
collaboration for the successful implementation of circular practices [45].
An important factor that needs to be addressed is the nature of the renovation
market, which is driven by supply than consumer demand. Efforts have also been
made to ensure the quality of circular and energy-efficient buildings and the effec-
tiveness of energy performance certificates (EPCs). For example, the REQUEST
project highlights the need for support to homeowners more than receiving an EPC,
emphasizing the importance of partnerships between supply and demand. Improved
communication among stakeholders, building trust, and creating multi-disciplinary
partnerships at various levels have proven effective in promoting circularity and
energy-efficient buildings [46].
To motivate building owners and influencers to adopt circular and energy-
independent design, retrofit, and renovation projects (e.g. beyond NZEBs), it is
important to demonstrate the success of such circularity projects in achieving sustain-
ability and high energy performance. However, the sophisticated building process
can involve multiple actors with varying levels of influence. These actors can signifi-
cantly delay the progress of decision-making for circular practices. Therefore, under-
standing the influences and inter-relationships among actors and stakeholders is the
precursor to overcoming obstacles and challenges in CE implementation within the
built environment sector.

22.7.2 Concepts of Circular Economy Implementation

for the Existing Building Sector

The net-zero economy cannot be achieved without an appropriate transformation of

current industry practices. Indeed, McKinsey [47] reported that any action for decar-
bonization needs to improve the energy mix toward renewable alternatives such as
hydrogen, solar power, and wind power. Industrial and agricultural processes need
to be revisited to increase energy efficiency and reduce demand for energy; adopt the
CE; consume fewer emissions-intensive goods; apply carbon capture, utilization, and
storage (CCS) technology; and enhance sinks of long-lived and short-lived green-
house gases. New studies highlighted that a way to accomplish circularity of new and
existing buildings is to promote the development, implementation, and automation of
CE strategies by connecting market actors using Industry 4.0 Technologies via digital
transformation and by carrying out a series of outreach activities. Adopting digital
twins and artificial intelligence can accelerate the pace of and circularity across the
scale from materials to components to buildings and the built environment. Strategies
to overcome market barriers include simplifying the design process, manufacturing,
retrofit and renovation to incorporate CE strategies, life cycle costing, and carbon-free
co-benefits.
722 D. Bajare et al.

CE for existing building stocks generally implies an industrial intervention that can
be restorative by design; aims to rely on alternative renewable energy; reduces, moni-
tors, and eliminates the use of energy, water, carbon, and toxic chemicals; and elim-
inates waste through careful re-design, renovation, rehabilitation, and planning. The
CE implementation for existing building stocks will generally target less resources
and energy consumption while simultaneously being more carbon efficient and maxi-
mizing waste reduction and management. The traditional stages to implement CE
concepts are the planning stage, execution stage, and commission stage.
Planning Stage
Firstly, it is important to determine best practices of CE, requirements, and specifica-
tions for circular re-design, retrofit, and renovation suitable to the existing buildings
(i.e., residential or non-residential buildings). In this stage, assessing available tech-
nologies, innovation and processes for circular buildings is crucial. Market condi-
tions, technical stakeholders, and required expertise for circular design, retrofit, and
renovation should be listed, including other stakeholders that are often neglected in
the retrofit and renovation process for existing buildings, such as architects, plan-
ners, insurers, energy, and financial advisors. They are key actors who will have a
significant role in CE concepts. Accordingly, the original purpose of the project can
be maintained despite any difficulties that may be encountered. The actors could also
encourage smooth information exchanges and collaboration between professionals
and contractors.
A number of non-technical stakeholders can influence any decision-making in
circular building design, retrofit, and renovation. They could be public authorities (at
national, regional, municipal, or local levels) in various roles as building owners,
enablers/ facilitators, policymakers, or financers. Stakeholders include building
owners, industry players (suppliers, contractors, energy service companies), profes-
sionals (architects, engineers, building managers, surveyors), insurance and financing
entities (public or private), occupiers, and end-users.
In order to motivate more asset owners and managers to implement CE concepts,
circular design and renovation projects, it is essential that the project developments
can share the vision and demonstrate the potential success of their projects towards net
zero (e.g. for circular materials; for zero waste; or high energy performance beyond
NZEB, ZEB and/or EPB). In addition, the involvement of local municipalities can
overcome the barrier to implementing CE practices. Regarding technical solutions,
different re-design, retrofit, and renovation approaches based on CE principles can
be determined based on the type of buildings, state of the building, location, and
purpose of renovation, etc.
In practice, the capability to access and share clean energy grids for a building
can improve the circularity of existing building service systems. The capability will
reduce the demanding activities required to deeply renovate the building stocks. The
advanced sensing for energy performance and structural health in built environments
and the potential of sharing renewable energy systems (RES) between buildings can
also be explored in this stage. The automation for RES can be analyzed to support
the decision-making process for circularity. Key issues with RES installations often
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 723

found are ‘cross-ownership’, or the superposition of rights on land and infrastruc-

ture. Various stakeholders at the various political levels (local, regional, national,
EU) could hamper the integration and implementation of cross-sectorial solutions.
However, life cycle costing (LCC) and carbon footprint can be conducted to support
the decision-making. Building and homeowners often do not have access to a struc-
tured approach to obtain all essential information to make a decision. Therefore,
financial and benefits incentives are necessary.
Homeowners and building professionals will need to easily assess and compare
different re-design, retrofit, and renovation strategies for a given building, combining
energy and cost calculations with flexibility and a depth that makes it unique and
vividly visual. Note that there are differences in national calculation procedures
for determining circular materials, water consumption, and energy needs in build-
ings and assessing energy performance in buildings despite the common norms and
regulations. These differences must be considered at the planning stage.
Execution Stage
Once the decision for any circular action has been reached, pre-simulations of the
actions can be performed for the existing buildings. The best scenarios for circularity
can be determined and applied to the building stock. The circular building data
should be simultaneously collected to update the building information systems and
to improve automation towards circular practices (e.g., materials, water, wastes, and
energy usage control in each part of the building). Notably, the data and building
information system can overcome current market barriers to CE implementation
by increasing stakeholders’ awareness of the circular practices. Collaboration and
partnerships among academia, industry, municipalities, and SMEs are instrumental
in implementing successfully CE concepts. The technical and quality assurances of
the circular design, retrofit, and renovation measures should be warranted, and CE
checklists should be prepared to assess this process. All activities and actions need
to be well planned, scheduled, and recorded to execute the successful delivery of CE
implementation.
Commission Stage
It is crucial to ensure the monitoring platform is established for compliance purposes
to validate the results with CE goals, targets or indicators. Also, there will be a need
for a correct assessment of the reliability and repeatability of the results. An iterative
process should be carried out in order to verify the outcomes of the CE concept appli-
cation. Monitoring action can be implemented using sensors, routine inspections, and
smart meters to monitor different parameters affecting materials, water and energy
consumption, waste and toxic management, and/or internal comfort. These data are
crucial for smart building and smart city concepts that will transition to net zero.
Assessing user experience through interactive engagement, mutual activities, and
surveys is inevitable. The insights can help to further improve the implementation
of CE practices.
724 D. Bajare et al.

Recent reports [48, 49] showed new evidence that energy renovation of existing
buildings offers many valuable outcomes to existing buildings’ owners and stake-
holders beyond cost savings from energy expenditure. Note that it should not only
measure energy performance (kWh/m2 ) but also waste reduction, recyclability of
materials and components, service life and durability of assets, indoor environmental
quality (e.g. temperature, air quality, and visual comfort), airtightness, the rebound
effect, the weather conditions, occupancy (internal gains, building use), maintenance
activities, and user experiences. These measurements will help to accurately establish
a better guideline and harmonized standard for a circular design upgrade, retrofit, and
renovation measures for existing building stocks. Business case and advertisement
experts should be invited to join the implementation process from the beginning and
develop clear and interactive campaigns to promote CE concepts. This will increase
awareness and influence to overcome any obstacle to implementing CE practices for
existing building stocks at all levels.
There have been many projects to implement CE concepts and applications to
existing building stocks. However, the adoption rate of those measures is far from
enough to achieve the net zero target by 2050. This is because over 90% of build-
ings globally are ageing or existing building stocks. With an adoption rate of CE
between 0.5 and 1% annually, it would take over 100 years to reach net zero for
existing building stocks [50]. Built environments with special attention to ageing
and existing building sectors thus face significant challenges in successfully imple-
menting CE towards the transition to net zero. These challenges stem from (i) the
lack of incentives and financial support; (ii) technical solutions and bottom-up tech-
nologies suitable to the diverse ranges of existing building stocks; (iii) non-inclusive,
undiversified policies, target directives, indicators, and regulations; (iv) inadequate
cooperation among fragmented stakeholders and circular value chains; and (v) poor
inter-relationships and influence among stakeholders. CE transition towards net zero
is a global challenge, and we must strike to resolve the climate issue altogether
through both domestic and international cooperation [50]. Therefore, we all need to
work together to harmonize actions with tactical and pragmatic strategies to overcome
technical challenges and barriers to CE implementation.

22.8 An Assessment of European Stakeholders’ Opinions

on the Costs and Benefits of Circular Economy
Implementation in the Construction Value Chain

CE aims to create a closed-loop system, minimising waste and maximising resource

use in response to the current linear economic model [51]. The construction sector,
being one of the top-polluting industries, is driven by financial outcomes and, there-
fore, faces challenges in embracing innovations due to uncertainties about costs
and benefits [52]. Defining the costs and benefits of circular business models in
construction and engaging stakeholders is essential for its adoption [53].
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 725

The transition to CE requires significant upfront investments [54]. The costs and
benefits may vary across different countries and cities where construction takes place,
depending on the availability of resources, technology equipment, human resources,
various factors that can contribute to costs, such as opting to use recycled mate-
rials that may be pricier, consuming more water and energy for recycling processes,
investing in innovative equipment and software, as well as training and certifying
human resources.
Nevertheless, the construction sector can also derive advantages from adopting
CE principles, especially when focusing on materials. These benefits encompass the
reduction of waste generation, decreased reliance on new resources, and a decline in
the environmental impact associated with producing new materials, including energy
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from transportation [55]. Resource reuse
might be more advantageous than purchasing new materials, while refurbishment
presents a cost-effective alternative to constructing new buildings [55]. Implementing
CE can develop resale markets, improve local resource use, tax benefits, and create
new workplaces [56].
In general, in the European region, CE support is reinforced by the national strate-
gies implemented in these countries, which endorse the adoption of CE practices
and allocate significant funds towards their implementation. The Circular Economy
Package encompasses an EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy, which outlines a
specific and ambitious course of action. It includes initiatives that address every cycle
phase, from production and consumption to waste management and the secondary
raw materials market.
Nevertheless, there is a research gap regarding the costs and benefits of applying
CE methods in the construction sector, specifically related to construction materials.
Despite growing awareness of the advantages, such as waste and emission reduction,
there is limited understanding of how to implement circular practices in construc-
tion while considering various stakeholders. This highlights the need for a compre-
hensive analysis of the costs and benefits of adopting CE practices in construction
and incorporating perspectives from different stakeholders. Further investigation is
necessary to promote sustainable growth and meet the needs of all stakeholders in
the construction sector.
Therefore, this study has been conducted, which is a qualitative analysis of
stakeholders’ perspectives towards CE costs and benefits in the European region
to gather relevant ideas and an overview of the specific challenges and opportuni-
ties. The survey results can help develop tailored strategies and policies that could
aid in promoting the successful adoption of circular practices in construction while
considering the diverse needs and perspectives of stakeholders.
The research questionnaire includes inquiries regarding the respondents’ country
of origin and stakeholder affiliation. Subsequently, a series of questions employing
the Likert scale is employed to gauge stakeholders’ perceptions of the impact of
CE implementation on costs and benefits. Prior ethical clearance for conducting this
survey has been obtained from the Institutional Review Ethics Committee (IREC).
The survey employed a combination of random sampling and snowballing tech-
niques. Utilizing the Qualtrics online platform, the survey was administered from
726 D. Bajare et al.

June to July. Access to the survey can be found at the following link: https://nukz.
qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3mZiu5qJbjxLfU2. Simple descriptive statistics were
utilized to analyze the data. It is important to acknowledge the inherent limitation of
self-reporting bias. After filtering out incomplete responses and those with over 60%
unanswered questions, a total of 265 valid responses were obtained from participants
residing in the European region.
The data presented in Table 22.7 shows that the survey was conducted in 28
countries. Norway had the highest number of participants, with 114, followed by
Spain (34), Latvia (30), Portugal (11), and Albania (9). Figure 22.25 displays the
number of responses categorised by stakeholder type. The majority of respondents
were from academia (63), project management (52), engineering (36), and contractor
stakeholders and manufacturing (22 and 21 respectively). Figure 22.26. depicts the
number of respondents who stated they had experience with circular, sustainable, or
green building practices. Norway had the highest number of such respondents (50),
followed by Spain (23), Latvia (13), and Portugal (8).
In Figs. 22.27, 22.8, 22.9 and 22.30, the perception of stakeholders toward imple-
menting CE practices in companies is shown in terms of its impact on costs and bene-
fits. The Likert scale was used to measure responses on a scale of 1–5. Responses
were categorised as 0% for “very low”, 25% for “low”, 50% for “moderate”, 75%
for “high”, and 100% for “very high.” The percentages shown in Figs. 22.27, 22.28,
22.29 and 22.30 were calculated by adding up the responses for each country. The
cut-off value for country responses was more than six values for these specific ques-
tions, which has resulted in an analysis of Norway, Spain, Portugal, Latvia, and
Albania.
Figures 22.27 and 22.28 highlight the experts’ perception of the importance of
the advantages gained and costs required from the implementation of CE prac-
tices. Notably, all the countries’ respondents have a relatively high appreciation for
these practices, both benefits and costs (more than 50%). In Fig. 22.27, the highest
value was observed from respondents from Spain (75%), while the lowest was from
Portugal (50%). Figure 22.28 displays the perception of CE implementation costs
importance. For Albania, that is the most significant (75%). While for Portugal—the
smallest (58%). It is interesting to note that for both costs and benefits, the ranks
identified by respondents from the countries are similar—Spain and Albania lead
(although changing each other in first and second places), Latvia is in the middle,
while Norway and Portugal are closing in both charts. Nevertheless, Spain is the only
country, among others, for which the benefits were observed to be more important
than costs (75% contrasting to 65%, respectively). For Albania, the perception of cost
importance was almost 30% higher compared to the perception of benefits impor-
tance, and it was the highest difference among other countries. For Latvia, Norway,
and Portugal, the assessment of the significance of expenditures and advantages was
relatively similar, with differences of around 10–15%.
Spain is one of the leading countries in terms of CE development, either in prac-
tice implementation or in research [57]. Construction is one of the main priorities
in the Spanish Circular Economy Strategy (España Circular 2030) [58]. Spanish
City Councils aid in financing circular projects promoting CE businesses. Access to
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 727

Table 22.7 The number of responses versus the country name (European region)
Country Number of responses
Norway 114
Spain 34
Latvia 30
Portugal 11
Albania 9
Austria 6
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 6
Ireland 4
Italy 4
Netherlands 4
Serbia 4
Bulgaria 3
Croatia 3
Greece 3
Slovakia 3
Belgium 2
Germany 2
Poland 2
Sweden 2
Switzerland 2
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
Czech Republic 1
Estonia 1
France 1
Luxembourg 1
Montenegro 1
Republic of Moldova 1
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 1

funding is noted as one of the priority barriers, yet it is not listed as the top (21st rank
from 24 identified barriers). These facts fairly support the observed results of Spain
finding CE implementation advantages to be more significant than costs.
In Albania, CE in the construction sector, as well as associated organizational
costs importance is supported by the available literature. As GIZ [59] has argued,
the construction sector is one of the main priorities for circularity development.
The implementation strategies are suggested to be the improvement of procurement
regulations and financial funding of waste management facilities (through low-cost
debts and financial coverage of waste treatment and collection). Companies view the
728 D. Bajare et al.

Government and/or Councilor 1

Environmental agency 2
Urban designer 2
End-user 4
Material supplier 5
Client and/or Investor 8
Technician and/or Engineer 15
Other, please specify 19
Manufacturer 21
Contractor 22
Designer Architect and/or Engineer 36
Project manager 54
Academician/Researcher 64
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Fig. 22.25 The number of responses versus the stakeholder type (European region)

50 50
45
40
35
30
25 23
20
15 13
10 8
6
4 4 4 4 3
5 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
Netherlands
Norway

Portugal

Ireland

Belgium

Luxembourg

Poland
Albania

Croatia

France
Latvia

Italy

Switzerland
United Kingdom

Bulgaria

Estonia

Germany

Montenegro

Moldova
Sweden
Spain

Austria

Serbia
Slovakia

Czech Republic

Fig. 22.26 Number of respondents who have been involved in circular building practices
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 729

80% 75%

58% 56%
60% 53%
50%

40%

20%

0%
Spain Albania Latvia Norway Portugal

Fig. 22.27 Percentage of the perception of benefits importance provided by the CE implementation

80% 75%
65% 62% 60% 58%
60%

40%

20%

0%
Albania Spain Latvia Norway Portugal

Fig. 22.28 Percentage of the perception of costs importance provided by the CE implementation

80% 75%
70% 63% 63%
60% 56%
47%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Portugal Spain Albania Latvia Norway

Fig. 22.29 Percentage of the perception of CE implementation effect on organizational financial

performance
730 D. Bajare et al.

100%
81%
80% 75% 72% 71%
60%
60%

40%

20%

0%
Spain Portugal Latvia Albania Norway

Fig. 22.30 Percentage of the perception of CE implementation effect on organizational reputation

and brand

significant expense associated with adaptation choices as the primary deterrent to

the execution of risk management measures [60]. In addition, more than a quarter of
Albanian citizens believe that business costs impede CE development [61].
For Portugal, costs associated with CE regulatory procedures are considered as
one of the main barriers to its implementation [62]. Nevertheless, it is emphasized
that reducing associated costs for waste management for businesses is successful.
In addition, Henriques et al. [63] suggest that Portugal needs more relevant specific
incentives for better CE adoption in terms of economic benefit, which supporting the
results obtained in this study.
Prevailing economic reliance of Latvia on linear economy models, thereby influ-
ences their limited acceptance and uptake of CE practices [64]. Recent material cost
increases resulted in rising rigidity towards expensive innovative decisions in the
building sector, which results in a minuscule desire for investment into circularity
options [65]. Nevertheless, the opportunities for CE development are argued to be
promising, as businesses are interested in benefitting circular solutions.
In general, Norway’s government has developed certain Circular Strategies as a
response to the EU Circular Economy Action Plan [66]. Nevertheless, costs remain
a hot topic for businesses. As it is argued in several studies, Norwegian stakeholders
need a quantitative assessment of the costs and benefits of CE implementation as
well as fair allocation of expenditures, advantages, and hazards in reclamation and
recycling procedures within the construction sector [67, 68]. CE investments are also
identified as a prime barrier to CE development in the construction sector. Thus, the
literature supports the findings of the current study about the importance of costs and
benefits for Norwegian stakeholders.
All in all, the analysis of stakeholders’ assessment of perceived costs and benefits
received from CE implementation in the construction sector was conducted. Although
the survey included different countries from the whole European region, certain
countries revealed higher response rates, which caused them to be analyzed more
deeply in this study. Thus, the discussion provided is based on Spanish, Portuguese,
Latvia, Albanian, and Norwegian representatives. These countries are located in
various regions of the European continent, with Norway in Northern Europe, Latvia
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 731

in Northern Europe, Spain in Southern Europe, Albania in South-eastern Europe,

and Portugal in Southern Europe.
This study revealed that respondents generally perceive both the advantages and
costs of implementing CE practices as important, with Spain and Albania having
the highest appreciation. Interestingly, Spain is the only country where benefits
were considered more important than costs, while Albania had the largest differ-
ence between the perception of cost and benefit importance. The other countries
showed relatively similar assessments of the significance of both expenditures and
advantages.
This study also investigated the perceived impact of CE on financial performance,
professional reputation, and brand. Norway had the lowest perception in both areas,
while Portugal, Spain, Albania, and Latvia showed significant agreement that CE has
a positive effect, especially on professional reputation and brand image, indicating
strong expert support for the assessment.

References

1. Huovila P, Westerholm N (2022) Circularity and sustainability in the construction value chain.
IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environm Sci 1078:012004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/
012004
2. European Commission (2023) Construction sector. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.
eu/sectors/construction_en. Accessed 31 Aug 2023
3. Rungskunroch P, Shen ZJ, Kaewunruen S (2021) Getting it right on the policy prioritisation
for rail decarbonisation: evidence from whole-life CO2 e emissions of railway systems. Front
Built Environ 7:638507. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2021.638507
4. Munaro MR, Tavares SF (2023) A review on barriers, drivers, and stakeholders towards
the circular economy: the construction sector perspective. Cleaner Responsible Consumption
8:100107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100107
5. Tambovceva T, Titko J, Bumanis G, Bajare D (2023) Barriers to effective construction and
demolition waste management in Latvia. In: Leal Filho W, Dinis MAP, Moggi S, Price E,
Hope A (eds) SDGs in the European Region. Implementing the UN Sustainable Development
Goals—Regional Perspectives. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91261-1_
25-1
6. Kaewunruen S, Teuffel P, Donmez CA et al (2024) Comparisons of stakeholders’ influences,
inter-relationships, and obstacles for circular economy implementation on existing building
sectors. Sci Rep 14:11046. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-61863-0
7. Çidik M, Schiller G, Zhang N, Rizzo A, Tambovceva T, Bajare D, Hendawy M (2024) How
does ‘Locality’ matter in enabling a circular built environment?: a focus on space, knowledge,
and cities. In: Bragança L, Cvetkovska M, Askar R, Ungureanu V (eds) Creating a roadmap
towards circularity in the built environment. Springer tracts in civil engineering. Springer,
Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45980-1_21
8. de Jesus A, Mendonça S (2018) Lost in transition? Drivers and barriers in the eco-innovation
road to the circular economy. Ecol Econ 145:75–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.
08.001
9. Guldmann E, Huulgaard RD (2020) Barriers to circular business model innovation: a multiple-
case study. J Clean Prod 243:118160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118160
10. Kirchherr J, Piscicelli L, Bour R, Kostense-Smit E, Muller J, Huibrechtse-Truijens A, Hekkert
M (2018) Barriers to the circular economy: evidence from the European union (EU). Ecol Econ
150:264–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.028
732 D. Bajare et al.

11. Hart J, Adams K, Giesekam J, Tingley DD, Pompon F (2019) Barriers and drivers in a circular
economy: the case of the built environment. Procedia CIRP 80:619–624. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.procir.2018.12.015
12. Ritzén S, Sandström GÖ (2017) Barriers to the circular economy—integration of perspectives
and domains. Procedia CIRP 64:7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.005
13. Masi D, KumarV G-R, Godsell J (2018) Towards a more circular economy: exploring the
awareness, practices, and barriers from a focal firm perspective. Prod Plan Control 29(6):539–
550. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1449246
14. Govindan K, Hasanagic M (2018) A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices
towards circular economy: a supply chain perspective. Int J Prod Res 56(1–2):278–311. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1402141
15. Geng Y, Doberstein B (2008) Developing the circular economy in China: challenges and oppor-
tunities for achieving ’leapfrog development’. Int J Sust Dev World 15(3):231–239. https://doi.
org/10.3843/SusDev.15.3:6
16. Paiho S, Mäki E, Wessberg N, Paavola M, Tuominen P, Antikainen M, Heikkilä J, Antuña
C, Jung N (2020) Towards circular cities—conceptualizing core aspects. Sustain Cities Soc
59:102143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102143
17. Williams J (2019) Circular cities: challenges to implementing looping actions. Sustainability
11(2):423. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020423
18. Campbell-Johnston K, ten Cate J, Elfering-Petrovic M, Gupta J (2019) City level circular
transitions: barriers and limits in Amsterdam, Utrecht and the Hague. J Clean Prod 235:1232–
1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.106
19. Akinade O, Oyedele L, Oyedele A, Delgado D, Bilal JM, Akanbi L, Ajayi A, Owolabi H (2019)
Design for deconstruction using CE approach: barriers and strategies for improvement. Prod
Plan Control 31(10):829–884. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1695006
20. Zaman AU, Arnott J, Mclntyre K, Hannon J (2018) Resource Harvesting through a systematic
deconstruction of the residential house: a case study of the ‘whole house reuse’ project in
Christchurch, New Zealand. Sustainability 10(10):3430. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103430
21. Gupta H, Kusi-Sarpong S, Rezaei J (2020) Barriers and overcoming strategies to supply chain
sustainability innovation. Resour Conserv Recycl 161:104819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rescon
rec.2020.104819
22. Hossain U, Ng ST, Antwi-Afari P, Amor B (2020) Circular economy and the construction
industry: existing trends, challenges and prospective framework for sustainable construction.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 130:109948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109948
23. Cruz-Rios F, Grau D (2020) Design for disassembly: an analysis of the practice (or lack Thereof)
in the United States. In: Grau D, Tang P, El Asmar M (eds) Construction Research Congress
2020—Project management and controls, materials, and contracts. American Society of Civil
Engineers, pp 992–1000
24. Nußholz JLK, Rasmussen FN, Milios L (2019) Circular building materials: carbon saving
potential and the role of business model innovation and public policy. Resour Conserv Recycl
141:308–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.036
25. Aslam MS, Huang B, Cui L (2020) Review of construction and demolition waste management
in China and USA. J Environ Manage 264:110445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.
110445
26. Ghisellini P, Ji X, Liu G, Ulgiati S (2018) Evaluating the transition towards cleaner production
in the construction and demolition sector of China: a review. J Clean Prod 195:418–434. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.084
27. Tomaszewska J (2020) Polish transition towards circular economy: materials management and
implications for the construction sector. Materials 13(22):1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma1
3225228
28. Kanters J (2020) Circular building design: an analysis of barriers and drivers for a circular
building sector. Buildings 10(4):77. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10040077
29. INSTAT—Institute of Statistics (2023). https://www.instat.gov.al/en/. Accessed 22 Sept 2023
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 733

30. Ministry of Tourism and Environment (2020) Strategy for Integrated Waste Management
(2020–2035). https://turizmi.gov.al/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Dokumenti-i-Politikave-Str
ategjike_AL.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2023
31. ECA—European Court of Auditors (2023) Special report 17/2023: Circular economy—slow
transition by member states despite EU action. https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications?
ref=SR-2023-17. Accessed 13 Sept 2023
32. 4C/ID (2024). https://www.4cid.org/. Accessed 29 July 2024
33. Saeima (2010) Waste management law. https://likumi.lv/ta/id/221378-atkritumu-apsaimniekos
anas-likums. Accessed 10 June 2024
34. VET Training Curricula (2024). https://constructionblueprint.eu/training-curricula. Accessed
10 June 2024
35. UK Engineering Council (2023) Guidance on sustainability. https://www.engc.org.uk/sustai
nability. Accessed 20 July 2023
36. CESBA MED Interreg Med project eLearning Platform (2024). https://cesba-med.research.
um.edu.mt/. Accessed 20 July 2023
37. Turkish Circular Economy Platform (2024). https://donguselekonomiplatformu.com/en/traini
ngs.html. Accessed 20 July 2023
38. Osmani M, Glass J, Price ADF (2008) Architects’ perspectives on construction waste reduction
by design. Waste Manage 28(7):1147–1158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.05.011
39. Eurostat (2020) Eurostat statistics explained: waste statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/sta
tistics-explained/index.php?title=Waste_statistics. Accessed 19 June 2023
40. Osmani M (2013) Design waste mapping: a project life cycle approach. In: Proceedings of
institution of civil engineers: waste and resource management, vol 166, no 3, pp 114–127.
https://doi.org/10.1680/warm.13.00013
41. Oko A, Emmanuel Itodo D (2013) Professionals’ views of material wastage on construction
sites and cost overruns. Organ Technol Manag Construct: Int J 5(1):747–757. https://doi.org/
10.5592/otmcj.2013.1.11
42. Ekanayake LL, Ofori G (2004) Building waste assessment score: design-based tool. Build
Environ 39(7):851–861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.01.007
43. Survey Report—Build Circular Up (2024). https://cypruscircular.org.cy/wp-content/uploads/
2021/07/Survey-Country-Report_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 29 July 2024
44. Marangos O, Nisiforou O, Yiatros S (2021) Circular economy thinking for construction
waste management in island regions. https://cypruscircular.org.cy/wp-content/uploads/2021/
07/state-of-CDW-management-in-Cyprus.pdf. Accessed 3 Sept 2023
45. Kaewunruen S, Sussman JM, Einstein HH (2015) Strategic framework to achieve carbon-
efficient construction and maintenance of railway infrastructure systems. Front Environ Sci
3:6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2015.00006
46. Kaewunruen S, Xu N (2018) Digital twin for sustainability evaluation of railway station
buildings. Front Built Environ 4:77. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2018.00077
47. McKinsey (2022) The net-zero challenge: accelerating decarbonisation worldwide. https://
www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-challenge-accelerat
ing-decarbonization-worldwide. Accessed 1 July 2023
48. Zero Carbon Hub (2023). https://www.zerocarbonhub.org/sites/default/files/resources/reports/
ZCHomes_Nearly_Zero_Energy_Buildings.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2023
49. European Commission (2023) EU policies aim to deliver secure, sustainable and affordable
energy for citizens and businesses. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/energy-efficiency/ene
rgy-efficient-buildings/energy-performance-buildings-directive_en. Accessed 5 Sept 2023
50. Kaewunruen S (2023) Keynote lecture: circular asset management safeguarding railway
systems beyond net zero. In: The 6th international conference on key technologies in railway
engineering (ICRE 2023), Beijing, China. https://research.birmingham.ac.uk/en/publications/
keynote-lecture-circular-asset-management-safeguarding-railway-sy. Accessed 21 Sept 2023
51. Thormark C (2007) Motives for design for disassembly in building construction. In: Portugal
SB 2007—sustainable construction, materials and practices: challenge of the industry for the
New Millennium, January 2007, pp 607–611. http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB11732.
pdf. Accessed 11 Sept 2023
734 D. Bajare et al.

52. Torgautov B, Zhanabayev A, Tleuken A, Turkyilmaz A, Mustafa M, Karaca F (2021) Circular

economy: challenges and opportunities in the construction sector of Kazakhstan. Buildings
11(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11110501
53. Tokazhanov G, Galiyev O, Lukyanenko A, Nauyryzbay A, Ismagulov R, Durdyev S, Turky-
ilmaz A, Karaca F (2022) Circularity assessment tool development for construction projects in
emerging economies. J Clean Prod 362:132293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132293
54. Wuni IY (2022) Mapping the barriers to circular economy adoption in the construction sector:
a systematic review, Pareto analysis, and mitigation strategy map. Build Environ 223:109453.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109453
55. Ghisellini P, Ripa M, Ulgiati S (2018) Exploring environmental and economic costs and benefits
of a circular economy approach to the construction and demolition sector: a literature review.
J Clean Prod 178:618–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.207
56. Guerra BC, Leite F (2021) Circular economy in the construction industry: an overview of
United States stakeholders’ awareness, major challenges, and enablers. Resour Conserv Recycl
170:105617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105617
57. López Ruiz LA, Roca Ramón X, Gassó Domingo S (2020) The circular economy in the
construction and demolition waste sector—a review and an integrative model approach. J
Clean Prod 248:119238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119238
58. ETC—European Topic Centre on Circular Economy and Resource Use (2022) Circular
economy country profile—Spain. ETC CE Report 2022/5. https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/
etc-ce/products/etc-ce-products/etc-ce-report-5-2022-country-profiles-on-circular-economy/
spain-ce-country-profile-2022_for-publication.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2023
59. GIZ—Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (2022) Country brief
Albania. In: Menzel-Hausherr C, König M, Volz S, Körner J, Megelski S, Suhr K (eds) Go
circular—for climate and clean oceans, Bonn. https://www.giz.de/de/downloads/giz2022-en-
financing-circula-economy-albania.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2023
60. Kripa D, Nano X (2022) Theoretical approach on circular economy in built environment, case
of Albania. In: Circular economy: opportunities and challenges, pp 267–275. https://eprints.
uklo.edu.mk/id/eprint/7727/1/cei%20proceedings.pdf. Accessed 3 Sept 2023
61. Kruja AD, Bedo N (2022) Building circular economy business models in Albania: What
can further be improved? In: XVIII. IBANESS congress series on economics, business and
management. Republic of North Macedonia, Ohrid, pp 665–672
62. ETC—European Topic Centre on Circular Economy and Resource Use (2022) Circular
economy country profile—Latvia. ETC CE Report 2022/5. https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/
etc-ce/products/etc-ce-products/etc-ce-report-5-2022-country-profiles-on-circular-economy/
latvia-ce-country-profile-2022_for-publication.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2023
63. Henriques J, Ferrão P, Iten M (2022) Policies and strategic incentives for circular economy and
industrial symbiosis in Portugal: a future perspective. Sustainability 14:6888. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su14116888
64. ETC—European Topic Centre on Circular Economy and Resource Use (2022) Circular
economy country profile—Portugal. ETC CE Report 2022/5, https://eco.nomia.pt/contents/
documentacao/portugal-ce-country-profile-2022-for-publication.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2023
65. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands (2022) The circularity in construction sector in
Latvia: opportunities and obstacles for Dutch entrepreneurs. https://www.rvo.nl/sites/default/
files/2022/02/Circularity-in-the-Construction-Sector-in-Latvia.pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2023
66. Government of Norway (n.d.) Norway’s strategy for developing a green, circular economy.
https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/a116f209e493471bb26c81cf645152a3/kld_str
ategi_sirkularokonomi_sammendrag_eng_0507.pdf. Accessed 28 Aug 2023
67. Litleskare S, Wuyts W (2023) Planning reclamation, diagnosis and reuse in Norwegian
timber construction with circular economy investment and operating costs for information.
Sustainability 15(13):10225. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310225
68. Wiebe KS, Norstebø VS, Aponte FR, Simas MS, Andersen T, Perez-Valdes GA (2023) Circular
economy and the triple bottom line in Norway. Circ Econ Sustain 3:1–33. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s43615-021-00138-6
22 Circular Value Chain Management—Barriers and Opportunities 735

69. Mazzucchelli A, Chierici R, Del Giudice M, Bua I (2022) Do circular economy practices
affect corporate performance? Evidence from Italian large-sized manufacturing firms. Corp
Soc Responsib Environ Manag 29(6):2016–2029. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2298

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 23
CE Management

Diana Bajare , Gabriel Zsembinszki , Danute Vaiciukyniene ,

Sakdirat Kaewunruen , Mustafa Selcuk Cidik , Tatjana Tambovceva ,
Ilker Kahraman , Gokhan Kilic , and Ayfer Donmez Cavdar

Abstract This chapter presents a deep discussion of the recent case studies on
implementation of best practices and strategies for the circular economy, and an
integrated approach to CE management in the built environment. The case studies
were evaluated by the following aspects: Design for Circular Economy; Resource
Optimization; Collaborative Approaches; Digital Technologies; Policy and Regula-
tory Frameworks; Consumer Engagement; Life Cycle Assessment; Circular Busi-
ness Models; Smart Monitoring and Evaluation; Stakeholder Collaboration. These
studies indicated the diversity of best practices in CE management in different fields.
On the other hand, a strategic planning and collaborative development of circular

D. Bajare
Institute of Sustainable Building Materials and Engineering Systems, Riga Technical University,
Riga, Latvia
G. Zsembinszki
GREiA Research Group, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
D. Vaiciukyniene
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas,
Lithuania
S. Kaewunruen
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of Birmingham,
Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
M. S. Cidik
Bartlett School of Sustainable Construction, University College London, London, UK
T. Tambovceva
Faculty of Engineering Economics and Management, Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
I. Kahraman · G. Kilic
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Fine Arts and Design, Izmir University of Economics,
Izmir, Turkey
A. D. Cavdar (B)
Department of Forest Industry Engineering, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2025 737

L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management
in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_23
738 D. Bajare et al.

practices with relevant stakeholders are crucial for the effective development and
implementation of circular capabilities and initiatives in the built environment.

Keywords Circular economy · CE management · Built environment ·

Implementation · Circular materials · Stakeholder

23.1 Case Studies—Best Practices in Management

Circular economy (CE) management refers to the implementation of best practices

and strategies aimed at achieving CE within organizations, industries, and societies. It
involves adopting a holistic approach to resource management, focusing on reducing
waste, maximizing resource efficiency, and promoting sustainable production and
consumption patterns.
Best practices in CE management encompass various aspects, including:
• Design for Circular Economy;
• Resource Optimization;
• Collaborative Approaches;
• Digital Technologies;
• Policy and Regulatory Frameworks;
• Consumer Engagement;
• Life Cycle Assessment;
• Circular Business Models;
• Smart Monitoring and Evaluation;
• Stakeholder Collaboration.

23.1.1 Design for Circular Economy

Incorporating principles of circularity at the product and process design stage, consid-
ering factors such as material selection, durability, recyclability, and reparability.

Case Study I Design for Circular Economy: The Circle House

The Circle House project, commissioned by Lejerbo, is pioneering the
construction of the first social housing units based on circular principles. This
ground-breaking approach ensures a higher level of flexibility throughout the
building’s lifespan, with 90% of its materials designed to be disassembled and
reused at a significant value.
23 CE Management 739

The Circle House project consists of 60 social housing units in Lisbjerg

(Aarhus, Denmark) and represents three typologies: a mix of two- and three-
story terraced houses and 5-storey tower blocks with an overall 100 m2 of
communal facilities. The building density on site is 65–80%.
Lisbjerg is a development zone focusing on sustainability. Thus, the Circle
House is designed and built according to the principles of the Circular
Economy. Therefore, it becomes a scalable lighthouse project that will bring
new know-how about circularity in architecture and construction to the building
industry. The objective is that 90% of the building materials can be reused
without appreciable loss of value. To enhance the re-usability, the structural
system is limited to a few different elements: two sizes of wall elements and
two lengths of beams and deck elements. The approach is rooted in the 15 prin-
ciples within the categories Design for Disassembly, Material ID and Circular
Economy, which have been developed as guidelines and strategies for imple-
menting reuse and circular economy in the building industry. Accordingly, the
Circle House consists of a range of building systems that can be disassem-
bled, reused or reassembled into outer buildings while the value is preserved.
Thereby, great architectural freedom and creativity are achieved in terms of
material selection and circular construction.
A project like Circle House makes cross-industry collaboration necessary
in order to enable a circular building practice. Accordingly, the entire value
chain of the building industry needs to be engaged. The project Circle House
involves more than 60 Danish companies from the construction sector. It was
made possible by the funding’s from the Danish Environmental Protection
Authority and the Realdania philanthropic association.

23.1.2 Resource Optimization

Maximizing the use of resources through strategies like recycling, remanufacturing,

and refurbishment. This involves minimizing waste generation and extending the
lifespan of products and materials.

Case Study II Resource Optimization

The case study centers on the construction of a three-story building, where the
basement is designated for parking, and the remaining two stories consist of
residential flats. The project involves a variety of interconnected activities with
different dependencies, highlighting the significance of resource management
for successful project execution [1].
740 D. Bajare et al.

Organizing and training the project team: Human resource manage-

ment plays a vital role in ensuring exceptional project achievements. Proper
organization and training are crucial for team efficiency and performance
Equipment resource management: Careful selection of equipment is essen-
tial for cost control and timely completion. Factors such as availability,
mobility, versatility, suitability, and equipment capability must be considered.
Material resource management: Timely provision of materials in the right
quantities and locations is crucial for achieving scheduled production levels at
minimum cost. Monitoring material information and flow is key to effective
material resource management.
Resource levelling technique: Resource levelling ensures a balanced distri-
bution of resources to avoid exceeding availability. It aims to maintain uniform
resource levels during peak and off-peak periods. Labor and equipment
resource management are fundamental parameters in resource levelling.
Techniques for resource levelling: Fast-tracking, crashing, delay-critical
path tasks, extend-critical path tasks, non-sequential task divisions, authorized
overtime, and MS Project are used to optimize resource allocation and meet
project goals.
Resource Levelling with MS Project: MS Project offers a comprehen-
sive resource levelling feature for efficient project management. By inputting
resource schemes, activity types, and dependencies, MS Project enables
automatic or manual resource levelling. It provides flexibility to resolve
resource conflicts through activity delays, additions or removals, resource
reassignments, and dependency adjustments. Manual resource levelling is
recommended for better alignment with real-world conditions.
The case study concludes that manual resource levelling using MS Project
is the preferred option due to its flexibility and ability to consider on-site condi-
tions. Extending activity durations to address resource overallocation is accept-
able. However, MS Project does not allow a single resource to be allocated to
parallel activities. The study emphasizes the productivity and efficiency of MS
Project, particularly for small construction projects with limited resources.
Recommendations: Based on the findings of this case study, it is recom-
mended that project managers utilize MS Project for resource levelling and
enhance productivity in construction projects. Regular checks and revisions
of the project schedule are necessary to align with real-world conditions.
MS Project’s features enable optimal resource allocation, ensuring timely
completion and cost control.
23 CE Management 741

23.1.3 Collaborative Approaches

Encouraging collaboration and partnerships across value chains to promote resource

sharing, product-service systems, and closed-loop systems. This includes estab-
lishing networks for material exchanges and fostering collaborations among different
stakeholders.

Case Study III Collaborative Approaches

One of the newest examples of industrial symbiosis is the Port of Rotterdam
in the Netherlands [2]. The port has developed an innovative circular economy
program called “Rotterdam Circularity Program” that aims to transform the
port into a sustainable and circular hub.
Under this program, various initiatives have been implemented to foster
industrial symbiosis and resource efficiency. For example, waste heat from
the refining and chemical industries is captured and used to provide heating
for nearby buildings and greenhouses. The excess CO2 emissions from indus-
trial processes are captured and transported to greenhouses for enhanced plant
growth. Additionally, residual heat from data centers is utilized to warm water
for local households.
Through these collaborative efforts, the Port of Rotterdam is creating a
circular ecosystem where waste streams are turned into valuable resources,
reducing environmental impact and promoting a more sustainable economy.

23.1.4 Digital Technologies

Utilizing digital innovations, such as the Internet of Things (IoT), Artificial Intelli-
gence (AI), and blockchain, to enhance resource tracking, supply chain transparency,
and product traceability, enabling better management and optimization of resources.

Case Study IV Digital Technologies

Blockchain technology is mentioned as a potential enabler for circular economy
practices. It can provide transparency and traceability in supply chains, facil-
itate material and product tracking, and enable secure transactions in circular
business models [3].
One example of utilizing blockchain technology for circular economy prac-
tices is the Plastic Bank initiative. Founded in 2013, the Plastic Bank aims to
reduce plastic waste in the oceans while creating socio-economic opportunities
for communities in developing countries.
742 D. Bajare et al.

The initiative utilizes blockchain technology to create a transparent and

traceable system for recycling plastic waste. Local communities can collect
plastic waste and exchange it for digital tokens, which can then be used to
purchase goods and services. The entire transaction process is recorded on the
blockchain, ensuring transparency and accountability.
By using blockchain technology, the Plastic Bank provides a secure and
reliable platform for plastic waste collection, recycling, and monetization. It
enables individuals to become active participants in the circular economy by
incentivizing the proper disposal of plastic waste and promoting its recycling
and reuse.

23.1.5 Policy and Regulatory Frameworks

Implementing supportive policies and regulations that incentivize circular practices,

such as extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes, tax incentives, and waste
management regulations.

Case Study V Policy and Regulatory Frameworks

The European Union’s Waste Framework Directive, which sets out waste
management principles, including waste prevention and recycling targets, is
considered a best practice in circular economy policy.
One of the newest examples of policy and regulatory frameworks promoting
the circular economy is the European Union’s Circular Economy Action Plan,
adopted in March 2020 [4]. This plan builds upon the Waste Framework Direc-
tive and sets ambitious targets and measures to transition Europe to a more
sustainable and circular economy.
The Circular Economy Action Plan includes a wide range of initiatives and
policies to promote waste prevention, improve resource efficiency, and foster
the transition to CE. It sets targets for recycling and reducing waste, encourages
eco-design and product durability, promotes the use of secondary raw materials,
and aims to tackle key sectors such as plastics, textiles, and electronics.
The plan also emphasizes the importance of sustainable production and
consumption patterns, innovation, and investment in circular economy projects.
It aims to create a supportive regulatory framework that encourages businesses,
consumers, and governments to embrace circular practices.
By implementing this comprehensive policy and regulatory framework, the
European Union seeks to accelerate the transition to CE, reduce environmental
impacts, create new business opportunities, and promote sustainable growth.
23 CE Management 743

23.1.6 Consumer Engagement

Educating and engaging consumers in circular behaviors, such as reuse, repair, and
recycling, and promoting sustainable consumption patterns. This can be done through
awareness campaigns, product labelling, and consumer incentives.

Case Study VI Consumer Engagement—Whole House Reuse

One of the newest examples of consumer engagement in the building industry is
the “Whole House Reuse” campaign launched by the Building Materials Reuse
Association (BMRA) in New Zealand [5]. The campaign aims to raise aware-
ness among homeowners and builders about the environmental and economic
benefits of reusing building materials.
The “Whole House Reuse” campaign promotes the concept of deconstruc-
tion, which involves carefully dismantling a building to salvage reusable mate-
rials instead of demolishing it. By emphasizing the value of reclaimed materials
and the importance of diverting construction waste from landfills, the campaign
encourages homeowners and builders to consider reuse as a sustainable and
cost-effective option.
Through educational resources, case studies, and partnerships with industry
stakeholders, the campaign provides information and support to those inter-
ested in incorporating reuse practices into their building projects. It high-
lights the environmental benefits of reusing materials, such as reducing carbon
emissions and preserving natural resources, while showcasing the potential
cost savings and unique design opportunities that arise from using reclaimed
materials.
By engaging consumers and promoting the reuse of building materials,
the “Whole House Reuse” campaign contributes to the circular economy by
extending the lifespan of materials, reducing waste, and fostering a more
sustainable approach to construction and renovation.

Case Study VII Consumer Engagement—Reducing Waste in Fit-Out

Processes through AI-Enabled Reuse [6]
The construction sector faces a critical challenge in reducing waste gener-
ated during fit-out processes to achieve net zero carbon targets and minimize
environmental impact. Time pressures often hinder the reuse or recycling of
materials, resulting in a significant increase in carbon footprint. To address this
issue, the ‘LINK’ project, funded by Innovate UK, aims to revolutionize waste
reduction in fit-outs using artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning.
By rapidly identifying reusable materials and connecting those who wish to
744 D. Bajare et al.

dispose of materials with those in need, the project aims to facilitate the CE
approach and decrease waste in the construction sector.
The primary objective of the ’LINK’ project is to develop a mobile app
that enables the rapid listing of reusable materials. The project aims to engage
all stakeholders in the fit-out and interior design sector to transform the reuse
process and establish it as the norm in construction. By harnessing digital
technology, the project seeks to revolutionize the way materials are reused,
promoting sustainability and reducing waste throughout the industry.
Industry Workshop: The project partners hosted an industry workshop to
gather insights on challenges and opportunities in March 2023. The workshop
was held online. It invited stakeholders from the fit-out and interior design
sector, including designers, clients, manufacturers, contractors, and individuals
passionate about promoting reuse. The workshop aimed to explore the potential
of digital technology and identify key drivers and success factors in making
reuse a common practice.
Workshop Program: The workshop featured presentations covering various
aspects of sustainability, reuse, and the role of AI in revolutionising the industry.
The presentations include.
Sustainability for Finishes and Interiors: Iain Mcilwee, CEO, and Flavie
Lowres, Sustainability Champion, Finishes and Interiors Sector (FIS).
The workshop also included interactive discussion groups focusing on
information needed for facilitating reuse and exploring the roles of different
stakeholders in achieving higher levels of reuse.
Workshop Registration and Contact: Interested participants can register for
the workshop, and attendance is free of charge. The project team welcome indi-
viduals who are passionate about promoting reuse or seeking more information
about the project.

23.1.7 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Conducting comprehensive assessments of the environmental impacts of products

and processes throughout their life cycles to identify areas for improvement and
inform decision-making.

Case Study VIII Life Cycle Assessment [7]

This case study focuses on the development of comprehensive circular
economy (CE) indicators for port clusters, aiming to support port managing
bodies (PMBs) and stakeholders in monitoring the transition towards CE [2].
23 CE Management 745

The study utilizes a multimethod qualitative research approach, including

content analysis, focus groups, a gap analysis, and a qualitative survey, to
establish a set of 12 actionable CE indicators for ports. The feasibility and
relevance of these indicators are evaluated, highlighting seven highly feasible
and five moderately feasible indicators. Additionally, the study discusses the
limited CE ambition levels of PMBs and variations in indicator values across
different port typologies. The findings of this study provide practitioners with
an actionable set of key performance indicators (KPIs) to support their efforts
and communication related to the circular economy transition in port clusters.
The transition towards CE in port clusters is gaining importance in facili-
tating regional and global transport within circular production chains. However,
there is a lack of in-depth research on the development of circular economy
indicators specifically for port areas. This case study aims to address this gap
by developing a comprehensive set of relevant and feasible CE indicators to
monitor the circular economy transition in ports.
Methodology: The case study employs a multimethod qualitative research
approach. Content analysis, focus groups, a gap analysis, and a qualitative
survey are conducted to gather data and insights. These methods allow iden-
tifying relevant CE indicators and assessing their feasibility and stakeholder
relevance.
Development of CE Indicators for Ports: Through the research methods
employed, a list of 12 actionable CE indicators for ports is developed. These
indicators cover various aspects of the circular economy, including resource
efficiency, waste management, reuse, and stakeholder engagement. The indi-
cators are categorized based on their feasibility, with seven identified as highly
feasible and five as moderately feasible.
Findings: The study highlights two key findings. Firstly, it reveals the
overall limited CE ambition levels among PMBs, indicating a potential area for
improvement in promoting circular economy practices. Secondly, variations in
indicator values are observed across different port typologies, suggesting the
need for tailored approaches to circular economy implementation in diverse
port settings.
Value for Practitioners: This case study provides practitioners with an
actionable set of CE indicators that can support their efforts and communi-
cation regarding the transition to CE in port clusters. The identified indicators
enable PMBs and port stakeholders to monitor progress, identify areas for
improvement, and effectively communicate their circular economy initiatives.
Developing comprehensive CE indicators for port clusters enhances the
monitoring and evaluation of the circular economy transition. By offering a set
of relevant and feasible indicators, this case study empowers practitioners to
drive the implementation of circular economy practices in ports. The findings
highlight the importance of strengthening CE ambition levels and tailoring
approaches based on port typologies. The study underscores the continual
746 D. Bajare et al.

contribution of life cycle assessment in advancing the circular economy in the

built environment and presents a proposal for a circular and sustainable future
in the sector.

23.1.8 Circular Business Models

Adopting innovative business models, such as product-as-a-service, sharing economy

platforms, and leasing arrangements, which prioritise access over ownership and
promote resource efficiency.

Case Study IX Circular Business Model—The Circular Retrofit Lab

in Brussels, Belgium
The Circular Retrofit Lab is an innovative project based in Brussels, Belgium,
that focuses on applying circular economy principles to retrofit existing build-
ings. It is a collaborative initiative between various organizations, including
research institutes, industry partners, and government agencies.
The pilot project tested and implemented different scenarios for reusing and
refurbishing the VUB Campus’ prefabricated student housing, without gener-
ating a large amount of waste. Strategies have been explored for internal trans-
formations, external transformations, and the module’s multiple functional
reconfigurations.
Depending on their expected rate of change in the floor plan, three different
types of walls were defined, analyzed, constructed and transformed: walls with
(1) a high rate of change, (2) a high degree of flexibility for the integration of
technical infrastructure and (3) a low rate of change.
The project aims to transform traditional linear renovation processes into
circular ones by adopting strategies such as:
• Material Recovery and Reuse: The Circular Retrofit Lab explores ways
to recover and reuse building materials from demolition sites or renova-
tion projects. Materials such as bricks, concrete, and wood are carefully
deconstructed, sorted, and prepared for reuse in future building projects.
• Value Chain Collaboration: The project encourages collaboration among
different stakeholders in the construction value chain, including archi-
tects, contractors, material suppliers, and waste management companies.
This collaboration enables the identification of opportunities for material
recovery and facilitates the development of innovative circular business
models.
• Design for Disassembly: The project promotes Design for Disassembly
(DfD) the concept, which involves designing buildings and components
23 CE Management 747

with easy disassembly in mind. This enables the separation and reuse of
materials at the end of a building’s lifecycle, reducing waste and maximising
resource efficiency.
• Circular Procurement: The Circular Retrofit Lab incorporates circular
procurement practices by sourcing materials with high recycled content and
low environmental impact. This encourages the use of sustainable materials
and supports the market for circular products.
• Knowledge Sharing and Capacity Building: The project organises work-
shops, seminars, and training programs to share knowledge and build
capacity among professionals in the construction sector. This helps dissem-
inate best practices and encourage the adoption of circular approaches in
building retrofit projects.
• The Circular Retrofit Lab serves as a demonstration and research platform
for circular retrofitting, showcasing innovative techniques and technologies
that can be replicated in other building projects. By integrating material
recovery, collaboration, DfD principles, circular procurement, and knowl-
edge sharing, the project contributes to the advancement of circular economy
practices in the building industry

Case Study X Circular Business Model—The BLOXHUB Circular

Building in Copenhagen, Denmark [8]
The BLOXHUB Circular Building is an innovative construction project located
in Copenhagen, Denmark. It is a collaborative initiative between BLOXHUB, a
Nordic hub for sustainable urban development, and a group of industry partners.
The circular business model employed in the project focuses on the
concept of “demountable construction,” aiming to maximize material reuse
and minimize waste generation. Some key features and practices include:
• Modular Design: The building is designed with modular elements that
can be easily disassembled, allowing for the reuse of materials in future
construction projects. The modules are carefully documented and labelled
to ensure efficient disassembly and reassembly.
• Material Passport: Each component used in the building is assigned a unique
identification code, which is recorded in a digital material passport. This
passport contains detailed information about the origin, composition, and
quality of the materials, facilitating their future reuse and recycling.
• Material Reuse and Recycling: The project prioritises the use of recycled
and reused materials, including timber, bricks, and insulation. These mate-
rials are sourced from existing buildings, construction waste, and local
recycling facilities.
748 D. Bajare et al.

• Circular Collaboration: The BLOXHUB Circular Building serves as

a collaborative space for various stakeholders in the building industry,
including architects, engineers, contractors, and researchers. This fosters
knowledge sharing and innovation in circular construction practices.
• Life Cycle Assessment: The project utilises life cycle assessment method-
ologies to evaluate the environmental impacts of different design choices
and construction techniques. This allows for informed decision-making and
optimisation of resource use.
The BLOXHUB Circular Building showcases how circular business models
can be applied in the building industry to promote resource efficiency, reduce
waste, and enable material reuse. The project exemplifies the transition towards
a more circular and sustainable built environment by integrating modular
design, material passports, collaboration, and life cycle assessment

Case Study XI Circular Business Model: Resource Optimisation [2]

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s report on the circular economy in
cities highlights the case of Amsterdam’s circular economy program [9]
which includes initiatives like recycling construction and demolition waste,
promoting circular procurement, and implementing material passports for
buildings to enable future reuse.
This program encompasses various initiatives aimed at promoting circu-
larity in the city. Some key initiatives mentioned in the report include:
• Recycling Construction and Demolition Waste: Amsterdam has imple-
mented strategies to promote the recycling of construction and demoli-
tion waste. By diverting waste from landfills and reintroducing materials
back into the economy, the city aims to reduce resource consumption and
minimise waste generation.
• Circular Procurement: The city of Amsterdam has embraced circular
procurement practices, which involve sourcing products and services that
have a lower environmental impact and can be easily reused or recy-
cled. Circular procurement supports the development of CE by stimulating
demand for circular products and services.
• Material Passports for Buildings: Amsterdam has introduced the concept of
material passports for buildings. Material passports provide detailed infor-
mation about the composition and characteristics of building materials,
enabling efficient and safe dismantling and future reuse. This approach
facilitates the circularity of building materials and promotes the transition
towards a more sustainable built environment.
23 CE Management 749

The case of Amsterdam’s circular economy program serves as an example

of how cities can implement a range of strategies and initiatives to foster circu-
larity. By adopting measures such as recycling construction waste, promoting
circular procurement, and implementing material passports, Amsterdam is
striving to create a more sustainable and resource-efficient city

23.1.9 Monitoring and Evaluation

Implementing monitoring and evaluation systems to track progress, measure the

effectiveness of circular initiatives, and identify areas for continuous improvement.

Case Study XII Smart Monitoring and Evaluation for CE

Implementation at University of Birmingham Campus Building
The University of Birmingham (UK), in partnership with Siemens, is
combining digital sensor and analytics technologies, artificial intelligence,
decentralized energy generation and storage, renewable energy and concepts
that help change users’ behavior to transform the University’s Edgbaston and
Dubai campuses into the world’s smartest global campus, creating a ‘Living
Lab’ where research, teaching and learning all benefit from access to new data
and connectivity for circular economy and sustainability. The ‘Living Lab’
will capture data from the University’s building technologies, estate infras-
tructure and energy plants and use it for innovation, R&D activities, as well as
teaching. Scrutinizing energy demand and production with live data from across
the sites (for both new and existing building stocks) provides students with a
unique opportunity for applied learning and creates a platform for cutting-
edge research. Siemens sponsors a team of PhD studentships at the University
based in the UK and Dubai. Their research projects are co-designed by Siemens
and the University to address important challenges in data, technology, urban
systems and the NetZero goal.
In 2023, the University of Birmingham became the first university in the
world to roll out Internet of Things (IoT) technology at scale. Starting in
Autumn 2021, the first phase of this major energy efficiency project included
the rollout of 23,000 Enlighted IoT sensors across the University estate. As
one of the largest universities in the UK—with a global community of more
than 38,000 students—the university is already an energy prosumer, and these
technologies are further optimized in the system we are now working on
together. Partnerships like this are extremely important for gathering new
insights, testing and developing new technologies and creating efficient and
750 D. Bajare et al.

sustainable energy infrastructure. The university’s campus in Dubai is a global

example of sustainability at the rescheduled Dubai Expo 2020.
CEO Siemens, GB & Ireland stated that, “We are excited to be working with
the University of Birmingham on this project and confident that together we
can develop a clear pathway to the University becoming a smart campus and net
zero. Our goal is to apply the University’s strategic vision to their campus. We
will uncover where carbon savings are possible by managing resources more
efficiently in a system that is adaptable to changing demand. All of this can
be achieved with a combination of connected digital technologies, artificial
intelligence, decentralized energy generation and storage, renewable energy
and ideas that help change users’ behavior.” In addition, Siemens will deliver a
10-year bureau for Energy and IoT services to ensure that the University reaps
the full potential of both the technology and industry expertise. The University
has already made significant progress in making its operations more sustain-
able, including achieving its 2020 target of reducing carbon emissions by 20%
and is constantly looking to improve the environmental performance of its
buildings, including a reduction of 2,856 tCO2 annually, equivalent to 5% of
the University’s current emissions. Earlier this year, the University of Birm-
ingham signed up to the United Nations Global Compact—the world’s largest
corporate responsibility initiative—as part of its commitment to reducing its
environmental footprint and maximizing the impact of its research. The Univer-
sity of Birmingham is also a participant in the COP26 Universities Network
and will have a presence at the COP26 conference in Glasgow in November.
This case study at the University of Birmingham highlights the implementa-
tion of the circular economy program and its real-time monitoring and perfor-
mance management using advanced sensors and IoT. It serves as an example
of how a cluster of integrated new and existing building stocks can implement
a range of strategies and initiatives to foster circularity towards net zero.

23.1.10 Stakeholder Collaboration

Engaging a diverse range of stakeholders, including businesses, government enti-

ties, academia, non-profit organisations, and local communities, to collectively work
towards circularity goals and address systemic barriers.
By implementing these best practices, organizations and societies can move
towards CE, where resources are utilized more efficiently, waste is minimized, and
environmental impacts are reduced, leading to a more sustainable and resilient future.
Above are a few examples of best practices in circular economy management
mentioned in the literature.
23 CE Management 751

These examples demonstrated the range of best practices in circular economy

management across different domains, including design, resource optimization,
collaboration, technology, policy, consumer engagement, and business models.
Implementing these practices can contribute to the transition towards a more circular
and sustainable economy.

23.2 An Integrated Approach to CE Management

in the Built Environment

Following from the section above, it is clear that the extant literature suggests that both
strategic planning and collaborative development of circular practices with relevant
stakeholders are necessary for the effective development and implementation of
circular capabilities and initiatives in the built environment. From a strategic planning
perspective, first, there is a growing body of literature exploring the issues around
material resource planning and management. Viewing buildings as material depots
changes how resources need to be managed within the construction sector and the
built environment. Such a view requires documentation and communication of which
materials in what quantities and qualities become available for reuse or recycling
where and when [10]. To facilitate this documentation and communication, several
material cadaster projects have been developed [10–13]. Second, and in connection
with the first point, there has been a growing number of publications on material
flow analysis because it is only through a good understanding of the flows that
effective material resource planning and allocation can be achieved. While some
of these material flow analyses focus on individual material types, such as timber
in residential buildings [14], some others focus on individual sectors, such as road
transport [15], and others focus on specific territories [16].
Several publications implicitly or explicitly stated that issues around material
resource planning and management cannot be thought of independently from wider
socio-economic and technological barriers/enablers of circular economy [17]. There-
fore, it is important to develop enabling legislation and policy [18, 19], develop and
capture viable business models [20], circular building materials [21], and end-of-
life strategies (e.g., construction and demolition waste strategies) [22]. Furthermore,
considering the wide range of material types and cases, as well as stakeholders,
involved in the built environment, there is a strong emphasis on the use of digital tools
and capabilities as an enabler for strategic planning and management of circularity
in the built environment [23].
At the same time, there has also been interest in empirical exploration of circular
initiatives on the ground, which provided insights on operational development and
management of circular capabilities and initiatives in the built environment. For
example, [24] present a case where a team of experts from the UK and Nigeria
worked with local Nigerian entrepreneurs to build a prototype home from upcy-
cled materials, such as plastic bottles and agricultural waste in construction. They
752 D. Bajare et al.

conclude that adopting a user-centered, co-creation methodology and working with

local skills, allowed for a solution (a prototype home), with improved functionality
and sustainability. Giorgi et al. [25] conducted interviews with construction stake-
holders in multiple European Union countries to explore the gap between the EU
construction circular economy policy and practice. They found that certain strands
of circular initiatives tend to be driven by certain stakeholder groups on the ground.
For example, while the legislative framework promotes waste management strate-
gies focusing on recycling, the design strategies for reversible buildings are generally
private initiatives driven by market competition. Arora et al. [26] study two cases of
component-focused urban-mining and highlight that what is required is the engage-
ment of local stakeholders (i.e., potential consumers and real estate developers) with
the demolition contractors to salvage the required building components. In a similar
line of thought, Joensuu et al. [27] emphasize that a successful plan with the main
objectives of a circular economy in the built environment could only be “achieved
with inclusive and location-sensitive politics functioning from both bottom-up and
top-down perspectives”. This implies that there is a need for simple, innovation-
positive rules which leave room for stakeholder inventions. However, so far, there
has not been a universally accepted, or used, comprehensive management framework
that integrated both perspectives.

References

1. Hamad S, Khan M, Ali SM, Hussain S, Zaman L (2022) Optimization of Resources of a

Building Project. Eng Proc 22(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2022022019
2. Faut L, Soyeur F, Haezendonck E, Dooms M, de Langen PW (2023) Ensuring circular strategy
implementation: The development of circular economy indicators for ports. Marite Transp Res
4(2023):100087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.martra.2023.100087
3. Zhang A, Zhong RY, Farooque M, Kang K (2020) Venkatesh VG (2020) Blockchain-based
life cycle assessment: An implementation framework and system architecture. Resour Conserv
Recycl 152:104512
4. European Commission (2020) Waste framework directive. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/
topics/waste-and-recycling/waste-framework-directive_en, last accessed, 2024/07/17.
5. Zaman AU, Arnott J, Mclntyre K, Hannon J (2018) Resource Harvesting through a systematic
deconstruction of the Residential House: a case study of the ‘whole House reuse’ project in
Christchurch. N Z Sustain 10(10):3430. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103430
6. Reusefully Homepage, https://www.reusefully.co.uk/increasing-circularity-and-reuse-in-fit-
out-projects, last accessed 2024/07/17
7. Lei H, Li L, Yang W, Bian Y, Li CQ (2021) An analytical review on application of life cycle
assessment in circular economy for built environment. J Build Eng 44:103374. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103374
8. Circular Built Environment Network, https://bloxhub.org/circular-built-environment network/
, last accessed 2024/07/17
9. City of Amsterdam, Policy: Circular economy https://www.amsterdam.nl/en/policy/sustainab
ility/circular-economy/, last accessed 2024/07/17
10. Heisel F, Rau-Oberhuber S (2020) Calculation and evaluation of circularity indicators for the
built environment using the case studies of UMAR and Madaster. J Clean Prod 243:118482.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118482
23 CE Management 753

11. Schiller G, Lützkendorf T, Gruhler K, Lehmann I, Mörmann K, Knappe F, Muchow N (2019)

Material flows in buildings’ life cycle and regions–material inventories to support planning
towards circular economy. In: IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci, 290 (1), 012031. https://doi.
org/10.1088/1755-1315/290/1/012031
12. Lanau M, Liu G (2020) Developing an urban resource cadaster for circular economy: A case of
Odense. Denmark. Environ Sci & Technol 54(7):4675–4685. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.
9b07749
13. Raghu D, Bucher MJJ, De Wolf C (2023) Towards a ‘resource cadastre’ for a circular
economy–urban-scale building material detection using street view imagery and computer
vision. Resour, Conserv Recycl, 198, 107140. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rescon
rec.2023.107140.
14. de Tudela ARP, Rose CM, Stegemann JA (2020) Quantification of material stocks in existing
buildings using secondary data—A case study for timber in a London Borough. Resour Conserv
Recycl 5:100027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcrx.2019.100027
15. Miatto A, Schandl H, Wiedenhofer D, Krausmann F, Tanikawa H (2017) Modeling material
flows and stocks of the road network in the United States 1905–2015. Resour Conserv Recycl
127:168–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.024
16. Schiller G, Gruhler K, Ortlepp R (2017) Continuous material flow analysis approach for bulk
nonmetallic mineral building materials applied to the German building sector. J Ind Ecol
21(3):673–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12595
17. Mhatre P, Gedam V, Unnikrishnan S, Verma S (2021) Circular economy in built environment–
Literature review and theory development. J Build Eng 35:101995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2020.101995
18. Lucertini G, Musco F (2022) Circular city: urban and territorial perspectives. In Regen Territ:
Dimens Circ Healthy MetabIsms, 123–134. Cham: Springer International Publishing
19. Yu Y, Junjan V, Yazan DM, Iacob ME (2022) A systematic literature review on Circular
Economy implementation in the construction sector: a policy-making perspective. Resour
Conserv Recycl 183(1):106359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106359
20. Munaro MR, Freitas MDCD, Tavares SF, Bragança L (2021) Circular business models: Current
state and framework to achieve sustainable buildings. J Constr Eng Manag 147(12):04021164.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002184
21. Smol M, Kulczycka J, Henclik A, Gorazda K, Wzorek Z (2015) The possible use of sewage
sludge ash (SSA) in the construction sector as a way towards a circular economy. J Clean Prod
95:45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.051
22. Mahpour A (2018) Prioritizing barriers to adopt circular economy in construction and demo-
lition waste management. Resour Conserv Recycl 134:216–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.res
conrec.2018.01.026
23. Çetin S, De Wolf C, Bocken N (2021) Circular digital built environment: An emerging
framework. Sustain 13(11):6348. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116348
24. Oyinlola M, Whitehead T, Abuzeinab A, Ade A, Akinola Y, Anafi F, Farukh F, Jegede O,
Kandan K, Kim B, Mosugu E (2018) Bottle house: A case study of transdisciplinary research
for tackling global challenges. Habitat Int 79:18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2018.
07.007
25. Giorgi S, Lavagna M, Wang K, Osmani M, Liu G, Campioli A (2022) Drivers and barriers
towards circular economy in the building sector: Stakeholder interviews and analysis of five
European countries policies and practices. J Clean Prod 336:130395. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2022.130395
26. Arora M, Raspall F, Fearnley L, Silva A (2021) Urban mining in buildings for CE: Planning,
process and feasibility prospects. Resour Conserv Recycl 174:105754. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.resconrec.2021.105754
27. Joensuu T, Edelman H, Saari A (2020) Circular economy practices in the built environment. J
Clean Prod 276:124215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124215
754 D. Bajare et al.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.