Planning Reclamation, Diagnosis and Reuse in Norwegian Timber Construction with Circular Economy Investment and Operating Costs for Information

Abstract

Different actors in the circularity transition of the timber construction sector investigate, propose and implement workflows to enable the reclamation of materials from unused construction and their reuse in new projects or renovation projects. This study sought to evaluate different workflows in the Norwegian timber construction sector based on the perceived practical problems, opinions and attitudes of value chain actors. This multiple-method study, conducted in September 2021–March 2023, utilised desktop-based document research, marginal and participatory observations and interviews with innovation actors in Southern Norway, focused on planning the reclamation, diagnosis and reuse of (solid) timber. This study synthesised and validated opinions and experiences concerning investment and operation costs and highlighted the need for integrated resource management from a value chain perspective. The study proposes a framework for a set of processes for managers and recommendations for policy, practice and research. This paper initiates a discussion regarding whether CE implementation should be planned by local governments, be self-organised or require an intermediary governance model. In addition, this paper concludes with a call for future steps investigating the (perceived) fair distribution of costs, benefits and risks, as well as a multilevel workflow for data and information resources.

1. Introduction

The circular economy (or circularity) transition of the built environment is seen as one of the ways forward to cope with the huge amount of construction and demolition waste generation, virgin material extraction and embodied energy and resource use [1]. The circular built environment (CBE) is a vision of a built environment with sufficient resource consumption, a long lifespan and the (multiple) value retention of structures, such as buildings and bridges, where actors apply circular economy principles in the management of these structures [1]. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation proposed the following three principles: “(1) preserve and enhance natural capital by controlling finite stocks and balancing renewable resource flows; (2) optimise resource yields by circulating products, components, and materials at their highest utility at all times in both technical and biological cycles; (3) foster system effectiveness by revealing and designing out negative externalities” [2,3]. Leising et al. focused more on the importance of supply chain perspective and collaboration in the circularity transition, and they described building from a circular economy (CE) perspective as follows: “A lifecycle approach that optimises the building’s useful lifetime, integrating the end-of-life-phase in the design and uses new ownership models where materials are only temporarily stored in the building that acts as a material bank” [4], p. 977.

The circular economy proposes so-called R strategies, which are often ranked in a hierarchy of preference (based on environmental values as criteria and inspired by Lansink’s ladder). In the beginning, three R strategies were investigated (reduce, reuse and recycle), but, currently, 10 R strategies are considered (R0: refuse/rethink, R1: reduce, R2: resell/reuse, R3: repair, R4: refurbish, R5: remanufacture, R6: repurpose, R7: recycle, R8: recover and R9: remine) [5].

These R strategies are embodied in the following interventions: “research on recycling, organisations of workshops on reuse, academic courses on remanufacturing, subsidies for recycling, and so on” [6]. These interventions can lead to a structural transformation towards a more (social) circular economy and society that creates multiple forms of value for as many people as possible. This study focuses on the reuse strategy and, more specifically, on the reuse that can take place today, and less on the design for future reuse practice. Reuse, in this study, refers to providing new purposes to the materials reclaimed from older buildings that do not serve society anymore (i.e., do not create economic, environmental and/or social value for stakeholders). Enabling reuse today requires the reclamation of so-called secondary resources. Various scholars explain how buildings, especially older buildings that are at the end of their service time or beyond, can be seen as material banks [7,8,9]. One of the most promising materials in terms of carbon storage and other environmental, health and well-being effects is wood [10,11,12,13]. However, there are almost no case studies on the reclaiming and reuse of wood for timber construction (with exceptions in France [14] and the European InFutUReWood project [15]). In addition, and more importantly, there are almost no case studies on design enabling the future reuse of wood [16]. Countries with a rich forestry and timber construction tradition have high potential for the reclaiming of wood from obsolete construction for new projects or renovation projects. However, wood waste fractions are usually incinerated. For instance, as a result of the prohibition of the landfilling of biodegradable waste, 72% of the wood waste in Norway is incinerated [17]. This reclaimed wood could have different so-called end-of-life pathways. These include (ranked by preference according to the EU Waste Hierarchy) (1) preparing for reuse (reusing the intact solid element or resizing), (2) recycling (reuse of the matter) and (3) the recovery of energy (bioenergy), soils (biochars) or other resources [10]. This study investigated a Norwegian project that is interested in preparing reclaimed wood for reuse.

Planning reuse requires various processes and choices that are informed by an inventory of data and information. These data and information should be seen as an investment and operation cost and as a resource. When managers manage their resources in an integrated manner, they can consider (1) the investment costs of the resource, (2) the costs of operating or managing this resource and (3) the service time of this resource. The insights can be compared with the payback time or return on investment or other costs in order to make informed strategic decisions for (circular) business and value chain development. In various countries in Europe, different developers are promoting cost-efficient solutions to acquire and analyse data and information required for decision-making processes in the reclamation, diagnosis and reuse of reclaimed timber for other uses in construction projects.

This has led to the emergence of concepts, such as reuse surveys, that digitise this inventory. In the circular construction value chain, these data collection and decision processes are named reuse surveys, among other synonyms, and include pre-demolition audits, reclamation audits, reuse audits, the specialised demolition process planning process, the deconstruction process planning and evaluation [18], resource mapping, material scanning [19], material classification and documentation for reuse [20]. In Norway, the term ombrukskartlegging is used. The definition is “an operation carried out in buildings scheduled for partial or total demolition. It aims at identifying the building materials and products presenting a high reuse potential. This audit results in a ‘reclamation inventory’, listing the identified reusable building elements” [21].

This definition should not be interchanged with that of pre-demolition waste audits, which are often carried out in vacant buildings as part of the process to detect hazardous substances, such as asbestos; these audits are even compulsory by law in countries such as Belgium and France. The result of this operation is an inventory that presents “information on the materials’ and products’ characteristics such as dimensions, quantities, conditions, environmental impact, technical characteristics, disassembly recommendations, etc.” [21]. In the past, these inventories were often carried out on paper and in Excel sheets but, more recently, some have expressed the opinion that digitalisation can spearhead reuse processes.

Simultaneously, with this emerging interest in circularity and, more specifically, in reuse, digital technologies have been developed and integrated into businesses, organisations and whole value chains and can assist actors in selecting the correct interventions [22].

However, digital solutions have both advantages and disadvantages, and it is not clear whether the integration of these digital solutions can create a circular, timber-built environment that is also sustainable and clean [23]. The main goal of this study was to help ongoing and future project managers involved in the (further) development of circular businesses and value chains in the timber construction industry to plan (i.e., to manage their resources, such as information) for reclamation, diagnosis and reuse. Furthermore, it aimed to identify next steps and research agenda to foster the Norwegian digital ecosystem of reuse and to initiate discussions regarding whether CE implementation should be planned by local governments, be self-organised or require an intermediary governance model.

1.1. From Information Needs to Digital Workflows—A Value Chain Perspective

Data and information are resources that create value in the business or value chain. The required information can be categorised into four types (e.g., see [24] for batteries as inspiration): (1) the identification, quantity and quality of the product or reclaimable material; (2) circularity and sustainability performance; (3) diagnostics and performance; and (4) value chain actors. Other researchers who have studied the processes behind urban mining or reclamation and reuse have often focused on the technical processes. Arora et al. (2021) proposed steps with a focus on the required labour pool and logistics, the collaboration aspect and regulatory steps [25]. They shared less information about the required processes at other levels (e.g., at the macro level). This study looked at other resources that create so-called circular investment and operation costs for the creation of economic, environmental and/or social value.

Technical knowledge about circularity and reuse in the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) sector is growing in research and practice. Various digital technologies, tools and workflows to assist in the reuse of solid or resized elements have been developed by companies and researchers in Norway, Europe and globally.

A workflow, as defined in this paper, is a series of steps related to transforming materials and the required data, space, humans, machines and other resources. In the field of architecture, construction and engineering, digital workflows require insights into the data requirements, availability, formats and transmission protocols to make informed choices about, for instance, which data to collect, where and in which format, and which equipment to use to assist the preparation of solid materials for reuse in a (timber) product, application or structure. For instance, Zatta and Condotta proposed a decision-making tool that helps designers to quickly understand the environmental and economic terms of architectural reuse processes [26]. Yu and Fingrut developed a procedural framework for the identification of reclaimed timber, utilising 3D scanning technology to amass an extensive archive of reclaimed wood in the United Kingdom. However, their proposal only abstractly hinted at the potential for labour resource reduction in subsequent stages [27].

Notwithstanding, information and data are resources or costs and not a goal. The circular economy is another means of creating multiple value. The circular economy is a contested concept, and several critiques have arisen that point out that not every circular economy practice is sustainable, i.e., it may benefit only a certain group of users or other actors, or it may not create social or even environmental value [28,29,30]. This can be explained by different observations.

First, the value chain perspective is often missing. Although more recent developments in circular economy research have evolved from the isolated business perspective to the value chain perspective [31], the importance of the relations between actors in the value chain is not adequately considered. As in any construction project, different stakeholders have different information requirements (see, e.g., [32]). This combination of information needs becomes more complicated in circular construction projects. However, research is lacking regarding the so-called circular investment and operation costs, the risks and the possible negative unintended effects of investment in these digital technologies. In research on the success of industrial symbiosis projects in the United Kingdom, Mirata demonstrated that the economic benefits should fulfil “the desired economic expectation of any actor, and a fair benefit-sharing mechanism is essential to motivate the collaborative behaviours” [33]. Based on previous research such as this, as well as observations and our own experience in construction and deconstruction projects, we hypothesised that some users shoulder a greater burden, and that the perception of an unfair distribution of costs, benefits and risks of digital technologies can hinder new workflow adoption. The first research question for this study asked what the opinions of different value chain actors are towards the distribution of roles, costs, risks and benefits in this data creation and information process. The second research question for this study asked which resources are required to invest in (and operate) digital technologies to enable current reuse projects based on the experience of project managers and other practitioners in reclamation and reuse.

Second, rules and standards for the governance of data and information are lacking. One of the recurring debates in the circular economy transition is whether this transition should be planned or should occur as the product of business-driven processes [34]. This debate involves challenging questions regarding how to initiate the transition, who shall take responsibility for which process, which resource should be consumed, which level of detail to operate on, etc.

Third, a multilevel approach is missing in many analyses and designs. A multilevel approach considers the relations between actors, materials, data and other resources on different levels, as well as integrated knowledge and methods of different disciplines. This requires the contextualisation of the material and data flows. There are various reasons not to discuss the timber construction sector or the built environment in a vacuum (for good argumentation, we refer to [35,36,37]), but to spatialise or territorialise circular economy analysis and interventions. For example, Nordic timber construction is rooted in so-called rural or peripheral areas and might require different solutions and infrastructure than in the case of densely built urban areas [38].

This study deployed the term reuse survey to refer to the processes of reclamation, diagnosis and reuse. Reuse surveys are generally developed by designers and solution providers and are used by architects, engineers and building owners, where a third-party intermediary often carries out the actual work of mapping. In the context of Norway, a systematic analysis of the experiences of different value chain actors, which synthesises the processes that can support reuse projects, is lacking. Hence, this study aimed to investigate which processes and stakeholders contribute to this reuse survey, propose a framework for a system of processes and discuss whether information facilitation should be planned by an actor, such as the local government, or driven by business.

1.2. Wood as a Material

Since the national circular plan was announced in Norway in 2021 [39], more actors in the construction sector have sought to reclaim materials for reuse in new projects or renovation projects. Other researchers have investigated reuse in the Norwegian context [40,41,42], but have focused mostly on barriers and success factors. In addition, they have not focused on the complexity surrounding timber as a material. The information needs and other practical problems are specific to this material, and findings for concrete or steel cannot and should not be generalised to the practical problems of and value creation with timber. As a response to the need for a specific focus on wood as a material, the SirkTRE project and consortium were created in 2021. This consortium consists of ca. 30 industrial partners across the value chain, from the sawmill to waste management [43]. Norwegian Green Platform funding was approved for this consortium and the associated CircWOOD project, bringing together researchers from various disciplines (economics, policy, wood technology, information management and industrial ecology). One of the first tasks was to understand the information needs, data formats, availabilities and dependencies between value chain actors to understand the requirements in the planning of reclamation, diagnosis and reuse. This led us to look into research on workflows. Both in practice and research, designers and developers have proposed and adopted workflows for (digital) timber. These workflows can be in the form of a proposal, a plan to be implemented or an ongoing status. Timber is an interesting material for reuse because it is lightweight, in addition to other properties. On the other hand, each timber element is unique. This material’s heterogeneity requires information-intensive workflows that are different from those used for materials such as steel or concrete. Although we found several publications discussing timber flows, integrating data from the sawmill to construction (e.g., [44,45]), the workflows integrating reclamation, diagnosis and reuse for structural purposes in construction were lacking. Some exceptions are a proposal by France-based researchers on incorporating BIM practices into reuse processes [14] or a proposal with 3D scanning in the United Kingdom [27].

Another observation is the lack of pipeline management in timber construction, which is required by the circular economy. Several authors have highlighted the problem that data are destroyed when the physical twin enters the next process or organisation. For example, scanners assessing the sawing machines create data to help the machine to determine how to saw the timber log, but these data are destroyed immediately after the sawing is finished. To the authors’ knowledge, a synthesis of holistic workflows for the planning and integration of diagnosis, reclamation and reuse is missing for timber construction in the Norwegian context. Therefore, we are also interested in identifying similarities and differences in the workflows of real cases of practice. A third research question for this study focused on the perceived practical problems in the timber construction value chain, with a focus on information requirements for reclamation, diagnosis and reuse.

2. Materials and Methods

In line with other researchers who have focused on the implementation of digital technologies for a circular built environment (e.g., [46]), we opted for a multiple-case study that included multiple research methods. The research described in this paper was conducted from September 2021 until March 2023, but it is part of larger research and development projects that are ongoing. The intention behind this study in CircWOOD was to inform workflows in the SirkTRE consortium. Therefore, this study can be seen as part of a research-informed design project.

2.1. The Research-Informed Design Framework

Figure 1 shows an overview of the steps (including methods and materials) involved in the study. Although the process appeared organised, the study was complicated, as we had to navigate different knowledge domains and use various methods. The visualisation was inspired by Verstraete et al. (2022), who proposed a diagram with different design steps on one axis and different levels on the other axis [47]. Observation refers to methods to understand the subject from a distance and entails mostly desktop-based research. Imagination refers to envisioning and comparing alternative futures or concepts and predicting trends, needs and developments beyond the state of the art. Engaging refers to interacting with actors through, e.g., interviews and participatory observation. The line between engagement and intervention is blurred because, for example, the way in which interviews are conducted can influence the actors who have the power to foster structural change. According to [6], interventions include all activities, including research, but this framework sees interventions as separate steps from observations and imaginations.

Verstraete et al. (2022) proposed four levels: system, place, thing and matter [47]. However, we changed this to include other categories based on a systemic review by Ramage et al. (2017) [10]. These categories are trees/wood, molecular level and mechanical properties, forests as value chains, timber products (e.g., glulam and CLT), applications (e.g., beams and columns), treatments, structures and others. One author did not specialise in timber engineering studies but in environmental and sustainability science, and, thus, she had to examine these different knowledge domain categories and imagine what was relevant for circularity transitions and workflows enabling reuse. However, she had worked as a data manager in another professional field and understood concepts such as data formats and conversation. The first author had a practical background in carpentry and wood construction and entered the research with a different perspective. There were various discussions before and during the interview (engage) phase, leading to new insights about the complexity and transdisciplinary of circularity transition and information as a circular investment and operation cost.

2.2. Observations of Diagnosis, Reclamation and Reuse in the Norwegian and European Timber Construction Sector

This research drew upon explorative desktop-based research and included webinars and presentations by key informants in emerging consortia in Norwegian and other European countries in winter and spring 2022 (e.g., [48]). This study included a document analysis. In late 2021–early 2022, few articles on either reuse mapping or general reuse in the Norwegian context existed. A document study was, therefore, carried out using texts from credible sources that described other people’s experiences with reuse, as well as technical assessments of wood products for reuse purposes (e.g., reports by Sintef (such as [49]) and reports commissioned by the Directorate for Construction Quality (diBk) and prepared by, for example, Asplan Viak and Resirquel, who have specific expertise in the reuse of building materials in Norway (see [50,51])).

Additionally, the research explored reports, conference presentations and journal papers about timber construction, workflows, data requirements and availability, not necessarily in the timber construction sector but in less specific fields, to obtain more inspiration regarding what may lie beyond the state of the art. In this way, the literature study conducted in this research period had a critical review nature. The results of the observations confirmed only the existing state (trend).

2.3. Imagining and Proposing New Workflows and Integration of Digital Solutions

In the same period, the second author was invited to Norwegian and European proposal developments. In these meetings, the second author became informed about state-of-the-art ideas for future concepts and the arguments for these future concepts and was often involved in resource planning and budget negotiations. The results of this step cannot be published (yet) because of business secrecy laws and consortium agreements. As the second author became trained and informed by this step, it informed and influenced choices made in the interviews and the analysis by the second author. Listening to others about the state of the art in their countries helped to validate the state of the art and the results of the interviews, which were carried out simultaneously. This step can be seen as part of the intervention (see Figure 1) but was beyond the scope of this study.

2.4. Interviews with Other Organisations

This desktop-based research in the first phase (spring 2022) helped us to produce an interview protocol, which was approved by an ethical committee (NSD) in March 2022, for emerging Norwegian actors in reuse survey methods. The initial list of innovation actors was created with the help of the SirkTRE consortium [43] and by attending networking events in winter 2021–spring 2022 (e.g., via Pådriv networking events [52]) and carrying out field visits to construction sites, waste logistics facilities and other infrastructures in Norway.

Based on insights from this first round of desktop-based research and online and live visits, we created an interview guide adapted to the two groups of participants (i.e., providers of the reuse survey, on the one hand, and intermediary and end users of the reuse survey, on the other). The four categories of interview questions were as follows:

(1)

Perceptions of reuse, circularity and sustainability in general;

(2)

Experience in and expectations about reuse projects;

(3)

Experience in and opinions about mapping reclaimable wood;

(4)

Experience with and/or opinions about digital solutions and data requirements and availabilities in the (timber) construction value chain.

From a list of 20 organisations in Southern Norway (mostly located in and between Trondheim, Bergen and Oslo) that were contacted in spring 2022, 7 organisations eventually agreed to participate in this study to discuss their experiences with reuse surveys. The low number reflects the low adoption of reuse practices in the Norwegian timber construction sector. The seven interviews were conducted between March and July 2022. The interviews were semi-structured, conducted in Norwegian, lasted between 1 and 2 h and were digitally recorded and transcribed afterwards. In spring 2022, the first author carried out a first reading of the transcripts, conducted a thematic analysis and processed the preliminary results in a Master’s thesis dissertation [53], hereinafter named subproject A. The Master’s thesis only presented ideas, without linking them to circular investment and operation costs and existing research. The preliminary results were the identification of motivations and drivers behind the emerging reuse surveys. During this data collection and analysis, the first author discussed the results with the second author.

Simultaneously, the second author carried out interviews in English with 17 Norwegian organisations about space as a resource for reuse. The results of subproject B served another study in the CircWOOD project and did not focus only on wood as a material and buildings as a new destination. However, one subsection of this interview focused on digital technologies and data supporting reuse and enabling infrastructures. The data of this subsection were also analysed and used by the second author to validate the results of the analysis of the interviews of subproject A and to confirm whether the sample in subproject A was adequately representative. The results of subproject B, which focused more on land as a resource, will be published in another study. Informed consent was obtained before each interview.

Table 1. Overview of interviewees.

Role in Organisation	Interviewees of Subproject A (n = 7)	Interviewees of Subproject B (n = 17)
Digital tool developer	L
Reuse survey consultants	O, V, W
Urban miner and (reclaimed) material suppliers	O, B, T, V	SK, T, MA, RS
Building owners	B, S, T	T, AG
Architects and planners		LP, OR, FB, PA
Carpenters and material designers		FM, NT
Manufacturing companies		NM
Research, market and trend watchers		GG, BB, TR
Contractors		AM, BG

displays the role of each interviewee in their respective organisation.

In the fall of 2022, the transcripts of subproject A were translated into English, loaded into the Atlas.ti qualitative data analysis software and coded by the second author.

The analysis of these qualitative data was carried out with three rounds of coding, following the methodological framework of Gioia et al. [54]. The first round of coding in both subprojects was inductive (data-driven), while the next rounds were more theory-driven (deductive). We started with some empirical findings, which were retrieved from the desktop research, and sought to obtain interpretations that offered meaning, connecting with existing theories and alternative explanatory frameworks. After three rounds of qualitative coding, we found various relevant themes that emerged regarding challenges and preconditions for success (i.e., breaking even with costs and a fair distribution of costs, benefits and risks over the stakeholders; planning-driven versus business-driven). These themes echoed concerns, challenges, motivations and learning and innovation processes in a transition that is still in an early adoption phase. The learning organisations identified missing links and capacity (enabling infrastructures), as well as the resources that can create value, and evaluated the need for shifting roles in the Norwegian ecosystem and intermediary governance models for resources such as materials, space and information. This paper groups the findings into four subsections, which are inspired by the ISO standard on process sets (i.e., ISO 15288:2008 [55]): (1) agreement processes, (2) organisational project-management-enabling processes, (3) project processes and (4) technical processes. Reading the themes through these four categories of processes helped us to understand the required processes and choices that project managers in the (further) development of circular businesses and value chain development may face. The result of our three rounds of coding is a data structure (Appendix A). Figure 2 displays the flow chart of these steps, from the creation of the questionnaire to the coding processes. The yellow boxes are the steps taken by the first author, the red boxes are the steps taken by the second author and the orange boxes are the steps shared by both authors. In the final round, the themes of the interviews, in combination with the data of other methods (e.g., observations, action research), were analysed from a circular investment and operating cost perspective.

2.5. Active Participation and Tracing of Information and Data about Reclaimed Wood, from Reclamation to Reuse, in SirkTRE Subprojects

To obtain more insights into the costs and risks, we conducted active participation and tracing of several reclamation and reuse projects within or associated with the SirkTRE consortium. The second author had both an insider role in SirkTRE, as a part-time employee of the company managing the consortium, and an outsider research role, which enabled her to identify the correct persons through whom to access data. Some individual projects are elaborated upon in public reports or conference papers (e.g., [56,57,58]).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Which Resources Are the Circular Investment and Operation Costs?

The adoption of circular business models can lead to the creation of multiple forms of value. However, these models require various resources, such as human resources (with a different set of skills, from technical skills to project management skills [59]), land, time, money, water, energy and materials, such as (reclaimed) wood. These resources can create social, environmental and/or economic value. Other scholars have focused on capital. Sanchez and Haas distinguished between different planning steps and identified the required capital [60]. This could be linked with the enabling processes (and resources). The most mentioned resources were time, labour, information and space (for storage). However, these resources, e.g., space, are often not accessible to everyone, and collaborations with actors that have these resources are needed. This can lead to challenging processes of involving and agreeing with stakeholders that one would exclude intuitively, such as building traders or even local governments or other large landowners. Various scholars have investigated reuse in the construction sector, some of them connected with European projects, such as Building as Material Banks [7] and Super Circular Estate [61]. These investigations have resulted in manuals, guides and tools [62,63,64,65]. According to OPALIS (2022), “various actors can conduct a reclamation audit. The choice for one or a combination of them will depend on the objectives, the general context (type of building, available means…) and the timing of the project” [21]. However, they do not consider the issue of who can carry the risks and the costs. In this section, we look at various resources and, because a lack of these resources is often mentioned, at the role of information and data as substitutions that can enable circularity and reuse in the timber construction sector.

3.1.1. Time or Money?—Substituting Information as a Resource

Shaurette remarked that time is “an impediment, but not necessarily due to project related constraints”. Implicit in this conclusion may be the underlying premise that time is “money” [66]. Time is a resource that can substitute other resources, such as human labour, energy and equipment, but the opposite is also true. The improvement of other resources, such as improved techniques and operator training, can eliminate the extra time required for reuse and recycling and speed up (and scale up) the processes of preparing wood or other materials for production lines. In other desktop-based research, we found guidelines to carry out a short inspection of 1–2 h to determine whether it is worth investing time and money in an entire reuse survey of an existing building (e.g., [21]). In Norwegian guidelines, the following is advised: “External reuse mapping should be ordered and carried out as early as possible to avoid intermediate storage as much as possible. The period between the completed reuse report and the start of rehabilitation or demolition should be a minimum of 3 months to minimise the need for interim storage” [51]. Some solutions, such as digital platforms, often claim in their marketing that they can reduce the time spent on processes. However, in the current Norwegian context, this is not the case.

The cost of time is often mentioned as an impediment and, at the same time, as an important condition. Where the material is located currently determines the cost of the process.

“Experience is that many of these digital marketplaces sell themselves as much more than what they are. The job doesn’t do itself. Still have to map, transport, intermediate storage, project etc.”

—Interviewee T

Information and data are resources that can and should substitute other resources that are less abundant, such as time (as a resource). However, it was difficult to measure the time inputs of each employee. We asked team members about their time investments in projects. For instance, less experienced students would work for days on the transformation of a point cloud of a barn into a meaningful BIM object ready for diagnosis and an estimation of its reusability potential. The scanning-on-site practice, including transport, as observed in the SirkTRE project, would take professionals a working day. In Norway, reuse surveys will be obligatory as of summer 2023 for demolition projects. However, in local arenas for reuse, different people, including some who analysed the outputs of reuse surveys, shared concerns about the lack of standards or lists, or regarding the required minimum time investment in the reuse survey. One person under time pressure can visit a site, spend one minute there and declare that there are no reusable elements or components.

3.1.2. Investment in Human Resources with the Right Skills and Knowledge—Or the Digital Technologies Substituting for This Human Resource

One of the most questioned positions or roles in projects of reuse in the built environment is that of the reuse survey expert.

The literature on reuse—[41], for example—discusses the need for “reuse experts” who can recognise which reused wood or other material would be suitable, among other opportunities. In various projects, there is “the need to actively collect information about all the assets and resource flows available in the industrial park through ‘resource mapping’. However, this activity already requires substantial investments, making it reliant on external funding, such as governmental subsidy” [19].

In several projects that studied reuse and circularity in construction projects, the role of the reuse survey expert was considered important. Niu et al., in their studies on the use of reclaimed wood from demolition buildings, also noted how “pre-demolition auditors could help the material efficiency at the end-of-life of buildings” [67]. A reuse surveyor can carry out a physical survey alone, but it is recommended that someone who is familiar with the building and its history (an operating manager, operating technician or person in charge of the building) is either available or also participates [51]. However, not only technical skills but also good communication and other social skills are required of this reuse survey expert (team). Lastly, they should also be familiar with the market demand. This also requires knowledge of different applications and an ability to identify new purposes. Standardisation in design can help to reduce the need for all these “knowledge search costs”. It is difficult to identify all this knowledge within one person, or even a whole organisation, that focuses only on one discipline.

Therefore, some researchers and innovators have investigated the idea of digital technologies replacing the human role in facilitating and even initiating the survey. If no organisation or specific person can fulfil this role, digital technologies are often mentioned to assume this missing role of information facilitation. The literature often calls for end-of-life (EoL) databases, which are envisioned as a type of open-access material bank with information that is organised and facilitated by a data manager who is also a facilitator between key actors (e.g., [18,68]). However, not many of these digital markets for reuse score highly in terms of multilevel readiness, and this study focused only on humans, and not machines, assuming the role of reuse survey consultant.

3.1.3. Space as a Cost—And Information Substituting for It

Different interviewees in subproject A pointed out that logistics, including storage space, was a challenge in the reuse process. Many interviewees in subproject B obviously confirmed space as a resource but were often not aware of the value created with space as a consequence. This will be considered in another study that will focus on space or land as a resource for value chain development. Digital technologies could substitute the lack of physical space by acquiring data about the location and availability of reclaimable material and then determine matches for reuse in future buildings, but the more experienced practitioners, based on their experiences in construction projects, where delays can happen, were still sceptical about the idea of full substitution. Tracing and tracking were digital solutions named to complement or support these logistical questions. Other enabling infrastructures are marketplaces or platforms where digital solutions can be integrated that exchange data and provide information for the different actors. However, they do not carry out the actual work of mapping (e.g., see Interviewee T).

Future research and practice projects should carry out an in-depth study of labour costs, which will be context-specific, as, in some countries, the wage differences are very significant. Time is a very important resource, and even for information as an investment, time is required for data acquisition and analytics.

3.1.4. Equipment as a Cost—For Acquisition and Analysis of Information

None of the interviewees in project A discussed the investment costs and operating costs of the required equipment, such as scanners and sensors, to obtain these data and process them into more meaningful information. In the action research, more insights and experiences were collected regarding the investment and operating costs. The project was not long enough to provide comparative percentages of different equipment set-ups and the required human resources, energy and other resources. Notably, in the action research, concerns were expressed about the specifications of the equipment and tensions in different value creation potentials.

3.1.5. Lacking Integrated Resource Management in a Value Chain

The previous subsections reveal the complexity in how different resources enable and substitute each other, not only within one business but in the whole value chain. Sometimes, information obtained by one actor in the value chain needs to be acquired by another actor who has to determine the investment and operating costs. This requires integrated resource management over a value chain or ecosystem and discussions between the actors who bear the costs and risks and plan how to reach a perceived fair distribution of roles, responsibilities, risks and benefits.

3.2. Opinions of the Interviewees about the Distribution of Roles, Costs, Risks and Benefits in This Data Creation and Information Facilitation

Some studies have investigated the key actors or, more specifically, the configurations of stakeholders, as a major factor for the wider uptake of ICT for circularity [18]. One of the most profound concerns detected in the interviews in subproject A regarded who should take responsibility for which task and where to start the process. The local government was mentioned by five companies as the stakeholder that should be the initiator and facilitator via supplying more financial incentives, penalties and stricter regulations. However, local government representatives are not always in favour because the innovation processes in a government are bureaucratic and they must follow many ethical guidelines. Another set of stakeholders mentioned was the building material traders, because they are powerful and already have the infrastructure for the trading and relocation of reclaimed materials. The third set of stakeholders included building owners and clients, who set the minimum requirements and are providers of empty buildings. The analysis of the interviews highlighted uncertainties about the collaborations and agreements regarding which stakeholders to include and exclude and where in the Norwegian ecosystem. Early planning is key and has many advantages (e.g., more time to find matches between supply and demand) but needs strong agreement processes. For example, different stakeholders must agree on how much information is required and when the data collection can be carried out. Sometimes, the building is still in operation, and the building users (and owners) must agree that the reuse surveyors can visit the building. Another agreement process involves the allocation of risk, or, as one interviewee noted,

“It will also be exciting with the demolition companies. Who will pay for it, who will take the risk of the dismantling? So those are things I had thought about.”

—Interviewee B

Each reclamation and reuse is a project and requires the management of resources and risks and the identification of mitigation measures and actions. Other challenges include the risks and difficulties perceived by others regarding reuse. This leads to the question of who will bear the risk, as mentioned previously.

One of the major debates is whether CE implementation should be planned by local governments, self-organised or require an intermediary governance model [34]. We note the emergence of a discourse on the role of local governments, which is echoed in actions such as the setting up of the European Circular City and Region Initiative. Local governments can use information, such as resource mapping at the macro level, to monitor circularity transition progress (e.g., [35]). However, local governments can take on other roles, such as a facilitators or regulators. The interviewees had different opinions about the roles of local governments. Some remarked that they were in a more neutral position, but this neutral position limited them regarding taking part in market transactions and would lead to more bureaucracy. However, these opinions and the ways in which these actors made sense of who should facilitate what and how and by whom these processes should be started reflected their values, worldviews and political economies. Norway’s discourse on the circular economy is dominated by ecomodernist ideas and reformist practices [69,70], and the interviewees mostly represented market economies and were driven by economic and environmental (often embodied energy) cost-effectiveness. However, there are diverse economies in cities in Norway, such as Trondheim, where reuse is not a profit-driven practice laden with different value [71]. There was a limit to the selection of interviewees, and future research should involve interviewees of diverse economies where there are also practices (and planning) of the reclamation and reuse of building materials in construction and renovation projects. During the revision of this study, Trondelag Fyleskommune initiated the DIPLOM project, which could potentially provide further insights regarding the influence of interventions and the role of regional governments in promoting circular economy practices [72].

One interviewee mentioned the missing link, namely actors who lead and control the quality assurance process to reduce the risk. However, various interviewees pointed out that the risks should not be carried by one actor, such as the contractor:

“That, I think we have to be close to the contractor when that happens. If we haven’t been there, and can’t say anything about the process, then we should be careful about putting it on the contractor. We have to be visible and take note of what is happening. At the same time, we must be brave, and we must also dare to take responsibility. This is about developing an entire industry, and then we cannot put all the risk on the contractor.”

—Interviewee T

Another interviewee stated that the integration of information and organisational aspects can help to reduce the risks and lessen the hesitation of value chain actors to take responsibility:

“In the practical and financial dimensions, reuse comes when you have a good and well-oiled machinery that can offer it, otherwise it becomes a risk”

—Interviewee B

We observed that, simultaneously with questions about risk and benefit distribution, there was a growing awareness that the traditional role division in the AEC and demolition sector was obsolete: roles were missing or some organisations needed to take on other roles that they initially did not. In urban mining, concerning the deconstruction and reuse of building components, demolition contractors are often foregrounded as the most important actors for pulling/initiating. However, in an older survey with ca. 70 demolition contractors in the USA [66], as well as in our explorative conversations with representatives of demolition contractors interested in circularity, they perceived that they were not the initiators of the project. In principle, if each demolition company can deconstruct carefully and help in salvaging reusable components, but only when the building project owner initiates it, circularity will arise. This also implies the need for sufficient time to carry out extra tasks.

Another solution was inspired by industrial symbiosis research and practice, where there is more information about collaboration and knowledge creation in spatial clusters. The activities of industrial symbiosis can also be labelled as circular. In industrial symbiosis projects, we found that it is often suggested that an intermediary third party, such as a consulting company or a member of the local government, is needed to facilitate IS [19]. They assist in planning the project, mostly through material scans and matching services (e.g., companies such as Metabolic in the Netherlands). In SirkTRE and other Norwegian projects, startups are taking on this intermediary role and consultancy companies are starting to develop the competence for reuse surveys and act as an intermediator at the same time.

As transition is also a matter of the governance of resources, including data and information, especially in these data-driven circularity processes, some scholars have looked into data pipeline management [73], which includes the collection of data. The data pipeline is a solution that can bridge gaps in information facilitation in international supply chains by acting as a form of “internet for logistics” [73]. However, none of the interviewees spoke about data pipeline management ideas. One explanation is that the interviews focused too much on business responsibilities and not adequately on collaborations.

3.3. Perceived Problems Regarding Reclamation, Diagnosis and Reuse in the Timber Construction Sector

3.3.1. Current State of Digital Technologies as CE Investment and Operation Costs in the Norwegian Sector

The analysis revealed that the circular economy is still a new topic for the Norwegian timber construction sector. The implementation of reuse surveys or other tools for diagnosis is still in the experimental phase. Interviewees were involved in circular pilot projects, but their experience was still limited, and they perceived themselves as still learning by doing. Three interviewees in project A acknowledged directly that they needed to learn more.

3.3.2. Uncertainty about Data and Information Needs for the Entire Value Chain

The first category of perceived problems includes the technical processes associated with scope definition, the stakeholder, use case definitions and requirement analysis. One group of stakeholders is the regulatory bodies. The changing certifications and standards (TEK, DOK, FutureBuilt criteria) were named as tools supporting and even driving the reuse of building components in Norway. One interviewee mentioned that he was working on a requirement specification to create a framework for agreement.

Many interviewees spoke about which data and information needed to be collected (information management) by sharing, for example, the data formats that they used (mostly Excel and, in a few cases, BIM objects), the functions of this information (e.g., quality assurance), the precise information required (e.g., lengths, dimensions, strength) and, most importantly, for which applications this type of reclaimed material can be used.

The challenges and barriers in technical information acquisition have been studied by various researchers, such as demolition practitioners [65] or architect researchers [27]. Our results confirmed what they have highlighted. We obtained similar results to [40], who researched barriers to standardised data flows in Norway, e.g., the perception of the lack of data availability and data interoperability [40]. Data availability was a highly recurring topic: almost all interviewees in subproject A highlighted the lack of data because they were not created, were lost or were erased by a value chain actor. Challenges regarding information management were related to difficult access, the low transparency of information or the loss of information or knowledge regarding the disassembly of older buildings that was never documented.

“The most difficult thing is initially what is available when you are going to build, what things can we reuse, where do we get these reusable materials, what is the quality on that?”

—Interviewee O

This lack of data pipeline management, interoperability and data also constituted a challenge detected in other organisations that were still in the experimental phase, as with social housing adopting digital technologies for circularity in the Netherlands [74].

3.3.3. Power Dynamics or Obsolete Roles in the Value Chain

Two of the seven interviewees in subproject A remarked that we should not focus on missing roles but on obsolete roles. As some interviewees remarked, some stakeholders and roles are also not needed anymore and hinder the circularity transition. They will become obsolete and lose out if circularity and digital transformation become more successful and rooted. This remark can also be coded as a concern about power dynamics. There were questions about the waste management facilities and building traders, which are well-established organisations with high capital investments in logistics and infrastructure. Therefore, we hypothesised that there will be power dynamics occurring in the negotiation of these agreement processes, where the investment costs of the past might influence future investment costs in resources required for the scaling and speeding up of reuse in the timber construction sector.

3.3.4. Lack of Standards and Requirements

“We have now got a standard for the reuse of punctured tyres, and now we will probably get more standards as well. Once we get this into the system, the risk will probably be lower.”

—Interviewee V

Standardisation processes are often carried out by multiple people and organisations. In Norway, Standard Norge, which is a partner in SirkTRE, is an important player in co-creating and disseminating standards. In Norway, the standardisation phase encompasses processes concerning the rational and integrated management of other enabling resources, such as information and space, to enable reuse and circularity. In previous research, the lack of standards and requirements as barriers and enablers of reuse was mentioned by Knoth et al. [41]. Interviewees in project A expressed also the need for standards and requirements that would serve as both a reward and punishment in the circularity transition of the Norwegian (timber) construction sector. All the non-governmental representatives in project A called for more responsibility from governmental organisations and bodies.

3.3.5. Wood as a Material

There are uncertainties concerning wood as a material. The practitioners in the interviews did not provide details but shared some of their knowledge of how to treat reclaimed or virgin wood. They spoke about the storage of reclaimed wood and the concerns about metals, contaminants (impregnated wood) and grading. In local workshops and forums, we detected concerns about the competition for wood from the energy sector and the lack of decision criteria that help to allocate wood waste fractions to the correct application (beam, floor) and determine whether it is fit for reuse, recycling or recovery. Proposal calls by European and Norwegian funders in 2022 and 2023 listed more concerns and challenges regarding quality and grading. In future research, these concerns and perceived problems will be tackled with a quality matrix with parameters. In our ongoing action research in SirkTRE, international and Norwegian wood technology and physics experts or other experts with (experiential) material intelligence were more comfortable answering our questions on quality assessment, limitations and constraints; however, most people interviewed from subproject A were not wood technology and physics experts (they were more often managers and consultants with less field experience). Interviewees in subproject A expressed that they were still in a phase of learning and were searching for answers and knowledge, especially in terms of mitigating risks related to (reclaimed) wood as a material and its application in future timber structures. Even those who carried out reuse surveys expressed uncertainty about the applications. We sensed a need for education and clear, simple guiding frameworks for project managers overseeing reuse surveyors, who are not always wood technology experts.

3.3.6. Lack of Social Justice Perspective

In the interviews, none of the interviewees in subproject A spoke about social justice concerns. The management of various data archives requires different skills and technologies. Design researchers have investigated the design of digital tools or proposed design criteria for tools to enable the reuse of building materials and components. For instance, Durmisevic et al. designed reversible building information models that estimate the reuse potential; however, it is unclear who should collect and process the data [63]. Other scholars investigated the digital technologies surrounding material banks and platforms, where materials are stored and exchanged for value, highlighting building information models as a key intermediary product [68,75,76]. All these technologies need data inputs and, therefore, reuse surveys are required. However, these reuse surveys and this data collection are carried out by stakeholders who have one or more roles in this process and need to collaborate. The literature often discusses (shared) responsibilities among the stakeholders but does not discuss the sharing of costs and risks, even if strategic management does not pass the costs and risks on to the people that perform the actual work. In countries such as Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Singapore, reuse survey tools are developed, tested and implemented. As not everyone is allowed to enter the construction site or the building itself, the reuse survey is often carried out by reuse coordinators within the companies that own the buildings in question (e.g., public building owners, such as a province), demolition companies or contractors. Currently, the costs (labour and tools) are largely placed upon those who do not obtain direct benefits from the analysis. For instance, demolition companies could potentially perform very detailed analyses of demolished buildings, which is of great value to assess material stocks in existing buildings from different periods, but with added costs for themselves. The question remains as to how much such a data manager or reuse coordinator costs in terms of time and, therefore, money, including not only the management but also the training of new staff or the retraining of current staff. Alternatively, are there other “invisible people” who perform the actual collection of the needed information?

In research on the circular economy and waste management, various scholars document evidence and express concerns about how vulnerable groups subsidise the circular economy by volunteering in reuse shops [77], collecting waste for low salaries under poor working conditions and inputting them into the capitalist circuits of recycling and production [78]. Although their work creates value and benefits for society and, mostly, for other people, these workers subsidise and bear the greatest risks and costs. Now, in light of the digitalisation of society, another dimension has been added. This has led to the creation of a new group of the labour force subsidising this data-driven circular economy. In our own action research, we noted that we are dependent on students who volunteer their time to acquire and/or analyse data [58]. We should not only focus on “waste pickers” or other people who perform the actual harvesting of reclaimable building materials, but we should shift the focus to those whom we call the “the data pickers”, or the individuals who collect the data and store them in Excel sheets, PDFs, building information model (BIM) objects or other digital archives. We observed that the (process of) reuse surveys, i.e., the phase that collects the data that can be transformed into building information models and material passports, constitutes a bottleneck that continues to be subsidised in Norway, Belgium and other pioneering countries by public funding and/or volunteers (e.g., students as part of educational projects). Subsidisation is problematic from different perspectives, including not only a social justice one but also a pragmatic one, as this process comes without a revenue model and cannot be sustained after the subsidies end.

4. Framework and Conclusions

4.1. Framework of Processes for Project Managers Handling Circular Resources for Reclamation and Reuse

Figure 3 displays a framework based on the ISO 15288:2008 process sets; it was adapted based on our findings and the results of other studies (e.g., [25,41]). We combined the project management and agreement processes because they are intertwined. Project management should be carried out by an entire consortium, value network or constellation of actors, and agreement processes are inherently part of this. This would include defining the scope and stakeholders and their requirements, as well as the risks. We added the step of setting rules. There are still many tensions between circularity; the practice of reclaiming, relocating and reusing building materials; and environmental, economic and social performance. One of the reasons for this is the lack of baseline studies and the lack of sufficient background information (e.g., data uncertainties) in environmental product declarations. The setting of rules—and, especially, maximum and minimum limits—can allow us to navigate this lack of knowledge about improved environmental performance, for example. Rule setting should also be carried out regarding the distance that the reclaimed material should travel. These rules should also include regulations focused on demolishing buildings that have a short lifetime and not devoting additional effort in renovating or repurposing them. Rule setting can also be connected with reflection processes, as rule setting will be value-laden. We added reflection processes, especially regarding circular justice, which also include reflections on the values driving these processes and the materialisation of the discourse and circular economy. The enabling processes are capital planning and resource allocation. These help to decide which solutions should be implemented within a feasibility limit. The technical processes include dismantling, finding matches with new applications, assessing the performance and carrying out feasibility studies. This requires, once again, resources such as information, which, in turn, is dependent on the enabling processes. Lastly, in the project management and agreement processes, we included “role and governance definition for other processes” because we observed the role of intermediary actors and governance models. It is important to rapidly define who will provide which infrastructure; who will help to set rules about, for example, information flows within a project; who will negotiate contracts; who will provide space or transport; and even who will take on the facilitating role to determine whether the risks, costs and benefits are distributed well and whether certain deep-rooted beliefs and other social structures should be phased out. It is pivotal to see this set of processes as interdependent and intertwined with each other. Therefore, the project manager needs to be a (eco)systems thinker who understands circularity from a holistic perspective.

4.2. Validation, Limitations and Future Steps

The study population in subproject A was small. However, the selected data from subproject B validated the findings about the perceived practical problems and the concerns of various value chain actors and organisations about the distribution and sharing of costs and the risks of investing in digital technologies to scale up reuse. Similar results regarding data and information as resources could be found in both interviewee sets and in other relevant previous research in other countries regarding other dominating structural materials (e.g., social housing in the Netherlands [74]). This demonstrates that the sample of seven interviewees was adequately representative. This study was part of the CircWOOD project and was closely tied to the innovation and development within the SirkTRE consortium. This study constituted the first steps in a larger research-informed design for workflows enabling the reclamation, diagnosis and reuse of timber in future value chains. Future steps must include the development or choice of a workflow with a quality matrix and the testing of this matrix on a greater scale. Currently, SirkTRE and its associated subprojects and sister consortia in Norway are building on their insights from previous years and proposing the next interventions to funding organisations to improve data pipeline management and prepare human and other resources.

At the time of writing, Kummen et al. (2023) have published their findings after interviewing and visiting eight actors in five major Norwegian municipalities [79]. Their results indicate the lack of the same resources (e.g., time, infrastructure) and the call by players for more assistance from the government. They highlight the call by reuse organisations for more responsibility among local governments to provide digital and physical reuse logistics infrastructure. However, unsurprisingly, they do not engage with emerging bodies of work on the circular city and region concepts. In critiques of the circular economy and the circular built perspective, the lack of a spatialised or territorial perspective is often highlighted (e.g., [35]). Ancapi et al. [37] also note disengagement with the circular city and region concept in much of the circular built environment discourse. Many nongovernmental actors in our work saw local governments as important enablers for digital infrastructures but did not discuss in detail how local governments, through planning, can provide enabling physical and digital infrastructures to (re)shape a city or region by promoting the R strategies among the organisations or value chains that are embedded in the territory or other actors. Reuse surveys only constitute one element in this multilevel circular city and built environment, and these surveys require changes at the system level (e.g., creating and changing current information infrastructures). In subproject B, we permitted the organisations to consider land and space as a resource and circular investment cost; this will be evaluated in our next manuscript, with strong engagement with the circular city and region frameworks. However, more research and practice should engage with the higher levels of place and the systems connected with a place, for which developers and designers seek interventions for circularity, and not only with the level of things and materials.

Additionally, this study did not include possible tensions between environmental, social and economic costs and benefits. Future research should further explore the trade-offs and tensions, as well as which actors in the value chain, city or region where circularity transitions are actualised should share a percentage of the benefits and risks.

4.3. Recommendations for Practice and Policy

The planning of reuse is a challenging learning and innovation process in circularity transitions. Multiple processes exist, including agreement, technical, project management and enabling processes, and they involve various stakeholders. In an agreement process, one must discuss who to exclude and who to include, and to what extent. One of the most important conditions is (a perception of) the fair distribution of the costs, benefits and risks. Another discussion concerns how much and which information should be collected without creating an unreasonable cost for one or more stakeholders that would render the process no longer feasible, competitive or useful. This study highlighted the need for a (perceived) fair distribution of costs, benefits and risks in reclamation and reuse processes in construction and a multilevel governance model of the data and information resources required to enable this. Additionally, we observed that most interviewees in Norway had little experience and only a few had been carrying out pioneering work. On the other hand, we saw more interest and a higher response rate to interview invitations in Norway. Circularity is still a relatively new concept for the Norwegian AEC sector; it was spearheaded after the Norwegians launched the national plan for circularity in June 2021 [39] and implemented new building regulations in 2022 to encourage the reuse of building components (e.g., TEK17 and DOK).

Our results are in agreement with the work undertaken by previous researchers who have investigated circularity and reuse in the Norwegian AEC sector, especially the technical processes, but this study provides more insights for ongoing and future project managers handling reclamation, diagnosis and reuse processes, which we envision will become more integrated in the future workflow of the timber construction sector. We believe that a framework based on the findings can assist project managers who are collaborating with various circular timber construction value chain actors, in Norway and beyond, in more challenging processes of learning and innovation to achieve a circularity transition in the AEC sector.

Lastly, our own studies and previous studies in Norway and other countries, such as in the Netherlands and Belgium, highlight the opinions of actors interested in circularity for more multilevel involvement and the multilevel governance of resources, such as information, among local and regional governments. This can be connected with emerging critiques and proposals from the circular city research and practice community, with suggestions of investment and operating costs, frameworks and lists of (policy) instruments to scale and speed up sustainable and clean circular built environments and reuse in the AEC and demolition sector.