Interactive Map of Stakeholders’ Journey in Construction: Focus on Waste Management and Circular Economy

Abstract

The transition toward sustainability in the construction industry requires integrated tools that align with circular economy principles. This study introduces the Interactive Stakeholder Journey Map in Construction (ISJMC), an innovative visual and systemic tool that supports waste management and circularity throughout the life cycle of construction assets. Although the sector is economically significant, it remains one of the main contributors to environmental degradation due to high resource consumption and low waste recovery rates. Developed according to EN 15643-3:2012, a European standard that provides a framework for assessing the social sustainability of construction works, focusing on aspects such as accessibility, health, and comfort and grounded in the Design Thinking methodology, ISJMC enables mapping stakeholder interactions, touchpoints, and responsibilities across all life cycle stages, including initiative, design, procurement, construction, use, and end of life. A systematic literature review and collaborative workshops guided the tool’s development and validation. The application in a real case involving a medium-sized Brazilian construction company helped identify significant pain points and opportunities for implementing circular practices. The results demonstrate that ISJMC (i) facilitates a systemic and visual understanding of material and information flows, (ii) promotes transparent mapping of resource value to support better decision-making, and (iii) encourages the identification of circularity opportunities while fostering collaboration among stakeholders. The tool revealed critical challenges related to waste generation and management. It supported co-creating sustainable strategies, including improved material selection, lean construction practices, and stronger supplier engagement. By translating complex standards into accessible visual formats, ISJMC contributes to the academic field, supports practical applications, and offers a foundation for expanding circular approaches in construction projects.

1. Introduction

The construction sector is a cornerstone of global socio-economic development, significantly impacting worldwide natural resource consumption and waste emissions. In the United States, the construction industry accounts for approximately 6% of GDP. It consumes vast resources, contributing to 40% of the nation’s total waste, with only about 20% of construction and demolition waste being recycled [1]. In China, the world’s largest construction market, the sector drives nearly 7% of GDP. It is responsible for consuming 30–40% of global raw materials, such as cement and steel, while generating substantial waste, with recycling rates below 10% [2]. Globally, the construction sector consumes 32% of the world’s natural resources, accounts for more than one-third of global energy consumption, and contributes 39% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Additionally, more than 75% of the waste generated is neither reused nor recycled, with 35% being sent to landfills, highlighting the urgency of innovative approaches to mitigate these adverse effects [3,4,5].

Within this global context, the transition to sustainable and circular models emerges as an urgent imperative, and the Circular Economy (CE), by proposing regenerative systems that minimize waste and maximize resource value, presents itself as a promising strategy for the sector [6]. However, its implementation faces critical challenges, such as lacking practical tools that visually integrate the life cycle phases of assets, stakeholder interactions, and material and energy flows. Although standards like EN 15643-3:2012 Standard [7] provide guidelines for life cycle management, their textual structure limits the practical applicability of circularity, making it challenging to engage the involved stakeholders [8]. In this study, EN 15643-3:2012 standard was adopted as a reference to map the “pains” in each phase of the life cycle, allowing a structured and practical analysis of how to promote solutions aimed at circularity in the construction sector.

Visualization is recognized as an important support for decision-making processes and facilitating understanding, discourse, and mutual learning among stakeholders, according to reference [9]. The application of tools and models to promote circularity and sustainability in the construction sector has also gained prominence; however, contextual challenges and methodological gaps persist, as highlighted by reference [10].

Various tools have been proposed to operationalize CE. Cards for Circularity [11], for example, offers a semi-structured method for ideation in design, balancing flexibility and practical guidance. Consumer Intervention Mapping [12] identifies critical points in product life cycles where stakeholders can intervene, promoting impact reduction strategies. In the corporate sphere, the Circular Business Model (CBM) seeks to maximize value retained by organizations [13], while the ReSOLVE framework [14] synthesizes ten key strategies for circularity. However, instruments like the Business Model Canvas (BMC) [15] are criticized for prioritizing profitability over socio-environmental criteria, revealing a gap in articulating sustainability and economic feasibility. Despite progress, there remains a need for holistic approaches that combine technical innovation, public policies, and multisectoral engagement.

However, these tools often fail to adequately consider the stakeholders’ multidimensional journey and responsibilities throughout the life cycle, limiting their practical applicability and compromising the efficiency of implementing solutions [16,17]. In this context, an opportunity arises, motivating the Interactive Stakeholder Journey Map in Construction (ISJMC) proposal, an innovative tool that places stakeholders at the center of representation, mapping their deliverables, touchpoints, and interactions at each life cycle stage.

The development of the ISJMC tool is highly relevant in both academic and practical contexts, particularly in promoting circular economy practices and improving waste management in the construction sector [18]. From an educational perspective, this article makes a meaningful contribution to the literature on construction management, sustainability, and the circular economy by introducing ISJMC as an innovative approach that combines Design Thinking (DT), a methodology focused on the user experience, with stakeholder journey mapping, aligned with the EN 15643 3 2012 standard. This combination is presented as a novel advancement that addresses a gap in existing tools, such as the BMC and Cards for Circularity, which do not specifically explore the multidimensional journey of stakeholders in the construction industry [19].

Including a case study involving a medium-sized company in Brazil adds empirical value by demonstrating the applicability of the ISJMC tool through workshops conducted at operational, tactical, and strategic levels. It allowed the researchers to explore its effectiveness in different contexts, potentially expanding the body of knowledge in sustainability and design. Furthermore, the article suggests directions for future research, such as validating ISJMC in larger projects or in different types of construction, which may stimulate academic debate and foster theoretical advancements.

In practice, the ISJMC tool provides a tangible solution to the challenges faced by the construction industry, a sector still mainly operating under a linear “take, make, dispose” model with low resource recovery rates [20]. The tool enables visualization of the product life cycle, helping to identify critical points of waste generation and opportunities for circularity, such as material reuse, process optimization, and the development of new business models. Findings from the workshops indicate that ISJMC fosters stakeholder collaboration, which is essential in a sector characterized by fragmented supply chains, and supports strategic decision-making to reduce environmental impact. For instance, it helped uncover challenges such as tight project deadlines that hinder environmental considerations, limited availability of sustainable materials due to high costs, and inadequate waste sorting practices [21]. With only 40 percent of construction waste currently recycled or reused globally and most of it not reintegrated into new projects, the ISJMC tool can help accelerate the adoption of circular practices. It aligns with targets such as the European Union’s goal of recycling 70 percent of construction and demolition waste by 2050 [22].

Aligned with the EN 15643-3-2012 standard, ISJMC visually integrates asset development stages, allowing the identification of reuse opportunities, process optimization, and scenario prototyping. Its spatial and systemic approach facilitates transparency in resource management and promotes the co-creation of circular solutions among key sector actors, such as designers, builders, suppliers, and policymakers [23].

This article presents the development of ISJMC, emphasizing its capacity to translate abstract circular economy principles into concrete visual representations that support decision-making in construction projects. The methodology involved a critical analysis of existing tools and the practical application of ISJMC to validate its framework. The findings illustrate how ISJMC can contribute to waste reduction, resource optimization, and promoting business models aligned with circularity, ultimately supporting a more sustainable and resilient construction sector.

The methodology for developing the ISJMC was structured sequentially and interdependent, ensuring a systemic and collaborative approach. The process began with a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology [24], aimed at identifying gaps and best practices in waste management and circular economy within the construction sector, using databases such as Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). Next, an in-depth analysis of the UNE EN 15643 3 2012 standard ensured that ISJMC aligned with a construction asset’s life cycle stages. The conceptual development combined DT and journey mapping, resulting in (i) a theoretical framework for an interactive life cycle visualization. Prototyping enabled the creation of preliminary versions of the tool, which were refined based on expert feedback. (ii) Practical insights from stakeholder workshops supported further adjustments that improved the tool’s usability. Finally, (iii) validation in real-world scenarios confirmed the effectiveness of ISJMC in supporting waste management and advancing the circular economy, resulting in an innovative tool ready for implementation in the construction sector.

The three main findings of this study on the development of ISJMC, namely the importance of systemic visualization, transparent mapping of resource value, and the facilitation of collaboration and circularity, demonstrate that the tool represents a significant innovation for the construction sector. It fosters the co-creation of solutions, essential for addressing the industry’s fragmentation and advancing social equity, an emerging dimension in sustainability metrics [25].

Although ISJMC is not explicitly the first tool, it is unique in integrating interactive visualization, DT, and the EN 15643 3 2012 standard. This combination offers a stakeholder-centered approach not fully addressed by existing tools. As such, ISJMC stands out as an innovation with strong potential, particularly when the construction industry faces increasing regulatory and market pressures to adopt circular practices.

The structure of this article is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the theoretical foundation on the economic, environmental, and social impacts of construction waste, addressing the context of CE in waste management and eco-design tools for mapping the asset life cycle journey. Section 3 describes the methodology developed to create a more comprehensive journey map, detailing the necessary steps for building each tool stage. Section 4 presents the results of the practical application of ISJMC and the process of deriving the results to create a replicable framework that can be used in research on other systems within the construction sector. Finally, the conclusions, limitations, and insights gained from implementing ISJMC are discussed.

2. Theoretical Framework

This section establishes the theoretical foundation for the ISJMC, a tool designed to enhance waste management and CE practices in the construction sector. By integrating stakeholder theory, systems thinking, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and CE frameworks, this framework positions ISJMC as a novel contribution to sustainability in construction. Additionally, key terms central to ISJMC are defined to ensure conceptual clarity and terminological consistency.

2.1. Key Definitions

Four key terms are defined to ensure conceptual clarity and consistency throughout this manuscript. First, Circularity Points refer to specific stages or processes within the construction life cycle [26]. Targeted interventions, such as material reuse, recycling, or process optimization, can enhance circularity principles by promoting resource retention and minimizing waste [27]. Second, the Stakeholder Journey describes various stakeholders’ interactions, responsibilities, and experiences, including designers, contractors, and suppliers, as they engage with the construction asset from project initiation through its end of life. Third, Touchpoints denote critical moments of interaction or exchange, either among stakeholders or between stakeholders and resources, such as material procurement or design reviews, that directly influence project outcomes and the advancement of circularity [28]. Finally, Leverage Moments are identified as pivotal opportunities within the stakeholder journey where strategic interventions, such as adopting lean construction practices or selecting low-impact materials, can significantly improve sustainability outcomes [29].

2.2. Stakeholder Theory and Engagement

Stakeholder theory, as proposed initially in 1984 and extended, emphasizes the importance of managing relationships with stakeholders based on their salience (power, legitimacy, and urgency) [19]. In construction, stakeholders such as architects, contractors, suppliers, and regulators play critical roles in implementing CE practices. ISJMC leverages stakeholder theory by mapping their journeys and touchpoints, enabling the identification of leverage moments where collaborative interventions can enhance circularity. This approach addresses the fragmentation of the construction sector, fostering coordinated decision-making [19].

2.3. Systems Thinking for Holistic Life Cycle Management

Systems thinking views the construction life cycle as an interdependent system where decisions in one phase (e.g., design) impact others (e.g., demolition) [18]. ISJMC adopts a systems-based approach by visualizing material and information flows across all phases, as defined by the EN 15643-3:2012 standard [7]. This holistic perspective enables stakeholders to identify circularity points and optimize resource use [8], addressing the sector’s high waste generation [4].

2.4. Life Cycle Assessment and Resource Optimization

Standardized by ISO 14040 [30], the LCA provides a methodology for quantifying environmental impacts across a product’s life cycle. ISJMC integrates LCA principles by mapping resource flows and identifying circularity points where waste can be minimized, such as material reuse or recycling. It aligns with reference [31], which emphasizes the need for tools to operationalize waste reduction strategies. By quantifying resource value, ISJMC supports strategic decision-making to enhance sustainability.

2.5. Circular Economy Frameworks

The CE promotes regenerative systems through principles like the 4Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recover) and the ReSOLVE framework (Regenerate, Share, Optimize, Loop, Virtualize, Exchange) [32]. ISJMC operationalizes these principles by mapping stakeholder responsibilities and touchpoints, enabling the identification of leverage moments for circular practices, such as reverse logistics or sustainable material selection. It builds on reference [33], which advocate for practical tools to implement CE in construction.

2.6. Design Thinking for Collaborative Innovation

DT is described as a human-centered approach that fosters collaboration and innovation through iterative prototyping and stakeholder engagement [34]. ISJMC employs DT to co-create solutions during workshops, mapping stakeholder journeys to identify pain points and circularity opportunities. This approach enhances stakeholder collaboration and ensures that ISJMC is user-friendly and adaptable to diverse contexts [12]. This theoretical framework positions ISJMC as a unique tool that integrates stakeholder theory, systems thinking, LCA, CE frameworks, and DT to address the construction sector’s sustainability challenges. By providing a visual and interactive representation of the stakeholder journey, ISJMC facilitates the transition to a circular economy, offering both academic and practical contributions.

2.7. The Importance of the EN 15643-3-2012 Standard: A Framework for the Stakeholders Journey

The EN 15643-3:2012 Standard European standard outlines the phases of a construction asset’s life cycle and provides a fundamental framework for understanding and managing circularity in construction [7]. However, the standard does not present a visual and systemic representation that facilitates communication and stakeholder engagement [10]. In the context of construction projects, the EN 15643-3:2012 Standard European standard can be integrated into the life cycle of construction projects to ensure proper management and recycling of waste. The transition to a CE in the construction sector requires multifaceted approaches, from innovative design to systematic evaluation of results. This research synthesizes key practices and tools to enable this transformation, highlighting the interdependence between technical, regulatory, and social dimensions.

Multisectoral Collaboration and Stakeholder Engagement impact the success of CE, which depends on the active involvement of public and private actors from the early stages of projects. Coordinated dialogues between governments, businesses, and communities enable the creation of incentives-based policies, such as reduced landfill fees for those adopting circular practices [35,36].

In the context of Public Policies and Strategic Regulation, implementing mandatory recycling targets and sustainable public procurement are critical mechanisms to drive circularity [36]. Simultaneously, adapting existing guidelines, such as regulations for asbestos and hazardous waste management, to the principles of CE is essential, requiring robust monitoring systems [35].

By incorporating circular economy principles and practices throughout the life cycle of construction projects, it becomes possible to manage and recycle waste more effectively, aligning with the objectives of circularity and relevant standards such as EN 15643 3 2012 [31,36]. ISJMC emerges as an innovative tool that visually integrates the phases of a construction asset’s life cycle, the stakeholders involved, and the interactions among them by the structure of the EN 15643 3 2012 standard. Its generalized spatial representation enables the visualization of interactions, touchpoints, deliverables, and the prototyping of future scenarios, thereby enhancing the understanding of the asset’s life cycle and promoting greater transparency and efficiency [11].

The adoption of EN 15643-3:2012 Standard in ISJMC ensures compatibility with global sustainability benchmarks while addressing the specific needs of the Brazilian construction sector. This European standard was selected for its detailed life cycle assessment framework. It systematically maps stakeholder interactions and resource flows, surpassing local standards like NBR 15975 in scope and adaptability. By integrating this standard, ISJMC facilitates the identification of opportunities for material reuse, recycling, and process optimization, tailored to the Brazilian context where regulatory frameworks for circularity are less developed, thus promoting actionable strategies for waste reduction and resource efficiency [8].

2.8. Tools Supporting the Circular Economy: Mapping the Product Life Cycle in Construction

As a starting point in the “more circular and with less waste” journey of a business, an initial mapping of the social and material relationships of the business is necessary to provide researchers and the company with some common knowledge about the construction industry and generate a foundation for the development of possible ideas for CE and waste management that could be analyzed as part of a “journey”. The principles of CE can inspire reflections on the potentials and barriers to CE [37,38]. Still, these reflections must be contextualized and situated within the business, evaluating its capacities and presenting strategic plans [39].

The literature presents several tools and methods aligned with the ISJMC proposal to facilitate the understanding and implementation of CE in construction. For example, the Cards for Circularity (CfC), a card-based tool, offers circular design options for different parameters such as materials, life cycle, and circular strategies [11]. Consumer Intervention Mapping visualizes points in the life cycle of a product where stakeholders can intervene, allowing the rapid construction of scenarios that explore future systems of circular products and services [12]. Additionally, CBM uses tools like the BMC, adapted to map key elements of a circular business model, including value proposition, customer relationship, channels, and revenue streams [23]. To assess the circularity performance of buildings and construction projects, tools for evaluating circularity and indicators, such as the ReSOLVE framework and CBM, have been developed [33].

Various tools and methods have been proposed to support the transition to CE in construction. The literature highlights the importance of visualization and stakeholder collaboration for promoting circularity [11,40]. Visual tools, such as diagrams, maps, and flowcharts, play a crucial role in communication and understanding the product life cycle, making information more accessible and transparent for stakeholders. Spatial visualization, as proposed by the ISJMC, allows for the representation of different life cycle phases and their interconnections intuitively, facilitating the identification of critical points, optimization opportunities, and potential impacts [11].

As emphasized by the literature, the construction sector lacks sustainable approaches. Construction projects’ interdisciplinarity requires stakeholders to work on everyday tasks, which implies an efficient understanding [41]. It is particularly crucial in an industry characterized by low productivity and a fragmented supply chain [42].

In the construction context, the EN 15643-3-2012 standard describes the life cycle phases of an asset, establishing a sequential flow. However, the inherent complexity of this process demands tools that enable systemic visualization and a clear understanding of the interactions, touchpoints, and material and information flows between stakeholders. The active participation of stakeholders is crucial for the implementation of CE in construction [40]. By mapping stakeholders and their interactions throughout the asset life cycle, the ISJMC facilitates communication, engagement, and alignment between different actors, promoting collaboration and co-creation of circularity solutions [43]. However, implementing CE in construction requires understanding a complex system with multiple interactions and material and energy flows. The literature highlights the importance of visualization in understanding complex systems, promoting communication between stakeholders, and assisting in decision-making [44,45]. Visual tools, such as diagrams, maps, and flowcharts, can make the complexity of CE more accessible, allowing for identifying opportunities, bottlenecks, and the analysis of future scenarios [9].

2.9. DT and the ISJMC

The construction sector faces sustainability challenges, particularly in efficiently managing resources throughout the asset’s life cycle [46]. The EN 15643-3-2012 standard defines the life cycle phases, but its complexity requires a visual and systemic representation to facilitate stakeholder understanding.

The existing literature lacks visual tools that integrate DT to map stakeholders’ journeys throughout the construction asset’s life cycle, considering interactions, touchpoints, deliveries, and prototyping future scenarios. DT is a powerful problem-solving approach focusing on understanding user needs, challenging assumptions, and redefining problems. It is an iterative process involving repeated prototyping, testing, and refining cycles to arrive at innovative and user-centered solutions [14]. DT emphasizes collaboration, bringing together people from diverse disciplines to generate ideas and creative solutions.

DT is a human-centered approach emphasizing experimentation and collaboration to solve complex problems and create innovative solutions. DT facilitates mapping stakeholder needs and generating collaborative solutions for construction waste, fostering innovation and collaboration throughout the process [47].

2.9.1. Mapping Stakeholder Needs with DT

DT emphasizes understanding the needs and expectations of stakeholders [34]. Methods such as empathy maps and user journeys help visualize the experience of stakeholders throughout the construction life cycle, from waste generation to disposal or reuse [12]. Stakeholder analysis identifies their needs, expectations, and individual impact on the project goals [16] and involves categorizing stakeholders based on their participation, interest, and influence levels.

2.9.2. Generation of Collaborative Solutions for Construction Waste

DT promotes the co-creation of solutions among stakeholders [14]. Involving all actors in the design process can generate innovative ideas tailored to local needs. Design workshops can be used to identify gaps between theory and practice and seek collaborative solutions [48]. Rapid prototyping allows for quick and cost-effective testing and validation of solutions. It helps identify problems and opportunities for improvement. Iteration and continuous improvement ensure that solutions are practical and sustainable [47].

2.9.3. How DT Facilitates Innovation and Collaboration in the Construction Industry

DT provides a common language to discuss alternatives and their impact on a scale beyond the project scope [23] and encourages experimentation and full stakeholder engagement [49]. Using a human-centered philosophy, DT helps resolve stakeholder conflicts, understand the current value proposition, and eliminate adverse outcomes [12]. Proactive stakeholder participation serves an educational role, enhancing knowledge about cultural heritage and positively influencing the adoption of collaborative attitudes to operationalize a medium- to long-term vision [16].

Existing tools such as the Business Model Canvas [33] and CfC [11] address circularity but do not specifically focus on the stakeholder journey in construction, based on the EN 15643-3-2012 standard. The ISJMC, based on DT, aims to (i) visualize the phases of the building asset lifecycle according to the EN 15643-3-2012 standard interactively and spatially, (ii) map the interactions and touchpoints between stakeholders at each phase, (iii) identify the deliverables and responsibilities of each stakeholder, (iv) prototype future scenarios for different lifecycle phases, exploring innovative and sustainable solutions, and (v) facilitate the identification of resource value throughout the lifecycle, promoting the optimization of material use and waste reduction.

3. Materials and Methods

This section outlines the methodology adopted for developing the ISJMC, a prototype of a visual tool designed to represent the lifecycle of a building asset, based on the EN 15643 3 2012 standard. The methodology is organized into three main phases: Phase 1 focuses on understanding and defining the prototype tool; Phase 2 involves the development and prototyping of the system; and Phase 3 covers the implementation and evaluation of the proposed tool. Each of these phases is described in detail below.

Table 1. ISJMC development phases.

Phase	Stages	Main Activities	Delivery
Phase 1	P1. SLR	Database research, article analysis	Theoretical basis and identification of gaps
	P2. Standard Analysis	Study of the life cycle and interactions between stakeholders	Alignment of ISJMC with recognized standards
Phase 2	P3. Conceptual Development	Framework creation with DT and mapping	The initial theoretical framework of ISJMC
	P4. Prototyping	Building early versions, gathering feedback	Functional prototypes for testing
	P5. Stakeholder Testing	Workshops and feedback sessions	Practical insights for improvements
Phase 3	P6. Refinement	Feedback-based adjustments	Optimized and functional tool
	P7. Final Validation	Testing in real scenarios	Validated and ready-to-use tool

Source(s): the authors (2025).

summarizes the stages of the ISJMC tool development, along with their main activities and corresponding deliverables.

3.1. Phase 1: Comprehension and Definition of the Prototype Tool

A SLR was conducted to identify the best practices in product lifecycle representation, existing tools, and challenges in data management in construction. The methodology employed in this study followed a structured approach in four phases, adhering to the ROSES reporting standards [50], and based on the PRISMA 2020 Statement [24].

The ROSES reporting standard is commonly used in environmental analysis studies [51], justifying its adoption in this study to ensure greater methodological rigor [52]. Figure 1 presents an overall flowchart of this study, illustrating (i) eligibility criteria, keywords, and database definitions, (ii) database selection and search strategies with the whole scenario used in the searches, (iii) description of the screening process of the retrieved records considering eligibility criteria, and (iv) systematic review of the portfolio considering essential information correlated with the research objective.

3.1.1. Eligibility Criteria Definition and Database Usage

The inclusion criteria were defined as requirements to be applied to each retrieved article, ensuring that all articles met the same criteria to build a final portfolio aligned with the study’s objective and a low risk of including studies outside the scope or inconsistencies in the systematic review. Therefore, the eligibility criteria are shown in

Table 2. Eligibility criteria.

Category	Criteria
Inclusion	Studies exclusively in the construction industry segment
Inclusion	Focus on sustainability, CE, and waste
Inclusion	Related to the context of DT, journey, and maps
Inclusion	High-impact studies in the scientific community (JCR > 0)
Exclusion	Studies not published in peer-reviewed journals or lacking empirical data
Exclusion
Exclusion	Studies focusing on construction sectors outside the scope of civil construction (e.g., heavy industrial or infrastructure projects)

Source(s): the authors (2025).

.

The authors chose the Scopus and WoS databases for article searches due to the large number of publications on this topic [53]. The search period for articles in these databases was from 2018 to 2025.

3.1.2. Database Search Strategies

The keywords related to methods, tools, and techniques for addressing the CE were used to perform searches in the Scopus and WoS databases, resulting in 87 records from the search strategies presented in

Table 3. Research strategy.

Feature	Description
Database	Scopus and Web of Science
Search String	(“circular economy”) or (“circular design”) or (“residue”); AND (“journey”) or (“map*”) or (“design thinking”) AND (“stakeholder*”) AND (“building” or “construction” or “built environment”)
Source type	Journals
Document Type	Research or Review Papers
Language restriction	English

Source(s): the authors (2025).

.

3.1.3. Analysis Process

The articles were filtered to ensure that all records in the portfolio were relevant to this research. Duplicates from both databases were manually excluded. Additionally, title and abstract screening criteria for article exclusion were established at all stages. The eligibility criteria were considered during each step of this phase.

During this phase, the Mendeley reference management software was used to organize the data collected from the Scopus and WoS databases. Subsequently, the final portfolio was transferred to Microsoft Excel^® 2021 Version 2504 for comprehensive annotations of the collected articles.

3.1.4. Systematic Analysis of the Final Portfolio

The final phase involved thoroughly reading the articles to extract key information necessary to achieve the study’s objectives. This included collecting the following details: author names, article title, publication year, journal, JCR, citations, country of application, sector, method/tool/approach, results, study limitations, future research suggestions, and any relevant information that contributed to the development of the topic. All these essential points were documented during the full-text reading.

The authors mutually reviewed the methodological process to assess potential inconsistencies during the research. Additionally, the results, discussion, and other findings were re-examined at the end to ensure the accuracy and implications of the research.

Considering all the above, the final portfolio comprises studies that address the concepts of CE, waste, stakeholders, journey, maps, and DT applied in the construction sector. During the final review phase of the portfolio, Microsoft Excel^® software was used for annotations and interpretation of the results obtained from the analyzed articles.

3.1.5. Analysis of the EN 15643-3-2012 Standard

The authors conducted a detailed analysis of the standard and its implications for representing the life cycle of a construction asset. The analysis focused on (i) the definition of life cycle phases: clear identification of the phases described in the standard and their key processes; (ii) interactions between stakeholders: definition of the stakeholders involved in each phase and their responsibilities; and (iii) points of contact and deliverables: mapping of key points of contact and deliverables between stakeholders throughout the life cycle.

To determine the scope and details of the information needed to build the journey map, an initial SLR was conducted to understand the relevant phases of a product life cycle, specifically for assets in the construction industry. The customer journey space starts with increasing levels of detail. The journey will be built based on the stages established in construction projects, as outlined in the EN 15643-3-2012 standard: Terminology of Engineering Services in Buildings, Infrastructure, and Industrial Installations, detailed in

Table 4. Construction project stages.

EN 15643-3-2012		Stages	Substages
		Initiative	Market study
			Business case
Before the use stage			Project start
		Start	Viability study
			Project definition
	Product stage		Conceptual design
		Design	Preliminary design and development design
Stage of use			Technical design
			Detail design
		Procurement	Procurement
			Construction contract
			Pre-construction
	Construction stage	Construction	Construction
			Implementation
			Delivery
			Statutory approval
		Use	Operation
			Maintenance
		End of life	Refurbishment
End-of-life-stage			Dismantling

Source(s): adapted from EN 15643-3-2012 standard.

.

According to reference [54], a lean analysis in construction should be based on the order of stages established in construction projects, as outlined in the EN 15643-3-2012 standard. In the study, which considers the project from pre-design to end-of-life, the description of the EN 15643-3-2012 standard was used, which serves as a reference for sustainability in construction.

3.1.6. Definition of ISJMC Requirements

Based on the SLR and the analysis of the standard, the functional and design requirements for the ISJMC will be defined. The requirements should address the following: (i) functionalities: define the functionalities that the ISJMC should offer, such as visualizing the phases of the life cycle, interactions of stakeholders, touchpoints, deliveries, and prototyping of future scenarios; (ii) user interface: establish guidelines for an intuitive and easy-to-use interface that meets the needs of different stakeholders.

3.2. Phase 2: Development and Prototyping

3.2.1. DT

DT can enhance the development of stakeholder interaction maps throughout the construction journey for the application of CE, facilitating the creation of innovative and sustainable solutions. DT enables designers to catalyze the transition to CE, helping them face technical and non-technical barriers, such as hesitant corporate cultures and different understandings of EC [11].

The application of DT principles to develop the ISJMC involves the following:

• Stakeholder Identification: DT emphasizes understanding the needs and perspectives of stakeholders [12]. In construction and EC, this involves identifying all relevant actors, from material suppliers and construction companies to clients, regulatory bodies, and the local community [33,47].
• Journey Mapping: DT can map the journey of materials and resources throughout the construction life cycle, from extraction to disposal or reuse [8]. This helps identify critical points where EC can be applied, such as in the selection of low-environmental-impact materials, designing for deconstruction, and waste management [23].
• Co-creation of Solutions: DT promotes the co-creation of solutions among stakeholders [40]. Involving all actors in the design process can generate more innovative ideas adapted to local needs and realities. For example, stakeholders recognize that adaptive reuse strongly contributes to conserving cultural values [55].
• Prototyping and Testing: DT encourages prototyping and testing solutions on a small scale before large-scale implementation [16]. This allows for quicker identification of problems and opportunities for improvement.
• Iteration and Continuous Improvement: DT is an iterative process that constantly evaluates solutions and their adaptation to new needs and challenges [40]. This ensures that EC is implemented effectively and sustainably in the construction industry.

3.2.2. Information Structure

The information structure of the ISJMC was organized to clearly and functionally represent the lifecycle phases of the construction asset, as defined by the EN 15643-3:2012 Standard [7], along with the stakeholders involved, their interactions, and deliverables. This organization enables the identification of critical touchpoints between actors, fostering a systemic understanding of responsibilities at each stage. The structuring was guided by DT principles, aiming to create a coherent narrative of the stakeholders’ journey. Furthermore, the categorization of information supports mapping material and decision flows, facilitating the analysis of impacts and circularity opportunities. This approach ensures that information is presented accessibly, supporting strategic decision-making. As a result, it establishes a robust foundation for constructing an interactive and functional visual system.

3.2.3. Visual Design

The visual design of the ISJMC was developed with a focus on communicative clarity and user-friendly navigation, employing graphic elements such as colors, icons, and layouts to guide users through the asset lifecycle. The color scheme was selected based on intuitive codes representing different levels of criticality and project phases, while icons enable quick recognition of functions and interactions. The layout adopts a concentric ring structure, allowing for a layered visualization of the stakeholders’ journey. This format facilitates the identification of critical points, bottlenecks, and circularity opportunities. The design also prioritizes interactivity and adaptability to accommodate different audiences and organizational contexts. Thus, the ISJMC is an accessible, functional tool aligned with user-centered design principles.

3.3. Phase 3: Implementation and Evaluation

3.3.1. Development of the Prototype Tool

Implementing the ISJMC, using tools and methods from DT for stakeholder mapping and CE through the use of DT, allows for creating more comprehensive and practical stakeholder interaction maps. These maps consider the needs and perspectives of all actors involved in the construction journey for the application of CE [48]. This can lead to more innovative, sustainable solutions adapted to local realities, driving the transition to a more circular economy in the construction sector [56]

3.3.2. Case Study

The application of the ISJMC in a real case study was conducted to assess its effectiveness in practice. The case study involved selecting a construction project to visualize the life cycle of the construction asset, stakeholder interactions, and information flows. The choice of the project represented a typical scenario in the construction industry, and relevant data about the project were collected, such as information on materials, costs, schedules, and stakeholders.

The case study allows for evaluating the utility of the ISJMC for stakeholders, its effectiveness in communicating information, and its ability to support decision-making.

4. Results

4.1. Phase 1: SLR Results

The keyword search in the Scopus and WoS databases initially retrieved 87 journal articles published between 2018 and 2025. The research team screened these records to eliminate articles not addressing the defined search terms. After excluding those deemed irrelevant to the study’s objectives, a final sample of 41 articles was selected for in-depth analysis in the literature review.

Table 5. Summary of key contributions of the portfolio analyzed.

1. Contribution to the CE	2. Key Article Insights	3. References
It proposes a methodology to develop a conceptual model for regenerative circularity in the built environment.	It focuses on integrating regeneration with circularity in the context of the built environment at the neighborhood level.	[8]
It delimits the path from technical barriers to regional-level resource management for waste streams and by-products. Direct engagement with stakeholders to ensure policy recommendations are collectively constructive across the value chain.	It highlights the need for policy interventions that address technical, economic, and social barriers to CCU adoption and the importance of stakeholder engagement.	[49]
Presents a systematic review of academic and gray literature on theoretical CBM constructs and practical examples in circular construction. Provides a basis for categorizing case study evaluation. Translates theoretical CBMs into performance criteria using circular design strategies and Design for X (DfX) methods for industrialized construction.	Provides a theoretical overview of CBMs in construction and relates them to practical performance criteria for industrialized construction.	[57]
Identifies 18 approaches related to prefabrication, design for change, deconstruction, reverse logistics, waste management, and closed-loop systems. Common barriers are classified into six categories: organizational, economic, technical, social, political, and environmental. Illustrates the interrelationship between barriers, categories, and approaches using Sankey diagrams.	Organizational concerns are the most common barriers to implementing the circular economy in the Architecture, Engineering, Construction, Owner, and Operator (AECOO) sector.	[41]
Developed a card-based circular design tool based on a review of existing methods. Conducted a survey and workshop with design experts to gather knowledge about circular design in practice. Derived key learnings for developing circular design methods.	Circular design remains highly conceptual and challenging due to the interconnectedness of parameters and temporal aspects. Designers need ways to educate and convince stakeholders about the value and viability of circular design.	[11]
Defines the unit of analysis as the circular business model, incorporating the 4Rs and MacArthur’s butterfly model for circularity and classic definitions of a business model.	Emphasizes the integration of circularity principles into the business model structure.	[58]
Provides case studies from Amsterdam, Barcelona, Helsinki, London, Paris, and Shenzhen, analyzing their circular economy initiatives.	Different cities adopt varying strategies based on their context and priorities.	[59]
It highlights that a CE is much more data- and knowledge-intensive than a linear economy. Identifies data-information-knowledge barriers in policies, standards, markets, technology, sociocultural norms, networks, and business models.	The study identified that digital and data skills are crucial and proposed the “Smart System of ESG and Carbon Information” framework to integrate ESG capabilities with stakeholder engagement. Multidisciplinary collaboration and alignment with stakeholders along the CE value chain are essential for effective ESG practices.	[60]
Uses Circulab’s Partner Map Canvas to analyze the circular economy and stakeholders.	Collaborative stakeholder analysis using the Partner Map Canvas is crucial to identify the necessary ESG capabilities and propose an integrated system to effectively use ESG and carbon information, aiming to build talent and optimize ESG consulting, reporting, and communication practices.	[48]
Provides case studies from Amsterdam, Barcelona, Helsinki, London, Paris, and Shenzhen, analyzing their circular economy initiatives.	Different cities adopt varying strategies based on their context and priorities.	[59]
Developed the “Regenerate” tool with circularity criteria based on design principles (adaptability, deconstruction, material selection, resource efficiency) and construction layers. It proposes a weighting process for different levels of circularity (e.g., downcycling).	Considering design principles and construction layers, a practical tool can help assess and promote circularity in the construction sector.	[19]
Explores the dual role of digital innovations as enablers and triggers for circular BMs in fashion. Synthesizes how digital technologies catalyze innovation in BMs designed for circularity.	Digital technologies are critical in enabling the transition to circular business models in the fashion industry, creating value, and promoting sustainability.	[61]
It formulates four circularity opportunities: align spatial and product design, consider end-user perspectives, formulate research-informed regulations, and develop circular products/services through collaboration. Highlights the importance of considering spatial factors in housing development for circularity.	Spatial design, end-user perspectives, informed regulations, and collaboration are key opportunities for advancing circularity in the built environment, particularly in kitchen design and housing development.	[11]
Examines 78 publications to map knowledge related to CE. Highlights the role of accounting and accountability in quantifying and regulating the circular economy. It emphasizes that circularity must be pursued in the context of long-term sustainability. Discusses the role of digital transformation in accounting and accountability models for CE.	Improved accounting practices and digital transformation are essential for quantification, accountability, and a successful transition to a circular economy, contributing to the UN 2030 Agenda.	[62]
Provides a case study analysis of stakeholders in Flemish industrial parks. Highlights the importance of stakeholder collaboration for the circularity transition.	Collaboration and understanding diverse stakeholders’ perspectives are crucial to transitioning to a circular economy in industrial areas.	[63]

Source(s): the authors (2025).

summarizes the primary contributions and key insights from this portfolio, highlighting the role of the circular economy according to the most relevant studies’ approaches. Only articles with the most substantial alignment with the research objectives are included in Table 5 to maintain focus and clarity. In contrast, the full sample of 41 articles informs the broader analysis presented in the review.

4.2. Phase 2: Construction of the ISJMC

An initial SLR was conducted to define the scope and granularity required for constructing the ISJMC. The review focused on identifying key phases of a construction project, as defined by the EN 15643-3:2012 standard [7]. Drawing on these insights, a prototype tool was developed to model the stakeholder journey with increasing levels of detail. At the highest level, the ISJMC organizes the journey into three main phases: Pre-Construction, Construction, and Post-Construction, as illustrated in Figure 2.

At the intermediate level, the ISJMC structures the project into six well-defined phases: initiative, design, procurement, construction, use, and end of life, as shown in Figure 3. These phases provide a structured visualization of stakeholder participation across the asset’s lifecycle, enabling a clear understanding of operational flow and inter-phase relationships. This granularity supports identifying waste generation points and opportunities for circular economy integration. Each phase highlights critical decision points that significantly influence sustainability outcomes, facilitating precise stakeholder engagement, clarifying responsibilities, and informing lifecycle management strategies aligned with circular principles, per the EN 15643-3:2012 standard.

At the most detailed level, the ISJMC identifies twenty distinct sub-phases within the six phases, each representing a specific stage in the construction project lifecycle. These sub-phases are visualized as concentric rings in Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5, where each ring corresponds to a sub-phase and its position reflects its temporal sequence in the project. The concentric rings are color-coded to indicate the criticality of stakeholder interventions at each sub-phase: red for negative (−1), indicating high-priority issues requiring immediate action (e.g., significant barriers or inefficiencies); yellow for neutral (0), indicating stable processes with moderate attention needed; and green for positive (1), indicating optimized processes with minimal intervention required. The criticality is assessed based on the impact of stakeholder actions on project outcomes, such as cost, sustainability, or efficiency, with critical points positioned closer to the center of the map to signify higher urgency, as shown in Figure 4.

To clarify terminology, the 20 sub-phases represent the detailed stages of the project lifecycle, while the 20 touchpoints refer to specific stakeholder interactions or decision points within these sub-phases. Each sub-phase contains one corresponding touchpoint, mapped across the three main phases, ensuring comprehensive coverage of stakeholder engagement opportunities. These touchpoints are visualized in Figure 6, where critical points, such as barriers or pain points requiring immediate attention, are positioned closer to the map’s center, emphasizing their urgency for organizational intervention, as shown in Figure 5.

The ISJMC tool, grounded in SLR and the EN 15643-3:2012 standard, integrates stakeholder engagement, circular economy principles, and lifecycle analysis. The standard provides a structured sequence of phases and sub-phases, while a user-centered, iterative stakeholder theory (ST) approach ensures the tool’s practical applicability. The resulting framework (Figure 5) offers a progressive visualization of the construction asset lifecycle, from broad phases to detailed touchpoints, capturing relationships among stakeholders, materials, and decision pathways. This model establishes the analytical foundation for identifying inefficiencies, waste generation points, and opportunities for circular strategies, which are further explored in subsequent implementation and validation stages.

4.3. Phase 3: ISJMC Implementation Evaluation

The prototype tool was evaluated in both on-site and online workshops involving professionals from the construction industry. The participating construction company is classified as a medium-sized enterprise in Brazil, with projects and execution of works in the low-income housing segment. The selected construction company stands out in the Brazilian market for its focus on process innovation and investments in Research and Development (R&D), following technical standards and socio-environmental certifications. The tool was applied simultaneously across the three levels of the organization: operational, tactical, and strategic.

The research results were obtained from the interaction of these professionals, who discussed and outlined the main difficulties related to the generation, management, and reuse of solid waste in the construction project process. The co-creation dynamics followed the DT methodology, focused on the user, exploring barriers in the phases of the project life cycle with an emphasis on generating and managing waste in construction.

This section presents the results of applying DT in developing the ISJMC, a visual and systemic tool that represents the product life cycle in construction. As described in the introduction, the ISJMC aims to facilitate understanding the development phases, interactions, touchpoints, deliveries, and prototyping of future scenarios based on the EN 15643-3-2012 standard. The iterative and collaborative DT process allowed for the following:

• Identifying the needs and expectations of stakeholders: Workshops with stakeholders from different areas of construction (architects, engineers, builders, suppliers, clients, and regulatory bodies) revealed the need for a visual and collaborative tool to map the product life cycle in construction, following references from [64].
• Generating ideas and innovative solutions for the ISJMC: Brainstorming sessions and rapid prototyping resulted in several functionalities and interfaces for the ISJMC, such as spatial visualization of the life cycle phases, use of colors and sections to identify phases, representation of stakeholders and interactions, and the possibility of simulating future scenarios.
• Testing and refining the ISJMC in collaboration with stakeholders: ISJMC prototypes were presented and tested with stakeholders at different stages of development, incorporating feedback and suggestions to improve usability and the effectiveness of the tool [11,64].

The results of applying DT can be observed in the following aspects of the ISJMC:

• User-centered approach: The ISJMC was developed with a focus on the needs of stakeholders, prioritizing usability and clarity in the communication of information [12].
• Visualization and interaction: The ISJMC uses visual and interactive resources to facilitate the understanding of the product’s life cycle in construction, allowing navigation through different phases, identification of stakeholders and interactions, and simulation of future scenarios [9].
• Collaboration and communication: The ISJMC promotes cooperation and communication among stakeholders throughout the product’s life cycle, facilitating the identification of synergies, conflict resolution, and joint decision-making [12,34].
• Innovation and sustainability: The ISJMC encourages the prototyping of future scenarios, exploring innovative and sustainable solutions for construction, such as the application of circular economy principles and regenerative design [8].

The ISJMC, developed through DT, emerges as a promising tool to elevate systemic and collaborative understanding among stakeholders of the product life cycle in construction, improve transparency and efficiency in resource management throughout the life cycle, and drive innovation and sustainability in the construction industry.

The Implementation and Evaluation workshops were conducted dynamically and collaboratively for each phase of the construction life cycle. In each phase, problems were raised, discussions took place, the tool was filled out, and alignment was made for the action plan. The interaction and sharing of experiences to fill the map followed the co-creation flow with the ISJMC tool in three online and in-person stages, as determined in the following meetings: Meeting 1: presentation of the tool (pre-construction phase), Meeting 2: application of the tool (construction phase), and Meeting 3: final discussion, closure, and next steps for the action plan (post-construction phase).

In Meeting 1, the pre-construction workshop for applying the tool, the problems related to project development, planning, management, materials and suppliers, technical training, and public management were listed. It was noted that the waste problem starts in the study and design phase, with the need to meet increasingly shorter deadlines, directly impacting the project’s economic, social, environmental, and quality aspects. There were difficulties in conducting a more detailed analysis of the site’s environmental issues related to waste generation and resource economy.

Technical requirements, such as choosing more sustainable construction processes, materials with lower environmental impact, and suppliers with reverse logistics policies, are not selected due to cost concerns, which prevents the development of more sustainable projects. Critical points in the project’s life cycle, such as failures in strategic planning, project design, communication between planning and project management teams, material selection, and physical-financial scheduling, directly impact waste generation.

Meeting 2 focused on the construction phase, emphasizing productive activities, implementing new technologies, and environmental awareness of employees and service providers. In waste management on the site, the need to optimize the process was highlighted, with proper identification, separation, and disposal to prevent contamination between different classes of materials. The costs of this management, reuse, and recycling were also pointed out.

Regarding suppliers, there was a challenge in selecting certified service providers capable of reusing construction waste. Another issue raised was the difficulty in doing business with recycling cooperatives and the fragmentation of the construction industry chain, with few reverse logistics practices.

In Meeting 3, the post-construction phase, the challenges raised included the costs of final disposal, illegal dumping, lack of oversight by governmental agencies, and bureaucracy in waste management processes. Maintenance, renovations, and project changes were highlighted as significant contributors to waste generation.

In this final stage of the workshop, it became very clear that waste generation is present throughout the project’s entire life cycle, from design to post-construction. The waste problem can be addressed through resources and project stages and is likely primarily tied to planning, execution, and waste management during the project development phase in construction. It is important to emphasize that the issue of waste on construction sites operates in a cascading manner, involving all sectors, and its solution or mitigation can only occur with a systemic and integrated view from all departments within the organization.

As an immediate result of the workshop, suggestions were made to formulate waste management strategies for the organization’s construction projects, and actions to be implemented were raised. Efficient waste treatment methods and waste management plans for new projects were evaluated. Waste audits and the creation of indicators for each project phase for better control were established. Emphasis was placed on workforce training, with periodic meetings on the importance of waste reduction and proper material handling to avoid contamination across all projects.

In the medium term, implementing lean construction strategies and modular prefabricated construction units may minimize waste generation. Increased involvement with suppliers and the production chain can improve waste management efficiency in new projects.

As a result of the workshops conducted in three construction projects of the same scale in operation, the following critical points related to waste generation and management were identified for action, as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 represents the result obtained from the data collection of the three construction projects where the ISJMC prototype tool was applied. The key points raised during the workshop participants’ pre-, construction, and post-construction phases regarding waste generation in the process were represented in a single diagram to understand the “common pains” in projects under operation. Subsequently, an action plan was created for the issues identified, focusing on solutions through circular practices.

To provide a clearer understanding of the professional composition of the mid-sized construction company in Brazil, the profiles of participants involved in the ISJMC case study workshops are summarized in

Table 6. Professional profiles of participants in ISJMC case study workshops.

Participant ID	Academic Background	Years of Experience	Area of Expertise
P1	Civil Engineer	5–10	Project Management
P2	Architect	>10	BIM Design
P3	Civil Engineer	<5	Waste Management
P4	Environmental Engineer	5–10	Sustainability Consulting
P5	Construction Manager	>10	Site Operations
P6–P20	Mixed (Engineers, Architects, Managers)	<5 to >10	Various (Design, Procurement, Logistics)

Note: The table summarizes five example profiles, with “P6–P20” representing the remaining participants for brevity. The full table in the manuscript will include all 20 profiles.

. These workshops included a diverse group of professionals whose academic backgrounds, years of experience, and areas of expertise contributed to the analysis of operational processes and project outcomes. The following table disaggregates key characteristics of selected participants, highlighting the range of expertise that informed the study’s findings.

The Design Thinking process in the ISJMC workshops involved 20 participants (Table 6) across three sessions, each lasting approximately 4 h. Activities included brainstorming, role-playing, and prototyping exercises, fostering collaborative problem-solving to enhance project efficiency and sustainability in the Brazilian construction sector.

4.4. Phase 4: ISJMC Evaluation

Figure 6 addresses a critical gap in the existing literature by providing a consolidated, practical, and action-oriented perspective on the challenges related to waste generation across the construction lifecycle. In contrast to prior studies, which often approach these issues from fragmented or purely theoretical standpoints, this figure stands out for its holistic and collaborative methodology. It contributes to overcoming key limitations in the literature by integrating multiple dimensions of analysis and stakeholder engagement. The following discussion highlights three core ways in which Figure 6 advances the current understanding of waste management in construction.

4.4.1. Holistic Life Cycle View

Many studies on waste management in construction focus on specific phases, such as construction execution or post-construction management, without considering the entire lifecycle. For instance, research by the authors of reference [65] emphasizes waste recovery during demolition, while others, such as the authors of reference [66], address material recycling but overlook how design phase decisions impact waste generation. This fragmented approach limits the understanding of interdependencies between stages and reduces the effectiveness of proposed strategies. Figure 6, in contrast, consolidates critical points identified through workshops at three construction sites, covering all lifecycle phases, from design (pre-construction) to use and maintenance (post-construction). It maps the challenges within each phase and highlights their connections, offering a systemic perspective. This allows for a deeper understanding of how material choices in the design phase can minimize waste during construction, filling a significant gap in the literature by providing a comprehensive, integrated view of the process.

4.4.2. Practical and Collaborative Approach

Much of the existing literature on waste management in construction tends to be either theoretical or based on secondary data, with limited emphasis on practical application or direct stakeholder involvement. Studies such as reference [31] review strategies for waste reduction and recycling but fail to incorporate the perspectives of industry professionals or provide guidance on how to implement these strategies in real-world construction projects. A recurring limitation is the lack of collaboration among key stakeholders such as designers, contractors, and project managers. In contrast, Figure 6 addresses this gap by representing the outcomes of a co-creation process that engaged stakeholders across strategic, tactical, and operational levels through workshops. This collaborative approach ensures that the identified critical points, or “pain points”, are relevant and actionable in practice. Furthermore, the figure is a visual tool that facilitates communication and coordination among stakeholders, which is rarely achieved by purely theoretical studies.

4.4.3. Guidance for Action and Concrete Solutions

Many studies focus primarily on diagnosing waste management issues without offering practical solutions. For example, they highlight the importance of recycling but they do not provide concrete methods for its implementation in varying contexts [67]. This lack of actionable guidance leaves industry professionals without a clear roadmap. In contrast, Figure 6 goes beyond diagnosis by suggesting specific actions to address the identified challenges. Strategies such as strategic planning, careful material selection, adjusted project schedules, waste audits, workforce training, and lean construction practices were proposed during the workshops. This actionable guidance bridges the gap in the literature by presenting directly applicable solutions, transforming insights into practical steps that construction companies can implement.

4.4.4. Comparison with Existing Studies

To elucidate the distinctions of Figure 6, two representative studies are examined. Firstly, they propose a framework for recovering construction and demolition waste, focusing exclusively on the final stage of the life cycle, which encompasses demolition and recycling [65]. In contrast, Figure 6 addresses all life cycle stages, facilitating proactive waste management from the project design phase onward. Conversely, reference [31], while presenting a comprehensive review of waste reduction strategies, adopts a theoretical approach without direct stakeholder engagement. In contrast, Figure 6, co-developed with industry professionals, constitutes a practical tool that reflects the actual needs of construction sites and provides direct applicability in the construction sector.

Figure 6 addresses a gap in the existing literature by providing a holistic, practical, and action-oriented approach to waste management challenges in the construction industry. Unlike previous studies, which often appear fragmented or theoretical, Figure 6 integrates insights from all life cycle stages, incorporates stakeholder perspectives, and proposes concrete solutions. This approach complements academic research and serves as a valuable resource for enhancing sustainable practices in the construction sector.

5. Discussion

The ISJMC is an innovative tool for the generalized spatial representation of the product life cycle in construction. The main objective of the ISJMC is to facilitate the visual and systemic understanding of the development phases, interactions, touchpoints, deliverables, and prototyping of future scenarios in the life cycle journey of a construction asset. The ISJMC is based on the flow of phases described in the EN 15643-3-2012 standard to achieve this. Furthermore, the study focuses on providing qualitative insights (see subsections below abording the study findings); future studies can validate the tool develop through the use of quantities metrics such as actual waste reduction and cost savings to evaluate tool improvements opportunities.

5.1. Findings

Three primary findings were identified based on the article’s analysis concerning the development of the ISJMC, an interactive tool designed for waste management and the promotion of a circular economy in the construction industry. Each finding is described below, emphasizing its relevance and the specific aspects addressed in the article.

5.1.1. Visualization and Systemic Approach: Enabling Comprehension of the Lifecycle

The first finding emphasizes that ISJMC highlights the importance of visualization and a systems-based approach for understanding and managing the product life cycle in construction. The construction sector is characterized by high complexity, with multiple phases (such as design, construction, operation, and demolition) and various stakeholders (designers, contractors, suppliers, etc.) often operating in a fragmented manner. ISJMC emerges as a solution by providing a visual and interactive representation that makes the life cycle more transparent and accessible.

The construction industry faces challenges due to the sector’s complexity, such as the lack of smooth communication among stakeholders, leading to resource and waste management inefficiencies. ISJMC addresses this issue by visually mapping the interactions and material flows between the life cycle phases. Developed based on the UNE-EN 15643-3-2012 standard, which defines the life cycle stages of a construction asset, ISJMC transforms a technical and textual standard into a practical and visual tool. This facilitates stakeholders’ application of complex concepts.

The benefits of visualization were identified during workshops conducted with industry participants. The tool allowed for the identification of bottlenecks and improvement opportunities by intuitively displaying how decisions made in one phase impact others. For instance, visualization helped to understand how material choices during the design phase affect waste generation during demolition.

By promoting a holistic view with a systems-based approach, ISJMC encourages stakeholders to consider the life cycle as an interdependent system rather than focusing solely on individual responsibilities. This is essential for the circular economy, which aims to maximize resource value at every stage. This finding is crucial as it highlights that, without tools like ISJMC, understanding of the life cycle in construction remains fragmented, hindering the adoption of sustainable practices. Visualization and a systems-based approach are foundational for addressing sector challenges and fostering more integrated management.

5.1.2. Mapping the Value of Resources: Efficiency and Transparency with the ISJMC

The second finding highlights that ISJMC enables efficient and transparent mapping of resource value throughout the life cycle of construction products. This means that the tool visualizes the processes and quantifies material and energy flows, helping stakeholders identify where value is lost and how it can be optimized.

ISJMC maps the material flows from raw material extraction to final waste disposal, providing a detailed view of the environmental and economic impacts at each stage. This allows, for example, the identification of waste points or opportunities for reuse. In the workshops, participants were able to clearly see the critical points where resources were lost, such as the lack of sustainable planning or the use of low-durability materials that generate more waste. This transparency is crucial for aligning stakeholders around common goals. The tool helps assess the total cost of an asset, considering not only initial costs (such as material acquisition) but also operating, maintenance, and disposal costs. This supports strategic decisions, such as choosing more durable materials or more efficient processes. By mapping the roles and interactions of stakeholders, ISJMC promotes collaborative resource management, which is essential for closing material cycles in the circular economy and generating shared responsibility.

This finding demonstrates that ISJMC goes beyond visualization, offering a practical and quantitative analysis that enables companies to reduce costs, minimize environmental impacts, and optimize resource use. The transparency provided by the tool is an essential step toward implementing more sustainable practices in construction.

Identifying resource value throughout the product life cycle is crucial for promoting sustainability in construction. The ISJMC, through its efficient and transparent mapping, offers opportunities to achieve the following:

• Identify the flows of materials and energy in each phase of the life cycle, enabling the analysis of environmental impacts and the optimization of resource use, as discussed by other authors [8,49].
• Map the interactions between stakeholders and their roles in resource management, fostering collaboration and shared responsibility, as indicated by other authors [8,16,34].
• Assess the total cost of ownership of the asset, considering acquisition, operation, maintenance, and disposal costs, assisting in strategic decision-making [11,12].

The interactive concentric map of the ISJMC was developed using Microsoft Visio during real-time stakeholder workshops, enabling participants to visualize and edit the stakeholder journey dynamically. This process facilitated the identification of circularity points and touchpoints throughout the DT sessions. Microsoft Office tools, including Visio, Excel, and Word, supported data organization, image generation, and documentation. The outputs generated from these workshops were essential for constructing a systemic view of the organizational processes related to waste generation, covering the entire project life cycle from initial conception to the post-construction phase.

To validate the tool’s effectiveness, a three-stage workshop was held: pre-construction, during construction, and post-construction, to identify critical points related to waste in construction. Members from the construction company’s strategic, tactical, and operational levels participated in the tool validation process. The workshop sessions allowed the co-creation of an immersive experience of the problem of waste generation, management, and disposal problem throughout the project’s entire lifecycle.

The tool enables understanding of current scenarios, analyzing and discussing issues and failures that impede the smoothness of processes with a broader, more systemic view. Analysis across different sectors of the organization goes beyond the boundaries of the responsible areas, fostering engagement in problem-solving while also considering potential interference in other sectors when thinking in isolation. The tool also enables the co-creation of future visions within life cycles. These scenarios can be built from contextual factors of sustainability of the product, process, or service, considering stakeholder data that are most relevant to the desired objectives.

The partial participation of suppliers influenced the results of the workshop. Therefore, further work should include members from the construction supply chain to determine joint and practical actions in future scenarios.

The tool effectively generated future visions across three workshops involving professionals from all three organizational levels. However, more time is needed with more reflective exercises involving additional actors, including external clients, to deepen the scenarios and encourage participants to develop concepts for new products, processes, and services in the construction industry. Additionally, future research should be conducted within an interested organization to explore the possibilities of innovation and sustainability incorporated into new projects and products.

This leads to the suggestion that, in the future, designers, engineers, and architects will adopt a more stakeholder-centered approach, involving both internal and external stakeholders, to specify, conceive, and design products, processes, and services. Direct and constant communication with the client at every stage of the lifecycle facilitates value generation during the phases. It enhances delivery accuracy, reducing response times to uncertainties in future scenario predictability.

5.1.3. ISJMC Facilitates the Identification of Circularity Opportunities and Promotes Collaboration Between Stakeholders

The third finding highlights that ISJMC is a tool that identifies opportunities for circularity (such as the reuse and recycling of materials) and promotes collaboration among stakeholders, key aspects for the construction sector’s transition toward a circular economy. During the tool’s testing, such as in the workshops, points were identified where materials could be reused or recycled rather than discarded, creating circularity opportunities. ISJMC also allows for the simulation of future scenarios, exploring strategies such as using new technologies or adopting more efficient waste management practices.

The construction industry is fragmented, with communication barriers among the involved actors. ISJMC overcomes these barriers by providing a common visual language that maps the interactions and touchpoints between stakeholders. In the workshops, participants from different levels (strategic, tactical, and operational) could align their perspectives and co-create solutions.

Regarding practical impact, the tool encourages collaboration by showing how one stakeholder’s actions affect others, fostering a more integrated mindset. For example, designers’ decisions on materials can be discussed with contractors and suppliers to ensure greater sustainability. By providing visual and systems-based data, ISJMC supports stakeholders in choosing more sustainable practices, such as adopting business models based on the circular economy, thereby facilitating decision-making.

This finding is crucial because the circular economy requires technical solutions and a cultural and collaborative shift in the sector. ISJMC catalyzes this transformation, empowering stakeholders to work together towards a more sustainable future. Identifying circularity opportunities and promoting stakeholder collaboration are essential for the transition to a circular economy. Stakeholder collaboration is widely recognized as vital [33], involving public and private entities in the early stages of design [37] and the participation of various groups such as activists, experts, businesses, government, and civil society [16]. Using stakeholder analysis tools [48] is an essential strategy for fostering this collaboration, aiming to overcome challenges and align strategies for an effective transition to circularity [11].

5.2. Contributions of the Three Main Findings of ISJMC

5.2.1. The Importance of Visualization and Systemic Approach in the Product Life Cycle in Construction

Contribution to Literature: This finding enriches the literature by highlighting the relevance of visual and systems-oriented tools for managing the product life cycle in construction. Existing research often addresses the life cycle in a fragmented manner. Still, ISJMC fills this gap by offering a practical approach that integrates visualization with systems thinking, aligning with standards such as UNE EN 15643 3 2012. It advances knowledge by proposing a tool that facilitates holistic understanding and management of life cycle stages, serving as a foundation for future studies on sustainability in construction.

Contribution to Society: For society, this finding fosters greater awareness of the complexity of the life cycle in construction and the environmental and economic impacts of decisions made at each stage. By making these processes visible, ISJMC encourages more sustainable practices and influences society to advocate for integrated resource management and public policies to reduce environmental impacts.

Practical Implications: In practice, using visualization and a systems-oriented approach enhances communication and coordination among stakeholders such as architects, engineers, and suppliers. This enables process optimization, cost reduction, and waste minimization by identifying critical points and adjusting decisions from the design phase to demolition.

5.2.2. ISJMC Provides Opportunities for Efficient and Transparent Resource Value Mapping

Contribution to Literature: This finding contributes to the literature by demonstrating how ISJMC can efficiently and transparently map material and energy flows, advancing LCA methodologies. Unlike traditional approaches, which can be complex, ISJMC offers an accessible solution that quantifies resource value, thereby enriching the study of sustainable management in the construction sector.

Contribution to Society: For society, transparent mapping increases accountability and trust in construction industry practices. By revealing resource use and waste, ISJMC fosters a culture of transparency, potentially inspiring other industries and supporting the development of policies that encourage the circular economy.

Practical Implications: In practical terms, ISJMC helps companies identify inefficiencies and optimization opportunities, such as reducing waste or selecting more sustainable materials. This leads to cost savings and reduced environmental impact, aligning with sustainability goals throughout the project life cycle.

5.2.3. ISJMC Facilitates the Identification of Circularity Opportunities and Promotes Collaboration Among Stakeholders

Contribution to Literature: This finding adds value by demonstrating how ISJMC can identify circular opportunities (such as reuse and recycling) and foster stakeholder collaboration. It addresses the fragmentation of the construction sector, a recurring challenge in research, by offering a practical tool that integrates innovation and circular economy principles, with the potential to inspire further investigation.

Contribution to Society: Promoting circularity and collaboration is crucial in accelerating the transition to a more sustainable economy by reducing waste and dependence on virgin resources. These processes generate environmental and social benefits, including creating jobs within new business models based on circularity.

Practical Implications: In practice, ISJMC enables stakeholders to implement circular practices, such as partnerships for recycling or reverse logistics, through closer collaboration. This interaction strengthens the sector’s resilience, reducing costs and environmental impacts over time.

5.3. Systemic Interconnection of Contributions

The three findings of ISJMC form an interdependent system that amplifies their impacts. The visualization and systems approach (finding 1) establishes the foundation for understanding the interrelationships of the life cycle, enabling the efficient mapping of resource value (finding 2). This mapping reveals circularity opportunities (finding 3), which depend on stakeholder collaboration for implementation. Collaboration, in turn, is facilitated by the initial visualization, closing the continuous improvement loop. This systems approach transforms ISJMC into a catalyst for change in the construction sector, promoting efficiency, sustainability, and innovation in an integrated manner.

Table 7. Findings and contributions of the study.

Findings	Literature	Society	Practical Implications
(i) Visualization and systemic approach	Integrates life cycle with a practical tool	Raises awareness about sustainability	Optimizes processes and reduces waste
(ii) Mapping the value of resources	Advances ACV with an accessible approach	Promotes transparency in resource management	Reduces costs and environmental impact
(iii) Circularity and collaboration	Solves fragmentation with innovation	Accelerates circular economy	Fosters circular practices and resilience

Source(s): the authors (2025).

summarizes the study’s main findings and their implications for literature, society, and practice.

The three primary findings of the ISJMC, namely systematic visualization, transparent resource value mapping, and enhanced collaboration and circularity, align with the literature reviewed in Table 4. These findings resonate with other authors [11], who emphasize the role of visual tools, such as Cards for Circularity, in providing practical guidance for circular design, highlighting the visualization’s contribution to decision-making and stakeholder engagement [9]. The ISJMC’s focus on stakeholder interactions and touchpoints supports Table 4’s insights on the need for coordinated decision-making to address fragmentation in the construction sector [19]. Additionally, the findings align with Table 5’s depiction of stakeholder-driven waste management strategies across the construction lifecycle, confirming the ISJMC’s potential to identify key leverage points for circularity, such as material reuse and process optimization, thereby enhancing sustainability outcomes in line with the referenced literature.

Systemically, the findings of ISJMC contribute to the literature by introducing an innovative tool that integrates visualization, resource management, and collaboration, filling gaps in sustainability research. For society, they promote awareness and transparency and facilitate the transition to more sustainable practices. In practice, they offer solutions to optimize resources, reduce environmental impacts, and strengthen collaboration, aligning the construction sector with circular economy principles and global sustainability.

Comparatively, the ISJMC can be compared with existent tools considering criteria such as the following: focus, life cycle coverage, stakeholder engagement, visual representation, applicability to construction, and support for circularity, as shown in

Table 8. Comparative analysis of ISJMC and existing circular economy tools.

Criterion	ISJMC	BMC	CfC	Consumer Behavior Intervention	ReSOLVE
Focus	Stakeholder journey mapping	Business model development	Circular design strategies	Consumer behavior intervention	CE strategy synthesis
Life Cycle Coverage	Full (initiation to end-of-life)	Partial (business operations)	Partial (design phase)	Partial (use phase)	Full (conceptual)
Stakeholder Engagement	High (collaborative workshops)	Moderate (team-based)	Moderate (design teams)	Low (consumer-focused)	Low (strategic planning)
Visual Representation	Interactive, concentric map	Static canvas	Card-based, semi-structured	Flowchart-based	Framework diagram
Applicability to Construction	High (construction-specific)	Low (general)	Moderate (design-focused)	Low (consumer products)	Moderate (general CE)
Support for Circularity	Explicit (reuse, recycling)	Implicit (value retention)	Explicit (design for circularity)	Explicit (behavioral interventions)	Explicit (4Rs, CE strategies)

Source(s): the authors (2025).

.

Table 8 consolidates the critical insights from the co-creation workshops, serving as a strategic synthesis of stakeholder pain points and proposed circular interventions across the construction life cycle. Theoretically grounded in Design Thinking and systems thinking, and operationalized through the EN 15643-3:2012 standard, the table represents a culmination of empirical findings aligned with stakeholder theory and LCA principles. It exemplifies how the Interactive Stakeholder Journey Map in Construction (ISJMC) enables the identification of leverage moments to embed circular economy practices through collaborative engagement. The application scenarios span pre-construction, construction, and post-construction phases, illustrating practical use in medium-sized construction firms with fragmented operational structures and limited waste management practices. However, the framework’s limitations include potential challenges in scalability to larger or more diverse construction contexts, dependency on stakeholder engagement quality, and the need for complementary tools to quantify economic or environmental impacts. These constraints highlight the necessity for iterative adaptation and further testing in broader construction industry segments.

Furthermore, ISJMC can be adapted to various industrial contexts, such as infrastructure projects, including roads and bridges, and industrial construction, like factories, by modifying the stakeholder map and life cycle phases while preserving the EN 15643 3 2012 structure. For instance, infrastructure projects may include additional regulatory stakeholders, which ISJMC can accommodate through its flexible framework. Regarding geographical applicability, ISJMC can be implemented across regions with differing regulatory systems, such as the European Union’s Waste Framework Directive and Brazil’s National Solid Waste Policy, by tailoring waste management strategies and stakeholder roles. Additionally, ISJMC’s visual and interactive design enables scalability across small, medium, and large projects, as its stakeholder-centric approach remains agnostic to project size and context.

Building on this potential, the case study conducted in this research provides preliminary evidence of ISJMC’s practical impact. Although the approach is qualitative, quantitative elements were integrated to strengthen the analysis. During the workshop, participants identified opportunities for material reuse, including recycled concrete aggregates, and recommended adopting lean construction practices. According to benchmarks found in the literature [31], such strategies can lead to a reduction of 10 to 20 percent in construction waste, consistent with circular economy interventions in the sector. Furthermore, informal feedback from participants was synthesized into a qualitative satisfaction indicator. Eighty percent of participants, or 16 out of 20, reported that ISJMC improved their understanding of circularity and enhanced collaboration. These results, compared to similar participatory tools discussed in the literature, highlight ISJMC’s potential to function as a conceptual framework and an effective instrument for promoting sustainability in real-world construction projects.

6. Conclusions

The construction industry consumes a significant amount of resources within its production chain and is characterized by high waste generation compared to other sectors. Most of the waste generated is disposed of in landfills, leading to environmental and social issues.

The ISJMC presents itself as an innovative tool for the transition to CE in construction, empowering stakeholders to make more informed and collaborative decisions toward a more sustainable future. The ISJMC is based on the flow of phases described in the EN 15643-3-2012 standard, offering a standardized structure for lifecycle analysis, enabling the identification of circularity opportunities at different levels. The tool aims to efficiently and transparently map the value of resources throughout the lifecycle of a construction asset. Through a visual and interactive approach, ISJMC facilitates the identification of circularity opportunities, such as material reuse, process optimization, and the creation of new business models. The spatial representation allows the visualization of interconnections between different stakeholders, promoting collaboration and communication among those involved.

ISJMC aligns with the growing need for tools to implement CE practices in construction, going beyond traditional sustainability approaches. The map provides a prototype graphical tool for planning future scenarios, allowing stakeholders to explore strategies to optimize resource use and minimize environmental impact.

The results of this study indicate that ISJMC has the potential to be a valuable tool for the construction industry, assisting in the visualization, analysis, and management of the lifecycle of construction assets more sustainably. The ISJMC can identify circularity opportunities, promote stakeholder collaboration, and support informed decision-making toward a more sustainable future.

The use of the ISJMC provided a systemic and integrated view of the waste issue throughout the lifecycle of a construction project, from conception to project delivery. The application of the tool allowed the creation of a favorable environment for discussing and analyzing the waste generated during the three lifecycle phases of a construction project: pre-construction, construction, and post-construction. The dynamics for co-creation and experience sharing created a communication channel between the three organizational levels: strategic, tactical, and operational, facilitating a deeper discussion on the subject delegation of sectoral and shared responsibilities across the process. It encouraged collective analysis of the problem, focusing on the entire lifecycle rather than a sectoral view for decision-making and necessary changes.

The ISJMC creates the organizational conditions to formulate waste management strategies in the project lifecycle phases. The professionals involved mapped and predicted possible causes of waste generation, from which site conditions, efficient waste treatment methods, and waste management plans should be adopted.

The authors acknowledge the limitations of this study, such as the focus on a single type of construction project and the need for validation in more companies cases. However, the results of this study are promising and indicate that ISJMC has the potential to be a valuable tool for the construction industry. Some questions remain open regarding the tool’s use. For example, how can it be applied to different projects, such as infrastructure? Is the map helpful in co-creating future scenarios by exploring waste efficiently or poorly utilized resources throughout the project lifecycle? Does the tool allow for strategies to create more circular business models and supply chains within organizations? These questions are proposed for future studies.

Future Directions

Future research should explore the applicability of ISJMC across diverse geographical contexts and project scales, addressing current limitations acknowledged in this study, particularly the reliance on the European regulatory framework (EN 15643-3:2012) as the primary reference for structuring the tool. While this standard offers a comprehensive approach to assessing sustainability and stakeholder interactions in construction, it may not fully reflect the specific regulatory, cultural, and market conditions in other regions such as North America, Asia, or Oceania. Therefore, future investigations should consider adapting the ISJMC framework to different regulatory environments, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Sustainable Materials Management guidelines, China’s Green Building Evaluation Standard, or other emerging sustainability protocols worldwide.

Additionally, research should examine varying stakeholder dynamics and construction typologies to assess the tool’s adaptability and broader relevance beyond the initial case study conducted in Brazil. Given the current stage of development, this study focuses on validating ISJMC through a single case study to establish a solid conceptual and practical foundation. Subsequent research should also aim to refine and enhance the tool’s usability, ensuring it becomes more accessible and intuitive for a broader range of construction stakeholders operating in diverse contexts. ISJMC presents a promising contribution to advancing sustainability in the construction industry by providing a visual and systemic representation of the asset life cycle that supports circularity, collaboration, and informed decision-making across different regulatory and geographical settings.