Towards Sustainable Construction: Systematic Review of Lean and Circular Economy Integration

Abstract

The construction sector significantly contributes to global environmental degradation through intensive resource extraction, high energy consumption, and substantial waste generation. Addressing this unsustainable trajectory requires integrated approaches that simultaneously improve operational efficiency and material circularity. Lean Construction (LC) and Circular Economy (CE) offer complementary frameworks for enhancing process performance and reducing environmental impacts. However, their combined implementation remains underdeveloped and fragmented. This study conducts a systematic literature review (SLR) of 18 peer-reviewed articles published between 2010 and 2025, selected using PRISMA 2020 guidelines and sourced from Scopus and Web of Science databases. A mixed-method approach combines bibliometric mapping and qualitative content analysis to investigate how LC and CE are jointly operationalized in construction contexts. The findings reveal that LC improves cost, time, and workflow reliability, while CE enables reuse, modularity, and lifecycle extension. Integration is further supported by digital tools—such as Building Information Modelling (BIM), Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA), and digital twins—which enhance traceability and flow optimization. Nonetheless, persistent barriers—including supply chain fragmentation, lack of standards, and regulatory gaps—continue to constrain widespread adoption. This review identifies six strategic enablers for LC-CE integration: crossdisciplinary competencies, collaborative governance, interoperable digital systems, standardized indicators, incentive-based regulation, and pilot demonstrator projects. By consolidating fragmented evidence, the study provides a structured research agenda and practical insights to guide the transition toward more circular, efficient, and sustainable construction practices.

1. Introduction

The construction sector is one of the most resource- and energy-intensive industries worldwide. It accounts for approximately 40–50% of raw material extraction, 36% of final energy consumption, and nearly 37% of global CO₂ emissions [1,2,3,4]. Additionally, it generates between 25% and 35% of total solid waste, most of which is disposed of in landfills with limited recovery [3,4,5]. Despite its critical economic role, the sector continues to operate under a predominantly linear “take–make–dispose”model that accelerates resource depletion and environmental degradation. Current estimates suggest that only 8.6% of the global economy is circular, resulting in the annual loss of over 50% of potential material value [6,7,8].

The urgency to shift toward more sustainable construction practices is increasingly recognized by researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. This transition aligns with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and is supported by two complementary paradigms: Lean Construction and the Circular Economy (LC-CE). LC, adapted from the Toyota Production System, focuses on enhancing project workflows by eliminating non-value-adding activities and improving process reliability [9,10]. In contrast, CE promotes regenerative systems and closed-loop strategies, such as material reuse, modular design, and lifecycle extension [11,12,13].

Although LC and CE share common goals—waste minimization, efficiency, and value creation—their combined application remains rare. Conceptual tensions between LC’s emphasis on standardization and CE’s need for flexibility and material heterogeneity often hinder integration [14,15,16]. In many developing countries, this disconnect is exacerbated by limited empirical validation and infrastructural constraints [17,18,19].

To address this gap, the present study conducts a systematic literature review (SLR) of peer—reviewed contributions explicitly investigating the integration of LC and CE in construction projects. Covering the period 2010–2025, this review applies a dual analytical approach: bibliometric mapping to examine the intellectual structure of the field, and qualitative content analysis to assess practical implementations and observed outcomes.

According to the research design illustrated in Figure 1, the remainder of this article is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the theoretical foundations of LC and CE and explores their potential synergies. Section 3 outlines the review methodology. Section 4 synthesizes the main findings. Section 5 discusses strategic recommendations, and Section 6 concludes with limitations and research perspectives.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Lean Construction

LC emerged in the early 1990s as an adaptation of the Toyota Production System (TPS) to address the inefficiencies and fragmentation of the construction sector [20,21]. It is grounded in the Transformation–Flow–Value (TFV) theory, which reconceptualizes construction as a production system aimed at maximizing client value while minimizing non-value-adding activities (muda).

LC promotes flow stability and process reliability through collaborative and standardized practices. The Last Planner System (LPS) fosters short—term scheduling and commitment—based planning [9,10], while Value Stream Mapping (VSM) enables the identification and removal of wasteful steps across workflows. Just-in-Time (JIT) strategies reduce inventory and align deliveries with real-time site needs. In digital environments, Building Information Modelling (BIM) and Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) enhance coordination and data transparency [22].

Additional Lean tools such as 5S, standard work, and concurrent engineering contribute to cycle time reduction and quality assurance. The integration of digital technologies—including sensors, digital twins, and Internet of Things (IoT) systems—has extended LC’s potential through real-time monitoring and predictive control [14].

Empirical evidence confirms LC’s positive impact on cost efficiency, schedule reliability, and productivity [23,24]. However, its emphasis on standardization and linear sequencing may hinder compatibility with CE strategies requiring material heterogeneity, flexible design, and component reuse [14,25].

2.2. Circular Economy

CE offers a systemic framework for decoupling economic development from environmental degradation [11]. Unlike the traditional “take–make–dispose” model, CE strategies seek to close, slow, and narrow material and energy loops [7]. A widely adopted operational framework is the 10R hierarchy—Refuse, Rethink, Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Refurbish, Remanufacture, Repurpose, Recycle, and Recover [6]. These strategies are applied to the built environment through modular design, urban mining, reverse logistics, and material passports [14,26]. For example, Minunno et al. showed that design for disassembly (DfD) in modular construction preserved up to 62% of a building’s material mass [26].

Despite this potential, the global economy remains only 8.6% circular, with 57% of the recoverable material value lost annually [6]. In construction, persistent barriers include fragmented supply chains, insufficient standards for secondary materials, and inadequate reverse logistics—especially in developing countries with limited policy and infrastructure support [3,4].

Although the EU CE Action Plan and national roadmaps promote CE in construction, implementation remains mostly limited to demonstration projects.

2.3. Synergies, Theoretical Tensions and Gaps

LC and CE converge around shared goals such as waste minimization, value retention, and resource efficiency. However, their operational logics often diverge [14,15]. LC emphasizes process standardization, predictable outputs, and tight sequencing. CE, in contrast, requires flexible design, material diversity, and decentralized stocks for reuse [25].

These differences generate integration challenges. For instance, JIT logistics may conflict with the stock variability inherent in circular supply chains, and tightly sequenced production may exclude reclaimed materials of inconsistent quality [17]. Nevertheless, several synergies have been identified. LC tools like LPS and VSM can facilitate selective deconstruction and reverse logistics planning [15].

Digital integration plays a crucial role. BIM, material passports, and Industry 4.0 solutions strengthen traceability and enable end-of-life planning aligned with CE principles [14]. Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) has been proposed as a collaborative model to align stakeholders and reduce fragmentation [27].

Despite these opportunities, empirical evidence on the practical integration of LC and CE remains sparse and mostly limited to high-income contexts. Developing countries often face additional obstacles such as informal deconstruction practices, regulatory gaps, and weak markets for secondary materials.

This study addresses this research gap by synthesizing how LC-CE integration is currently theorized and applied. The following section presents the systematic review methodology.

3. Methodology

This study follows the PRISMA 2020 methodology, an internationally recognized framework for enhancing transparency, reproducibility, and methodological rigor in systematic reviews [28]. The review process followed the four standard PRISMA stages: identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion. Although the review protocol was not registered in a public repository, the entire process complies with the PRISMA 2020 checklist. A flow diagram illustrates the inclusion logic. To generate a comprehensive synthesis and identify research gaps, the study applies a dual analytical strategy that combines bibliometric mapping and qualitative content analysis.

3.1. Objective

The primary objective of this SLR is to identify, analyze, and synthesize scientific contributions that explicitly address the joint implementation of LC and CE principles in the construction sector. As highlighted in recent studies, this integration represents a promising pathway for enhancing project efficiency, performance, and long-term sustainability.

The review investigates the conceptual maturity of the research field, explores identified synergies between LC and CE, and catalogs tools, practices, and performance outcomes associated with this dual implementation. To achieve this, the study adopts a dual methodological framework:

(i)

Bibliometric analysis to trace the evolution and intellectual structure.

(ii)

Qualitative content analysis to extract thematic insights from selected articles.

Accordingly, the review addresses the following overarching research question:

“How does the integration of LC principles and CE strategies contribute to improving the efficiency and sustainability of construction projects, and with what observed outcomes?”

This central question is further articulated into two sets of sub-questions, as presented in

Table 1. Research questions.

Dimensions	Code	Research Questions
(i) Quantitative	QR1-1	What are the chronological developments and publication trends in the LC-CE research domain?
	QR1-2	Who are the main contributors in this field (journals, countries, authors, institutions)?
	QR1-3	What is the intellectual structure of this research area (co-citation networks, co-authorship, thematic clusters)?
	QR1-4	What are the most frequent keywords, and how have they evolved over time?
(ii) Qualitative	QR2-1	According to the literature, what are the core principles of LC and CE when applied jointly in the construction sector?
	QR2-2	What synergies between these two approaches have been identified in the literature from an environmental, economic, or systemic sustainability perspective?
	QR2-3	What tools, methods, or practices are simultaneously mobilized in construction projects to implement both Lean and CE strategies?
	QR2-4	What types of performance outcomes are reported (environmental, economic, social, or operational), and what specific results are observed?
	QR2-5	What barriers, challenges, or enabling conditions are documented in the literature regarding the integration of these approaches?
	QR2-6	What recommendations or future directions are proposed by the authors to support and enhance the effective integration of LC and CE principles?

.

3.2. Literature Search Strategy

A structured bibliometric search was conducted using the Scopus and Web of Science databases, selected for their recognized reliability; comprehensive indexing of peer-reviewed publications; and strong relevance to research in construction, engineering, and sustainability domains [11,29]. The search strategy followed a transparent and iterative protocol. It relied on a Boolean string built around three semantic clusters:

○

LC: (“Lean” OR “LPS” OR “VSM” OR “Just-in-Time” OR “JIT” OR “Pull Planning” OR “5S” OR “Standard Work” OR “Takt Time Planning” OR “IPD” OR “A3” OR “Kaizen” OR “Continuous Improvement”);

○

Construction domain: (“Construction” OR “Project” OR “Build*” OR “Housi*” OR “Infrastruct*”);

○

CE: (“Circular Economy” OR “Lifecycle” OR “Circularity”).

The string was refined through multiple iterative tests, adjusting synonyms and Boolean operators to maximize thematic precision. The final query was restricted to titles, abstracts, and keywords to ensure conceptual alignment while avoiding incidental mentions. The publication window was set from 2010 to 2025, reflecting the rising attention to LC-CE integration, the diffusion of digital technologies, and the development of sustainability policies.

We piloted the initial query on a subset of known relevant articles to validate relevance and recall. Disagreements during the screening were resolved by consensus between two independent reviewers. Although no formal inter-coder reliability coefficient was calculated, this double-screening process enhanced consistency and reduced bias.

The limited number of articles retained is attributed to two main factors: (i) the strict inclusion criteria defined in the protocol, and (ii) the relatively narrow body of peer-reviewed studies that explicitly address LC and CE as integrated approaches. This process aligns with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and is illustrated in the flowchart provided in Section 3.4 (Figure 2).

3.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Publications

All the publications retrieved through the search were screened based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, assessing their relevance, scientific robustness, and contribution to the review objectives. These criteria are summarized in

Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria
Studies addressing the joint integration of LC and CE	Studies dealing exclusively with either LC or CE in isolation
Explicit integration of Lean methodologies and CE principles	Studies not related to the construction sector
Literature reviews, as well as quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method studies reporting on LC-CE integration outcomes	Publications not available in full text
Publications published in peer-reviewed scientific journals or conference proceedings	Theses, dissertations, reports, or non-peer-reviewed publications
No language restrictions applied

.

3.4. Selection Process and Data Analysis Method

The review combines bibliometric and qualitative content analyses to address the research questions defined in Section 3.1. This mixed-method approach provides a comprehensive understanding of both the structural dynamics and conceptual developments of LC-CE research.

The literature search was conducted on 15 April 2025, yielding 84 records. After duplicate removal, 63 unique documents were retained. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts based on the eligibility criteria. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus. No automation tools were used.

In the first screening stage, 27 studies were excluded due to misalignment with the review scope. After full-text assessment, 18 publications were retained for final inclusion. These studies were selected based on their relevance to both methodological strands.

A structured coding framework was applied to the 18 selected publications. Initial coding was performed by a lead researcher, and the results were reviewed by two additional team members. Although no inter-coder reliability metric was computed, this multi-stage validation is acknowledged as a limitation and discussed in Section 6. Due to the heterogeneity of the selected studies (e.g., case studies, reviews, and conceptual models), no formal risk-of-bias tool (e.g., ROBIS or AMSTAR 2) was applied. This decision reflects the exploratory and descriptive nature of the review.

Bibliometric analysis was applied to the full initial dataset using VOSviewer 1.6.20. It enabled the visualization of keyword co-occurrence, co-authorship, co-citation patterns, and thematic clusters. The analysis focused on keyword frequency, total link strength, average publication year, and thematic structure. This component directly addressed QR1-1 to QR1-4.

In parallel, qualitative content analysis was performed on the 18 included studies. A coding framework was developed inductively and refined through cross-readings. The analysis aligned with the six qualitative questions (QR2-1 to QR2-6), enabling the identification of core principles, synergies, tools, performance outcomes, barriers, and strategic recommendations.

All relevant data were extracted in alignment with the research questions. When multiple outcomes were reported, the most representative and clearly articulated findings were retained. No missing or incomplete data were encountered; no data conversions were needed.

The synthesis integrates both quantitative and qualitative strands. Visual outputs include keyword maps, author networks, and summary tables. Due to the descriptive orientation of the corpus, no meta-analysis or statistical modeling was performed. No sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Finally, 18 full-text articles were excluded during the eligibility phase due to limited relevance, weak methodological rigor, or lack of explicit focus on LC-CE integration.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Quantitative Findings

The quantitative analysis was performed on a corpus of 18 peer-reviewed publications addressing the integration of LC and CE in the construction sector. Following the established methodological protocol, a bibliometric approach was applied to examine the chronological development of the literature, identify the main academic contributors (authors, institutions, countries, and journals), and map the intellectual structure of the field through co-citation, co-authorship, and thematic cluster analyses. The study also explored the most frequently used keywords and their temporal evolution. Using the VOSviewer software, a series of scientific maps was produced, illustrating the field’s research dynamics, active scholarly communities, and emerging trends. This mapping provides a structured and up-to-date overview of the current state of knowledge at the intersection of LC and CE.

4.1.1. QR1-1: Chronological Evolution and Publication Trends

Figure 3 illustrates the chronological development and publication trends related to the integration of LC and CE within the construction sector. The earliest study in the corpus was published in 2018 by Minunno et al., titled “Strategies for applying the circular economy to prefabricated buildings” [26]. This publication marked the initial scholarly effort to examine the operationalization of CE principles in conjunction with Lean approaches.

Between 2018 and 2020, academic engagement with LC-CE integration remained limited, averaging only one publication per year. This initial period indicates a relatively exploratory phase, with few systematic efforts to conceptualize or implement joint frameworks.

However, a significant increase in publication activity emerged from 2021 onward, indicating growing academic interest in the synergies between Lean methodologies and circularity principles. This upward trajectory became particularly pronounced in 2023 and 2024, with four and five studies published, respectively. The year 2024 represents a peak in academic output, suggesting a sharp rise in both scholarly and industry-driven attention to this topic.

This evolution aligns with broader literature trends that recognize the convergence of LC and CE as a high-potential pathway for achieving sustainability in the built environment [14,15]. The transition from a linear “take–make–dispose” model to circular systems, reinforced by Lean thinking, reflects more than just a technological shift. It signals a deeper cultural and institutional transformation that promotes long-term resource efficiency and regenerative design practices.

In sum, the progressive growth in publications reflects not only intensified scientific interest but also the scaling-up of practical applications. This momentum indicates a sector-wide shift toward sustainable construction paradigms focused on minimizing environmental impacts, optimizing resource flows, and enhancing system resilience.

4.1.2. QR1-2: Leading Contributors

An analysis of the 18 selected publications, summarized in

Table 3. Leading contributors ranked by citation count.

Reference	Type	Authors	Institution	Country	Year	Journals	Cited by
[17]	Article	Ciliberto, C.; Szopik-Depczynska, K.; Tarczynska-Luniewska, M.; Ruggieri, A.; Ioppolo, G.	- University of Messina; - University of Szczecin; - Tuscia University;	Italie	2021	Business Strategy and the Environment	178
[26]	Article	Minunno, R.; O’Grady, T.; Morrison, G.M.; Gruner, R.L.; Colling, M.	- Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute; - University of Western Australia, Australia; - Fleetwood Australia;	Australia	2018	Buildings	172
[30]	Article	Lekan, A.; Clinton, A.; Fayomi, O.S.I.; James, O.	University of Johannesburg;	South Africa	2020	Buildings	144
[31]	Review	Chen, Q.; Feng, H.; Garcia de Soto, B.	- New York University Abu Dhabi (NYUAD); - Northumbria University, Newcastle;	United Arab Emirates/ United Kingdom	2022	Journal of Cleaner Production	102
[32]	Review	Hadi, A.; Cheung, F.; Adjei, S.; Dulaimi, A.	- University of Warith Alanbiyaa; Liverpool John Moores University;	United Kingdom	2023	Journal of Construction Engineering and Management	83
[33]	Article	Siriwardhana, S.; Moehler, R.C.	- Monash University; University of Melbourne;	Australie	2023	Journal of Cleaner Production	66
[34]	Review	Du, J.; Zhang, J.; Castro-Lacouture, D.; Hu, Y.	- Shanghai University; Purdue University, - The Pennsylvania State University;	China/United States	2023	Automation in Construction	52
[14]	Article	Benachio, G.L.F.; Freitas, M.D.C.D.; Tavares, S.F.	Civil Construction Engineering, Federal Univ;	Brazil	2021	Journal of Construction Engineering and Management	33
[35]	Article	Marzouk, M.; Elmaraghy, A.; Voordijk, H.	- Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University; - Faculty of Engineering Technology, Twente University;	Egypt/Netherlands	2019	Lean Construction Journal	28
[36]	Article	Nie, P.; Dahanayake, K.C.; Sumanarathna, N.	- Heriot-Watt University Dubai Campus, Dubai; - The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong	United Arab Emirates	2024	Smart and Sustainable Built Environment	15
[37]	Conference paper	Nazareth, A.P.	- University of Bradford	United Kingdom	2019	IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science	10
[25]	Article	Boukherroub, T.; Nganmi, Tchakoutio, A.; Drapeau, N.	- École de Technologie Supérieure (ÉTS); - Université de Montréal; - Régie Intermunicipale de Traitement des Matières Résiduelles de la Gaspésie (RITMRG);	Canada	2024	Sustainability	3
[15]	Review	Saradara, S.M.; Khalfan, M.M.A.; Jaya, S.V.; Swarnakar, V.; Rauf, A.; El Fadel, M.	- Khalifa University of Science and Technology	United Arab Emirates	2024	Developments in the Built Environment	3
[38]	Article	Andriyani, N.; Suprobo, P.; Adi, T.J.W.; Aspar, W.A.N.; Jatmiko, A.D.; Santoso, A.D.	- Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology; - National Research and Innovation Agency; - Widya Kartika University;	Indonesia	2024	Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management	3
[12]	Article	Ding, Z.; Cao, X.; Shi, M.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Illankoon, I.M.C.S.	- Shenzhen University; - University of Newcastle	China/Australia	2021	Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Engineering Sustainability	2
[39]	Conference paper	Bergsagel, D.	- Schlaich Bergermann Partner;	United States	2022	Structures Congress 2022	0
[40]	Book chapter	Nyika, J.; Dinka, M.O.; Mbao, E.O.	- University of Johannesburg; - Technical University of Kenya;	South Africa/Kenya	2024	Springer Water	0
[41]	Conference paper	Omotayo, T.S.; Awuzie B.; Lovelin, O.	- Leeds Beckett University; - University of Witwatersrand; - Northumbria University;	South Africa/United Kingdom	2023	Proceedings of the 39th Annual ARCOM Conference: Constructing for the Future, ARCOM 2023	0

, provides a structured overview of the main contributors to the academic development of LC-CE integration. This section interprets the data by identifying leading authors, prominent institutions, active countries, and key publication outlets, offering insights into the current configuration of this emerging research domain.

• Most Influential Authors:

At the author level, this review identifies a core group of researchers who significantly contribute to the consolidation of LC-CE integration, either through conceptual frameworks, methodological innovations, or empirical applications.

○

M. Marzouk (Cairo University) developed a deconstruction model grounded in the integration of Lean principles with BIM functionalities [35]. His work exemplifies the synergy between digital tools and Lean thinking for optimized demolition processes, a critical component of CE strategies in construction.

○

G.L.F. Benachio (Federal University of Paraná, Brazil) proposed a systematic mapping of the interactions between LC principles and CE practices [14]. His content-based approach provides a reference framework for modeling conceptual convergence, supported by 33 citations.

○

T. Boukherroub (ÉTS Montréal) conducted a field-based study in Quebec focused on maximizing material reuse through Lean-driven deconstruction workflows [25]. Despite a modest citation count (three), the study offers high operational relevance and normative value, particularly in emerging regulatory contexts for circular transitions.

○

S.M. Saradara (Khalifa University) contributed a structured bibliometric and systematic review, culminating in the development of an integrative framework aligning LC, CE, and BIM dimensions [15]. His systemic approach illustrates the field’s evolution toward strategic convergence and multi-scalar planning logics (three citations).

○

J. Du (Shanghai University) employed a scientometric lens to map research on Lean prefabrication within a sustainability-oriented framework [34]. With 52 citations, his analysis identifies dominant research streams, author networks, and emerging themes positioned at the interface of industrial efficiency and environmental objectives.

Collectively, these scholars represent a diverse but complementary set of research trajectories. Their contributions—whether conceptual, empirical, or bibliometric—serve to articulate a shared methodological foundation and to promote the dissemination of integrated LC-CE models across varied institutional, geographical, and technological contexts.

• Leading Institutions:

The corpus reveals the growing prominence of several academic institutions that play a pivotal role in shaping the emerging field of LC-CE integration. These institutions distinguish themselves not only by publication volume but also by the methodological robustness of their contributions, their interdisciplinary scope, and their capacity to align Lean principles with circularity, industrialization, and digitalization challenges:

○

Khalifa University (United Arab Emirates) stands out as a regional leader in the development of integrative frameworks that combine the Lean Project Delivery System (LPDS), circular strategies, and digital technologies such as BIM and blockchain [15]. The institution consistently delivers systematic reviews and bibliometric analyses supported by conceptual models tailored to rapidly transitioning contexts.

○

École de Technologie Supérieure (ÉTS Montréal) (Canada) emerges as a North American hub for applied research in Lean deconstruction. Through empirical case studies grounded in real-world projects, ÉTS promotes material reuse, reverse logistics, and circular flows. Its collaboration with industry and public authorities underscores a high-impact model of territorial knowledge transfer [25].

○

University of Johannesburg (South Africa) develops a research agenda focused on sustainable industrialization in emerging economies. Its contributions emphasize the adaptation of Lean and CE strategies to local contexts, with particular attention to Industry 4.0 technologies and socio-economic constraints [30,40].

○

University of Warith Alanbiyaa (United Kingdom) specializes in sustainable off-site construction. Its work applies LC strategies to prefabrication systems within a CE framework, using scientometric methods to identify structural gaps and emerging research directions [32].

○

University of Messina (Italy) and University of Szczecin (Poland) offer strong theoretical contributions at the intersection of Lean, CE, and reverse logistics. Their interdisciplinary lens addresses the managerial, systemic, and business model implications of integrated practices in the construction sector.

Together, these institutions—distributed across multiple continents—demonstrate the truly global dimension of the LC-CE research field. They help shape regional scientific communities while fostering international networks around shared challenges such as flow optimization, waste reduction, digitalization of construction practices, and performance-based models applied to the built environment.

• Geographic Distribution of Contributions:

A detailed geographic analysis of the 18 selected studies reveals a relatively balanced international distribution of research efforts, structured around several high-intensity regional clusters (Figure 4). These clusters reflect the emergence of strong academic ecosystems at the intersection of Lean LC and CE, each shaped by distinct priorities, methodologies, and contextual challenges.

○

Australia stands out as a global leader in this field. The country’s contributions, particularly those by Minunno (172 citations) and Siriwardhana (66 citations), demonstrate both methodological rigor and conceptual innovation. Australian research frequently explores the integration of Lean philosophy, CE principles, and Industry 4.0 technologies within prefabrication systems and digital modeling frameworks tailored to circular construction contexts [26].

○

Brazil occupies a central position in the theoretical modeling of LC-CE interactions. Work by Benachio and Freitas provides foundational analytical frameworks, including interaction matrices and conceptual models with strong value for both academic research and education [14]. This theoretical emphasis positions Brazil as a key contributor to methodological formalization in the field.

○

Canadian contributions, notably from ÉTS Montréal, adopt a practice-based approach grounded in local contexts. These studies focus on deconstruction and material reuse, mobilizing Lean tools to support territorially embedded circular strategies. Field-based experimentation in regions such as Gaspésie reflects a strong alignment with place-based CE logic.

○

The United Arab Emirates, through Khalifa University, illustrates a dynamic model of CE transition in dense urban settings. Research emphasizes integrated frameworks combining Lean Project Delivery, BIM modeling, circular flow management, and digital governance. These models are designed to address the rapid urban development and sustainability imperatives of the region [15].

○

China and the United States: A Sino-American axis is visible through significant contributions focused on industrial prefabrication, logistics optimization, and simulation-based waste flow modeling. Scholars such as Du, Zhang, and Hu use scientometric and quantitative tools to map Lean practices within off-site construction systems, offering scalable solutions for industrialized environments [34].

○

Other Contributors: Additional contributions come from the United Kingdom, Italy, Indonesia, South Africa, and Poland. These studies frequently adopt interdisciplinary, critical, or cross-institutional approaches. Collectively, they enrich the field through diverse lenses, including reverse logistics, sustainable business models, and technological adaptation in developing contexts.

This global distribution highlights the interdisciplinary and international nature of LC-CE research. It reflects a convergence of academic efforts shaped by shared goals-environmental transition, resource efficiency, and industrial innovation-while remaining sensitive to local realities and implementation barriers.

• Distribution by Scientific Journals:

The analysis of publication sources (Table 3) reveals a controlled diversity of scientific outlets, reflecting both the interdisciplinary foundations and the increasing academic consolidation of the research field linking LC and CE. The contributions are disseminated across general sustainability journals, specialized construction platforms, and hybrid venues that connect technical, environmental, and managerial domains:

○

The Journal of Cleaner Production (Elsevier): This journal emerges as the most represented and most cited source in the corpus-hosting several foundational articles, including one with up to 178 citations. Its editorial focus on systemic sustainability, industrial transitions, and resource optimization makes it a strategic platform for promoting integrative LC-CE frameworks. It provides a rigorous outlet for works addressing flow efficiency, waste minimization, and circular resource management.

○

Sustainability (MDPI): A major contributor to the field’s empirical grounding, Sustainability features case-based studies exploring pilot deconstruction projects, local reuse strategies, and contextualized prefabrication initiatives. Its thematic openness supports pluralistic and regionally diverse contributions, including perspectives from non-Western or developing contexts. It plays a crucial role in scaling local innovations to global discourse.

○

Automation in Construction: Recognized for its technological orientation, this journal concentrates on digitalization in construction, off-site manufacturing, and Lean prefabrication. It provides a bridge between LC principles and advanced technologies such as BIM, digital twins, and Industry 4.0. It is a primary venue for exploring the technological enablers of circular and Lean convergence.

○

The Journal of Construction Engineering and Management (ASCE): This outlet contributes to reinforcing the managerial and operational dimensions of the LC-CE nexus. It hosts studies focusing on project performance, risk mitigation, scheduling reliability, and the structuring of collaborative delivery models, including IPD. Its methodological rigor and managerial emphasis complement the technological and environmental focus of other outlets.

○

The Lean Construction Journal: Although less frequent in volume, this specialized journal provides deep theoretical insights into Lean implementation in the AEC sector. Its niche focus enables the detailed analysis of Lean integration with complementary paradigms, including CE, BIM, and collaborative governance mechanisms. It serves as a key venue for advancing conceptual clarity and methodological precision in the LC community.

○

Additional Outlets and Conferences: Complementary platforms such as Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Business Strategy and the Environment, and international conferences (e.g., ARCOM 2023 and ASCE Structures Congress) also support dissemination. These venues underscore the field’s expansion into professional, strategic, and crossdisciplinary domains, bridging academic research with practical applications.

The diversity of publication sources confirms that the LC-CE research field has evolved beyond purely technical or engineering silos. It now constitutes a fully interdisciplinary research space, integrating engineering, project management, environmental science, and innovation studies. This breadth enhances academic richness and impact, but also highlights a critical need for the following:

• Greater terminological consistency.
• Shared methodological standards.
• Stronger cross-platform integration in future research initiatives.

By articulating insights across distinct disciplines, the current editorial landscape not only supports academic advancement but also fosters actionable knowledge transfer for policy and practice.

4.1.3. QR1-3: Intellectual Structure:

The analysis of the intellectual structure of the LC-CE field draws on three classical bibliometric dimensions: keyword co-occurrence, co-authorship networks, and institutional collaborations. The visualizations generated using VOSviewer provide insights into the field’s maturity, degree of fragmentation, and patterns of scientific collaboration.

• Thematic Clusters (Keyword Co-Occurrence Analysis)

To structure the conceptual landscape of LC-CE integration, we conducted a keyword co-occurrence analysis using VOSviewer. The resulting map (Figure 5) reveals four main thematic clusters, each representing a distinct knowledge domain and temporal progression.

○

Blue cluster—Foundational Lean Focus: This historical core centers on keywords such as “construction”, “process”, and “sustainability”. It reflects the early focus of the field on productivity enhancement, process reliability, and waste reduction—key tenets of LC. These themes frequently appear alongside well-established tools such as the LPS, JIT, and visual management.

○

Green cluster—Transitional Strategies: This cluster highlights an evolving research direction characterized by terms like “prefabrication”, “adaptability”, and “waste minimization”. It captures the growing interest in modular and flexible design strategies, linking Lean’s process-driven logic to circular objectives such as resource recovery and lifecycle extension.

○

Yellow cluster—Circular Expansion and Systemic Integration: Keywords such as “circular economy”, “deconstruction”, “transition”, and “construction and demolition waste” (CDW) define this cluster. It signals the field’s recent expansion into systemic sustainability, including policy instruments, design-for-disassembly, and the role of public regulation in enabling circularity.

○

Purple cluster—Technological and Operational Infrastructure: Located at the base of the map, this cluster groups terms like “lean construction”, “technology”, “worker,” and “productivity goal”. It anchors the operational core of the field, reflecting its grounding in production theory and its progressive digitalization. This includes the integration of BIM, digital twins, and Industry 4.0 tools.

Together, these clusters reveal a progressive hybridization of Lean and Circular paradigms. The transition from process-based optimization toward systemic regeneration is increasingly mediated by digital enablers. This evolution points to a critical research frontier: the potential of Lean tools to operationalize circular strategies at scale, particularly in regulatory environments that support traceability and closed-loop flows.

Institutional Collaboration, Thematic Poles, and Regional Networks

○

Inter-Institutional Collaboration Patterns:

To evaluate the degree of academic collaboration within the LC-CE research domain, we conducted a network analysis of institutional affiliations. The resulting map (Figure 6) reveals a fragmented structure, with limited connectivity across research centers.

A notable collaborative cluster includes six institutions—among them Shenzhen University, Western Sydney University, and the University of Newcastle. These institutions are linked through contributions focused on hybrid simulation tools—such as BIM, agent-based modeling (ABM), and system dynamics (SD)—applied to construction waste management in urban contexts [12]. This cluster reflects a strong technological orientation and a geographic concentration in the Asia-Pacific region.

However, the majority of institutions appear only once in the dataset. This dispersion underscores the early-stage institutional structuring of the field, with isolated contributors dominating the research landscape. Despite increasing convergence efforts, no core group of institutions has yet emerged. This highlights a significant opportunity: promoting sustained institutional partnerships and supporting transnational research programs could substantially accelerate the maturation of the LC-CE domain.

○

Thematic Poles and Co-Citation Structure:

The conceptual architecture of the field is organized around three thematic poles, revealed through co-citation analysis:

LC Pole: Anchored in foundational work by Koskela, Ballard, and Howell, this cluster consolidates core principles such as the TFV theory, the Last Planner System, and the Lean Project Delivery System. It forms the historical and theoretical base of the field.

CE Pole: This cluster draws on the contributions of Ghisellini, Pomponi, and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. It integrates core CE concepts-value loops, DfD, and the 3R hierarchy-emphasizing systemic regeneration and lifecycle thinking.

LC-CE Integration Pole: Still in formation but strategically promising, this cluster connects scholars who propose hybrid models linking Lean principles with CE strategies. Many of these contributions embed BIM, digital twins, or complex simulations, aiming to align operational efficiency with circular resource flows.

While this structure reflects a growing theoretical convergence, the co-authorship network remains sparse. Few sustained collaborations bridge disciplinary or geographical boundaries. Strengthening international partnerships and interdisciplinary research is essential to consolidate this emerging meta-discipline.

○

Regional Dynamics and Case Study from Indonesia

Co-authorship patterns further reveal a dominance of national rather than cross-border collaborations. This fragmentation limits the diffusion of integrated LC-CE models across diverse contexts. Expanding international research networks and collaborative funding schemes represent a strategic avenue for capacity building and knowledge transfer.

An illustrative example (Figure 7) is provided by a dynamic cluster of Indonesian researchers—including Andriyani, Aspar, Jatmiko, Santoso, Suprobo, and Adi—from Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember [38]. Their work addresses BIM-CE integration at the urban scale with a strong emphasis on green sustainability. This case exemplifies the potential of regionally embedded teams to advance practical innovations in contexts often underrepresented in the literature.

○

Toward a More Integrated Research Community

Overall, the collaboration landscape remains fractured: 65 of the identified authors contributed to only one publication. This indicates that the LC-CE field is still shaped by isolated or episodic efforts rather than sustained academic communities. However, the disproportionate citation impact of a few key scholars suggests the formation of an emergent core. Investing in long-term, inclusive research networks—especially involving institutions from the Global South—can help build a more robust and globally relevant LC-CE knowledge base.

4.1.4. QR1-4: Lexical Evolution of Keywords

The bibliometric analysis of keyword co-occurrences by average publication year reveals a structured thematic evolution in the LC-CE research landscape (Figure 8). Based on metadata extracted from the 18 selected publications, three distinct phases emerge, each reflecting a progressive reconfiguration of research priorities and conceptual focus.

Phase 1—Conceptual Foundations (up to 2020): Lean and Conventional Sustainability: This foundational phase is primarily characterized by traditional LC concepts, emphasizing operational efficiency and waste minimization. Recurring keywords include “Lean construction,” “waste reduction,” “construction industry,” and “sustainability.” The literature from this period largely focuses on improving internal processes and minimizing non-value-adding activities. However, it offers limited engagement with CE principles or material loop closure, indicating an early-stage focus on process excellence rather than resource regeneration [12,14,35].

Phase 2—Circular Turn (2021–2022): Recovery, Reuse, and Disassembly: During this transitional phase, there is a noticeable rise in terms such as “circular economy,” “material reuse,” “design for disassembly,” and “resource recovery.” These keywords signal a strategic alignment between Lean and CE principles, particularly in addressing end-of-life strategies and material flow recovery. While this marks a conceptual broadening of the field, large-scale empirical validations and integrated frameworks remain limited. This suggests that although theoretical convergence is gaining traction, operational deployment still lags behind [25,26,31,36].

Phase 3—Digital and Organizational Integration (2023–2024): Toward Smart Circularity: The most recent phase introduces digital and organizational enablers as key drivers of integration. Emerging keywords such as “BIM,” “Industry 4.0,” “Industry 5.0,” “digital twin,” and “hybrid model” reflect a shift toward intelligent systems capable of monitoring and optimizing material flows in real time [15,17,32,33,34,38,41]. This trajectory indicates a maturation of the field, where LC-CE integration is increasingly framed through digitalization, predictive analytics, and closed-loop supply chains. Nonetheless, this area remains underexplored and requires further empirical research to assess its full operational and sustainability potential.

4.2. Qualitative Findings

This section presents the findings of the qualitative content analysis conducted on the selected publications, structured according to the six research questions (QR2-1 to QR2-6). It aims to elucidate the theoretical foundations, operational synergies, applied tools and techniques, reported performance outcomes, encountered barriers, and recommended strategies related to the integration of LC and CE principles within the construction sector.

A comprehensive synthesis of the first three research questions, QR2-1 to QR2-3, focusing, respectively, on the core principles, synergistic mechanisms, and implementation tools underpinning LC-CE integration, is provided in Appendix A,

Table A1. Cross-analysis Table LC-CE (QR2-1 to QR2-3).

Ref.	Type of Publication	Fundamental LC-CE Principles (QR2-1)	Synergies Between LC and CE (QR2-2)	Tools/Methods (QR2-3)
[15]	Conceptual study combining a systematic review (175 articles) with the development of an integrative theoretical framework based on bibliometric and thematic analysis.	LC: Waste minimization (time, materials, and overproduction), pull flow, Kaizen, and interdisciplinary collaboration. CE: Reduce, reuse, recycle, DfD, durability, and resource loop closure.	The LC-CE combination enables the joint reduction in inefficiencies and the circularization of resource flows. It enhances environmental resilience, lowers carbon footprints, and improves project quality and durability.	VSM to map circular flows; LPS for collaborative planning; JIT for synchronizing circular logistics. BIM for modeling and traceability; DfD for disassembly-oriented design; LCA to assess environmental impacts.
[39]	Professional communication presented at an ASCE conference, focused on behavior-driven approaches to low-carbon engineering design.	LC (implicit): Design simplification, efficiency-driven decision-making, and reduction in cognitive biases. CE: Lifecycle thinking, DFD, reuse of timber and steel components, and extension of service life.	Implicit alignment with the “first-time-right” philosophy. Promotes minimalist, behaviorally informed design targeting low-carbon outcomes, disassemblability, and long-term adaptability.	Carbon cheat sheets; simplified Excel-based LCA; EAST Framework for behavioral nudging; internal benchmarking tools and durability indicators integrated into early-stage design processes.
[33]	Conceptual review integrating scientific and policy literature on Construction 4.0, with a focus on required competencies and their alignment with Lean and CE logics.	LC: Waste reduction, standardization, Kaizen, and collaborative planning. CE: Building life extension, modularity, and reduction in environmental footprint.	Construction 4.0 acts as a catalyst: digitalization, modularity, and advanced technologies synchronize Lean process flows with circularity objectives. Both approaches converge to enhance overall project performance.	BIM for coordination and modeling; LPS for participatory scheduling; Digital Twins for asset maintenance; IoT systems for real-time control; off-site construction to reduce waste and shorten schedules.
[17]	Theoretical study integrating Lean, CE, and Industry 4.0, proposing a unified transformation model for sustainable production chains.	LC: Kaizen, standardization, pull-based flows, and customer-oriented quality. CE: Resource loops, proactive maintenance, product–service systems, and regeneration.	LC provides operational structuring, while CE offers strategic environmental direction. Their complementarity serves as a lever for transitioning to zero-waste, resource-efficient production systems.	VSM, 5S, JIT, Kaizen, Heijunka; circular tools including DfD and remanufacturing; IoT and blockchain for traceability; digital simulation to anticipate closed-loop flows.
[32]	Mixed-method systematic review (bibliometric and qualitative) on Lean off-site construction, exploring links with circularity through modular prefabrication.	LC: Kaizen, pull-based flows (JIT), standardization, and Last Planner System (LPS). CE: Not formally framed, but present through modular design, component optimization, and adaptability.	Synergies are implicitly suggested via prefabrication: industrialization supports waste reduction, enhanced traceability, and reuse opportunities. However, the study lacks a formal theoretical integration of the two approaches.	Classical Lean tools (LPS, VSM, 5S, JIT) applied in off-site environments using Industry 4.0 technologies: BIM, IoT, augmented reality, robotics, and cyber-physical systems, enabling dynamic traceability and adaptability.
[36]	Qualitative case study based on three construction projects in the UAE, focusing on the application of circular principles during the pre-construction phase.	LC: Referenced indirectly through normative practices such as pre-planning, waste reduction, and process industrialization. CE: Application of the 3R principles (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle), prefabrication, design for waste prevention, and BIM-supported circular flow management.	Technologies such as DfMA, BIM, and 3D printing simultaneously reduce waste (in line with Lean logic) and reinforce material circularity. Pre-construction planning serves as a strategic interface, aligning Lean efficiency with circular waste prevention goals.	BIM, 3D Printed Concrete (3DPC), DfMA, construction and demolition waste (CDW) management plans, LEED, and local sustainability guidelines. On-site technologies for sorting, storage, and monitoring of material flows.
[37]	Exploratory scientific communication based on case studies and a descriptive–critical assessment of circularity levels in the construction sector.	LC: Operational application through Lean delivery models and early-stage planning practices. CE: Structured around the ReSOLVE framework (Regenerate, Share, Optimize, Loop, Virtualize, Exchange), with an emphasis on modular and disassemblability design.	Prefabrication and digital modeling act as dual enablers of Lean–CE integration. Modular logistics are coordinated according to a closed-loop logic enabled by BIM and digital twins.	ReSOLVE framework, BIM, digital twins, DfMA, modular Lean design frameworks, reverse logistics, and integrated energy and infrastructure sharing systems.
[38]	Applied case study on green demolition of an urban building, combining BIM modeling and JIT planning.	LC: JIT planning, streamlined coordination, reduction in waiting times, and process waste. CE: 10R framework, buildings as material banks, design for deconstruction and reuse.	Operational synergy between BIM and JIT enables waste reduction, flow synchronization, and maximized material reuse. The approach integrates green principles to minimize the project’s carbon footprint.	3D/4D BIM modeling, JIT scheduling, Sankey diagrams, and reverse-flow demolition simulation.
[14]	Qualitative study based on content analysis and the construction of an interaction matrix between Lean principles and CE practices.	LC: Elimination of non-value-adding activities, Kaizen, process transparency, and integrated control. CE: Waste as a resource, systemic design, material diversification, and use of renewable energy.	The study identifies 70 positive interactions between LC and CE. Lean provides an operational framework; CE brings long-term circular goals. Off-site construction and material passports are cited as areas of strong convergence.	Circularity assessment tools (e.g., BAMB), LCA, material passports, design simulations, off-site construction techniques, and preventive maintenance.
[35]	Exploratory qualitative research focused on building deconstruction, using BIM to model Lean and Circular processes.	LC: Sixteen adapted principles for deconstruction; strategic and operational planning (pull systems and standardization). CE: Material reuse, secondary market creation, and closed-loop systems.	Pull-based planning is aligned with the demand for recoverable components. Lean enhances operational efficiency, while CE maximizes resource valorization. BIM acts as a digital enabler that bridges both paradigms.	3D scanning, as-built modeling, 4D simulation, deconstruction-oriented VSM, connected resale platforms, and real-time coordination through BIM-enabled tablets.
[34]	Systematic and scientometric review applied to the context of Lean prefabrication.	LC: Kaizen, JIT, standardization, pull-based workflows, and waste minimization. CE: DfD, modularity, and material reuse.	Shared objectives include waste reduction and modular standardization. Prefabrication acts as a key convergence point between LC and CE by combining quality with disassembly potential.	VSM, JIT, Kanban, 5S, Kaizen, and Takt Time Planning. BIM, RFID, and IoT for traceability and digital production. DfMA applied to modular components.
[30]	Descriptive empirical study exploring the intersection of LC, CE, and digitalization within the Construction 4.0 framework.	LC: Waste elimination (muda), Kaizen, standardization, and pull system logic. CE: Recycling, DFD, lifecycle extension, and regenerative processes.	LC optimizes immediate process flows, while CE supports long-term value preservation. DFD emerges as a practical bridge between Lean workflows and circular objectives.	LPS, BIM, JIT, 5S, and visual management. IoT and sensors for real-time performance monitoring. Integrated digital approach linking LC and CE strategies.
[40]	Book chapter synthesizing demolition waste management practices through a circular lens with implicit Lean logic.	LC (implicit): Source reduction, process efficiency, and structured planning. CE: 3R hierarchy (Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle), eco-design, energy recovery, and prevention.	Lean streamlines production workflows, while CE frames the systemic management of demolition waste. The waste hierarchy acts as a conceptual bridge aligning both approaches.	3R principles, modularity, and substitution of toxic materials with bio-based alternatives. Waste management plans, BIM, selective demolition, closed-loop material systems.
[31]	Systematic review proposing a conceptual framework for integrating LC and CE within the construction supply chain.	LC: Standardization, Kaizen, streamlined logistics, and client value creation. CE: Resource preservation, DFD, and closed-loop systems.	LC offers procedural rigor, while CE introduces long-term systemic sustainability. Integration enhances supply chain performance through circular logistics and value retention.	VSM, LPS, DfD, BIM, Lean supply chain management. Combined focus on traceability, circularity, and operational efficiency.
[12]	Empirical study employing a hybrid modeling approach (Agent-Based Modeling, System Dynamics, DES) applied to urban waste management under LC-CE integration.	LC: Reduction in waiting time, process optimization, Kaizen. CE: Waste valorization, closed-loop material flows, planned sorting, and reuse.	The hybrid simulation illustrates that Lean supports efficient sorting and logistics, while CE maximizes reuse and reduces environmental impact.	Hybrid modeling combining ABM + SD + DES; comparative analysis between LC-based and conventional construction; time–cost–impact assessment; dynamic visualization.
[26]	Qualitative critical review on CE in prefabricated buildings, with references to Lean principles.	LC: Lean production, pull systems, and process standardization. CE: Seven circular strategies, including DfD, adaptability, recyclability, traceability, and modularity.	Modular prefabrication serves as a key enabler of LC-CE integration. Industrialized processes support both standardization and circular disassembly.	Lean production systems, BIM modeling, DfD strategies, material passports, detachable modules, RFID/barcodes, and circular supply chain logistics.
[41]	Scientific communication based on text mining analysis of 89 publications on LC, CE, and sustainable innovation.	LC: Kaizen, PDCA, reduction in both physical and cognitive waste. CE: Closed-loop systems, regeneration, DfD, and material reuse.	Lean provides an operational framework, while CE defines the strategic direction. Their integration enhances sustainable consumption and production (SCP) practices and strengthens sectoral resilience.	Text mining, DfD, modular design, eco-materials, LCA, Cradle-to-Cradle principles, BIM integration, and industrial symbiosis frameworks.
[25]	In-depth field-based case study conducted in Quebec (five deconstructed buildings), focused on maximizing material reuse.	LC: Kaizen, planned flows, 5S methodology, standardization, and operational efficiency. CE: Optimal material reuse, waste minimization, and DFD.	Lean accelerates the achievement of circular goals through standardized and collaborative practices. The integration optimizes outbound flows and reduces resource losses.	5S, VSM, standardized sorting and storage processes, IPD, BIM, materials databases, and Lean-based checklists.

. This cross-analysis supports the thematic interpretations developed in the subsequent subsections and offers a transparent basis for comparing conceptual and methodological orientations across the selected studies.

4.2.1. QR2-1-Foundational Principles Shared by LC and the CE

The cross-analysis of the selected publications reveals a strong theoretical alignment between the core principles of LC and those of the CE. Although emerging from distinct disciplinary origins—LC rooted in industrial production systems, CE in ecological economics and sustainability science—both paradigms converge around the shared objective of maximizing value while minimizing waste across the project lifecycle.

From the LC perspective, several studies [15,25,26] emphasize four foundational principles:

○

Waste elimination across material, time, energy, and labor dimensions.

○

Continuous improvement (Kaizen) and the pursuit of standardized, reliable processes.

○

Customer-defined value creation, guiding flow optimization, and decision-making.

○

Pull-based production logic, aligning workflows with real-time demand to reduce inventories and overproduction.

These principles are widely applied in contexts such as off-site manufacturing [32], modular construction [26], and planned deconstruction workflows [35], where they support the transition from fragmented, linear models toward integrated, process-driven systems.

From the CE perspective, the literature highlights the foundational role of hierarchical resource retention strategies—typically structured through the 3R (Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle), 6R, or 10R frameworks [15,42]. These frameworks emphasize both upstream interventions (e.g., refuse and rethink) and downstream recovery solutions (e.g., remanufacture, recycle, and recover), providing a systemic logic for circularity and lifecycle extension.

Complementary CE principles identified across the corpus include the following:

○

DfD and modularity.

○

Component adaptability and reuse-oriented specifications.

○

Lifecycle extension through robust reverse logistics systems.

Studies such as [12,33,37,40] demonstrate that these principles are increasingly operationalized through digital tools—BIM, digital twins, material passports—which also support Lean planning, traceability, and circular material flows, reinforcing their interoperability.

Overall, the reviewed literature underscores that LC and CE are not antagonistic but mutually reinforcing paradigms. LC contributes to immediate operational efficiency, while CE extends value over time by embedding systemic resilience and regenerative design logics [12,43]. Several contributions [15,25,41] suggest that integrating these principles enables a holistic approach to sustainability, where project performance is evaluated not only by resource consumption or waste minimization but by the preservation of functional value across multiple lifecycles.

4.2.2. QR2-2-Synergies Identified with a View to Sustainability

The cross-analysis reveals a growing convergence between Lean methodologies and CE principles, giving rise to operational, technological, and strategic synergies that strengthen sustainability outcomes in construction projects. These synergies, although context-specific, are consistently structured around three core objectives: waste reduction, flow optimization, and value preservation throughout the project lifecycle [15,26,41].

First, minimizing waste constitutes a foundational synergy. While Lean aims to eliminate non-value-adding activities—such as overproduction, waiting, and rework—CE strategies focus on preserving resource value through reuse, recycling, and regenerative design. Studies [12,14,15,41] demonstrate that combining collaborative Lean tools like the LPS with CE-oriented practices such as DfD, digital material passports, or modularity planning enables a more coordinated flow of physical resources and information, thereby reducing waste and facilitating reuse.

Second, digital integration reinforces these synergies. Tools such as BIM, digital twins, and IoT technologies enable real-time tracking, traceability, and adaptive management of material flows. When applied to deconstruction and off-site prefabrication, these tools support both Lean workflow planning and CE’s closed-loop objectives by increasing recovery rates and optimizing reverse logistics [25,31,35,36].

Third, modular prefabrication emerges as a key operational convergence point. Off-site manufacturing, supported by standardized Lean processes, allows for the production of components designed for reuse and disassembly—hallmarks of circularity. Studies [26,44] highlight how Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) consolidates both paradigms, enabling reduced material waste, increased productivity, and enhanced lifecycle performance.

Finally, several contributions [25,34,41] underline the strategic value of LC-CE integration. Lean provides the procedural discipline needed for continuous improvement and efficiency (e.g., through the PDCA cycle), while CE introduces a systemic vision centered on resilience, regeneration, and long-term sustainability. Together, they enable the formation of supply chains that are not only efficient and traceable but also environmentally responsible and economically viable.

These synergies go beyond coincidental overlaps. They represent a mutually reinforcing dynamic: Lean offers the structure and process control needed to implement CE strategies effectively, while CE broadens Lean’s scope to encompass lifecycle sustainability, resource regeneration, and the decarbonization of the built environment.

4.2.3. QR2-3-Tools, Methods, and Joint Practices

The operational integration of LC and CE principles is increasingly supported by a shared and evolving set of tools, methods, and techniques. This common toolkit facilitates the joint implementation of both paradigms across the project lifecycle and enables a measurable transition toward sustainable practices in construction.

From the Lean perspective, several tools are consistently cited for their adaptability in circular contexts. VSM emerges as a key instrument for visualizing and optimizing material and information flows in settings such as prefabrication, reverse logistics, or selective deconstruction [15,25,34]. It helps identify non-value-adding steps and supports the reintegration of recovered materials into new value chains.

The LPS is widely adopted to enhance collaborative planning and increase workflow reliability. Numerous studies [15,39,45,46,47] show that LPS, when combined with pull flow mechanisms and real-time coordination, improves synchronization between Lean tasks and circular material pathways.

Process standardization and workplace organization techniques—such as 5S, Takt Time Planning, and Lean checklists—are reported as critical enablers in modular construction and green deconstruction projects [25,35,47,48]. These methods ensure consistent quality, facilitate traceability, and create conditions for the reuse and adaptability of components.

From the CE perspective, DfD and Design for Reuse stand out as foundational strategies. They enable the planned recovery of components without the loss of functional value and promote the circular flows of materials at the end of the building lifecycle [26,31,36,49,50,51]. These practices are increasingly supported by digital material passports, component inventories, and sustainability frameworks such as Cradle-to-Cradle (C2C).

Additionally, environmental performance is increasingly assessed using dedicated metrics and tools. Circularity indicators such as those from the BAMB framework and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods are systematically applied at the design stage to evaluate long-term sustainability impacts [14,37,49,52,53,54].

Digital technologies play a pivotal enabling role in linking LC and CE toolsets. Studies consistently highlight the use of BIM, digital twins, 4D simulations, and RFID tracking systems to enhance traceability, model dynamic flows, and support real-time decision-making across the building lifecycle [25,37,39,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65].

Taken together, these tools do not operate in isolation. They are embedded within broader methodological frameworks that facilitate the organizational, technical, and environmental transformation of construction processes. This tool-enabled convergence is increasingly recognized as a structural condition for fostering scalable, replicable, and verifiable pathways toward sustainable construction practices.

4.2.4. QR2-4-Observed Performances in LC-CE Projects

The integration of LC and CE principles demonstrably enhances project performance across several dimensions. However, the scope and intensity of these improvements depend on contextual factors such as project type, technological maturity, and implementation strategy. Reported outcomes generally fall into four interdependent categories: environmental, economic, operational, and social (

Table 4. Observed performances.

Performance Dimension	Key Outcome	Source	Context and Method	Quantitative Evidence
Environmental	High waste diversion	[36]	Off-site modular pods; shift from on-site finishing to modular	Up to 90% waste reduction
	Material preservation at end-of-life	[26]	DfD, comparative Life Cycle Assessment	62% of building mass is reusable
	Environmental cost saving via simulation	[12]	Hybrid ABM/SD/DES + BIM model for urban CDW flows	10.65% reduction in environmental costs
	Digital enabler effect	[25,35]	BIM + Material Passports for deconstruction planning	Qualitative: improved separation and reuse accuracy
Economic	Cost avoidance via reuse	[35]	Real deconstruction case with BIM tracking	Salvaged structural components recovered
	Lower demolition cost	[25]	Reuse centers with Lean workflows	Confirmed demolition cost saving
	Urban reuse saving	[17]	Controlled site-level planning in urban context	~USD 56,000 saving
	Modeled project saving	[12]	Simulation: CDW management	1.36% total cost reduction
Operational	Shorter cycle times, fewer reworks	[32]	Off-site standard modules, controlled weather risk	Time and error reduction (qualitative)
	JIT + BIM synergy	[35]	Pull planning + sequencing of tasks	Reduced delays, smoother workflows
	Simulation of flow optimization	[12]	Forecasting bottlenecks; proactive allocation	>10% cycle time saving (modeled)
Social	Better working conditions and upskilling	[32,36]	Controlled factory work vs. on-site tasks	Improved safety, technical skill requirements
	Local job creation potential	[25,40]	On-site sorting, reuse centers	Informal to semi-formal local jobs
	Governance and trust building	[41]	Integrated supply chains and Kaizen cycles	Enhanced collaboration, knowledge sharing

).

• Environmental Performance:

The integration of LC and CE principles enhances environmental performance by reducing waste generation, promoting resource circularity, and minimizing environmental costs. Projects that incorporate DfD, modular construction, and off-site manufacturing consistently report significant waste diversion rates. For instance, a case study in the UAE demonstrated up to 90% waste reduction through the use of modular pods and the elimination of on-site finishing waste [36]. Similarly, Minunno et al. reported that applying DfD principles preserved 62% of building mass for future reuse [26].

Digital technologies play a pivotal enabling role. BIM and material passports enhance traceability, allowing the precise tracking of materials across the building lifecycle. Ding et al. simulated the impact of integrating ABM, SD, and BIM in an urban demolition scenario, resulting in a 10.65% reduction in environmental costs [12]. These results suggest that environmental benefits are maximized when circular design is embedded from early stages, supported by Lean workflow optimization and digital monitoring tools.

However, the degree of environmental improvement remains uneven across cases. In conventional Lean projects without robust circular strategies, waste reduction is often limited to logistical improvements rather than systemic recovery. Overall, the alignment of Lean planning with CE’s lifecycle logic is essential to achieve substantial and verifiable environmental outcomes.

• Economic Performance:

Economic outcomes of LC-CE integration vary widely but generally include cost avoidance through material reuse, reduction in demolition expenditures, and logistical efficiency. Empirical cases show that Lean-based planning combined with CE strategies can generate tangible savings. For example, Marzouk et al. demonstrated that BIM-enabled deconstruction workflows allowed the recovery of structural components, thereby lowering demolition costs [35]. Similarly, Boukherroub et al. highlighted how reuse centers in Quebec, supported by Lean standardization tools, reduced project expenditures in real deconstruction scenarios [25].

Other studies report modeled savings: a simulation-based study by Ding et al. indicated a 1.36% total cost reduction when combining Lean scheduling and circular waste recovery [12]. In a separate urban project, Ciliberto et al. estimated direct savings of over USD 56,000 by integrating material recovery planning with Lean logistics [17].

Nevertheless, these financial gains are not universally replicable. In contexts lacking formal reuse markets or regulatory incentives, the profitability of recovered materials remains uncertain. Economic benefits are highly contingent on external conditions such as resale channels, reverse logistics, and supportive procurement frameworks. Therefore, enabling environments—characterized by robust infrastructure, digital traceability, and targeted incentives—are critical to realizing cost-efficient circular practices.

• Operational Performance:

Operational improvements are among the most consistent advantages observed in projects implementing LC-CE strategies. Lean techniques—such as JIT, LPS, and Takt Time Planning—contribute to reduced cycle times, minimized rework, and improved coordination. These effects are amplified when digital tools like BIM and 4D simulations are deployed to manage workflows and material sequencing.

For instance, a Lean prefabrication project analyzed by Chen et al. reported reduced errors and increased scheduling reliability due to off-site production and real-time data synchronization [32]. Marzouk et al. observed smoother dismantling operations when deconstruction schedules were aligned with BIM-based sequencing and pull planning logic [35]. In modeled scenarios, Ding et al. demonstrated over 10% reduction in cycle time through proactive flow optimization using hybrid simulations [12].

However, these operational benefits depend on early-stage integration and digital maturity. Projects that apply CE practices only at end-of-life—such as on-site sorting without prior design coordination—rarely achieve process stability. The evidence suggests that meaningful operational gains arise when Lean principles are embedded across the full project lifecycle, enabling synchronized and adaptive construction systems.

• Social performance:

The social outcomes of LC-CE integration remain underexplored yet promising. Several studies highlight indirect benefits such as improved working conditions, upskilling, and localized employment. In prefabricated settings, workers operate in safer, controlled environments with higher technical standards, as shown in the UAE case study on modular pods [36]. Similarly, off-site Lean manufacturing promotes precision and consistency, requiring more qualified labor and offering stable employment conditions [32].

In the context of deconstruction, projects such as those documented by Boukherroub et al. and Nyika et al. create opportunities for job creation through selective dismantling and reuse logistics [25,40]. These activities often engage local contractors and support semi-formal labor structures. Moreover, integrated project delivery models and collaborative planning tools foster trust, information sharing, and stakeholder alignment, which are essential for effective CE governance [41].

Despite these positive signals, the absence of standardized social indicators limits the ability to quantify outcomes. Most evidence remains qualitative, based on case narratives rather than comparative metrics. Future research should develop robust frameworks to evaluate social value creation—including job quality, training outcomes, and participatory governance—in LC-CE initiatives.

4.2.5. QR2-5-Barriers, Challenges, and Conditions for Success

The integration of LC and CE principles in the construction sector offers significant potential to improve both resource efficiency and sustainability. However, the findings from the reviewed literature reveal a complex network of interrelated barriers—environmental, economic, technical, organizational, regulatory, and cultural—that constrain the large-scale implementation of LC-CE strategies. These barriers often act in combination and require coordinated responses across multiple levels of project governance and policy.

• Environmental Barriers:

Environmental considerations are often peripheral in Lean-driven planning, where dominant performance metrics remain confined to time, cost, and output flow efficiency [12,25,35]. This misalignment reflects a path dependency on traditional Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that marginalize carbon intensity, resource retention, or end-of-life reuse potential. As a result, environmental parameters are rarely incorporated into early-stage design or value definition phases, despite CE’s emphasis on upstream material stewardship.

Furthermore, LCA—a critical tool for environmental optimization—is underutilized in Lean projects due to technical unfamiliarity, lack of institutional mandates, and insufficient integration into digital workflows [17,36,66]. This results in blind spots where material flows are optimized for process stability but not for ecological regeneration.

Key enabling conditions include embedding carbon visualization dashboards into BIM environments [38], mandating LCA as a precondition for public tenders, and institutionalizing lifecycle thinking through multidisciplinary design reviews. These approaches recenter environmental performance as a core design criterion rather than a compliance afterthought.

• Economic Barriers:

LC-CE integration often requires upfront investment in enabling infrastructures—such as BIM platforms, DfMA technologies, or digital traceability systems—that remain unaffordable or risky for SMEs [34]. This economic friction is intensified by the absence of mature secondary material markets. In many jurisdictions, reclaimed components lack clear pricing structures, insurance pathways, or performance guarantees, which undermines investor confidence and disincentivizes reuse [36].

Additionally, the lack of fiscal instruments that internalize environmental externalities (e.g., carbon taxes or landfill levies) sustains an artificial cost advantage for linear construction models. Even when circular practices offer long-term economic value, short-term budget constraints and procurement inertia reinforce status quo behaviors.

Strategic responses include the deployment of lifecycle costing (LCC) in public procurement frameworks [31], the creation of municipal reuse marketplaces with integrated logistics, and tax incentives targeting circular design and prefabrication. These instruments shift the economic calculus from reactive compliance to proactive value creation.

• Technical challenges:

The construction sector’s digital infrastructure remains fragmented, characterized by siloed software environments, proprietary standards, and limited semantic alignment across platforms. Most BIM systems lack native functionality to document second-life materials, trace component condition, or simulate disassembly scenarios [8,12,31,67]. This technical lag undermines CE’s core requirements for traceability, adaptability, and closed-loop flow design.

Moreover, Lean tools are often disconnected from environmental databases or material reuse registries, limiting their potential to support CE-informed logistics and planning. Without interoperable systems, LC-CE workflows cannot scale beyond isolated pilot projects.

To address these limitations, several enabling technologies are proposed. Digital twins integrating LC-CE indicators allow the real-time modeling of circular flows and construction–deconstruction interactions [15]. The adoption of open interoperability standards such as IFC4 enhances cross-stakeholder coordination and lifecycle documentation [37]. Additionally, logistics tools like Plan for Every Part (PFEP) can be repurposed for reverse logistics and material bank management in CE contexts [25].

• Organizational Barriers:

Most construction projects remain governed by functionally siloed structures that fragment responsibilities across design, execution, and end-of-life stages [31]. This institutional separation prevents the emergence of integrated lifecycle strategies and obstructs the operationalization of circular principles. Decisions taken during early design often fail to anticipate disassembly, modularity, or material recovery needs—thereby locking in linearity from the outset.

Another persistent issue is the limited extension of Lean leadership beyond production. While tools like LPS, 5S, and JIT improve site-level performance, they are rarely mobilized to coordinate circular supply chains, manage reuse inventories, or structure collaborative governance models [15].

Key enablers include the formation of multidisciplinary teams from project inception, alignment of design incentives with circularity objectives, and adoption of IPD frameworks that distribute accountability across the building lifecycle [36]. Embedding LC-CE KPIs into governance dashboards further enhances transparency and systemic alignment.

• Regulatory Constraints:

Current regulatory frameworks often lag behind LC-CE innovation. In many regions, reused materials are not formally recognized within building codes, leading to legal uncertainty, insurance complications, and procurement exclusion [30,36,41]. Moreover, waste management regulations frequently lack harmonized traceability standards, fragmenting responsibilities across municipal, regional, and national levels.

This regulatory void inhibits confidence in circular processes, deters investment in reuse systems, and prevents the normalization of circular design practices in procurement.

Proposed regulatory enablers include the mandatory use of digital material passports in permitting workflows, the establishment of CE certification schemes for reclaimed components, and performance-based public procurement that rewards resource efficiency and reuse [30,41]. Aligning BIM-based traceability with CE policy roadmaps—such as the EU Green Deal or national CE strategies—can accelerate regulatory modernization.

• Cultural Barriers and Behavioral Levers:

Cultural inertia constitutes a powerful, though often underacknowledged, constraint. The construction industry is still shaped by a “build new” ethos that valorizes novelty, speed, and material abundance. Reuse, by contrast, is frequently perceived as low-tech, time-consuming, or incompatible with modern architectural aesthetics [15,25]. These perceptions are compounded by limited exposure to CE practices in professional training and industry discourse [36].

Moreover, Lean culture itself, while oriented toward continuous improvement, often remains focused on productivity metrics at the expense of systemic sustainability.

To counter these embedded norms, several behavioral levers are proposed. High-visibility demonstrator projects—such as urban reuse hubs or circular renovation labs—serve as “cognitive proofs” that reframe circularity as a symbol of technical excellence and innovation [15,25]. Experiential training, peer learning networks, and behavioral nudges—grounded in frameworks like EAST (Easy, Attractive, Social, and Timely)—further support the adoption of circular mindsets at scale [39].

Table 5. Multi-level barriers and enabling conditions for LC-CE integration.

Dimension	Barriers Identified	Key Enabling Conditions
Environmental	Limited stakeholder awareness of lifecycle impacts and poor integration of environmental KPIs within Lean dashboards remain widespread. Moreover, many project teams still lack training in LCA methods essential for eco-design decisions [2,11,36,40,65,66].	To overcome this, visual CO2 indicators embedded in BIM, combined with systematic training in lifecycle thinking and the standardization of on-site sorting protocols, are identified as priority levers [34,36].
Economic	High upfront costs for adopting BIM, DfMA, or 3D printing discourage SMEs, while the lack of visibility on the profitability of reused materials and insufficient local resale channels maintain uncertainty [32,35,36].	Solutions include public support for local recycling value chains, targeted subsidies for circular prefabrication, and integration of lifecycle costing into public procurement to valorize long-term savings [32,35,36].
Technical	The heterogeneity of digital tools, absence of open interoperability standards, and limited capacity of BIM for tracking second-life materials hinder data flow and traceability [2,8,32].	Deploying LC-CE digital twins, adopting open standards such as IFC4, and using PFEP for structuring reverse logistics can mitigate these technical silos [10,18,37].
Organizational	Fragmented workflows between design, production, and logistics phases, a lack of shared vision for circularity among stakeholders, and Lean leadership limited to site operations reduce system-wide coherence [10,32,36].	Cross-functional training, formation of integrated teams early in design, and collaborative governance based on shared BIM platforms are recommended enablers [10,32,36].
Regulatory	The absence of clear legal frameworks for waste sorting and traceability, lack of certification for reused materials, and fragmented regulations across governance levels all obstruct scale-up [30,36,41].	Aligning CE–BIM with existing regulatory frameworks, enforcing mandatory circular management plans in contracts, and creating dedicated circularity labels or certifications are strategic priorities [30,36,41].
Cultural /Behavioral	Deeply rooted “new build” culture, psychological resistance to deconstruction practices, and a limited circular mindset in Lean teams all hinder adoption [10,18].	Demonstrator projects, a strong collective narrative, and media promotion of flagship circular pilots can help shift mindsets and normalize reuse [10,18].

provides a consolidated summary of the multi-level barriers identified across this review, linking each category to potential enabling mechanisms and outlining their relative urgency for action, in alignment with the integrative perspective developed in Section 4.2.5.

4.2.6. QR2-6-Recommendations and Strategic Outlook

Building upon the multi-level barriers discussed in the previous section, the qualitative synthesis highlights a growing convergence across the literature regarding key recommendations to facilitate the integration of LC and CE principles. These proposals extend beyond purely technical or managerial fixes; they collectively reflect a shift toward an integrated transformation framework that spans operational, organizational, regulatory, and cultural domains.

Rather than viewing LC-CE as a set of disconnected tools, the emerging consensus envisions a systemic reconfiguration of construction practices grounded in collaboration, lifecycle thinking, and digital traceability. Six interdependent strategic priorities structure this transformation pathway (Figure 9), each addressing a critical leverage point identified across the selected studies.

• Strengthening Crossdisciplinary Skills and Fostering an Integrated LC-CE Mindset

Embedding Lean and Circular Economy principles across the construction value chain requires a foundational shift in the sector’s knowledge architecture. Beyond technical know-how, practitioners must develop crossdisciplinary competencies that span digital innovation, environmental performance assessment, resource-efficient logistics, and industrialized construction methods. Multiple studies [31,34,35,36,37] emphasize the necessity of integrating tools such as BIM, LCA, DfMA, and PFEP into both academic curricula and professional training programs.

This transition demands a pedagogical reorientation from passive to experiential learning environments. Immersive modalities—including collaborative simulators, field-based learning labs, and digital twins—allow learners to engage in high-stakes decision-making under conditions of complexity and uncertainty. These approaches resonate with the EU Green Skills Agenda, which advocates modular and competency-based formats for sustainability education in construction.

In emerging economies, where capacity gaps are more acute, short-cycle vocational training, site-based demonstrators, and strategic partnerships with technical institutions offer practical pathways for upskilling local actors. International agencies such as UN-Habitat and regional development banks are well positioned to fund these initiatives, particularly when they are anchored to LC-CE pilot projects that offer tangible proof of concept.

Ultimately, early and systemic exposure to integrated tools and principles fosters a shared professional culture rooted in resource-consciousness and continuous improvement. This cultural alignment dissolves disciplinary silos, enhances mutual understanding across trades, and strengthens system-wide coordination. In this context, capacity building becomes not only an educational priority but a structural enabler for large-scale LC-CE implementation throughout the building lifecycle.

• Standardization of Flows, Data, and Performance Indicators

The systemic integration of Lean and Circular Economy principles requires a robust backbone of standardized data structures, performance frameworks, and interoperable digital environments. Without harmonized documentation of material flows and lifecycle metrics, it becomes impossible to scale closed-loop practices across stakeholders and project phases. In this context, the standardization of formats, interfaces, and evaluative indicators becomes a strategic enabler, not a technical detail.

Interoperable protocols, such as IFC4 within BIM environments, play a critical role in synchronizing semantic data related to material provenance, reuse potential, and environmental impacts. These standards foster traceability, cross-platform compatibility, and lifecycle transparency across design, construction, and end-of-life stages.

Concurrently, the deployment of multidimensional KPIs provides a more holistic approach to project evaluation. Rather than prioritizing cost or speed alone, integrated KPIs combine Lean productivity metrics with circular indicators such as embodied carbon reduction, reuse rates, and social value creation [15,17,26]. This alignment supports benchmarking processes that are both technically rigorous and sustainability-driven.

Advanced applications already illustrate this synergy. In Europe, BIM-based material passports are increasingly required under regulatory frameworks such as the EU Taxonomy and Circular Economy Action Plan, both of which mandate lifecycle data, recovery potential, and material traceability. In North America, tools such as LEED certification systems and national BIM protocols offer institutional levers for embedding circular indicators into procurement and compliance workflows [34].

For developing economies—where digital infrastructure and regulatory standardization are less advanced—international cooperation should prioritize open-source interoperability and lightweight digital traceability tools accessible to SMEs. Promoting IFC-based systems, mobile-compatible documentation tools, and training for decentralized stakeholders becomes a key lever for inclusiveness.

Emerging technologies further strengthen these foundations. RFID systems, dynamic material passports, and integrated logistics platforms have demonstrated significant potential in operationalizing real-time, closed-loop construction [38,68]. Local governments can accelerate adoption by integrating digital traceability into demolition permitting, establishing open-access reuse registries, and supporting public–private marketplaces for circular materials.

In sum, standardization ensures semantic coherence, technical compatibility, and performance accountability across diverse LC-CE stakeholders. It establishes the structural conditions required to monitor, scale, and legitimize circular construction workflows—thereby aligning Lean precision with regenerative material logic.

• Collaborative Governance and Integrated Contracting

The convergence of Lean and Circular Economy principles cannot be achieved through technical tools alone. It requires a fundamental transformation of governance structures, contractual frameworks, and collaborative processes. Effective LC-CE integration must be anchored in early-stage stakeholder engagement, transparent data-sharing, and co-responsibility across disciplines and phases.

Several studies identify IPD and multi-party contracting models as critical institutional levers to overcome fragmentation and promote shared accountability [15,25,69,70]. These frameworks redistribute decision-making authority, align incentives across lifecycle stages, and facilitate continuous value co-creation—key conditions for synchronizing Lean flow optimization with circular material retention.

In mature regulatory environments such as North America and the European Union, IPD contracts are increasingly supported by legal instruments that reward performance-based sustainability outcomes and embed collaborative clauses into public procurement regulations. The EU Green Deal and the Level(s) framework, in particular, provide a legal basis for embedding circularity and Lean coordination into infrastructure tenders and urban renovation projects.

Conversely, in developing and transition economies—where formal contractual structures may be weaker—adapted solutions such as standardized contract templates, selective deconstruction guarantees, and reuse performance clauses have proven effective. These simplified instruments allow public and private actors to replicate LC-CE principles in varied governance settings without excessive legal complexity.

BIM platforms serve as digital enablers of collaborative governance. Beyond 3D modeling, BIM environments function as shared data ecosystems that facilitate real-time coordination, material traceability, and joint scenario planning. In selective deconstruction and modular retrofitting projects, BIM supports the visualization of reuse pathways, pull-flow logic implementation, and Lean resource allocation [35,38].

To further institutionalize this approach, scholars recommend the codification of collaborative principles into contractual clauses and permitting processes. This includes obligations for data transparency, material reuse warranties, and adaptive risk-sharing models that incentivize continuous collaboration throughout the building lifecycle.

Ultimately, collaborative governance—when supported by legal clarity, digital transparency, and multi-actor engagement—emerges as a structural precondition for scaling LC-CE integration. It allows stakeholders to transcend isolated initiatives and build durable alliances around shared sustainability and efficiency goals.

• Incentive-Based Regulation and Economic Instruments

The large-scale deployment of Lean–Circular practices depends on the alignment of regulatory frameworks and economic incentives that reward environmental performance and discourage resource-intensive linear models. Beyond voluntary initiatives, the literature increasingly points to the need for coherent, incentive-based policies that internalize environmental costs while enabling financially viable circular transitions [15,25,37].

Public procurement is widely identified as a strategic policy lever for catalyzing LC-CE integration. Several jurisdictions have embedded mandatory criteria—such as BIM requirements, digital material passports, DfD, and waste management plans—into their tendering processes [15,25,37]. At the European level, instruments such as the EU Green Deal, Level(s) indicators, and national CE roadmaps (e.g., the Netherlands and Finland) provide overarching frameworks for integrating circularity and Lean coordination into infrastructure and building renovation projects.

To support these regulatory shifts, economic instruments have emerged as powerful enablers. Virgin material taxation, landfill levies, and reduced VAT rates for reused components are being piloted or expanded in countries such as France, Belgium, and across the Nordic region [34,37,40]. These tools serve to internalize externalities and enhance the comparative advantage of resource-efficient, circular approaches.

In developing and transition economies—where enforcement capacity may be limited—studies propose context-specific fiscal incentives. These include tax credits for investments in modular construction and DfMA, targeted subsidies to support circular supply chain development, and progressive landfill taxes aimed at formalizing informal recovery ecosystems. International financial institutions and public–private partnerships are well positioned to fund transitional support programs that align with regional market conditions and institutional maturity [34,37].

Certification and labeling systems complement these measures by improving market visibility and stakeholder confidence. These may operate at the building level (e.g., digital material passports) or the process level (e.g., CE-compliant modular construction certifications). The European Buildings as Material Banks (BAMB) initiative exemplifies this strategy by linking traceable material documentation with formal reporting mechanisms under ESG and CE compliance protocols.

Critically, the literature underscores the importance of policy coherence. Regulatory, fiscal, and contractual instruments must be harmonized to prevent fragmentation and ensure smooth implementation. National sustainability strategies should explicitly align building codes, material reuse regulations, and permit procedures to create a unified enabling environment for LC-CE adoption [41,43].

In sum, adaptive, incentive-based regulation, when tailored to local governance structures and supply chain realities, constitutes a key driver for embedding Lean and Circular practices into mainstream construction—transcending pilot initiatives and scaling systemic transformation.

• Advanced digitization and intelligent tools for circularity

Technological innovation is a key enabler for translating Lean–Circular principles into operational workflows across the construction lifecycle. The literature consistently emphasizes the strategic role of advanced digital tools—such as digital twins, artificial intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), and blockchain—in supporting real-time decision-making, predictive modeling, and secure traceability across circular value chains [12,15].

In digitally mature contexts (e.g., Northern Europe, North America, and Singapore), AI-enhanced digital twins are increasingly deployed in prefabrication and urban redevelopment projects to monitor material flows, optimize disassembly sequencing, and coordinate urban mining operations. Hybrid simulation models—combining system dynamics, agent-based modeling, and discrete-event simulations—provide dynamic insights into environmental trade-offs and Lean flow stability under different recovery scenarios [15].

By contrast, in developing regions with limited digital infrastructure, foundational tools such as BIM-based material passports, cloud-based traceability logs, and IoT-enabled waste monitoring offer an incremental path toward more advanced platforms. These technologies, when supported by local digital policies and public–private collaboration, enable low-cost entry points into LC-CE digital ecosystems. Case studies in emerging economies (e.g., the UAE, India, and Brazil) confirm the scalability and contextual adaptability of these solutions [34,37].

Blockchain technologies present additional opportunities, especially in contexts where component quality verification, reuse certification, and regulatory compliance are major barriers. By securing digital material passports on tamper-proof ledgers, blockchain systems ensure both traceability and accountability, facilitating integration with Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting standards and international carbon disclosure protocols.

Importantly, digital transformation must be accompanied by investments in digital skills development, institutional capacity building, and alignment with national digital strategies in construction. Without these systemic conditions, advanced technologies risk remaining confined to isolated pilot projects, with minimal impact on mainstream industry practices.

In conclusion, advanced digitization—ranging from basic BIM traceability to full-scale AI-augmented circular planning—represents a strategic infrastructure for enabling the operational, environmental, and collaborative requirements of LC-CE integration. Its transformative potential depends on institutional embedding, cross-sector coordination, and a clear vision for digital maturity across the industry.

• Cultural Transformation and Behavioral Levers

The integration of Lean Construction and Circular Economy principles cannot be reduced to technological upgrades or contractual innovations. It requires a deep cultural transformation that reshapes the norms, expectations, and mental models historically embedded in the construction sector. The reviewed literature identifies cultural inertia as one of the most persistent barriers—particularly in contexts where the ideal of “new-build” continues to dominate industry practice and public perception [17].

Stakeholders often perceive reused materials and deconstruction practices as inferior—either economically, aesthetically, or technically. To challenge these cognitive lock-ins, authors emphasize the symbolic and demonstrative power of flagship circular projects. Exemplary initiatives such as Circl in Amsterdam or The Dutch Mountains in Eindhoven serve as high-visibility proofs of concept, combining design excellence, operational feasibility, and public resonance [37].

In emerging and transition economies, cultural transformation requires a different approach—grounded in accessible, low-cost pilot interventions such as neighborhood-scale reuse hubs, modular demonstration units, or school-led retrofitting programs. These initiatives foster community familiarity while progressively institutionalizing circular logic into local practices and expectations.

Structured behavioral design strategies complement these initiatives. Frameworks such as EAST (Easy, Attractive, Social, and Timely) are increasingly applied to design nudges, awareness campaigns, and site-level interventions that reframe circularity as convenient, desirable, and socially validated [39]. In contexts marked by informal construction systems—common in the MENA region and South Asia—authors recommend combining peer-to-peer learning models with culturally adapted messaging to normalize reuse, selective deconstruction, and reverse logistics.

Beyond individual attitudes, cultural change must be scaffolded by multi-level coalitions that connect municipalities, universities, private sector actors, and civil society. These coalitions can co-develop living labs, urban pilot zones, and city-scale testbeds, creating safe spaces for experimentation, replication, and feedback. Such platforms serve not only as technical incubators but also as vehicles of collective identity, embedding Lean–Circular values into the sector’s narrative and long-term vision.

Ultimately, culture operates as a strategic lever—not a peripheral constraint. By aligning behavioral incentives, professional norms, and public imaginaries, cultural transformation anchors regenerative construction practices within local innovation systems, enabling sustained LC-CE integration across diverse institutional and geographic contexts.

5. Conclusions

This systematic review provides a consolidated synthesis of recent research efforts aiming to integrate LC principles with CE strategies in the construction sector. Using a mixed-method approach—combining bibliometric mapping and qualitative content analysis—this study examines 18 peer-reviewed articles selected through a transparent PRISMA-based protocol. The review clarifies how LC’s emphasis on process efficiency and CE’s regenerative logic can be aligned to address pressing sustainability challenges in the built environment.

The integration of LC and CE was examined through publication trends, key contributors, intellectual structures, keyword evolution, shared tools, observed performances, barriers, and strategic implementation levers. A central finding is the catalytic role of digital enablers—such as BIM, DfMA, and material passports—in linking Lean methods with circular practices in tangible, measurable ways.

Key findings include the following:

-

Growing conceptual convergence: LC and CE increasingly align around shared goals such as waste minimization and resource efficiency. However, their differing operational logics generate both synergies and tensions, which require adaptive governance and collaborative models to be effectively resolved.

-

Operational enablers: The implementation of closed-loop construction practices relies on a coherent combination of Lean tools (e.g., Last Planner System or VSM) and digital platforms (e.g., BIM or digital twins) to monitor material flows, sequence tasks, and enable reuse.

-

Empirical gains: Documented outcomes include significant environmental gains (e.g., up to 90% waste diversion), economic savings through reuse, improved scheduling performance via prefabrication, and emerging evidence of social value creation in deconstruction-based projects.

-

Persistent barriers: Implementation remains hindered by fragmented supply chains, low digital interoperability, high entry costs, and regulatory gaps. These obstacles are particularly pronounced in emerging economies, where informal markets and limited infrastructure constrain circular practices.

-

Strategic levers: Six mutually reinforcing drivers—crossdisciplinary competencies, collaborative governance, interoperable digital systems, standardized KPIs, incentive-based regulation, and demonstrator projects—emerge as critical conditions for systemic LC-CE integration.

Furthermore, this review highlights two structural dimensions that warrant closer attention. First, disparities between Global North and Global South contexts significantly shape the feasibility of LC-CE implementation. While high-income countries benefit from mature digital ecosystems, standardized regulations, and circular supply chains, developing regions often contend with fragmented governance, informal practices, and low traceability. These contextual constraints, examined in Section 4.2.5, emphasize the relevance of simplified instruments and foundational digital tools—such as material passports and disassembly logbooks—for enabling gradual and inclusive adoption. Second, this review confirms the existence of conceptual tensions between Lean’s short-term orientation toward workflow optimization and CE’s long-term vision of material regeneration. As discussed in Section 2.3 and Section 4.2.2, Lean privileges sequencing and standardization, while CE calls for flexible design, lifecycle foresight, and material heterogeneity. Resolving these tensions requires governance frameworks that synchronize short-term operational gains with long-term circular ambitions, supported by interoperable digital platforms and collaborative delivery models.

While this review offers a foundational step toward clarifying a fragmented research domain, it also presents several limitations. The current evidence base remains geographically uneven and lacks longitudinal studies. The absence of standardized performance indicators and robust metrics also constrains cross-case comparability. Future research should develop integrated multi-criteria evaluation frameworks, test the scalability of digital traceability systems, and pilot adaptive governance models—especially in contexts marked by supply chain fragmentation and evolving policy environments. Advancing this agenda will enable the construction sector to contribute more effectively to global sustainability goals and carbon neutrality targets.

6. Limitations

This systematic review provides a consolidated synthesis of the current research exploring how LC principles interact with CE strategies in the construction sector. Nonetheless, several limitations must be acknowledged to clarify the scope and methodological boundaries of the study.

First, the final selection comprises 18 peer-reviewed articles. While this may appear limited given the global relevance of LC and CE, it reflects the still fragmented and uneven development of research explicitly addressing their integration in practice. This constrained evidence base highlights the importance of synthesizing available knowledge to establish a clearer conceptual and operational framework.

Second, although the review adhered to the PRISMA guidelines and employed transparent inclusion criteria, no formal risk-of-bias assessment was conducted. This decision stems from the methodological heterogeneity of the included studies, which range from conceptual frameworks and systematic reviews to exploratory case studies. As the body of empirical work grows, applying standardized critical appraisal tools will become both feasible and necessary.

In addition, the heterogeneity of study designs and the lack of comparable KPIs across publications limited the development of a unified comparative framework. This constraint also affected the synthesis of quantitative findings.

Third, the qualitative coding process was primarily conducted by a single researcher, and no formal inter-coder reliability coefficient was calculated. To mitigate this limitation, the results were reviewed and validated by two additional team members to enhance analytical consistency and methodological rigor. Nonetheless, future reviews could strengthen thematic robustness by incorporating double coding and calculating inter-rater reliability.

Fourth, despite improved source referencing and analytical clarity in this revised version, certain dimensions—particularly related to social performance—remain largely qualitative and context-dependent. This underscores a broader gap in standardized social indicators that could capture employment dynamics, skill development, governance practices, and stakeholder acceptance in LC-CE projects.

Fifth, although several quantified benefits were reported (e.g., waste diversion, cost savings, cycle time reductions), these figures are mainly derived from individual case studies or modeling exercises. To enhance the empirical robustness of these findings, future studies should conduct comparative multi-case analyses using standardized and validated performance metrics.

Finally, the comparative insights related to regional or project-level variations remain exploratory rather than comprehensive, given the modest number and diversity of available empirical studies.

Together, these limitations do not diminish the relevance of this review. On the contrary, they emphasize its contribution to structuring a scattered research field, clarifying conceptual overlaps and tensions, and identifying key directions for future empirical investigation aimed at generating more robust, standardized, and transferable knowledge on the joint implementation of LC and CE in the construction sector.