Next Article in Journal
Understanding Value Propositions and Perceptions of Sharing Economy Platforms Between South Korea and the United States: A Content Analysis and Topic Modeling Approach
Previous Article in Journal
Hydrological Modeling of the Chikugo River Basin Using SWAT: Insights into Water Balance and Seasonal Variability
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 15
10.3390/su17157029
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Circular Economy in the Construction Sector in Materials, Processes, and Case Studies: Research Review

by
Alicja Krajewska
and
Monika Siewczyńska
*
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Transport Engineering, Poznan University of Technology, 60-965 Poznan, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(15), 7029; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157029 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 3 July 2025 / Revised: 29 July 2025 / Accepted: 31 July 2025 / Published: 2 August 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Closed-loop processes can help reduce the environmental impact of the construction sector. Despite its growing popularity, the reuse of materials is still not a common practice. There are many studies available on material processing, design processes, and case studies, but the opportunities and challenges in this area have not been identified. Through a review of the scientific literature, including articles published in peer-reviewed journals, this study aims to organise the information collected in the form of an article and identify areas that require further research and expansion. When the articles are divided into the three groups mentioned above, the barriers and benefits of the research already carried out have been identified. The tools used in the research or processes were identified to highlight good practices that are worth replicating in the future. The challenges that commonly arose, the links between them, and their causes were also identified.

1. Introduction

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) describes the various stages of a building, from the production of materials, through the main part of the building’s life, including energy and water use, until demolition. The final stage (D) includes reuse elements like repair, recycling, or the potential to reuse a given material, part, or entire component, allowing for a closed-loop economy of manufactured components. Such a process reduces the carbon footprint, of which construction is a significant producer. It accounts for approximately 37% of global carbon dioxide emissions [1,2].
The change from an open linear approach to a circular model of viewing a building is in line with the nature of secondary use of materials already produced. The premise of the circular economy is to limit the introduction of new materials in favour of those that already exist in this cycle. Their end is not synonymous with the end of a building’s life, the moment of demolition, but their condition allows them to be used in the next building in the same form or processed in such a way that they remain in circulation.
The closed-loop economy allows for more favourable results for LCA because it uses materials that have already been put on the market. The production of the material emits carbon dioxide, which is already built into the process of creating the building. If the material is recycled, the GWP value for state A1 and A3 is significantly reduced, as there is no need to produce a new product, but to adapt an existing one to meet the needs [3].
Closed-loop economy and material reuse are important in the context of sustainable development. There are three main processes that are key to the development of low-carbon construction (Figure 1) [4].
Upcycling is the process of converting used material or residual waste into new material of better quality or value that is more beneficial to the environment.
Reusing is the process in which an element is reused for the same purpose. In the case of the demolition of a building or part of a building, the quality of the craft is important to bring out the elements in the best possible condition.
Recycling—the processing of materials that will allow them to be reused. In the case of demolition, significant amounts of materials can be reused for other purposes [5].
Reusing building materials can be a key element of sustainable construction. However, its potential and the technological, economic, and regulatory barriers to reuse require further investigation. Today, articles are often published addressing the issues of a closed-loop economy or recycling of building materials. They usually present a selected aspect in relation to a study or use case that has been carried out. However, the issue of circularity in construction has a very broad meaning. Recycling in construction encompasses both aspects of the demolition of existing structures or their renovation, as well as the use of recycled materials to produce new materials. Therefore, this study aims to organise the knowledge already obtained, collect good practices, and identify areas that require in-depth analysis. The results can be used to plan research related to recycling in construction.
There are five parts to the article. After the introduction in Section 1, Section 2 presents the detailed methodology and search strategy, as well as the criteria for inclusion and exclusion of articles. Section 3 contains the results obtained. Section 4 presents a discussion of recycling in the design process and materials processing and provides a summary of case studies. Section 5 provides conclusions, limitations, and directions for further research.

2. Materials and Methods

This study used the Semantic Scholar, Deepdyve, Google Scholar, Elsevier, Springer, and ResearchGate databases, using the keywords reuse, recycle, circular economy, and deconstruction. The search was limited to publications published after 2020 in the fields of civil engineering, materials technology, and BIM. Additionally, the Elicit tool was used to search for articles, which searches over 126 million scientific articles from Semantic Scholar databases, selects 500 publications with the best match, and then selects publications to be included in this review based on their abstracts. Articles related to the following topics were searched:
  • Economic and environmental value of material recovery in demolition–25 articles were selected,
  • Recycled building materials: quality and durability analysis–24 articles were selected,
  • Legal framework for the reuse of demolished materials in Europe–25 articles were selected.
The key terms used to search for articles related to the topic of circular economy were related to commonly used materials (concrete, wood, steel, brick, glass) and processes (design for disassembly; recycle, reuse; construction and demolition; 4R–reuse, recycle, repair, reduce) in order to obtain results related to civil engineering.
Attention was paid to the following issues:
  • Building materials produced using recycling and reuse of building materials from demolition, methods of their recovery,
  • Methods for assessing the quality of recycled materials and their properties,
  • Use of digital technology in the design process, especially in assessing the life cycle of a building,
  • Examples of implementing recycling technologies for the production of building materials or the use of demolition elements,
  • Circular economy in the field of construction in the aspect of building materials, as well as processing and design processes,
  • European context in the aspect of the regulatory framework.
From all the results, 200 articles were selected based on their title and abstract and then grouped into three research areas.
  • Design processes, such as design for assembly DfD (and reuse), BIM data management, or construction and demolition waste (CDW) management,
  • Material processing, when a manufactured component is reused or recycled to obtain a new one;
  • Case studies, with practical applications of the circular economy and secondary use of materials.
Articles selected on the basis of established criteria were added to the literature database created in the Zotero software. When entering subsequent titles into the database, if an article is duplicated in the software, it is placed in a separate folder, which allows for the identification of duplicate data and corrections. In this way, despite the large number of studies, errors related to the possible inclusion of a single article multiple times were avoided.
The retrieved articles were mostly published in peer-reviewed journals, especially after 2020. Figure 2 shows the percentage distribution by source.
Among articles published after 2020 in peer-reviewed journals, the average number of citations in 2020–2022 has a similar average value of 38, in 2023–15, and in 2024–6.

3. Results

The growing interest in the general issue of ecology also translates into construction, and there is a noticeable increase in publications in this area. Of the 185 articles, 137 have been extracted based on the criterion of time of publication (Figure 3).
The analysis was limited to the last 5 years (2020–2025) so as to include the latest proposed solutions in the articles, which were divided into three categories: design processes, materials research, and case studies. It is noticeable that there has been an increase in the number of publications in recent years because even after rejecting articles published before 2020, a significant portion is related to recent research. After applying the criterion related to the time of publication of the article, only 25% were rejected (Figure 4). This shows an increase in awareness and the need to develop the topic of reuse. Closed-loop awareness is mainly focused on reuse, recycling, and waste reduction [53,54]. The chart illustrates the distribution of the topics covered in the articles; it is noticeable that there is a clear predominance of research over materials—they account for more than half of the descriptions considered, regardless of the criterion of publication time. A wide cross-section of material types appears, including concrete, wood, steel, glass, and others.

3.1. Materials

According to the above, the largest group of articles is research on the secondary use of materials, accounting for 56% of the collected data. Developments in technology make it possible to support and improve the processing of materials or whole elements. A significant share of research on the secondary use of materials is concrete elements, which, depending on their type, can be processed in various ways. Concrete recycling appeared in 46% of articles, which is almost half (Figure 5). Depending on the type of element, there are various methods of reuse, including aggregate as an ingredient in new concrete or road base—these are the most common examples because it is the easiest way to reuse concrete [55,56,57]. There is no need for special processing, also in demolition, damaged elements can be used as aggregate and are not disqualified by defects that might otherwise be problematic. Such as the reuse of precast elements or their parts, with these methods, the potential for reuse is high; a number of studies appear in which the proposed solution is practised. However, it is necessary to make sure that their condition allows it. There is less potential with geopolymer concretes, the addition of glass and mineral wool to shredded concrete, the use of blast furnace slag and recycled aggregates. The result of such activities is a reduced need for the production of new materials, which results in reduced CO2 emissions, and this has been noted in many publications as a major environmental benefit when researching the secondary use of concrete. Reductions in energy and water consumption have also been reported [58,59].
The challenge is the general lack of standardisation, which leads to a problem of determining the exact composition. An important part of this is the detailed preliminary information that provides insight into all of the ingredients used in production and the processes the component has undergone. In addition, contaminants enter during the life cycle, which can react with new batches of material. Contaminants and general wear and tear during operation weaken the performance of the material, including load-bearing capacity, which is crucial if the component is used for structural purposes. This prolongs the processing process and the necessary tests to confirm that the required parameters for an adequate application have been achieved [60,61].
Wood and steel are at similar levels in the amount of research conducted and the potential for use, but the amount of research is significantly behind the available data for concrete [62]. For wood, there is a high level of reuse in the furniture sector, construction, and when used as an aggregate for concrete. The furniture industry focusses on refurbishments and the use of redundant wood components and the use of them to create unique furniture. They do not have to meet structural standards, as their function is mainly decorative and utilitarian [63]. In the case of concrete filling, the situation is similar to that of the aforementioned material when it serves as an aggregate, while with structural elements, it is most complicated. Wood, as an organic material, ages, so its properties decrease. When a beam or column is to be reused, strength tests should be performed to determine its current condition [43,64,65,66]. Fire resistance is also a cited challenge. The average potential for reuse is with OSB, composites, because variable wood quality occurs, which affects the final quality of the product. A threat to wood components, whether new or reused, is moisture and, consequently, fungal growth. Wood already has favourable emission values during production, as trees absorb CO2 during growth. When wood or wood-based materials are reused, the value decreases. There is no need to produce new materials, and those already on the market are beneficial to the environment [62,66].
With secondary use of steel, again, a high level of potential secondary use presents itself for structural components and steel profiles. The lower value for remelting components, as this process consumes energy and increases costs, does not encourage this solution. If companies choose to recycle steel, the energy required to produce the material and extract iron ore is saved [65,67]. When cutting components, some material is lost because it must be conducted in a precise manner. Steel is also susceptible to corrosion, which lowers the load-bearing capacity of the material that has been worn out, in particular. This is a problem for both recovered and new steel. With the development of technology, more and more effective countermeasures are being produced against this phenomenon, increasing the chances of maintaining properties at a high level as long as possible [68].
There is also information on bricks and glass, whose potential for reuse ranks medium to low. Mostly as a concrete aggregate. It is very difficult to recover large enough areas of glass in demolition because of its fragility. Recycled glass is used for decorative elements for which a large area is not required. Laser cutting increases the chances of recovering the glass without damage. In the case of brick, there is the problem of its brittleness and the need to remove the mortar used in the previous construction [55,69].
There are data in the literature on the processing and reuse of other materials, including plastic, plastic composites, and fly ash. Their share in the construction industry is smaller, so there are fewer studies and opportunities to obtain data on the possibility of secondary use. They appear mainly as additives to concrete, which shows how important this material is. Not only is it recycled on its own, but its composition also allows other waste materials to be used in its production, depending on its intended use [69,70,71].
In Table 1, materials are collected and grouped together with the potential for reuse according to their original form and the possibility of using them in a new form. The classification of secondary construction materials into low, medium and high reuse potential was based on the results of analyses presented in scientific literature. The authors of the studies demonstrated the degree of sophistication required to process a given material, the availability of technology and the impact on the environment. Concrete materials with a uniform composition and low contamination qualify as raw materials with high secondary potential, while mixed elements have medium or low potential because electricity and water are required for segregation or cleaning, as in the production of new material. Suggestions for the method of reuse are presented, describing the elements or solutions that can be used for each material. Each material has its own characteristics; steel profiles, bricks, or prefabricated reinforced concrete elements can be used in their original form and can be transformed into a completely new element. Additionally, brick and concrete, with glass elements, are reworked to be used in a different way in the construction sector as various types of additives and ballasts. Wood and plastic composites can be reprocessed and used as finishes or furniture components, showing the wide range of possibilities for reusing materials (Figure 6).
Closed loop should not be limited to just the building. Industry sectors must work together to keep materials in a closed loop. Many of the studies are based on already existing ISO standards, European Union documents, and national regulations, which still need to be expanded, but provide a good basis. Their very existence indicates the need to regulate the elements that make up the closed loop, so that materials meet certain parameters. The challenges that arise with individual materials are related to their properties and are not dissimilar to the difficulties that arise in designing with these materials. A new problem is often the lack of information about what has been used due to a lack of documentation or the need for precise deconstruction so as not to damage potentially good components.

3.2. Processes

The second listed group of articles is connected with design and executive processes and a catalogue of tools which are used to analyse and optimise the processes. With growing awareness and the increasingly widespread idea of material circulation, recycling possibilities should be taken into account as early as the design stage. By describing materials, components or demolition plans in a more detailed way, it is possible to identify weak points that require repair or replacement at the end of the building’s expected service life. It also provides access to the parameters of components and properties of materials that could be adapted and used in another building. The processes accompanying the design have an indirect impact, as the main benefits they can offer are access to information that will translate into a reduction in the carbon footprint. Table 2 presents a collection of them in categories.
Planning and design processes support effective deconstruction, allowing early prediction of which elements can be fully reused after demolition. They constitute the smallest part of the selected articles but contain important information helpful in implementing circularity and recovering as much material as possible in the best condition. With detailed initial documentation that contains as much data as possible, prepared using a BIM model, it is possible to plan the demolition and recovery of materials more accurately. As many as 13 articles address the use of BIM data both in terms of defining parameters for the materials and solutions used, and propose additional tools in the form of plugins and parametric programming to support the data processing process. According to current trends, machine learning and AI algorithms are also used in predictive planning (Table 2).
The technical capabilities of data processing are very advanced today, but many authors (8 articles, Table 2) point to the lack of regulations and knowledge about the possibilities of reusing building materials and suggest the need to develop new standards. Barriers and the need to identify ‘hot spots’ blocking the closed-loop process are noted, but opportunities and strategies for action are proposed at different stages of the life cycle of a building and process optimisation (5 articles, Table 2). Training materials have also been developed to spread knowledge about the possibilities of circular design.
A frequently raised issue (11 articles, Table 2) is the proposal to create a common platform for collecting data on building materials in terms of their reuse. Attention was drawn to the possibilities of using data in the BIM environment by programming a plug-in for the Revit programme. It is proposed to prepare material passports and to label suitable materials for reuse (3 articles, Table 2).
Cost analyses of deconstruction and reuse are presented in 2 articles (Table 2).
It is proposed to introduce design processes that facilitate subsequent demolition (2 articles, Table 2) to use as much of the building as possible in the next project. This is Design for Disassembly and Reuse (DfD&R). If the possibility of reusing building elements is planned in an early stage of design, their recovery will be greater. Using the idea of Design for Disassembly and Reuse, it is possible to plan how individual elements of a building can be reused, closing the circular cycle of the building’s life cycle.
The integration of advanced digital technologies with appropriately designed regulations and industry practices is key to the success of building a circular economy in construction. Future research and development should focus on removing organisational and economic barriers, as well as on creating interoperable, open data platforms that will enable effective planning and implementation of deconstruction activities and material reuse.

3.3. Case Studies

The last group is case studies, which account for approximately 20% of the articles analysed (Figure 3). Real-life examples that presented the practical application of material reuse for individual elements, materials, or the whole building. Table 3 shows the collected case studies with descriptions of what elements were reused, whether they required processing, the conclusions and results that were achieved, the challenges that arose during this study, the environmental benefits, and the regulations used.
The examples are presented (Table 3) in different countries, so that a cross-section of solutions and opportunities under varying conditions is evident. The presented aspects are not only positive aspects of such treatments, but also challenges that recur regardless of location and materials. The difficulties encountered are also a kind of closed loop (Figure 7), where one challenge arises from another. With the lack of sufficient regulation noted in several of the works, it is demanding to educate a cadre that lacks the fundamentals to achieve so.
The most frequently recurring challenge (Figure 8) was technological limitations and a general lack of knowledge of the materials used, lack of documentation, and lack of digitisation, which limit processing capabilities or result in a significant increase in costs due to the extra work that must be conducted to identify deficiencies. The high costs, although not directly mentioned, in 14% of the case studies are also the cause of the previously mentioned barriers. Economic constraints result in much less access to data and solutions that could improve the process. The lack of education and public awareness was mentioned, which should be gradually built. Resources are needed for this process, which again comes down to the financial aspect.
Many countries and organisations have introduced or are working to expand existing standards. The European Union has adopted programmes such as the European Green Deal, which includes a strategy to transform the economy toward climate neutrality [190]. The case studies mentioned more regulations, plans and documents that can support the recycling process by defining the assumptions and goals to be achieved within a given time frame. These are most often national or European software, projects or plans such as The European Green Deal and the Circular Economy Action Plan, created by the European Commission. Germany (A report from the Federal Association of Recycling Building Materials Bavaria), the USA (the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals; the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Waste Reduction Model), Switzerland (the Swiss Research Centre for Rationalisation in Building and Civil Engineering) and Denmark (The Danish Climate Act; The Danish National Strategy for Sustainable Development) all have their own software. Standards included in the case studies presented are EN 15804+A1, ISO 14044, ISO 20887, ISO 14044, and EN 15978. These standards form the basis for environmental management and a circular approach in construction by establishing consistent rules for assessing the environmental impact of materials and buildings throughout their entire life cycle.
EN 15804+A1 defines the rules for preparing environmental product declarations (EPDs) for construction products, enabling a transparent and standardised assessment of their impact from production to use.
ISO 14044 is a universal methodological standard for conducting life cycle assessments (LCA), which are used to assess and compare the environmental impact of different products and processes, including building materials.
ISO 20887 supports the implementation of circular economy principles in the construction sector by promoting the design of building components so that they can be easily dismantled, reused, and recycled.
EN 15978 extends this assessment to the entire life cycle of a building, taking into account all stages—from raw material extraction, through construction and use, to end of life and recycling—enabling comprehensive environmental assessment and sustainable planning.
Together, these standards provide a comprehensive framework for assessing and improving sustainability and environmental performance in construction, providing a basis for informed decisions to minimise negative environmental impacts and promote circularity.
Products Regulation controls the marketing of construction products in the EU. Poland, despite its commitments to projects and EU standards, has its own programmes such as the National Waste Management Plan 2028 (KPGO)—which takes into account circular economy principles, including recycling of building materials, and focuses on construction in the energy context. The Poland’s Energy Policy until 2040 (PEP2040) and the National Energy and Climate Plan (NERP). In order to expand and clarify the EU standards, which need to be flexible enough to be applied in all member states, Poland has PN-EN 15804+A2:2020–03—Harmonised method for creating EPDs of building products and PN-EN 15978:2012—Environmental assessment of buildings–LCA. The number of assurance documents touches on various aspects of the circular economy, including waste management, classification, and assessments. Challenges have addressed the problem of different standards depending on where the work is conducted and the lack of standards for specific materials. As can be seen, despite the wide range of documents, there are still many gaps to be filled. With regulations being introduced in the relatively near future (European Green Deal 2018, EN 15804 2012 with revisions, or EN 15978 2012), time is required to translate this into an educational programme. A general lack of personnel was also a challenge. If there is a limited number of subjects in education, the information on circular economy will also be translated into the labour market. All of this adds up to the high cost of this technology. If there is a lack of regulation, education and experts, the price of the entire material processing technology is very high; this problem appears in almost every case described. This is often the main difference compared to the production of new materials. The current industry is production-oriented; the transition to materials processing requires a reformulation of the entire industry and the way we think about construction. Examples show how a wide range of elements and component materials can be recovered from an existing building. The case studies featured examples from a variety of materials, from concrete to steel to wood. Each of these materials has the potential to be reused or recycled so that it can serve as a new element. The examples in the materials processing section demonstrate how much research is emerging on this topic. By the number of articles from the last five years compared to the time before 2020, one can see an increasing trend, which suggests a trend and a noticeable need for research on the topic.
A good practice and the most common recycling method is deconstruction, which uses as many components as possible. To achieve this effect, deconstruction should be planned so that its components are not damaged and can be used again. The whole process should start as early as the design stage of the building, which leads to the part with processes closing the circulation of information and processing of materials.

4. Discussion

The environmental advantages observed from reuse indicate that this intervention is an effective strategy that should receive more attention to reduce the environmental footprint of the building sector.
When it comes to research on building materials, there is a noticeable trend and a particular focus on the secondary use of concrete. Almost half of the authors touched on this topic at various levels, with a more or less focused on concrete alone or in combination with other materials. Topics covered include precast and monolithic elements, the use of whole elements, as well as processing to change their original form. The trend for secondary use of concrete with recycled aggregate, which is found in a wide range of uses, is often not required.
Lack of detailed studies and economic issues is a significant factor. In the section on case studies, this was the most frequently cited challenge related to high costs in recycling processes. Aggregate can be used in concrete remanufacturing, as a base for various types of construction to harden the surface. Other materials require much more research. Steel, wood, glass, and other materials, such as bricks and plastics, make up about half of the available research. Five types take up as much space as one material, clearly showing the disparity that exists. There is an emerging gap in research on many materials, and steel and wood show the greatest research potential due to their frequency in construction. They are widely used, and their potential for secondary use, despite the fact that it presents itself at a high level, is not verified at a satisfactory level; 15% of the articles dealt with the secondary use of wood in a general sense. The articles noted an important aspect related to the cooperation of various fields. In the case of wood, this was not limited to construction only; the furniture industry also appeared. The cooperation of the broader industry in the processing of the material is crucial because the elements do not have to end their role if they are not used in the field, and their parameters will allow them to find a new use, as has occurred in the case of wood and furniture. There is a lack of research to determine at what point wooden elements should not go into secondary circulation as construction elements or how to properly preserve them so as to improve or bring them to their original condition. There is also a need for the standardisation of wood waste with criteria for the quality and applicability of this type of material. The situation is almost identical to that of steel elements, which represent about 10% of the materials analysed. A particularly positive aspect is the fact of using the elements in their entirety and being able to dismantle the structure if such solutions have been used. In this case, the potential for reuse is very high since all the elements are recovered. The possibility of recycling through remelting is lower because some material is lost. This also requires an energy supply, increasing the cost of such a solution, as well as CO2 emissions. Other materials, such as glass, brick, and plastic, add up to about 25% and are not used as often, which is the reason for the amount of research on them. Nevertheless, more than a quarter of analyses have been devoted to the subject, a relatively high figure compared to the far more popular wood or steel. Another recurring possibility for secondary use is, again, aggregate or concrete additives, both bricks and plastic and glass. This shows just how absorbent other concrete materials are. Depending on their intended use, a wide cross-section of waste left over from demolition can be used for their production.
Breaking the circularity of barriers in processes could allow the secondary building materials industry to develop. Any positive change in one aspect would translate into another, resulting in the development of the entire field. With the successive introduction of processing education and the possibility of using waste, the analysis of its properties would increase the number of specialists on the labour market. It is likely that some would become involved in practical use, in design companies, expertise or on the construction site, while another group would develop a research approach to recycled materials by developing technologies that would become more widespread with time and improvement and cheaper as a result. The overall development translates into the need to create new regulations and standards to systematise the approach used. Currently, all these aspects appear as barriers in articles. In recent years, there has been a noticeable increase in actual examples of the practical application of secondary use of materials. As many as 32 studies of the 39 that have appeared in the literature are from the last 5 years and present the range of materials used. Both appear with information on concrete processing, relatively often as an aggregate, which confirms the translation from materials research to the practical aspect. An example is described that compares the reuse of building components in Norway, Denmark, and Belgium, which presents the approach and clear interest of many countries. The examples also identify good practices, such as how waste is managed, allowing control and organising of the information that is obtained. The more information available, the greater the likelihood of selecting an appropriate destination.
In the Netherlands, a database of more than 60 demolition projects was created, allowing a more efficient way of standardising materials. The use of BIM and digitisation as a means of collecting and organising data to improve the quality of building lifecycle management was repeated in many examples. This aspect requires the development of awareness and technology related to design processes, but predicts great potential. A large amount of data provided by the BIM process can be used at the stage of demolition, cataloguing materials, and can be helpful in their reuse.
According to the reviewed articles, the reuse of building components is a sustainable approach that can significantly reduce the environmental impact of buildings, electricity and water consumption. However, reuse is hampered by various barriers. This study outlines the challenges facing the construction sector, which emerged from references. As a result, this study describes the steps needed to advance material reuse and identifies future research areas to fill identified literature gaps. A preliminary review revealed the significant role that the economic factor plays and the translation of the technological constraints that exist in relation to the circular economy. After analysing the interrelationships, the need for a holistic approach to removing barriers was observed, as the listed constraints are closely related.

5. Conclusions

The literature search confirmed the hypothesis that the reuse of building components is a sustainable approach that can significantly reduce the environmental impact of buildings and reduce electricity and water consumption.
The review provided information on the recycled materials that are used and how they can be recycled or processed.
  • Currently, many building materials are recycled, including concrete, wood, glass, steel, and plastics.
  • A definite advantage is seen in concrete research, which creates a gap between the other materials. Many of them are being used as concrete fillers, greatly expanding the possibilities of obtaining concrete with favourable environmental properties.
  • In the case of steel and wood, the main limitations are the original properties of these materials, which, over time, highlight their defects. Prevention and technological advances would make it possible to prevent corrosion.
  • Prevention and technological advances would make it possible to prevent fungi and pests in the case of wood, which is also used in other areas, such as the furniture or finishing market.
This leaves a lot of room for further research, which would help develop the secondary materials industry to a degree comparable to that presented with concrete. Recovering demolition materials is not enough to reuse them. A review of articles on the processes showed that there is a significant gap in technology usage, as follows:
  • A need to create a database of demolition materials with information on their parameters.
  • Various solutions are proposed, but all have in common centralisation and access for a large group of potential recipients.
  • The potential for reusing building materials can be increased through the use of digital support tools such as databases, material passports, and BIM technologies, which enable data collection and analysis. Integrating artificial intelligence can significantly increase the efficiency of processes in a circular economy.
  • It would be beneficial to develop and improve new applications and plug-ins for various software to collect, analyse, and share information on building materials that will be suitable for reuse.
  • The inclusion of AI tools in the analysis of large amounts of data may also have great potential.
Analysis of case studies highlighted the most significant shortcomings related to the need for standardisation.
  • The lack of standardised regulations and limited LCA tools hinders the assessment of CO2 emissions in construction and the comparison of results. Legislative action and the development of professional education in collaboration with companies implementing new circular economy technologies are needed.
  • Due to the large variety of processes in different countries, standardisation of regulations may be difficult, but there is room for joint action to develop standards, optimisation, and good practices that, if tested on a small scale, could be implemented in other countries.
  • Reusing building components is a sustainable solution that can reduce the environmental impact of construction, but its implementation is hampered by technological, economic, and organisational barriers.
With the development of the reprocessing industry, there will be a need to create new employee specialisations, produce new processing equipment, and this also involves the need to supplement the educational offer at all levels of vocational education. This is an area that requires supplementation both for teacher education and the preparation of educational materials.
The results of the articles can be used by many professional groups. The collected material data are most important for material manufacturers, scientists and those who create environmental frameworks, as there is a noticeable gap in availability and processing that they are able to fill. The tools mentioned in the section related to design processes should be gradually implemented by designers and constructors—people who influence the initial stage of building construction. Case studies, on the other hand, collect practical information that serves as a guide for everyone involved in construction.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization A.K. and M.S.; methodology A.K. and M.S.; software, A.K. and M.S.; formal analysis, A.K. and M.S.; resources, A.K. and M.S.; data curation, A.K. and M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.K. and M.S.; writing—review and editing, A.K. and M.S.; visualization, A.K. and M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
LCALife Cycle Analysis
GWPGlobal Warning Potential
CDWConstruction and Demolition Waste
DfD&RDesign for Disassembly and Reuse
OSBOriented Strand Board
GISGeographic Information System
BIMBuilding Information Modelling
AIArtificial Intelligence

References

  1. Hamilton, I.; Kennard, H.; Rapf, O.; Kockat, J.; Zuhaib, S.; Toth, Z.; Barrett, M.; Milne, C.; Delmastro, C.; Monschauer; et al. The Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2022; ISBN 978-92-807-3984-8. [Google Scholar]
  2. Véliz, K.D.; Busco, C.; Walters, J.P.; Esparza, C. Circular Economy for Construction and Demolition Waste in the Santiago Metropolitan Region of Chile: A Delphi Analysis. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nadazdi, A.; Naunovic, Z.; Ivanisevic, N. Circular Economy in Construction and Demolition Waste Management in the Western Balkans: A Sustainability Assessment Framework. Sustainability 2022, 14, 871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Godina, M.; Gowler, P.; Rose, C.M.; Wiegand, E.; Mills, H.F.; Koronaki, A.; Ramage, M.H.; Shah, D.U. Strategies for Salvaging and Repurposing Timber Elements from Existing Buildings in the UK. J. Clean. Prod. 2025, 489, 144629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gnatiuk, L.; Novik, H.; Melnyk, M. Recycling and Upcycling in Construction. Theory Pract. Des. 2022, 25, 130–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kralj, D.; Markič, M. Building Materials Reuse and Recycle. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 2008, 4, 409–418. [Google Scholar]
  7. Webb, R.S.; Thomson, D.S.; Kelly, J.R. Building Services Component Reuse: A Response to the Need for Adaptability. Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 2000, 21, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Turku, I.; Keskisaari, A.; Kärki, T.; Puurtinen, A.; Marttila, P. Characterization of Wood Plastic Composites Manufactured from Recycled Plastic Blends. Compos. Struct. 2016, 161, 469–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bertin, I.; Lebrun, F.; Braham, N.; Le Roy, R. Construction, Deconstruction, Reuse of the Structural Elements: The Circular Economy to Reach Zero Carbon. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 323, 012020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pecur, I.B.; Štirmer, N.; Milovanovic, B. Durability Properties of Recycled Aggregate Concrete. In Proceedings of the RILEM International Workshop on Performance-Based Specification and Control of Concrete Durability, Zagreb, Croatia, 11–13 June 2014; pp. 191–198, ISBN 978-2-35158-135-3. [Google Scholar]
  11. De Luca, P.; Carbone, I.; Nagy, J.B. Green Building Materials: A Review of State of the Art Studies of Innovative Materials. J. Green. Build. 2017, 12, 141–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pierluca, V.; Noemi, A.; Di Gregorio, F.; Umberto, A. Life Cycle Assessment of the End-of-Life Phase of a Residential Building. Waste Manag. 2017, 60, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Francesconi, L. New Building Materials in Structural Engineering: Structural Concretes Made with Coarse and Fine Recycled Aggregates. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  14. Kasai, Y.; Kawamura, M.; Zhou, J. Production Process and Bending/Compressive Strength of Wood-Chip Concrete with Demolished-Timber. J. Struct. Constr. Eng. (Trans. AIJ) 1995, 60, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Posi, P.; Foytong, P.; Thongjapo, P.; Thamultree, N.; Boontee, P.; Kasemsiri, P.; Cao, T.; Chindaprasirt, P. Preliminary Study of Pressed Lightweight Geopolymer Block Using Fly Ash, Portland Cement and Recycled Lightweight Concrete. Key Eng. Mater. 2016, 718, 184–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pangdaeng, S.; Phoo-ngernkham, T.; Sata, V.; Chindaprasirt, P. Influence of Curing Conditions on Properties of High Calcium Fly Ash Geopolymer Containing Portland Cement as Additive. Mater. Des. 2014, 53, 269–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Layachi, B.; Nourredine, A.; Laurent, M.; Raoul, J. Propriétés Mécaniques et Durabilité Des Bétons à Base de Graviers et s Ables Recyclés Issus de Béton de Démolition. In Proceedings of the Deuxième Conférence Internationale Francophone Nouveaux Matériaux et Durabilité, Douai, France, 16–17 November 2015; hal-01366521. Available online: https://hal.science/hal-01366521v1/document (accessed on 26 March 2025).
  18. Xanthos, M.; Dey, S.K.; Mitra, S.; Yilmazer, U.; Feng, C. Prototypes for Building Applications Based on Thermoplastic Composites Containing Mixed Waste Plastics. Polym. Compos. 2002, 23, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Keskisaari, A.; Kärki, T. Raw Material Potential of Recyclable Materials for Fiber Composites: A Review Study. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2016, 19, 1136–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. de Brito, J.; Goncalves, A.P.; dos Santos, R.R. Recycled Concrete Production. Multiple Recycling of Concrete Coarse Aggregates. Rev. Ing. De Constr. 2006, 21, 33–40. [Google Scholar]
  21. Purnell, P.; Dunster, A. 20-Recycling of Concrete. In Management, Recycling and Reuse of Waste Composites; Woodhead Publishing Series in Composites Science and Engineering; Goodship, V., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2010; pp. 569–591. ISBN 978-1-84569-462-3. [Google Scholar]
  22. De Venny, A.S. Recycling of Demolished Masonry Rubble. Ph.D. Thesis, Napier University, Napier, New Zealand, 1999. Available online: https://napier-repository.worktribe.com/output/281000/recycling-of-demolished-masonry-rubble (accessed on 28 March 2025).
  23. Charytonowicz, J.; Skowroński, M. Reuse of Building Materials. Procedia Manuf. 2015, 3, 1633–1637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Joseph, P.; Tretsiakova-McNally, S. Sustainable Non-Metallic Building Materials. Sustainability 2010, 2, 400–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Durmisevic, E.; Beurskens, P.R.; Adrosevic, R.; Westerdijk, R. Systemic View on Reuse Potential of Building Elements, Components and Systems: Comprehensive Framework for Assessing Reuse Potential of Buil Ding Elements. In Proceedings of the International HISER Conference on Advances in Recycling and Management of Construction and Demolition Waste, Delft, The Netherlands, 21–23 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
  26. Briga-Sá, A.; Nascimento, D.; Teixeira, N.; Pinto, J.; Caldeira, F.; Varum, H.; Paiva, A. Textile Waste as an Alternative Thermal Insulation Building Material Solution. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 38, 155–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Guy, B. The Optimization of Building Deconstruction for Department of Defense Facilities: Ft. McClellan Deconstruction Project. J. Green. Build. 2006, 1, 102–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Keskisaari, A.; Kärki, T. The Use of Waste Materials in Wood-Plastic Composites and Their Impact on the Profitability of the Product. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 134, 257–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bojan, M.; Marina, B.; Ivana, B.P.; Nina, Š. Use of Recycled Aggregate Concrete for Energy Efficient Buildings. 3rd R.N. In Proceedings of the Raikar Memorial International Conference and Gettu-Kodur International Symposium on Advances in Science and Technology of Concrete, Mumbai, India, 14–15 December 2018. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hobbs, G.; Adams, K. Reuse of Building Products and Materials—Barriers and Opportunities. In Proceedings of the International HISER Conference on Advances in Recycling and Management of Construction and Demolition Waste, Delft, The Netherlands, 21–23 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
  31. Keskisaari, A.; Kärki, T. Utilization of Industrial Wastes from Mining and Packaging Industries in Wood-Plastic Composites. J. Polym. Env. 2018, 26, 1504–1510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bouslamti, A.; Irle, M.A.; Salvador, V.; Bondu, M.; Hulo, S.; Caron, B. Why Simulate a Sample of Recycled Wood? Maderas Cienc. tecnol. 2012, 14, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ankur, G. Accelerating Circularity in Built-Environment through ‘Active-Procurem Ent’: An Aggregated Assessment Framework to Make Sustainable Choices w Hile Using Secondary Material at Early Design Phase. Master’s Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2019. Available online: https://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:6bdb4827-82f5-43c7-aba9-79c0db9e6ef5 (accessed on 8 April 2025).
  34. Lantz, S.F.; Falk, R.H.; Feasibility of Recycling Timber from Military Industrial Buildings. Use of Recycled Wood and Paper in Building Applications. Available online: https://www.fpl.fs.usda.gov/documnts/pdf1997/lantz97a.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2025).
  35. Zaman, A.; Arnott, J.; Mclntyre, B.K.; Hannon, J. Resource Harvesting through a Systematic Deconstruction of the Residential House: A Case Study of the ‘Whole House Reuse’ Project in Christc Hurch, New Zealand. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Brütting, J.; De Wolf, C.; Fivet, C. The Reuse of Load-Bearing Components. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 225, 012025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yeung, J.; Walbridge, S.; Haas, C.; Saari, R. Understanding the Total Life Cycle Cost Implications of Reusing Structural Steel. Env. Syst. Decis. 2017, 37, 101–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sigrid Nordby, A. Barriers and Opportunities to Reuse of Building Materials in the Norwegian Construction Sector. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 225, 012061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bertin, I.; Ferraille, A.; Laratte, B.; Roy, R. Design for Reuse (DfReu) Applied to Buildings; Anticipate Disassembly for the End-of-Life (EoL), in Order to Preserve Resources. In Proceedings of the Eco Design 2019 International Symposium, Yokohama, Japan, 25–27 November 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Serwanja, E.; Sheidaei, M. Evaluation of Recycling & Reuse of Building Materials from Demolition: Cost Feasibility and Environmental Impact Assessment. Master’s Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2016. Available online: https://odr.chalmers.se/server/api/core/bitstreams/4851b7c5-6a7e-4d98-958f-f3d18fad944d/content (accessed on 20 March 2025).
  41. Murray, R. Construction and Demolition Waste in Western Australia: A Case Study on Best Practice Demolition. Licentiate Thesis, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  42. Pantini, S.; Rigamonti, L. Is Selective Demolition Always a Sustainable Choice? Waste Manag. 2019, 103, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hebel, D.E.; Wisniewska, M.H.; Heisel, F. Building from Waste: Recovered Materials in Architecture and Construction; DE GRUYTER: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; ISBN 978-3-03821-584-4. [Google Scholar]
  44. Debacker, W.; Manshoven, S.; Peters, M.; Ribeiro, A.; Weerdt, R.Y. Circular Economy and Design for Change within the Built Environment: P Reparing the Transition. In Proceedings of the International HISER Conference on Advances in Recycling and Management of Construction and Demolition Waste, Delft, The Netherland, 21–23 June 2017; Available online: https://www.bamb2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Circular-economy-and-design-for-change-within-the-built-environment_prep....pdf (accessed on 15 March 2025).
  45. Pecur, I.B.; Strimer, N.; Milovanovic, B. Innovative Prefabricated System with Recycled CDW for New and Renovation of Existing Buildings. In Proceedings of the Advances in Civil, Environmental, and Materials Research (ACEM14), Busan, Republic of Korea, 24–28 August 2014; Available online: https://www.academia.edu/68484370/Innovative_prefabricated_system_with_recycled_CDW_for_new_and_renovation_of_existing_buildings (accessed on 16 March 2025).
  46. Minunno, R.; O’Grady, T.; Morrison, G.M.; Gruner, R.L.; Colling, M. Strategies for Applying the Circular Economy to Prefabricated Buildings. Buildings 2018, 8, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kellenberger, D.; Althaus, H.-J. Relevance of Simplifications in LCA of Building Components. Build. Environ. 2009, 44, 818–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lassandro, P. Deconstruction Case Study in Southern Italy: Economic and Environmental Assessment. In Proceedings of the 11th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, USA, 7–10 May 2003; Available online: https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB860.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2025).
  49. Keskisaari, A.; Butylina, S.; Kärki, T. Use of Construction and Demolition Wastes as Mineral Fillers in Hybrid Wood-Polymer Composites. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2016, 133, 43412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Forsythe, P. Drivers of Housing Demolition Decision Making and the Impact on Timber Waste Management. Constr. Econ. Build. 2011, 11, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Altamura, P.; Baiani, S. Superuse and Upcycling through Design: Approaches and Tools. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 225, 012014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Stokke, D.D. Micro and Macromorphology of Recycled Fiber and Wood. MRS Online Proc. Libr. 1992, 266, 47–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Alotaibi, S.; Martinez-Vazquez, P.; Baniotopoulos, C. Advancing Circular Economy in Construction Mega-Projects: Awareness, Key Enablers, and Benefits—Case Study of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Buildings 2024, 14, 2215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Amudjie, J.; Agyekum, K.; Adinyira, E.; Amos-Abanyie, S.; Kumah, V.M.A. Awareness and Practice of the Principles of Circular Economy among Built Environment Professionals. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2023, 13, 140–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gebremariam, A.T.; Vahidi, A.; Di Maio, F.; Moreno-Juez, J.; Vegas-Ramiro, I.; Łagosz, A.; Mróz, R.; Rem, P. Comprehensive Study on the Most Sustainable Concrete Design Made of Recycled Concrete, Glass and Mineral Wool from C&D Wastes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 273, 121697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Dosho, Y. Contributions of Concrete Recycling Technology toward Sustainable Development: Standards and Technologies Related to Recycled Aggregate Concrete in Japan. J. Mater. Eng. Struct. 2020, 7, 525–549. [Google Scholar]
  57. Silva, S.; Evangelista, L.; de Brito, J. Durability and Shrinkage Performance of Concrete Made with Coarse Mult I-Recycled Concrete Aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 272, 121645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Drochytka, R.; Dufek, Z.; Michalčíková, M.; Hodul, J. Study of Possibilities of Using Special Types of Building and Demolition Waste in Civil Engineering. Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng. 2020, 64, 304–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sheikh Hassani, M.; Matos, J.C.; Zhang, Y.X.; Teixeira, E. Concrete Production with Domestic and Industrial Wastewaters—A Literature Review. Struct. Concr. 2023, 24, 5582–5599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hasan, E. Feasibility of Recycling Concrete Construction Waste in Environmental and Economic Sides. FES J. Eng. Sci. 2021, 11, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Skocek, J.; Ouzia, A.; Vargas Serrano, E.; Pato, N. Recycled Sand and Aggregates for Structural Concrete: Toward the Indus Trial Production of High-Quality Recycled Materials with Low Water Absorption. Sustainability 2024, 16, 814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Nielsen-Roine, K.; Meyboom, A. Seven Generations for Wood. In Proceedings of the 112th ACSA Annual Meeting Proceedings, Disruptors on the Edge, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 14–16 March 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Dias, S.; Tadeu, A.; Almeida, J.; Humbert, P.; António, J.; de Brito, J.; Pinhão, P. Physical, Mechanical, and Durability Properties of Concrete Containing Wood Chips and Sawdust: An Experimental Approach. Buildings 2022, 12, 1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ren, X. Application and Performance Evaluation of Recycled Building Materials in Civil Engineering. Appl. Comput. Eng. 2024, 78, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Findik, F.; Findik, F. Civil Engineering Materials. Herit. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 3, 154–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ribeiro, L.S.; Stolz, C.M.; Amario, M.; Silva, A.L.N.D.; Haddad, A.N. Use of Post-Consumer Plastics in the Production of Wood-Plastic Composites for Building Components: A Systematic Review. Energies 2023, 16, 6549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Egonzalez, R.; Stephens, M.T.; Toma, C.; Dowdell, D. The Estimated Carbon Cost of Concrete Building Demolitions following the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence. Earthq. Spectra 2022, 38, 1615–1635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Stepien, A.; Wojarska-Gniady, P. Recycling in Construction—Characteristics of Composite and Recycled Materials Used in Structural Elements of Buildings. Energy Clean Technol. 2023, 23, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lamba, P.; Kaur, D.P.; Raj, S.; Sorout, J. Recycling/Reuse of Plastic Waste as Construction Material for Sustainable Development: A Review. Env. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 86156–86179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ulewicz, M. Recycled Materials for Concrete and Other Composites. Materials 2021, 14, 2279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ulewicz, M. Recycled Materials in Civil Engineering Application. Materials 2023, 16, 7075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gabryś, K. Dynamic Shear Properties of Recycled Combustion Slag, a Sustainable Material, in Road Construction. Sustainability 2025, 17, 926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Haas, M.; Galler, R.; Scibile, L.; Benedikt, M. Waste or Valuable Resource—A Critical European Review on Re-Using an d Managing Tunnel Excavation Material. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 162, 105048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Almokdad, M.; Zentar, R. Characterization of Recycled Dredged Sediments: Toward Circular Economy in Road Construction. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 402, 132974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Si, W.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, X.; Xia, W.; Cheng, X.; Luo, X.; Hu, Y. Maximizing the Circularity of Asphalt Pavements by Improving the RAP Content in Recycled Asphalt Mixtures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 438, 137316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ilma, J. Economic Feasibility of Reusing Structural Components: How to Quantitatively Assess the Economic Feasibility of Reusing Structural Componen Ts from Existing Buildings into New Construction? Master’s Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2020. Available online: https://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:e17e92e0-9b3e-4e70-8b93-5f77ccbe1154 (accessed on 30 July 2025).
  77. Küpfer, C.; Bastien-Masse, M.; Devènes, J.; Fivet, C. Environmental and Economic Analysis of New Construction Techniques Reusing Existing Concrete Elements: Two Case Studies. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2022, 1078, 012013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Dervishaj, A.; Fonsati, A.; Hernández Vargas, J.; Gudmundsson, K. Modelling Precast Concrete for a Circular Economy in the Built Environment. In Proceedings of the 41st Conference on Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe (eCAADe 2023), Graz, Austria, 20–22 September 2023; 2, pp. 177–186. [Google Scholar]
  79. Charlotte, L.; Eberhardt, M.; Birgisdottir, H. Building the Future Using the Existing Building Stock: The Environmental Potential of Reuse. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2022, 1078, 012020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ahmed, K.S.; Rana, L.R. Fresh and Hardened Properties of Concrete Containing Recycled Waste Glass: A Review. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 70, 106327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Anwar, M.K.; Zhu, X.; Gilabert, F.A.; Siddiq, M.U. Recycling and Optimum Utilization of CRT Glass as Building Materials: An Application of Low CO2 Based Circular Economy for Sustainable Construction. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 453, 138798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Gopalakrishna, B.; Pasla, D. Durability Performance of Recycled Aggregate Geopolymer Concrete Incor Porating Fly Ash and Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2024, 36, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Sultana, A. Impact of Multiple Recycling on the Strength of Coarse Aggregate. Civ. Eng. Beyond Limits 2020, 2, 12–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Shamass, R.; Rispoli, O.; Limbachiya, V.; Kovacs, R. Mechanical and Environmental Impact of Using Blast Burnace Slag, Silica Fume and Recycled Aggregate in Concrete. Soc. Sci. Res. Netw. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2023, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Shamass, R.; Rispoli, O.; Limbachiya, V.; Kovacs, R. Mechanical and GWP Assessment of Concrete Using Blast Furnace Slag, Si Lica Fume and Recycled Aggregate. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2023, 18, e02164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Soldati, L.; Bacciocchi, M.; Tarantino, A.M. Mechanical Characterization of Sustainable Mortars with Recycled Aggre Gates from Construction and Demolition Wastes: An Experimental Investigation. Materials 2024, 17, 5409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Borg, R.P.; Cuenca, E.; Garofalo, R.; Schillani, F.; Nasner, M.L.; Ferrara, L. Performance Assessment of Ultra-High Durability Concrete Produced From Recycled Ultra-High Durability Concrete. Front. Built Environ. 2021, 7, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Louzi, N.; Alzoubi, H.M.; El, M.; Ghazal, T.M.; Alshurideh, M.; Kukunuru, S. Psychological Health and Environmental Effect of Using Green Recycled Amassed Concrete on Construction. J. Reatt. Ther. Dev. Divers. 2022, 5, 163–175. [Google Scholar]
  89. De Andrade Salgado, F.; De Andrade Silva, F. Recycled Aggregates from Construction and Demolition Waste towards an Application on Structural Concrete: A Review. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 52, 104452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Rahmani, A.A.; Chemrouk, M.; Ammar-Boudjelal, A. Rheological, Physico-Mechanical and Durability Properties of Multi-Rec Ycled Concrete. Adv. Concr. Constr. 2020, 9, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Marathe, S.; Shetty, T.S.; Mithun, B.M.; Ranjith, A. Strength and Durability Studies on Air Cured Alkali Activated Pavement Quality Concrete Mixes Incorporating Recycled Aggregates. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2021, 15, e00732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ghernouti, Y.; Rabehi, B.; Mansour, S.M. Study of the Mechanical Properties and the Durability of Concrete Base d on Recycled Wastes Aggregates. Eurasia Proc. Sci. Technol. Eng. Math. 2024, 32, 463–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Venkrbec, V.; Klanšek, U. Suitability of Recycled Concrete Aggregates from Precast Panel Buildin Gs Deconstructed at Expired Lifespan for Structural Use. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Gerhardsson, H.; Lindholm, C.L.; Andersson, J.; Kronberg, A.; Wennesjö, M.; Shadram, F. Transitioning the Swedish Building Sector toward Reuse and Circularity. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 588, 042036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Vaishnavi Devi, S.; Gausikan, R.; Chithambaranathan, S.; Wilfred Jeffrey, J. Utilization of Recycled Aggregate of Construction and Demolition Waste as a Sustainable Material. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 45, 6649–6654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Rakhshan, K.; Morel, J.-C.; Alaka, H.; Charef, R. Components Reuse in the Building Sector—A Systematic Review. Waste Manag. Res. 2020, 38, 347–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Rosca, B. Eco-Friendly Lightweight Aggregate Concrete of Structural Grade Made with Recycled Brick Aggregate Containing Expanded Polystyrene Beads. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Mostert, C.; Weber, C.; Bringezu, S. Modelling and Simulation of Building Material Flows: Assessing the Potential for Concrete Recycling in the German Construction Sector. Recycling 2022, 7, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Kul, A.; Ozcelikci, E.; Furkan Ozel, B.; Yildirim, G.; Ashour, A. Adapting Construction and Demolition Waste to Circular Building Materials and Evaluation of Life Cycle Environmental Impacts. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components, Beijing, China, 10–13 October 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Cruze, D.; Sah, C.; Manikanta, N.; Mandal, D.K.; Jha, A.K.; Solomon, A.A. Axial Compressive Behavior of Recycled Aggregate Concrete Steel Composite Columns. Res. Eng. Struct. Mat. 2024, 10, 1155–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Morón, A.; Ferrández, D.; Saiz, P.; Morón, C. Experimental Study with Cement Mortars Made with Recycled Concrete Aggregate and Reinforced with Aramid Fibers. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 7791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Zeng, L.; Wu, L.; Li, B.; Fang, S.; Samih Mohamed, H.; Fang, Z.; Yuan, H. Recycled Aggregate Concrete-Filled Steel Tube Columns with Small-Diameter Circular FRP-Confined Sea-Sand Concrete Cores: Conceptual and Experimental Investigations. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 401, 132853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Grigorjev, V.; Azenha, M.; De Belie, N. Towards Sustainable Masonry Construction Through Natural Aggregate Replacement by Fine Recycled Aggregates in Cement–Lime Mortars. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Slánský, B.; Zelinka, P.; Čermák, J. Unique and Innovative Technology for Sustainable and Efficient Structural Concrete Made of 100% Recycled Aggregate from CDW. Acta Polytech. CTU Proc. 2022, 33, 564–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Norouzi, M.; Chàfer, M.; Cabeza, L.F.; Jiménez, L.; Boer, D. Circular Economy in the Building and Construction Sector: A Scientific Evolution Analysis. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 102704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Mojica, A.; Serrano-Ruiz, J.C.; Andres, B.; De La Torre, R. A Conceptual Framework for the Upcycling Supply Chain in the Wood Sector. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Kauniste, M.; Just, A.; Tuhkanen, E.; Kalamees, T. Assessment on Strength and Stiffness Properties of Aged Structural Timber. J. Sustain. Arch. Civ. Eng. 2024, 34, 62–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Sanadi, A.R.; Guna, V.; Hoysal, R.V.; Krishna, A.; Deepika, S.; Mohan, C.B.; Reddy, N. MAPP Compatibilized Recycled Woodchips Reinforced Polypropylene Composites with Exceptionally High Strength and Stability. Waste Biomass Valor 2024, 15, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Santos, F.L.D.L.; Santos, H.F.; Costa, L.L.; Lima, V.S.; Cunha, R.D.A.; César, S.F. Mass Timber as a Tool to Sustainable Construction: A Review. Rev. De Gestão Soc. E Ambient. 2025, 19, e011329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Jonathan, C.; Onyoni, J. A Feasible Circularity Model for Construction Wood Wastes in Developing Countries: The Case of Kenya and Nigeria. J. Circ. Econ. 2025, 3, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Ottenhaus, L.-M.; Yan, Z.; Brandner, R.; Leardini, P.; Fink, G.; Jockwer, R. Design for Adaptability, Disassembly and Reuse—A Review of Reversible Timber Connection Systems. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 400, 132823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Finch, G.; Marriage, G.; Pelosi, A.; Gjerde, M. Building Envelope Systems for the Circular Economy; Evaluation Parameters, Current Performance and Key Challenges. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 64, 102561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Ahn, N.; Bjarvin, C.; Riggio, M.; Muszynski, L.; Schimleck, L.; Pestana, C.; Dodoo, A.; Puettmann, M. Envisioning Mass Timber Buildings for Circularity: Life Cycle Assessment of a Mass Timber Building with Different End-Of-Life (Eol) and Post-Eol Options. In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Timber Engineering (WCTE 2023), Oslo, Norway, 19–22 June 2023; pp. 3581–3587. Available online: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1814216&dswid=-5750 (accessed on 25 March 2025).
  114. Fadai, A.; Stephan, D. Ecological Performance of Reusable Load-Bearing Constructions. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2022, 1078, 012123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Ramírez, C.P.; Barriguete, A.V.; Muñoz, J.G.; Merino, M.D.R.; Serrano, P.D.S. Ecofibers for the Reinforcement of Cement Mortars for Coating Promoting the Circular Economy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Pichlmeier, F.; Lindner, S. Reuse Potential of Building Services in Building Relocation. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2024, 1363, 012050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Goh, K.C.; Kurniawan, T.A.; Goh, H.H.; Zhang, D.; Jiang, M.; Dai, W.; Khan, M.I.; Othman, M.H.D.; Aziz, F.; Anouzla, A.; et al. Harvesting Valuable Elements from Solar Panels as Alternative Construction Materials: A New Approach of Waste Valorization and Recycling in Circular Economy for Building Climate Resilience. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 2024, 41, e01030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Patil, H. Study of Waste Material for Concrete Brick Construction. Int. J. Res. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2024, 12, 424–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Bhooshan, S.; Dell’Endice, A.; Ranaudo, F.; Van Mele, T.; Block, P. Unreinforced Concrete Masonry for Circular Construction. Arch. Intell. 2024, 3, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Kancheva, Y.D.; Zaharieva, R.A. End-of-Life Options for Ceramic Masonry Units—Environmental and Performance-Based Perspective. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2023, 1276, 012002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Malaiškienė, J.; Škamat, J.; Kudžma, A.; Boris, R.; Bačinskas, D. The Impact of Differently Prepared Mixed Plastic Waste Granules on the Structure and Properties of Concrete. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Villegas Pilay, Y.E.; Bravo Carrasco, A.R.; Cruz Ronquillo, S.I. Circular Economy Model for Reuse of Plastic in Eco-Efficient Production of Building Materials. J. Bus. Entrep. Stud. 2023, 7, 9–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Horvath, M.; Bollen, P.; Pardoen, T.; Trachte, S. Evaluation of the Properties of a New Circular Building Composite Material to Upcycle Building Wastes. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2023, 2600, 192018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Turk, J.; Urbanc, J.; Mladenovič, A.; Pavlin, A.; Oprčkal, P.; Fifer Bizjak, K.; Likar, B.; Brodnik, M.; Mali, N. Construction of lysimeters for researching the leaching of potentially toxic elements from building materials. Geologija 2020, 63, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Bendix, P.; Achenbach, H.; Weißhaupt, P.; Eckert, D.; Oehme, I.; Berg, H. Circular Economy for Durable Products and Materials: The Recycling of Plastic Building Products in Germany—Status Quo, Potentials and Recommendations. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2022, 24, 1432–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Pietrzak, A.; Ulewicz, M.; Kozień, E.; Pietraszek, J. Application of a Mixture of Fly Ash and Solid Waste from Gas Treatment from Municipal Solid Waste Incineration in Cement Mortar. Materials 2025, 18, 481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Zhang, Z.; Lei, Y.; Liew, J.Y.R.; Liu, M.; Wong, G.; Du, H. Embodied Carbon Saving Potential of Using Recycled Materials as Cement Substitute in Singapore’s Buildings. npj Mater. Sustain. 2024, 2, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Patel, P.; Patel, A. Use of Sustainable Green Materials in Construction of Green Buildings for Sustainable Development. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 785, 012009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Ulfat, W.; Mohyuddin, A.; Amjad, M.; Kurniawan, T.A.; Mujahid, B.; Nadeem, S.; Javed, M.; Amjad, A.; Ashraf, A.Q.; Othman, M.H.D.; et al. Reuse of Buffing Dust-Laden Tanning Waste Hybridized with Poly- Styrene for Fabrication of Thermal Insulation Materials. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Hegyi, A.; Bulacu, C.; Szilagyi, H.; Lăzărescu, A.-V.; Colbu, D.E.; Sandu, M. Waste Management in the Context of the Development of Sustainable Thermal Insulation Products for the Construction Sector. Int. J. Conserv. Sci. 2021, 12, 225–236. [Google Scholar]
  131. Bertin, I.; Mesnil, R.; Jaeger, J.-M.; Feraille, A.; Le Roy, R. A BIM-Based Framework and Databank for Reusing Load-Bearing Structural Elements. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Ruggiero, R.; Cognoli, R.; Cocco, P.L. From Debris to the Data Set (DEDA) a Digital Application for the Upcycling of Waste Wood Material in Post Disaster Areas. In Architecture and Design for Industry 4.0; Barberio, M., Colella, M., Figliola, A., Battisti, A., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 807–835. ISBN 978-3-031-36921-6. [Google Scholar]
  133. Petojević, Z.; Nadaždi, A.; Isailović, D.; Višnjevac, N. An Integrated Solution for Increased Circularity in Buildings: A Method. In Digital Transformation and Sustainable Development in Project Management, Proceedings of the 6th IPMA SENET Project Management Conference, Zagreb, Croatia, 12 September 2023; Mladen, V., Golomejić, V., Rebeka, D., Eds.; Građevinski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu: Zagreb, Croatia, 2023; pp. 259–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Gillott, C.; Mihkelson, W.; Lanau, M.; Cheshire, D.; Densley Tingley, D. Developing Regenerate: A Circular Economy Engagement Tool for the Assessment of New and Existing Buildings. J. Ind. Ecol. 2023, 27, 423–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Piccardo, C.; Alam, A.; Hughes, M. The Potential Contribution of Wood in Green Building Certifications: Prospects in Sustainable Residential Buildings. Arch. Res. Finl. 2021, 5, 130–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Jayasinghe, L.B.; Waldmann, D. Development of a BIM-Based Web Tool as a Material and Component Bank for a Sustainable Construction Industry. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Cardoso, A.; Salomé, R. Matter by Design. How Can Circular Economy Play a Role in Building Green Efficient and Sustainable through Innovative Use of Mediterranean Materials. In Sustainable Construction in the Era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Proceedings of the AHFE (2024) International Conference, Nice, France, 22–27 July 2024; Aigbavboa, C., Oke, E., Thwala, W., Eds.; AHFE International: Orlando, FL, USA, 2024; Volume 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Göswein, V.; Carvalho, S.; Cerqueira, C.; Lorena, A. Circular Material Passports for Buildings—Providing a Robust Methodology for Promoting Circular Buildings. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2022, 1122, 012049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Meglin, R.; Kytzia, S.; Habert, G. Regional Circular Economy of Building Materials: Environmental and Economic Assessment Combining Material Flow Analysis, Input-Output Analyses, and Life Cycle Assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 2022, 26, 562–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Saka, A.; Taiwo, R.; Saka, N.; Oluleye, B.; Akanbi, L. Integrated BIM and Machine Learning System for Circularity Prediction of Construction Demolition Waste. arXiv arXiv:2407.14847, 2024. [CrossRef]
  141. Spišáková, M.; Mandičák, T.; Mésároš, P.; Špak, M. Waste Management in a Sustainable Circular Economy as a Part of Design of Construction. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Zhao, Z. Research on Building Deconstruction Based on BIM Technology. Theor. Nat. Sci. 2023, 14, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Hubmann, G.; Van Maaren, V. Circular Material Systems: Anticipating Whole-System Design in Architecture and Construction. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2022, 1078, 012002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Cosma, I.; Petre, I.; Stalidi, C.; Suciu, G.; Dănilă, A. An Interactive Visualization Tool for Circular Economy and Building Materials Recovery. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE 30th International Symposium for Design and Technology in Electronic Packaging (SIITME), Sibiu, Romania, 16–18 October 2024; pp. 251–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Bhadane, P.; Nemade, P.D. Assessment of Circular Economy and Reduction of Embodied Carbon Drive for Sustainable Construction. Int. J. Adv. Res. 2022, 10, 357–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Antunes, A.; Martins, R.; Silvestre, J.D.; Do Carmo, R.; Costa, H.; Júlio, E.; Pedroso, P. Environmental Impacts and Benefits of the End-of-Life of Building Materials: Database to Support Decision Making and Contribute to Circularity. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Li, A.; Guo, C.; Gu, J.; Hu, Y.; Luo, Z.; Yin, X. Promoting Circular Economy of the Building Industry by the Use of Straw Bales: A Review. Buildings 2024, 14, 1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Pešta, J.; Trubina, N.; Schulzová, K.; Vlasatá, B.; Pavlů, T. Streamlining Demolition Processes: A Material Cadaster-Based Digitalization and Automation of Predemolition Audit. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2024, 1402, 012041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Fereydooni Eftekhari, A.; Khodabakhshian, A.; Re Cecconi, F.; Daniotti, B. Improving Circularity in Construction Through a BIM-Based Waste Management Framework. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2024, 1363, 012042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Tharaka Dharmasiri Pathberiyage, N.; Delzendeh, E.; Cheung, F.; Mateo Garcia, M. A Conceptual Model for Assessing Circularity Potential of Building Materials at the Product Manufacturing Stage. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components; XVI International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components, Beijing, China, 10–13 October 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Zubair, M.U.; Ali, M.; Khan, M.A.; Khan, A.; Hassan, M.U.; Tanoli, W.A. BIM- and GIS-Based Life-Cycle-Assessment Framework for Enhancing Eco Efficiency and Sustainability in the Construction Sector. Buildings 2024, 14, 360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Morganti, L.; Demutti, M.; Fotoglou, I.; Coscia, E.A.; Perillo, P.; Pracucci, A. Integrated Platform-Based Tool to Improve Life Cycle Management and Circularity of Building Envelope Components. Buildings 2023, 13, 2630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Ibe, C.N.; Serbescu, A.; Hossain, M.; Ibe, I.I. Optimizing Circular Economy Practices in Construction: A Systematic Review of Material Management Strategies. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2025, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Kaewunruen, S.; O’Nell, C.; Sengsri, P. Digital Twin-Driven Strategic Demolition Plan for Circular Asset Management of Bridge Infrastructures. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 10554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Feng, H.; Chen, Q.; García De Soto, B.; Arashpour, M. Using BIM and LCA to Evaluate Material Circularity: Contributions to Building Design Improvements. In Proceedings of the 39th ISARC, Bogotá, Colombia, 15 July 2022; pp. 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Guerriero, A.; Busio, F.; Saidani, M.; Boje, C.; Mack, N. Combining Building Information Model and Life Cycle Assessment for Def Ining Circular Economy Strategies. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Ferronato, N.; Sirpa, R.C.F.; Lizarazu, E.G.G.; Conti, F.; Torretta, V. Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling in Developing Cities: Mana Gement and Cost Analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 30, 24377–24397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Akanbi, L.A.; Oyedele, A.O.; Oyedele, L.O.; Salami, R.O. Deep Learning Model for Demolition Waste Prediction in a Circular Economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 274, 122843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Vashishth, R.; Goel, M. Impact of Circular Economy in Construction Sector: Review of Current Trends and Future Research Direction. Sust. Agric. Food Environ. Res. 2023, 11, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Vásquez-Cabrera, A.; Montes, M.V.; Llatas, C. The Incorporation of Recycled Aggregate Concrete as a Strategy to Enhance the Circular Performance of Residential Building Structures in Spain. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 3265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Činčikaitė, R. Assessment of Sustainable Waste Management: A Case Study in Lithuania. Sustainability 2024, 17, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Stuetzer, M.A.D.; Essig, N.; Kustermann, A. Sustainable Practices in Construction: Exposing the Potential of Waste as a Resource. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2024, 1402, 2–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Tanthanawiwat, K.; Gheewala, S.; Nilsalab, P.; Schoch, M.; Silalertruksa, T. Environmental Sustainability and Cost Performances of Construction and Demolition Waste Management Scenarios: A Case Study of Timber and Con Crete Houses in Thailand. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 436, 140652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Unegbu, H.C.O.; Yawas, D.S.; Dan-asabe, B.; Alabi, A.A. Optimizing Waste Management Strategies for Sustainable Construction: Assessing the Implementation of Circular Economy Principles in Nigeria. J. Ilm. Teknol. Dan Rekayasa 2024, 29, 276–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Marek, M.; Krejza, Z. Sustainable Building: Circular Economy as a Key Factor for Cost Reduction. E3S Web Conf. 2024, 550, 01009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Behúnová, A.; Mandičák, T.; Behún, M.; Mésároš, P. The Building Information Modelling Through Information Technology and Impacts on Selected Circular Economy Performance Indicators of Construction Projects. Mob. Netw. Appl. 2024, 29, 506–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Gordon, M.; Batallé, A.; De Wolf, C.; Sollazzo, A.; Dubor, A.; Wang, T. Automating Building Element Detection for Deconstruction Planning and Material Reuse: A Case Study. Autom. Constr. 2023, 146, 104697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Heisel, F.; McGranahan, J.; Lucas, A.; Cohen, D.; Stone, G. Carbon, Economics, and Labor: A Case Study of Deconstruction’s Relative Costs and Benefits Compared to Demolition. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2023, 2600, 192003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Behún, M.; Behúnová, A. Advanced Innovation Technology of BIM in a Circular Economy. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Stricker, E.; Angst, M.; Brandi, G.; Buser, B.; Sonderegger, A. Case Study K.118—The Reuse of Building Components in Winterthur, Switzerland. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2023, 2600, 192008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Rybak-Niedziółka, K.; Starzyk, A.; Łacek, P.; Mazur, Ł.; Myszka, I.; Stefańska, A.; Kurcjusz, M.; Nowysz, A.; Langie, K. Use of Waste Building Materials in Architecture and Urban Planning—A Review of Selected Examples. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Çetin, S.; Raghu, D.; Honic, M.; Straub, A.; Gruis, V. Data Requirements and Availabilities for Material Passports: A Digital Ly Enabled Framework for Improving the Circularity of Existing Buildings. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2023, 40, 422–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Di Ruocco, G.; Melella, R.; Sabatano, L. Timber Buildings Deconstruction as a Design Solution toward Near Zero CO2e Emissions. Buildings 2023, 13, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Rune, A.; Ravn, A.; Ryberg, M. Environmental Benefits of Applying Selective Demolition to Buildings: A Case Study of the Reuse of Façade Steel Cladding. Front. Mater. 2024, 11, 1337843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Christensen, T.B.; Johansen, M.R.; Buchard, M.V.; Glarborg, C.N. Closing the Material Loops for Construction and Demolition Waste: The Circular Economy on the Island Bornholm, Denmark. Resources, Conservation & Recycling. Adv. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2024, 31, 430–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Lione, R.; Fiandaca, O.; Minutoli, F.; Cernaro, A.; Manuel Palmero, L. The disused precious stone elements are not CDWaste. A digital management chain to save them. Riv. Tema 2022, 8, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Larsen, V.G.; Tollin, N.; Antoniucci, V.; Birkved, M.; Sattrup, P.A.; Holmboe, T.; Marella, G. Filling the Gaps Circular Transition of Affordable Housing in Denmark. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2022, 1078, 012078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Han Hoang, N.; Ishigaki, T.; Watari, T.; Yamada, M.; Kawamoto, K. Current State of Building Demolition and Potential for Selective Disma Ntling in Vietnam. Waste Manag. 2022, 149, 218–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  179. Piccardo, C.; Hughes, M. Design Strategies to Increase the Reuse of Wood Materials in Buildings: Lessons from Architectural Practice. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 368, 133083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Çetin, S.; Gruis, V.; Straub, A. Digitalization for a Circular Economy in the Building Industry: Multiple Case Study of Dutch Housing Organizations. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Adv. 2022, 15, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Sandberg, E.; Fufa, S.M.; Knoth, K.; Eberhardt, L.C.M. Ombruk av bygningsdeler—læringspunkter fra forbildeprosjekter i Norg e, Danmark og Belgia. Prakt. Okon. Finans. 2022, 38, 23–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Superti, V.; Forman, T.V.; Houmani, C. Recycling Thermal Insulation Materials: A Case Study on More Circular Management of Expanded Polystyrene and Stonewool in Switzerland and Research Agenda. Resources 2021, 10, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Küpfer, C.; Bertola, N.; Brütting, J.; Fivet, C. Decision Framework to Balance Environmental, Technical, Logistical, and Economic Criteria When Designing Structures with Reused Components. Front. Sustain. 2021, 2, 689877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Lachat, A.; Mantalovas, K.; Desbois, T.; Yazoghil-Marzouk, O.; Colas, A.; Di Mino, G.; Feraille, A. From Buildings’ End of Life to Aggregate Recycling under a Circular Ec Onomic Perspective: A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Case Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Sprecher, B.; Verhagen, T.J.; Sauer, M.L.; Baars, M.; Heintz, J.; Fishman, T. Material Intensity Database for the Dutch Building Stock: Towards Big Data in Material Stock Analysis. J. Ind. Ecol. 2021, 26, 272–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Francart, N.; Malmqvist, T. Investigation of Maintenance and Replacement of Materials in Building LCA. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 588, 032027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Xing, K.; Kim, K.P.; Ness, D. Cloud-BIM Enabled Cyber-Physical Data and Service Platforms for Building Component Reuse. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. De Wolf, C.; Hoxha, E.; Fivet, C. Comparison of Environmental Assessment Methods When Reusing Building Components: A Case Study. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 61, 102322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Gharehbaghi, K.; Rahmani, F.; Paterno, D. Sustainable Concrete in Transportation Infrastructure: Australian Case Studies. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 829, 012001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. The European Green Deal—European Commission. Available online: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/story-von-der-leyen-commission/european-green-deal_en (accessed on 24 June 2025).
Sustainability 17 07029 g001
Figure 1. Linear vs. circular economy in civil engineering.
Figure 1. Linear vs. circular economy in civil engineering.
Sustainability 17 07029 g001
Sustainability 17 07029 g002
Figure 2. Source of the literature.
Figure 2. Source of the literature.
Sustainability 17 07029 g002
Figure 3. The quantity distribution of articles analysed by category [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190].
Sustainability 17 07029 g003
Figure 4. The quantity distribution of articles analysed by category after 2020 [53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190].
Sustainability 17 07029 g004
Figure 5. The percentage distribution of articles of analysed material by category after 2020 [53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190].
Sustainability 17 07029 g005
Sustainability 17 07029 g006
Figure 6. The use of materials in linear and circular ideas.
Figure 6. The use of materials in linear and circular ideas.
Sustainability 17 07029 g006
Sustainability 17 07029 g007
Figure 7. Circularity in challenges in case studies.
Figure 7. Circularity in challenges in case studies.
Sustainability 17 07029 g007
Sustainability 17 07029 g008
Figure 8. The chart shows the percentage distribution of challenges.
Figure 8. The chart shows the percentage distribution of challenges.
Sustainability 17 07029 g008
Table 1. Collected and categorised secondary use of materials.
Table 1. Collected and categorised secondary use of materials.
MaterialReuse MethodReuse PotentialChallengesEnvironmental
Benefits		Regulations/
Documents
ConcreteDeconstruction aggregate as an ingredient of new concrete mixture and subconstruction under roads
[70,72,73,74,75]		HighVariability of quantity and material contamination [70,72,73,74,75]Reduced usage of natural aggregate [70,72,73,74,75]EN 206+A2, ISO 14040 [74,75]
Prefabricates or entire elements from recycling
[68,76,77,78,79]		HighMeasurement adaptation, transport [68,76,77,78,79]Reduced energy and water usage due to the production process [68,76,77,78,79]UE CDW Protocol [68,76,77,78,79]
Addiction to fragmented glass and mineral wool [55,80,81] MediumReactivity and alcaic properties of glass [55,80,81]Reduction of cement demand [55,80,81]Standards for glass waste [81]
Usage of Slag and Recycled Aggregate
[56,57,60,61,67,70,71,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105]		MediumDifficulties in standardisation [56,57,60,61,67,70,71,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105]Reduction of CO2 emission, reduction of new material production, reduction in the usage of natural aggregate [56,57,60,61,67,70,71,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105]ISO 14025, environmental declaration [56,57,60,61,67,70,71,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105]
WoodUpcycling in the furniture and construction sector [62,66,71,106,107,108,109,110,111]HighGetting old of the material, damages [62,66,71,106,107,108,109,110,111]Reduction of CO2 emission [62,66,71,106,107,108,109,110,111]Local law of forest market [62,66,71,106,107,108,109,110,111]
Usage as an aggregate or concrete filling [71,109,112,113]HighFire resistance, durability [71,109,112,113]Reduction of new material production [71,109,112,113]ISO-Tree classification [71]
Usage and strengthening of OSB and composites [62,113]MediumDifferent quality of the waste material
[62,113]		Reduction of structure weight, lower CO2 emission [62,113]Fire safety standards [113]
SteelRecycle and reuse fibres [70,76,102,114] HighSeparation fibres [70,76,102,114]Replacement new materials [70,76,102,114]-
Reuse entire elements (beam, column, rebar) [64,65,100]HighDifferent quality of reused material [64,65,100]Reuse produces less pollution than new material [64,65,100]LCA according to ISO [100]
GlassUsage as concrete aggregate and subingredient [56,80,115]MediumRisk of alcaic reaction, cracks
[56,80]		Reduction of natural sand demand [56,80]Glass recycling standards [56,80]
Upcycling to decorative elements or solar panels [58,93,116,117] LowDifficulties in recovering glass panels [58,93,116,117]Usage waste materials without producing new ones [58,93,116,117]National recycling regulations [58,93,116,117]
BrickSelective deconstruction and reuse [97,118]MediumHight fragility, necessity of mortar removal [97,118]Reduction of waste [97,118]Local standards [97,118]
Crushing into sub-construction or aggregate [97,101,118,119,120]LowLow structural value after recycling [97,101,118,119,120]Reduce the space needed to store materials [97,101,118,119,120]UE Waste Framework Directive [97,101,118,119,120]
Plastic compositesStrengthening WPC, boards, addition [66,69,121,122,123,124,125] MediumUV stability, ageing [66,69,121,122,123,124,125]Limitation of new plastic production [66,69,121,122,123,124,125]EU directives on plastics [66,69,121,122,123,124,125]
Fly ashAddition to cement and geopolymers [58,82,126]HighDifferent quality and pollutions [58,82,126]Increase in the use of clinker [58,82,126]EN 450-1, local cement standards [58,82,126]
Blast furnace slagSubstitutive of cement [82,84,85,127]HighStandardisation, availability [82,84,85]Reduction in CO2 emission due to concrete production [82,84,85]ISO 14025 [82,84,85]
PlasticsAggregate or a wall filling [122,125,128,129,130]Mediumcohesion, toxicity [122,125,128,129,130]Reduction of pollution emission [122,125,128,129,130]Packaging Waste Directive [122,125,128,129,130]
Table 2. Collected and categorised analysis and optimisation processes.
Table 2. Collected and categorised analysis and optimisation processes.
ToolNumber of ArticlesMain RecommendationsReferences to Material or Location
Lack of regulations and knowledge/regulations/trainings/guidelines/methodology/consistence of supply chain/implementation strategies/deconstruction strategies8Attention was drawn to the lack of regulations and knowledge about the possibilities of reusing materials and also recommendations for new regulations [131]
High conservative requirements influence to decrease the amount of waste [132]
Propose methodology for quantitative description of the amount of waste during the design process and key effective factor [132].
Pay attention to the necessity of connecting the supply chain for information flow [133].
Analyse the possibilities of implementing a circular economy [134,135].
Pay attention to the necessity of training in civil engineering [136] and prepare training materials [137].		Mediterranean region [134]
Materials Bank/Shared Platform/Collection Map11Propose to extend the practice to a national scale to take advantage of the nationwide resource of elements [131]
Recommendation of the shared platform [138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145]
Revit software (BIM) plug-in and materials bank [147]		Wood, steel [138]
Concrete, steel [143]
Luxemburg/Europe [138]
Passport of the material 3Proposal to create platform collecting information about the platform of the material [133]
Necessity of labelling materials and implement certificates [136,147]		-
BIM/applications/plug-ins/parametric design/13Define materials in connection with BIM to create LCA [131,132,142,145,147,148,149,150,151] BIM as information transfer [133].
Tool for the design of usage to collect [146], process, and classify data [152,153].		Wood, concrete prefabricate, steel [149]
Asphalt [151]
Bridge infrastructure [132]
Optimalization/geographic information system/influence on simplification and selective analysis on the result of LCA/avoid double counting benefits/multi-criteria analysis/LCA/estimation tool5Pay attention to the danger of double counting benefits [141]—it may influence the result.
Propose a system of classification of criteria to measure the effectiveness of the circular economy [153] and use multicriteria analysis [154]
Notice that GIS might help optimise the waste transport route [150,155]		Wood [154]
Cost/profit2Pay attention that reconstruction increases the cost of the investment, but also might be a new income source for civil engineering companies [156]
The cost of deconstruction increases twice if the waste is collected selectively, especially on the beginning cost increase, which is estimated at a level of 60% [135].		Plastic, concrete, steel, wood [156]
AI1Propose to use AI to estimate the amount of deconstruction materials [157]United Kingdom [157]
Design for deconstruction 2Design for the idea of deconstruction [158,159] or adaptation might increase the material reuse factor Steel [159]
Sri Lanka [159]
Table 3. Collected and categorised case studies.
Table 3. Collected and categorised case studies.
TitleYearMethod of Reuse or RecyclingResultsEnvironment
Benefits		Challenges
The Incorporation of Recycled Aggregate Concrete as a Strategy to Enhance the Circular Performance of Residential Building Structures in Spain [160]2025Application of recycled concrete in housing buildings in SpainReplacing traditional materials with Recycled Aggregate Concrete enhances the circular performance of the structure by 10.81%.Reduce of the natural sourcesNeed for an examination of the properties of recycled concrete
Assessment of Sustainable Waste Management: A Case Study in Lithuania [161]2024Management of waste in circular economyIncrease in environmental protection (According to the global waste index in 2022, Lithuania ranked 16th up from 23rd place).Decrease in the amount of wasteThe need to reduce materials usage through effective waste management
Sustainable Practices in Construction: Exposing the Potential of Waste as a Resource [162]Identification of Good Waste Practices in Sustainable EngineeringProject Elementum demonstrated that accurate identification and segregation of materials enables the recovery of large quantities of clean materials (~1.94 million kg).Reduce the amount of waste and increase social awarenessLack of social awareness and need for education
Environmental Sustainability and Cost Performances of Construction and Demolition Waste Management Scenarios: A Case Study of Timber and Con Crete Houses in Thailand [163]Comparison of different scenarios in waste management The 100% recycling scenario resulted in 124% and 166–169% reductions of the mineral resource
scarcity impact as compared to the conventional CDW management for the concrete and timber houses, respectively.		Optimalization recycling processes Limited technological resource
Optimizing Waste Management Strategies for Sustainable Construction: Assessing the Implementation of Circular Economy Principles in Nigeria [164]Circular economy implementation rules in NigeriaWithout comprehensive reforms, selective demolition and high-quality recycling can bring significant environmental (18 Mkg CO2 eq savings) and social benefits (~1000 new jobs), although costs may limit the scale.Waste reduction, promotion of sustainabilityLack of infrastructure and awareness, need for education
Sustainable Building: Circular Economy as a Key Factor for Cost Reduction [165]Key factor of circular economy in civil engineeringA 26% of companies plan to expand in the field of recycling or green technologies.Waste reduction, reduction of materials, saving of the materialsNeed of education and change approach
Advancing Circular Economy in Construction Mega-Projects: Awareness, Key Enablers, and Benefits —Case Study of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [53]Survey of stakeholder awareness of the circular economyA 70% of respondents demonstrated general awareness of the Circular Economy concept, but only 35% were able to identify specific CE strategies used in mega-projects.Growing public awareness of the circular economyLack coherence in standardization, need of education
The Building Information Modelling Through Information Technology and Impacts on Selected Circular Economy Performance Indicators of Construction Projects [166]2023Use of BIM in the classification of circular economy factorsIncrease in quality in life cycle management by using BIM technology (described positive influence).Increase of effectiveness in resource use, waste reductionNeed for integration with existing systems
Automating Building Element Detection for Deconstruction Planning and Material Reuse: A Case Study [167]Semi-automatic planning of deconstruction by BIM scanning Process development by planning deconstruction for reuse by identification of elements with 85–90% effectiveness.Increase in the usage potential and identification of materialsNeed for technology development and integration with existing industry
Carbon, Economics, and Labor: A Case Study of Deconstruction’s Relative Costs and Benefits Compared to Demolition [168]Comparison of deconstruction and demolition Deconstruction may be more expensive, but it offers environmental and social benefits (lack of quantifiable results).CO2 reductionHight costs and time consumption in deconstruction in comparison to demolish
Advanced Innovation Technology of BIM in a Circular Economy [169]Integration of BIM tools with circular economy rules Control of components and life-cycle management (creating sustainable components library).Optimalization in materials usage, increase of the materials reuseLack of interoperation BIM systems, need of standardisation
The Reuse of Building Components in Winterthur, Switzerland [170]Reuse componentsSuccessfully usage of components (41% of materials might be used again, 60% reduction of embodied carbon in comparison to building with new materials).Savings in materials, reduction of CO2Complicated logistics in the collection and storage of components
Use of Waste Building Materials in Architecture and Urban Planning—A Review of Selected Examples [171]Review of examples in waste usage in urban planningPresenting projects which include reused materials (The dominant material categories plastics (72), metals (79) and glass (49) are the most frequently studied in the context of architecture and urban planning).Decrease in waste materials, promotion of reuse and recyclingLimited availability of recycled materials, need for properties examination
Data Requirements and Availabilities for Material Passports: A Digital Ly Enabled Framework for Improving the Circularity of Existing Buildings [172]Study the rules for material passports in existing buildingsThirty-eight respondents were surveyed, which allowed us to identify the basic set of data necessary for a complete MP for existing buildings, including material specifications, technical condition, waste management, and economic and environmental aspects.Facilitation of reuse of materials and circularityCollect and manage data
Timber Buildings Deconstruction as a Design Solution toward Near Zero CO2e Emissions [176]Deconstruction of wood buildings as a solution to reduce CO2 emissionThe potential of reconstruction in reducing emission (The cradle-to-grave emissions of wood-based materials (CLT/glulam) in an office building are 80–99% lower than in a traditional steel and reinforced concrete structure).Emission reduction. promotion of sustainabilityNeed for knowledge and development of technology
Awareness and practice of the principles of circular economy among built environment professionals [54]Survey on awareness of the circular economyModerate level of awareness of the six main principles of circular economy (described).Promoting the idea of a circular economy among people involved in constructionNeed of standardisation.
Environmental Benefits of Applying Selective Demolition to Buildings: A Case Study of the Reuse of Façade Steel Cladding [174]2022Selective demolition with the purpose of reusing steel facadesEnvironmental benefits across the full cladding life cycle, the average environmental impact scores across all impact categories were 40% lower for the selective scenario compared to the conventional baseline scenario.CO2 emission re
duction		High cost
Closing the Material Loops for Construction and Demolition Waste: The Circular Economy on the Island Bornholm, Denmark [175]Create a closed circle in production and consumption Bricks proved to be a key category: their reuse can be achieved without large expenditures, often with the effect of significant material recovery.Reduce waste amounts, promote local circularityNeed for education, infrastructure barriers
The disused precious stone elements are not CDWaste. A digital management chain to save them [176]Digital management of recovery materialsDevelopment of the recovery and reuse management chain (described).Save the cultural legacy Lack of digital standardisation
Filling the Gaps Circular Transition of Affordable Housing in Denmark [177]Implementing of circular economy in house buildingsExamples of implementation Waste reductionLimited financial resources
Current State of Building Demolition and Potential for Selective Dismantling in Vietnam [178]Evaluation of current demolition practices and the potential for selective deconstructionThe average rate of reuse/
recycling was as low as 3%.		Waste reduction, recovery of materialsLack of awareness and technology limits
Design Strategies to Increase the Reuse of Wood Materials in Buildings: Lessons from Architectural Practice [179]Design strategies to increase timber reusing Identification of effective practices (described).Restrictions on tree fallingLimited access to recycled materials
Digitalization for a Circular Economy in the Building Industry: Multiple-Case Study of Dutch Housing Organizations [180]Digital implementation in circular economyCircular facilitation management (described).Increase the effectiveness of resource usageIntegration of systems
Ombruk av bygningsdeler–læringspunkter fra forbildeprosjekter i Norg e, Danmark og Belgia [181]Analysis of components reuse in Norway, Denmark and BelgiumIdentification of success factors and barriers in reuse (described).CO2 and waste reductionLack of documentation, differences in regulations
Recycling Thermal Insulation Materials: A Case Study on More Circular Management of Expanded Polystyrene and Stonewool in Switzerland and Research Agenda [185]2021Recycling of thermal insulation materialsStrategies for wool and EPS recycling and reuse (1.5% of this material was recycled).Reduce nonbiodegradable materialsDifficulties in separating materials, lack of infrastructure
Decision Framework to Balance Environmental, Technical, Logistical, and Economic Criteria When Designing Structures With Reused Components [183]Creating rules including various criteria in designing recycled componentsClearer decision making (described).Decrease of new materials usageThe complexity of multi-criteria assessment
From Buildings’ End of Life to Aggregate Recycling under a Circular Economic Perspective: A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Case Study [184]Life cycle analysis of recycled aggregate after usageComparison of various recycling methods (transportation and selective deconstruction).Reduce the use of natural sourcesTransportation and processing costs
Material Intensity Database for the Dutch Building Stock: Towards Big Data in Material Stock Analysis [185]Database creation Database of deconstruction buildings (described).Increase the quality of recycling planning.Various types and materials of buildings, need for standardisation
Investigation of Maintenance and Replacement of Materials in Building LCA [186]2020Study of the impact of maintenance and replacement of materials on the life cycle analysis Variations in service lives of materials can cause uncertainties on GWP for the whole building of 10–20%.Increase in durability and waste reductionDifficulties in modelling and prediction
Cloud-BIM Enabled Cyber-Physical Data and Service Platforms for Building Component Reuse [187]Identifying and managing components using cloud-BIMEnabling real-time identification, evaluation, and exchange of components.Increase in component life cycle managementNeed of standardization
Comparison of Environmental Assessment Methods When Reusing Building Components: A Case Study [188]Comparison of environmental assessment methods Values of GWP per GFA vary in the ratio of one to two (increase of 94 kgCO2 eq/m2). When considering the first life cycle and of one to three (increase of 115 kgCO2 eq/m2) for the last life cycle.Enabling of method choiceNeed for standardisation
Sustainable Concrete in Transportation Infrastructure: Australian Case Studies [189]Sustainable concrete usage in transportation infrastructureExamples of concrete usage (less than 10% recycled material in road construction).Reduction of CO2 emissionLimited availability of recycled materials, need for research
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Krajewska, A.; Siewczyńska, M. Circular Economy in the Construction Sector in Materials, Processes, and Case Studies: Research Review. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7029. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157029

AMA Style

Krajewska A, Siewczyńska M. Circular Economy in the Construction Sector in Materials, Processes, and Case Studies: Research Review. Sustainability. 2025; 17(15):7029. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157029

Chicago/Turabian Style

Krajewska, Alicja, and Monika Siewczyńska. 2025. "Circular Economy in the Construction Sector in Materials, Processes, and Case Studies: Research Review" Sustainability 17, no. 15: 7029. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157029

APA Style

Krajewska, A., & Siewczyńska, M. (2025). Circular Economy in the Construction Sector in Materials, Processes, and Case Studies: Research Review. Sustainability, 17(15), 7029. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157029

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop