Recent Research on Circular Architecture: A Literature Review of 2021–2024 on Circular Strategies in the Built Environment
1
Doctoral School, Wrocław University of Science and Technology, 50-370 Wrocław, Poland
2
Faculty of Architecture, Wrocław University of Science and Technology, 50-370 Wrocław, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(17), 7580; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177580
Submission received: 23 June 2025
/
Revised: 5 August 2025
/
Accepted: 8 August 2025
/
Published: 22 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovative and Smart Renewable Energy Technologies for Developing Low-Carbon and Sustainable Societies)
Abstract
The built environment represents a significant portion of global resource consumption and waste generation, underscoring the pressing necessity for innovative circular economy approaches in architecture. This paper presents the findings of a systematic literature review on six critical areas: circular economy, circularity indicators, design for adaptability, design for disassembly, life cycle assessment, and material and component reuse. The analysis revealed the emergent aspects of circular economy practices in architecture, emphasizing the preeminence of life cycle assessment (LCA) and material reuse. However, the authors observe a relative scarcity of focus on design-for-adaptability and circularity indicators, highlighting a gap to be addressed. The findings underline the need for unified assessment tools, supportive regulations, and collaborative frameworks that can enable the full potential of circular architecture. By harnessing innovative reuse strategies from deconstruction projects, the circular economy offers a transformative pathway towards reducing emissions and fostering regenerative practices that can enhance material and component recovery and significantly contribute to decarbonization and the realization of sustainable development goals.
1. Introduction
The built environment is a significant contributor to global environmental challenges, accounting for approximately 40% of global carbon emissions, 30% of raw material consumption, and substantial waste generation [1,2]. In this context, the circular economy (CE) has emerged as a transformative framework, advocating for resource efficiency, waste and carbon footprint minimization and regenerative practices. By shifting from the traditional linear “take-make-dispose” model to a circular system that prioritizes material reuse, recycling, and recovery, CE has the potential to revolutionize architecture and construction industries [3,4].
Research into CE in architecture has grown rapidly, focusing on design strategies, material innovation, and systemic approaches to achieving sustainability. Key advancements include the development of modular construction techniques, the integration of digital tools for material tracking, and the promotion of adaptive reuse of existing structures [5,6,7]. However, the construction sector’s application of CE principles remains skewed toward traditional actions: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, while more transformative strategies such as Refuse, Rethink, and Regenerate are rarely implemented [8,9]. The implementation of circular economy (CE) principles in architecture remains constrained by technical, economic, and policy barriers. Key obstacles include the absence of standardized methodologies, limited lifecycle data, and the complexity of integrating CE practices across a fragmented network of stakeholders [10,11]. Additionally, while the theoretical and technical feasibility of circular practices is increasingly demonstrated, practical challenges persist in moving pilot research projects to mainstream construction workflows [12,13]. These findings underscore the need for an integrated approach that combines technological innovation, policy support, education, and stakeholder collaboration to advance the circular transformation of the construction industry.
The adoption of CE principles informs the creation of policies aimed at enhancing resource efficiency, reducing CO2 emissions, and fostering systemic innovation objectives that are directly relevant to the architecture and construction sectors. By embedding CE strategies into policy frameworks, there is potential to accelerate the shift toward more sustainable and regenerative practices in the built environment. Diverging perspectives on the effectiveness of circular design principles in mitigating environmental impacts further highlight the need for a comprehensive evaluation of current research and practices. Despite the growing body of research, critical knowledge gaps remain, particularly regarding scalable strategies and practical tools to support circular architectural practices. Addressing these gaps is essential to advance the sustainability agenda and meet global environmental targets.
This study aims to systematically analyze and synthesize current research on the application of CE principles in architecture. It examines technical, economic, and policy-related barriers, identifies research gaps, and highlights potential pathways for advancing circular practices. By consolidating fragmented knowledge this review seeks to contribute to a clearer understanding of the challenges and opportunities involved in transitioning architecture towards a circular economy.
2. Materials and Methods
The review focused on recent research concerning the circular economy and architecture following a four-stage process: search, categorizing the results into thematic groups, selection, and synthesis.
2.1. Collecting the Data
The selection criteria for articles included recent publication, high quality based on journal metrics, a clear focus on circular economy, and relevance to architecture or the built environment. This review exclusively includes peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. Grey literature, such as industry reports, policy briefs, conference proceedings, and book chapters was intentionally excluded to ensure a consistent level of academic rigor and comparability.
Based on preliminary thematic research, a group of keywords related to circular architecture was identified, including material and component reuse, design for adaptability and disassembly, life cycle assessment and circularity indicators. To illustrate the structure and interconnections of the six key themes explored in this review, a conceptual diagram (Figure 1) has been included, positioning the circular economy as the central paradigm supported by interdependent strategies, tools, and outcomes.
To ensure the alignment of the keywords with the architectural theme, additional keywords related to construction were added, including architecture, building, built environment, and construction sector. Accordingly, six thematic sets were developed to enable searches within the Scopus and Web of Science databases. Due to the focus on recent years, which have seen the largest volume of emerging research on this topic, the search process was limited exclusively to the years 2021–2024. The inquiries were focused on peer-reviewed publications in English. The search outcomes are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 shows that circular economy and life cycle assessment yield significantly more results than the other categories—up to 100 times more compared to design for adaptability—indicating their high popularity in recent years. Scopus generally returned slightly more results than Web of Science, reflecting its broader coverage. However, due to substantial overlap, the number of unique articles after deduplication was only slightly higher than from individual databases.
2.2. Categorization
The results from both search databases were merged for each thematic search set, resulting in six groups of articles related to circular economy in architecture. For each group duplicates were removed, and results unrelated to the broadly understood field of architecture and construction were excluded. The next step was to categorize the results into thematic groups. Based on the article titles and keywords, subgroups of themes were identified, as outlined in Table 2. The subcategory was introduced to identify the thematic scope of the retrieved results. Furthermore, by employing a selection process based on citation counts, this approach minimizes the potential for overlooking topics that are generally less frequently cited or given lower prominence.
The number of identified subcategories for each main category is as follows: circular economy—25, circularity indicators—16, design for adaptability—8, design for disassembly—18, life cycle assessment—24, and material and component reuse—35. The number of subcategories identified generally correlates with the number of articles found in each category. In general, the greater the number of articles identified, the more diverse subcategories could be extracted, indicating a broader and more thoroughly explored research area.
2.3. Selection
To identify the most influential content produced in recent years, the CiteScore indicator was used, which reflects the average number of citations of a journal, book series, or conference proceedings over the past three years. This approach was proposed to mitigate the error associated with an increased number of citations of older articles compared to newer publications. Subsequently, up to three articles with the highest CiteScore were selected for each identified category. This process reduced the number of results for each search term, as shown in Table 3.
The CiteScore metric was chosen because Scopus is a broader database in terms of new publications compared to Web of Science, meaning that CiteScore encompasses a greater number of titles than its counterpart, the Journal Impact Factor. It is important to note that the use of the CiteScore metric introduces certain limitations to the study. Not all sources are assigned this metric, and many materials, such as conference proceedings and books, do not have a CiteScore. Similarly, very recent journals, those less than three years old, are also excluded. Additionally, it is crucial to highlight that evaluating articles solely based on citation counts is not considered an ideal method for measuring the scientific value of a publication.
Most of the selected articles focus on LCA (86) and material and component reuse (76), while the fewest relate to design for adaptability (18) and design for disassembly (29). This distribution reflects the number of subcategories identified within each area. It is also noteworthy that DfA and DfD had the highest number of overlapping articles during the selection process. In total, 285 articles were included in the review. A summary of the entire process is presented in Figure 2.
2.4. Synthesis
Following the selection process, the abstracts, methodologies, and conclusions of the selected articles were thoroughly reviewed. The process culminated in the development of a comprehensive table presenting the main findings and identified research gaps for each of the selected articles. The table is attached as Table S1 to the article. Additionally, an analysis of citation frequency, the use of specific keywords, the most popular journals, authors, and their countries among the selected articles was conducted using the VOSviewer software, version 1.6.20.
2.5. Methodological Limitations
The selection process is subject to certain constraints. Although sub-categorization was employed to capture a broad thematic scope, articles from emerging or niche journals may not have met the inclusion criteria. Furthermore, in highly popular research areas, the selection tended to favor articles from a single top-ranked journal, potentially limiting thematic diversity and geographic representation.
3. Results
3.1. General Results
The results section continues the division into six categories; therefore, each search group’s results are presented separately. The results for the six search categories differ significantly in terms of the number of outcomes. This may indicate a noticeable development and exhaustion of certain topics, such as LCA research (the highest number of search results), compared to others, such as design-for-adaptability (the lowest number of results). The analysis performed using the VOSviewer tool revealed that, among the selected articles, the most frequently used author-assigned keywords were ‘circular economy’ (106), ‘life cycle assessment’ (46), and ‘reuse’ (30). These, along with their connections to other related topics, are illustrated in Figure 3.
Among the results, the Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews was the most frequently represented journal, with 41 articles, unsurprising given its high CiteScore of 31.2. Publications from this journal in our selection have collectively garnered 1798 citations. The Journal of Cleaner Production and Resources, Conservation and Recycling followed closely, with 36 articles each. In terms of authorship, researchers from the UK, Italy, and China contributed the most, with 39, 36, and 32 articles, respectively. The following description of the results refers to the content of the selected articles within each category.
The map of geographical distribution of scientific co-autorships shown in Figure 4 indicates a notable overrepresentation of authors from Europe (e.g., the UK, Italy, The Netherlands, Germany, etc.), likely reflecting the region’s strong emphasis on circular economy, driven by policy and industrial shifts. This imbalance may also be influenced by methodological factors, as many highly cited journals are based in Europe. While the publisher’s location should not affect article origin, regional research contexts may influence thematic emphasis, potentially contributing to the observed distribution.
3.2. Circular Economy
The transition towards CE in the construction sector is being driven by technological innovation, material experimentation, and shifts in design education and practice. Digital tools, such as artificial intelligence (AI), deep learning models, and BIM are reshaping how construction and demolition waste is managed and how circular strategies are integrated into design processes. At the same time, material innovations and vernacular approaches are expanding the palette of sustainable building options, while new educational and methodological frameworks are fostering greater awareness and capability among practitioners.
AI-based models such as Faster R-CNN, YOLOv3, and SSD have shown higher accuracy than traditional algorithms in detecting overlapping materials in dense CDW streams [14]. By using synthetic training data, these models eliminate manual labeling, though energy and environmental impacts remain unassessed. Similarly, RACNET; a CNN introduced by Lux et al. [15] classifies recycled aggregates from 2D images, enabling real-time quality monitoring. Ref. [16] further improved CDW classification with a ResNet model using transfer learning.
Digital tools beyond AI also support CE design strategies. Keulemans and Adams [17] emphasize BIM, 3D scanning, and CAD/CAM for enabling design-led reuse, though limitations in reusable component libraries persist. BIM’s integration with DfD, as proposed by Lima et al. [18] and Lins et al. [19], is promising but hindered by a lack of standardized metadata (e.g., reuse values or disassembly instructions).
Although AI, BIM, and digital tools show strong potential for enabling CE in construction, key gaps remain in LCA integration, data standardization, and interoperability. Addressing these challenges requires policy alignment, educational initiatives, and institutional support to fully embed digital circularity in practice [20].
Material innovation plays a central role in advancing circular economy (CE) strategies in construction, with a growing emphasis on both alternative material systems and data-driven approaches to resource optimization. Ascione et al. [21] demonstrated that glass fiber-reinforced polymers (GFRPs), though approximately 15% more expensive than steel at the construction stage, result in a 26% lower global cost over the building’s life cycle due to their superior durability, corrosion resistance, and minimal maintenance needs. However, challenges related to GFRP disassembly, recycling, and end-of-life reprocessing remain underexplored. Complementing this, Cudzik and Kropisz [22] explored the use of hard-to-recycle plastic packaging waste in architectural applications, offering a novel valorization route for materials typically destined for landfills. While promising from a CE perspective, these experimental materials still lack comprehensive data on thermal, mechanical, and fire safety performance, hindering wider adoption.
Similarly, traditional and vernacular materials have resurfaced as low-carbon, locally sourced alternatives with strong circular potential. Sapna and Anbalagan [23] showcased the benefits of Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks (CSEBs), which enhance thermal comfort and reduce environmental impact through passive design. However, their mainstream implementation is limited by the absence of standardized quality assurance systems in lesser developed regions. Hu [24] further highlights how materials like adobe, bamboo, and straw characteristic for vernacular architecture, are biodegradable and low in embodied energy, yet suffer from a lack of performance metrics necessary for regulatory compliance.
Bridging these material innovations with digital intelligence, Galluccio [25] introduces the concept of Informational Upcycling (IU), which redefines material value not only by physical reuse but also by increasing “ecological intelligence” through AI and computational design. IU tackles problems like the inconsistency and unpredictability of materials by using data to guide how reclaimed biomaterials are used in high-performance applications. Together, these studies show a growing connection between material circularity and digital design. They also highlight the need for better data, clear standards, and strong regulations to help turn innovative materials into construction practices that are both scalable and sustainable.
The integration of CE principles in architectural design is advancing through both experimental practice and education. The CiaBOT project illustrates how waste materials can serve not only environmental goals but also convey cultural and social meaning, highlighting the value of community engagement and local material used in circular design [12]. However, its small scale and lack of quantitative metrics limit its replicability. In parallel, embedding CE concepts in early architectural education has been shown to enhance students’ systems thinking and design innovation, though digital tools like BIM or LCA are still underutilized in curricula [26].
While circular design is gaining traction in the AEC sector, practical adoption remains uneven due to systemic barriers. In a survey of designers in the Netherlands and Sweden, 63% reported CE project experience and 66% noted organizational changes supporting circularity, yet many faced challenges in addressing supply chain, regulatory, and financial constraints [27]. Similar issues were identified in Austria, where stakeholders cited fragmented implementation at the end-of-life phase of buildings [13], and in Nigeria, where economic and knowledge gaps limit CE adoption in both design and construction [28,29]. Cultural values and limited agency further hinder progress, especially among entrepreneurs prioritizing short-term gains [30].
3.3. Circularity Indicators
Circularity indicators are tools used to measure the level of compliance with circular guidelines. They quantify the reduction in linear material flows and the enhancement of restorative flows, enabling the assessment of how effectively a system aligns with circular economy principles. The most widely recognized CI is the material circularity indicator (MCI) developed by Ellen MacArthur Foundation [31]. There are some contradictory opinions on whether the LCA should be described as the CI, as it is not an assessment that concerns the product’s circular potential [32]. With the growing application of circular economy principles in practice, the topic of measuring circularity is also receiving increasing attention.
Most of the circularity indicators are at an intermediate stage of development and they primarily focus on closed material flows, adaptability, disassembly, and reusability, simultaneously overseeing aspects like energy, emissions, and water [33]. In the scientometric analysis conducted by Gomis et al., no indicator stood out except for LCA [32]. This may suggest that despite the large number of coefficients, few of them have been widely applied in practice. Various studies suggest using the circularity indicator as a design tool. According to Incelli et al., the implementation of circularity disrupts the standard design approach and requires the consideration of construction technology from the early design phases [34]. Van der Zwaag et al. developed an automated decision support system to assess building circularity at the initial design stage [35].
A significant number of papers focus on the development of a new circularity indicator or the improvement of already existing assessment methods. For example, Cottafava and Ritzen proposed an enhancement of BCI created by Verberne [36], which they called PBCI (Predictive BCI). Its goal is to be a predictive tool that enables the comparison of different buildings and the estimation of their future circularity potential by incorporating more detailed design and material aspects [37]. Khadim et al. proposed a new circularity indicator called Whole Building Circularity Indicator (WBCI) that can be used together with other assessments like Level(s) or LCA and which covers a broad range of building-relevant KPIs, i.e., recycling, disassembly, and adaptability. Its conceptual framework is based on MCI, but it also incorporates the focus on resource-demanding construction and design phases [38]. On the other hand, Coenen et al. argued that other structures, f.e.: bridges, require a special approach, and therefore they proposed the bridge-specific circularity indicator called also BCI [39].
Among recent research on circularity indicators, case studies of varying scale and scope can be found. Luthin et al. proposed the new C-LCSA method for identifying interlinkages and trade-offs between the different sustainability dimensions and circularity [40]. Their framework was applied to assess recycled carbon-reinforced concrete industrial floor and study results showed that its global warming potential was lower while human toxicity potential was higher compared to similar products. One of the papers evaluated 89 building products from the German ÖKOBAUDAT database [41]. The outcomes showed that material circularity indicators range from 0.1 to 0.52 for a product lifetime equal to the industry average and more than 60% of the products receive the lowest score of 0.10, which indicates that circular strategies are poorly widespread among construction products in Germany. Another Lutin et al.’s publication revealed that carpet tiles made out of recycled and bio-based materials result in a high circularity score and low global warming potential [42]. On the other hand, using primary, non-bio-based materials and disposing them at their EoL phase is connected with low circularity score and high GWP, but is the most cost-effective solution. Several papers address the assessment of modular constructions. What should be highlighted is the fact that all the articles selected on the topic, combining circularity indicators and modular building, were written by a similar group of authors. In the first paper, Antwi-Afari and Chen compared three different partition systems in terms of their circularity and economic costs [43]. Their results indicate that a partition system made out of cross-laminated timber with polyurethane foam is the optimal circular solution compared to the double-glazed glass with silicon and stainless steel with rockwool. The newly proposed LCA-C2C-PBSCI method was used by Antwi-Afari et al. to evaluate the environmental impact and recovery potentials of a modular residential building in China [44] and of a modular steel slab in various scenarios [45].
An emerging key topic is the integration of circularity assessments with the use of BIM technology. Dervishaj et al.’s paper, which focused on assessing digital tools supporting implementation of CE strategies, revealed that CE tools for digital design need further development, mostly in terms of integration of more reliable LCA data and alignment with the current and future regulations [46]. Al-Qazzaz et al. pointed out that most tools combining BIM with BCA (building circularity assessment) are based on MCI [47]. Due to their findings, no established standard exists for BIM-based BCA, and existing circularity databases are insufficient.
Several papers on circularity indicators pair their use with life cycle assessments. Barrak et al. employed the multi-criteria decision analysis to integrate LCA and CI to address potential trade-offs between circularity and environmental performance [48]. Saadé et al. combined Material Flow Analysis (MFA), MCI and LCA to evaluate circular economy practices at the urban project scale [49]. Their research identified shortcomings of LCA, especially regarding resource depletion evaluation and the treatment of biogenic carbon in eco-design applications.
The review identified a range of studies examining the economic considerations of circular strategies. Braakman et al. analyzed life cycle costs of implementing circular strategies in the design of a one-family house [50]. Due to their findings, doubling the circularity level can be achieved without impacting LCC; however, further enhancements to the circularity score cause a substantial increase in initial costs. Case studies by Tanthanawiwat et al. demonstrated that a 100% recycling scenario for the management of construction and demolition waste from concrete houses resulted in the lowest life cycle costs, while the same scenario for timber houses led to the highest costs due to energy expenses [51].
3.4. Design for Adaptability
The study conducted by Munaro et al. revealed that among ecodesign terminology exist many different expressions relating to similar subjects, e.g., design for adaptability can occur under terms like design for flexibility, design for durability, or design for change [52]. Therefore researchers proposed the integration of all the ecodesign methodologies (including adaptive reuse, design for disassembly, design for dismantling or demountability, design for recycling, design for reuse, reversible design, and modularity) under one term: Design for Adaptability and Disassembly (DfDA). Mlote et al. observed that the most important factors influencing the willingness to apply design guidelines for adaptability are demographic changes (population size, distribution, and composition), technological development, and economic drivers, which are followed by environmental and social concerns [53]. Kręt-Grześkowiak and Baborska-Narożny claim that the discourse related to the circular economy in the construction sector is in the intermediate stage of development; there are a lot of advanced recommendations regarding design for adaptability and disassembly, but not many widely recognized procedures [54]. According to them, standardization and systematization of circular building assessment methods are needed to avoid conflicting recommendations. Askar et al. state that the variety and broad range of existing circular strategies may result from the open nature of the circular economy (CE) definition [55]. Their study revealed that the current adaptability assessment frameworks often address adaptations within similar building typologies and functions, relying on subjective and not sufficiently tested methods.
Izquidero et al. pointed out that leading enablers of circular economy practices implementation are, among others, specific project success factors that align with the pro-environmental approach and contractual requirements [56]. Their study proved that the methods with the greatest potential to be implemented immediately in practice are: selective demolition, material and product selection, design for prefabrication, building from waste, and design for adaptability and flexibility. Tarpio’s research investigated the barriers to implementing adaptable housing in Finland and Denmark [57]. Interviews conducted among architects indicate that the main barrier is the developer’s disinterest in the topic; secondary barriers were connected to economic and technical concerns. Rockow et al.’s paper highlighted the good practices for implementing adaptable design, which involves good-quality documentation, designing open floor plans, and large floor-to-floor heights with a focus on simple designs [58].
A significant number of identified studies were focused on adaptable timber structures. According to David et al.timber structures are promising in implementing circular economy principles and growing interest can be observed in the adoption of DfAD strategies, with prefabrication and detachable connections playing a central role [59]. Their analysis revealed that the majority of timber structures designed according to DfAD principles are low-rise residential buildings. Correspondingly, Ottenhouse et al. claim that reversible connections are essential to achieve structural adaptability of timber structures and underline that they should undergo no or very little damage [60]. Walsh and Shotton highlight that minor changes to specification can have a substantial impact on the recoverability and reusability of timber elements in construction, e.g., the replacement of composite I-joists with solid timber, using factory-dimensioned material and substitution of screws for nails [61].
One of the most relevant topics is the effect of adaptable building design on its cost. Reed-Grice and Ross concluded that the potential economic benefits of DfA exceed the green premium only in certain conditions, e.g., if the additional initial costs for an adaptable building are relatively low [62]. Following their paper, the payoff is most sensitive to the green (adaptability) premium, construction costs, and the inflation value. Brigante et al.’s paper presents case studies evaluating the economic costs of the DfA strategies implementation, which include increased floor lived load, increased floor-to-floor height and use of post-and-beam framing instead of interior structural walls [63]. According to their findings, the implementation of all three strategies resulted in a 14% increase in construction costs, while the implementation of only one strategy led to a cost increase ranging from 1% to 7%.
3.5. Design for Disassembly
Design for Disassembly (DfD) aims to create building systems that can be systematically deconstructed at the end of their service life, facilitating material recovery and reducing demolition waste. Central to this concept is the use of standardized connections, modular components, and prefabricated elements that enable rapid, non-destructive separation [64]. Recent studies highlight the critical role of selective demolition techniques and quality recycling practices in achieving these goals, positioning DfD as a strategy not only for minimizing environmental impacts but also for generating new business opportunities across the building lifecycle [65]. Prefabrication and modularization are increasingly recognized as essential pathways for enabling disassembly. Modular construction strategies, including the use of sustainable materials such as rice-husk concrete, have demonstrated adaptability and contribute to reducing construction waste by supporting zero-waste building concepts [66]. Prefabricated systems further enhance DfD outcomes by enabling precise off-site manufacturing, improving quality control, and reducing on-site environmental impacts [67].
Digitally enabled modular construction offers additional promise by enhancing component traceability and reuse potential. Lifecycle tracking and dynamic information management systems, including the integration of BIM and Internet of Things (IoT) technologies, are critical for ensuring that modular elements retain their value over multiple usage cycles [68]. This approach underscores the need for comprehensive data systems that consolidate design, material, and production information into accessible formats, with component ID systems being particularly vital for future-proofing construction elements [69].
Material-specific strategies are crucial to the success of DfD. Timber construction offers a compelling case due to the renewable nature and inherent modularity of wood. Hybrid systems that combine cross-laminated timber (CLT) and steel components demonstrate that it is possible to balance architectural integrity with disassembly potential, reducing waste and overall carbon footprint [70]. Timber’s natural renewability and low embodied carbon make it highly suitable for circular construction strategies; however, challenges such as labor-intensive disassembly processes, regulatory barriers, and limited markets for reclaimed timber remain significant. Recent research emphasizes integrating digital technologies and circular economy principles into timber construction to enhance material recovery, with bio-circular strategies enabling upstream and downstream reuse through wood cascading [71].
Design for Reuse (DfR) practices have emphasized the environmental benefits of reusing concrete structures. Reuse techniques like hydrodemolition facilitate the recovery of both conventional and high-performance concrete, with the latter’s durability supporting multiple usage cycles [72]. Nonetheless, significant knowledge gaps remain regarding the long-term structural performance of reusable connections, particularly in critical elements like slabs, which current prototype-based studies do not fully address.
Steel and masonry elements also exhibit substantial reuse potential, with recovery rates exceeding 85–90% under favorable conditions [73]. Developments such as hybrid systems combining folded sheet steel and cement-free concrete [74], as well as deconstructable structures using recycled aggregates [75], illustrate emerging strategies for sustainable material reuse. Nonetheless, ensuring the long-term durability and adaptability of these hybrid systems remains a critical area for future research.
Despite growing recognition of DfD and circular design, significant barriers persist. Regulatory, economic, and technological challenges, varying across regional and national contexts, hinder widespread adoption [76]. Additionally, the transition towards performance-based models and service-oriented approaches in construction faces systemic inertia, necessitating new adaptable financial and governance frameworks [77]. Standardization efforts, such as the implementation of ISO 20887 [78], are vital to facilitating component reuse [79]. Moving forward, the development of robust regulatory frameworks and financial incentives is essential to support the shift from traditional demolition toward disassembly-focused practices. Expanding DfD frameworks to address a broader range of materials, including masonry and complex composites, remains an urgent priority for both research and practice.
3.6. Life Cycle Assessment
LCA has emerged as the most frequently explored term in the context of the circular economy, with certain subcategories—such as building materials—receiving greater attention than others. This trend is supported by the literature review conducted by Çimen, which showed that the majority of studies concentrated on the material scale, particularly during the manufacturing and construction phases [80]. The paper identified insufficiently studied areas, which involve design, manufacturing, and end of life stages, mainly in the area scale. Fang et al. demonstrated that Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is the most commonly used method for evaluating carbon footprints [81], with databases and literature serving as the primary sources of data. Several studies referred to the problem of selecting an appropriate functional unit for the buildings assessment, which is why Minunno et al. proposed the use of kN·m/kg for structural elements, as it enables the consideration of the strength and environmental footprint of the designed construction [82]. Their review also presented a ranking system for the embodied carbon and energy of building materials, serving as an LCA benchmark for professionals. Papers combining LCA with general circular economy concepts highlight that this integration can improve product sustainability, though current models fail to address economic and social sustainability aspects fully [83]. Harris et al. pointed out that although the circular and sharing economy (C&SE) strategies in the building sector have considerable potential for climate mitigation, they remain underutilized [84].
Various research efforts explore the potential for improving the LCA method and related tools. Kong et al. revealed that the most pressing issues of building LCA tools are related to learnability, efficiency, and errors, while satisfaction-related issues are less urgent and easier to address [85]. Säwén et al.’s research shows that life cycle building performance tools are rarely used in early architectural design despite their environmental, social, and economic value [86]. Van Stijn et al. emphasized the need for assessment metrics to properly evaluate circular building components, which led them to the development of a Circular Economy Life Cycle Assessment (CE-LCA) model [87]. This model treats building components as composites with multiple use cycles, extending system boundaries to include all cycles and allocating impacts using a circular approach. Similarly, Vandervaeren et al. proposed a time-based, bottom-up Material Flow Analysis (MFA) method and tested it on a pavilion with nine design options [88]. Due to their results, life cycle environmental impacts can be up to 162% higher for non-demountable designs. Data availability and reliability remain one of the greatest hindrances to life cycle assessments. Crawford et al. found that existing process data is, on average, 55% incomplete, with coverage varying from 2% to 99% based on material and flow type [89]. To reduce the complexity and time required for LCAs in construction, researchers developed the EPiC Database. Additionally, traditional deterministic LCA approaches often overlook uncertainties across building lifecycles, particularly in phases like end-of-life. The results of Ansah et al.’s study showed that the material production phase contributes most to overall impacts but has the least uncertainty, while in contrast, transportation, construction, maintenance, and end-of-life phases exhibit great ambiguity [90].
LCA is often associated with BIM, which helps determine the quantity and properties of materials used in a building. Yeung et al. developed the BIM-based simulation that combines Building Energy Simulation and LCA [91]. It provides the dynamic results of environmental impacts, which allows for specific and time-differentiated analyses. Wang et al. established the LCA and BIM based tool for Revit that allows the environmental assessment and comparison of three different end-of-life strategies for buildings (landfill disposal, reuse and recycling) [92], which proved that long-distance transportation greatly influences the environmental impact of recycled materials and can even exceed the impact of the use of new materials. Gao et al. used the BIM-LCA integrated model to evaluate and compare the carbon emissions of prefabricated and traditional buildings [93]. The results of the study indicate that the whole life carbon emission intensity for prefabricated buildings is 9.61% lower than for traditional structures.
The LCA of building materials is one of the most recurring topics identified in LCA-related research. Li et al. introduced CO2-cured building materials using Calcium Carbide Residue (CCR) as an alternative to lime [94]. Their LCA indicated the potential for producing carbon-negative materials with reduced embodied GWP. Dickson and Pavía evaluated 21 insulation materials based on energy efficiency, environmental impact, and cost, identifying cellulose fiber as the top performer [95]. Weththasinghe et al. assessed material selection in shopping centers, finding that dedicated design can cut life cycle embodied flow by up to 52% and material costs by up to 51% [96].
Interest is rising in natural and recycled materials due to their lower environmental impact. Chen et al. showed that biomaterials in the building sector can decrease water absorption by 40%, reduce energy consumption by 8.7%, enhance acoustic absorption by 6.7%, and improve mechanical properties [97]. Osman et al. found that biochar-based bricks and insulating materials enhance lowering the carbon footprint in buildings and improve thermal insulation [98]. Correspondingly, Ben-Alon et al. reported that natural wall production demands 62–71% less energy, and can cut embodied emissions by as much as 91% when compared to conventional systems [99]. Ata-Ali et al. compared ventilated facades using rock wool, natural cork, and recycled cork [100], finding recycled cork had the lowest environmental impact while matching rock wool’s thermal performance. Moreover, Caldas et al. demonstrated that increasing the proportion of wood shavings (WS) in wood bio-concrete (WBC) significantly reduces life cycle GHG emissions [101], in a manner comparable to the use of Processed Incineration Ashes (PIA) from municipal solid waste in concrete production [102].
Daehn et al. noted that significant greenhouse gas emissions remain prevalent in material production sectors, especially within construction, transportation, and chemicals [103]. However, Sousa and Bogas suggest that implementing a dry process, which eliminates pretreatment steps such as washing and drying, could potentially lower emissions from recycled cement to just 13% of those associated with clinker production [104].
LCAs are commonly used to assess building components’ environmental impact. Andersen et al. found that selective demolition of steel facade cladding reduced environmental impacts by 40% compared to conventional methods [105]. Other selected papers were focused on novel solutions like vacuum insulation panels [106] or smart windows technology [107] which offer promising results in terms of building energy efficiency. The identified research related to building services systems focused mostly on photovoltaics. The papers examined the geometrical and architectural aspects of building-integrated active solar energy systems [108], their optimization for regional climate conditions [109], as well as the social and market acceptance of solar PV panels and heat pumps [110]. Several studies have emphasized the significance of green roofs and walls. Mihalakakou et al. pointed out their energy, environmental, and health advantages [111], while Manso et al. noted that high upfront costs and the neglect of long-term benefits hinder their adoption [112]. Furthermore, current LCA studies on green roofs and facades show significant variation in methods and boundary conditions, leading to inconsistent results [113,114].
Multiple LCA studies have analyzed the environmental impacts of entire buildings. Kong et al. found that using recycled materials reduced embodied energy and GHG emissions by 12.2% and 11.7%, respectively [115]. Arceo et al. reviewed single-family dwellings in Toronto, Perth, and Luzon, comparing material efficiency by different functional units. Toronto buildings were most efficient per m2, while those in Luzon were most efficient per bedroom [116]. Su et al. developed a dynamic LCA model to predict life cycle carbon emissions of buildings, incorporating the influence of evolving temporal parameters [117]. Their case study showed that the optimal insulation thickness was 250 mm in static scenarios and 120–130 mm in dynamic scenarios, resulting in a 23.4% reduction in life cycle carbon emissions. To verify the quality of life cycle assessments, benchmark analyses prove extremely useful, as they allow for comparing results with other buildings of similar function, location, and materials used. Jungclaus et al. established embodied carbon benchmarks for U.S. single-family homes across various climates and foundation types [118]. Gazquez et al. compared vernacular and contemporary social houses in Argentina, finding the vernacular house used 35% of the embodied energy and 62.9% of the operational energy of the contemporary one [119]. While most LCA studies focus on residential buildings, Craft et al. explored embodied carbon reductions in Australian office buildings, achieving 17–45% reductions through design and material changes, including timber and straw insulation [120].
The literature review highlighted various LCA studies on construction technologies, including wood, concrete, and brick structures, with a focus on prefabrication. Zandifaez et al. noted growing interest in energy-efficient concrete with Recycled Aggregates (RA), Supplementary Cementitious Materials (SCMs), air bubbles, and Phase Change Materials (PCMs) for thermal insulation [121]. Moreover, Cappellesso et al. identified self-healing concrete as a promising method to improve durability and reduce environmental impact [122]. Devos et al. found that reusing 1 m2 of ceramic bricks led to an 85–86% environmental gain over new bricks, while processing reclaimed bricks into slips offered a 40% gain compared to new brick slips [123]. Wu et al.’s sensitivity analysis of hybrid timber buildings showed that increasing wood volume alone raised environmental impact, but balancing wood, steel, and concrete reduced it, with eutrophication being the most sensitive indicator [124]. Shin et al. found that replacing concrete with CLT for exterior walls reduced GHG emissions by 44.6% and energy demand by 49.3% [125].
López-Guerrero et al. found that Industrialized Building Systems (IBS) are generally more sustainable than Traditional Building Systems (TBS), except for construction costs [126]. Zhang et al. analyzed the energy, carbon, and financial payback periods of prefabricated concrete elements (PCE) in building renovations across Spain, the Netherlands, and Sweden, with energy payback periods ranging from 17.6 to 20.45 years and carbon payback periods from 8.58 to 23.33 years [127]. Using reused PCE further reduced these periods and was the only option for financial payback within the building’s lifetime. When comparing prefabricated light-steel buildings (PLB) with traditional cast-in-place buildings (TCB), the former demonstrated a 6.76% reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions [128].
LCA is also applicable to neighborhoods and cities. Su et al. combined City Information Modeling (CIM) and Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment (DLCA) for regional carbon impact assessments, accounting for multiple dynamic factors [129]. Muñoz-Liesa et al. found that Building-Integrated Agriculture (BIA) could be a greener alternative to conventional agriculture in rural areas, with optimized greenhouse structures reducing steel use by 22.9% and improving environmental performance [130].
3.7. Material and Component Reuse
The integration of material and component reuse into architectural and construction practices presents a great opportunity for aligning the built environment with CE principles. Despite strong theoretical potential and mounting evidence from global case studies, reuse remains underutilized due to a gathering of regulatory, cultural, technical, and logistical challenges. In North-West Europe, for instance, a significant share of construction components suitable for reuse, especially from the structural and skin layers, are instead downcycled or discarded, with realized reuse rates often falling below 15% by mass depending on the layer and project type [131]. These missed opportunities result in substantial losses of embodied carbon and economic value.
Reusing components such as concrete elements, steel bars, and façade systems has been shown to significantly outperform recycling or landfilling in both environmental and economic terms. Lei et al. [132] quantify this difference, showing that reusing structural components can reduce carbon emissions by up to 526 kg CO2-eq/m2. Similarly, Cheong et al. [133] demonstrate that reuse offers the most favorable end-of-life scenario for curtain wall façades, contributing to substantial reductions in both renewable and non-renewable energy consumption. Moreover, the reuse of lightweight exterior walls in school buildings in the UK has been found to reduce total embodied emissions by approximately 6%, even though such elements are non-structural [134]. These findings illustrate that even partial reuse strategies can yield relatively large environmental benefits.
Rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings offer particularly promising pathways for integrating CE principles. As Scolaro and De Medici [135] argue, such approaches inherently conserve embodied energy and material stock, although they require careful design to avoid rebound effects from excessive upgrading. Performance-based methodologies that integrate downcycling and upcycling into redesign processes can mitigate these risks while enhancing building adaptability and reducing emissions. This design imperative aligns with the findings of Charef et al. [136], who highlight the outsized influence of early-stage decisions, such as design for disassembly and modular construction, on long term circularity outcomes.
At a broader scale, successful implementation of reuse depends heavily on systemic factors, including data infrastructure, regulatory alignment, and obtainment practices. Material Passports, when integrated into BIM, have been shown to enhance traceability and end-of-life planning, thus supporting more effective reuse [136,137]. Yet such tools remain underutilized in practice, due in part to a lack of standardization, cross-platform interoperability, and stakeholder awareness [52]. Similarly, deconstruction-based approaches, such as those adopted in Bornholm, Denmark, demonstrate that closed-loop material systems are technically and logistically feasible at local scales [138], though scalability remains a key concern, especially in complex urban contexts.
Empirical evidence also suggests that CE benefits extend beyond emissions reduction to include biodiversity preservation and socio-economic resilience. Ruokamo et al. [139] show that minimizing virgin material extraction, extending asset lifespans, and optimizing spatial use are among the most effective CE strategies for mitigating biodiversity loss. In parallel, Münster [140] documents how adaptive reuse projects, such as repurposed coffee shops, not only reduce resource consumption but also enhance community cohesion and support local economies, highlighting the multifaceted value of reuse in architecture.
However, implementation is constrained by existing barriers. Regulatory misalignment, particularly regarding the reuse of safety-critical components, has been identified as a major obstacle in multiple contexts, including Sweden and the EU [141,142]. Additionally, in the Global South, weak enforcement of CDWM policies, despite their formal existence, limits circular practices, as demonstrated by Gillott et al. [143]. Without robust policy reinforcement mechanisms and market incentives, CE strategies risk remaining peripheral to mainstream construction practices.
To unlock the full potential of reuse in the built environment, a multi-pronged approach is essential: integrating reuse criteria into digital design tools, standardizing data collection and material documentation, aligning regulations with circularity goals, and fostering cross-sector collaboration from the earliest stages of project development. Bellini et al. [144] propose a structured three-step reuse process, collecting material information, conducting information-driven evaluations, and planning for reuse, hat significantly improves the practical application of reuse strategies in real-world projects. Similarly, automation tools combining Scan-to-BIM, Lidar, and photogrammetry offer promising advancements in identifying reusable elements and streamlining deconstruction workflows, although they still rely heavily on human validation [145]. These innovations, when integrated into life cycle assessment frameworks and supported by policy and procurement shifts, can help transition reuse from a niche practice into a standardized component of sustainable building design.
3.8. Other Identified Topics
3.8.1. Building Renovations
Most reviewed studies were focused on new building design, with some addressing existing structures and renovations. Reuse aligns closely with circular principles but generally remains underrepresented. Identified refurbishment studies often included economic and environmental assessments. According to Fahlstedt et al.’s review, lack of standardization among building renovations assessment is observed and only few studies include induced mobility emissions, which is one of the largest emission contributors when the area or urban scale is considered [146]. In another paper, Fahlsted et al. revealed that the majority of renovations assessments adopt the 50 years building lifespan; however, limited studies consider the possible dynamics of the future (e.g., electricity mix changes) [147]. Some papers highlighted that the increased number of building renovations may intensify environmental pressure and to address it researchers proposed the combination of replacing the fossil heating system with the addition of thick layered bio-based thermal insulation [148]. This solution drastically reduces the GHG emission of the building, while storing the carbon and reducing the operational costs. Similarly, Condotta et al. proposed three strategies to tackle sustainable social housing rehabilitation issues: carrying out the urban mining process, implementing nature-based solutions, and implementing the design for adaptability principles [149]. As per De Silva et al. research, more than 90% of bricks and more than 85% of steel can be reused after the end-of-life phase of the old building and 50% of the concrete components can be crushed into aggregate [150].
3.8.2. Level(s)
Level(s) framework is an assessment tool that aims to be a common EU sustainability report system. Askar et al. suggested that future developments of Level(s) should address the automation of indicators and circularity indexes for interactive assessments [151]. As indicated by their research, the Level(s) framework lacks some coherence in the methodology and needs some improvements to objectively examine Macro Objective 2. Del Rosario et al. investigated the reliability of EPD’s used in LCA according to Level(s). In line with their study, using EPD’s data may lead to certain mistakes, the lack of sufficient data is observed (regarding the composition of building components, its materials, their amount and density) and most of the EPDs are limited to cradle-to-gate, while Level(s) requires cradle-to-cradle data [152]. As mentioned by De Wolf et al., implementation of LCA methods is connected with considerable costs for professionals, which can be a significant obstacle in their popularization [153].
3.8.3. Urban Mining
Urban mining bridges the concepts of the circular economy and the built environment. According to the simulation of refurbishment of Tuscolana depot in Rome conducted by Luciano et al., the larger part (95.8% by weight) of the removed materials could be reused, recycled or remanufactured [154]. However, a research by Yang et al. on urban mining potential of Dutch residential buildings reveals that a significant mismatch exists between recycled materials and materials needed for new buildings (e.g., surplus clay bricks vs. deficit insulation materials) [155]. In accordance with their findings, using surplus residential materials in other sectors can improve urban mining efficiency, although greening electricity remains more impactful than urban mining in terms of GHG reduction. A case study in Leiden, Netherlands, illustrates that while recycling demolition waste can substantially reduce the demand for primary raw materials, it alone is insufficient to meet the national target of a 50% material reduction by 2030. Moreover, the prevalent practice of downcycling demolition waste into road filler permanently removes these materials from the construction loop, thereby limiting their long-term value in circular material flows.
3.8.4. Building Stock
The examination of building stock and its evolution stands out as a particularly important topic within the realms of circular economy and architectural research, especially in the context of resource efficiency and long-term sustainability. Röck et al.’s review of environmental building stock modeling approaches revealed that most of them focus on operational energy use and retrofitting, with few addressing new construction or its long-term environmental impacts [156]. Bischof and Duffy evaluated current modeling methods for non-domestic building stock (NDB) life-cycle assessment (LCA), highlighting that data availability for NDBs is especially limited, leading most models to depend on secondary sources and archetype data [157]. The building stock analyses, in addition to using LCA, are often combined with the material flow analysis (MFA) method [158,159,160].
3.8.5. Construction Waste Management
The identified studies emphasized the strategic importance of construction waste management, focusing on its potential for recovery, reuse, and integration into circular material flows. Wang et al. examined how various allocation methods influence the calculation of carbon benefits from recycling construction and demolition waste (C&DW) [161]. The results indicated that carbon benefits increase alongside higher recycling rates, with the sensitivity analysis identifying the quality of recycled materials as the primary factor influencing these benefits; higher quality materials were found to yield greater environmental advantages. Wu et al. assessed the environmental impacts associated with the cross-regional transportation of construction and demolition (C&D) waste in Australia, demonstrating that existing C&D waste management practices exert considerable effects on soil and water [162]. Their study further indicated that the Global Warming Potential (GWP over 100 years) could be reduced by approximately 50% for every 25% increase in recycling rates. Lase et al. reported that, as of 2018, the end-of-life recycling rate based on mechanical recycling in Europe was approximately 18%, with the potential to rise to 49% by 2030 [163]. They further demonstrated that additional increases in recycling rates could be achieved through the implementation of chemical recycling as a complementary approach. Pilipenets et al. identified stockpiling of waste as a critical, previously neglected variable affecting CE implementation, while industry feedback highlighted stockpiling as a major operational and environmental issue and subject to strict environmental regulations [164].
3.8.6. Industrial and Municipal Waste Implementation in Construction Sector
In alignment with circular economy principles, the building sector is increasingly embracing the reuse of industrial waste, transforming environmental liabilities into resources. Recent studies highlight promising pathways for integrating diverse waste streams ranging from textile microdust, electric arc furnace dust, and phosphogypsum, to agricultural by-products like hazelnut shells and leather industry waste into construction materials. For instance, microdust from spinning mills has been successfully used to create composite panels with superior mechanical and thermal properties compared to commercial gypsum boards [165]. Similarly, electric arc furnace dust, despite its hazardous classification, enhances the mechanical performance of concrete and ceramics when properly stabilized [166]. Hazelnut shells and leather waste offer sustainable alternatives for acoustic insulation, contributing to indoor comfort [167,168]. Moreover, plastic waste is emerging as an input for construction materials, supporting sustainability goals [169]. However, issues such as toxicity, radioactivity, and lack of fire safety assessments highlight the need for standardized testing and regulatory frameworks to ensure safe implementation across the sector [170].
3.8.7. Taxonomy
A robust taxonomy of CI is essential for translating CE principles into actionable strategies in the built environment. Study by Lisco and Aulin [171], provides a comprehensive classification of 32 existing CIs based on their readiness, applicability, and complexity, exposing major gaps in their real-world usability. Despite the growing interest in CE metrics, many indicators remain inconsistent, untested outside of academic settings, and disconnected from practical design processes. The study proposes a structured taxonomy that not only categorizes indicators but also aligns them with phases of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Plan of Work, an important step toward embedding circularity into conventional design workflows. Additionally, the research introduces a taxonomy of DfD and selective demolition strategies, organized by structural typologies and material/component levels. This framework serves as a practical guide for enabling material recovery and reuse, particularly in European contexts.
However, the taxonomy’s integration into tools like BIM or its systematic use by architects and engineers in early design stages remains unaddressed, limiting its impact. To bridge this gap, future efforts should focus on embedding these taxonomies into digital platforms and design protocols.
3.8.8. Prior Major Reviews in the Circular Built Environment Domain
While several prior reviews have explored aspects of circularity in the built environment, often focusing narrowly on topics such as life cycle assessment, construction waste management, or material reuse, this study distinguishes itself by providing a comprehensive, cross-thematic synthesis. Unlike some previous reviews, which typically address isolated topics, our work systematically integrates six key categories (circular economy, circularity indicators, design for adaptability, design for disassembly, life cycle assessment, and material and component reuse), allowing for a broader understanding of interconnections, research gaps, and emerging trends in circular architecture.
4. Discussion
The proposed method of material selection aimed to provide the broadest possible analysis of scientific content related to circular architecture. However, this approach comes with certain limitations. To avoid the risk of overlooking important thematic categories, subcategories were introduced based on the titles and keywords of the retrieved articles. Nevertheless, selecting only a few articles from each subcategory carries the risk of omitting significant works that focus on narrower topics.
The selected subcategories allow for drawing conclusions regarding thematic interconnections. For example, several links can be observed between the topics of general circularity concepts in architecture and digital tools, BIM, AI, blockchain technology and deep learning, as well as circular business models and policymaking. As highlighted in the reviewed literature, material innovations, BIM, AI, and other data-driven digital tools play a crucial role in advancing circular economy principles within the built environment. However, vernacular strategies and biomaterials offer alternative, yet equally valuable, pathways for reducing architecture’s environmental impact and can also be found among reviewed literature. The most recurring and critical barriers highlighted in the research that hinder the widespread adoption of circular practices in architecture include: data standardization issues, limited interoperability, scalability challenges of innovative materials and methods, supply chain disruptions, as well as regulatory, financial, and societal trust constraints.
The well established relationship is observed between circularity indicators (CIs), BIM and LCA. A significant number of studies focus on the analysis of existing CIs, their evaluation, improvements, development, or the creation of unique, new indicators. Literature reviews show that although a large database of such indicators already exists, there is a lack of those that are well-validated and widely adopted by practitioners. A positive sign; however, is the presence of numerous case studies that attempt to test the created circularity indicators. As noted in the literature, CIs should be integrated with other evaluation methods, as relying on them alone may lead to the omission of important dimensions. CIs demonstrate significant potential, particularly during the early design phase, by enabling the assessment of a building’s future sustainability. Economic studies suggest that CIs should be combined with cost analyses, as beyond a certain threshold, further improvements in circularity result in substantial cost increases with only marginal gains in circularity performance. A notable trend is the clustering of CI-related content around modular buildings. However, it should be emphasized that a similar group of researchers tends to work on this topic, which may indicate isolated interest rather than a general trend. Other identified subcategories connected to CI include: Level(s), building renovations, construction waste management, parametric design, reversible connections, timber structures, and taxonomy. To illustrate the current landscape and limitations of circular economy tools in architecture, Table 4 summarizes key digital frameworks, assessment tools, and emerging technologies referenced in the recent literature.
Most of the content related to Design for Adaptability (DfA) was theoretical in nature and included literature reviews, assessment methods and guidelines, and analyses of implementation barriers. The scientific literature offers many recommendations for advancement, but widely accepted procedures remain lacking. While DfA is a simple strategy that can be easily integrated into practice, it is rarely adopted because of developers’ lack of interest and the often higher associated costs. Although there was some content related to renovations (two articles), the remaining studies mainly focused on the design stage. Few studies have examined real-life applications of DfA principles, yet identifying specific key success factors in such projects could play a crucial role in promoting their wider adoption. A clear link can be observed between timber structures and DfA, with timber being the only material repeatedly associated with adaptable design in the reviewed articles.
Design for Adaptability and Circularity Indicators yielded the fewest results, indicating that these areas are still emerging and rarely applied in practice. The largely theoretical nature of existing research highlights the lack of validated, standardized methods for implementation and case-based studies.
Design for Disassembly (DfD) is often associated with modularity and prefabricated structures, and in terms of materials, commonly linked with concrete, timber, masonry, and hybrid systems. Related topics frequently include standardization, urban mining, and selective demolition. The challenges to implementing DfD strategies are both technical and regulatory. Selective demolition and high-quality recycling processes are labor-intensive and often result in significant material losses and product downgrading. Furthermore, an incomplete understanding of the long-term structural behavior of reused materials affects the feasibility of recycled construction. Materials such as timber, brick, and steel demonstrate greater potential for reuse and recycling compared to others, like concrete. Regulatory barriers include the lack of standardized protocols for data collection, data gaps in end-of-life scenarios, insufficiently robust LCA methodologies, and the absence of a well-defined taxonomy related to DfD.
Studies related to Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) were by far the most numerous, which suggests a saturation of this topic in the scientific literature. Most of the analyses concentrated on specific building materials, and due to the high number of studies, a more detailed classification was introduced, dividing them into traditional, natural, and recycled materials. The production processes of materials were also analyzed, as well as buildings constructed from particular materials. Within this topic, the majority of studies concerned concrete and timber structures, though brick buildings were also represented. An increasing number of analyses focused on prefabricated buildings was also observed. Beyond buildings, the studies also addressed building components, green roofs and façades, and various types of accompanying infrastructure (especially PV panels). Research focused on LCA was often linked with economic cost analysis (LCC). Strong connections were also identified with BIM and Level(s). Notably, LCA is one of the few categories that shows strong connections across the entire scale of the built environment from building materials to the urban scale. Data availability and reliability remain among the greatest obstacles to conducting effective life cycle assessments (LCA), alongside challenges related to defining appropriate functional units and standardizing the LCA framework to enable comparability of results. While the material production phase typically contributes the most to the overall environmental impact, it is also the most certain in terms of data availability, as it is well-documented in Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs). In contrast, the transportation, construction, maintenance, and end-of-life phases are characterized by significantly higher levels of uncertainty and can vary greatly depending on geographical location. Moreover, despite the growing popularity of the LCA method, life cycle performance tools for buildings are still rarely integrated into the early stages of architectural design.
The reuse of materials and components is closely linked to topics such as adaptive reuse, construction and demolition waste, municipal and industrial waste, urban mining, material flow analysis, material passports, and design for deconstruction. Reusing materials presents not only technical challenges but also social and institutional ones. Due to the research, early involvement of manufacturers in the design process can greatly enhance reuse adoption. Likewise, integrating Design for Disassembly (DfD) strategies during initial design phases facilitates easier material separation and reuse. Additionally, advanced digital tools—such as BIM, material passports, and scan-to-BIM workflows—offer promising ways to overcome process limitations. Most of the studies underline the need for a stakeholder collaboration, digital infrastructure development and policy frameworks. Without strong regulatory support, widespread education, and standardized performance assessment tools, these innovations risk remaining isolated examples rather than becoming mainstream practices.
Among additional identified topics regarding the CE in the built environment appeared the need for sustainable renovations. These renovations already align with circular principles, but their impact can be amplified by incorporating recycled or bio-based materials, or by contributing to the process of urban mining. Research on urban mining highlights the necessity for further studies on material flows and innovations in materials, as there may be a long-term mismatch between future construction demands and the availability of materials extracted from the existing building stock. There is also a strong need for long-term, robust, and holistic analyses of construction, industrial, and municipal waste management, as effective recycling in these sectors is crucial for closing material loops. The Level(s) framework offers a potential solution to the widely acknowledged issue of standardization in environmental assessments. Material passports, similarly to Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs), often suffer from a lack of reliability and standardization, and currently remain underutilized. A critical issue identified across all researched categories is the need for appropriate taxonomy solutions. Existing taxonomies often hinder or even prevent the implementation of circular strategies in real-world scenarios. Despite being a common conclusion in many studies, circular taxonomy itself remains an underexplored research topic.
To enhance the clarity of the research findings, we prepared a summary of the identified thematic links and associated challenges, which are shown in Table 5.
Despite the growing interest in CE strategies within the built environment, the evaluation of circularity in architectural projects remains hindered by the absence of standardized metrics and performance benchmarks. Existing tools, such as the material circularity indicator (MCI) and LCA, are valuable but insufficient for capturing design-level qualities unique to architecture, including spatial flexibility, construction reversibility, and reuse-readiness. Notably missing are metrics that quantify a building’s adaptability to future functional changes, its disassembly potential, and the proportion of circular materials intentionally integrated during the design phase. Furthermore, there is a lack of lifecycle-based circularity indicators that integrate environmental performance with economic cost over time. The absence of benchmarks categorized by building typology, climate zone, or construction method also limits the ability to evaluate a project’s relative performance within its contextual cohort. Addressing these gaps is critical to enabling consistent and comparative assessments of circularity in architectural practice, and future research should focus on developing and validating such metrics to support evidence-based decision-making.
This review identifies key thematic gaps in the current research on CE in the built environment, particularly the underrepresentation of design-for-adaptability, limited urban-scale assessments, and insufficient integration between digital tools and real-world applications. To address these gaps and accelerate progress, we propose the following actionable steps:
For researchers: Prioritize interdisciplinary studies that bridge material science, digital design, and social behavior; develop validated, user-friendly circularity indicators; and expand life cycle assessment frameworks to include end-of-life and urban-scale scenarios. For practitioners: Adopt design approaches that integrate DfA and DfD from early stages; leverage BIM and material passports to enable traceability; and collaborate across supply chains to identify reuse opportunities. For policymakers: Establish clear regulatory standards for reused materials and CE design strategies; incentivize circular construction through procurement policies and tax benefits; and support educational programs that promote systems thinking and digital tool adoption in architectural and construction practice. Together, these targeted actions can support the systemic shift needed to implement circular economy principles at scale—across architecture, construction, and the broader built environment.
It is important to recognize that the successful implementation of CE principles in the built environment requires a balanced integration of both architectural and construction perspectives. Architectural design decisions, such as those related to flexibility, modularity, material selection, and spatial adaptability, set the foundation for circularity early in a building’s life cycle. However, construction practices, including prefabrication, on-site assembly, material recovery, and end-of-life disassembly, play an equally critical role in translating these design intentions into measurable sustainability outcomes. The interplay between these domains is essential: without coordinated construction processes, even the most thoughtfully designed circular strategies may fail to achieve their full potential. Therefore, advancing CE in the built environment must involve systemic collaboration between architects, engineers, contractors, and policymakers to ensure that both design intent and practical execution are aligned toward shared circular goals.
Selection based on CiteScore favored certain high-ranking journals; in cases where a large number of articles were available on a specific topic (e.g., LCA), a significant portion of the analysis comes from journals such as: Journal of Cleaner Production, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Furthermore, the content search was limited exclusively to scientific articles that had a CiteScore (excluding those that, for various reasons, do not have a CiteScore) and were written in English. It should also be noted that the descriptive results may reflect the authors’ interpretation.
5. Conclusions
A study on trends in scientific literature from 2021 to 2024 concerning the circular economy in architecture has shown that there is currently significant interest in this topic. This study synthesizes findings from a systematic literature review covering six key topics: circular economy, circularity indicators, adaptable and disassemblable design, life cycle assessment, and reuse of materials and components. Among the identified thematic areas, the greatest focus is observed in LCAs, the CE in general, and material/component reuse. The least amount of literature in recent years was found in the area of DfA. Based on the titles and keywords of the retrieved literature, subcategories relevant to the studies were defined, including building renovations, level(s), construction and demolition waste, industrial and municipal waste, urban mining, building stock and taxonomy.
The study results indicate that the integration of digital tools into CE strategies is gaining momentum, particularly through the use of AI, deep learning, and BIM. Similarly, material experimentation plays an important role in advancing CE within the construction sector. In recent years a significant number of CIs have emerged, though they still lack broader recognition among practitioners. DfA represents the smallest category of the reviewed research and primarily covers theoretical topics that have not yet been widely applied in practice. A strong connection between the DfA and timber structures has been identified, while links to other materials are lacking. The implementation of the DfD faces several challenges, including the labor- and time-intensive nature of disassembly, the technical limitations of recycled components, and regulatory constraints. Both DfA and DfD have a significant impact on construction costs. LCA is a well-researched method and is one of the most popular environmental assessments. Most LCA analyses focus on building materials. There is a growing concern about the limited replicability, lack of comparability, and insufficient robustness in many existing LCA analyses. Unlike other categories, LCA has strong connections to the neighborhood and city scale. Studies on the reuse of materials and components indicate that applying DfD, together with tools like BIM and material passports, can greatly improve separation and recovery processes. Early involvement of manufacturers in the design phase further supports wider uptake of reuse strategies.
A consistent set of challenges identified in the research on CE in the built environment includes inadequate standardization, insufficient data, and the lack of a defined circular taxonomy. Additional obstacles involve limited public interest and trust, difficulties in scaling, issues related to supply chains and financial constraints. While the reviewed strategies demonstrate considerable theoretical potential for transforming architectural and construction practices, their translation into real-world applications remains limited and uneven. Key barriers include inconsistent regulatory frameworks, insufficient economic incentives, a cultural resistance to change, and the lack of standardization in tools and taxonomies. Additionally, CE principles are rarely embedded in urban-scale planning, where challenges around material mismatches, ownership, and systemic coordination persist. Overcoming these barriers will require a multifaceted approach involving regulatory reform, public–private collaboration, educational transformation, and deeper integration of CE principles into mainstream design workflows and municipal planning protocols.
Identification of the most actual trends in scientific literature on circular architecture in recent years (2021–2024) established the baselines for future research by highlighting existing and missing interconnections between certain thematic areas and identifying research gaps, such as the lack of studies at the neighborhood and urban scale, limited focus on building materials and techniques other than timber and concrete (e.g., brick), a predominant emphasis on the early life cycle phases, while end-of-life stages and strategies remain largely underexplored, and inadequate verification of research outcomes in practice.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su17177580/s1, Table S1: Summary table of reviewed articles, listing all publications. Positions from record number 178 to the final record were included in the analysis but are not directly cited in the main text. The table contains the full bibliographic details for each publication to ensure transparency regarding the scope of the reviewed [178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233,234,235,236,237,238,239,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259,260,261,262,263,264,265,266,267,268,269,270,271,272,273,274,275,276,277,278,279,280,281,282,283,284,285,286,287,288,289,290,291,292,293,294,295,296,297,298,299,300].
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, D.P., A.W. and B.W.; methodology D.P., A.W. and B.W.; validation, D.P., A.W. and B.W.; formal analysis, D.P., A.W. and B.W.; investigation, D.P. and A.W.; resources, D.P., A.W. and B.W.; data curation, D.P. and A.W.; writing—original draft preparation, D.P., A.W. and B.W.; writing—review and editing, D.P., A.W. and B.W.; visualization, D.P. and A.W.; supervision, B.W.; project administration, B.W.; funding acquisition, B.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Architecture K03-2025.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Data will be made available on request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
| CE | circular economy |
| CI | circularity indicator |
| DfA | design for adaptability |
| DfD | design for disassembly |
| LCA | life cycle assessment |
| LCC | life cycle cost |
References
- Wang, G.; Luo, T.; Luo, H.; Liu, R.; Liu, Y.; Liu, Z. A Comprehensive Review of Building Lifecycle Carbon Emissions and Reduction Approaches. City Built Environ. 2024, 2, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Movaffaghi, H.; Yitmen, I. Framework for Dynamic Circular Economy in the Building Industry: Integration of Blockchain Technology and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thirumal, S.; Udawatta, N.; Karunasena, G.; Al-Ameri, R. Barriers to Adopting Digital Technologies to Implement Circular Economy Practices in the Construction Industry: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuperberg, M.; Geipel, M. Blockchain and BIM (Building Information Modeling): Progress in Academia and Industry. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2104.00547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alsofiani, M.A. Digitalization in Infrastructure Construction Projects: A PRISMA-Based Review of Benefits and Obstacles. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2405.16875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, S.; Ma, M.; Zhou, N.; Yan, J. GLOBUS: Global building renovation potential by 2070. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2406.04133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castillo-Nobre, G.C.; Tavares, E. The Quest for a Circular Economy Final Definition: A Scientific Perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 314, 127973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, O.; Iyer-Raniga, U.; Sadykova, C.; Balasooriya, M.; Sylva, K.; Dissanayaka, M.; Sukwanchai, K.; Pal, I.; Bhatia, A.; Jain, D.; et al. A Conceptual Model for Integrating Circular Economy in the Built Environment: An Analysis of Literature and Local-Based Case Studies. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 449, 141516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torres Curado, M.; Resende, R.; Rato, V.M. Circular Economy: Current View from the Construction Industry Based on Published Definitions. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2024, 20, 2364954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charef, R.; Morel, J.-C.; Rakhshan, K. Barriers to Implementing the Circular Economy in the Construction Industry: A Critical Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffiths, P.; Itanola, M.; Andabaka, A.; Atstāja, D. Hurdles to a Circular Built Environment: A Look at the Economic and Market Barriers. Buildings 2025, 15, 1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montacchini, E.; Tedesco, S.; Di Prima, N. CiaBOT: The Circular Design of an Experimental Microarchitecture between Material and Immaterial Values. Vitr.-Int. J. Archit. Technol. Sustain. 2024, 9, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srećković, M.; Hartmann, D.; Schützenhofer, S.; Kotecki, A. Bridging Theory and Practice: Stakeholder Insights on Circular Economy in the Building Life Cycle. Energy Rep. 2024, 12, 3291–3301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kronenwett, F.; Maier, G.; Leiss, N.; Gruna, R.; Thome, V.; Längle, T. Sensor-Based Characterization of Construction and Demolition Waste at High Occupancy Densities Using Synthetic Training Data and Deep Learning. Waste Manag. Res. 2024, 42, 788–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lux, J.; Lau Hiu Hoong, J.D.; Mahieux, P.-Y.; Turcry, P. Classification and Estimation of the Mass Composition of Recycled Aggregates by Deep Neural Networks. Comput. Ind. 2023, 148, 103889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, K.; Zhao, Y.; Zhou, T.; Gao, X.; Zhang, C.; Huang, B.; Shi, Q. Applying Machine Learning to Fine Classify Construction and Demolition Waste Based on Deep Residual Network and Knowledge Transfer. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 25, 8819–8836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keulemans, G.; Adams, R. Emergent Digital Possibilities for Design-Led Reuse within Circular Economy. NPJ Urban. Sustain. 2024, 4, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lima, P.R.B.D.; Rodrigues, C.D.S.; Post, J.M. Integration of BIM and Design for Deconstruction to Improve Circular Economy of Buildings. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 80, 108015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lins, E.J.M.; Palha, R.P.; Sobral, M.D.C.M.; Araújo, A.G.D.; Marques, É.A.T. Application of Building Information Modelling in Construction and Demolition Waste Management: Systematic Review and Future Trends Supported by a Conceptual Framework. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mallick, P.K.; Salling, K.B.; Pigosso, D.C.A.; McAloone, T.C. Designing and Operationalising Extended Producer Responsibility under the EU Green Deal. Environ. Chall. 2024, 16, 100977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ascione, F.; Maselli, G.; Nesticò, A. Sustainable Materials Selection in Industrial Construction: A Life-Cycle Based Approach to Compare the Economic and Structural Performances of Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) and Steel. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 475, 143641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cudzik, J.; Kropisz, K. Assessment of Utilizing Hard-to-Recycle Plastic Waste from the Packaging Sector in Architectural Design—Case Study for Experimental Building Material. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sapna, A.P.A.; Anbalagan, C. Constructions in india for sustainable built environment based on compressed stabilized earth blocks (cseb) case studies. PES 2024, 6, 1021–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, M. Exploring Low-Carbon Design and Construction Techniques: Lessons from Vernacular Architecture. Climate 2023, 11, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galluccio, G. Towards an Informational Upcyling: Leveraging Computation to (Re)design Biomaterials’ Life Cycles. Detritus 2024, 28, 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, E.; Niblock, C.; Flood, N.; Lappin, S. Introducing circularity in early architectural design education. ArchNet-IJAR Int. J. Archit. Res. 2024; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dokter, G.; Cohen, J.E.; Hagejärd, S.; Rexfelt, O.; Thuvander, L. Mapping the Practice of Circular Design: A Survey Study with Industrial Designers and Architects in the Netherlands and Sweden. J. Des. Res. 2024, 21, 177–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bello, A.O.; Isa, R.B.; Oke, A.E.; Arogundade, S.; Lewis, J.M.O. Circular Economy Implementation in the Construction Industry: An Examination of the Barriers in a Developing Country. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suleman, T.; Ezema, I.; Aderonmu, P. Challenges of Circular Design Adoption in the Nigerian Built Environment: An Empirical Study. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2023, 17, 100686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arshi, T.A.; Wallis, J. Entrepreneurial Values and Circular Economy Adoption: A Cross-Lagged SEM-Based Machine Learning Study. Entrep. Bus. Econ. Rev. 2024, 12, 157–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Material Circularity Indicator. Available online: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/material-circularity-indicator (accessed on 4 March 2025).
- Gomis, K.; Kahandawa, R.; Jayasinghe, R.S. Scientometric Analysis of the Global Scientific Literature on Circularity Indicators in the Construction and Built Environment Sector. Sustainability 2022, 15, 728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khadim, N.; Agliata, R.; Marino, A.; Thaheem, M.J.; Mollo, L. Critical review of nano and micro-level building circularity indicators and frameworks. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 357, 131859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Incelli, F.; Cardellicchio, L.; Rossetti, M. Circularity Indicators as a Design Tool for Design and Construction Strategies in Architecture. Buildings 2023, 13, 1706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Zwaag, M.; Wang, T.; Bakker, H.; van Nederveen, S.; Schuurman, A.C.B.; Bosma, D. Evaluating building circularity in the early design phase. Autom. Constr. 2023, 152, 104941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verberne, J.J.H. Building Circularity Indicators: An Approach for Measuring Circularity of a Building. Master’s Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Cottafava, D.; Ritzen, M. Circularity indicator for residential buildings: Addressing the gap between embodied impacts and design aspects. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khadim, N.; Agliata, R.; Thaheem, M.J.; Mollo, L. Whole building circularity indicator: A circular economy assessment framework for promoting circularity and sustainability in buildings and construction. Build. Environ. 2023, 241, 110498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coenen, T.B.J.; Santos, J.; Fennis, S.A.A.M.; Halman, J.I.M. Development of a bridge circularity assessment framework to promote resource efficiency in infrastructure projects. J. Ind. Ecol. 2021, 25, 288–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luthin, A.; Crawford, R.H.; Traverso, M. Demonstrating circular life cycle sustainability assessment—A case study of recycled carbon concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 433, 139853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dräger, P.; Letmathe, P.; Reinhart, L.; Robineck, F. Measuring circularity: Evaluation of the circularity of construction products using the ÖKOBAUDAT database. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2022, 34, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luthin, A.; Crawford, R.H.; Traverso, M. Assessing the circularity and sustainability of circular carpets—A demonstration of circular life cycle sustainability assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2024, 29, 1945–1964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antwi-Afari, P.; Ng, S.T.; Chen, J. Determining the optimal partition system of a modular building from a circular economy perspective: A multicriteria decision-making process. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 185, 113601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antwi-Afari, P.; Ng, S.T.; Chen, J.; Zheng, X.M. Determining the impacts and recovery potentials of a modular designed residential building using the novel LCA-C2C–PBSCI method. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 378, 134575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antwi-Afari, P.; Ng, S.T.; Chen, J.; Oluleye, B.I.; Antwi-Afari, M.F.; Ababio, B.K. Enhancing life cycle assessment for circular economy measurement of different case scenarios of modular steel slab. Build. Environ. 2023, 239, 110411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dervishaj, A.; Gudmundsson, K. From LCA to circular design: A comparative study of digital tools for the built environment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2024, 200, 107291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Qazzaz, I.; Osorio-Sandoval, C.A.; Tokbolat, S.; Thermou, G. Integration of building information modeling into building circularity assessment: A systematic review. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrak, E.; Rodrigues, C.; Antunes, C.H.; Freire, F.; Dias, L.C. Applying multi-criteria decision analysis to combine life cycle assessment with circularity indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 451, 141872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saadé, M.; Erradhouani, B.; Pawlak, S.; Appendino, F.; Peuportier, B.; Roux, C. Combining circular and LCA indicators for the early design of urban projects. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2022, 27, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braakman, L.; Bhochhibhoya, S.; de Graaf, R. Exploring the relationship between the level of circularity and the life cycle costs of a one-family house. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanthanawiwat, K.; Gheewala, S.H.; Nilsalab, P.; Schoch, M.; Silalertruksa, T. Environmental sustainability and cost performances of construction and demolition waste management scenarios: A case study of timber and concrete houses in Thailand. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 436, 140652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munaro, M.R.; Tavares, S.F.; Bragança, L. The ecodesign methodologies to achieve buildings’ deconstruction: A review and framework. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 30, 566–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mlote, D.S.; Budig, M.; Cheah, L. Adaptability of buildings: A systematic review of current research. Front. Built Environ. 2024, 10, 1376759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kręt-Grześkowiak, A.; Baborska-Narożny, M. Guidelines for disassembly and adaptation in architectural design compared to circular economy goals—A literature review. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2023, 39, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Askar, R.; Bragança, L.; Gervásio, H. Design for Adaptability (DfA)—Frameworks and Assessment Models for Enhanced Circularity in Buildings. Appl. Syst. Innov. 2022, 5, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Izquierdo, R.S.; Soliu, I.; Migliaccio, G.C. Enablers and Barriers to Implementation of Circular Economy Practices in the Built Environment: An Exploratory Study. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2024, 16, 05023009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarpio, J.; Huuhka, S.; Vestergaard, I. Barriers to implementing adaptable housing: Architects’ perceptions in Finland and Denmark. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2022, 37, 1859–1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rockow, Z.R.; Ross, B.E.; Becker, A.K. Comparison of Building Adaptation Projects and Design for Adaptability Strategies. J. Archit. Eng. 2021, 27, 04021022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- David, M.-N.; Miguel, R.-S.; Ignacio, P.-Z. Timber structures designed for disassembly: A cornerstone for sustainability in 21st century construction. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 96, 110619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Walsh, S.J.; Shotton, E. Integrating Design for Adaptability, Disassembly, and Reuse into Architectural Design Practice. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed-Grice, M.; Ross, B.E. Application of the Black–Scholes Financial Model to Support Adaptability as a Sustainability Strategy for Buildings: A Case Study of an Adaptable Campus Parking Garage. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brigante, J.; Ross, B.E.; Bladow, M. Costs of Implementing Design for Adaptability Strategies in Wood-Framed Multifamily Housing. J. Archit. Eng. 2023, 29, 05022013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munaro, M.R.; Tavares, S.F. Design for Adaptability and Disassembly: Guidelines for Building Deconstruction. Constr. Innov. 2025, 25, 665–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allam, A.S.; Nik-Bakht, M. From Demolition to Deconstruction of the Built Environment: A Synthesis of the Literature. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 64, 105679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Resta, G.; Gonçalves, S. Design for Disassembly and Cultural Sites. The Use of Modular Architecture and Prefabrication in Exhibition Venues. Vitr.-Int. J. Archit. Technol. Sustain. 2024, 9, 78–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazzoli, C.; Corticelli, R.; Dragonetti, L.; Ferrante, A.; Van Oorschot, J.; Ritzen, M. Assessing and Developing Circular Deep Renovation Interventions towards Decarbonisation: The Italian Pilot Case of “Corte Palazzo” in Argelato. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iacovidou, E.; Purnell, P.; Tsavdaridis, K.D.; Poologanathan, K. Digitally Enabled Modular Construction for Promoting Modular Components Reuse: A UK View. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 42, 102820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uotila, U.; Saari, A.; Joensuu, T. Demands for DfD Data Characteristics: A Step towards Enabling Reuse of Prefabricated Concrete Components. Environ. Res. Infrastruct. Sustain. 2024, 4, 015014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hudert, M.; Lindemann, D.; Mangliár, L.; Swann, A. Computing Irregular Hypar-Based Quad-Mesh Patterns for Segmented Timber Shells. Comput.-Aided Des. 2024, 177, 103772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Bertin, I.; Saadé, M.; Le Roy, R.; Jaeger, J.-M.; Feraille, A. Environmental Impacts of Design for Reuse Practices in the Building Sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 349, 131228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kitayama, S.; Iuorio, O. Disassembly and Reuse of Structural Members in Steel-Framed Buildings: State-of-the-Art Review of Connection Systems and Future Research Trends. J. Archit. Eng. 2023, 29, 03123006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thalmann, J.R.; Yavaribajestani, Y.; Stocker, C.; Vigneri, V.; Taras, A.; Fischli-Boson, P. Hybridsysteme Aus Gekantetem Stahlblech Und Zementfreiem Beton. Stahlbau 2024, 93, 782–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pepe, M.; Michels, J.; Zani, G.; Rampini, M.C.; Martinelli, E. Deconstructable Concrete Structures Made of Recycled Aggregates from Construction & Demolition Waste: The Experience of the DeConStRAtion Project. In International RILEM Conference on Synergising Expertise towards Sustainability and Robustness of Cement-Based Materials and Concrete Structures; Jędrzejewska, A., Kanavaris, F., Azenha, M., Benboudjema, F., Schlicke, D., Eds.; RILEM Bookseries; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; Volume 43, pp. 487–499. ISBN 978-3-031-33210-4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karaca, F.; Tleuken, A.; Pineda-Martos, R.; Cardoso, S.R.; Askar, R.; Salles, A.; Güemez, E.G.; Agibayeva, A.; Varol, H.A.; Braganca, L. Analysing Stakeholder Opinions Within the COST Action CA21103 CircularB and Beyond: Circular Economy Implementation in Construction. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference “Coordinating Engineering for Sustainability and Resilience” & Midterm Conference of CircularB “Implementation of Circular Economy in the Built Environment”, Timisoara, Romania, 29–31 May 2024; Ungureanu, V., Bragança, L., Baniotopoulos, C., Abdalla, K.M., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering. Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; Volume 489, pp. 335–345, ISBN 978-3-031-57799-4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azcárate-Aguerre, J.F.; Den Heijer, A.C.; Arkesteijn, M.H.; Vergara d’Alençon, L.M.; Klein, T. Facades-as-a-Service: Systemic Managerial, Financial, and Governance Innovation to Enable a Circular Economy for Buildings. Lessons Learnt from a Full-Scale Pilot Project in the Netherlands. Front. Built Environ. 2023, 9, 1084078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 20887:2020; Sustainability in Buildings and Civil Engineering Works—Design for Disassembly and Adaptability—Principles, Requirements and Guidance. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
- Anastasiades, K.; Goffin, J.; Rinke, M.; Buyle, M.; Audenaert, A.; Blom, J. Standardisation: An Essential Enabler for the Circular Reuse of Construction Components? A Trajectory for a Cleaner European Construction Industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 298, 126864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çimen, Ö. Construction and built environment in circular economy: A comprehensive literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 305, 127180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, Z.; Yan, J.; Lu, Q.; Chen, L.; Yang, P.; Tang, J.; Jiang, F.; Broyd, T.; Hong, J. A systematic literature review of carbon footprint decision-making approaches for infrastructure and building projects. Appl. Energy 2023, 335, 120768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minunno, R.; O’Grady, T.; Morrison, G.M.; Gruner, R.L. Investigating the embodied energy and carbon of buildings: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of life cycle assessments. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 143, 110935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, M.; Chen, L.; Wang, J.; Msigwa, G.; Osman, A.I.; Fawzy, S.; Rooney, D.W.; Yap, P.S. Circular economy strategies for combating climate change and other environmental issues. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2023, 21, 55–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harris, S.; Mata, É.; Lucena, A.F.P.; Bertoldi, P. Climate mitigation from circular and sharing economy in the buildings sector. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 188, 106709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kong, M.; Lee, M.; Kang, H.; Hong, T. Development of a framework for evaluating the contents and usability of the building life cycle assessment tool. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 150, 111475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Säwén, T.; Kalagasidis, A.S.; Hollberg, A. Critical perspectives on life cycle building performance assessment tool reviews. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 197, 114407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Stijn, A.; Eberhardt, L.C.M.; Jansen, B.W.; Meijer, A. A Circular Economy Life Cycle Assessment (CE-LCA) model for building components. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 174, 105683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vandervaeren, C.; Galle, W.; Stephan, A.; De Temmerman, N. More than the sum of its parts: Considering interdependencies in the life cycle material flow and environmental assessment of demountable buildings. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 177, 106001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crawford, R.H.; Stephan, A.; Prideaux, F. The EPiC database: Hybrid embodied environmental flow coefficients for construction materials. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 180, 106058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ansah, M.K.; Chen, X.; Yang, H.; Lu, L.; Li, H. Developing a tier-hybrid uncertainty analysis approach for lifecycle impact assessment of a typical high-rise residential building. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 167, 105424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeung, J.; Menacho, A.J.H.; Marvuglia, A.; Gutiérrez, T.N.; Beach, T.; Rezgui, Y. An open building information modelling based co-simulation architecture to model building energy and environmental life cycle assessment: A case study on two buildings in the United Kingdom and Luxembourg. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 183, 113419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Wei, J.; Liu, Z.; Huang, C.; Du, X. Life cycle assessment of building demolition waste based on building information modeling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 178, 106095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, H.; Wang, D.; Du, X.; Zhao, Z. An LCA-BIM integrated model for carbon-emission calculation of prefabricated buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 203, 114775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Li, Y.; Zhu, W.; Zeng, G.; Ouyang, Z.; Cheng, M.; Jiang, Z. Carbon dioxide cured building materials as an approach to decarbonizing the calcium carbide related industry. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 186, 113688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dickson, T.; Pavía, S. Energy performance, environmental impact and cost of a range of insulation materials. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 140, 110752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weththasinghe, K.K.; Stephan, A.; Francis, V.; Tiwari, P. Improving material selection in shopping centres through a parametric life cycle embodied flow and material cost analysis model. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 165, 112530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, Z.; Dong, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Hua, J.; Liu, Y.; Osman, A.I.; Farghali, M.; Huang, L.; et al. Biomaterials technology and policies in the building sector: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2024, 22, 715–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osman, A.I.; Farghali, M.; Dong, Y.; Kong, J.; Yousry, M.; Rashwan, A.K.; Chen, Z.; Al-Fatesh, A.; Rooney, D.W.; Yap, P.S. Reducing the carbon footprint of buildings using biochar-based bricks and insulating materials: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2024, 22, 71–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben-Alon, L.; Loftness, V.; Harries, K.A.; Hameen, E.C. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of natural vs conventional building assemblies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 144, 110951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ata-Ali, N.; Penadés-Plà, V.; Martínez-Muñoz, D.; Yepes, V. Recycled versus non-recycled insulation alternatives: LCA analysis for different climatic conditions in Spain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 175, 105838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caldas, L.R.; Saraiva, A.B.; Lucena, A.F.P.; Da Gloria, M.Y.; Santos, A.S.; Filho, R.D.T. Building materials in a circular economy: The case of wood waste as CO2-sink in bio concrete. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 166, 105346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alderete, N.M.; Joseph, A.M.; Van den Heede, P.; Matthys, S.; De Belie, N. Effective and sustainable use of municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash in concrete regarding strength and durability. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 167, 105356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daehn, K.; Basuhi, R.; Gregory, J.; Berlinger, M.; Somjit, V.; Olivetti, E.A. Innovations to decarbonize materials industries. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2022, 7, 275–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sousa, V.; Bogas, J.A. Comparison of energy consumption and carbon emissions from clinker and recycled cement production. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 306, 127277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersen, R.; Ravn, A.S.; Ryberg, M.W. Environmental benefits of applying selective demolition to buildings: A case study of the reuse of façade steel cladding. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 184, 106430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Božiček, D.; Peterková, J.; Zach, J.; Košir, M. Vacuum insulation panels: An overview of research literature with an emphasis on environmental and economic studies for building applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 189, 113849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mustafa, M.N.; Abdah, M.A.A.M.; Numan, A.; Moreno-Rangel, A.; Radwan, A.; Khalid, M. Smart window technology and its potential for net-zero buildings: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 181, 113355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vassiliades, C.; Agathokleous, R.; Barone, G.; Forzano, C.; Giuzio, G.F.; Palombo, A.; Buonomano, A.; Kalogirou, S. Building integration of active solar energy systems: A review of geometrical and architectural characteristics. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 164, 112482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skandalos, N.; Wang, M.; Kapsalis, V.; D’Agostino, D.; Parker, D.; Bhuvad, S.S.; Peng, J.; Karamanis, D. Building PV integration according to regional climate conditions: BIPV regional adaptability extending Köppen-Geiger climate classification against urban and climate-related temperature increases. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 169, 112950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peñaloza, D.; Mata, É.; Fransson, N.; Fridén, H.; Samperio, Á.; Quijano, A.; Cuneo, A. Social and market acceptance of photovoltaic panels and heat pumps in Europe: A literature review and survey. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 155, 111867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mihalakakou, G.; Souliotis, M.; Papadaki, M.; Menounou, P.; Dimopoulos, P.; Kolokotsa, D.; Paravantis, J.A.; Tsangrassoulis, A.; Panaras, G.; Giannakopoulos, E.; et al. Green roofs as a nature-based solution for improving urban sustainability: Progress and perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 180, 113306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manso, M.; Teotónio, I.; Silva, C.M.; Cruz, C.O. Green roof and green wall benefits and costs: A review of the quantitative evidence. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 135, 110111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rowe, T.; Poppe, J.; Buyle, M.; Belmans, B.; Audenaert, A. Is the sustainability potential of vertical greening systems deeply rooted? Establishing uniform outlines for environmental impact assessment of VGS. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 162, 112414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, X.; He, B.-J. A standardized assessment framework for green roof decarbonization: A review of embodied carbon, carbon sequestration, bioenergy supply, and operational carbon scenarios. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 182, 113376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kong, M.; Ji, C.; Hong, T.; Kang, H. Impact of the use of recycled materials on the energy conservation and energy transition of buildings using life cycle assessment: A case study in South Korea. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 155, 111891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arceo, A.; MacLean, H.L.; Saxe, S. Material intensity in single-family dwellings: Variability between locations, functional unit and drivers of material use in Toronto, Perth, and Luzon. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 188, 106683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, X.; Huang, Y.; Chen, C.; Xu, Z.; Tian, S.; Peng, L. A dynamic life cycle assessment model for long-term carbon emissions prediction of buildings: A passive building as case study. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 96, 104636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jungclaus, M.A.; Grant, N.; Torres, M.I.; Arehart, J.H.; Srubar, W.V. Embodied carbon benchmarks of single-family residential buildings in the United States. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2024, 117, 105975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gazquez, L.A.M.; Hernández, F.F.; López, J.M.C. A Comparison of Traditional and Contemporary Social Houses in Catarmarca (Argentina). Comfort Conditions and Life Cycle Assessment. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 82, 103891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Craft, W.; Oldfield, P.; Reinmuth, G.; Hadley, D.; Balmforth, S.; Nguyen, A. Towards net-zero embodied carbon: Investigating the potential for ambitious embodied carbon reductions in Australian office buildings. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2024, 113, 105702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zandifaez, P.; Nezhad, A.A.; Zhou, H.; Dias-da-Costa, D. A systematic review on energy-efficient concrete: Indicators, performance metrics, strategies, and future trends. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 194, 114306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cappellesso, V.; di Summa, D.; Pourhaji, P.; Prabhu Kannikachalam, N.; Dabral, K.; Ferrara, L.; Cruz Alonso, M.; Camacho, E.; Gruyaert, E.; De Belie, N. A review of the efficiency of self-healing concrete technologies for durable and sustainable concrete under realistic conditions. Int. Mater. Rev. 2023, 68, 556–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Devos, K.; Devlieger, L.; Steeman, M. Reclaimed or new? Life cycle assessment of ceramic bricks. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 476, 143764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, T.; Gong, M.; Xiao, J. Preliminary sensitivity study on an life cycle assessment (LCA) tool via assessing a hybrid timber building. J. Bioresour. Bioprod. 2020, 5, 108–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, B.; Chang, S.J.; Wi, S.; Kim, S. Estimation of energy demand and greenhouse gas emission reduction effect of cross-laminated timber (CLT) hybrid wall using life cycle assessment for urban residential planning. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 185, 113604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López-Guerrero, R.E.; Vera, S.; Carpio, M. A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the sustainability of industrialised building systems: A bibliographic review and analysis of case studies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 157, 112034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Hu, M.; Laclau, B.; Garnesson, T.; Yang, X.; Tukker, A. Energy-carbon-investment payback analysis of prefabricated envelope-cladding system for building energy renovation: Cases in Spain, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 145, 111077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, K.; Wang, H.; Wang, J.; Bai, J.; Zuo, J.; Chan, K.; Lai, K.; Song, Q. Mitigating lifecycle GHG emissions of building sector through prefabricated light-steel buildings in comparison with traditional cast-in-place buildings. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 194, 107007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, S.; Ju, J.; Guo, Q.; Li, X.; Zhu, Y. A temporally dynamic model for regional carbon impact assessment based on city information modeling. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 173, 113076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muñoz-Liesa, J.; Toboso-Chavero, S.; Beltran, A.M.; Cuerva, E.; Gallo, E.; Gassó-Domingo, S.; Josa, A. Building-integrated agriculture: Are we shifting environmental impacts? An environmental assessment and structural improvement of urban greenhouses. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 169, 105526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gobbo, É.; Nia, E.M.; Straub, A.; Stephan, A. Exploring the Effective Reuse Rate of Materials and Elements in the Construction Sector. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 98, 111344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lei, B.; Yang, W.; Yan, Y.; Tang, Z.; Dong, W. Carbon Emission Reduction Evaluation of End-of-Life Buildings Based on Multiple Recycling Strategies. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheong, C.Y.; Brambilla, A.; Gasparri, E.; Kuru, A.; Sangiorgio, A. Life Cycle Assessment of Curtain Wall Facades: A Screening Study on End-of-Life Scenarios. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 84, 108600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kitayama, S.; Iuorio, O.; Josa, I.; Borrion, A.; Black, L. Determining the Carbon Footprint Reduction of Reusing Lightweight Exterior Infill Walls: A Case Study of a School Building in the United Kingdom. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 469, 143061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monsù Scolaro, A.; De Medici, S. Downcycling and Upcycling in Rehabilitation and Adaptive Reuse of Pre-Existing Buildings: Re-Designing Technological Performances in an Environmental Perspective. Energies 2021, 14, 6863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charef, R.; Lu, W.; Hall, D. The Transition to the Circular Economy of the Construction Industry: Insights into Sustainable Approaches to Improve the Understanding. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 364, 132421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Topraklı, A.Y. Enabling Circularity in Turkish Construction: A Case of BIM-Based Material Management Utilizing Material Passports. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Adv. 2022, 15, 200104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruokamo, E.; Savolainen, H.; Seppälä, J.; Sironen, S.; Räisänen, M.; Auvinen, A.-P. Exploring the Potential of Circular Economy to Mitigate Pressures on Biodiversity. Glob. Environ. Change 2023, 78, 102625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Münster, M.B. Adaptive Reuse: Atmospherics in Buildings Repurposed as Coffee Shops. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Condotta, M.; Zatta, E. Reuse of Building Elements in the Architectural Practice and the European Regulatory Context: Inconsistencies and Possible Improvements. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 318, 128413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McNamee, M.; Göras, T.; Mossberg, A.; Wetterqvist, C.; Lundh, K.; Blomqvist, P.; Blomqvist, S. Challenges and Opportunities for Reuse of Products and Materials with Fire Safety Requirements—A Swedish Perspective. Fire Saf. J. 2023, 140, 103857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Bellini, A.; Andersen, B.; Klungseth, N.J.; Tadayon, A. Achieving a Circular Economy through the Effective Reuse of Construction Products: A Case Study of a Residential Building. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 450, 141753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Fahlstedt, O.; Temeljotov-Salaj, A.; Lohne, J.; Bohne, R.A. Holistic assessment of carbon abatement strategies in building refurbishment literature—A scoping review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 167, 112636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fahlstedt, O.; Rasmussen, F.N.; Temeljotov-Salaj, A.; Huang, L.; Bohne, R.A. Building renovations and life cycle assessment—A scoping literature review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 203, 114774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galimshina, A.; Moustapha, M.; Hollberg, A.; Lasvaux, S.; Sudret, B.; Habert, G. Strategies for robust renovation of residential buildings in Switzerland. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 2227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Condotta, M.; Scanagatta, C.; Zatta, E. Sustainable strategies to preserve tangible and intangible values in social housing rehabilitation: An Italian case study. Vitr.—Int. J. Archit. Technol. Sustain. 2023, 8, 84–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Silva, S.; Samarakoon, S.M.S.M.K.; Haq, M.A.A. Use of circular economy practices during the renovation of old buildings in developing countries. Sustain. Future 2023, 6, 100135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Askar, R.; Bragança, L.; Gervásio, H. Analysis of Adaptability Requirements Against Their Implementation in Level(s) Framework. In Creating a Roadmap Towards Circularity in the Built Environment; Bragança, L., Cvetkovska, M., Askar, R., Ungureanu, V., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 371–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Del Rosario, P.; Palumbo, E.; Traverso, M. Environmental Product Declarations as Data Source for the Environmental Assessment of Buildings in the Context of Level(s) and DGNB: How Feasible Is Their Adoption? Sustainability 2021, 13, 6143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Wolf, C.; Cordella, M.; Dodd, N.; Byers, B.; Donatello, S. Whole life cycle environmental impact assessment of buildings: Developing software tool and database support for the EU framework Level(s). Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 188, 106642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luciano, A.; Altamura, P.; Baiani, S.; Cutaia, L. The building stock as an urban mine: The case of the circular regeneration of disused buildings. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2023, 33, 101104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, X.; Hu, M.; Zhang, C.; Steubing, B. Urban mining potential to reduce primary material use and carbon emissions in the Dutch residential building sector. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 180, 106215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Röck, M.; Baldereschi, E.; Verellen, E.; Passer, A.; Sala, S.; Allacker, K. Environmental modelling of building stocks—An integrated review of life cycle-based assessment models to support EU policy making. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 151, 111550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bischof, J.; Duffy, A. Life-cycle assessment of non-domestic building stocks: A meta-analysis of current modelling methods. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 153, 111743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, X.; Hu, M.; Zhang, C.; Steubing, B. Key strategies for decarbonizing the residential building stock: Results from a spatiotemporal model for Leiden, the Netherlands. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 184, 106388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ohms, P.K.; Horup, L.H.; Gummidi, S.R.B.; Ryberg, M.; Laurent, A.; Liu, G. Temporally dynamic environmental impact assessment of a building stock: Coupling MFA and LCA. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2024, 202, 107340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meijer, A.; Arora, M.; Cheah, L. Material stock-service and circularity prospects of buildings in Singapore. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2024, 208, 107697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Huang, B.; Wang, Y.; Liu, J.; Long, Y.; Daigo, I. The impact of allocation methods on carbon benefits—A case study of construction waste recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 199, 107269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, H.; Zuo, J.; Zillante, G.; Wang, J.; Duan, H. Environmental impacts of cross-regional mobility of construction and demolition waste: An Australia Study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 174, 105805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lase, I.S.; Tonini, D.; Caro, D.; Albizzati, P.F.; Cristóbal, J.; Roosen, M.; Kusenberg, M.; Ragaert, K.; Van Geem, K.M.; Dewulf, J.; et al. How much can chemical recycling contribute to plastic waste recycling in Europe? An assessment using material flow analysis modeling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 192, 106916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pilipenets, O.; Hui, F.K.P.; Gunawardena, T.; Mendis, P.; Aye, L. New circularity indicator for decision making in the stockpile management of construction and demolition waste: Perspectives of Australian practitioners. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 363, 121345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohan, S.; Thilagavathi, G.; Rajkhowa, R. Development of Micro Dust Reinforced Composite for Building Applications. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 470, 143244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nair, A.T.; Mathew, A.; Archana, R.A.; Akbar, M.A. Use of Hazardous Electric Arc Furnace Dust in the Construction Industry: A Cleaner Production Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 377, 134282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cintura, E.; Faria, P.; Molari, L.; Barbaresi, L.; D’Orazio, D.; Nunes, L. A Feasible Re-Use of an Agro-Industrial by-Product: Hazelnut Shells as High-Mass Bio-Aggregate in Boards for Indoor Applications. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 434, 140297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vidaurre-Arbizu, M.; Pérez-Bou, S.; Zuazua-Ros, A.; Martín-Gómez, C. From the Leather Industry to Building Sector: Exploration of Potential Applications of Discarded Solid Wastes. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 291, 125960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tul Muntaha, S.; Keitsch, M. A Pathway for Plastic Waste in Construction Materials. Sustain. Dev. 2025, 33, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akfas, F.; Elghali, A.; Aboulaich, A.; Munoz, M.; Benzaazoua, M.; Bodinier, J.-L. Exploring the Potential Reuse of Phosphogypsum: A Waste or a Resource? Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 908, 168196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lisco, M.; Aulin, R. Taxonomy Supporting Design Strategies for Reuse of Building Parts in Timber-Based Construction. Constr. Innov. 2024, 24, 221–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SimaPro 9.6.0; PRé Sustainability B.V.: Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 2024; Available online: https://simapro.com (accessed on 3 June 2025).
- One Click LCA; One Click LCA Ltd.: Helsinki, Finland, 2025; Available online: https://oneclicklca.com (accessed on 3 June 2025).
- Level(s). A Common EU Framework of Core Sustainability Indicators for Office and Residential Buildings: Part 3; European Commission, Joint Research Centre: Seville, Spain, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- YOLOv3 by Ultralytics, Version 7.0; Ultralytics Inc.: online, 2020. Available online: https://github.com/ultralytics/yolov3 (accessed on 3 June 2025).
- Liang, C.-J.M.; Liu, J.; Luo, L.; Terzis, A.; Zhao, F. RACNet: A High-Fidelity Data Center Sensing Network. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys ’09); ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 15–28. Available online: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1644038.1644041 (accessed on 3 June 2025).
- LP360; GeoCue Corp.: Desktop LiDAR Processing Software. 2025. Available online: https://www.lp360.com (accessed on 3 June 2025).
- Victar, H.C.; Waidyasekara, K.G.A.S. Circular economy strategies for minimising construction waste in Sri Lanka: Focus on the preconstruction stage. Constuction Innov. Inf. Process Manag. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, A.K.; Ross, B.E.; Albright, D. Comparing Design Features of Campus Buildings with Adaptation/Demolition Outcomes. Technol.|Archit. + Des. 2023, 7, 192–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gamage, I.; Senaratne, S.; Perera, S.; Jin, X. Implementing Circular Economy throughout the Construction Project Life Cycle: A Review on Potential Practices and Relationships. Buildings 2024, 14, 653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, Y.T.; Sierra, E.M.; Hsieh, S.H. Combining BIM & GIS Information to Simulate Circularity of Building Stocks in a City—A Case Study of Taipei City. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Online, 23–25 November 2022; Volume 1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, L.; Bhochhibhoya, S.; Slot, N.; de Graaf, R. Measuring product-level circularity performance: An economic value-based metric with the indicator of residual value. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 186, 106541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandes, J.B.; Ferrão, P.C.; Silvestre, J.D.; Aguiar Costa, A.; Göswein, V. Advancing Circular Economy in the existing building stock: A methodology to support building characterisation for sustainable refurbishment design. Acta Polytech. CTU Proc. 2022, 38, 599–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Antwi-Afari, P.; Ng, S.T.; Chen, J. Developing an integrative method and design guidelines for achieving systemic circularity in the construction industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 354, 131752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luthin, A.; Traverso, M.; Crawford, R.H. Circular life cycle sustainability assessment: An integrated framework. J. Ind. Ecol. 2024, 28, 41–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lam, W.C.; Claes, S.; Ritzen, M. Exploring the Missing Link between Life Cycle Assessment and Circularity Assessment in the Built Environment. Buildings 2022, 12, 2152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dervishaj, A.; Gudmundsson, K. Parametric design workflow for solar, context-adaptive and reusable facades in changing urban environments. J. Build. Perform. Simul. 2025, 18, 161–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bompa, D.V.; Ungureanu, V.; Elghazouli, A.Y.; Afsal, A. Disassembly and Structural Reuse Potential of Steel-Timber Shear Connections with Screws. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference “Coordinating Engineering for Sustainability and Resilience” & Midterm Conference of CircularB “Implementation of Circular Economy in the Built Environment”, Timișoara, Romania, 29–31 May 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Segara, S.; Li, Q.; Gallotta, A.; Wang, Y.; Gosling, J.; Rezgui, Y. Taxonomy of circularity indicators for the built environment: Integrating circularity through the Royal Institute of British architects (RIBA) plan of work. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 446, 141429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, B.; Kim, S. Advancing the circular economy and environmental sustainability with timber hybrid construction in South Korean public building. Build. Environ. 2024, 257, 111543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lima, A.T.; Simoes, S.G.; Aloini, D.; Zerbino, P.; Oikonomou, T.I.; Karytsas, S.; Karytsas, C.; Calvo, O.S.; Porcar, B.; Herrera, I.; et al. Climate mitigation models need to become circular—Let’s start with the construction sector. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 190, 106808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- König, K.; Mathieu, J.; Vielhaber, M. Resource conservation by means of lightweight design and design for circularity—A concept for decision making in the early phase of product development. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2024, 201, 107331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.; Huang, L.; Hua, J.; Chen, Z.; Wei, L.; Osman, A.I.; Fawzy, S.; Rooney, D.W.; Dong, L.; Yap, P.-S. Green construction for low-carbon cities: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2023, 21, 1627–1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, N.; Zhang, D.; Zuo, J.; Miller, T.R.; Duan, H.; Schiller, G. Potential for CO2 mitigation and economic benefits from accelerated carbonation of construction and demolition waste. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 169, 112920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmadi, M.; Piadeh, F.; Hosseini, M.R.; Zuo, J.; Kocaturk, T. Unraveling building sector carbon mechanisms: Critique and solutions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 205, 114873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, W.; Teng, Y. A systematic investigation into the methodological variables of embodied carbon assessment of buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 141, 110840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azis, S.S.A. Improving present-day energy savings among green building sector in Malaysia using benefit transfer approach: Cooling and lighting loads. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 137, 110570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Liu, Q.; Zhang, B. What kinds of building energy-saving retrofit projects should be preferred? Efficiency evaluation with three-stage data envelopment analysis (DEA). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 161, 112392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gursel, A.P.; Shehabi, A.; Horvath, A. What are the energy and greenhouse gas benefits of repurposing non-residential buildings into apartments? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 198, 107143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferrari, S.; Zoghi, M.; Blázquez, T.; Dall’O’, G. New Level(s) framework: Assessing the affinity between the main international Green Building Rating Systems and the european scheme. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 155, 111924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- da Silva Souza, F.; Mendes, J.C.; Morais, L.J.B.; Silva, J.S.; Peixoto, R.A.F. Mapping and recycling proposal for the construction and demolition waste generated in the Brazilian Amazon. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 176, 105896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, C.; Chen, L.; Xiao, J.; Singh, A.; Zeng, J. Compound utilization of construction and industrial waste as cementitious recycled powder in mortar. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 170, 105561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arora, M.; Raspall, F.; Fearnley, L.; Silva, A. Urban mining in buildings for a circular economy: Planning, process and feasibility prospects. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 174, 105754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, J.; Chu, C.; Song, L.; Gao, X.; Huang, B.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Hou, L.; Ju, M.; et al. From prospecting to mining: A review of enabling technologies, LCAs, and LCCAs for improved construction and demolition waste management. Waste Manag. 2023, 159, 12–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.; Wang, Z.-H.; Kaloush, K.E.; Shacat, J. Cool pavements for urban heat island mitigation: A synthetic review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 146, 111171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, B.; Liu, Y.; Wang, D.; Song, C.; Fu, Z.; Zhang, C. A review of the photothermal-photovoltaic energy supply system for building in solar energy enrichment zones. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 191, 114100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, M.; Nejat, P.; Cao, P.; Jimenez-Bescos, C.; Calautit, J.K. A critical review of windcatcher ventilation: Micro-environment, techno-economics, and commercialisation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 191, 114048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Habibi, A.; Bamshad, O.; Golzary, A.; Buswell, R.; Osmani, M. Biases in life cycle assessment of circular concrete. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 192, 114237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, G.; Luo, L.; Yao, W. Reusing waste red brick powder as partial mineral precursor in eco-friendly binders: Reaction kinetics, microstructure and life-cycle assessment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 185, 106523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scheinherrová, L.; Doleželová, M.; Vimmrová, A.; Vejmelková, E.; Jerman, M.; Pommer, V.; Černý, R. Fired clay brick waste as low cost and eco-friendly pozzolana active filler in gypsum-based binders. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 368, 133142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersen, C.E.; Stupak, I.; Hoxha, E.; Raulund-Rasmussen, K.; Birgisdóttir, H. Forest dynamics in LCA: Integrating carbon fluxes from forest management systems into the life cycle assessment of a building. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2024, 209, 107805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammed, A.; Ghannam, M.; Elmasoudi, I. Design for steel structures deconstruction: An analytics system for construction waste minimization in a circular economy through BIM technology. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2024, 9, 409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heesom, D.; Boden, P.; Hatfield, A.; De Los Santos Melo, A.; Czarska-Chukwurah, F. Implementing a HBIM approach to manage the translocation of heritage buildings. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2021, 28, 2948–2966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mattaraia, L.; Fabricio, M.M.; Codinhoto, R. Structure for the classification of disassembly applied to BIM models. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2023, 19, 56–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartwell, R.; Macmillan, S.; Overend, M. Circular economy of façades: Real-world challenges and opportunities. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 175, 105827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tenório, M.; Ferreira, R.; Belafonte, V.; Sousa, F.; Meireis, C.; Fontes, M.; Vale, I.; Gomes, A.; Alves, R.; Silva, S.M.; et al. Contemporary Strategies for the Structural Design of Multi-Story Modular Timber Buildings: A Comprehensive Review. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giglio, F.; Sansotta, S.; Grillo, E. Reversible Building Technologies and Unconventional Materials for the Circular and Creative Reuse of Small Centers. In Proceedings of the International Symposium New Metropolian Perspectives, Reggio Calabria, Italy, 24–26 May 2022; Voume 466, pp. 2210–2221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costantino, C.; Benedetti, A.C.; Gulli, R. The Role of Circular Design Principles in the Language of Residential Architecture. A Reflection on the Implications that Technical Aspects Bring to the Contemporary Way of Building. In Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering; Chen, S.-H., di Prisco, M., Vayas, I., Shukla, S.K., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Figueirôa, Í.; do Carmo Duarte Freitas, M.; Tavares, S.F.; Bragança, L. How Circular Economy Strategies Can Be Implemented in the Dwelling Renovation Design Phase. In Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering; Chen, S.-H., di Prisco, M., Vayas, I., Shukla, S.K., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Q.; Feng, H.; de Soto, B.G. Revamping construction supply chain processes with circular economy strategies: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 338, 130240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Andersen, L.V.; Hudert, M.M. The Potential Contribution of Modular Volumetric Timber Buildings to Circular Construction: A State-of-the-Art Review Based on Literature and 60 Case Studies. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Besana, D.; Tirelli, D. Reuse and Retrofitting Strategies for a Net Zero Carbon Building in Milan: An Analytic Evaluation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asdrubali, F.; Grazieschi, G.; Roncone, M.; Thiebat, F.; Carbonaro, C. Sustainability of Building Materials: Embodied Energy and Embodied Carbon of Masonry. Energies 2023, 16, 1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartwell, R.; Overend, M. Reclamation potential in the built environment: A method and metric for assessing environmental benefits beyond first use. Build. Environ. 2024, 252, 111866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melella, R.; Di Ruocco, G.; Sorvillo, A. Circular construction process: Method for developing a selective, low CO2eq disassembly and demolition plan. Sustainability 2021, 13, 68815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lima, A.T.; Kirkelund, G.M.; Lu, Z.; Mao, R.; Kunther, W.; Rode, C.; Slabik, S.; Hafner, A.; Sameer, H.; Dürr, H.H.; et al. Mapping circular economy practices for steel, cement, glass, brick, insulation, and wood—A review for climate mitigation modeling. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 202, 114697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keena, N.; Rondinel-Oviedo, D.R.; De-los-Ríos, A.A.; Sarmiento-Pastor, J.; Lira-Chirif, A.; Raugei, M.; Dyson, A. Implications of circular strategies on energy, water, and GHG emissions in housing of the Global North and Global South. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2023, 17, 100684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wouterszoon Jansen, B.; van Stijn, A.; Eberhardt, L.C.M.; van Bortel, G.; Gruis, V. The technical or biological loop? Economic and environmental performance of circular building components. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 34, 476–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bataille, C.; Stiebert, S.; Hebeda, O.; Trollip, H.; McCall, B.; Vishwanathan, S.S. Towards net-zero emissions concrete and steel in India, Brazil and South Africa. Clim. Policy 2023, 23, 1025–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Y.; Ge, Y.; Zhang, G.; Abdulwahab, A.; Salameh, A.A.; Ali, H.E.; Nguyen Le, B. Evaluation of waste management and energy saving for sustainable green building through analytic hierarchy process and artificial neural network model. Chemosphere 2023, 318, 137708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Umar, U.A.; Shafiq, N.; Ahmad, F.A. A case study on the effective implementation of the reuse and recycling of construction & demolition waste management practices in Malaysia. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2021, 12, 283–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morin Pépin, S.; Francis, A. Modeling and categorizing standardized artifacts for scheduling occupancy on building construction sites. Front. Built Environ. 2024, 10, 1380106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cherene, M.G.P.; Xavier, G.D.C.; Barroso, L.D.S.; Oliveira, J.D.S.M.; Azevedo, A.R.G.D.; Vieira, C.M.; Alexandre, J.; Monteiro, S.N. Technological and microstructural perspective of the use of ceramic waste in cement-based mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 367, 130256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nežerka, V.; Prošek, Z.; Trejbal, J.; Pešta, J.; Ferriz-Papi, J.A.; Tesárek, P. Recycling of fines from waste concrete: Development of lightweight masonry blocks and assessment of their environmental benefits. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 385, 135711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puerto, J.D.; Uribe, S.; Ayala, L.; Padilla, A.; Rodriguez, A. Reliability of Reusing Gypsum Flat Board Grinded Waste as a Conventional Plaster Replacement for Buildings. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pristerà, G.; Tonini, D.; Lamperti Tornaghi, M.; Caro, D.; Sala, S. Taxonomy of design for deconstruction options to enable circular economy in buildings. Resour. Environ. Sustain. 2024, 15, 100153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pittri, H.; Agyekum, K.; Ayebeng Botchway, E.; Opoku, A.; Bimpli, I. Design for deconstruction (DfD) implementation among design professionals: Empirical evidence from Ghana. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2024, 24, 1387–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marey, H.; Kozma, G.; Szabó, G. Effects of Using Green Concrete Materials on the CO2 Emissions of the Residential Building Sector in Egypt. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henrion, L.; Zhang, D.; Li, V.; Sick, V. Built Infrastructure Renewal and Climate Change Mitigation Can Both Find Solutions in CO2. Front. Sustain. 2021, 2, 733133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowers, A.; Thorniley-Walker, R.; Yates, D.; Thew, I. Attempts at low carbon dioxide construction: Successes, failures and the way forward. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Civ. Eng. 2021, 174, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kröhnert, H.; Itten, R.; Stucki, M. Comparing flexible and conventional monolithic building design: Life cycle environmental impact and potential for material circulation. Build. Environ. 2022, 222, 109409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riggio, M.; Dalle Vedove, A.; Piazza, M. Load-bearing furniture modules for fast deployable and reusable systems. Front. Built Environ. 2024, 10, 1405500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Gregorio, S.; Laurini, E.; De Vita, M. Circular Process for Sustainable On-Site Management of Valuable Materials in the Rehabilitation of the Built Heritage. Heritage 2023, 6, 4086–4101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murali, D.; Suresh, M.; Raman, R. Breaking down to build up: How deconstruction and carbon finance foster sustainable, resilient construction in the industry 5.0 era. Constr. Innov. Innov. Process Manag. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kio, P.N.; Anumba, C. Circularity: A workflow for reusing waste wind turbine blades. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2024, 14, 751–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Passarelli, R.N.; Mouton, B.J. Embodied life cycle impacts of lightweight building methods for affordable houses in the USA: Comparison of conventional, circular, and regenerative strategies. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 77, 107513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malabi Eberhardt, L.C.; Rønholt, J.; Birkved, M.; Birgisdottir, H. Circular Economy potential within the building stock – Mapping the embodied greenhouse gas emissions of four Danish examples. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 33, 101845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Gulck, L.; Steeman, M. Life cycle assessment of demountable building elements: Influential design and use parameters. Build. Environ. 2023, 245, 110876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, Y.; Liu, P.; Hossain, M.U.; Fang, Y.; He, Y.; Li, H. An Index of Completeness (IoC) of life cycle assessment: Implementation in the building sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 283, 124672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obrecht, T.P.; Jordan, S.; Legat, A.; Ruschi Mendes Saade, M.; Passer, A. An LCA methodology for assessing the environmental impacts of building components before and after refurbishment. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 327, 129527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Küpfer, C.; Bastien-Masse, M.; Fivet, C. Reuse of concrete components in new construction projects: Critical review of 77 circular precedents. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 383, 135235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mhatre, P.; Gedam, V.V.; Unnikrishnan, S. Material circularity potential for construction materials – The case of transportation infrastructure in India. Resour. Policy 2021, 74, 102446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rakhshan, K.; Daneshkhah, A.; Morel, J.-C. Stakeholders’ impact on the reuse potential of structural elements at the end-of-life of a building: A machine learning approach. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 70, 106351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rakhshan, K.; Morel, J.-C.; Daneshkhah, A. A probabilistic predictive model for assessing the economic reusability of load-bearing building components: Developing a Circular Economy framework. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 630–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rakhshan, K.; Morel, J.-C.; Daneshkhah, A. Predicting the technical reusability of load-bearing building components: A probabilistic approach towards developing a Circular Economy framework. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 42, 102791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharif, S.A.; Hammad, A.; Eshraghi, P. Generation of whole building renovation scenarios using variational autoencoders. Energy Build. 2021, 230, 110520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andriyani, N.; Suprobo, P.; Adi, T.J.W.; Aspar, W.A.N.; Jatmiko, A.D.; Santoso, A.D. Integrating urban building information modeling and circular economy framework for green sustainability. Glob. J. Environ. Sci. Manag. 2024, 10, 1313–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mowafy, N.; El Zayat, M.; Marzouk, M. Parametric BIM-based life cycle assessment framework for optimal sustainable design. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 75, 106898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shojaei, A.; Ketabi, R.; Razkenari, M.; Hakim, H.; Wang, J. Enabling a circular economy in the built environment sector through blockchain technology. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 294, 126352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dorignon, L.; Oswald, D.; Kempton, L.; Boehme, T.; Iyer-Raniga, U.; Moore, T.; Dalton, T. Investigating Residential Building Materials in a Circular Economy: An Australian Perspective. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2024, 150, 04024021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Fu, C.; Fath, B.D.; Daigo, I.; Zhang, Y.; Deng, T. Tracking urban metabolism flows through the lifecycle of buildings, infrastructure, and durable goods at material, product, and sector levels. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 336, 130402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munaro, M.R.; Tavares, S.F. Materials passport’s review: Challenges and opportunities toward a circular economy building sector. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2021, 11, 767–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Honic, M.; Kovacic, I.; Aschenbrenner, P.; Ragossnig, A. Material Passports for the end-of-life stage of buildings: Challenges and potentials. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 319, 128702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samoylenko, D.E.; Rodygin, K.S.; Ananikov, V.P. Sustainable application of calcium carbide residue as a filler for 3D printing materials. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 4465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Volpe, S.; Sangiorgio, V.; Petrella, A.; Notarnicola, M.; Varum, H.; Fiorito, F. 3D printed concrete blocks made with sustainable recycled material. Vitruvio 2023, 8, 70–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaccaro, G.; Buoninconti, L. 3D print e circular economy: Innovation and sustainability for the construction sector. Sustain. Mediterr. Constr. 2021, 14, 73–82. [Google Scholar]
- Poyyamozhi, M.; Murugesan, B.; Perumal, S.; Chidambaranathan, V.; Senthil, R. Elevating thermal comfort with eco-friendly concrete roof tiles crafted from municipal solid waste. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 88, 109222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chartier, A.; Pot, W. How to decide upon circular cities: The role of evidence in local tender procedures. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 472, 143449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burgert, I.; Kegel, S.; Schnider, T.; Achatz, J.; Stucki, S.; Schubert, M. Split wooden rods for novel wood-based boards in the construction sector. RILEM Tech. Lett. 2024, 9, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Størdal, S.; Gangsø, M.R.; Lien, G.; Sjølie, H.K. Drivers of housing developers’ perception on future construction reuse material premium for wood. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 476, 143642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, S.; Feng, H. Enhancing circularity of wood waste through deconstruction in building sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 485, 144382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pauliuk, S.; Heeren, N.; Berrill, P.; Fishman, T.; Nistad, A.; Tu, Q.; Wolfram, P.; Hertwich, E.G. Global scenarios of resource and emission savings from material efficiency in residential buildings and cars. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 5097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cruz Rios, F.; Grau, D.; Bilec, M. Barriers and Enablers to Circular Building Design in the US: An Empirical Study. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2021, 147, 04021117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knoth, K.; Fufa, S.M.; Seilskjær, E. Barriers, success factors, and perspectives for the reuse of construction products in Norway. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 337, 130494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbhuiya, S.; Das, B.B.; Adak, D. A comprehensive review on integrating sustainable practices and circular economy principles in concrete industry. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 370, 122702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galila, A.; Kaseireldeil, S.; Abdalkhaliq, N.; Farouk, E.; Eichner, M.; Sarhan, Y. Enhancing sustainability and resource efficiency through upcycling: A comprehensive review and analytical–based framework for evaluating building upcycled products. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2024, 9, 270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verhagen, T.J.; Sauer, M.L.; Voet, E.; Sprecher, B. Matching demolition and construction material flows, an urban mining case study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Genovese, P.V.; Zoure, A.N. Architecture trends and challenges in sub-Saharan Africa’s construction industry: A theoretical guideline of a bioclimatic architecture evolution based on the multi-scale approach and circular economy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 184, 113593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saeedi, K. Promoting Sustainable Household Engagement in Recycling via Blockchain-Based Loyalty Program. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, I.A.; Palazzo, G.; Pinto, A.; Pinto, P.; Sousa, P.; Godina, R.; Carvalho, H. A blockchain architecture with smart contracts for an additive symbiotic network—A case study. Oper. Manag. Res. 2024, 18, 537–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gasparini, K. Urban Screens Metamorphosis: An Overview. Int. J. Architecton. Spat. Environ. Des. 2024, 18, 103–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ostapska, K.; Rüther, P.; Loli, A.; Gradeci, K. Design for Disassembly: A systematic scoping review and analysis of built structures Designed for Disassembly. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2024, 48, 377–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayanti, B.; Helo, P. Circular economy through waste reverse logistics under extended producer responsibility in Finland. Waste Manag. Res. 2023, 42, 59–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowicka, K.; Bentkowska, K. Circular economy from companies and consumers perspectives: Toward value co-creation. Econ. Environ. 2024, 90, 788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hendrianto, F.C.; Negara, K.P.; Devia, Y.P. Analyzing critical success factors for implementing a circular economy in East Java’s construction industries using fuzzy synthetic evaluation. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2024, 20, 1077–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramadan, M.M.A.; Gabr, A.H. Incorporating circular economy in the architectural design process: Design methodology using gamification tools. Archnet-IJAR Int. J. Archit. Res. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hosseini, M.R.; Memari, S.; Martek, I.; Kocaturk, T.; Bararzadeh, M.; Arashpour, M. Dismantling linear lock-ins in the Australian AEC industry: A pathway to a circular economy. Sustain. Dev. 2024, 32, 7171–7185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dufrasnes, E.; Eich, L.; Angyal, F. Development of a Circularity Assessment Tool with Local Stakeholders from Strasbourg. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference “Coordinating Engineering for Sustainability and Resilience” & Midterm Con-ference of CircularB “Implementation of Circular Economy in the Built Environment”, Timișoara, Romania, 29–31 May 2024; pp. 436–445. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, Y.; van den Berg, M.; Yazan, D.M. Circular (de)construction matchmaking: A matter of space and time. J. Ind. Ecol. 2024, 28, 868–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Y.; Yazan, D.M.; van den Berg, M.; Firdausy, D.R.; Junjan, V.; Iacob, M.-E. Circularity information platform for the built environment. Autom. Constr. 2023, 152, 104933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shafiee, S.; Piroozfar, P.; Forberg, L.-F.; Hansen, H.N.; Farr, E. Enhancing efficiency and sustainability in construction: A product configurator for customizable off-site building solutions. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2024, 21, 450–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, L.; Sheng, K. Navigating legal pathways for accelerating urban energy transition: A comprehensive deep analysis of photovoltaic power prediction and policy instruments. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2024, 110, 105358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischli-Boson, P.; Graser, J. Circular house in a steel-hybrid lightweight construction. Der Stahlbau 2024, 93, 801–807. (In German) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruan, G.; Filz, G.H.; Fink, G. Planar rectangular slide-in reciprocal frame system using salvaged timber and wooden nails. J. Int. Assoc. Shell Spat. Struct. 2024, 65, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Capelleveen, G.; Vegter, D.; Olthaar, M.; van Hillegersberg, J. The anatomy of a passport for the circular economy: A conceptual definition, vision and structured literature review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Adv. 2023, 17, 200131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramos, M.; Paiva, A.; Martinho, G. Understanding the perceptions of stakeholders on selective demolition. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 82, 108353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cortés, A.Y. Life after the Cultural Pavilions in Colombia: Circular approach strategies for extending useful life cycles and the social potential of re-use. Dearq 2024, 39, 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajagopal, R.; Gandh, M.A.; Selvam, N.; Kanase, S.S.; Bhoopathy, V.; Mishra, N.; Rajaram, A. Optimising waste collection and recycling in urban areas with VANET. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 2024, 25, 115–122. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1.
Conceptual framework illustrating the relationships among the six core themes.
Figure 2.
The overview of the whole selection process.
Figure 3.
Author keywords map created in VOSViewer.
Figure 4.
Map of the geographical distribution of scientific co-authorships created in VOSviewer.
Table 1.
The number of searches for each keyword group in the Scopus and WoS databases.
| Search Set | Number of Results (Scopus) | Number of Results (WoS) |
|---|---|---|
| “circular economy” + “built environment”/“architecture”/ “building”/“construction sector” | 3211 | 3046 |
| “circularity indicator” + “built environment”/“architecture”/ “building”/“construction sector” | 50 | 32 |
| “design for adaptability” + “built environment”/“architecture”/ “building”/“construction sector” | 32 | 27 |
| “design for disassembly” + “built environment”/“architecture”/ “building”/“construction sector” | 124 | 81 |
| “life cycle assessment” + “built environment”/“architecture”/ “building”/“construction sector” | 2916 | 3585 |
| “material reuse”/“component reuse” + “built environment”/“architecture”/ “building”/“construction sector” | 142 | 71 |
Table 2.
The list of identified subcategories for each thematic category.
| Category | Subcategory |
|---|---|
| circular economy | AI in CE; alternative construction material; BIM in C; biobased materials in CE; bioclimatic architecture; blockchain technology in CE; circular business models; CE barriers; CE in architectural education; CE in built environment; CE literature review; CE policymaking; transition to CE; circular strategies; circularity assessment tools; circularity hubs; customizable building solutions; deep learning in CE; design for circularity; material passports; parametric design in circular architecture; selective demolition; temporary architecture; timber structures in CE; waste management |
| circularity indicator | BIM and CE; CIs and economic value; CIs and renovations; CIs and literature review; CIs at early design stage; CIs and case study; construction waste management; development of CI; LCA and CIs; level(s) framework; modular buildings; parametric design and CE; reversible connections; CIs and taxonomy; timber structures and CE; urban mining |
| design for adaptability | literature review and DfA; DfA assessment methods and guidelines; implementation of DfA strategies; timber structures and DfA; DfA strategies and renovation; DfA and construction waste; economic costs of DfA strategies; taxonomy and DfA |
| design for disassembly | DfD and BIM; DfD and concrete structures; DfD and facades; DfD and hybrid structures; DfD and material passports; DfD and modularity; DfD and prefabricated structures; DfD and standardization; DfD and timber structures; DfD and urban mining; DfD implementation obstacles; DfD in existing structures; DfD literature review; ecodesign; embodied carbon; masonry structures; reclamation potential; selective demolition |
| life cycle assessment | LCA and CE; improvement proposition for LCA method; carbon reduction or storage; the energy efficiency of buildings; LCA and literature review; LCA and BIM; Level(s) framework; building stock; construction waste; urban mining; LCA on an urban scale; LCA of buildings; LCA of building infrastructure; LCA and building renovations; LCA of building components; LCA of building materials; LCA of natural building material; LCA of recycled building materials; LCA and building materials production; LCA and concrete structures; LCA and brick structures; LCA and timber structures; LCA and prefabricated structures; LCA and green roofs/facades |
| material and component reuse | adaptive reuse; biodiversity; CE frameworks; circular strategies; component reuse; reuse of concrete structures; construction and demolition waste management; construction management; construction waste in building sector; design for deconstruction; embodied carbon; environmental impact; furniture; heritage conservation; Industry 5.0; industry waste in building sector; life cycle analysis; literature review; machine learning; material and component reuse and BIM; material and component reuse and blockchain; material circularity; material flow analysis; material passports; material reuse; material reuse in 3D printing; municipal waste in building sector; policymaking; reuse of steel structures; reuse of timber structures; reusability assessment; reuse barriers; reuse of concrete structures; upcycling; urban mining |
Table 3.
The number of results for each category after the selection process.
| Category | Number of Results |
|---|---|
| circular economy | 42 |
| circularity indicator | 34 |
| design for adaptability | 18 |
| design for disassembly | 28 |
| life cycle assessment | 86 |
| material and component reuse | 76 |
Table 4.
Overview of mentioned CE tools in Architecture and their limitations.
| Tool/Framework | Function | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| SimaPro [172], One Click LCA [173] | Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) | Requires high-quality input data; often lacks design phase integration |
| Level(s) [174] | EU sustainability reporting framework | Inconsistent methodology; cradle-to-gate data prevalent over cradle-to-cradle |
| Material Passports | Track material properties and reuse potential | Lack of standard format; limited platform integration |
| BIM-based CE Tools | Component tracking, circularity assessments | Interoperability issues; lack of reuse-value metadata |
| Faster R-CNN, YOLOv3 [175], RACNET [176] | Material identification and classification | Not yet integrated into mainstream AEC tools; limited environmental metrics |
| Scan-to-BIM, LIDAR [177] | Deconstruction planning, inventory generation | Requires manual validation; high upfront data acquisition costs |
Table 5.
Key thematic connections and challenges.
| Category | Linked Topics | Identified Challenges |
|---|---|---|
| general circular economy concept | digital tools, BIM, AI, blockchain technology, deep learning, circular business models, policymaking, vernacular architecture and biomaterials | data standardization and interoperability, scalability, regulatory, financial and technical challenges, supply chain disruptions, societal trust |
| circularity indicators | BIM, LCA, Level(s), building renovations, construction waste management, parametric design, reversible connections, timber structures, taxonomy | integration with other evaluation tools, lack of well-validated and widely adopted indicators |
| design for adaptability | assessment frameworks, timber structures, building renovations | lack of widely accepted procedures, lack of developers’ interest, high economic costs |
| design for disassembly | modularity, prefabricated structures, standardization, urban mining, selective demolition | technical and regulatory challenges, labor-intensive character of selective demolition, material losses, and downcycling |
| life cycle assessment | building materials and components, concrete and timber structures, prefabricated buildings, building materials production, green roofs and façades, LCC, BIM, Level(s) | data availability and reliability, functional unit definition, comparability of results |
| material/component reuse | adaptive reuse, construction and demolition waste, municipal and industrial waste, urban mining, material flow analysis, material passports, design for deconstruction | stakeholder collaboration, digital infrastructure development, regulatory challenges, scalability |
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. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Pierzchlewicz, D.; Woźniak, A.; Widera, B. Recent Research on Circular Architecture: A Literature Review of 2021–2024 on Circular Strategies in the Built Environment. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7580. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177580
AMA Style
Pierzchlewicz D, Woźniak A, Widera B. Recent Research on Circular Architecture: A Literature Review of 2021–2024 on Circular Strategies in the Built Environment. Sustainability. 2025; 17(17):7580. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177580
Chicago/Turabian StylePierzchlewicz, Dominik, Apolonia Woźniak, and Barbara Widera. 2025. "Recent Research on Circular Architecture: A Literature Review of 2021–2024 on Circular Strategies in the Built Environment" Sustainability 17, no. 17: 7580. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177580
APA StylePierzchlewicz, D., Woźniak, A., & Widera, B. (2025). Recent Research on Circular Architecture: A Literature Review of 2021–2024 on Circular Strategies in the Built Environment. Sustainability, 17(17), 7580. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177580
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
