Next Article in Journal
Synergistic Adsorption–Filtration of Aromatic Pollutants via Biodegradable PLA/MIL-68(Al) Mixed-Matrix Membranes
Previous Article in Journal
Thermocompressed Chickpea-Flour Sheets Reinforced with Cellulose Nanocrystals: Improved Water-Vapor Barrier and Thermo-Mechanical Performance
Previous Article in Special Issue
Influence of Bio-Based Infill Materials on the Fire Resistance of Panelised Timber Wall Assemblies—A Pilot Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Polymers
Volume 18
Issue 10
10.3390/polym18101176
polymers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Sustainability-Driven Evaluation of Circular Plastic and Bioplastic Waste Reused as Building Materials Using MCDA and SWOT Analysis

by
Maria-Paraskevi Belioka
1,2
1
Lab of Polymer and Colours Chemistry and Technology, Department of Chemistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
2
Aachen Maastricht Institute for Biobased Materials, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Maastricht University, Brightlands Chemelot Campus, Urmonderbaan 22, 6167 RD Geleen, The Netherlands
Polymers 2026, 18(10), 1176; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym18101176
Submission received: 2 March 2026 / Revised: 1 May 2026 / Accepted: 4 May 2026 / Published: 11 May 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Bio-Based and Circular Polymers and Composites)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The rapid accumulation of plastic waste has become a major environmental concern, while at the same time, it is necessary to create opportunities to rethink how these materials can be reintegrated into productive use, particularly within the construction sector. This study provides a sustainability-oriented review of the reuse of plastic waste, both fossil-based plastics and bioplastics, as building materials, with a specific emphasis on structured decision-support approaches. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify and analyze peer-reviewed studies examining the incorporation of plastic waste into construction applications, including composites, panels, insulation systems, and structural or non-structural components. Particular attention is given to research applying Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and SWOT analysis as tools for evaluating sustainability performance across environmental, economic, technical, and social dimensions. The findings indicate that recycled plastic and bioplastic-based construction materials can deliver significant advantages, such as diverting waste from disposal pathways, reducing reliance on virgin resources, and, in certain cases, enhancing durability. However, these materials also face important challenges, including limitations in recyclability, concerns related to fire performance, regulatory acceptance, and uncertainties in end-of-life management. MCDA-based studies underscore the critical role of criteria selection and weighting, especially regarding environmental impact reduction and cost competitiveness, in shaping final rankings and decision outcomes. SWOT analyses, in turn, offer complementary strategic insights by highlighting issues related to market readiness, regulatory frameworks, and implementation barriers. By integrating these decision-oriented evaluation approaches, this review contributes to more transparent and evidence-based material selection processes and supports policy development aimed at strengthening circular economy strategies for plastic waste reuse in the built environment.

1. Introduction

Global plastic production has grown dramatically over the past two decades, reaching 460 Mt in 2019, while plastic waste generation rose from 156 Mt to 353 Mt over the same period. Despite sustained recycling efforts, only approximately 9% of plastic waste was ultimately recycled in 2019, with the majority either incinerated or landfilled [1,2]. This persistent imbalance between production and end-of-life management contributes to widespread pollution in terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems, as well as to greenhouse gas emissions throughout the plastics lifecycle [3,4].
Within this context, the construction sector represents both a major material sink and a significant opportunity for circular material use. Construction activities consume substantial quantities of raw materials and account for a considerable share of global resource extraction, energy use, and carbon emissions [5,6]. Although the sector handles large material flows, the reuse and recycling of plastic waste in building materials remains underdeveloped relative to its potential [4,6]. Applications such as panels, bricks, insulation systems, and composite materials demonstrate how plastic waste can be incorporated into construction products, thereby diverting waste from landfills and reducing reliance on virgin materials [7,8,9,10].
The key scientific gap this review addresses is the fragmented and inconsistent application of formal decision-support tools, and specifically Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and SWOT analysis, in the evaluation of plastic and bioplastic waste reuse in construction [11]. While numerous studies examine technical performance and general sustainability advantages, comparatively few systematically analyze how sustainability decisions are structured, how criteria are selected and weighted, and how conclusions are justified across environmental, economic, technical, and social dimensions [12,13]. As a result, this limits the cross-study comparability and weakens the evidence base for informed policy and material selection decisions.
The main contribution of this review is therefore threefold: (i) to synthesize evaluation criteria, weighting approaches, and decision contexts from existing MCDA and SWOT-based studies on plastic waste in construction; (ii) to identify recurring patterns, methodological gaps, and underrepresented sustainability dimensions; and (iii) to propose an integrated MCDA–SWOT conceptual framework that links quantitative sustainability ranking with strategic feasibility analysis, supporting evidence-based material selection and circular construction policy.

1.1. Circular Economy and Plastics

A circular economy approach to plastics challenges the traditional linear “take–make–dispose” model by prioritizing the retention of material value through improved design, reuse, repair, and recycling. Circular economy frameworks seek to extend product lifecycles, recover valuable material resources, and close material loops while minimizing environmental impacts [14,15]. Despite increasing attention from industry and policymakers, progress toward circularity in plastics remains limited. As of 2022, only a relatively small share of global plastics production was classified as circular, and post-consumer recycled plastics accounted for a minor fraction of total material flows [16,17].

1.2. Scope and Material Classification

To ensure conceptual clarity, this review defines the scope of materials based on their origin and their potential for circular reuse in construction applications. Both fossil-based plastic waste and bioplastic waste are considered within a unified circular economy framework [18,19]. Rather than assuming bioplastics to be inherently sustainable, all material types are evaluated according to their performance and circular potential within the construction context [20,21,22].
Fossil-based plastics examined include polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and polystyrene (PS). Bioplastics covered include polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), starch-based plastics, and bio-based PET (bio-PET). Both categories are evaluated through the same sustainability lens, emphasizing evidence-based assessment rather than feedstock-based assumptions [13,22,23,24,25,26].

1.3. Decision-Support Focus: MCDA and SWOT

Many traditional evaluations of plastic waste in construction focus on isolated indicators such as mechanical properties, cost, or selected environmental impacts, without adequately addressing the multidimensional nature of sustainability decision-making [11,12]. This review places explicit emphasis on MCDA and SWOT as structured decision-support tools that enable a more systematic evaluation of alternatives. Rather than simply classifying material innovations, this review examines how sustainability decisions are structured and how criteria are selected, weighted, and justified in the context of circular plastic and bioplastic waste reuse in construction.

2. Methodology

2.1. Systematic Review Framework and Purpose

A systematic literature review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines to ensure transparency, reproducibility, and methodological rigor [27]. The purpose of this review is evaluative and synthesizing, as it aims to assess how sustainability is evaluated in studies on plastic and bioplastic waste reuse in construction, with a specific focus on structured decision-support tools (MCDA and SWOT). This review is not intended as a primary empirical study but as a critical synthesis of existing evidence to identify patterns, gaps, and best practices.
In terms of scope, this review is restricted to peer-reviewed journal articles published in English between 2010 and 2025, focusing on construction applications and sustainability assessment. The purpose of the review is to map the methodology by documenting which criteria are used, how they are weighted, and what conclusions are drawn. The intent is both academic (contributing to discourse on sustainability evaluation) and practical, offering guidance for material selection, policy design, and investment decisions in circular construction.

2.2. Literature Search Strategy and Database Selection

Searches were conducted in Scopus and Google Scholar. Web of Science was omitted from the final methodology as initial searches yielded results identical to those of the selected databases, particularly for emerging and interdisciplinary topics at the intersection of construction materials science, circular economy, and decision analysis. Scopus and Google Scholar collectively offer extensive coverage of engineering, environmental science, and sustainability journals, and were considered sufficient to capture the most relevant peer-reviewed literature within the defined scope. Backward and forward citation tracking of key methodological papers was also conducted to minimize the risk of overlooking relevant studies.
Search queries were developed by combining keywords across four thematic groups: (i) plastic waste and materials (plastic waste, bioplastic, recycled plastic); (ii) construction applications (building materials, construction, composites, insulation); (iii) sustainability concepts (sustainability, circular economy, lifecycle); and (iv) decision-support methods (multi-criteria decision analysis, MCDA, SWOT). A representative search string was (“plastic waste” OR “bioplastic waste” OR “recycled plastic”) AND (“building material” OR “construction”) AND (“sustainability” OR “circular economy”) AND (“MCDA” OR “multi-criteria decision” OR “SWOT”).

2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were selected according to predefined criteria. Included studies were peer-reviewed journal articles focusing on the reuse of plastic or bioplastic waste in construction materials, with explicit consideration of sustainability aspects and application of MCDA methods and/or SWOT analysis (or structured multi-criteria evaluation). Excluded were studies focusing solely on mechanical or physical characterization without sustainability assessment, research addressing plastic waste incineration or energy recovery only, non-construction-related reuse pathways, and conference papers, editorials, or non-peer-reviewed sources.

2.4. Study Selection and Data Extraction

After removing duplicates, titles and abstracts were screened for relevance. Studies that passed the initial screening underwent full-text evaluation to confirm alignment with the defined scope. For each selected study, data were extracted on material type, construction application, sustainability criteria considered, decision-support methods employed, and key findings. The extracted information was systematically coded to facilitate comparative analysis across application categories and evaluation frameworks. The overall selection workflow is illustrated in Figure 1 (PRISMA flow diagram).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Application Scope: Plastic and Bioplastic Waste in Construction

The reuse of plastic and bioplastic waste in construction materials has expanded considerably in recent decades, driven by growing environmental concerns, increasing regulatory pressure, and the broader adoption of circular economy principles [28,29]. To provide a structured and comparable sustainability assessment, this section classifies construction applications according to functional type rather than solely by polymer composition.

3.1.1. Fossil-Based Plastic Waste

Fossil-based plastics account for the largest share of global plastic waste and represent the main feedstock for circular reuse in construction materials [29,30]. PET is widely used in panels, fibers, and composite materials; its tensile strength and chemical stability make it suitable for reinforcement and semi-structural applications [18,31]. HDPE and PP are often employed in lumber substitutes, decking systems, paving blocks, and molded bricks, valued for their moisture resistance and ease of processing. PVC presents a distinct case due to concerns related to plasticizers, stabilizers, and chlorine content, which can complicate recycling processes and raise regulatory concerns [24]. Polystyrene, particularly in expanded and extruded forms, is primarily reused in insulation and lightweight applications [6,8,32,33].

3.1.2. Bioplastic Waste

PLA is the most extensively investigated bioplastic in construction-related applications, particularly in panels, lightweight boards, and blended composite systems. PHA and starch-based plastics have primarily been examined in experimental composite and hybrid systems. A key challenge in reusing bioplastic waste in construction lies in balancing biodegradability with long-term durability, as well as navigating competing end-of-life pathways (industrial composting, mechanical recycling, chemical recycling, and material reuse) [28,34,35].

3.1.3. Construction Application Types

Four principal application categories are considered in this review:
Structural applications remain relatively limited due to the strict mechanical, safety, and regulatory requirements associated with load-bearing construction components. Recycled PET, HDPE, and PP are most frequently investigated, typically in hybrid configurations combined with steel, concrete, or fiber reinforcements [20,36,37,38,39].
Non-structural building elements including wall panels, façade components, paving blocks, bricks, roofing tiles, and modular blocks, represent the most established and widely implemented area for plastic waste reuse. These face fewer regulatory constraints, allowing greater flexibility in material formulation and product design [20,36,37,38,40].
Insulation and lightweight materials exploit the low density, thermal insulating properties, and moisture resistance of plastic waste. Recycled polystyrene, PET foams, and polyethylene-based materials are commonly used, while PLA-based systems have been investigated in lightweight composites [20,36,37,38].
Composite and hybrid systems combine plastic or bioplastic waste with mineral fillers, industrial by-products, or reinforcing fibers. Common formulations include plastic–sand bricks, polymer–fly ash composites, plastic–wood composites, and fiber-reinforced boards [20,36,37,38,40].

3.1.4. Practical Applications and Real-World Examples

To illustrate the practical relevance of plastic waste reuse in construction, several documented implementations are worth highlighting. In Ghana, recycled mixed plastic waste has been processed into paving blocks and road construction elements, providing a cost-effective alternative to conventional asphalt in low-traffic areas [22,41]. In India and New Zealand, PET and HDPE waste from post-consumer packaging streams have been incorporated into compressed bricks and non-load-bearing wall panels, reducing both material cost and landfill burden [23,42,43]. Expanded polystyrene (EPS) waste from packaging has been widely reused in thermal insulation boards across European markets, with documented thermal conductivity values competitive with conventional mineral wool products [44]. In experimental and demonstration projects, PLA-based biocomposite panels have been developed and tested for interior applications, combining lightweight properties with reasonable acoustic insulation performance [44,45]. Waste plastic bottle-based construction has also been explored in informal settlement contexts, particularly in Rohingya displacement camps, where structural walls made from PET bottles filled with sand demonstrated feasibility in low-income, resource-constrained settings [46,47]. These examples span diverse geographic, economic, and application contexts, illustrating both the breadth of potential and the variability in performance outcomes that motivate the need for structured, decision-oriented sustainability evaluation [44,48].

3.2. Sustainability Dimensions and Evaluation Criteria

The sustainability assessment of plastic and bioplastic waste reuse in construction requires the systematic consideration of multiple, often competing, performance dimensions [49]. Existing studies rely on a diverse set of indicators and metrics, reflecting variations in application contexts, stakeholder priorities, and methodological approaches. To support a coherent synthesis, this section organizes the sustainability criteria identified in the literature into four core dimensions: environmental, economic, technical, and social/regulatory [50,51,52].

3.2.1. Environmental Dimension

Environmental criteria form a central pillar of sustainability evaluations. Greenhouse gas emissions (expressed in CO2-eq) are among the most commonly reported indicators, encompassing emissions associated with waste collection and sorting, reprocessing, manufacturing, transportation, and end-of-life treatment [3,48,53]. Waste diversion indicators quantify plastic waste redirected from landfilling or incineration toward material reuse [48,54]. Toxicity indicators address the potential release of hazardous substances (plasticizers, flame retardants, stabilizers, heavy metals) during processing, use, and end-of-life stages [55,56]. End-of-life indicators evaluate recyclability, recoverability, or disposal pathways after service life, including closed-loop recycling, open-loop recycling, energy recovery, landfilling, and, for bioplastics, composting [57,58,59].

3.2.2. Economic Dimension

Economic criteria address financial feasibility and market competitiveness. Material cost indicators include the price of plastic waste feedstock and preprocessing expenses (sorting, cleaning, additives) [60,61]. Processing costs encompass energy consumption, labor, equipment operation, and quality control during material conversion [60]. Lifecycle cost indicators expand assessment beyond initial production to include installation, operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement over the service life, which is particularly important for identifying trade-offs between higher upfront costs and long-term durability savings [62].

3.2.3. Technical Dimension

Technical performance criteria assess functional suitability, reliability, and long-term durability. Mechanical properties, like compressive strength, tensile strength, flexural strength, and impact resistance, determine load-bearing capacity and deformation response [45,63,64]. Fire performance is also a major consideration for polymer-based construction materials, with compliance often treated as a threshold criterion in MCDA frameworks [65,66]. Durability criteria evaluate long-term resistance to UV radiation, temperature variations, moisture, and chemical agents. Moisture resistance and dimensional stability are also critical for outdoor or high-humidity environments [67,68,69,70].

3.2.4. Social and Regulatory Dimension

Social and regulatory criteria encompass societal acceptance, institutional frameworks, and governance conditions [71]. At the same time, health-related criteria address potential release of VOCs, microplastics, or other hazardous substances during processing, installation, and use. Compliance with building codes, material standards, and certification schemes is a critical determinant of market entry. Market-related criteria reflect perceptions of quality, reliability, aesthetics, and environmental credibility among architects, engineers, contractors, and end-users [65,72,73].

3.2.5. Linking Application Types to Sustainability Criteria

To facilitate a systematic and comparable synthesis, Table 1 aligns construction application categories with the dominant sustainability dimensions and criteria most frequently emphasized in decision-support assessments.

3.3. Material Properties, Performance Challenges, and Reintroduction Barriers

A critical aspect of reusing plastic waste in construction is understanding not only the potential benefits but also the challenges of reintroducing these materials in terms of their intrinsic properties, processing behavior, and compatibility with construction performance standards [93,94]. Table 2 provides a structured overview of key material types, their main performance characteristics, and the principal barriers to large-scale adoption [95].

3.4. Applications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Evaluating Plastic-Based Building Materials

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods are increasingly used to support sustainability-oriented decision-making in the assessment of plastic and bioplastic waste reuse in construction materials. These approaches facilitate the structured integration of environmental, economic, technical, and social criteria, enabling stakeholders to consider trade-offs and prioritize alternatives in situations characterized by complex and sometimes conflicting objectives [12,103].

3.4.1. Common MCDA Methods

A range of MCDA techniques has been applied to evaluate plastic-based building materials, reflecting differences in decision contexts, data availability, and analytical objectives. The most commonly used methods include the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), PROMETHEE, ELECTRE, MAVT, and hybrid LCA–MCDA frameworks [103].
AHP is the most frequently applied MCDA method in the reviewed studies. It organizes decision problems into a hierarchical structure and derives relative weights through pairwise comparisons based on expert judgment. Its structured approach and ease of application contribute to widespread use, though outcomes can be sensitive to subjective judgments [104,105].
TOPSIS ranks material alternatives according to their relative distance from an ideal and a negative-ideal solution. It is frequently combined with AHP-derived weights in integrated AHP–TOPSIS models and is valued for its computational simplicity and ability to process quantitative performance indicators [99,105].
Outranking approaches such as PROMETHEE and ELECTRE appear in studies involving more complex decision environments, particularly those characterized by qualitative or uncertain data. Hybrid frameworks integrating lifecycle assessment (LCA) with MCDA represent a growing trend, allowing lifecycle environmental impacts to be evaluated within a broader decision-making framework [48,106].

3.4.2. Application Contexts

MCDA methods are applied within three primary decision-making contexts: material selection (the most common, evaluating alternative plastic-based building products or material formulations); technology and process comparison (evaluating recycling, processing, and manufacturing technologies); and policy and strategic prioritization (supporting waste management or circular economy scenario analysis and infrastructure planning) [107]. Please see Table 3.

3.4.3. Synthesis of Key Findings

Environmental indicators and particularly greenhouse gas emissions, waste diversion potential, as well as resource efficiency, are consistently assigned high weights in most MCDA studies, often exerting a dominant influence on final rankings when LCA indicators are incorporated [48,108]. MCDA outcomes are highly sensitive to weighting schemes; even modest adjustments in the weights assigned to cost or technical performance can alter the preferred alternative, underscoring the importance of transparent weighting and meaningful stakeholder engagement [97]. Although plastic-based construction materials often demonstrate favorable environmental performance, elevated processing costs, variability in feedstock quality, and limited economies of scale frequently reduce cost competitiveness. Ranking patterns also vary systematically by application type: structural uses tend to weight technical performance and regulatory compliance more heavily, while non-structural and insulation applications typically emphasize environmental and cost-related indicators [11,106].

3.4.4. Summary Table of MCDA Applications in Reviewed Studies

Table 3. Summary of representative MCDA-based studies on plastic and bioplastic waste in construction.
Table 3. Summary of representative MCDA-based studies on plastic and bioplastic waste in construction.
Material/ApplicationMCDA MethodMain CriteriaMain OutcomeSource
Plastic waste
management		AHP/TOPSISEnvironmental, economic, social, technicalHighlights method diversity and need for transparent weighting across studies[12,97,99,109]
End-of-life
alternatives for waste plastics		Modified MAVTEnvironmental, economic, social impactsDecision outcome depends on multi-dimensional trade-offs across sustainability pillars[12,97,104,106,107]
Recycled-plastic paver blocksTOPSISMechanical strength, water absorption, thermal resistance, costIdentifies most suitable recycled-plastic composition based on performance trade-offs[48,99,103,110]
Waste plastics +
agro-waste
composites		AHP/TOPSIS/VIKOREnvironmental benefit, technical performance, economic feasibility, end-of-lifeSelects most suitable waste plastic type for agro-waste composites under integrated MCDM[34,48,99,106]
Insulation materials in buildingsAHP/TOPSIS/VIKOREnvironmental (LCA),
economic(LCC), technical,
social/health		Highlights lack of standardization in criteria/weights and importance of LCA/LCC integration[48,99,105,107]
Sustainable concrete with waste PET bottle-cap aggregatesAHPConcrete performance, durability, sustainability, feasibilityPET cap aggregates can support sustainable concrete; MCDM used to select best alternative[97,105,107,109]
Building parts
selection
LCA + MCDM		AHPEnvironmental (LCA), technical, economic, socialDemonstrates how combining LCA with MCDM supports sustainable building-part selection[48,106,109,111]
Ecological paving stones from plastic + glass wasteAHPMechanical strength, water absorption, material contributionIdentifies favorable constituent combinations; notes some pavers may not meet high-traffic standards[103,104,105,107,109]

3.5. SWOT Analysis of Circular Plastic and Bioplastic-Based Building Materials

SWOT analysis is increasingly employed in the literature as a strategic evaluation tool to complement performance testing and sustainability assessments of recycled plastics in construction. From Figure 2 it is clear that unlike MCDA, which ranks alternatives based on defined criteria and weighting procedures, SWOT analysis contextualizes feasibility by identifying internal factors (strengths and weaknesses) and external factors (opportunities and threats) that influence real-world adoption, such as regulatory frameworks, market readiness, and supply-chain maturity [15,112].

3.5.1. Strengths

Waste reduction and diversion: A consistently identified strength is the potential to divert substantial volumes of plastic waste from landfilling, incineration, and uncontrolled disposal by incorporating it into long-life construction products such as bricks, panels, and concrete components. By valorizing waste into durable building materials, these applications contribute directly to circular economy objectives [113].
Durability and resistance in selected applications: Recycled polyolefins (HDPE and PP) and PET-based components are frequently recognized for their resistance to moisture and chemical degradation, supporting suitability for outdoor environments and non-structural applications [114].
Lightweight properties and functional flexibility: Plastic-containing construction products generally exhibit lower density than conventional masonry units or mineral aggregates. This reduction in weight can improve handling and transportation efficiency and may facilitate modular or prefabricated construction systems [115].

3.5.2. Weaknesses

Fire behavior and smoke toxicity: Fire performance remains a significant limitation for polymer-containing construction products. Even when materials demonstrate adequate mechanical strength or durability, fire-related performance constraints can restrict regulatory approval and limit broader adoption [71,116].
Additives, toxicity, and leaching uncertainty: The presence of plasticizers, stabilizers, and flame retardants can complicate recycling processes and raise concerns about emissions during manufacturing, installation, and use. These concerns are especially relevant for mixed or complex waste streams, including PVC fractions [24,114].
Recyclability after use and multi-material challenges: A recurring weakness is the difficulty of recycling plastic-based construction products at the end of their service life, particularly for composite and multi-material systems, where material separation is technically complex [113,115].

3.5.3. Opportunities

Green building policies and circular procurement: Policy instruments such as recycled-content mandates, green public procurement schemes, and broader circular construction strategies create favorable conditions for scaling plastic-waste-derived building products [71].
Urban mining and long-life material stocks: The concept of buildings as long-term “material banks” presents an opportunity to integrate secondary plastics into durable construction applications, treating buildings as temporary repositories of valuable resources that may be recovered in the future [114].
Standardization and certification development: The development of harmonized product standards, performance testing protocols, and clear certification pathways represents a significant opportunity to reduce uncertainty and enhance market confidence in recycled plastic construction materials [89,113,115].

3.5.4. Threats

Regulatory barriers and conservative approval environments: Even when laboratory-scale results demonstrate promising performance, adoption may be limited by conservative building code frameworks, the absence of harmonized technical guidance, and liability concerns [71].
Market distrust and perception risks: Perceptions associated with “waste-based” materials, regarding quality, safety, aesthetics, and long-term reliability, can act as barriers to wider acceptance [71].
Competition with virgin materials and price volatility: Fluctuations in virgin polymer prices, variability in feedstock quality, and the costs associated with sorting and processing can undermine the economic competitiveness of recycled plastic products [113,115].

3.5.5. Why SWOT Complements but Does Not Replace MCDA

SWOT analysis is best understood as a strategic complement to MCDA rather than a substitute for it. MCDA structures trade-offs through clearly defined criteria, assigns weights reflecting stakeholder priorities, and produces transparent rankings of alternative options. SWOT provides contextual insight by explaining why an alternative that performs well in an MCDA framework may still encounter practical barriers, such as certification gaps, unfavorable public perception, or policy misalignment. Conversely, it can help identify conditions under which a lower-ranked alternative may become viable through procurement incentives, regulatory reforms, or evolving market standards. This complementarity is particularly important in circular construction, where successful adoption depends not only on environmental and technical performance but also on governance structures, supply-chain capacity, and market readiness [15,109,111,117].

3.6. Integrated MCDA-SWOT Framework for Decision-Oriented Circular Construction

Decision-making regarding the circular reuse of plastic and bioplastic waste in construction extends beyond technical feasibility or isolated sustainability indicators. Successful adoption depends both on systematically quantified trade-offs across environmental, economic, technical, and social dimensions, and on the broader contextual conditions that determine whether technically viable solutions can be implemented at scale [20].
Building on the insights developed in Section 3.2, Section 3.3, Section 3.4 and Section 3.5, this section proposes a conceptual MCDA–SWOT framework that integrates quantitative ranking methods with strategic feasibility analysis, providing a more comprehensive basis for material selection, policy development, and investment decisions within circular construction systems [109,117].

3.6.1. Complementary Roles of MCDA and SWOT

MCDA enables explicit management of trade-offs, transparent prioritization aligned with stakeholder objectives, and sensitivity analysis to assess how rankings shift under different assumptions. SWOT captures contextual factors that are difficult to quantify but often decisive in real-world implementation, including market readiness, regulatory feasibility, supply-chain maturity, external policy drivers, and competitive pressures.
Rather than serving as alternatives to each other, MCDA and SWOT function in tandem: MCDA produces structured rankings, while SWOT explains the conditions under which those rankings translate (or not) into feasible implementation [109,117].

3.6.2. How SWOT Can Inform MCDA Weighting

A central methodological contribution of this review is the formalization of how SWOT-derived insights can inform and strengthen MCDA weighting strategies. Based on the literature, four mechanisms are proposed [109,111,115,117]:
  • Constraint-driven weighting: When SWOT highlights dominant threats such as fire safety concerns or regulatory barriers, critical criteria can be treated as non-compensatory threshold constraints, with alternatives required to meet predefined minimum standards before being included in the ranking.
  • Opportunity-aligned weighting: When SWOT identifies strong enabling conditions such as green procurement policies or recycled-content incentives, MCDA weights can be aligned with these priorities by increasing emphasis on waste diversion, recycled content, and GHG reduction.
  • Risk-adjusted weighting: If SWOT reveals supply-chain vulnerabilities, MCDA models can incorporate risk-adjusted weighting by assigning greater weight to feedstock quality stability, process robustness, and scalability.
  • Stakeholder-specific weighting profiles: SWOT often reveals divergent stakeholder priorities, which MCDA can translate into multiple weighting profiles (regulatory, manufacturer, municipal, and client/market profiles).

3.6.3. Proposed Conceptual Framework: Seven-Step Workflow

The proposed framework (Figure 3) links material performance data and sustainability indicators with MCDA-based prioritization and SWOT-based contextual analysis, ultimately producing context-aware and implementation-ready recommendations [109,111,115,117]. The workflow proceeds through seven steps:
  • Step 1—Define decision context and alternatives: Specify application type, geographic and regulatory context, and alternatives under evaluation (polymer types, material formulations, processing routes, end-of-life strategies).
  • Step 2—Evidence compilation and criteria harmonization: Map all performance indicators onto the four sustainability dimensions, ensure comparability through consistent normalization, and identify data gaps.
  • Step 3—SWOT-driven context scan: Assess internal factors (strengths and weaknesses of each material) and external factors (opportunities and threats specific to the region, market, and regulatory environment).
  • Step 4—MCDA model construction: Select the appropriate MCDA method (AHP, TOPSIS, PROMETHEE, VIKOR, MAVT, ELECTRE, or hybrid LCA–MCDA), define scoring rules and normalization procedures, and assign baseline weights.
  • Step 5—SWOT-informed weighting and constraints: Introduce gating constraints, adjust weights to reflect dominant SWOT signals, and develop scenario-based weighting sets.
  • Step 6—Ranking, sensitivity, and robustness analysis: Compute rankings under multiple weighting scenarios, conduct sensitivity analysis to identify potential ranking reversals, and identify robust alternatives.
  • Step 7—Decision outputs and implementation roadmap: Translate results into final recommendations, implementation measures (standardization, certification, supply-chain improvements), and policy/investment guidance.

3.6.4. Summary of Framework Insights: Key Decision Variables by Application Type

To support practical implementation of the proposed framework, Table 4 synthesizes the most decision-relevant variables across the four construction application types considered in this review. This summary is intended to assist practitioners in calibrating their MCDA models and contextualizing SWOT findings for specific application contexts.

3.7. Research Gaps and Future Directions

The reviewed literature highlights several persistent limitations that restrict methodological rigor, cross-study comparability, and practical relevance.

3.7.1. Lack of Standardized Sustainability Criteria and Reporting Practices

The absence of standardized criteria sets and reporting protocols is the most significant limitation across existing MCDA and sustainability assessment studies. Many studies rely on customized indicators, normalization approaches, and scoring scales, which substantially limits cross-study comparability. Future research should focus on developing harmonized evaluation frameworks and establishing minimum reporting requirements, including clear documentation of data sources, system boundaries, weighting rationales, and sensitivity analyses [103,105].

3.7.2. Underrepresentation of Bioplastic Waste in Construction Evaluations

Although bioplastics are becoming increasingly prevalent in consumer markets and waste streams, their reuse in construction materials remains underrepresented in sustainability assessments and MCDA-based research. The majority of existing evaluations focus on fossil-based polymers such as PET, HDPE, and PP. Future research should expand empirical evidence on bioplastic waste reuse, including field-scale applications and lifecycle-based assessments [97].

3.7.3. Limited Integration of Social Lifecycle Assessment

Social dimensions remain inadequately addressed in most sustainability evaluations. Although environmental and economic indicators are frequently quantified, social impacts such as worker safety, community health, labor conditions within supply chains, and societal acceptance are often treated only qualitatively or omitted altogether. Future studies should incorporate social LCA methodologies to provide a more complete picture of sustainability performance [48,118].

3.7.4. Uncertainty in End-of-Life Management

Many studies rely on simplified assumptions regarding disposal or recycling pathways, without adequately addressing uncertainties related to collection infrastructure, material degradation, contamination, and the economic feasibility of recovery. Future research should incorporate dynamic lifecycle modeling, scenario-based analysis, and material flow analysis. Greater emphasis on design-for-disassembly principles and mono-material strategies could significantly improve recyclability of plastic-based construction products [48,51].

3.7.5. Regional and Geographic Bias

The reviewed literature reveals a clear regional imbalance, with most studies concentrated in Europe, East Asia, and a limited number of high-income countries. Future research should prioritize geographically diverse case studies and comparative analyses that reflect varied socio-economic and institutional contexts.

3.7.6. Methodological Advancements for Integrated Decision-Support Frameworks

Future research should further develop hybrid MCDA–SWOT–LCA frameworks that incorporate probabilistic modeling, scenario-based weighting, and structured stakeholder participation. The use of digital decision-support tools and open-access databases could facilitate standardized data sharing and collaborative model refinement.

4. Conclusions

This review synthesized current knowledge on the reuse of fossil-based plastic and bioplastic waste in construction materials through a sustainability-driven and decision-oriented lens. The main findings can be summarized as follows:
  • Plastic and bioplastic waste reuse in construction can meaningfully contribute to circular economy objectives by diverting waste from disposal pathways and embedding secondary materials in long-life applications. However, sustainability performance varies significantly across polymer types, construction applications, and regional contexts, and thus, it cannot be inferred from feedstock origin alone.
  • MCDA provides valuable, quantitative decision support for managing sustainability trade-offs in material selection. Outcomes are, however, sensitive to criteria weighting, and greater standardization in criteria selection, reporting, and stakeholder engagement is needed to improve cross-study comparability.
  • SWOT analysis offers a complementary strategic perspective that explains implementation feasibility. Regulatory frameworks, market acceptance, supply-chain maturity, and policy incentives are often as decisive as technical and environmental performance.
  • The proposed integrated MCDA–SWOT framework addresses the gap between quantitative performance ranking and real-world implementation barriers. By linking structured ranking with strategic feasibility assessment, it enables more robust, context-sensitive, and actionable sustainability evaluations.
  • Key priorities for future research include methodological harmonization, expanded assessment of bioplastics, integration of social lifecycle assessment, improved modeling of end-of-life scenarios, and geographically diverse empirical studies.
Advancing circularity in plastic waste management through construction applications requires not only technological development but also systematic decision science and coordinated governance. Integrated decision-support frameworks can play a pivotal role in accelerating the transition toward resilient, resource-efficient, and circular built environments.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. OECD. Global Plastics Outlook: Economic Drivers, Environmental Impacts and Policy Options; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  2. Turk, K.; Kalčikova, G.; Kokalj, A.J.; Mušič, B. From plastic use in the construction and built environment to state-of-the-art circular economy solutions to combat microplastic pollution. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2025, 37, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. da Silva, T.R.; de Azevedo, A.R.G.; Cecchin, D.; Marvila, M.T.; Amran, M.; Fediuk, R.; Vatin, N.; Karelina, M.; Klyuev, S.; Szelag, M. Application of plastic wastes in construction materials: A review using the concept of life-cycle assessment in the context of recent research for future perspectives. Materials 2021, 14, 3549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Jan, K.; Deka, D.J.; Yu, E.; Lu, T.; Li, K.; Jiang, H.; Nawaz, K.; Webb, E.G.; Ozcan, S.; Zou, R.; et al. Recent Advances in Chemical Recycling and Upcycling of Plastic Waste into Valuable Materials, Chemicals, and Energy: A Comprehensive Review. RSC Sustain. 2026, 4, 1667–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lamba, P.; Kaur, D.P.; Raj, S.; Sorout, J. Recycling/reuse of plastic waste as construction material for sustainable development: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 86156–86179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Krajewska, A.; Siewczyńska, M. Circular Economy in the Construction Sector in Materials, Processes, and Case Studies: Research Review. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jawaid, M.; Singh, B.; Kian, L.K.; Zaki, S.A.; Radzi, A. Processing techniques on plastic waste materials for construction and building applications. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2023, 40, 100761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Haigh, R. A decade review of research trends using waste materials in the building and construction industry: A pathway towards a circular economy. Waste 2023, 1, 935–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. 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]
  10. Jalaluddin, M. Use of plastic waste in civil constructions and innovative decorative material (eco-friendly). MOJ Civ. Eng. 2017, 3, 359–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Santos, M.R.; Dias, L.C.; Cunha, M.C.; Marques, J.R. Multicriteria decision analysis addressing marine and terrestrial plastic waste management: A review. Front. Mar. Sci. 2022, 8, 747712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Deshpande, P.C.; Skaar, C.; Brattebø, H.; Fet, A.M. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method for assessing the sustainability of end-of-life alternatives for waste plastics: A case study of Norway. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 719, 137353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Seghiri, M.; Boutoutaou, D.; Kriker, A.; Hachani, M.I. The possibility of making a composite material from waste plastic. Energy Procedia 2017, 119, 163–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Schützenhofer, S.; Kovacic, I.; Rechberger, H.; Mack, S. Improvement of environmental sustainability and circular economy through construction waste management for material reuse. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ulewicz, M.; Brycht, N. SWOT analysis about the possibilities of using construction waste in Polish road infrastructure. Econ. Environ. 2025, 92, 796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Soni, A.; Das, P.K.; Kumar, S. Selection of waste plastics for incorporation in agro-waste as sustainable building construction materials concerning circular economy: An integrated MCDM approach. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2023, 25, 2929–2949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bendix, P.; Achenbach, H.; Weißhaupt, P.; Eckert, D.; Oehme, I.; Berg, H. Circular economy for durable products and materials: The recycling of plastic building products in Germany—Status quo, potentials and recommendations. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2022, 24, 1432–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Adiyanto, O.; Mohamad, E.; Razak, J.A. Systematic review of plastic waste as eco-friendly aggregate for sustainable construction. Int. J. Sustain. Constr. Eng. Technol. 2022, 13, 243–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Plesa, L.; Manea, L.; Istoan, R. Recycling plastic wastes in order to obtain new building materials. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  20. Awoyera, P.O.; Adesina, A. Plastic wastes to construction products: Status, limitations and future perspective. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2020, 12, e00330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kumar, R.; Kumar, M.; Kumar, I.; Srivastava, D. A review on utilization of plastic waste materials in bricks manufacturing process. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 46, 6775–6780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Appiah, J.K.; Berko-Boateng, V.N.; Tagbor, T.A. Use of waste plastic materials for road construction in Ghana. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2017, 6, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bansal, S.; Kushwah, S.S.; Garg, A.; Sharma, K. Utilization of plastic waste in construction industry in India–A review. Mater. Today Proc. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Al Kindi, I.J.I.; Devi, M.G.; Al Abri, M.; Al Hasan, S.; Al Hatali, E.M.A.M. Production of Plastic Cement Concrete from PVC Waste. Fine Chem. Eng. 2021, 2, 63–79. [Google Scholar]
  25. Intan, S.K.; Santosa, S. Utilization of PTE and LDPE plastic waste and building material waste as bricks. Korean J. Mater. Res. 2019, 29, 603–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ogundairo, T.O.; Olukanni, D.O.; Akinwumi, I.I.; Adegoke, D.D. A review on plastic waste as sustainable resource in civil engineering applications. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  27. Moher, D.; Shamseer, L.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 2015, 4, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Oberti, I.; Paciello, A. Bioplastic as a substitute for plastic in construction industry. Encyclopedia 2022, 2, 1408–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lin, Y.H.; Yuan, W.; Wang, T. A Review of Construction and Demolition Waste Management: Resource Coordination and Multidimensional Interaction. Buildings 2026, 16, 1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chanhoun, M.; Padonou, S.; Adjovi, E.C.; Olodo, E.; Doko, V. Study of the implementation of waste wood, plastics and polystyrenes for various applications in the building industry. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 167, 936–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dadzie, D.K.; Kaliluthin, A.K.; Kumar, D.R. Exploration of waste plastic bottles use in construction. Civ. Eng. J. 2020, 6, 2262–2272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Minde, P.; Kulkarni, M.; Patil, J.; Shelake, A. Comprehensive review on the use of plastic waste in sustainable concrete construction. Discov. Mater. 2024, 4, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Haba, B.; Djellali, S.; Abdelouahed, Y.; Boudjelida, S.; Faleschini, F.; Carraro, M. Transforming plastic waste into value: A review of management strategies and innovative applications in sustainable construction. Polymers 2025, 17, 881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Awad, H.H.; Desouki, M. Multifunctional performance assessment of waste-based bioplastic wall panels for acoustic thermal and structural efficiency in interior architecture. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 15708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kalali, E.N.; Lotfian, S.; Shabestari, M.E.; Khayatzadeh, S.; Zhao, C.; Nezhad, H.Y. A critical review of the current progress of plastic waste recycling technology in structural materials. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2023, 40, 100763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yadav, K.; Singh, A.; Bhat, O.N.; Sharma, R.L. Transforming waste into innovation: A review of plastic bricks as sustainable construction materials. Discov. Civ. Eng. 2024, 1, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Papamichael, I.; Voukkali, I.; Loizia, P.; Zorpas, A.A. Construction and demolition waste framework of circular economy: A mini review. Waste Manag. Res. 2023, 41, 1728–1740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ginga, C.P.; Ongpeng, J.M.C.; Daly, M.K.M. Circular economy on construction and demolition waste: A literature review on material recovery and production. Materials 2020, 13, 2970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Abdel Tawab, O.F.; Amin, M.R.; Ibrahim, M.M.; Abdel Wahab, M.; Abd El Rahman, E.N.; Hassanien, R.H.; Hatem, M.H.; Ghaly, A.E. Recycling waste plastic bags as a replacement for cement in production of building bricks and concrete blocks. J. Waste Resour. Recycl. 2020, 1, 202. [Google Scholar]
  40. Obiadi, B.N. The positive impact of plastic recycling in the built environment, architecture and the waters of the world. Int. J. Trend Sci. Res. Dev. 2020, 4, 1427–1435. [Google Scholar]
  41. Tulashie, S.K.; Boadu, E.K.; Kotoka, F.; Mensah, D. Plastic wastes to pavement blocks: A significant alternative way to reducing plastic wastes generation and accumulation in Ghana. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 241, 118044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hernandez, G.; Low, J.; Nand, A.; Bu, A.; Wallis, S.L.; Kestle, L.; Berry, T.-A. Quantifying and managing plastic waste generated from building construction in Auckland, New Zealand. Waste Manag. Res. 2023, 41, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Shoubi, M.V.; Shoubi, M.V.; Barough, A.S. Investigating the application of plastic bottle as a sustainable material in the building construction. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Technol. Res. 2013, 2, 28–34. [Google Scholar]
  44. Raut, A.; Patel, M.S.; Jadhwar, N.B.; Khan, U.; Dhengare, S.W. Investigating the application of waste plastic bottle as a construction material-a review. J. Int. Assoc. Adv. Technol. Sci. 2015, 16, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Halimi, Y.; Inchaouh, M.; Zyade, S.; Tahiri, M. Development and characterization of a composite material reinforced by plastic waste: Application in the construction sector. GEOMATE J. 2017, 13, 172–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mokhtar, M.; Sahat, S.; Hamid, B.; Kaamin, M.; Kesot, M.J.; Wen, L.C.; Xin, L.Y.; Ling, N.P.; Lei, V.S.J. Application of plastic bottle as a wall structure for green house. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2016, 11, 7617–7621. [Google Scholar]
  47. Mansour, A.M.H.; Ali, S.A. Reusing waste plastic bottles as an alternative sustainable building material. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2015, 24, 79–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Theilig, K.; Lourenço, B.; Reitberger, R.; Lang, W. Life cycle assessment and multi-criteria decision-making for sustainable building parts: Criteria, methods, and application. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2024, 29, 1965–1991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chaturvedi, R.; Singh, P.K. A practicable learning under conversion of plastic waste and building material waste keen on concrete tiles. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 45, 2938–2942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Timm, J.F.G.; Maciel, V.G.; Passuello, A. Towards sustainable construction: A systematic review of circular economy strategies and ecodesign in the built environment. Buildings 2023, 13, 2059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hamada, H.M.; Al-Attar, A.; Abed, F.; Beddu, S.; Humada, A.M.; Majdi, A.; Yousif, S.T.; Thomas, B.S. Enhancing sustainability in concrete construction: A comprehensive review of plastic waste as an aggregate material. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 2024, 40, e00877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ikechukwu, A.F.; Naghizadeh, A. Utilization of plastic waste material in masonry bricks production towards strength, durability and environmental sustainability. J. Sustain. Archit. Civ. Eng. 2022, 30, 121–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Jain, D.; Bhadauria, S.; Kushwah, S. An experimental study of utilization of plastic waste for manufacturing of composite construction material. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 20, 8829–8838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Jain, D.; Bhadauria, S.S.; Kushwah, S.S. Analysis and prediction of plastic waste composite construction material properties using machine learning techniques. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2023, 42, e14094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Pradha, S.S.; Saranya, K. Recycling plastic waste into construction materials for sustainability. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  56. Chatziparaskeva, G.; Papamichael, I.; Voukkali, I.; Loizia, P.; Sourkouni, G.; Argirusis, C.; Zorpas, A.A. End-of-life of composite materials in the framework of the circular economy. Microplastics 2022, 1, 377–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Athithan, V.; Natarajan, L.T. Reuse of plastic waste as building materials to enhance sustainability in construction: A review. Infrastruct. Solut. 2023, 8, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Briassoulis, D.; Pikasi, A.; Hiskakis, M. End-of-waste life: Inventory of alternative end-of-use recirculation routes of bio-based plastics in the European Union context. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 49, 1835–1892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Belioka, M.P.; Achilias, D. Sustainable management and valorization of microplastics. In From Waste to Wealth; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 1285–1312. [Google Scholar]
  60. Minunno, R.; O’GRady, T.; Morrison, G.M.; Gruner, R.L. Exploring environmental benefits of reuse and recycle practices: A circular economy case study of a modular building. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 160, 104855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bucknall, D.G. Plastics as a materials system in a circular economy. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 2020, 378, 20190268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hahladakis, J.N.; Iacovidou, E.; Gerassimidou, S. Plastic waste in a circular economy. In Environmental Materials and Waste; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; pp. 99–134. [Google Scholar]
  63. Kamal, M.A.; Moussa, R.R.; Guirguis, M.N. Recycled plastic as an aggregate in concrete. Civ. Eng. Archit. 2021, 9, 1289–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Del Rey Castillo, E.; Almesfer, N.; Saggi, O.; Ingham, J.M. Light-weight concrete with artificial aggregate manufactured from plastic waste. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 265, 120199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ahmed, N. Utilizing plastic waste in the building and construction industry: A pathway towards the circular economy. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 383, 131311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mahrous, R.; Giancola, E.; Osman, A.; Asawa, T.; Mahmoud, H. Alternative to PCM: Recycling Plastic Waste for Affordable Thermal Insulation in Building Envelopes: An Experimental Analysis. Future Cities Environ. 2024, 10, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Tul Muntaha, S.; Keitsch, M. A pathway for plastic waste in construction materials. Sustain. Dev. 2025, 33, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sangal, G.S. Study the effect of plastic waste on strength of concrete. Int. J. Adv. Res. Dev. 2018, 3, 36–39. [Google Scholar]
  69. Thiam, M.; Fall, M. Engineering properties of a building material with melted plastic waste as the only binder. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 102684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Cirino, E.; Curtis, S.; Wallis, J.; Thys, T.; Brown, J.; Rolsky, C.; Erdle, L.M. Assessing benefits and risks of incorporating plastic waste in construction materials. Front. Built Environ. 2023, 9, 1206474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sultana, N.; Bari, F.S.; Asaduzzaman, M.; Anand, J.C. Strategic policy implications for plastic pollution and the circular economy for developed and developing countries: Insights from a SWOT analysis. In Circular Plastics Economy; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2026; pp. 367–391. [Google Scholar]
  72. Payne, J.; McKeown, P.; Jones, M.D. A circular economy approach to plastic waste. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2019, 165, 170–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Almohana, A.I.; Abdulwahid, M.Y.; Galobardes, I.; Mushtaq, J.; Almojil, S.F. Producing sustainable concrete with plastic waste: A review. Environ. Chall. 2022, 9, 100626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kamaruddin, M.A.; Abdullah, M.M.A.; Zawawi, M.H.; Zainol, M.R.R.A. Potential use of plastic waste as construction materials: Recent progress and future prospect. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  75. Saikia, N.; De Brito, J. Use of plastic waste as aggregate in cement mortar and concrete preparation: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 34, 385–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Belmokaddem, M.; Mahi, A.; Senhadji, Y.; Pekmezci, B.Y. Mechanical and physical properties and morphology of concrete containing plastic waste as aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 257, 119559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Acuña-Pizano, H.; González-Trevizo, M.; Luna-León, A.; Martínez-Torres, K.; Fernández-Melchor, F. Plastic composites as sustainable building materials: A thermal and mechanical exploration. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 344, 128083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Haq, M.Z.U.; Sharma, V.; Sood, H.; Kumar, R.; Joshi, K.; Manisha, K.; Lakhanpal, S.; Chary, M.R.; Kumar, K. Geopolymerization of Plastic Waste for Sustainable Construction: Unveiling Novel Opportunities in Building Materials. In E3S Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  79. Rahat, M.H.H.; Massarra, D.C.; Wang, D. Using plastic wastes in construction: Opportunities and challenges. EPiC Ser. Built Environ. 2022, 3, 785–794. [Google Scholar]
  80. Bahij, S.; Omary, S.; Feugeas, F.; Faqiri, A. Fresh and hardened properties of concrete containing different forms of plastic waste–A review. Waste Manag. 2020, 113, 157–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Aciu, C.; Ilutiu-Varvara, D.-A.; Manea, D.-L.; Orban, Y.-A.; Babota, F. Recycling of plastic waste materials in the composition of ecological mortars. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 22, 274–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Yadav, A.; Chandra, A.; Singh, S. Study on application of waste plastic in the construction industry. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 64, 1455–1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Poonyakan, A.; Rachakornkij, M.; Wecharatana, M.; Smittakorn, W. Potential use of plastic wastes for low thermal conductivity concrete. Materials 2018, 11, 1938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Haque, M.S.; Islam, S. Effectiveness of waste plastic bottles as construction material in Rohingya displacement camps. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2021, 3, 100110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Haque, M.S. Sustainable use of plastic brick from waste PET plastic bottle as building block in Rohingya refugee camp: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 36163–36183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ruiz-Herrero, J.L.; Nieto, D.V.; López-Gil, A.; Arranz, A.; Fernández, A.; Lorenzana, A.; Merino, S.; De Saja, J.A.; Rodríguez-Pérez, M.Á. Mechanical and thermal performance of concrete and mortar cellular materials containing plastic waste. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 104, 298–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Daftardar, A.; Shah, R.; Gandhi, P.; Garg, H. Use of waste plastic as a construction material. Int. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2017, 4, 257322. [Google Scholar]
  88. Mak, S.-L.; Wu, T.M.Y.; Tang, F.W.F.; Li, J.C.H.; Lai, C.W. A review on utilization of plastic wastes in making construction bricks. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  89. Islam, A.B.M.S.; Kutti, W.A.; Nasir, M.; Kazmi, Z.A.; Sodangi, M. Potential use of local waste scoria as an aggregate and SWOT analysis for constructing structural lightweight concrete. Adv. Mater. Res. Int. J. 2022, 11, 147–164. [Google Scholar]
  90. Goli, V.S.N.S.; Mohammad, A.; Singh, D.N. Application of municipal plastic waste as a manmade neo-construction material: Issues & wayforward. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 161, 105008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Anum, I.; Job, O. Waste to wealth in building materials development: A review of plastic waste in concrete. Arid Zone J. Eng. Technol. Environ. 2021, 17, 173–184. [Google Scholar]
  92. Haq, M.Z.U.; Sood, H.; Kumar, R.; Sharma, V.; Kumar, A.; Srinivas, T.; Gulati, M.; Bindu, K.H.; Kumar, K. Eco-Friendly Building Material Innovation: Geopolymer Bricks from Repurposed Plastic Waste. In E3S Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  93. Tang, K.H.D. Valorization of plastic waste through incorporation into construction materials. Civ. Sustain. Urban Eng. 2022, 2, 96–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Corinaldesi, V.; Donnini, J.; Nardinocchi, A. Lightweight plasters containing plastic waste for sustainable and energy-efficient building. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 94, 337–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kortsen, K.; Kilbride, S.; Lowe, S.R.; Peirce, A.; Shaver, M.P. A plastics hierarchy of fates: Sustainable choices for a circular future. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2303.14664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Chowdhury, S.; Maniar, A.T.; Suganya, O. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) waste as building solution. Int. J. Chem. Environ. Biol. Sci. 2013, 1, 308–312. [Google Scholar]
  97. Gayake, S.B.; Desai, A.K. Multi-criteria decision making tool for sustainable concrete production using waste polyethylene terephthalate bottle cap aggregates. Smart Constr. Sustain. Cities 2024, 2, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Zulkernain, N.H.; Gani, P.; Chuan, N.C.; Uvarajan, T. Utilisation of plastic waste as aggregate in construction materials: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 296, 123669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Gholap, A.B.; Shah, S.; Deshpande, R.S.; Yadav, R.S. Multi-criteria decision making using TOPSIS for sustainable paver block selection: A case study of recycled plastic compositions. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2025, 10, 438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Almeshal, I.; Tayeh, B.A.; Alyousef, R.; Alabduljabbar, H.; Mohamed, A.M. Eco-friendly concrete containing recycled plastic as partial replacement for sand. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2020, 9, 4631–4643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Agyeman, S.; Obeng-Ahenkora, N.; Assiamah, S.; Twumasi, G. Exploiting recycled plastic waste as an alternative binder for paving blocks production. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2019, 11, e00246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Yue, S.; Wang, P.; Yu, B.; Zhang, T.; Zhao, Z.; Li, Y.; Zhan, S. From plastic waste to treasure: Selective upcycling through catalytic technologies. Adv. Energy Mater. 2023, 13, 2302008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Siksnelyte-Butkiene, I.; Streimikiene, D.; Balezentis, T.; Skulskis, V. A systematic literature review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for sustainable selection of insulation materials in buildings. Sustainability 2021, 13, 737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Malbila, E.; Koungwe, A.G.L.; Toguyeni, D.Y. Multicriteria analysis of the components of ecological paving stones made from plastic and glass waste, and granular reinforcements. Open Ceram. 2024, 18, 100604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Sindhwani, K.; Gupta, P.; Kumar, A.; Srivastava, R. Evaluation of Plastic Waste Management Methods Using Multi Criteria Decision Making Tool–AHP. Adv. Prod. Ind. Eng. 2022, 27, 453–461. [Google Scholar]
  106. Alam Bhuiyan, M.M.; Hammad, A. A hybrid multi-criteria decision support system for selecting the most sustainable structural material for a multistory building construction. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Goulart Coelho, L.M.; Lange, L.C.; Coelho, H.M. Multi-criteria decision making to support waste management: A critical review of current practices and methods. Waste Manag. Res. 2017, 35, 3–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Spandonidis, C.; Belioka, M.P.; Eriksson, O. Multi-criteria-based evaluation of digital carbon footprint tools from a household user perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 481, 144151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Kangas, J.; Pesonen, M.; Kurttila, M.; Kajanus, M. A’WOT: Integrating the AHP with SWOT analysis. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISAHP; ISAHP: Bern, Switzerland, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  110. Shiri, N.D.; Kajava, P.V.; Ranjan, H.V.; Pais, N.L.; Naik, V.M. Processing of waste plastics into building materials using a plastic extruder and compression testing of plastic bricks. J. Mech. Eng. Autom. 2015, 5, 39–42. [Google Scholar]
  111. Ben Ali, M.; Rauch, E. Sustainable Mobility Transition: A SWOT-AHP Analysis of the Case Study of Italy. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Helms, M.M.; Nixon, J. Exploring SWOT analysis—Where are we now?: A review of academic research from the last decade. J. Strategy Manag. 2010, 3, 215–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Gürel, E.; Tat, M. SWOT analysis: A theoretical review. J. Int. Soc. Res. 2017, 10, 994–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Schettini, E.; Vox, G.; Blanco, I. SWOT analysis and land management of plastic wastes in agriculture. In Proceedings of the 43rd International Symposium on Agricultural Mechanization, Opatija, Croatia, 24–27 February 2015. [Google Scholar]
  115. Thuyen, T.T.N. AHP-SWOT analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of implementing green innovation. Thail. World Econ. 2023, 41, 66–87. [Google Scholar]
  116. Ławińska, O.; Korombel, A.; Zajemska, M. Pyrolysis-based municipal solid waste management in Poland—SWOT analysis. Energies 2022, 15, 510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Kajanus, M.; Leskinen, P.; Kurttila, M.; Kangas, J. Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analysis—Lessons learnt in strategic natural resources management. For. Policy Econ. 2012, 20, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Cappiello, G.; Aversa, C.; Genovesi, A.; Barletta, M. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of bio-based packaging solutions for extended shelf-life (ESL) milk. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 18617–18628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Polymers 18 01176 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA literature review methodology.
Figure 1. PRISMA literature review methodology.
Polymers 18 01176 g001
Polymers 18 01176 g002
Figure 2. SWOT analysis for reusing plastic waste as a building material in the construction sector.
Figure 2. SWOT analysis for reusing plastic waste as a building material in the construction sector.
Polymers 18 01176 g002
Polymers 18 01176 g003
Figure 3. Phase 1 (Evidence and sustainability indicators), Phase 2 (context and feasibility assessment), and Phase 3 (decision modeling, implementation and outputs).
Figure 3. Phase 1 (Evidence and sustainability indicators), Phase 2 (context and feasibility assessment), and Phase 3 (decision modeling, implementation and outputs).
Polymers 18 01176 g003
Table 1. Alignment between construction application types and dominant sustainability evaluation criteria in MCDA-based studies.
Table 1. Alignment between construction application types and dominant sustainability evaluation criteria in MCDA-based studies.
Application TypeEnvironmental CriteriaEconomic CriteriaTechnical CriteriaSocial/RegulatorySources
Structural
Applications		GHG emissions, embodied energy,
resource
efficiency		Lifecycle cost, maintenance costMechanical strength, durability, creep, fire resistanceCode
compliance, safety,
liability		[3,8,22,30,38,74,75,76,77,78]
Non-Structural ElementsWaste diversion, material circularity, emissionsMaterial cost, manufacturing costAdequate strength,
dimensional
stability		Market
acceptance,
aesthetics		[8,14,28,30,36,52,79,80,81]
Insulation and LightweightThermal performance, operational energy savingsInstallation cost,
energy cost savings		Thermal conductivity, moisture resistanceFire safety,
indoor air quality		[8,20,32,56,77,82,83,84,85,86,87]
Composite and Hybrid
Systems		Multi-material impacts,
recyclability		Processing complexity, scalabilityInterfacial
bonding,
durability		Standardization,
end-of-life management		[5,7,8,14,23,88,89,90,91,92]
Table 2. Overview of key plastic and bioplastic waste materials: properties, performance limitations, and barriers to reintroduction in construction applications.
Table 2. Overview of key plastic and bioplastic waste materials: properties, performance limitations, and barriers to reintroduction in construction applications.
MaterialKey Properties in ConstructionPerformance
Limitations		Barriers to ReintroductionSources
Recycled PETHigh tensile strength, chemical stability, good fiber-forming abilityMoisture absorption, limited thermal resistanceContamination in post-consumer streams; quality variability; additive uncertainty[84,85,96,97,98]
Recycled HDPE/PPMoisture resistance, durability, lightweight, processableCreep under sustained load, poor fire performanceLimited structural application range; mixed waste streams reduce quality; fire code compliance challenges[63,99,100,101,102]
Recycled PVCDurability, weather resistance, wide availabilityAdditive complexity (plasticizers, stabilizers), chlorine contentRegulatory restrictions on certain additives; recycling process complexity; health concerns over VOC emissions[24,63,99,100,101]
Recycled EPS/PSExcellent thermal insulation, very low densityFlammability, poor structural contribution [63,99,100,101,102]Strict fire safety regulations; low bulk density creates logistics challenges; styrene monomer concerns[63,99,100,101,102]
PLARenewable origin, processable at low temperatures, good compatibility with natural fibersLow thermal stability, brittleness, limited long-term durability outdoorsCompeting end-of-life pathways (composting vs. recycling); limited industrial-scale construction applications; uncertain regulatory status[28,34,58]
PHA/Starch-basedFully bio-based, biodegradable, flexible formulations possibleHigh production cost, limited mechanical strength, moisture sensitivityVery limited construction-scale evidence; high cost vs. conventional alternatives; supply chain immaturity[28,34,58]
Table 4. Summary of key decision variables, MCDA recommendations, and implementation considerations by construction application type.
Table 4. Summary of key decision variables, MCDA recommendations, and implementation considerations by construction application type.
Application TypePriority MCDA CriteriaKey SWOT SignalsRecommended MCDA MethodImplementation ConsiderationsSources
StructuralFire resistance, mechanical strength, regulatory compliance, lifecycle costWeakness:fire codes; threat: liability and certification gapsAHP + TOPSIS with threshold constraints on fire/safetyMandate fire and structural testing before ranking; engage certification bodies early[105,109,111,115,117]
Non-Structural ElementsWaste diversion, cost-effectiveness, market acceptance, aestheticsStrength: flexibility in design; Opportunity: green procurementAHP or TOPSIS with economic and environmental criteria balancedPrioritize low-cost, high-recycled-content formulations; engage architects and contractors[99,105,111,115]
Insulation and LightweightThermal conductivity, GHG savings, installation cost, fire behaviorWeakness: flammability; opportunity: energy efficiency regulationsLCA–MCDA hybrid to capture operational energy savings over full lifecycleBalance thermal performance gains against fire safety compliance; target energy-efficiency schemes[48,58]
Composite and Hybrid SystemsRecyclability, processing scalability, interfacial performance, end-of-lifeWeakness: recyclability challenges; threat: market skepticism on multi-materialsPROMETHEE or ELECTRE for complex multi-attribute scenarios with qualitative criteriaEmphasize design-for-disassembly; develop clear end-of-life pathways before scaling up[12,97,107,118]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Belioka, M.-P. Sustainability-Driven Evaluation of Circular Plastic and Bioplastic Waste Reused as Building Materials Using MCDA and SWOT Analysis. Polymers 2026, 18, 1176. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym18101176

AMA Style

Belioka M-P. Sustainability-Driven Evaluation of Circular Plastic and Bioplastic Waste Reused as Building Materials Using MCDA and SWOT Analysis. Polymers. 2026; 18(10):1176. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym18101176

Chicago/Turabian Style

Belioka, Maria-Paraskevi. 2026. "Sustainability-Driven Evaluation of Circular Plastic and Bioplastic Waste Reused as Building Materials Using MCDA and SWOT Analysis" Polymers 18, no. 10: 1176. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym18101176

APA Style

Belioka, M.-P. (2026). Sustainability-Driven Evaluation of Circular Plastic and Bioplastic Waste Reused as Building Materials Using MCDA and SWOT Analysis. Polymers, 18(10), 1176. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym18101176

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop