Next Article in Journal
A Study on the Regional Evolution of the Hefei Political and Cultural New District Skyline Based on Exploratory Factor Analysis and Semantic Segmentation
Previous Article in Journal
Development of Worth Estimation and Key Target Selection Methods for Effective VE
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 14
Issue 5
10.3390/buildings14051237
buildings-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Examining the Challenges for Circular Economy Implementation in Construction and Demolition Waste Management: A Comprehensive Review Using Systematic Methods

by
Juan Antonio Ferriz-Papi
1,*,
Angela Lee
2 and
Mahmoud Alhawamdeh
1
1
Department of Sustainable Built and Natural Environments, School of Science, Engineering and Environment, University of Salford, Peel Campus, 43 Crescent, Manchester M5 4WT, UK
2
School of the Built Environment, University College of Estate Management (UK) Horizons, 60 Queens Rd, Reading RG1 4BS, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2024, 14(5), 1237; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14051237
Submission received: 19 February 2024 / Revised: 21 April 2024 / Accepted: 23 April 2024 / Published: 26 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Solid Waste Management in the Construction Sector)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The construction industry accounts for approximately one-third of the total waste generation globally. With the United Nations projecting a population increase of 2 billion within the next three decades, there is a heightened demand for building stock, generating unprecedented volumes of construction and demolition waste (CDW). To combat this, circular economy strategies are purported to help alleviate the prevailing situation. But a number of challenges are jeopardizing their implementation in the construction industry and preventing from achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals, net zero carbon and zero avoidable waste targets. This paper systematically analyzes 54 research articles, published in the past decade within major peer-reviewed English-language scholarly publications in the form of a systematic research review. In doing so, it aims to identify and classify the challenges that prevent improved CDW management by assimilating previous research results in support of a circular economy. The classification and analysis using a PESTLE model offers insights into gaps and differences between categories, as well as regions and countries. This initial step could contribute to a better understanding of these barriers, along with associated solutions, which could result in a significant reduction on the impact of construction activities, therefore facilitating the development of an effective circular economy in the sector.

1. Introduction

The enormous generation of construction and demolition waste (CDW) presents a colossal challenge to the sustainability of the construction industry, the country’s economy at large, and environmental sustainability worldwide. CDW arises from a range of activities in building and infrastructure developments in their whole life cycle, encompassing: new construction, where excess materials may go unused due to overordering, workmanship errors, or material damage in storage or transit; renovation, which involves the removal of existing building materials; demolition, the complete or partial dismantling of buildings and infrastructure; land clearance, covering site preparation activities like excavation, grading, and site preparation; and packaging, whereby construction products and components are frequently packaged in containers, crates, or pallets, along with associated packaging materials like foam, cardboard, and plastic. In the UK, the proportion of CDW was a staggering 67% of the overall waste in 2023, of which 32% was sent to landfill [1]; across the EU, 37.5% of the total generated CDW was sent to landfill in 2020 [2]; in China alone, this was 30-billion tons, according to statistics in 2020 [3], and in the USA, the volume was over 600-million tons in 2018 [4].
The growth of CDW presents a significant challenge to the sustainability of the construction industry. At the project level, CDW impacts the profitability and productivity of the project considerably. From a national perspective, CDW has the potential to cause environmental problems nationally and even globally, in addition to the financial burden imposed on governments resulting from the need to address CDW and its associated problems.
Setting aside the diminishing landfill and financial losses associated with CDW, the environmental impacts are monumental. CDW not only contributes heavily to land use due to large volumes of waste, but it can also contaminate both soil and groundwater: runoff impacts water pollution (particularly leachate, a liquid containing pollutants such as heavy metals, organic compounds, and hazardous substances), and even air pollution in terms of VOCs (volatile organic compounds); local ecosystems and habitats are disrupted affecting biodiversity, leading to changes in the behaviour and distribution of wildlife that can adversely impact natural ecological balances of fauna, all of which can lead to a diverse range of human health concerns [5].
As an economic model and approach to resource management, the circular economy concept is designed to minimize waste, promote sustainability, and maximize the use of resources. Products, materials, and resources are reused, refurbished, remanufactured, and recycled to extend their lifespan [6]. By transitioning to a circular economy, societies aim to create a more sustainable and regenerative economic system that benefits both the environment and the economy.
To address this growing concern in the construction industry and adhere to the paradigms of circular economy, various solutions have been developed to address waste minimization that span all stages of the project’s whole life cycle. For instance, on-site waste collection, reusing, and recycling are commonly practiced in many developed countries [7,8]; low-waste technologies (LWT) have been introduced to optimize resource consumption [9,10]; the use of legislation (such as landfill disposal charges, illegal dumping penalties, etc.) has been deployed in varying degrees; and waste management strategies and associated reward schemes have been implemented. But despite the various CDW management approaches, the aforementioned statistics of CDW disposal show that the industry is far from reaching a closed-loop circular economy. The analysis of existing barriers is, therefore, paramount if we want to overcome these challenges and achieve zero waste targets in the sector.
Numerous publications identifying barriers have been made around the world, showing very common patterns and challenges but, at the same time, evidencing important differences in the appreciation of barriers for the circular economy in the construction industry. These differences depend on a number of factors and variables that are changing subject to the case study analyzed and geographic location. Analysis made in the different research developed can, therefore, only be considered from a local perspective. As challenges are not the same for every country, neither are the solutions. This systematic review paper aims to delineate the barriers that prevent the implementation of a circular economy in the construction industry and identify research trends and gaps for future development, also in different parts of the world. Understanding these challenges can help to determine appropriate solutions for the implementation of circular economy in the construction project’s life cycle and, specifically, in CDW management. This review analysis categorizes these challenges according to the PESTLE model (political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental), analyzing them more in depth to understand current trends and ultimate consequences on different factors such as country development, traditional methods of construction, culture, access to technology, etc., so that adequate solutions can be initially drawn. As a starting point, this review paper can help define strategies at the regional or country level for circular economy implementation in the construction industry.

2. Methodology

A systematic literature review method is considered an objective and replicable methodological tool for examining existing studies on a subject to identify areas that require further research [11]. It is a rigorous and well-defined process used in academic, scientific, and professional settings to provide a thorough overview of the existing literature and to draw meaningful conclusions based on the available evidence. It requires equivalent standards of rigour as primary research by using explicit and transparent methods for research. The PRISMA 2020 statement [12] was followed in this study with this purpose. A simplified diagram of steps followed by this method is shown in Figure 1.
Focusing on the aim of this research, the studies included should focus on primary research developed about the identification and analysis of circular economy implementation barriers in the sector and in different parts of the world. The findings of the present study will be obtained through the synthesis and iterative analysis of the selected studies to develop overarching theories and strategies.
A transparent and objective research-synthesis approach was employed to minimize bias, which encompassed both quantitative and qualitative studies. Two prominent citation-index databases were utilized as the information sources, namely ScienceDirect and Scopus. According to the eligible criteria previously agreed to by the authors, searches were conducted using the terms “construction waste management” and “construction demolition waste management” (CDW), combined with “challenges”, “barriers”, “constraints”, “limitations”, and “problems”, specifically targeting papers where these terms appeared in the title, abstract, and/or keywords. There was no geographical restriction on the studies, but the selection was limited to articles written in the English language. This generated a total of 710 papers up to January 2023.
To refine the scope and concentrate closely on the barriers related to CDW, the search criteria were revised to include papers with keywords published within the past decade from January 2013 to December 2022. As a result, the number of papers was reduced to 174. Subsequently, the titles and abstracts were screened manually to exclude review papers, ensuring alignment with the specified timeframe and geographic relevance for our meta-data analysis. This process yielded 54 papers that were considered suitable for inclusion in this systematic review. The methodological framework is detailed in Figure 2. It shows the study selection process to ensure reproducibility and transparency of this study.
The review of papers was completed by the three authors in different steps: independent searches in databases and with different keywords, as indicated before; discussion of inclusion and exclusion criteria; selection of included papers; and a check of study comparability by reviewing a random sample of the included and excluded papers. Finally, the full text of the remaining studies was assessed against the inclusion criteria, and any differences were discussed and a consensus was reached.
The data collection process from the selected papers included the creation of lists of challenges for comparison between the different studies, identifying similarities and differences and compiling this information in a spreadsheet with links to original studies and references. The synthesis process allowed for the grouping of this information and identification of 59 challenges, which were displayed in a list for later classification and analysis. This analysis comprised three different stages: analysis of publications per year and continent; classification and analysis of challenges according to the PESTLE model; and analysis of challenges per continent and specific countries.
To avoid any bias, this process was followed by the three authors independently and later discussed and agreed so that a consensus of results could be achieved, as well as to get a good level of confidence in the analysis made. Additionally, different checks and reviews were conducted by the authors to avoid any misleading action or decision during the process of this systematic review.

3. Findings

The regression analysis in Figure 3. shows a low-to-moderate positive correlation with an increasing trend in the number of publications available on this topic over the review period 2013–2022. Although the significance is low, the dependence between the number of published papers and time (in years) illustrates a growing research interest in the application of circular economy to construction. It is observed that the period 2020–2022 achieves the highest scores in the number of published papers. There is a substantial increase during 2021, which comprises 26% of total reviewed articles. As well, another peak is identified in 2016. A potential impact could be due to new waste targets set in previous years for carbon and waste reduction, such as the Paris Agreement in 2015 [13] and the European Waste Framework Directive targets for CDW in 2020, together with this Framework amendment in 2018 [14]. Notwithstanding, other factors, like COVID-19 pandemic confinement, could have impacted the increase in the production and publication of research papers during that specific period as well.
Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean an overall growing concern and implementation in the construction industry globally in improved CDW management. Figure 4 shows the distribution of reviewed articles per continent. It is notably shown that Europe (44%) and Asia (36%) are the origin continents of the vast majority of the reviewed publications. In the case of Europe, significant developments have happened during this period in the regulatory framework and targets, such as the minimum 70% CDW recovery target by 2020, the updating of the Waste Framework Directive [14], and other recent regulations and standards on waste implemented in the past few years. This is to highlight the new European Circular Economy Action Plan in 2020 [15] and other zero waste strategies and targets arising in different countries (e.g., Netherlands 2016 [16]; UK 2020 [17]). The UK has the biggest number of articles reviewed in this group (8).
Regarding Asia, China is the country with the biggest number of reviewed articles in this paper (10), reaching 50% of the total number in Asia. Specifically, China’s latest 14th Five-Year Plan (2021–2025) for its construction industry aims to drive a greener, smarter, and safer approach. Hence, this could account for the growing number of research in this area. The plan mandates that the construction industry in the country needs to greatly modernize its industrial chain; form the preliminary stages of green and low-carbon production modes; see more widespread application of information technologies; and steadily improve its quality of buildings. Notably, it sets targets of at least 30% of new buildings that should be constructed using off-site construction techniques by 2025, and this needs to reach 100% by 2035. The plan also intends to reduce new construction waste generation to 300 tons per 10,000 built m2 [18]. On the other hand, no paper was classified in this study from relevant countries like India and Japan. Despite that, these countries have an important impact in the Asian economy and very different realities. Therefore, it would be worth considering them for further research in other later studies.
Surprisingly, North America does not show big research contributions to this field despite initiatives such as the “sustainable management of construction and demolition materials” by the United States’ Environmental Protection Agency [19]. In contrast, Oceania contributes a substantial number of publications considering the size of the continent. On the other hand, Africa (6%) and South America (0%) have the lowest number of reviewed articles. Further research should be considered to be conducted for these underrepresented continents and countries.

3.1. PESTLE Analysis Classification

A total of 339 references to challenges were identified in the 54 papers reviewed. They were grouped in 59 challenges and classified using the PESTLE framework (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and Environmental) as a means to structure the discussion. To note, political and legal challenges were combined together for clarity and ease of analysis (see Table 1). The challenges were ranked based on the number of articles where they were identified, both within each PESTLE category and overall, and a frequency was calculated.
The partial summation of frequencies per category indicates that technological challenges are the most frequently mentioned ones, comprising almost one-third (32.94%) of all references, while environmental challenges represent only 1.47%. This suggests a significant focus on technological aspects, but a very reduced consideration of environment aspects despite the main goal of the circular economy being environmental impact reduction. This could be due to a focus within the construction sector on the business impact of the circular economy rather than its environmental aspects. There may also be a bias in the research conducted by the scientific authors considering this interest from industry. The barriers in each category will be discussed in the following sections.
The overall ranking shows that the lack of regulation (or poor regulation development and implementation) (PL1) is the most significant challenge identified with 33.3% of reviewed papers, indicating this as a key barrier. The high costs of CDW management (EC1), which are often seen as additional costs to the project, is the second-most critical barrier with 29.6% of the papers. This increased cost is closely aligned to the third-ranked barrier: lack of strong CDW management practices (TE1). In Position 4, three other challenges can be identified: difficulties to make a business case with waste (EC2); time constraints due to CDW management (EC3); and limited/lack of awareness and education of CDW within the industry (SO1). In general, it is observed that economic challenges are better positioned in this ranking, with five challenges included in the top 10.

3.1.1. Political and Legal Challenges

An initial consideration for this category is that these challenges refer to the government regulations and administration involvement, i.e., a higher level or top-down approach. Political action has a big impact in the development of a framework for waste generation and management, setting targets and implementation of policies at macro-level. These solutions can have a big impact in industry, positive or negative, depending on the capacity of industry (the receiver and implementer of such solutions) to assume it and the resources provided from the government/administration for that purpose.
The most frequent challenge in this group, and in the whole analysis, was interrelated and centered around a lack of—or inappropriate—regulations for effective CDW management (PL1). The arguments around this challenge are at different levels of the administration involvement, highlighting the following: the lack of policy implication [21], more specifically about CDW management [24,25,29]; green public procurement [30]; waste sorting on site [28]; use of wastes in new materials [22,23]; and design out waste [7].
PL2 gathers issues about the implementation of strategies for CDW management. In many cases, they refer to immature policies for CDW management [21] with a diverse range of reasons, such as: lack of circularity framework for assessment (indicators) [30]; organizational aspects at a city/regional level [37]; inappropriate urban planning [7]; lack of framework or guidance for improvement [29,33,34]; and lack of promotion from the administration [21,25]. Linked to that, it is the lack of institutional support and collaboration, which is identified as Challenge PL3. Coordination between administrations and departments is missing in some cases [28,35], as well as among stakeholders (academic, governmental, and private sector) [21]. Administration is, therefore, identified as a catalyst for the implementation of circular economy policies, but it is not working.
There is an important reference to how regulations affect materials reuse (PL4), identifying the lack of specific standards for the reuse of materials. As a result, they must compete in the market with primary materials, which normally comply with known characteristics and quality standards. In the case of reused materials, these characteristics are uncertain, therefore making them unregulated and hindering access to markets [43], which prevents from any potential higher value use and relegates them to downgrading or landfill [32,41,42].

3.1.2. Economic Challenges

Economic challenges are related to business profitability, showing the difficulties in adapting CDW management to the traditional way of construction and the application of cost-effective solutions. It is evident that current construction methods and management theories are not bringing the expected monetary outputs due to a lack of accuracy and the increasing associated risks, the lack of effective resource management, and the inefficient, uncertain supply chain. These models do not work anymore and there is the need to transform the construction industry economy towards new circular business models, considering reuse, recycling, and remanufacturing as the core of the system.
It can be observed that the most repeated challenge in this group is regarding the high cost of CDW management (EC1). In general, it is perceived that CDW management increases costs and reduces production [23,47]. Specific operations are required for CDW management such as monitoring and supervision [46], waste segregation [50,52], transport [25,41], processing/treatment [45,50], and dumping [25]. Therefore, labour costs are increased [41,52], as well as the costs for the equipment and facilities needed [28,38] and dumping taxes/fees [25,41]. These are identified as upfront costs, posing a challenge for contractors [26,27,29,51]. Additionally, CDW management is seen as interfering with other site operations and introducing higher levels of risk and potential failure [52]. The process also extends construction time frames, identified as Challenge EC3, causing delays in projects [22,29,43,45]. In some cases, landfill taxes are considered as low (as well as penalties) (EC6). Consequently, landfilling results more cost-effective than recycling [30], and CDW is not considered as a potential resource anymore [42].
There are serious difficulties to make a business case around waste recovery (Challenge EC2). The main drawback considered is there are high investment requirements and uncertainty about profits [33]. Contractors, influenced by financial benefits [20,27,37,50,51], find the long payback periods and reduced profits unattractive for investment (Challenge EC7) [29,31]. On the other hand, small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) struggle with high levels of investment [48], the lack of regulations for reused and recycled materials (as mentioned before), and the limited demand of these products [41,50,57,58].
The lack of markets for recovery is identified as another relevant challenge (EC5) and, linked to that, the easy access to low-cost raw materials (Challenge EC8). European countries show higher concerns than any other continent (80% of articles reviewed). In addition, scaling up innovative solutions in the construction industry is identified as difficult [35,43].
The lack of financial incentives from the government (challenge EC4) hampers CDW cost-reduction efforts [29,54], recycling rates are even slower [31], and it leads to increased precarity in recovery initiatives, pushing them to the marginality of a very reduced number of case studies [42]. Adams et al. [32] remarks about the need for incentives for the consideration of end of life at the design stage. The high cost of land use is another adverse factor that prevents larger improvements in CDW treatment facilities [28].
One highlight to make is that the built asset is often considered as an artificial investment rather than a resource, leading to buildings being renovated or demolished without completing their service life [37].

3.1.3. Social Challenges

Social challenges encompass cultural aspects, behaviours, and attitudes from industry and society in general. Probably, one of the main barriers is the lack of awareness and skills in the construction industry. Added to that, it is recognized as a traditional sector, which is clearly reluctant to change. Other aspects identified associated with social challenges are, for example, a lack of collaboration between stakeholders, non-reliance on secondary products, and poor management practice with CDW.
Limited awareness and education are considered the major challenges in the sector (SO1). Adams et al. [32] points out designers, clients, and subcontractors as the stakeholders with lower circular economy awareness. Linked to that, limited public awareness and attitudes challenge (SO3) determine cultural aspects towards waste, such as the perception of waste as inevitable [25,32,54,57,60,61] and the lack of adequate education on waste recovery [34]. The low acceptability of secondary materials, associated with Challenge SO7, is influenced by the perceived low quality of recycled products [20,38,51] and the preference for virgin materials to secondary ones [24,41,50]. Oke et al. [29] specify the need to change citizen behaviours and consumption patterns.
A lack of training is identified as Challenge SO2. The lack of workforce skills [23,42,59] and limited knowledge about reuse and recycling options among technicians [47] are some of the factors involved. Difficulties for recruitment and retention (Challenge SO13), especially for micro and small companies [48], impact capabilities of performance in the field [22,43]. Some indirect consequences are wastage excess [22,59] and health and safety issues [54,56], identified as Challenges SO14 and SO15, respectively.
Conservatism and change resistance are recognized as significant challenges in the construction industry (SO4). Galvez–Martos et al. [40] indicate that CDW management can be improved with existing technology, but the industry is reluctant to change. Tirado et al. [37] perceive the construction industry as inflexible and not adaptable to changes. On the other hand, temporary relationships in the construction industry (Challenge SO12) pose difficulties for collaboration and innovation in future projects [60,61]. In other cases, it is again linked to high risk and low-profit margins, which prevent further investment [27].
Challenge SO6 is regarded as non-collaboration between stakeholders. Competitivity hinders information sharing [21] and forces the adoption of individual solutions, which do not solve the big problems. Challenge SO5 identifies a lack of interest, particularly from clients [51,62], which can impact dramatically circular considerations of the project. In some cases, CDW management is not considered as a priority (SO8). On the other hand, the role of designers is often overlooked regarding CDW management (SO10) [25,26,28,62]. There is the need for an effective and comprehensive collaboration between policymakers, government ministers, and companies [39].
Finally, poor supervision and control of CDW management is another relevant challenge (SO9). Lack of expertise [22], supervision breaches [64], or unprofessional behaviour [59] are some of the reasons identified. Gangolells et al. [47] recognize shortfalls in the management activity, which could include basic aspects such as not issuing waste management certificates, mixing segregated waste, or illegal dumping.

3.1.4. Technological Challenges

Technological challenges make reference to the availability of infrastructures, equipment, tools, and procedures for CDW management, as well as aspects regarding the implementation of advanced technology solutions in the design and standardization.
The largest identified technical challenge corresponds to the lack of application of strong CDW management practices (TE1). Shojael et al. [65] criticize the fact that current approaches address individual actions rather than continuous improvement in companies. Ayaji and Oyedele [20] indicate that the actions taken are mostly focused on intervention rather than waste prevention. Tafesse et al. [22] indicate the lack of waste measurement. Another handicap highlighted is the lack of site waste management plans [43,47,59,64].
Difficulties with waste sorting is the second relevant challenge identified (TE2). The majority of problems come from traditional construction methods, which hinder deconstruction and the proper segregation of materials [42], making waste processing on site challenging and costly [48] due to the large range of materials types and methods used [47], equipment and control required [41], and the impossibility of implementation to all waste streams as treatment is not always feasible [52], or it just being a very small fraction [58]. In some cases, waste sorting is just not practiced [25]. Packaging is identified as another specific technological challenge (TE18), demanding further sorting facilities and space. As a result, space for waste treatment becomes an obstacle to proper waste sorting on site (challenge TE11).
The characteristics of waste and difficulties with segregation also bring another challenge: the lack of uniformity and quality (TE4). This raises concerns about quality assurance with reused/recycled materials [30,52,58]. There are also concerns about the uncertainty on material availability (TE16), not having a guaranteed supply, and the need to synchronize the offer and demand so that additional costs, such as storage, can be avoided [28,30,37,41,43].
Another important challenge is the limited access to waste treatment facilities (TE3), especially in remote places. That is the case, for example, in Australia, according to Crawford et al. [43], with a very low population density in rural areas. Blaisi [21] complains about improper infrastructure for the disposal of landfills and the absence of treatment facilities. The cost of land for treatment facilities grows due to the substantial number of environmental restrictions imposed and prevents any business development on recycling [41]. Other technical challenges are identified with transportation, processing, and recovery (TE15). For example, Crawford et al. [43] highlight added problems such as bad road conditions and very few transportation options for waste.
The complexity of building designs is another challenge identified (TE5), with multiple materials and combinations, some of which are difficult to segregate [32], making projects unique and impossible to share materials from other constructions [51]. Some authors describe designers as not considering other stages of the building life cycle [26,59]. Ajayi et al. [52] state that the design becomes unrealistic when designers develop complex and irregular shapes outside standardization. Design errors and changes is another source of waste generation (TE9). This can be as a consequence of incomplete design and poor contractor understanding [60,61], discrepancies between drawings (not applying BIM-based design validation) [63], design changes during the construction stage [43], and reworking due to wrong execution [59].
Limited existing models for waste prediction and analysis is Challenge TE6. Inaccurate waste quantities are estimated for construction projects, and they only rely on national statistics [28,67,68,69]. Even further, some authors complain that waste generation is not measured/recorded [22,70]. Linked to that challenge is TE7, which identifies that data management is not properly developed. There are extensive sources of data in CDW management that make it a complex task and are disregarded by industry [69]. This causes a lack of fundamental data, especially on waste generation and disposal [21,35,44]. Torgautov et al. [51] identify the lack of materials databases for design optimization. Shojaei et al. [65] state that current methods used for data capture and maintenance are not effective. In this regard, Ajayi et al. [52] complain about data having to be inputted manually. Also, Lu et al. [71] affirm to have issues with the application and acceptance of big data and data mining in construction [71]. As a result, material and waste traceability are not correctly performed (Challenge TE8). In fact, Shojaei et al. [65] state that the construction industry is far from achieving the required level needed for the implementation of circular economy principles. Regarding digital technologies, it is also identified that BIM/digital technologies do not support CDW management (Challenge TE13) due to the incompatibility of tools with BIM [67], and that life-cycle data are not yet integrated in the different BIM maturity levels [33,72], among other reasons.

3.1.5. Environmental Challenges

Finally, environmental challenges comprise a short number of them in the articles reviewed. Contamination and safety issues are identified as Challenge EN1. Aspects included are, for example, the risk of increasing the volume of hazardous waste with recycling [40], poor management of landfill sites [43], the need for storage and sheltering of recyclables [43], and the lack of suitable space for recycling [41]. Other challenges correspond to energy consumption for recycling treatments and the selection of end-of-pipe treatments rather than waste prevention measures [52], which are Challenges EN2 and EN3, respectively.

3.2. Analysis of Challenges per Continent and Specific Countries

Figure 5 illustrates the political and legal challenges per continent. European countries are mostly represented in PL1. Looking deeper into this group, a lack of regulation is more highly identified in Asian countries [21,22,24,25,34]. A lack of landfill regulation (PL6) is also identified in publications from Saudi Arabia and China [21,28]. On the other hand, European countries experience more the issues with insufficient regulations and guidelines, ambiguity, and incomplete application [23,30,32,33,38]. The waste regulatory framework in the EU seems not to be equally applied in all member countries and regions, which makes a despair achievement of results due to the technology used and barriers to overcome in each country/region [40]. A similar situation happens in PL2 (inappropriate planning/strategies for circular economy). Asian countries face immature strategic policies for basic CDW management, including aspects such as waste collection and sorting [7,21,25,29,34]. On the other hand, European countries challengesmake reference to the development of aspects such as closed-loop construction solutions, census and data management, secondary materials markets, or Green Public Procurement [30,33,37,39].
Added to the previous analysis, Asian countries are more related to PL3 (lack of institutional support) and PL6 (unregulated landfills). On the other hand, European countries are more related to PL5 (long and slow administrative procedures) and PL8 (longevity of property and multiple ownership). Oceania is very well represented in PL4 (reuse materials to meet performance requirements) and PL9 (illegal activities and lack of enforcement).
Figure 6 shows the distribution of frequencies of economic challenges per continent. In general, it can be observed that there is a predominant number of articles from European countries in most of the challenges identified, with the highest percentages in EC8 (low cost of raw materials/high cost of recycled materials), EC5 (lack of markets for reused/recycled products), and EC10 (low value of reused/recycled products). The competition between primary and secondary materials, with a focus on quality assurance and standardization, is evident. On the other hand, Asian countries are only predominant in challenge EC7 (lack of/very low investment in recycling). Relevant presence is also identified in Challenges EC1 to EC6, as well as EC9. Oceania has an important representation as well, showing a relevant presence in challenges from EC1 to EC6.
Figure 7 shows the representation of social challenges per continent. It can be observed that there is a relevant weight of European and Asian countries, which comprise most of the articles identified. Equal representation is achieved in SO1 (limited awareness and education within industry), showing a common problem with both markets. On the other hand, Europe is predominant in SO4 (conservatism and change resistance), SO6 (non-collaboration between stakeholders), SO8 (insufficient attention to CDW management), SO11 (blame culture), and SO12 (temporary relationships). On the other hand, Asia is predominant in SO2 (lack of training and knowledge), SO3 (limited public awareness), SO5 (lack of interest from clients), SO7 (low acceptability of secondary materials), SO8 (insufficient attention to CDW), SO9 (poor supervision), and SO10 (lack of consideration during design). Asia does not have a high representation, or is not represented, in SO6, SO11, and SO12. Further analysis would be needed of the Asian market to understand the relationships between stakeholders and what considerations are taken about collaboration. It is to highlight a substantial presence of Oceania in SO1, SO2, and SO7.
According to Figure 8, there is a significant representation of European countries in the technological challenges identified. The largest number of articles from Europe are identified in challenges TE1 to TE9 and TE13. European countries are predominant in TE4 (lack of uniformity and inconsistent quality of CDW), TE5 (complexity of building design), TE7 (CDW data management not properly developed), TE8 (material waste traceability not correctly performed), TE9 (design errors and changes), TE12 (incomplete designs), TE13 (BIM/digital technologies do not currently support CDW management), TE16 (material availability and security of supply), and TE17 (fragmented supply chains). It is evident a higher concern about the use of digital technologies and data management to enhance CDW management, making reference to other stages of the project life cycle (like design and end of life) and CDW’s low quality, hampering its competition with primary materials. Asian countries, on the other side, are predominant in TE2 (difficulties with waste segregation), TE3 (limited access to waste recovery facilities), TE10 (lack of investigation and case studies), TE15 (challenges with transportation, transformation, and recovery), TE18 (packaging), and TE20 (lack of information from vendors). Equal representation is in TE1 (lack of strong CDW management practices), TE6 (existing models for waste prediction are not accurate), TE11 (limited site space), and TE14 (inappropriate standardization). Oceania achieves a relevant frequency in TE5, whereas North America is well represented in TE7 and TE10.

4. Conclusions

The need for circular economy practices in construction activity is crucial for several reasons, encompassing political, environmental, social, economic, technological, and environmental challenges. This paper reviewed 54 research articles with the aim of identifying and classifying challenges for circular economy implementation in the sector, which is essential for finding solutions to overcome these barriers. A total of 59 challenges were identified and listed according to the number of papers that included them, the top ones of which are the following:
1.
Regulation is non-existent/insufficient/inadequate/ambiguous (in 18 papers)
2.
Extra/high costs of waste management (in 16 papers)
3.
Lack of strong CDWM practice (in 14 papers)
4.
Difficulties to make a business case with waste (in 13 papers)
4.
Constraints, extra time and delays due to CDW management (in 13 papers)
4.
Limited/lack of awareness and education within industry (in 13 papers)
The 59 challenges were classified according to the PESTLE analysis model, and a summary of the key findings is as follows:
Overall, the political and legal challenges span regulatory, implementation, collaboration, and material reuse aspects. They highlight the need for comprehensive and coordinated efforts in CDW management and the development of an appropriate regulatory framework, policies, and collaborations at project and administration levels. At an administration level, these challenges require top-down solutions where political action should be taken. This can comprise, for example, influence in regulation proposition and development, industry expertise participation and contribution, and coordinated lobby actions from industry. On the other hand, at a project level, there is a need for awareness and willingness from the company direction to establish their internal policies and waste targets and bringing adequate resources for implementation and monitoring. Therefore, a wider outlook is demanded by those internal to the industry and those external (governments, occupants/users, and all citizens, as we are impacted by the built environment). This can be developed by, for example, stimulating the growth of industries related to recycling, remanufacturing, and waste management, creating new employment opportunities that foster innovation and entrepreneurship in sectors focused on sustainable practices.
The identified economic challenges underscore the need for comprehensive strategies to promote feasible business models within CDW management, i.e., sustainable CDW management practices and reused/recycled materials and products markets. More efficient and accurate CDW management solutions must be developed, reducing risks and uncertainty in the sector. It needs to be made more apparent that circular economy practices, such as reuse and recycling, can lead to cost savings by reducing the need for raw materials, lowering energy consumption with limited processing of construction components, and the support of localized/regional practices. This should include the diversification of supply chains, which can enhance resilience to external shocks and supply chain disruptions. Current procurement routes should be adapted to new markets for reused and recycled products, which will improve profitability for new business models in a more circular system. On the other hand, the perception of built assets should shift towards resource efficiency and keeping the asset value up along the life cycle. These considerations should be embraced from the early stages of the design, and with the collaboration of all stakeholders participating in the project.
The identified social challenges are dependent on many cultural aspects that involve behaviours and attitudes that resist the transformation proposed by the circular economy principles in the construction sector. Addressing these challenges requires a holistic approach that involves education, training, and collaboration at different levels, including changes in industry attitudes, as well as society awareness and practices. It is imperative to promote quality assurance procedures for reused/recycled components so that adequate information can be provided to users/customers. Additionally, technical skills should be improved for professionals, technicians, and labourers involved in the construction process regarding the performance, installation, and use of these products, as well as health and safety issues. On the other hand, companies need to overcome competition and embrace the idea of collaboration as an opportunity to increase benefits (and profit) for all parties by the creation of more stable partnerships, associations, or any other kind of more permanent collaborative structures. This is particularly important in the face of a globalized industry, considering climate-related events, geopolitical tensions, and global health crises, which all directly impact the construction industry.
The technological challenges identified are very much dependent on country development. They remark on the need for innovation in different fields of application and at different levels.
  • Waste segregation. This is a basic step towards waste recovery. The purity of the different fractions sorted will determine the quality of the material and, therefore, its final recovery at a higher or lower value use. Construction methods and waste handling will determine solutions to implement.
  • Improved CDW management practices. This comprises waste generation and management at the construction site, but also waste traceability and value chain until the final destiny. This includes the implementation of site waste management plans, including transport, handling, and treatment off-site. At this point, CDW management on site is substantially improved, as well as waste transfer facilities, treatment infrastructures, and the development of the waste-processing industry.
  • Design out waste. At this level, the design stage is integrated, having a substantial impact on waste minimization. Standardization and modular construction are essential parts at this level.
  • Whole life-cycle and value-chain strategies. Finally, the integration of all life-cycle stages in the project brings the optimization of resources and solutions for a complete circular economy in the construction industry. Data management (big data) and automated solutions bring the possibility of optimizing cost and resources, making more efficient processes and facilitating stakeholder collaboration. This involves the use of digital technologies such as IoT, visual recognition, machine learning, blockchain, etc., as well as the introduction of robotics at different levels.
Finally, environmental challenges are not sufficiently identified in the papers analyzed, comprising only 1.5% of the total number of challenges. This causes a shortfall in data in this regard and avoids a reliable analysis of this group.
Regarding the relevance of these challenges per continent, it is observed the following:
-
Asian countries are more focused on the lack of regulations and strategies, whereas European countries target further developments around existing regulations and policies to achieve improved closed loops in construction.
-
There is a predominant representation of European countries in identifying economic challenges. Challenges identified mainly refer to the difficulties of making a business case, limited investment, high risk and uncertain profit margins, and the reused/recycled products market.
-
The representation of both European and Asian countries in the number of papers reviewed is substantial. Comparing them, it can be highlighted that the focus of the challenges identified is different. While Asian countries seek further awareness, education, and skills development, European countries demand further stakeholder collaboration and avoid change resistance.
-
In this regard, Asian papers make more references to challenges in waste management and processing (sorting, transport, treatment, and recovery), whereas European countries identify other challenges more related to CDW data management and the use of digital technologies, waste traceability, design standardization, and quality assurance processes for reused/recycled products.
The construction industry must make the transition to a circular economy for a sustainable future. Understanding existing challenges will help to eliminate or reduce them, contributing to a more balanced and regenerative relationship between the built environment and the natural world. This study analyzed 54 studies and classified challenges from different continents and countries. This analysis provided general strategies that allow for the ability to work towards reducing and eliminating them in different contexts and realities. The definition of these strategies is limited and cannot be applied in any case. There are social/cultural, economic, technological, legal, and environmental factors to consider, and the development of that country in each of those factors will determine the selection of such solutions. The development and implementation of specific strategies depend on involved stakeholders in the construction asset life cycle, including investors and banks, regulators that govern technical standards, material and product suppliers, designers, contractors, waste managers, governments, and all citizens at large are deemed to be responsible agents for this change in the sector.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.A.F.-P., A.L. and M.A.; Methodology, J.A.F.-P., A.L. and M.A.; Validation, J.A.F.-P., A.L. and M.A.; Formal Analysis, J.A.F.-P.; Investigation, J.A.F.-P., A.L. and M.A.; Data Curation, J.A.F.-P.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, J.A.F.-P. and A.L.; Writing—Review and Editing, J.A.F.-P., A.L. and M.A.; Visualization, J.A.F.-P. and A.L.; Supervision, J.A.F.-P.; Project Administration, J.A.F.-P.; Funding Acquisition, J.A.F.-P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Horizon Europe (grant agreement number 101058580, 2022) and by Innovate UK as part of the UK Guarantee programme for UK Horizon Europe participation (project number 10038579).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Bailey Chapman (University of Salford, UK) and Lucie Mueller (Czech Technical University in Prague) for their contribution to the initial steps of the review process that is presented in this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Qualisflow. The UK Construction Industry Waste Report 2023; Qflow: Saint Louis, MI, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  2. European Commission. Construction and Demolition Waste. 2020. Available online: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/construction-and-demolition-waste_en (accessed on 8 April 2024).
  3. Fang, Y. Effects of Recycled Powder on Carbonation Resistance of Concrete. Fujian Archit. Constr. 2021, 281, 161–165. [Google Scholar]
  4. EPA. Construction and Demolition Debris: Material-Specific Data; US EPA: Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, 2018.
  5. Lawson, N.; Douglas, I.; Garvin, S.; McGrath, C.; Manning, D.; Vetterlein, J. Recycling construction and demolition wastes—A UK perspective. Environ. Manag. Health 2001, 12, 146–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. World Economic Forum. What Is the Circular Economy and Why Does It Matter That It Is Shrinking? 14 June 2022. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/06/what-is-the-circular-economy/ (accessed on 7 July 2023).
  7. Huang, B.W.X.; Kua, H.; Geng, Y.; Bleischwitz, R.; Ren, J. Construction and demolition waste management in China through the 3R principle. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 129, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ng, L.S.; Tan, L.W.; Seow, T.W. Constraints to 3R construction waste reduction among contractors in Penang. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 140, 012103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Velenturg, A.P.M.; Purnell, P. Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1437–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhang, X.; Wu, Y.; Shen, L. Application of low waste technologies for design and construction: A case study in Hong Kong. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 2973–2979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Levy, Y.; Ellis, T.J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Sci. J. 2006, 9, 181–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Page, M.J.; E McKenzie, J.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. UN Climate Change. The Paris Agreement. Available online: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement (accessed on 7 July 2023).
  14. European Parliament. Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 Amending Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste; European Parliament: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  15. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A New Circular Economy Action Plan for a Cleaner and More Competitive Europe; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  16. Government of the Netherlands. Circular Dutch Economy by 2050. Available online: https://www.government.nl/topics/circular-economy/circular-dutch-economy-by-2050 (accessed on 7 July 2023).
  17. Adams, K. Zero Avoidable Waste in Construction: What Do We Mean by It and How Best to Interpret It; Green Construction Board: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  18. The People’s Republic of China. The 14th Five-Year Plan (2021–2025) for National Economic and Social Development and Vision 2035 of the People’s Republic of China; Xinhua News Agency: Beijing, China, 2021.
  19. EPA. Sustainable Management of Construction and Demolition Materials; US EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 2023. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-management-construction-and-demolition-materials (accessed on 7 July 2023).
  20. SAjayi, O.; Oyedele, L.O. Policy imperatives for diverting construction waste from landfill: Experts’ recommendations for UK policy expansion. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 147, 57–65. [Google Scholar]
  21. Blaisi, N.I. Construction and demolition waste management in Saudi Arabia: Current practices and roadmap for sustainable management. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 221, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tafesse, S.; Girma, Y.E.; Dessalegn, E. Analysis of the socio-economic and environmental impacts of construction waste and management practices. Heliyon 2022, 26, e09169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Sáez, P.V.; de Guzmán Báez, A.; Navarro, J.G.; del Río Merino, M. Redefining construction and demolition waste management systems: Best practices on civil engineering works. Balt. J. Road Bridge Eng. 2014, 9, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Nguyen, V.T.; Kien, T.T.; Dang, H.; Nga, T.; Nguyen, G.H.; Nguyen, D.T.; Isobe, Y.; Ishigaki, T.K.K. Current status of construction and demolition waste management in Vietnam: Challenges and opportunities. Int. J. GEOMATE 2018, 15, 23–29. [Google Scholar]
  25. Nasir, S.R.M.; Othman, N.; Isa, C.M.M.; Ibrahim, C.K.I.C. The challenges of construction waste management in Kuala Lumpur. J. Teknol. 2016, 78, 115–119. [Google Scholar]
  26. Shooshtarian, S.; Hosseini, M.; Kocaturk, T.; Arnel, T.; Garofano, N.T. Circular economy in the Australian AEC industry: Investigation of barriers and enablers. Build. Res. Inf. 2022, 51, 56–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Guerra, B.C.; Leite, F. Circular economy in the construction industry: An overview of United States stakeholders’ awareness, major challenges, and enablers. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 170, 105617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ma, M.; Tam, V.W.; Le, K.N.; Li, W. Challenges in current construction and demolition waste recycling: A China study. Waste Manag. 2020, 118, 610–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Oke, A.; Aigbavboa, C.; Aghimien, D.; Currie, N. Construction professionals perception of solid waste management in the South African construction industry. In Advances in Human Factors, Sustainable Urban Plannign and Infrastructure; Springer International: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  30. Castell-Rüdenhausen, M.Z.; Wahlström, M.; Astrup, T.F.; Jensen, C.; Oberender, A.; Johanson, P.; Waerner, E.R. Policies as drivers for circular economy in the construction sector in the Nordics. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Oluleye, B.L.; Chan, D.W.; Saka, A.B.; Olawumi, T.O. Circular economy research on building construction and demolition waste: A review of current trends and future research directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 294, 131927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Adams, K.; Osmani, M.; Thorpe, A.; Thornback, J. Circular economy in construction: Current awareness, challenges and enablers. Waste Resour. Manag. 2017, 170, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Giorgi, S.; Lavagna, M.; Wang, K.; Osmani, M.; Liu, G.; Campioli, A. Drivers and barriers towards circular economy in the building sector: Stakeholder interviews and analysis of five European countries policies and practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 336, 130395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liu, J.; Wu, P.; Jiang, Y.; Wang, X. Explore potential barriers of applying circular economy in construction and demolition waste recycling. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 326, 129400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yuan, H. Barriers and countermeasures for managing construction and demolition waste: A case of Shenshen in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 157, 84–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ajayi, S.O.; Oyedele, L.O.; Bilal, M.; Akinade, O.O.; Alaka, H.A.; Owolabi, H.A. Critical management practices influencing on-site waste minimisation in construction projects. Waste Manag. 2017, 59, 330–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Tirado, R.; Aublet, A.; Laurenceau, S.; Habert, G. Challenges and opportunities for circular economy promotion in the building sector. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bao, Z.; Lu, W. Developing efficient circularity for construction and demolition waste management in fast emerging economies: Lessons learned from Shenzhen, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 724, 138264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Ghaffar, S.H.; Burman, M.; Braimah, N. Pathways to circular construction: An integrated management of construction and demolition waste for resource recovery. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 244, 118710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gálvez-Martos, J.-L.; Styles, D.; Schoenberger, H.; Zeschmar-Lahl, B. Construction and demolition waste best management practices in Europe. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 136, 166–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Shooshtarian, S.; Caldera, S.; Maqsood, T.; Ryley, T.; Khalfan, M. An investigation into challenges and opportunities in the Australian construction and demolition waste management system. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2022, 29, 4313–4330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ding, Z.; Yi, G.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Huang, T. A system dynamics-based environmental performance simulation of construction waste reduction management in China. Waste Manag. 2022, 51, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Crawford, R.H.; Mathur, D.; Gerritsen, R. Barriers to improvind the environmetnal performance of construction waste management in remote communities. Procedia Eng. 2017, 196, 830–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Negash, Y.T.; Hassan, A.M.; Tseng, M.-L.; Wu, K.-J.; Ali, M.H. Sustainable Construction and Demolition Waste Maangement in Somaliland: Regulatory barriers lead to technical and environmental barriers. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 297, 126717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. 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]
  46. Sáez, P.V.; del Río Merino, M.; González, A.S.-A.; Porras-Amores, C. Best practice measures assessment for construction and demolition waste management in buildng constructions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2013, 75, 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gangolells, M.; Casals, M.; Forcada, N.; Macarulla, M. Analysis of the implementation of effective waste management practices in construction projects and sites. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 93, 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ramos, M.; Martinho, G. Influence of construction company size on the determining factors for construction and demolition waste management. Waste Manag. 2021, 136, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Luscurere, L. Materials passports: Optimising value recovery from materials. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Waste Resour. Manag. 2017, 170, 25–28. [Google Scholar]
  50. Wang, G.; Krywda, D.; Kondrashev, S.; Vorona-Slivinskaya, L. Recycling and upcycling in the practice of waste management of construction giants. Sustainability 2021, 13, 640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Torgautov, B.; Zhanabayev, A.; Tleuken, A.; Turkyilmaz, A.; Mustafa, M.K.F. Circular Economy: Challenges and opportunities in the construction sector of Kazakhstan. Buildings 2021, 11, 501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ajayi, S.O.; Oyedele, L.O.; Bilal, M.; Akinade, O.O.; Alaka, H.A.; Owolabi, H.A.; Kadiri, K.O. Waste effectiveness of the construction industry: Understanding the impediments and requisites for improvements. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 102, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Guerra, B.C.; Shahi, S.; Mollaei, A.; Skaf, N.; Weber, O.; Leite, F.H.C. Circular economy applications in the construction industry: A global scan of trends and opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 324, 129125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Alhawamdeh, M.; Lee, A. A behavioural framework for construction waste minimization: The case of Jordan. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. 2021, 17, 9–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Umar, U.A.; Shafiq, N.; Ahmad, F.A. A case study on the effective implementation of the reuse and recycling of construction and demolition waste management practices in Malaysia. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2020, 12, 283–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Low, J.K.; Wallis, S.L.; Hernández, G.; Cerqueira, I.S.; Steinhorn, G.; Berry, T.-A. Encouraging circular waste economies for the New Zealand construction industry: Opportunities and barriers. Front. Sustain. Cities 2020, 2, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cristiano, S.; Ghisellini, P.; D’Ambrosio, G.; Xue, J.; Nestico, A.; Gonella, F.; Ulgiati, S. Construction and demolition waste in the metropolitan city of Naples, Italy: State of the art, circular design, and sustainable planning opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 125856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. 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]
  59. Hasan, M.R.; Sagar, M.S.I.; Ray, B.C. Barriers to improving construction and demolition waste management in Bangladesh. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2022, 23, 2333–2347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pellegrini, L.; Campi, S.; Locatelli, M.; Pattini, G.; Di Guida, G.M.; Tagliabue, L.C. Digital transition and waste management in Architecture, Enginnering, Construction and Operations Industry. Front. Energy Res. 2020, 8, 576462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ajayi, S.O.; Oyedele, L.O.; Akinade, O.O.; Bilal, M.; Owolabi, H.A.; Alaka, H.A.; Kadiri, K.O. Reducing waste to landfill: A need for cultural change in the UK construction industry. J. Build. Eng. 2016, 5, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Li, J.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Zuo, J.; Zhu, J. Designers’ attitude and behaviour towards construction waste minimisation by design: A sutdy in Shenzhen, China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 105, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Won, J.; Cheng, J.C.; Lee, G. Quantification of construction waste prevented by BIM-based design validation: Case studies in South Korea. Waste Manag. 2016, 49, 170–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Rahmat, A.S.; Noor, H.R.N.R.M.; Endut, I.R.; Ridzuan, R.A.M. The practice of construction waste management in Pulau Pinang. AIP Conf. Proc. 2016, 1774, 030018. [Google Scholar]
  65. Shojaei, A.; Ketabl, R.; Razkenari, M.; Hakim, H.; Wang, J. Enabling a circular economy in the built environment sector through blockchain technology. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 312, 126352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bernardo, M.; Gomes, M.C.; de Brito, J. Demolition waste generation for development of a regional management chain model. Waste Manag. 2015, 49, 156–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Akinade, O.O.; Oyedele, L.O. Integrating construction supply chains within a circular economy: An ANFIS-based waste analytics system (A-WAS). J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 229, 863–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Cheng, J.C.P.; Ma, L.Y.H. A BIM-based system for demolition and renovation waste estimation and planning. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 1539–1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Guerra, B.C.; Backchan, A.; Leite, F.; Faust, K.M. BIM-based automated construction waste estimation algorithms: The case of concrete and drywall waste streams. Waste Manag. 2019, 15, 825–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Raja Mohd Noor, R.N.H.; Ridzuan, A.R.M.; Endut, I.R.; Noordin, B.; Shehu, Z.; Ghani, A.H.A. The quantification of local construction waste for the current construction waste management practices: A case study in Klang Valley. In Proceedings of the IEEE Business Engineering and Industrial Appplications Colloquium (BEIAC), Langkawi, Malaysia, 7–9 April 2013; pp. 183–188. [Google Scholar]
  71. Lu, W.; Wenster, C.J.; Peng, Y.; Chen, X.; Chen, K. Big data in construction waste management: Prospects and challenges. Detritus 2018, 4, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Palumbo, E.; Soust-Verdaguer, B.; Llatas, C.; Traverso, M. How to obtain accurate environmental impacts at early design stages in BIM when using environmental product declaration. A method to support decision-making. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 14 01237 g001
Figure 1. Methodological steps followed for a systematic review according to PRISMA 2020 checklist [12].
Figure 1. Methodological steps followed for a systematic review according to PRISMA 2020 checklist [12].
Buildings 14 01237 g001
Buildings 14 01237 g002
Figure 2. Methodological framework of the study, assembling PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for systematic reviews.
Figure 2. Methodological framework of the study, assembling PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for systematic reviews.
Buildings 14 01237 g002
Buildings 14 01237 g003
Figure 3. Distribution of reviewed articles per year of publication, from 2013 to 2022.
Figure 3. Distribution of reviewed articles per year of publication, from 2013 to 2022.
Buildings 14 01237 g003
Buildings 14 01237 g004
Figure 4. Distribution of reviewed articles per continent.
Figure 4. Distribution of reviewed articles per continent.
Buildings 14 01237 g004
Buildings 14 01237 g005
Figure 5. Political and legal-challenge representation per continent.
Figure 5. Political and legal-challenge representation per continent.
Buildings 14 01237 g005
Buildings 14 01237 g006
Figure 6. Economic challenges representation per continent.
Figure 6. Economic challenges representation per continent.
Buildings 14 01237 g006
Buildings 14 01237 g007
Figure 7. Social challenges representation per continent.
Figure 7. Social challenges representation per continent.
Buildings 14 01237 g007
Buildings 14 01237 g008
Figure 8. Technological challenges representation per continent.
Figure 8. Technological challenges representation per continent.
Buildings 14 01237 g008
Table 1. Classification of challenges according to PESTLE analysis.
Table 1. Classification of challenges according to PESTLE analysis.
Political/Legal
CodeChallengeArticlesFrequencyCategory RankingOverall Ranking
PL1Regulation is non-existent/insufficient/inadequate/ambiguous[7,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36]1811
PL2Inappropriate planning/strategies for CE[7,21,25,29,30,33,34,37,38,39]1029
PL3Lack of institutional support, coordination, and collaboration[21,28,35,40,41]5326
PL4Reused materials need to meet performance requirements[41,42,43,44,45]5326
PL5Administrative procedures are long and slow[46,47]2541
PL6Landfills are unregulated/not sustainably managed[21,28]2542
PL7Complicated contracting system and responsibilities[25,48]2542
PL8Longevity of property service life and multiple ownership[49]1854
PL9Illegal activities and lack of enforcement[41]1854
Total47
Economic
CodeChallengeArticlesFrequencyCategory RankingOverall Ranking
EC1Extra/high costs of waste management[22,23,25,26,27,28,29,30,38,41,45,46,47,50,51,52]1612
EC2Difficulties to make a business case with waste[20,27,31,32,33,35,37,43,48,50,51,53,54]1324
EC3Time constraints, extra time, and delays due to CDWM[22,26,27,29,30,41,43,44,45,51,52,54,55]1324
EC4Inadequate/lack of incentives[21,26,28,29,31,32,34,42,54,56,57]1147
EC5Lack of markets for reused/recycled products[7,25,32,33,41,43,50,57,58]1059
EC6Low cost of landfilling/low penalties[7,23,29,30,41,42,47,54,57]9513
EC7Very low/lack of investment for recycling[25,29,31,35,50]6721
EC8Low cost of raw materials/high cost of recycled materials[20,23,30,31,41]5826
EC9Budget constraints[29,47,50,54]5826
EC10Low value of reused/recycled materials [32,41]21042
EC11Building lifespan not the same as the developer’s business plan[27]11154
Total88
Social
CodeChallengeArticlesFrequencyCategory RankingOverall Ranking
SO1Limited/lack of awareness and education within industry[21,23,25,26,27,29,32,42,46,47,54,56,59]1314
SO2Limited/lack of training and knowledge[7,25,26,27,29,32,47,48,54,56,59]1127
SO3Limited public awareness and attitudes[24,25,29,32,34,41,54,57,60,61]1039
SO4Conservatism/change resistance from traditional practice[25,27,29,37,40,48,54,60,61]9413
SO5Lack of interest from clients[23,32,47,50,51,54,62]8517
SO6Non-collaboration between stakeholders[21,26,39,60,61,63]6621
SO7Low acceptability of secondary materials[20,38,41,42,51]5726
SO8Insufficient attention to CDWM/other priorities[35,47,49,52,59]5726
SO9Poor/lack of supervision/management of waste[22,47,54,59,64]5726
SO10Lack of consideration during design[25,26,28,62]41034
SO11Blame culture. Shifting waste prevention responsibilities[60,61]21142
SO12Temporary relationship among parties[60,61]21142
SO13Personnel recruitment and retention[22,43]21142
SO14Excess of material wastage [22,59]21142
SO15Health and safety issues[54,56]21142
SO16Theft and damage[43,59]21142
Total87
Technological
CodeChallengeArticlesFrequencyCategory RankingOverall Ranking
TE1Lack of strong CDWM practice[7,20,22,23,25,36,43,44,47,51,59,64,65]1413
TE2Difficulties with waste segregation on site[25,39,41,42,43,47,52,55,58,59]1029
TE3Limited/no access to waste recovery facilities[7,21,25,31,39,41,43,51,59]9313
TE4Lack of uniformity/ inconsistent quality of CDW[28,30,31,37,51,52,57,58,66]9313
TE5Complexity of building design[26,32,37,42,43,51,52,54,59]8317
TE6Current waste prediction and analysis models are limited[22,28,52,66,67,68,69,70]8517
TE7CDW data management not properly developed[35,36,44,51,52,65,69,71]8717
TE8Material and waste traceability is not correctly performed[21,28,37,47,57,65]6821
TE9Design errors and changes[25,43,59,60,61,63]6821
TE10Limited/lack of investigation and demonstration cases[24,26,27,42,53,66]6821
TE11Limited site space[25,46,52,56,59]51126
TE12Incomplete designs[43,54,60,61]41234
TE13BIM/digital technologies do not currently support CDWM[33,52,67,72]41234
TE14Inappropriate specification and standardization[43,49,59]31437
TE15Technical challenges with waste transport, treatment, and recovery[22,43,55]31437
TE16Uncertain material availability and security of supply[30,37,41]31437
TE17Fragmented supply chains[32,49]21742
TE18Packaging waste increase[43,59]21742
TE19Lack of space for recyclables storage/recycling operations[41,43]21742
TE20Lack of technical support from suppliers[54]12054
Total112
Environmental
CodeChallengeArticlesFrequencyCategory RankingOverall Ranking
EN1Contamination issues and safety[40,41,43]3137
EN2Energy consumption for recycling treatments[52]1254
EN3End-of-pipe treatment rather than waste preventive measures[52]1254
Total5
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

Ferriz-Papi, J.A.; Lee, A.; Alhawamdeh, M. Examining the Challenges for Circular Economy Implementation in Construction and Demolition Waste Management: A Comprehensive Review Using Systematic Methods. Buildings 2024, 14, 1237. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14051237

AMA Style

Ferriz-Papi JA, Lee A, Alhawamdeh M. Examining the Challenges for Circular Economy Implementation in Construction and Demolition Waste Management: A Comprehensive Review Using Systematic Methods. Buildings. 2024; 14(5):1237. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14051237

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ferriz-Papi, Juan Antonio, Angela Lee, and Mahmoud Alhawamdeh. 2024. "Examining the Challenges for Circular Economy Implementation in Construction and Demolition Waste Management: A Comprehensive Review Using Systematic Methods" Buildings 14, no. 5: 1237. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14051237

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