1. Introduction
The construction sector significantly contributes to the global domestic product (GDP), surpassing 11% [
1]. However, the multifaceted activities associated with this sector have deleterious environmental ramifications. Widely recognised as a substantial consumer of natural resources, the construction industry utilises over one-third of globally extracted raw materials [
2]. Moreover, criticism has been directed towards its substantial waste generation, accounting for approximately 25% of solid waste generated worldwide [
2], while also contributing to approximately one-fifth of total pollutant emissions [
3]. These circumstances underscore the imperative for transitioning away from the prevailing linear economic model, characterised by the take–make–dispose approach to industrialised products, towards the adoption of a circular economy (CE) framework. CE is described as “a system where materials never become waste and nature is regenerated…” [
1]. Such a paradigm shift aims to reincorporate end-of-life materials and products into a sustainable economic loop, mitigating environmental impacts and fostering resource efficiency. This transition is imperative to fostering more sustainable preservation of resources, therefore minimising the generation of waste [
2,
3].
Circular economy has various definitions; amongst these, the one given by Amudjie et al. [
4] refers to it as a closed-loop system that mitigates material and energy scarcity challenges and fosters more sustainable economic models. According to Kirchherr [
5] and Munaro and Tavares [
6], CE promotes the reduction, reuse, and recycling of the materials and resources to maintain the use of resources over an extended period.
Despite the recognised benefits of CE in construction projects, the concept is still in its infancy and requires further study. Although barriers to implementing circular economy have been investigated in both developed and developing countries, the focus has been generic, i.e., addressing small-, medium-, and large-scale constructions. This research therefore aimed to distinguish these from each other and focus, in the present investigation, on different types of mega-projects being built in Saudi Arabia, the reason being that mega-projects require substantial costs, much larger scope–impact–risk, and involvement by stakeholders [
7].
In Saudi Arabia, the construction sector contributes to approximately 6% of the GDP and offers over 3 million jobs [
8]. The adoption of circular economy principles is pivotal for the country’s economy, and is in fact at the core of its 2030 development vision. As evidenced by a study conducted by Ouda et al. [
9], less than 14% of construction waste in Saudi Arabia is currently reused or recycled. This highlights opportunity areas for our engineering practice in KSA, in terms of detecting constraints to CE in construction mega-projects and finding solutions that support the country’s development objectives.
A thorough understanding of the barriers to implementing CE in construction mega-projects holds significance not only for advancing the field of construction engineering but also for supporting Saudi Arabia and similar countries in their pursuit of sustainable development goals. This study aims to identify and priorities the barriers to CE in KSA’s construction sector based on surveys. This approach enables us to directly interact with stakeholders engaged in three selected case studies (mega-projects), named Project A (building), Project B (urban development), and Project C (infrastructure).
The study is divided into six sections.
Section 1 provides an overview of circular economy and the importance of the study in the context of Saudi Arabia.
Section 2 provides a comprehensive literature review of CE’s definition and interpretations, its implementation in the construction industry, and the barriers associated with that process.
Section 3 outlines the methodology adopted for this study.
Section 4 presents the findings and
Section 5 presents an in-depth discussion on the results. Finally,
Section 6 provides some final remarks and recommendations for future study.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Concept of Circular Economy
The potential of circular economy (CE) to reduce material waste while contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is sparking significant interest amongst stakeholders [
10,
11,
12]. Furthermore, CE plays a primary role in advancing the green economy, which strategically aims to reduce carbon emissions and use resources efficiently [
13]. Scholars offer a range of interpretations for the CE paradigm. In their examination of 114 definitions of CE, Kirchherr et al. [
5] note that several of these definitions focus on the financial and ecological aspects, overlooking community considerations. Notably, these definitions are often guided by the 3Rs principle: reduce, reuse, and recycle. Ellen MacArthur Foundation [
2] provides the following definition of CE: “restorative and regenerative industrial system, by intention and design. It replaces the ‘end-of-life’ concept with restoration, shifts towards the use of renewable energy, eliminates the use of toxic chemicals, which impair reuse, and aims for the elimination of waste through the superior design of materials, products, systems, and, within this, business models”. This quotation underscores the importance of using renewable energy source and minimising waste.
Likewise, Amudjie et al. [
4] highlight that the establishment of a closed-loop system can foster a more sustainable economic model and deliver ecological and social benefits. Furthermore, Kirchherr et al. [
5] describe CE as “economic system that is based on business models which replace the ‘end-of-life’ concept with reducing, alternatively reusing, recycling and recovering materials in production/distribution and consumption processes, […], with the aim to accomplish sustainable development, which implies creating environmental quality, economic prosperity and social equity, to the benefit of current and future generations”. This definition reaffirms the premise that, in nature, waste is a non-existent concept, as the output from one process serves as the input for another. This highlights CE core purpose: to minimise waste generation, reduce emissions, and optimise product benefits by reusing, recycling, and recovering materials at the end of their life cycle [
14,
15].
2.2. Circular Economy in the Construction Industry
The construction sector continues with the linear economy’s inertia, despite its accompanying challenges, although awareness is being raised around the benefits it could generate by shifting towards circularity [
16]. Furthermore, the increasing adoption of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles highlights their crucial role in advancing sustainability practices within the industry [
17,
18], enabling construction organisations to contribute to the development of circular economy.
Implementing CE strategies in the construction sector promises numerous benefits, including but not limited to cost reduction, environmental preservation, and the enhancement of societal well-being [
10,
16,
19,
20]. Furthermore, CE can play a vital role in contributing to the sustainability in the sector [
20]. According to Pomponi and Moncaster [
21], circular construction involves elements/systems that extend their lifespans and reduce waste. By prioritising flexibility, durability, disassembly, and deconstruction, a continuous flow of materials is ensured across construction lifecycle stages [
22,
23,
24].
While the World Economic Forum report primarily focuses on productivity, it underscores the positive impact of circular economy on construction, through enhancing sustainability and resource efficiency. The report demonstrates that every 1% reduction in construction costs is accompanied by a 30% reduction in energy consumption, saving approximately USD 100 billion annually [
25]. This illustrates the significance of circular practices in mitigating environmental impacts and optimising resource usage. Yet, significant barriers that impede the broader adoption of CE principles in the construction industry exist [
6].
2.3. Barriers to Implementing Circular Economy
Although circular economy offers numerous benefits, its implementation faces various challenges, as highlighted in [
3,
6,
26]. These challenges are crucial for improving the application of CE principles; therefore, researchers endeavour to prioritise key constraints that affect developed and developing countries. The most common barriers impeding the successful implementation of circular economy in various EU countries including Belgium, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Italy relate to inadequate legislation and technology [
27]. This highlights a regional nuance, i.e., despite the common goal, different nations demand tailored strategies and policies for effective implementations.
In the United Kingdom, Adam et al. [
28] investigated the adoption of and main barriers to implementing CE in the building industry. Their study revealed challenges such as a lack of incentives, limited stakeholder awareness/interest, and supply chain-related issues as primary obstacles that emphasises the key role of regulatory frameworks and financial incentives driving the adoption of CE. Similarly, Akinade et al. [
29] found similar obstacles: insufficient legislation, a lack of guidance and knowledge, economic and market immaturity, and tool-related issues.
In the United States, Rios et al. [
30] investigated CE challenges at the design stage. They highlighted limitations around project performance, legislation, and technical standards, while arguing that these hinder reuse and recovery as well as the absence of CE knowledge. The study suggests strategies based on leadership, education, integration, and contractual expertise to foster CE principles. Likewise, a separate study conducted in the US, Pacific Northwest, identified regulatory constraints, market issues, building codes, design philosophies, lack of awareness, and education on CE principles as the most significant barriers [
31]. Similar constraints have been highlighted by researchers in France [
32] and Australia [
33], whose remarks expand on the need for better stakeholder coordination, regulations, and incentives.
According to Bilal et al. [
34], developing countries find the lack of regulation, government support, and little public awareness as the main hindrances to the progression of CE. Additionally, Torgautov et al. [
35] note deficiencies in CE skills, high implementation costs, inadequate regulations, and a lack of awareness as primary barriers to implementing circular economy in Kazakhstan. In Lagos, Nigeria, a study conducted by Suleman et al. [
36] proposes raising awareness and introducing supportive regulatory measures and incentives to further promote CE principles.
The research highlighted above converges on the idea that circular economy barriers in the building sector are consistent across developed and developing countries, especially concerning legislation and awareness-related factors. However, in developing countries, the affordability of adopting CE in mega-projects is a prominent issue. Despite the state of the art on the subject, further research is required to fully understand the nature and complexity of CE barriers in construction mega-projects and enable us to formulate solutions.
Table 1 summarises the barriers encountered through the literature review (referenced) for implementing CE.
3. Methodology
3.1. Research Design and Data Collection
The implementation of circular economy in Saudi Arabia is still in its early stages. To tackle this problem, our study attempts to identify the main barriers to fully implementing CE in construction mega-projects in Saudi Arabia. This is carried out via an extensive literature review designed to interpret and simplify CE’s various definitions and barriers to its implementation; see
Table 1. A questionnaire was developed to collect data representing opinions and perspectives from professionals involved in three construction mega-projects in KSA.
The first draft of the referred questionnaire was peer-reviewed by 3 academic professors and 16 industry professionals with 8 to 21 years of experience in the construction and building sector. Their feedback was key to ensuring clarity and eliminating ambiguity. Furthermore, this group of professionals participated in refining the initially identified barriers through an extensive literature review. Consequently, some barriers were combined with others due to overlapping issues. This process resulted in 24 barriers, each confirmed for its theoretical and practical importance.
The concept of CE was introduced to the participants in the beginning to ensure the clarity of the term, especially for those who might not gave been aware of it. The questionnaire was divided into two sections. The first section contained background information (such as the project name, participant’s position, experience, and education level). The second section listed the identified barriers to implementing circular economy in construction, based on the literature review reported above. A 5-point Likert scale (i.e., 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = moderate; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree) was proposed for each barrier to capture participants’ perceptions of each barrier. Furthermore, a five-point Likert scale was used to facilitate the data analysis of the questionnaire via close-ended questions. The data were analysed via Statistical Package for Social Science Analysis (SPSS) software (version 29) and further processed in MS Excel (version 16.81).
One-way ANOVA was used to identify significant differences among the three construction mega-projects. Moreover, Pearson’s correlation was used to investigate the relationship between barriers. Following this, the relative importance index (RII) was used to rank the barriers for implementing CE. The index given in Equation (1) has been used in previous studies to categorise awareness and barriers [
34,
37]:
where:
= Weight assigned by participants to each barrier.
A = Maximum weight (5-; the 5-point Likert scale in this study).
N = Total number of participants (239 in this study).
This method of quantifying the relative importance through the RII can provide a clear and comparative measure of each barrier, facilitating a systematic approach to identifying the most significant barriers to CE adoption. It is used in this study as it offers a direct comparison between multiple barriers in the three mega-projects.
3.2. Sample and Population
The questionnaire was tailored to professionals who have been involved in three case studies, each characterised by their substantial scale and investment. Project A involves a complex of both commercial and residential buildings that cover a vast area with a budget of more than USD 6 billion. Project B is an expansive urban development initiative, also with a budget exceeding USD 5 billion. Project C is focused on infrastructure, with a USD 3 billion budget, emphasising large-scale improvements and expansions that are essential for supporting the region’s growth. The participants were the professionals working on-site and in office settings, ranging from directors and project managers to engineers. The sample was selected to provide greater insight into the barriers to implementing CE practices. The participants were selected using a convenience sampling approach based on their willingness and accessibility. Project A, B, and C are classified as mega-projects according to the criteria outlined by Ashkanani and Franzoi [
38] and Flyvbjerg [
7]. Each project is characterised by its complexity: extended schedules which exceed five years, large construction areas, and significant risks and associated impacts.
The formula by Yamane [
39] was used to estimate the sample size, as follows:
where
Applying Equation (2) while considering a 95% confidence level and a population size of approximately 567 yielded the minimum required sample size of 235.
An invitation email containing a link to a Google Form was sent to targeted professionals in the three mega-projects, requesting their participation in the study. To achieve the minimum required sample, the survey was distributed to 345 professionals. From the 247 responses received, 8 were excluded because the participants’ positions (HR managers and public relations employees) were weakly related to construction activities. As a result, the number of valid responses was set to 239, which resulted in a response rate of 69.28%. This response rate exceeds that observed in similar studies within the field of construction and civil engineering, such as those cited in Bilal et al. [
34] and Fathalizadeh et al. [
40].
To ensure the authenticity and reliability of the response, the following different steps were taken:
Verification process: at the beginning of the survey, the participants were asked about their positions, the name of the project, and their role in the organisation.
Confidentiality of the participants: Both in the sent email and in the introduction of the survey, the confidentiality of the responses was assured. This measure was taken to encourage honesty and minimise bias, supporting these by assuring that the purpose of the survey was for research only.
Data cleaning and validation: As part of the data validation process, the survey was designed to prevent the submission of incomplete responses. Furthermore, additional data cleaning was performed, resulting in the exclusion of 8 responses.
3.3. Reliability Test
The reliability of the data was statistically tested via Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α), which ranges from 0 to 1. A higher value indicates stronger internal consistency and reliability of the data. A Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α) of 0.7 or higher is considered an acceptable value [
41,
42]. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α) is calculated using the equation below [
43]:
where
= Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.
K = Number of items.
= Sum of variance of each item.
= Total variance of all scores.
The reliability of the CE barriers was tested in two stages in this study. Firstly, a pilot study involving a subset of participants from the three mega-projects resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α) of 0.937, indicating exceptional internal consistency. This step was crucial to ensure the validity and reliability of the survey at an early stage. After that, the main study yielded a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α) of 0.922. This demonstrates consistency and allows us to label the data as reliable and suitable for progressing our study.
3.4. Data Normality
The normality analysis integrates various methods, including Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K-S), skewness and kurtosis, a visual examination of a histogram, and a Q-Q plot. The K-S test did not yield significant results (
p = 0.200), whereas both skewness (−0.179) and kurtosis (−0.430) results suggested that the distribution did not significantly deviate from normal. This is visually supported by the histogram in
Figure 1, which shows a distribution that is relatively symmetrical around the central score. Furthermore, the Q-Q plot in
Figure 2 confirms normality as most data points lie on the diagonal line, indicating only minor deviations.
In light of these findings, parametric tests were then used. The parametric tests use the results of the K-S test, skewness and kurtosis, histogram, and Q-Q Plot, which overall suggest that the data are nearly normally distributed. Therefore, parametric tests are adopted for the scrutiny of CE barriers in construction mega-projects due to the compatibility of the data.
The opinion of the participants across the three projects differed based on the distinct nature of each project. It was thus essential to retrieve the 24 CE barriers to determine if there were statistically significant differences across the selected projects. To achieve this, the parametric test ANOVA was used to compare CE barriers between the three construction mega-projects. If significant differences were observed, further tests were conducted to identify contrasting group clusters.
4. Results
We define barriers to CE implementation as the reasons why the new economic paradigm has not been fully implemented in the targeted construction mega-projects. The evidence to support our judgement is based on descriptive and inferential results obtained with Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and Microsoft Excel. The data were examined using one-way ANOVA and Pearson’s correlation, and categorised based on the relative importance index (RII).
4.1. The Demographic Profile
The breakdown of the sample of respondents to our survey was as follows: Project A (36.4%), Project B (33.9%), and Project C (29.7%). The final sample reflects a sound balance across the participants’ positions and years of experience, which fulfils our objective for providing a good sense of the market. The professional roles of participants cover design engineers (13.0%), HSE engineers (3.3%), MEP engineers (7.9%), procurement engineers (2.9), project directors (2.1%), project managers (27.2%), quality engineers (12.1%), quantity surveyors (7.1%), and site engineers (24.3%).
In terms of work experience, participants with less than 5 years of experience represented 27.2% of the sample. The other participants had 6–10 years (24.7%), 11–15 years (20.5%), and above 15 years (27.6%) of experience. This diversity helps us to understand the research problem from multiple perspectives. Finally, with regard to educational level, participants with bachelor’s and master’s degrees constituted 77.8% and 22.3% of the sample, respectively.
Figure 3 provides a summary of the participants’ demographic information.
4.2. Descriptive Analysis
Descriptive analysis provides a summary of data and helps us to understand their basic features.
Table 2 represents the descriptive analysis of the dataset on the barriers to circular economy in the three construction mega-projects. The variables were categorised under the codes B1 through B24, and each code had corresponding data points for “Strongly Agree” (SA), “Agree” (A), “Moderate” (M), “Disagree” (D), and “Strongly Disagree” (SD), along with the mean and standard deviation for each barrier.
Observing the mean scores, it is clear that there was general agreement between the statements related to each code. The highest mean score observed was 4.18, for B1, “regulation and laws”, and B20, “education and training”, which suggests a strong level of agreement. However, the lowest mean was 3.42 for B2, “Low taxation of raw materials”, indicating moderate agreement overall.
The standard deviation gives an insight into the variability of the responses. Higher standard deviation values, like 1.01 for B2, “Low taxation of raw materials”, suggest the variability in opinions among the responses, whereas a lower value, such as 0.81 for B20, “education and training”, suggests that the responses were more consistent in terms of agreement.
4.3. ANOVAs
The ANOVA test was used to examine the statistical differences between our target projects. The results of this analysis are shown in
Table 3 in terms of the sum of squares, degrees of freedom, mean square, F-statistic, and significance values.
The results across the three projects reveal a similarity in the perception of the professionals regarding the barriers to circular economy implementation. Moreover, it can be observed that all p-values exceeded the threshold (p-value > 0.05). This indicates that there are no significant differences between the circular economy barriers among the three projects. This indicates that the construction mega-projects (A, B, and C) share nearly identical barriers to circular economy, and these are not affected by project type.
4.4. Correlation Analysis for Circular Economy Barriers in Construction Mega-Projects
The barriers of circular economy in construction mega-projects were analysed using Pearson’s correlation to determine the strength and existence of relationships between them.
Table 4 and
Table 5 show the results of Pearson’s correlation test. All values of Pearson’s correlation in the table are positive and range from 0.056 to 0.728, indicating varying degrees of linear association between the barriers.
The strongest correlations (Pearson’s correlation coefficient of 0.728) are between (B22) “lack of accurate and reliable data on construction waste” and (B23) “Lack of database that complies with design software, BIM”. These correlations are significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed), indicating a strong positive relationship and high statistical significance. This suggests that the absence of a database that complies with BIM is strongly associated with a lack of construction waste data in the context of the barriers to circular economy in construction mega-projects. It implies that challenges with BIM integration can significantly impact the ability to monitor and measure the effectiveness of circular economy practices.
The second most significant relationship was observed between (B20) “Lack of proper education and training of circular economy principles” and (B21) “Poor skills related to waste reductions and circular economy implementation”, with a Pearson’s correlation coefficient of 0.694. This indicates the need for educational programs to develop the necessary competencies for circular economy practices. Furthermore, the third strong relationship is between (B19) “Lack of stakeholders’ awareness and understanding of circular economy and its impacts” and (B20) “Lack of proper education and training of circular economy principles”, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.679. This demonstrates the importance of raising awareness through education and training.
Furthermore, the Pearson’s correlation coefficient of 0.644 between (B21) “Poor skills related to waste reductions and circular economy implementation” and (B19) “Lack of stakeholders’ awareness and understanding of circular economy and its impacts” highlights a significant interdependency. This strong correlation indicates that enhancing stakeholders’ awareness is likely to contribute positively to the development of the skills needed for implementing CE principles.
On the other hand, the weakest relationship was observed between (B2) “Low taxation of raw materials and disposal fees” and (B13) “Absence of successful examples that provide evidence of the benefits of circular economy implementation”, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.056. This indicates a very weak positive correlation and lacks statistical significance.
The aforementioned findings underscore the need to enhance BIM integration, training, education, and awareness among stakeholders to overcome the circular economy barriers in the construction mega-projects.
4.5. Relative Importance Index (RII)
The RII was used to quantify and rank barriers for the entire dataset and for each project. By fragmenting the data, the existence of differences in ranking across the projects could be assessed. Subsequently, the RII for the entire dataset provided broader insights into the barriers to circular economy in construction projects, irrespective of the project type or nature.
4.5.1. Cross Comparison of CE Barriers across Target Projects
Table 6 shows the results of the RII ranking across Projects A, B, and C. These results confirm outputs generated with other methods, as reported above. For example, B20, “Lack of proper education and training of circular economy principles”, consistently emerges as a primary barrier in projects A, B, and C (RII = 0.83908, 0.832099, and 0.833803, respectively), noting that in Project C, the most significant barrier is B1, “Lack of circular economy regulation and laws” (with RII = 0.850704). Based on these results, we could state that education and training are key for the adoption of circular economy practices in the construction mega-projects. In contrast, B2, “Low taxation of raw materials and disposal fees”, is identified as the least impactful barrier, as it receives the lowest RII scores (0.701149, 0.671605, and 0.676056) and maintains a consistent rank of 24 across the three projects.
We must recognise that the results highlighted above cannot be labelled as universal. For instance, Barrier B1, “Lack of circular economy regulation and laws”, is ranked as the most significant in Project C, ranked second in Project A, and ranked third in Project B, reflecting some divergence. Likewise, Barriers B3, “Absence of incentive policy for material and product circulations and reuse”, and B24, “Absence of clear and precise indicators to monitor, control, and measure the circularity adoption”, demonstrate high levels of significance (with RII values over 0.82 in both), although their ranks vary between projects, suggesting a context-dependent perception of their impact.
4.5.2. Ranking of Circular Economy Barriers in Construction Mega-Projects
Table 7 provides a comprehensive analysis of the circular economy barriers in construction mega-projects and ranks them according to the relative importance index (RII), irrespective of the project type. The primary barriers that have were identified are B1, “Lack of circular economy regulation and laws”; B20, “Lack of proper education and training of circular economy principles”; B3, “Absence of incentive policy for material and product circulations and reuse.”; and B19, “Lack of stakeholders’ awareness and understanding of circular economy and its impacts” (RII = 0.835146, 0.835146, 0.830962, and 0.828452, respectively). These findings underscore the regulatory framework and standards, education programs, and incentive initiatives as the top-ranked barriers to CE transition.
B13, “Absence of successful examples” (RII = 0.826778), B24, “Absence of clear and precise indicators to monitor, control, and measure the circularity adoption” (RII = 0.825105), and B22, “Lack of accurate and reliable data on construction waste” (RII = 0.822594), are ranked accordingly, indicating the absence of circularity legislations, reliable data on waste quantities, and demonstrable construction examples. These barriers prevent stakeholders from implementing circularity practices. Therefore, the existence of laws and regulations, along with accurate data on waste in the construction sector, is essential to facilitate the transition to circular economy practices. Additionally, establishing an example of circular construction contributes to this transition and minimises waste disposal.
The remaining barriers are ranked in
Table 7. This table provides valuable insights for policymakers and governmental agencies to develop necessary legislation and incentives to mitigate those barriers. Additionally, stakeholders and organisations can play a pivotal role in reducing these barriers by raising awareness and providing education initiatives.
5. Discussion
Although the circular economy concept has been recognised as an essential approach for waste reduction, resource optimisation, and sustainability, its implementation faces various challenges [
3,
6]. Despite recent efforts to prioritise and identify the barriers within building and the built environment, there remains a worldwide knowledge gap in identifying and prioritising the barriers within construction mega-projects. To address this gap, this study aimed to identify the most significant barriers to CE implementation. Drawing from previous works, 24 barriers were identified and incorporated into the survey conducted across three construction mega-projects in Saudi Arabia. The responses from 239 professionals across Project A, “building”, Project B, “urban development”, and Project C, “infrastructure”, were collected and ranked using the RII to assess the level of concern regarding CE barriers across these projects.
While examining the three construction mega-projects, this study revealed an intriguing result: the participants across the three projects highlighted similar concerns regarding the top seven barriers across the three projects regardless of their ranking within each project, except for B24, which ranked eighth in Project A. This consistency demonstrates a shared perspective among the participants across the projects on the importance of the top seven barriers to CE implementation. Similarly, an analysis of the bottom-ranking barriers (from 18 to 24) exhibited consistent rankings across the projects, which reflects their limited impact on these barriers to implementing CE. However, overall, there was slight variation in the ranking of CE barriers across the projects, which might be attributed to differences in project nature and type.
In the analysis of the CE barriers, the respondents from the three mega-projects held the following point of view on the most significant barriers to implementing CE in Saudi Arabia: “regulation and laws”, “education and training”, “absence of incentive policy”, “stakeholders’ awareness”, “absence of successful examples”, “precise indicators to monitor the circularity adoption”, and “Lack of accurate and reliable data on construction waste”.
The lack of regulation and the absence of education programs are considered the top barriers in this study. The establishment of a regulatory framework can facilitate the adoption of CE principles in the sector, which is in line with the findings of similar studies conducted in both developed and developing countries [
32,
33,
36]. Likewise, there is a need for targeted programs to enhance knowledge and equip professionals with the necessary skills to implement circularity concepts [
31,
36]. Without specific regulations that mandate the use of CE as well as raising awareness and knowledge through proper training, construction mega-projects will encounter significant challenges while adopting circularity.
The absence of incentive policy is ranked third in this study. It has been highlighted in previous works in different developed and developing countries such as the UK [
28], France [
32], Australia [
33], and Nigeria [
36]. Previous works considered the incentives to be both financial and non-financial, such as tax exemptions. These incentives are established to encourage key stakeholders to adopt more innovative circular practices and invest in the transition towards a circular economy.
Stakeholder awareness is ranked as another significant barrier to CE adoption. This finding resonates with that of studies conducted in developed countries such as the UK [
28], US [
31], France [
32], and Australia [
33]. Similar barriers have been identified in studies conducted in developing countries such as Kazakhstan [
35] and Nigeria [
36]. However, awareness was not always ranked as one of the most critical barriers, as shown in some other studies such as [
29,
30]. The barriers identified in those papers focus on tangible challenges that are related to design, regulation, and the market. This variation in ranking highlights a divergence in the understanding of circular economy and its impact across the globe.
The absence of successful examples is ranked as the fifth important barrier to CE in construction mega-projects. This barrier is not widely acknowledged as a top barrier in the literature. However, it has been acknowledged that the presence of real-world examples that adopt the circularity principle is essential to demonstrating the benefits to stakeholders [
3,
26]. The existence of successful examples serves as evidence of CE’s feasibility and applicability in the construction mega-projects. They encourage stakeholders to adopt these principles and provide a benchmark for other projects to follow.
The absence of clear indicators and the lack of accurate data on construction waste were ranked sixth and seventh in this study. The implementation of CE in construction mega-projects is required to be measured and monitored through clear and accurate indicators, as illustrated by the authors of [
3,
6,
35]. Effective performance indicators are essential to tracking progress towards circularity goals and validating their benefits. Furthermore, the lack of construction waste data poses a challenge for decision-makers, indicating uncertainty about adopting such a principle. This also aligns with studies conducted in France [
32] and Nigeria [
36], which highlight the lack of reliable data on material stocks, resulting in less effective management of waste and resources in projects. Therefore, there is a need for shared knowledge about construction material stocks to enhance the use of resources effectively.
6. Conclusions
As the construction industry consumes approximately one-third of the world’s extracted natural resources, there is an urgent need to implement more sustainable practices to circulate materials and maximise their usage. While CE implementation is crucial, understanding the main barriers associated with its adoption is vital, particularly in developing countries like Saudi Arabia, where a potential growth in the construction industry has been noticed, contributing to the national GDP and the portfolio of development mega-projects across the country. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the relative importance of 24 circular economy barriers on three construction mega-projects in the context of Saudi Arabia.
The findings of the study showed minor differences in the respondents’ perceptions regarding the ranking of CE barriers across the projects. However, the top seven barriers across the three construction mega-projects remained consistent with different rankings across the projects. This suggests a broad consensus on the importance of the key barriers. The most critical barriers to CE implementation in construction mega-projects in Saudi Arabia are related to legislation gaps, a lack of education and training, an absence of incentives, a lack of awareness, an absence of successful examples, and a lack of clear indicators and reliable data. These findings align with those of previous works conducted in other developed and developing countries, which emphasises the significance of these barriers limiting the full adoption of CE principles in the sector.
Based on its findings, this study suggests that government agencies in Saudi Arabia should take proactive measures to facilitate the adoption of CE by establishing laws and legislation frameworks and encouraging stakeholders in the sector. This should include the needed standards and guidelines. Additionally, incorporating circular economy principles into engineering school curricula and conducting regular trainings and workshops will contribute to professional awareness and knowledge of the best CE practices around the globe. Moreover, collaboration with experts from developed countries can facilitate the adoption of CE in the construction industry.
This study significantly contributes to the relatively sparse literature on CE adoption in construction mega-projects by employing three diverse case studies: buildings, urban development, and infrastructure in Saudi Arabia. Unlike previous studies that predominantly focus on building projects, this study covers a broader scope by examining mega-projects with different project types, thereby providing a novel comparative analysis between these case studies. This research not only deepens stakeholders’ understanding of critical barriers but also provides a clearer idea of the avenues for mitigation. Furthermore, policymakers can use the results of this study to develop policies that can support construction to overcome these challenges and build a more circular construction sector. Additionally, this study has the potential to raise awareness within academic circles, promoting the integration of circular economy principles into the engineering school curricula.
While this study makes a valuable contribution to the field, there is room for further research to explore its limitations in more depth. This study considers three different construction mega-projects in Saudi Arabia. However, the findings can generalised to smaller-scale projects. Furthermore, further examinations of the success factors would ensure the easier implementation of CE in the construction sector.
Author Contributions
Conceptualisation, S.A., C.B. and P.M.-V.; methodology, S.A.; formal analysis, S.A.; investigation, S.A., C.B. and P.M.-V.; data curation, S.A.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A.; writing—review and editing, S.A., C.B. and P.M.-V.; visualisation, S.A., C.B. and P.M.-V.; validation, S.A.; supervision, C.B. and P.M.-V.; project administration, S.A., C.B. and P.M.-V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement
This study was conducted using datasets and analyses that are accessible on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments
The first author acknowledges, with thanks, Imam Mohammed Ibn Saud Islamic University for its support of his research activity at the University of Birmingham. Both the first and third author acknowledge, with thanks, the support provided by COST Action CA21103 Implementation of Circular Economy in the Built Environment, “CIRCULARB”.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Ellen MacArthur Foundation. What Is a Circular Economy? Available online: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/circular-economy-introduction/overview (accessed on 30 April 2024).
- Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition. Available online: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/towards-the-circular-economy-vol-1-an-economic-and-business-rationale-for-an (accessed on 30 April 2023).
- Ababio, B.K.; Lu, W. Barriers and Enablers of Circular Economy in Construction: A Multi-System Perspective towards the Development of a Practical Framework. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2023, 41, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amudjie, J.; Agyekum, K.; Adinyira, E.; Amos-Abanyie, S.; Kumah, V.M.A. Awareness and Practice of the Principles of Circular Economy among Built Environment Professionals. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2023, 13, 140–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kirchherr, J.; Reike, D.; Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 127, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munaro, M.R.; Tavares, S.F. A Review on Barriers, Drivers, and Stakeholders towards the Circular Economy: The Construction Sector Perspective. Clean. Responsible Consum. 2023, 8, 100107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flyvbjerg, B. What You Should Know about Megaprojects and Why: An Overview. Proj. Manag. J. 2014, 45, 6–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- General Authority for Statistics (GASTAT). Gross Domestic Product Fourth Quarter of 2022; General Authority for Statistics: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2022.
- Ouda, O.K.M.; Peterson, H.P.; Rehan, M.; Sadef, Y.; Alghazo, J.M.; Nizami, A.S. A Case Study of Sustainable Construction Waste Management in Saudi Arabia. Waste Biomass Valorization 2018, 9, 2541–2555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Padilla-Rivera, A.; Russo-Garrido, S.; Merveille, N. Addressing the Social Aspects of a Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pollard, J.; Osmani, M.; Grubnic, S.; Díaz, A.I.; Grobe, K.; Kaba, A.; Ünlüer, Ö.; Panchal, R. Implementing a Circular Economy Business Model Canvas in the Electrical and Electronic Manufacturing Sector: A Case Study Approach. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2023, 36, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saccani, N.; Bressanelli, G.; Visintin, F. Circular Supply Chain Orchestration to Overcome Circular Economy Challenges: An Empirical Investigation in the Textile and Fashion Industries. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2023, 35, 469–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations Environment Programme. Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication—A Synthesis for Policy Makers; UNPE: Nairobi, Kenya, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Benachio, G.L.F.; Freitas, M.C.D.; Tavares, S.F. Circular Economy in the Construction Industry: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 260, 121046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Honic, M.; Kovacic, I.; Rechberger, H. Improving the Recycling Potential of Buildings through Material Passports (MP): An Austrian Case Study. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 217, 787–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korhonen, J.; Honkasalo, A.; Seppälä, J. Circular Economy: The Concept and Its Limitations. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 143, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.L.; Liang, J. The Effect of Carbon Regulation Initiatives on Corporate ESG Performance in Real Estate Sector: International Evidence. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 453, 142188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.L.; Yam, S.; Susilawati, C.; Blake, A. The Future Property Workforce: Challenges and Opportunities for Property Professionals in the Changing Landscape. Buildings 2024, 14, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallego-Schmid, A.; Chen, H.M.; Sharmina, M.; Mendoza, J.M.F. Links between Circular Economy and Climate Change Mitigation in the Built Environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 260, 121115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Pomponi, F.; Moncaster, A. Circular Economy for the Built Environment: A Research Framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 710–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laovisutthichai, V.; Lu, W.; Bao, Z. Design for Construction Waste Minimization: Guidelines and Practice. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2022, 18, 279–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eberhardt, L.C.M.; Birkved, M.; Birgisdottir, H. Building Design and Construction Strategies for a Circular Economy. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2022, 18, 93–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ping Tserng, H.; Chou, C.M.; Chang, Y.T. The Key Strategies to Implement Circular Economy in Building Projects—A Case Study of Taiwan. Sustainability 2021, 13, 754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Economic Forum. Shaping the Future of Construction A Breakthrough in Mindset and Technology; World Economic Forum: Cologny, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- AlJaber, A.; Martinez-Vazquez, P.; Baniotopoulos, C. Barriers and Enablers to the Adoption of Circular Economy Concept in the Building Sector: A Systematic Literature Review. Buildings 2023, 13, 2778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giorgi, S.; Lavagna, M.; Wang, K.; Osmani, M.; Liu, G. 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]
- Adams, K.T.; Osmani, M.; Thorpe, T.; Thornback, J. Circular Economy in Construction: Current Awareness, Challenges and Enablers. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Waste Resour. Manag. 2017, 170, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akinade, O.; Oyedele, L.; Oyedele, A.; Davila Delgado, J.M.; Bilal, M.; Akanbi, L.; Ajayi, A.; Owolabi, H. Design for Deconstruction Using a Circular Economy Approach: Barriers and Strategies for Improvement. Prod. Plan. Control 2020, 31, 829–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rios, F.C.; Grau, D.; Asce, A.M.; Bilec, M. Barriers and Enablers to Circular Building Design in the US: An Empirical Study. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2021, 147, 04021117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Izquierdo, R.S.; Soliu, I.; Migliaccio, G.C. Enablers and Barriers to Implementation of Circular Economy Practices in the Built Environment: An Exploratory Study. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2024, 16, 05023009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maury-Ramirez, C.; Mesa, J.A.; 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]
- Shooshtarian, S.; Hosseini, M.R.; Kocaturk, T.; Arnel, T.; Garofano, N.T. Circular Economy in the Australian AEC Industry: Investigation of Barriers and Enablers. Build. Res. Inf. 2023, 51, 56–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bilal, M.; Khan, K.I.A.; Thaheem, M.J.; Nasir, A.R. Current State and Barriers to the Circular Economy in the Building Sector: Towards a Mitigation Framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 123250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torgautov, B.; Zhanabayev, A.; Tleuken, A.; Turkyilmaz, A.; Mustafa, M.; Karaca, F. Circular Economy: Challenges and Opportunities in the Construction Sector of Kazakhstan. Buildings 2021, 11, 501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suleman, T.; Ezema, I.; Aderonmu, P. Challenges of Circular Design Adoption in the Nigerian Built Environment: An Empirical Study. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2023, 17, 2666–7908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hyarat, E.; Hyarat, T.; Al Kuisi, M. Barriers to the Implementation of Building Information Modeling among Jordanian AEC Companies. Buildings 2022, 12, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashkanani, S.; Franzoi, R. An Overview on Megaproject Management Systems. Manag. Matters 2022, 19, 129–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yamane, T. Statistics, An Introductory Analysis; Harper and Row: New York, NY, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Fathalizadeh, A.; Hosseini, M.R.; Vaezzadeh, S.S.; Edwards, D.J.; Martek, I.; Shooshtarian, S. Barriers to Sustainable Construction Project Management: The Case of Iran. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2022, 11, 717–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- George, D.; Mallery, P. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 11.0, 4th ed.; Allyn & Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
| 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. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).