A Circular Economy Framework for Minimizing Construction Waste During the Construction Phase of Residential Projects in Jordan

Abstract

The construction industry in Jordan faces significant economic and environmental challenges due to high material costs, fluctuating market prices, and the continued reliance on a linear economy model that prioritizes material extraction, consumption, and disposal over reuse and recycling. These challenges contribute to substantial construction waste generation and hinder the transition toward a Circular Economy (CE). Therefore, this study aimed to develop a framework for managing construction waste during the construction phase of residential building projects in Jordan and to facilitate the adoption of circular practices within the construction sector. A questionnaire survey was administered to 31 experts, and the collected data were analyzed using the Relative Importance Index (RII) and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Subsequently, the proposed framework was evaluated through a three-round Delphi study involving an independent panel of experts. The results identified the principal barriers to implementation as the low demand for reused or recycled materials, limited stakeholder awareness, and difficulties in material disassembly. The findings further revealed that applying visual management and 5S techniques to improve site efficiency, implementing Building Information Modeling (BIM) for material and component mapping throughout the building life cycle, and providing tax incentives and grants for recycled materials were among the highest-ranked sub-strategies for supporting circular practices and minimizing construction waste. The Delphi evaluation demonstrated strong expert consensus regarding the framework’s applicability and practicality, indicating that it provides a structured, expert-informed approach that may assist policymakers and construction practitioners in promoting circular practices and reducing construction waste in Jordan. In addition, the framework has the potential to support Jordan’s Vision 2025 and contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

1. Introduction

Construction waste represents a major component of global solid waste, exceeding 10 billion tons annually and accounting for approximately 30–40% of total solid waste generation worldwide [1]. Its generation is closely linked to economic growth, population expansion, rapid urbanization, and climate change. Countries such as China, the United States, and members of the European Union collectively generate billions of tons of construction waste each year [2]. In Malaysia, construction waste accounts for approximately 20–30% of total waste generation [3], with daily quantities exceeding 25,000 tons [4].

The construction sector is a major contributor to Jordan’s economic development [5,6,7]. However, it also generates substantial quantities of construction and demolition waste, resulting in significant environmental and economic challenges [8,9,10,11]. Globally, the construction industry accounts for up to 40% of annual solid waste generation, 40% of total energy consumption, and 12% of freshwater use [12,13]. In Jordan, construction and demolition activities generate approximately 30 million tons of waste each year [11,14].

The scale of construction waste generation varies considerably across countries. Australia generated approximately 12.7 million tons of construction waste in 2018 [15], while the United Kingdom generated approximately 137.8 million tons during the same period [16]. China remains the world’s largest producer, generating nearly 2 billion tons annually [17]. Despite these substantial quantities, recycling rates remain relatively low in many countries, leading to significant environmental, economic, and social impacts [18].

To address this challenge, many countries have adopted CE-based construction waste management practices. In the United States, selective demolition, prefabrication, and waste-based construction methods have been widely implemented. The United Kingdom emphasizes material resource analysis through material mapping, whereas Australia integrates waste storage management within a CE framework [19].

In contrast, construction waste management in Jordan remains at an early stage of development. Recycling rates do not exceed 7% [20], and current practices are largely limited to crushing concrete for use as fill material, recycling or selling steel as scrap, reusing timber as fuel or animal bedding, and reselling doors and windows as second-hand products [14]. Furthermore, waste management practices are constrained by several operational challenges, including frequent design modifications, fluctuations in project demand, limited stakeholder awareness, and rework resulting from construction errors, all of which contribute to increased waste generation [21].

Recognizing these challenges, the Jordanian government introduced the Green Growth Plan, which identifies CE implementation as a key strategy for reducing construction waste and promoting sustainable development [9]. Previous studies, including [14], have highlighted the need to transition from a linear economy to a circular one. However, despite the recognized potential of circular principles, their implementation within the Jordanian construction sector remains limited because of the absence of a comprehensive implementation framework and insufficient regulatory support. Therefore, this study aims to develop a practical framework for managing construction waste during the construction phase of residential projects in Jordan. The proposed framework identifies the key implementation challenges, prioritizes the most effective strategies and sub-strategies, and provides structured guidance for facilitating the adoption of circular practices within the Jordanian construction sector.

2. Literature Review

The transition toward a CE in the construction sector represents a shift from the traditional linear “take–make–dispose” model to a regenerative system that keeps materials and resources in use for as long as possible. This transition aims to minimize construction waste generation, reduce resource consumption, and mitigate environmental impacts throughout a building’s life cycle [22]. Within construction and demolition waste (CDW) management, CE principles are commonly implemented through the “R-strategies,” including Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and Recover, which collectively support waste minimization and sustainable construction practices [23]. Their adoption has the potential to increase recycling rates to approximately 50–65% while diverting 70–80% of construction waste from landfills [24].

The adoption of CE practices also enhances resource efficiency by promoting the efficient use, reuse, and recovery of construction materials. These strategies reduce excessive resource consumption, minimize waste generation, and mitigate environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions [23,25,26]. Moreover, integrating reuse and recycling within a closed-loop system optimizes material utilization while supporting sustainable development objectives [23,27]. Evidence from the European Union demonstrates that CE policies have significantly improved resource efficiency and reduced construction waste generation [28].

Another important outcome of circular practices is improved recycling performance through closed-loop material flows and sustainable waste management. Recycling enables construction materials to be reintroduced into the production cycle, thereby reducing landfill disposal and conserving natural resources [23]. Consequently, recycling performance is widely recognized as a key indicator of successful circular practices and sustainable resource management [29]. However, its effectiveness is influenced by factors such as waste composition and the overall level of circularity within the economy [30].

In addition to environmental benefits, circular practices can generate substantial economic advantages. By reducing material waste, improving resource utilization, and minimizing operational inefficiencies, these strategies contribute to lower project costs throughout the building life cycle. They also support decision-making by enabling the simultaneous evaluation of environmental performance and life-cycle costs [31]. Although adopting circular practices may require initial investments, such as waste treatment and site assessment costs, these expenditures can produce long-term financial benefits through improved operational efficiency, reduced project delays, and lower legal risks [32]. Previous studies have shown that reuse, remanufacturing, and recycling generate significant economic value, with reuse offering the greatest cost-saving potential [33].

Numerous studies have investigated CE implementation by examining critical success factors, implementation barriers, practical strategies, and framework development across different stages of construction projects. Early research primarily focused on identifying the key factors that facilitate successful adoption. For example, Wuni [34] emphasized managerial commitment, stakeholder collaboration, and technological support, while Wuni and Shen [35] identified leadership, early design decisions, and teamwork as fundamental enablers in modular construction projects. Collectively, these studies highlight the importance of organizational and managerial capabilities in facilitating the transition toward circular construction practices.

A substantial body of literature has also examined the barriers to implementation. Ahmed [36] identified limited stakeholder awareness, insufficient incentives, and weak integration of procurement strategies as major obstacles. Likewise, Akinade [37] emphasized regulatory deficiencies, limited market demand for recycled materials, and inadequate design information as critical constraints, particularly for design-for-disassembly practices. These findings indicate that institutional and structural barriers continue to hinder the widespread adoption of circular practices despite growing international interest.

Several researchers have explored implementation across different project phases. Adi and Wibowo [38] and Tserng [39] observed that circular strategies are applied unevenly throughout the design, construction, and operational phases, with greater emphasis placed on the early stages of projects. Similarly, Wijewansha [40] highlighted the importance of integrating CE principles during the pre-construction phase to improve sustainability outcomes. Nevertheless, the construction phase remains comparatively underexplored despite being one of the principal sources of material consumption and waste generation.

Researchers have also proposed various frameworks to support implementation. Medina [41] developed a life-cycle-based framework integrating production, operation, and recovery stages, whereas Tobben [42] focused on embedding circularity within the early stages of project development. Abadi [43] introduced circular indicators for life-cycle assessment, while Tokazhanov [44] proposed assessment tools incorporating technological and business dimensions. Although these frameworks provide valuable conceptual guidance, they offer limited operational direction for practical implementation.

Previous studies have further highlighted the importance of strategies such as modular design, prefabrication, recycling, and design for disassembly. Guerra and Leite [45] reported that open-loop recycling and prefabrication are widely adopted, whereas closed-loop recycling and design-for-disassembly strategies remain relatively uncommon. Similarly, Asante [46] and Gamage [47] identified reduction, reuse, and adaptability as core strategies. However, these studies generally considered these approaches at a broad level without decomposing them into practical and actionable sub-strategies.

Stakeholder engagement has also been recognized as a critical determinant of successful implementation. Ma and Hao [48] emphasized the importance of stakeholder participation in enhancing material value, while Lee [49] found that smaller firms often demonstrate higher levels of awareness than larger organizations. Nevertheless, implementation continues to be constrained by economic and market-related barriers, particularly the limited availability of secondary material markets [50].

Although previous studies have significantly advanced the understanding of CE implementation in the construction sector, several unresolved issues remain. Existing research consistently demonstrates that circular practices reduce construction waste, improve resource efficiency, and promote sustainable development through recycling, reuse, prefabrication, modular construction, and design for disassembly [23,24,45,46,47]. Likewise, stakeholder engagement, government support, and technological innovation are widely recognized as key enablers [34,35,48]. However, no clear consensus has emerged regarding the relative importance of implementation barriers or the most effective strategies. While some studies emphasize organizational and managerial factors [34,35], others prioritize regulatory constraints, market limitations, and insufficient demand for recycled materials [36,37,50]. Similarly, some researchers identify recycling and material recovery as the most effective approaches, whereas others emphasize design-oriented strategies, modular construction, and prefabrication. These differences highlight the need for further research in specific national contexts.

Despite these valuable contributions, several research gaps remain. Most previous studies have focused on broad strategies such as reduction, reuse, recycling, and design for disassembly. However, these strategies are generally presented at a conceptual level without being translated into detailed and actionable sub-strategies that support practical implementation. Furthermore, the majority of existing studies have concentrated on the design and pre-construction stages, whereas the construction phase—where substantial material consumption and waste generation occur—has received comparatively limited attention [38,39,40]. In addition, most existing frameworks have been developed in broad international contexts and do not adequately reflect the regulatory, economic, and operational characteristics of the Jordanian construction sector. Consequently, there is a need for a context-specific framework that identifies implementation challenges, prioritizes strategies and sub-strategies, and provides practical guidance for minimizing construction waste during the construction phase of residential building projects in Jordan.

To address these research gaps, this study was designed to answer the following research questions:

• What are the primary challenges limiting the implementation of CE principles in residential construction projects during the construction phase in Jordan?
• Which CE strategies and sub-strategies are most effective for minimizing construction waste?
• How can the identified challenges and strategies be integrated into a practical framework tailored to the Jordanian construction sector?
• How do experts evaluate the applicability and effectiveness of the proposed framework?

3. Materials and Methods

A questionnaire survey was employed as the primary data collection instrument to develop a CE framework for addressing implementation challenges and minimizing construction waste in residential projects in Jordan. A snowball sampling technique was adopted to recruit experts and maximize access to qualified participants with relevant knowledge and professional experience. The expert panel comprised four stakeholder groups: project managers, supervising engineers, contractors, and consultants. These groups represent the principal stakeholders involved in residential construction projects and therefore provide diverse perspectives on CE implementation. Similar stakeholder groups have been employed in previous studies investigating construction waste management, CE implementation, and recycling practices within the construction sector. Furthermore, snowball sampling facilitated the identification of experts who may have been difficult to reach using conventional sampling methods, as referrals from the initial participants helped expand the expert network [51].

The final sample consisted of 31 experts, including 11 project managers, 9 supervising engineers, 7 contractors, and 4 consultants. This sample size was considered appropriate because the study relied on informed expert judgment rather than statistical generalization. CE implementation in residential construction projects represents a specialized area within the Jordanian construction sector, limiting the availability of professionals with expertise in both construction waste management and circular practices. Consequently, participants were recruited using predefined eligibility criteria to ensure the inclusion of highly qualified experts. In expert-based decision-making methods such as the AHP, participant expertise, relevance, and experience are generally more important than sample size alone. Previous studies have successfully applied AHP using considerably smaller expert panels. For example, Rahman et al. [52] employed four experts to evaluate waste-to-energy technologies, Weerakoon et al. [53] used six experts to prioritize CE-based construction waste management strategies, Abu Qdais et al. [54] relied on nine experts to assess organic waste treatment alternatives in Jordan, and Kurbatova and Abu Qdais [55] conducted pairwise comparisons using sixteen experts to evaluate waste-to-energy technologies in Moscow. Similarly, Hwang and Tan [56] investigated green construction project management using a panel of 31 experts.

From a statistical perspective, sample sizes exceeding 30 observations are generally considered adequate for many statistical analyses based on the Central Limit Theorem, which suggests that sampling distributions tend to approximate normality as sample size increases [57]. Therefore, the panel of 31 experts exceeded the sample sizes commonly reported in comparable AHP studies and provided a diverse and reliable basis for evaluating implementation challenges and CE strategies. Moreover, the panel represented the principal stakeholder groups involved in residential construction projects. Approximately 61% of the respondents possessed more than 20 years of construction experience, while 49% had more than five years of experience in CE implementation and recycling practices, further strengthening the credibility of the findings, as shown in

Table 1. Demographic information.

Respondents/Position	Category	Project Manager		Supervisor		Contractor		Consultant		Overall
		No	%	No	%	No	%	No	%	No	%
Gender	Male	9	82%	4	44%	7	100%	3	75%	23	74%
	Female	2	18%	5	56%	0	0%	1	25%	8	26%
Age	20–30 Y	0	0%	3	33%	0	0%	0	0%	3	10%
	31–40 Y	4	36%	2	22%	1	14%	0	0%	7	23%
	Over 40 Y	7	64%	4	45%	6	86%	4	100%	21	67%
Experience	1–10 Y	0	0%	3	33%	0	0%	0	0%	3	10%
	11–20 Y	4	36%	2	22%	3	43%	0	0%	9	29%
	Over 20 Y	7	64%	4	45%	4	57%	4	100%	19	61%
Percentage of residential projects	20–40%	0	0%	2	22%	0	0%	0	0%	2	6%
	41–60%	4	36%	3	34%	2	29%	1	25%	10	32%
	61–80%	3	28%	2	22%	4	57%	2	50%	11	36%
	81–100%	4	36%	2	22%	1	14%	1	25%	8	26%
Experience with CE	<2 Y	1	9%	2	33%	2	29%	0	0%	5	16%
	2–4 Y	3	27%	3	33%	4	57%	1	25%	11	35%
	5–6 Y	6	55%	4	34%	1	14%	1	25%	12	39%
	Over 6 Y	1	9%	0	0%	0	0%	2	50%	3	10%

.

To ensure the credibility and relevance of the expert panel, predefined eligibility criteria were established before participant recruitment. Experts were selected based on three principal criteria: (1) substantial professional experience in residential construction projects; (2) practical knowledge and experience in CE implementation and construction waste management; and (3) extensive experience within the construction industry. These criteria ensured that all participants possessed the technical expertise and practical knowledge required to provide informed judgments regarding the challenges, strategies, and implementation of the proposed framework.

Prior to the main survey, a pilot study was conducted to evaluate the clarity, comprehensibility, and suitability of the questionnaire in terms of its design, language, and terminology. The pilot study involved nine experts, including four academic professors, three experienced project managers, and two government officials working in the construction sector. Structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with six participants, while the remaining three completed the questionnaire electronically and subsequently participated in online interviews to provide feedback.

Participants evaluated five aspects of the questionnaire: (1) its design and comprehensibility; (2) the appropriateness of its length; (3) the clarity of the questions; (4) the relevance of the questions to the study objectives; and (5) the time required for completion. All participants agreed that the questionnaire was clear, relevant, and suitable for achieving the study objectives. Most respondents completed the questionnaire within 10–15 min, whereas one participant required approximately 17 min. Based on the feedback received, minor revisions were made before distributing the final version, including increasing the font size and shortening the introductory cover letter. The reliability of the questionnaire was subsequently evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha, which ranged from 0.87 to 0.91, indicating strong internal consistency.

The questionnaire consisted of four sections. The first collected respondents’ demographic and professional information. The second assessed expert perceptions regarding the association between CE implementation and four key outcomes: resource efficiency, cost savings, recycling, and sustainable cities and communities. Responses were measured using a five-point Likert scale.

The third section identified the challenges limiting CE implementation during the construction phase of residential projects. The questionnaire items were classified into six categories comprising 35 challenges. Respondents evaluated each challenge using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree). The RII was subsequently used to rank the identified challenges.

The final section identified the most important strategies for minimizing construction waste. The questionnaire items were grouped into five strategy categories and analyzed using the RII. Based on the RII results, the three highest-ranked strategies from each category were selected for further evaluation and subsequently prioritized according to their RII values, as presented in

Table 2. The impact level according to RII value.

Range of RII Values	Impact Level
$0.8\le \mathrm{RII}\le 1$	High (H)
$0.6\le \mathrm{RII}<0.8$	High-Medium (H-M)
$0.4\le \mathrm{RII}<0.6$	Medium (M)
$0.2\le \mathrm{RII}<0.4$	Medium-Low (M-L)
$0\le \mathrm{RII}<0.2$	Low (L)

Source: [58].

.

Subsequently, a second questionnaire was administered, and the AHP was applied to prioritize the identified CE strategies and sub-strategies. Pairwise comparisons were performed by the same panel of 31 experts who participated in the initial questionnaire survey, comprising project managers, supervising engineers, contractors, and consultants. The experts evaluated the relative importance of the strategies using Saaty’s nine-point scale [59], where values ranging from 1 to 9 represent increasing levels of preference between two compared elements, as shown in

Table 3. Importance scale of AHP.

Importance Scale	Definition
1	Equal importance
3	Moderate importance of one over another
5	Strong importance of one category over another
7	Very strong importance of one category over another
9	The extreme importance of one category over another
2, 4, 6, 8	Intermediate values

Source: [59].

.

The AHP model was structured as a three-level hierarchy. The overall goal at the first level was to prioritize strategies for minimizing construction waste during the construction phase of residential building projects. The second level comprised the five main CE strategy categories identified from the literature review and the initial questionnaire survey. The third level consisted of the corresponding strategies and sub-strategies within each category. Pairwise comparisons were performed at each hierarchical level, and the resulting judgments were aggregated using the geometric mean, which is widely recommended for group decision-making in AHP studies. The aggregated comparison matrices were subsequently used to calculate the relative priority weights of the CE strategies and sub-strategies.

The consistency of the pairwise comparisons was evaluated using the Consistency Ratio (CR). According to Saaty [59], a CR value below 0.10 indicates an acceptable level of consistency. All comparison matrices satisfied this criterion, confirming that the expert judgments were both consistent and reliable.

To evaluate the validity, applicability, and reliability of the proposed CE framework within the Jordanian construction sector, the Delphi technique was employed to obtain expert consensus regarding its key strengths, applicability, and potential implementation limitations. The Delphi process consisted of three rounds involving nine experts who had participated in the interview stage of this study. None of these experts had participated in the questionnaire survey involving the 31 experts, thereby ensuring an independent evaluation of the proposed framework.

During the first round, semi-structured interviews were conducted to introduce the proposed framework, evaluate its applicability and practicality, and identify its principal strengths and potential implementation barriers. In the second round, a structured questionnaire was distributed to assess the importance of the strengths and barriers identified during the first round. In the third round, the experts ranked the identified strengths according to their relative importance in supporting the implementation of the proposed framework.

The level of agreement among the experts was assessed using Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W), a widely accepted statistical measure for evaluating consensus in Delphi studies.

Table 4. Kendall’s W concordance degree scale.

W	Interpretation
0	No agreement
0.10	Weak agreement
0.30	Moderate agreement
0.60	Strong agreement
1	Perfect agreement

presents the consensus thresholds adopted in this study based on the classifications proposed by Kendall [60].

Statistical analyses, including chi-square tests and Pearson correlation analysis, were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 29. Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to explore the strength and direction of the associations between experts’ perceptions of CE implementation and the key framework dimensions, namely construction waste management, resource efficiency, cost savings, and recycling performance. The analysis was exploratory in nature and was intended to examine the relationships among these variables based on expert perceptions rather than to establish causal relationships. The findings provided supportive evidence for considering these dimensions in the conceptual development of the proposed framework.

Drawing on the findings of the questionnaire survey, RII, AHP, and the Delphi evaluation, a CE-based framework was subsequently developed to support construction waste minimization during the construction phase of residential building projects in Jordan.

This study has several methodological limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the proposed CE framework was developed and evaluated primarily through expert judgments obtained from questionnaire surveys, the AHP, and the Delphi technique rather than through implementation in actual residential construction projects. Consequently, the findings should be regarded as expert-informed recommendations that require further empirical validation under real project conditions.

Second, the study employed a snowball sampling technique because CE implementation in residential construction projects represents a specialized field within the Jordanian construction sector, and professionals with the required expertise are relatively limited. Although predefined eligibility criteria were applied to ensure that participants possessed substantial experience in residential construction projects, practical knowledge of CE implementation, and extensive construction industry experience, the use of snowball sampling may have introduced selection bias and may not fully capture the perspectives of all stakeholders within the Jordanian construction sector.

Third, the study was based on a panel of 31 experts. Although this sample size is consistent with many previous expert-based studies employing the AHP and exceeds the panel sizes reported in several comparable studies, the findings cannot be statistically generalized to the entire construction industry. Nevertheless, expert-based decision-making methods emphasize the quality, expertise, and practical experience of participants rather than large sample sizes, making the selected expert panel appropriate for achieving the objectives of this study.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Statistical Analysis Results

To examine the associations among the main study variables, Pearson correlation analysis was conducted between CE implementation, construction waste management (CWM), resource efficiency, cost savings, and recycling rate, as presented in

Table 5. Pearson correlation matrix.

		CE	CWM	Resource Efficiency	Cost Savings	Recycling Rate
CE	Pearson Correlation	1	0.823 **	0.882 **	0.804 **	0.852 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
	N	31	31	31	31	31
CWM	Pearson Correlation	0.823 **	1	0.883 **	0.831 **	0.814 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)	<0.001		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
	N	31	31	31	31	31
Resource Efficiency	Pearson Correlation	0.882 **	0.883 **	1	0.821 **	0.872 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)	<0.001	<0.001		<0.001	<0.001
	N	31	31	31	31	31
Cost Savings	Pearson Correlation	0.804 **	0.831 **	0.821 **	1	0.874 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001		<0.001
	N	31	31	31	31	31
Recycling Rate	Pearson Correlation	0.852 **	0.814 **	0.872 **	0.874 **	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
	N	31	31	31	31	31

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

. The results revealed strong and statistically significant positive associations among all variables at the 0.01 significance level (p < 0.001). In particular, CE implementation was strongly associated with resource efficiency, cost savings, recycling performance, and construction waste management. These findings indicate that the participating experts perceived CE implementation to be closely associated with improved material utilization, enhanced recycling performance, reduced construction waste, and better economic outcomes in residential construction projects.

The Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from 0.804 to 0.883, indicating strong positive associations among the study variables while remaining below the commonly adopted threshold of 0.90, suggesting that severe multicollinearity is unlikely to be a concern. However, the correlation analysis was exploratory in nature and was intended only to examine the strength and direction of the associations among the variables based on expert perceptions. Consequently, the reported correlations should not be interpreted as evidence of causal relationships or predictive effects. Because all variables were measured using a single expert-based questionnaire, the observed associations may reflect respondents’ subjective evaluations rather than objective evidence obtained from actual construction project performance. Furthermore, the relatively high correlation coefficients may partially reflect conceptual similarities among the variables and the use of a common measurement instrument, thereby increasing the possibility of common method bias. Therefore, the proposed framework should be regarded as an expert-informed operational framework rather than a statistically validated causal model. The observed associations are generally consistent with previous studies that identified resource efficiency, recycling, and effective material management as important dimensions of CE implementation in the construction sector [23]. Future research employing larger sample sizes, multiple data sources, and advanced analytical techniques, such as Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), is recommended to further examine the potential causal relationships among CE implementation, resource efficiency, recycling performance, and construction waste minimization.

4.2. CE Challenges

The findings indicated that the low demand for recycled materials represented the most influential challenge across all respondent groups, with a mean score of 4.38 and an RII value of 0.8765, as presented in

Table 6. CE challenge impact level.

Category	Challenges	Mean	RII	Local Rank	Global Rank	Impact Level
Materials and Storage	The inability to determine the quantity and quality of materials (M1)	3.91	0.782	4	16	H-M
	Destruction of materials at the site during the construction process (M2)	4.03	0.806	3	11	H
	Difficulties in disassembling (M3)	4.26	0.853	1	3	H
	Poor monitoring materials (M4)	4.09	0.818	2	8	H
	Lack quality control (M5)	3.91	0.782	5	17	H-M
Project Staff and stakeholders	Workers lack the necessary skills (PS1)	3.97	0.7941	4	13	H-M
	Lack of stakeholder’s awareness (PS2)	4.32	0.8647	1	2	H
	Poor communication between stakeholders and construction departments (PS3)	3.97	0.7941	5	14	H-M
	Lack of knowledge of how to use modern technologies (PS4)	2.59	0.5176	10	31	M
	Lack of appropriate safety (PS5)	3.32	0.6647	7	23	H-M
	Rework due to work errors (PS6)	3.82	0.7647	6	18	H-M
	Lack of employee training (PS7)	4.24	0.8471	3	6	H
	Late response from the consultant (PS8)	2.62	0.5059	11	32	M
	Lack of motivation and incentives (PS9)	3.29	0.6588	8	24	H-M
	Lack of confidence in reused or recycled materials (PS10)	4.24	0.8471	2	4	H
	Lack experienced project manager (PS11)	2.65	0.5294	9	29	M
Financing Challenges	Low demand for reused or recycled materials (F1)	4.38	0.8765	1	1	H
	Time spent on dismantling, transportation and recycling (F2)	3.65	0.7235	4	21	H-M
	The high cost of recycling (F3)	3.71	0.7412	3	19	H-M
	Lack of the local market (F4)	4.12	0.8235	2	7	H
Site management and supervision	The site responsible for recycling is far from the workplace (SM1)	2.97	0.5941	1	26	M
	Inadequate work site (SM2)	2.47	0.4941	4	33	M
	Difficulties faced by delivery vehicles to reach the site (SM3)	2.15	0.4294	5	34	M
	Bad site layout (SM4)	2.88	0.5765	2	27	M
	Delay in making a decision (SM5)	2.76	0.5529	3	28	M
	Equipment breakdown (SM6)	1.82	0.3647	6	35	M-L
Design and contract documents	The terms of the contract are not clear (DC1)	3.18	0.6353	6	25	H-M
	Poor design and contract documents (DC2)	3.94	0.7882	4	15	H-M
	Design changes during the construction phase (DC3)	4.09	0.8176	2	9	H
	Designed without considering material dimensions (DC4)	3.68	0.7353	5	20	H-M
	Selection of contractors based on the lowest price (DC5)	4.24	0.8471	1	5	H
	Graphics complexity (DC6)	2.65	0.5294	7	30	M
	Prepare BOQ without considering waste (DC7)	4.09	0.8176	3	10	H
Policy	The lack of laws and provisions that help in the process of recycling materials (P1)	4.03	0.8059	1	12	H
	Lack of industry incentives for ‘greener’ activities (P2)	3.41	0.6824	2	22	H-M

. This finding is consistent with previous studies in both the manufacturing and construction sectors, which identified limited market demand for recycled materials as a major barrier to sustainable development. The challenge is commonly associated with concerns regarding material quality and the perception that adopting sustainable production practices involves substantial costs [61,62,63]. In Jordan, the market for secondary raw materials and waste-derived products remains underdeveloped, limiting the implementation of sustainable municipal solid waste management strategies despite their considerable potential to generate economic value if market demand increases [64].

Limited stakeholder awareness and understanding of CE principles also emerged as a major implementation barrier, ranking second among all identified challenges with a mean score of 4.32 and an RII value of 0.8647. Insufficient knowledge reduces stakeholders’ willingness to adopt circular practices and limits their effective implementation at the project level. Similar findings have been reported in previous studies, which identified limited awareness and understanding of CE principles and implementation strategies as significant barriers to adoption [65,66,67]. In the Jordanian construction sector, poor communication among project stakeholders has also been identified as a persistent challenge, further hindering the effective implementation of sustainable practices [68].

Difficulties associated with material disassembly ranked third among the identified challenges, with a mean score of 4.26 and an RII value of 0.853. The prominence of this challenge reflects the complexity and labor-intensive nature of disassembly processes, which often require specialized equipment, technical expertise, and additional time, thereby increasing project costs. Similar challenges have been reported in previous studies [69,70,71,72,73,74]. Within the Jordanian context, this issue may be further exacerbated by the limited availability of construction waste management facilities and insufficient regulatory support [75].

Another important challenge was the lack of confidence among project owners in the use of recycled materials. This factor ranked second within the owners’ category and fourth overall, with a mean score of 4.24 and an RII value of 0.8471. Concerns regarding the quality, safety, and long-term performance of recycled materials continue to reduce demand for secondary materials and limit their wider adoption within the construction sector [76,77]. Similar concerns have also been reported in Jordan, where uncertainty regarding the quality of recycled materials contributes to their limited acceptance among contractors and other industry stakeholders [20].

Overall, approximately 41% of the identified challenges exerted a substantial influence on the implementation of CE practices, with limited market demand for reused and recycled materials and insufficient stakeholder awareness representing the most critical barriers. In addition, approximately 32% of the identified challenges demonstrated a high-to-moderate level of influence, among which ineffective communication between project stakeholders and construction-related organizations was particularly prominent.

These findings provide practical guidance for organizations involved in residential construction projects. By systematically identifying, monitoring, and addressing the principal implementation challenges, project stakeholders can improve the adoption of CE practices, enhance construction waste management, and support the transition toward more sustainable construction.

The findings are consistent with previous studies on CE implementation in the construction sector. For example, Ma and Hao [48] reported that limited markets for secondary materials represent a major barrier to circular construction practices, while Lee [49] emphasized the importance of stakeholder awareness in facilitating CE adoption. Similarly, difficulties associated with material disassembly have been identified in previous research as a significant obstacle to material recovery and reuse. The agreement between the present study and previous findings suggests that these challenges are not unique to Jordan; however, their impact may be amplified by the relatively limited recycling infrastructure and market maturity within the Jordanian construction sector.

4.3. CE Strategies

The resource efficiency category comprised ten strategies, among which the use of prefabricated components emerged as one of the highest-ranked strategies, achieving an RII value of 0.8581. Prefabricated components contribute to resource conservation, waste reduction, and improved recyclability while supporting CE principles through designs that facilitate disassembly, modification, and reuse [78,79,80]. This result is consistent with Amarasinghe et al. [50], who also identified prefabrication as one of the most influential strategies for supporting CE implementation. Additional evidence is provided by a regional study conducted in Amman, which examined prefabricated housing constructed using precast insulated concrete units manufactured off-site and assembled on-site. The study reported shorter construction periods, improved quality, reduced material waste, and greater compatibility with Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) principles and digital transformation initiatives [81]. Modular construction and design, together with material passports, were also ranked highly, with RII values of 0.8258 and 0.8129, respectively.

The recycling category also comprised ten strategies, with providing incentives for recycling waste materials identified as the highest-ranked strategy (RII = 0.8194). Incentive-based approaches reduce demand for virgin resources, lower transportation costs associated with raw materials, and decrease environmental emissions [78,79]. In Jordan, stakeholders have similarly expressed strong support for incentive mechanisms, including tax exemptions, penalties for environmentally harmful activities, and initiatives that strengthen markets for recycled materials [20]. Other highly ranked strategies included the standardization and certification of recycled and remanufactured products (RII = 0.8065) and conducting pre-demolition audits to estimate the types and quantities of construction waste expected to be generated (RII = 0.8000).

The cost-saving category comprised nine strategies, among which sustainable procurement achieved the highest ranking (RII = 0.8710). This finding supports previous studies that identified sustainable procurement as an effective mechanism for extending product life cycles, reducing waste generation, and promoting CE principles [82,83,84,85,86]. Although sustainable procurement remains at an early stage of implementation in Jordan because of regulatory and institutional barriers [87], recent legislative initiatives, including Public Procurement Law No. 8 of 2022 and the National Action Plan for Sustainable Consumption and Production, demonstrate increasing governmental commitment to integrating sustainability principles within procurement policies while supporting Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 8, 12, and 13 [88]. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and Just-in-Time Delivery (JITD) were jointly ranked second, each achieving an RII value of 0.8323.

Within the waste management category, raising stakeholder awareness of CE principles emerged as the highest-ranked strategy (RII = 0.8710). Previous studies have similarly emphasized that awareness can be enhanced through effective communication, education, training programs, meetings, and collaboration with employees and suppliers, thereby facilitating the transition toward circular construction practices [31,89,90,91,92,93]. The findings also reinforce previous evidence that limited public awareness and participation remain significant barriers to CE implementation in Jordan [94].

Comparable challenges have been reported across the region. In Saudi Arabia, more than 70% of construction stakeholders reported limited awareness of CE principles, whereas only 19% indicated that they regularly implemented CE practices, despite 85% agreeing that such practices should be adopted within their organizations [95]. Similarly, a national public opinion survey found that only 11% of respondents possessed a good understanding of CE concepts, while 51% had heard of the concept without fully understanding its meaning [96]. These findings further demonstrate that insufficient awareness remains a major obstacle to successful implementation and emphasize the importance of targeted education, training, and awareness-raising initiatives. Empirical evidence also indicates that organizations investing in stakeholder awareness achieve higher levels of resource efficiency and improved sustainability performance [89]. Lean construction and BIM were also identified as highly influential strategies, with RII values of 0.8516 and 0.8465, respectively.

Within the government policies category, all identified strategies were considered important; however, strong government policies, legislation, and regulatory frameworks for circular construction projects achieved the highest ranking (RII = 0.8774). This result is consistent with previous studies highlighting the critical role of government intervention in facilitating the transition toward a CE through effective regulations, policies, and supporting mechanisms [23,34,97]. The importance of this strategy is particularly evident in Jordan, where gaps remain in the regulatory framework governing construction and demolition waste management and the use of recycled construction materials.

These gaps include the absence of comprehensive regulations and technical standards, limited enforcement mechanisms, unclear penalty structures, and insufficient policies that either mandate or encourage the use of recycled materials. Financial support mechanisms, including tax incentives, funding programs, and investment in research and development, also remain limited. Existing waste management legislation focuses primarily on general responsibilities, fees, and penalties, while weak enforcement and ambiguous regulatory requirements have contributed to inadequate oversight of construction waste management practices [14].

The development of open markets for secondary materials, together with supportive technological and regulatory ecosystems, also received high rankings, with RII values of 0.8516 and 0.8452, respectively. Based on these findings, the three highest-ranked strategies within each category were selected. Drawing on previous studies, the corresponding sub-strategies associated with each main strategy were identified, and a hierarchical questionnaire was subsequently developed to evaluate and prioritize them.

The findings further indicated that government policies represented the most influential strategy category, achieving the highest weight (0.2153). This result reflects expert consensus regarding the pivotal role of governments in promoting CE implementation through effective legislation, policies, and supporting instruments. Waste management ranked second (0.2138), followed by resource efficiency (0.2063) and cost savings (0.1974), while recycling received the lowest priority (0.1672). The Consistency Ratio (CR = 0.042) confirmed that the pairwise comparisons were reliable and statistically acceptable.

Table 7. The priority of Resource Efficiency strategies and sub-strategies.

CE Category	Resource Efficiency Strategies	Sub Strategies	Priority	Rank
Resource Efficiency (0.2063)	Use prefabricated elements (0.3432)	Manufacture building components off-site under controlled conditions	0.2608	2
		Coordinate delivery and on-site assembly of prefabricated modules	0.2481	3
		Reuse prefabricated components from demolished buildings where structural integrity is verified	0.2797	1
		Use cranes and modular transport systems	0.2214	4
	Modular construction and design (0.3317)	Install factory-built modules on site with minimal assembly time	0.2539	3
		Maintain modular identification and labeling for deconstruction	0.2641	2
		Apply quality checks on seals and joints to ensure reusability	0.2897	1
		Use standardized connections	0.1923	4
	Material passport (0.3251)	Tag materials/components with QR or RFID codes during installation.	0.2023	4
		Conduct site-level verification to ensure traceability.	0.2514	2
		Upload changes or substitutions made on site to the digital passport record.	0.2985	1
		Develop standard operating procedures (SOPs) for each material type.	0.2478	3

shows that the reuse of prefabricated components recovered from demolished buildings, provided that their structural integrity has been verified, represented the highest-ranked sub-strategy within the prefabricated components strategy, achieving a weight of 0.2797 (CR = 0.063). Reusing prefabricated building components supports sustainable construction by reducing waste generation, lowering resource consumption, extending material life cycles, and facilitating component recovery through design for disassembly [78,80,98].

Within the modular construction and design strategy, applying quality checks to seals and joints to ensure reliability was identified as the highest-priority sub-strategy, achieving a weight of 0.2897 (CR = 0.047). This finding agrees with previous studies demonstrating that high-quality seals and joints reduce material waste, improve component durability, and support the transition toward circular construction practices [99,100].

Similarly, within the material passport strategy, updating the digital material passport to reflect on-site modifications and material substitutions emerged as the highest-ranked sub-strategy, with a weight of 0.2985 (CR = 0.063). This result supports previous research emphasizing that regularly updated digital material records provide reliable information for reuse, maintenance, and recycling decisions, whereas outdated records gradually lose their effectiveness [101,102,103].

Overall, the identified strategies are closely aligned with previous studies. Prefabrication, stakeholder awareness, sustainable procurement, and supportive government policies have consistently been recognized as critical enablers of CE implementation and construction waste minimization. The present findings reinforce this evidence while providing a prioritized set of strategies and actionable sub-strategies specifically tailored to residential construction projects in Jordan.

Table 8. The priority of Recycling strategies and sub-strategies.

CE Category	Recycling Strategies	Sub Strategies	Priority	Rank
Recycling Rate (0.1672)	Standardization and warranties (0.3508)	Provide manufacturer warranties ensuring performance and durability of remanufactured items	0.2587	2
		Apply certification and labeling systems to identify compliant recycled products	0.2903	1
		Develop product standards for quality assurance of recycled aggregates, steel, and timber	0.2171	4
		Establish government-approved testing protocols for recycled product acceptance	0.2339	3
	Provide motivation for recycling waste materials (0.3316)	Partner with recyclers to collect sorted waste directly from site.	0.2462	3
		Monitor waste streams and report recycling performance regularly.	0.2584	2
		Promote training for site workers on proper waste handling and segregation techniques.	0.1915	4
		Integrate waste monitoring systems into project performance KPIs.	0.3039	1
	Conduct a Pre-Demolition Audit (0.3176)	Identify and categorize building components	0.2166	4
		Quantify materials by type and volume	0.2437	3
		Assess the condition and reusability of materials	0.2884	1
		Engage certified auditors and waste experts	0.2513	2

shows that the standardization and warranties strategy comprised four sub-strategies. Among these, implementing certification and labeling systems to identify compliant recycled products achieved the highest priority, with a weight of 0.2903 (CR = 0.081). Previous studies similarly reported that certification and labeling systems provide transparent and verifiable information regarding the quality, safety, and environmental performance of recycled products. Such systems help address consumer concerns, increase confidence in recycled materials, ensure compliance with technical standards, and ultimately stimulate demand for secondary materials [104,105,106,107].

The recycling incentives strategy also comprised four sub-strategies. Integrating waste monitoring systems into project performance Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) emerged as the highest-ranked sub-strategy, achieving a weight of 0.3039 (CR = 0.078). This result supports previous studies emphasizing the importance of incorporating waste-related performance indicators into organizational KPIs to facilitate CE implementation. Such integration enables organizations to monitor progress, identify inefficiencies, improve resource utilization, and reduce construction waste generation [108,109].

Similarly, the strategy of conducting pre-demolition audits to estimate the types and quantities of waste generated consisted of four sub-strategies. Assessing the condition and reuse potential of materials ranked highest, with a weight of 0.2884 (CR = 0.065). Previous studies have likewise demonstrated that evaluating material condition and reuse potential extends material life cycles and reduces dependence on virgin resources. By supporting informed decision-making regarding material recovery and reuse, this approach promotes sustainable construction and facilitates the adoption of circular construction practices [110,111,112].

Table 9. The priority of cost savings strategies and sub-strategies.

CE Category	Cost Savings Strategies	Sub Strategies	Priority	Rank
Cost Savings (0.1974)	Sustainable procurement strategy (0.3619)	Include environmental and circular criteria in tender documents	0.2738	1
		Require documentation of environmental product declarations (EPDs)	0.2383	3
		Source eco-labelled, low-carbon, or recycled materials from certified suppliers	0.2517	2
		Evaluate suppliers based on environmental performance, not just cost	0.2362	4
	Extend producer responsibility (0.3071)	Implement on-site take-back systems for packaging and unused materials	0.3221	1
		Coordinate with manufacturers to collect offcuts or damaged products for reuse	0.2039	4
		Label and track manufacturer-returned items	0.2121	3
		Ensure EPR clauses are enforced in procurement contracts	0.2619	2
	Use of Just in Time delivery arrangement (0.331)	Coordinate deliveries with digital scheduling systems to align material arrival with construction needs	0.2905	1
		Reduce on-site material storage to minimize damage and space use	0.2110	4
		Use real-time tracking and communication with suppliers for flexible scheduling	0.2321	3
		Adopt lean supply chain management to synchronize demand and production	0.2674	2

shows that the sustainable procurement strategy comprised four sub-strategies. Among these, incorporating environmental and CE criteria into tender documents achieved the highest priority, with a weight of 0.2738 (CR = 0.071). Previous studies have similarly demonstrated that integrating circular and environmental requirements into procurement processes improves material efficiency and strengthens markets for secondary materials. Such criteria encourage suppliers to adopt environmentally responsible practices and facilitate the transition toward a CE. Examples include requirements related to recycled content, product reparability, the use of non-toxic materials, and life-cycle environmental impacts [82,83,86,113].

The Just-in-Time Delivery (JITD) strategy also comprised four sub-strategies. Coordinating deliveries through digital scheduling systems to align material arrivals with construction requirements emerged as the highest-ranked sub-strategy, achieving a weight of 0.2905 (CR = 0.069). This result is consistent with previous research showing that integrating digital scheduling tools with delivery operations reduces ordering frequency, minimizes on-site storage requirements and material deterioration, and ensures that materials are delivered only when required. Such synchronization supports CE objectives by reducing waste generation, improving resource efficiency, and enhancing overall project logistics performance [114,115].

Similarly, the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) strategy consisted of four sub-strategies. Implementing on-site take-back systems for packaging materials and unused products ranked highest, with a weight of 0.3221 (CR = 0.082). Previous studies have likewise highlighted the environmental, economic, and social benefits of take-back systems. By closing the loop between production and end-of-life material management, these systems facilitate the transition toward a CE. In addition, they promote responsible consumption and production while supporting circular business models through greater producer accountability and more efficient resource recovery [116,117,118,119].

Table 10. The priority of waste management strategies and sub-strategies.

CE Category	Waste Management Strategies	Sub Strategies	Priority	Rank
Waste Management (0.2138)	Raising stakeholders’ awareness (0.3188)	Conduct training workshops and seminars on CE benefits	0.2894	1
		Involve subcontractors in sustainability reporting	0.2331	3
		Showcase pilot projects demonstrating successful CE applications	0.2208	4
		Provide workers with regular performance feedback and resource-saving achievements	0.2567	2
	Lean Construction principles (0.3567)	Conduct value stream mapping to identify waste sources and non-value-adding activities	0.2486	3
		Use visual management and 5S techniques to keep the site efficient	0.2719	1
		Maintain daily coordination meetings to optimize material flow	0.2212	4
		Use continuous improvement (Kaizen) cycles to refine processes	0.2583	2
	Implementing BIM (0.3295)	Use BIM to map materials, components, and quantities for circular lifecycle planning	0.2858	1
		Simulate deconstruction and reuse scenarios	0.2136	4
		Employing BIM for waste estimation and reduction planning	0.2581	2
		Use BIM-based digital twins to monitor building performance and material flows over time	0.2425	3

shows that the stakeholder awareness strategy comprised four sub-strategies. Among these, conducting training workshops and seminars on the benefits and applications of the CE achieved the highest priority, with a weight of 0.2894 (CR = 0.073). Previous studies have similarly emphasized the critical role of education and capacity-building in integrating CE principles into construction practices. Evidence from pilot studies involving small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) demonstrates that targeted training initiatives significantly improve stakeholders’ understanding of circular concepts and facilitate their practical implementation [120,121]. Likewise, Ünal [122] identified insufficient training as a major barrier to CE adoption, highlighting the importance of continuous knowledge development and skills enhancement.

The Lean Construction Principles strategy also comprised four sub-strategies. Applying visual management and 5S techniques to maintain site efficiency emerged as the highest-ranked sub-strategy, achieving a weight of 0.2719 (CR = 0.068). This finding is consistent with previous studies demonstrating that the 5S methodology—Sort, Set in Order, Shine, Standardize, and Sustain—is a fundamental lean management tool for minimizing waste, improving workflow efficiency, and fostering a culture of continuous improvement [123,124,125].

Similarly, the BIM implementation strategy consisted of four sub-strategies. Using BIM to map materials, components, and quantities for circular life-cycle planning ranked highest, with a weight of 0.2858 (CR = 0.088). Previous studies have likewise demonstrated that BIM-based material mapping improves resource efficiency while supporting environmental and economic assessments. By enabling the digital representation, tracking, and traceability of building components, BIM facilitates effective material management throughout the building life cycle. Consequently, it represents a key enabling technology for advancing CE practices and promoting more sustainable construction processes [126,127,128,129].

Table 11. The priority of government policies strategies and sub-strategies.

CE Category	Government Policies Strategies	Sub Strategies	Priority	Rank
Government Policies (0.2153)	Strong government policies (0.3533)	Offer tax incentives and grants for using recycled materials or circular design methods	0.2642	1
		Develop national CE roadmaps for the construction sector	0.2509	2
		Document waste diversion and recycling to meet permit conditions	0.2438	3
		Enforce transparent reporting and monitoring systems	0.2411	4
	Fertile ecosystem of technologies (0.3156)	Promote interdisciplinary collaboration between research, industry, and government	0.2614	2
		Develop national databases for recycled materials and best practices	0.2928	1
		Support innovation hubs and pilot projects for testing new circular solutions	0.2557	3
		Create clear regulatory frameworks to support reuse and remanufacturing	0.2001	4
	Open market for secondary materials (0.3311)	Establish digital platforms or marketplaces for trading recovered materials	0.2757	1
		Create material banks storing reusable building components	0.2368	3
		Implement certified quality assessment systems for secondary materials	0.2522	2
		Encourage construction waste exchanges between demolition and new projects	0.2353	4

shows that the strong government policies category comprised four sub-strategies. Among these, providing tax incentives and grants for the use of recycled materials and circular design approaches achieved the highest priority, with a weight of 0.2642 (CR = 0.077). Previous studies have similarly demonstrated that financial incentives play a crucial role in reducing the economic barriers to CE adoption. In particular, tax reductions and grant programs improve the economic viability of incorporating recycled materials and circular design practices into construction projects. Several countries, including the United States, China, Canada, and Germany, have successfully implemented such financial mechanisms, demonstrating their effectiveness in promoting the use of recycled materials and accelerating the transition toward a CE [114,130].

The strategy of fostering a supportive ecosystem of technologies, regulations, and guidelines also comprised four sub-strategies. Developing national databases for recycled materials and CE best practices emerged as the highest-ranked sub-strategy, achieving a weight of 0.2928 (CR = 0.087). Previous studies have likewise emphasized that national databases serve as centralized platforms containing comprehensive information on the availability, quality, and performance of recycled materials, together with documented circular best practices. These platforms support policymakers, decision-makers, and industry stakeholders by facilitating informed decision-making, improving material traceability, enhancing resource circulation, and reducing dependence on virgin materials [131,132].

Similarly, the open market for secondary materials strategy consisted of four sub-strategies. Establishing digital platforms or marketplaces for trading recovered materials ranked highest, with a weight of 0.2757 (CR = 0.052). This finding is consistent with previous studies demonstrating that digital marketplaces facilitate efficient communication and coordination among supply chain stakeholders, thereby improving the balance between the supply and demand of secondary materials. Such platforms play an important role in closing material loops within the built environment and supporting the practical implementation of CE principles [133,134,135,136].

Previous studies have consistently identified the CE as one of the most effective approaches for minimizing construction waste through its principles of resource efficiency, material recovery, and waste reduction. Accordingly, the framework developed in this study is founded on prioritized CE strategies and sub-strategies specifically designed to support construction waste minimization in residential projects. Nevertheless, the successful implementation of CE principles depends on overcoming several market, technical, organizational, and regulatory challenges. Therefore, the framework integrates the principal causes of construction waste, the key barriers to implementation, and the most effective strategies into a structured decision-support process. The practical application of the proposed framework is illustrated in Figure 1.

Practitioners should begin by assessing the project to identify the principal causes of construction waste, including design changes, material handling problems, poor planning, excessive material ordering, transportation damage, inadequate site supervision, and workmanship errors. Identifying these causes enables project teams to focus on the most significant sources of waste generation before selecting appropriate mitigation measures.

Following the identification of waste causes, project teams should evaluate the barriers that may hinder CE implementation. These include market-related, organizational, technical, and regulatory challenges, such as limited demand for recycled materials, insufficient stakeholder awareness, difficulties in material disassembly, and inadequate government support. This assessment provides the basis for selecting strategies that address the specific constraints of each project. Based on the identified waste causes and implementation challenges, decision-makers should determine the most appropriate strategy categories within the proposed framework. These include government policies and regulations, construction waste management, resource efficiency, cost-saving practices, recycling, and technology-related strategies. The priority assigned to each category should reflect the characteristics, objectives, and requirements of the project. Once the priority strategy categories have been identified, practitioners should implement the corresponding strategies and sub-strategies according to the project context. Typical actions include adopting sustainable procurement practices, applying visual management and 5S techniques to improve site organization, using BIM for material tracking and life-cycle management, promoting prefabrication, encouraging material recovery and recycling, and introducing financial incentives for the use of recycled materials where appropriate.

Following implementation, project teams should periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the selected strategies using indicators such as construction waste generation, material utilization, recycling performance, resource efficiency, and project costs. Continuous performance monitoring enables stakeholders to identify improvement opportunities and supports evidence-based decision-making.

The final step involves reviewing implementation outcomes and using the evaluation results to refine project practices and improve future applications of the framework. Lessons learned should be communicated to project stakeholders and policymakers to strengthen organizational learning, support continuous improvement, and contribute to the development of more effective CE policies and regulations.

By following these six steps, practitioners can systematically identify the principal causes of construction waste, address implementation barriers, prioritize suitable strategies, and continuously improve waste management practices in residential construction projects while supporting broader sustainable development objectives.

5. Framework Experts Evaluation

To evaluate the validity, reliability, and applicability of the proposed framework within the Jordanian construction sector, the Delphi technique was employed to achieve expert consensus regarding its principal strengths and implementation challenges. The Delphi process consisted of three rounds involving nine national experts and decision-makers, as presented in

Table 12. The demographic data for Delphi technique participants.

No.	Name	Job Scope	Position	Sector	Institution
1	Expert 1	Environmental Engineering	Consultant	Public	Jordanian Ministry of Environment
2	Expert 2	Material reuse and recycling systems	Manager	Private	Construction Company
3	Expert 3	Civil Engineer and structural design	Chief of Engineers	Private	Construction Company
4	Expert 4	Contract administration	Manager	Public	Ministry of Public Works & Housing
5	Expert 5	National waste management policies	Consultant	Public	Jordanian Ministry of Environment
6	Expert 6	Site management and supervision	Site manager	Public	Ministry of Public Works & Housing
7	Expert 7	Recycled materials	Project manager	Private	Construction Company
8	Expert 8	Construction waste management	School of Civil Engineering	Public	The University of Jordan
9	Expert 9	Site management and supervision	Site manager	Public	Greater Amman Municipality

. During the first round, semi-structured interviews were conducted to present the proposed framework, evaluate its applicability and reliability, and identify its principal strengths and potential implementation barriers. Based on the experts’ feedback, a summary of the identified strengths and challenges was prepared to inform the subsequent Delphi rounds.

During the second Delphi round, a structured questionnaire was distributed to evaluate the importance of the strengths identified during the first round. The experts assessed each identified strength using a three-level scale comprising *very important*, *important*, and *not important*. They were also given the opportunity to revise or refine their previous responses in light of the group feedback. The results indicated that the proposed framework offers several important advantages, including improving resource efficiency, reducing dependence on virgin resources, lowering procurement and waste disposal costs, and enhancing the image and reputation of construction companies, as presented in

Table 13. The results of the survey in the second round.

The Advantages of the Framework	Very Important	Important	Not Important	The Percentage for Important and Very Important
Lower procurement costs	7	2	0	100%
Corporate social responsibility goals	3	3	3	66%
Reduce demand for virgin resources	8	1	0	100%
Reduce CO2 emissions	4	2	3	66%
Waste becomes visible and measurable	2	3	4	56%
Coordination between teams	4	2	3	66%
Breaking down traditional silos in construction projects	1	2	6	33%
Support sustainable construction	6	2	1	88%
Enhance resource efficiency	8	1	0	100%
Reduce disposal fees	7	1	1	88%
Improve the performance	4	2	3	66%
Improving the company’s image	6	2	1	88%
Longer lifespan of materials	7	2	0	100%
Enhance the competitiveness	2	3	4	55%
Reduce ecological impact	5	2	3	77%
Workflow predictability	1	4	4	55%
Digital monitoring of waste	3	3	3	66%

.

During the third Delphi round, the experts were asked to rank the 17 identified strengths of the proposed framework according to their relative importance. Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) was used to assess the level of agreement among the experts by evaluating the consistency of their rankings. Most participants refined their previous assessments in light of the group feedback and assigned updated rankings. The results indicated that the framework’s principal strengths include reducing dependence on virgin resources, supporting sustainable construction practices, improving resource efficiency, and lowering carbon emissions. The experts also identified several potential implementation barriers, including limited technological readiness, the absence of comparable successful initiatives, and the need to strengthen existing regulations and policies. A summary of the evaluation results is presented in

Table 14. Ranking and concordance coefficient.

Advantages	E1	E2	E3	E4	E5	E6	E7	E8	E9	Mean Rank	Kendall’s W
Lower procurement costs	4	7	5	6	7	7	8	7	5	6.222	0.934
Corporate social responsibility goals	15	16	15	16	17	13	17	11	15	15.000
Reduce demand for virgin resources	1	2	1	1	3	4	2	1	2	1.889
Reduce CO2 emissions	6	5	4	3	6	2	5	4	6	4.556
Waste becomes visible and measurable	10	13	10	9	10	12	10	9	10	10.333
Coordination between teams	12	15	16	11	14	17	11	17	14	14.111
Breaking down traditional silos in construction projects	17	17	14	17	16	15	16	14	17	15.889
Support sustainable construction	2	1	3	2	1	3	4	3	1	2.222
Enhance resource efficiency	3	3	2	4	2	1	1	2	3	2.333
Reduce disposal fees	8	8	9	7	9	6	7	8	9	7.889
Improve the performance	13	12	12	13	13	11	14	12	12	12.444
Improving the company’s image	11	10	11	14	12	10	13	15	13	12.111
Longer lifespan of materials	9	6	7	8	5	8	6	6	7	6.889
Enhance the competitiveness	16	14	17	15	15	16	15	16	16	15.556
Reduce ecological impact	5	4	6	5	4	5	3	5	4	4.556
Workflow predictability	14	11	13	12	11	14	12	13	11	12.333
Digital monitoring of waste	7	9	8	10	8	9	9	10	8	8.667

. The final Delphi round demonstrated a very high level of consensus among the experts, with Kendall’s coefficient of concordance reaching **W = 0.934** (p < 0.001).

The stability of expert opinions was evaluated by examining the convergence of responses and the consistency of rankings across successive Delphi rounds. Minor refinements to the proposed framework were introduced following the first and second rounds in response to expert feedback. The high level of agreement achieved in the final round indicates that expert opinions remained stable throughout the Delphi process and supports the reliability of the framework evaluation.

The strong consensus achieved among the experts is consistent with previous studies that have employed the Delphi technique to evaluate construction and sustainability frameworks. These findings suggest that the proposed framework is considered both practical and applicable by industry experts. However, because the framework has not yet been implemented and evaluated in actual residential construction projects, it should be regarded as an expert-informed framework rather than a fully validated operational model. Future research should therefore focus on pilot implementation and empirical evaluation under real project conditions to further assess its practical applicability and effectiveness.

Verifying the suitability, applicability, and reliability of the proposed framework is a key objective that strengthens the credibility of the study’s findings. This verification enhances the likelihood of practical implementation by encouraging construction companies to adopt and disseminate the framework, thereby helping to address construction waste challenges, support the transition away from the dominant linear model, and align with the objectives of Jordan’s Vision 2025.

6. Conclusions

Construction waste remains one of the most significant environmental and economic challenges facing the Jordanian construction sector. The continued reliance on a linear economic model, combined with limited recycling practices and increasing resource consumption, highlights the need for alternative approaches that support sustainable construction. Accordingly, this study developed a CE framework to support construction waste minimization during the construction phase of residential building projects in Jordan.

A mixed-methods approach was adopted, integrating a comprehensive literature review, questionnaire surveys, RII, AHP, and Delphi evaluation. The framework was developed using the judgments of project managers, supervising engineers, contractors, and consultants and was subsequently evaluated by an independent panel of experts through a three-round Delphi process.

The findings provide clear answers to the four research questions. First, the study identified the principal barriers limiting CE implementation in residential construction projects, namely the low demand for reused and recycled materials, limited stakeholder awareness of CE principles, difficulties in material disassembly, and low confidence in recycled materials. These findings indicate that both market-related and organizational factors continue to hinder the transition toward a CE in Jordan.

Second, the study identified the most important CE strategies and sub-strategies for minimizing construction waste. Government policies and regulations were ranked as the most influential strategy category, followed by construction waste management, resource efficiency, cost-saving practices, and recycling initiatives. At the strategy level, sustainable procurement, stakeholder awareness programs, prefabrication, material passports, BIM, recycling incentives, and supportive regulatory frameworks were identified as the most important measures for facilitating CE implementation. At the sub-strategy level, the application of visual management and 5S techniques, BIM-based material and component mapping throughout the building life cycle, and tax incentives and grants for recycled materials emerged as the highest-priority actions.

Third, the identified challenges and strategies were integrated into a practical framework tailored to the Jordanian construction sector. Compared with many existing frameworks that remain conceptual, the proposed framework translates CE principles into structured strategies and actionable sub-strategies that may assist practitioners in minimizing construction waste during the construction phase of residential projects.

Fourth, the proposed framework was evaluated through a three-round Delphi process involving an independent panel of experts. The Delphi results demonstrated a high level of consensus (Kendall’s coefficient of concordance, W = 0.934), indicating strong agreement regarding the framework’s applicability, practicality, and suitability for supporting CE implementation within the Jordanian construction sector.

The study also identified strong positive associations between CE implementation and resource efficiency, recycling performance, cost savings, and construction waste management. These findings should be interpreted as expert perceptions rather than evidence of causal relationships, but they provide additional support for considering these dimensions in the development of the proposed framework.

From a theoretical perspective, this study extends the application of Institutional Theory and Stakeholder Theory within the context of CE implementation in construction projects by highlighting the importance of regulatory support, stakeholder engagement, and organizational commitment. From a practical perspective, the framework provides policymakers, consultants, contractors, and project managers with a structured decision-support tool for identifying implementation barriers, prioritizing CE strategies, and supporting construction waste minimization.

Although the framework was developed specifically for residential construction projects in Jordan, many of the identified barriers and implementation strategies are consistent with those reported in other developing and emerging economies. Consequently, the framework may serve as a useful reference for promoting CE implementation in similar contexts. However, its application in other countries should be adapted to local legislative, economic, technological, and institutional conditions.

This study has several limitations. The proposed framework was developed and evaluated using expert judgments rather than implementation in actual construction projects. Therefore, it should be regarded as an expert-informed decision-support framework rather than a fully validated operational model. In addition, the findings are based on a specialized expert panel and should not be statistically generalized to the broader construction industry. Future research should focus on pilot implementation and empirical evaluation of the framework in real residential construction projects, examine its applicability across other project types and construction phases, and investigate its integration with emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence, Digital Twins, and the Internet of Things to further enhance CE implementation.

However, this study contributes to advancing sustainable construction by proposing a context-specific and expert-informed CE framework for minimizing construction waste in residential projects. The framework provides structured guidance for supporting the transition from a linear to a circular construction model and has the potential to contribute to sustainable resource management, Jordan’s Vision 2025, and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).