Deconstruction, Disassembly, or Selective Demolition: A Review of Terminology and Conceptual Challenges in Literature

Abstract

Despite substantial research conducted over the past decades, the transition to a circular construction industry remains in its infancy. The deconstruction of buildings to recover materials for reuse is recognized as a promising strategy for advancing circularity. However, terminological ambiguity and a lack of conceptual consensus continue to lead to misinterpretation and may impede theoretical and practical progress. Based on a systematic literature review of 51 academic and non-academic sources, this paper analyzes the use of core terminology related to deconstruction processes. Ten central terms and expressions are identified, among which ‘demolition’ and ‘deconstruction’ are the most consistently applied, whereas ‘selective demolition’ is used with varying interpretations. To further document the current state of terminology in the field, a glossary of general terms commonly employed is also presented. Clear communication and the explicit definition of applied terms are essential to ensure efficient on-site construction processes and the relevance and value of future studies in this field. To this end, this study aims to enhance transparency and contribute to coherence within the terminological landscape of deconstruction research.

1. Introduction

The linear economic model, dominant since the Industrial Revolution, has driven unprecedented progress and growth; however, it increasingly imposes significant burdens on the planet, notably through resource depletion and waste accumulation [1]. In construction, as in other industries, conserving and reusing materials used to be advantageous, mainly due to the high energy and labour costs associated with extracting, preparing, and transporting raw materials [2]. Demolition contractors would frequently bid on buildings scheduled for removal to salvage valuable components for resale. However, with the rise in industrial automation and mass production, this resource-conscious mindset gradually shifted toward the “take, make, and dispose” paradigm that dominates today [3]. The linear model prioritizes throughput and growth with limited regard for material waste or long-term environmental consequences. Yet, in recent decades, growing concerns about resource scarcity, waste accumulation, and ecological limits have driven a collective interest in transitioning towards a circular economy (CE)—also within construction—that emphasizes material retention, reuse, and lifecycle thinking. Despite this increasing attention, the global circularity rate is in decline, falling from 9.1% in 2018 to 7.2% in 2023 [4]. Across industries, the economy continues to rely heavily on the extraction of virgin materials. In the European Union (EU), approximately half of the materials consumed annually are used in the construction sector [5]), and in 2020, the construction industry in the EU generated 330 million tons of waste.

Traditional demolition, i.e., turning a building into waste [6] is still the prevalent End-of-Life (EoL) scenario [7]. However, in response to growing environmental concerns, the concept of deconstruction has emerged [8,9]. In this paper, deconstruction is defined as the planned disassembly of a building [7] with the aim of recovering and reusing materials [9] and it is a primary enabler of the transition to CE in construction [10]. This concept is not new, as examples of deconstruction and reuse initiatives date back to ancient Rome [10]. Yet, despite notable deconstruction projects undertaken in the past, the fragmented nature of these efforts has kept deconstruction in an infancy stage [7]. There remains a lack of consensus on the definition of deconstruction and its potential implications. Misinterpretation and ambiguity characterize the field, as some studies distinguish between terms such as “deconstruction” and “disassembly”, while others apply them interchangeably. Other related terms with fundamentally different meanings, such as “reuse” and “recycle,” have also been confused in both academic research and at the municipal level [7]. Such inconsistent terminology complicates the comparison of research findings across studies and may hinder the consistent interpretation and implementation of policy instruments across jurisdictions. The lack of consensus regarding terminology is not only evident within deconstruction. The European Commission has noted that the field of construction and demolition (C&D) waste management is characterized by substantial differences in terminology and concepts across member states and has stated that clear, unambiguous definitions are crucial [11]. In a broad study, Kirchherr et al. found 114 definitions of CE in the literature [12]. Six years later, this number had increased to 221 definitions [13]. The risk posed by diverse understandings of a concept (or, in the case of deconstruction, multiple terms) is not only theoretical stagnation, possibly leading to conceptual collapse [13]; differences in vocabulary also lead to poor communication on construction sites, which negatively impacts productivity [14].

Through a systematic literature review, this study examines the conceptual use of terminology and definitions related to demolition and deconstruction in the construction industry. Its primary aim is to identify areas of consensus and divergence in the application of core process-related terms such as deconstruction, selective demolition, and disassembly.

Previous literature reviews have primarily mapped publication trends, thematic clusters, and citation patterns within deconstruction research [7,15,16,17]. While these studies provide valuable insights into the development of the field, they offer limited examination of how core process-related terms are applied. The present study addresses this gap by focusing specifically on variation in definitions and conceptual consistency across the literature. Thus, this paper addresses the following research question: What core terms have scholars adopted to describe the deconstruction process, and in what ways are they applied?

A secondary contribution of this paper is the compilation of a glossary of general terms commonly used in the context of deconstruction, which may enhance conceptual clarity. Previous works that present glossaries in this field include the EU Construction and Demolition Waste Protocol [11] focusing on waste identification, source separation, collection, logistics, and processing, and the ISO 20887:2020—Design for disassembly and adaptability [18] aimed at the design phase. Additional terminology resources have recently been developed through professional platforms and EU-funded initiatives, such as the DesignBuildings Wiki [19], CircularB COST Action [20], and RECONMATIC [21]. The emergence of these glossaries reflects the recognized complexity and ongoing development of terminology within construction circular economy and deconstruction research. The glossary included in this study is intended as a concise reference derived from the analyzed literature and should be understood as a complementary outcome rather than a standalone normative framework. Other examples of complementary glossaries are found in an appendix by Pristerà et al., focused on Design for Disassembly (DfD) and selective demolition [15], and a book chapter by Volk about BIM for existing buildings [22].

The goal is to inform scholars and practitioners about the current terminology landscape in the field of deconstruction, as documented through the systematic analysis presented in the study. By making areas of convergence and divergence explicit, the findings aim to support clearer communication in research and practice. Clearly defining core terms is essential to minimizing ambiguity and reducing the risk of misinterpretation in both publications and on construction sites.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 outlines the methods adopted for the structured literature review. In Section 3, the results of the analysis of adopted terminology are presented and discussed. Finally, limitations are discussed, and concluding remarks and recommendations are summarized in Section 4.

2. Materials and Methods

The research methodology of this study encompasses three main phases. First, data were collected through a systematic literature review conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol [23]. Applying the PRISMA protocol enhances transparency and supports the reproducibility of the study, and it is a well-established approach in construction-related research, as demonstrated by Ohueri et al. [24] and Attia et al. [17]. As illustrated in the PRISMA flow diagram (see Figure 1), the structured review process involves three steps: (1) identification, (2) initial screening, and (3) eligibility assessment. Second, a bibliometric analysis was performed to map publication trends in existing literature, and third, a descriptive terminology analysis was conducted to extract and compile domain-specific terms used across the selected publications, resulting in a glossary that reflects the conceptual vocabulary of the field.

The literature included originates from both academic and non-academic sources, also referred to as grey literature (e.g., legal documents and reports). Including grey literature can improve both the reliability and the scope of reviews and analyses [25]. Academic works were gathered from the electronic database Scopus, and further relevant literature was identified through manual searches of reference lists, a technique also known as the snowball method or citation tracking.

2.1. Identification

The set of keywords developed for the initial search in Scopus was inspired by Allam and Nik-Bakht [26], who conducted a bibliometric analysis of research on all aspects of deconstruction across any phase of a building’s lifecycle. To obtain a reasonable number of studies for manual analysis, the search was limited to papers whose titles contained the keywords. While this approach may have excluded studies in which terminology was discussed more peripherally, it reduced the risk of including articles where the core concepts were not central to the research objectives. The chosen set of keywords was TITLE ((deconstruct* OR disassembl* OR dismantl* OR demolition OR destruct* OR decommission*) AND (building OR construction OR “built environment”)). To control search results, several rules were applied to the search string. An asterisk was used to include all keyword forms with the same root, e.g., disassembl* returns “disassembly”, “disassembled”, and “disassembling”. Quotation marks were added to include the exact phrase “built environment”. In addition, two Boolean operators were used to filter the search results, namely “AND” and “OR”, and parentheses were used to control the order of the search operations.

To refine the search, filters concerning language, document type, subject area, and publication year were also applied. The time frame for publications considered was set to 2010–2025, in line with the European Commission’s focus on CE, as suggested by Finamore and Oltean-Dumbrava [25]. The European Commission first described the CE concept in “Closing the Loop—An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy”, published in 2015. To provide a comprehensive foundation, the timeframe extends five years before this publication to include essential background literature. The complete list of search filters is shown in

Table 1. Search filters for Scopus literature search.

Keywords 1	Languages	Document Types	Subject Areas	Years
TITLE ((deconstruct* OR disassembl* OR dismantl* OR demolition OR destruct* OR decommission*) AND (building OR construction OR “built environment”))	English	Article Review Book chapter Book	Engineering Environmental Science Earth and Planetary Sciences	2010–10 February 2025

¹ An asterisk was used to include all keyword forms with the same root, e.g., disassembl* returns “disassembly”, “disassembled”, and “disassembling”.

. The initial search returned 1664 documents.

2.2. Initial Screening

Of the 1664 identified documents, fourteen duplicates were removed. The titles, keywords, and abstracts of the remaining 1650 records were reviewed to assess their relevance to the study’s scope and to eliminate irrelevant topics and duplicates. On this basis, 1520 records were excluded during the initial screening, leaving 130 studies for eligibility assessment. Several common topics were identified among the excluded studies:

• Studies focusing on management aspects and/or the generation (rate) of the construction and demolition waste produced, but not on the on-site processes
• Technical and mechanical properties of demolition waste for reusing, e.g., aggregates for concrete production
• Recycling potential of construction and demolition waste, often presented through case studies, representing practices in different regions and countries worldwide
• Non-destructive testing

The largest group of excluded studies focused on management aspects and/or the generation (rate) of construction and demolition waste, rather than on reuse and waste reduction. Lausselet et al. [27] notes this focus in the literature as a constraint on developing a CE in the construction sector, stemming from prior emphasis in legislation on recycling, which may have inadvertently promoted downcycling [28].

2.3. Eligibility Assessment

For the eligibility assessment, two inclusion criteria were formulated. The paper must (1) contain a definition or explanation of one or more terms related to deconstruction, (2) focus primarily on the execution phase, not, e.g., the design phase (DfD, etc.). DfD is a widely studied topic in the literature, and ultimately, the choices made in the design phase directly dictate the subsequent phases and possible outcomes at the end of the lifecycle. Thus, implementing strategies such as DfD is essential for the future transition. However, they have limited impact on reducing the environmental footprint of the existing building stock [6]. Given the volume of existing buildings scheduled for demolition or transformation, it is necessary to prioritize the reuse of materials that have already been extracted and processed.

The eligibility assessment was conducted manually to select relevant papers. Relevant policy documents or industry guidelines not identified through the described systematic procedure were not included in the analyzed dataset to maintain transparency and reproducibility of the review process. Based on the assessment, 88 papers were excluded, and 42 eligible documents were identified. After an additional 9 records were identified through the snowball method, the final sample for the analysis comprises 51 documents, as shown in Figure 1.

2.4. Descriptive Bibliometric and Terminology Analyses

Bibliometric analysis refers to the systematic, data-driven examination of literature to identify patterns, connections, and trends within a research field. In this study, the bibliometric analysis serves as contextual background and examines two descriptive measures: year of publication and geographic focus. Following this, a descriptive terminology analysis was conducted to identify core terms used in the literature to describe the deconstruction process. Ten core terms were selected based on their prominence and the variability in how they are defined or used. These terms often represent overlapping concepts or are inconsistently used across contexts. To explore their application, the text analysis software AntConc (version 4.3.1) [29] was employed. Additionally, the text analysis identified a broader set of commonly used terms and expressions that are applied more consistently across sources. These were compiled into a glossary to reflect the field’s shared conceptual vocabulary.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Descriptive Bibliometric Results

To establish the contextual background of the literature review, a graphical overview of the 51 included sources is shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, specifically the year of publication and the country each document concerns. Figure 2 shows a noticeable increase in the literature on the deconstruction process over the set timeframe, especially from 2017 onwards. The significantly higher number of included sources published in 2024, compared with previous years, indicates exponential growth in attention to the topic. This aligns well with the increased focus on the green transition and CE in general, both in policy and the private sector [13]. Figure 3 illustrates a broad geographic representation in the literature sample. While most countries are represented through one or two documents, Portugal, Canada, and Germany appear most frequently with five, four, and four papers, respectively. Notably, publications with an international or cross-national focus constitute the largest share, accounting for seven documents. This highlights the need for collaborative efforts to advance sustainability in the construction industry.

3.2. Core Terms to Describe the Deconstruction Process

The literature review revealed that several terms and expressions are used to describe the deconstruction process. Some appear frequently, while others are applied only sporadically. Many frequently used terms are consistently defined across documents; however, there are also several instances in which the same term is used with different meanings in different contexts. More commonly, multiple terms and expressions are used interchangeably to describe the same process.

Across the 51 literature sources, ten core terms and expressions were identified: demolition, selective demolition, deconstruction, selective deconstruction, disassembly, selective disassembly, dismantling, selective dismantling, destruction, and decommissioning. These terms are presented in

Table 2. Core terminology describing the deconstruction process.

Term	Definition/Example Phrase	Source(s)
Demolition	“tends to have a much lower threshold for recovering reusable materials [than deconstruction] and is typically focused on speed and the mechanical reduction of the mass of a building in order to make the disposal of materials as efficient as possible.”	[2] (p. 71)
	“The most common method of conventional demolition is (…) the “top-down” method. As indicated by the method’s name, demolition works take place along a vertical axis. In other words, demolition work begins with the dismantling of the roof and is completed on the ground…”	[30] (p. 2)
	“Removal by destructive methods.” “Demolition by pushing or pulling, fragmenting by crushing or shearing, implosion or rapid progressive failure of construction works or their component parts.”	[18] (p. 3)
	Converting the building into waste.	[6]
	“an arbitrary and destructive process, and although faster and cheaper [than deconstruction], it typically creates a substantial amount of waste.”	[10] (p. 1)
	Two basic [demolition] methods are defined: “…mechanical destruction of the structure by external application of force (caulking, milling, drilling, sawing) or media-transporting blasting methods (high pressure water jetting, solid-state blasting).”	[31] (p. 1981)
Selective demolition	“(…) also named deconstruction.”	[32] (p. 382)
	“a mix of both partial deconstruction and demolition…”	[33] (p. 140)
	“involves sequencing the demolition activities to allow the separation and sorting of building materials.”	[11] (p. 30)
	Disassembly process using destructive methods that destroy the functional capabilities of the components.	[34] (p. 1000)
	Destructing the building while keeping the non-stony stream—e.g., wood, plastics, and steel—from waste concrete.	[1]
Deconstruction	“the disassembly of buildings to recover the maximum amount of reusable and recyclable materials in a safe, environmentally responsible, cost-effective manner.”	[2] (p. 70)
	“the process of taking a building or structure apart (…) in the reverse order to that in which it was constructed.”	[35] (p. 429)
	= building clearance, deconstructing all non-load bearing parts and rebuilding from the old skeleton.	[36]
	The same as selective deconstruction. “…is at least as complex and sophisticated as the construction process, especially because of many undocumented conditions of the building, which lead to many uncertainties during deconstruction.”	[37] (p. 212)
	“…closes the loop of linear use of resources, reduces dependence on new materials, and decreases waste disposals in landfills”	[38] (p. 1573)
	Non-destructive disassembly.	[34]
	The same as complete selective demolition.	[6]
	Contributes to circularity and is “…a cleaner and more sustainable process than demolition, with less pollution released into the atmosphere and waterways.”	[10] (p. 2)
	The same as selective dismantling.	[39]
	“Green demolition”.	[16] (p. 3)
Selective deconstruction	“seeks to maximize the value gained from the materials of an EOL building, in a manner that it allows the reuse or efficient recycling of the materials that comprise the structure.”	[40] (p. 264)
Disassembly	“the process of taking an assemblage to pieces.” = Dismantling.	[34] (p. 1000)
	“non-destructive taking-apart of a construction work or constructed asset into constituent materials or components”	[18] (p. 3)
	The same as deconstruction.	[16]
Selective disassembly	“a process for analyzing and judging the component or sub-assembly accessibility as well as for assessing the disassembly paths of the components.” Used in manufacturing.	[41] (p. 2)
Dismantling	Synonymous with deconstruction	[7]
Selective dismantling	The process behind deconstruction, which involves separating building components into smaller parts.	[10]
Destruction	“Process of turning material into waste, which may or may not be recycled.”	[3] (p. 239)
Decommissioning	Often used synonymously with the terms disassembly, reverse engineering and deconstruction, this approach aims at avoiding demolition as an EoL option.	[22]

, along with representative examples of their use and definitions in different documents.

The term ‘demolition’ is consistently used to describe the process of turning a building into waste in an arbitrary, destructive manner, with no regard for the recovery of materials. It is frequently characterized as the fastest and cheapest option, although the cost advantage is disputed in several studies [30,38]. The term ‘destruction’, like ‘demolition’, is used to describe the process of turning a building into waste. However, it appears far less frequently than demolition, indicating a general preference for the latter to describe this process within the construction sector.

The expression ‘selective demolition’ carries multiple interpretations. The EU and other sources define it as a modest improvement over conventional demolition in terms of sustainability, as it involves the separation of waste fractions [11]. However, some authors use the expression synonymously with ‘deconstruction’ (elaborated below) [6,32] while Sanchez and Haas [34] describe it as a destructive method, employing terminology similar to that used for conventional demolition in other documents. This variation suggests that ‘selective demolition’ should be applied with caution and defined explicitly to ensure clarity.

‘Deconstruction’ is commonly referred to as “construction in reverse” [2,35] and is widely recognized as a cleaner and greener process than demolition. This gentle approach enables reuse, repurposing, or recycling of materials [10,16]. Several sources use ‘deconstruction’ interchangeably with ‘selective dismantling’ [39,42]. In the book chapter by Kamrath [36], deconstruction is described as the initial phase of a transformation or refurbishment process, in which the load-bearing structure is retained as a skeleton for the new building. No contradictory definitions of this widely applied term were identified in the literature sample, suggesting ‘deconstruction’ is a stable and appropriate term for use in future research. The related expression ‘selective deconstruction’ is not frequently used in the literature. It carries the same meaning as ‘deconstruction’, making the addition of ‘selective’ appear redundant.

The terms ‘disassembly’, ‘dismantling’, and ‘selective dismantling’ are used frequently to describe the deconstruction process [7,43]. No contradictory uses of these terms were identified within the literature sample. The expression ‘selective disassembly’ is primarily used in a series of publications by Benjamin Sanchez and Carl Haas, in the context of developing a “selective disassembly sequence planning method” [34]. In collaboration with colleagues, they also introduced two additional expressions: ‘destructive disassembly’, defined as “the disassembly of components and connections in a manner which preserves their physical integrity” and ‘perfect disassembly’, described as “the disassembly of building parts with extreme care in order to warrant their direct reuse (i.e., complete physical and functional utility)” [44] (p. 4). Overall, the series of studies by Sanchez et al. represents a distinctive use of several core terms, which in some cases differ from or contradict the prevailing usage across the literature sample.

The term ‘decommissioning’ is mentioned only rarely in the context of building deconstruction, where it is applied as a synonym for deconstruction at the EoL stage [22]. During the screening phase of this review, it was observed that decommissioning is most commonly associated with the EoL of nuclear power plants. Therefore, applying this term should be approached with caution, as it may cause confusion.

Using the “Word” and “Cluster” functions in AntConc, an overview was generated showing which of the identified core terms and expressions appear in each of the reviewed documents. This overview is presented in the Appendix A. As shown in Figure 4, all sources include the terms ‘demolition’ and ‘deconstruction’. In relation to the research question, the figure indicates a stable position of these two terms in the literature. The terms ‘dismantling’, ‘disassembly’, and ‘selective demolition’ appear in more than half of the documents, while ‘decommissioning’, the least frequently applied term, is present in only seven documents. These patterns highlight both convergence around certain key terms and variability in the use of others. The findings support the earlier observation that ‘deconstruction’ may be a suitable term due to its widespread use.

As illustrated in Figure 5, none of the reviewed sources use fewer than 3 of the identified core terms, and the majority use between 4 and 6. This distribution indicates that scholars rarely rely on a single, clearly defined term to describe the deconstruction process. Instead, multiple terms are typically employed within the same publication. One paper, by Sanchez et al. [44] stands out by including all ten terms. In many cases where multiple terms are mentioned, they appear in close succession, either to indicate their interchangeable use within the document or to situate the study within the context of related research. This tendency to introduce multiple rephrasings further illustrates the fragmented use of core terminology in this field.

In summary, the analysis revealed significant variability in how the identified core terms are applied across the literature, with frequent instances of overlapping use and inconsistent definitions. While following the terminology used in official documents, such as the EU protocol [11], might appear to offer a standardized solution, this approach also presents limitations. Even in this document, six of the ten core terms are employed, yet only one is explicitly defined. This shows that relying on official sources does not currently provide sufficient clarity or consistency to resolve the existing terminological ambiguity within the field. Thus, it remains advisable for authors and practitioners to clearly define their intended usage of terms to support conceptual clarity and communicational alignment.

3.3. Additional Terminology Related to Deconstruction

In addition to the core terms analyzed above, the literature review revealed a range of other expressions commonly used to describe the deconstruction process. These are compiled in

Table 3. Commonly used terminology.

Term/Concept	Definition/Example Phrase	Source
Adaptive reuse	A combination of renovation and transformation. “It takes existing buildings that are obsolete, restores them, and in some cases, changes their use.”	[34] (p. 999)
Closed loop cycle (CLC) materials	Materials that are “extracted from buildings and reintegrated directly or reprocessed and then reintegrated into buildings or put to useful purpose in other sectors without creating any waste.”	[35] (pp. 434–435)
Design for Deconstruction/Disassembly (DfD)	“an approach to the design of a product or constructed asset that facilitates disassembly at the end of its useful life in such a way that it enables components and parts to be reused, recycled, recovered for energy or, in some other way, diverted from the waste stream.”	[18] (p. 3)
Digital twin	“a virtual model, (…) equivalent to the real building, thus having many details regarding the composition of the materials of each element.”	[10] (p. 5)
Downcycling	“the recycling process where the new recycled material is of lower quality and functionality than the original material, due to the presence of pollutants, safety concerns, and/or acceptance, which do not allow high-quality applications.”	[10] (p. 9)
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)	“compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle.”	[18] (p. 4)
Life Cycle Energy Assessment (LCEA)	“a variant of the LCA method to evaluate the lifecycle energy flows of buildings, building elements, materials and/or services throughout their lifecycle phases.”	[45] (p. 1595)
Material passport	“sets of data describing defined characteristics of materials in products that give them value for recovery and reuse.” Cited from the Horizon 2020 project Buildings as Material Banks.	[41] (p. 2)
Pre-demolition audit	“a preparatory activity with the purpose of (1) collecting information about the qualities and quantities of the C&D waste materials that will be released during the demolition or renovation works and (2) giving general and site-specific recommendations regarding the demolition process.”	[11] (p. 29)
Recover	Recovery is the opposite of disposal. “waste serving a useful purpose by replacing other materials which would otherwise have been used to fulfil a particular function”	[46] (p. 30)
Recycling	“Recycling involves reprocessing salvaged elements with a manufacturing process and making it into a (component for a) final element again. (…) the strategy is less preferable because it typically reduces the element’s quality (…).”	[6] (p. 2)
Refurbishment	“modification and improvements to an existing building (3.4) or civil engineering works (3.6) in order to bring it up to an acceptable condition.”	[18] (p. 5)
Rehabilitation	“the extensive repair, renovation and modification of a building to have it suit economic or functional criteria equivalent to those expected of a new building that serves the same purpose.”	[35] (p. 430)
Reuse	“any operation by which products or components that are not waste are used again for the same purpose for which they were conceived.” “Reuse is a means of waste prevention; it is not a waste management operation.”	[46] (p. 30)
Scavenging	“is the activity of identifying usable materials that takes place after demolition; in this context, particularly re-usable and recyclable materials.”	[11] (p. 30)
Site assessment/Environmental Site Assessment	“analyzing the building and site, including salvageable materials, space for equipment and storage/processing of removed materials, presence of hazardous materials, and site and safety constraints for deconstruction.”	[2] (p. 72)
Soft-stripping	Removal of non-structural elements (e.g., drainage pipes, electrical cables, doors, windows) for recycling.	[47]
Stripping	“is the activity of removing valuable materials from a site, installation or building that takes place before demolition.”	[11] (p. 30)
Technical metabolism	“an analogy to the biological metabolism present in Nature, where “waste” is turned into “feed”. (…) this endless cycle turns the reused and recycled waste into “nutrients” (i.e., new materials or uses) for new buildings.”	[48] (p. 1298)
Waste hierarchy	“an order of preference for waste management and resource conservation options”	[1] (p. 3)

, presented in alphabetical order. Some of these terms appear only in a single publication or a few sources (e.g., ‘technical metabolism’), while others are more widely used (e.g., ‘recycling’, ‘adaptive reuse’). While not classified as core terms, they contribute to framing deconstruction-related research and help illustrate the broader conceptual landscape. Documenting this terminology also supports greater clarity, particularly considering the diverse and inconsistent use of language within the field.

Though not presented in Table 3, ‘circular construction’ and ‘circularity in construction’ are also relevant expressions; however, they are not explicitly defined in any of the reviewed publications. Generally, several researchers have noted a lack of consensus in terminology within the CE [13,49].

3.4. Strengths and Limitations of the Study

Several limitations should be acknowledged regarding the review process. First, Figure 2 indicates that interest in the field is increasing. However, the literature analysis showed that research in this area dates back to at least the 1990s [40,50]. Including studies published before 2010 could have provided a broader perspective. Nevertheless, expanding the timeframe was not considered feasible, as the volume of literature from 2010 onwards was already extensive. Additionally, terminology used in earlier studies may not be directly relevant to the current research context.

Second, the large proportion of references excluded during the initial screening phase (approximately 92%) suggests that the initial keyword string was too broad. Alternatively, this may reflect the presence of adjacent research areas that use similar terminology. The relatively small proportion of studies ultimately included—only about 3% of the initial search results—indicates that this specific topic within deconstruction research, namely the terminology related to the execution phase, has received limited attention. In response, this study offers a valuable contribution by providing a detailed overview of how terminology is currently applied within deconstruction processes.

4. Conclusions

Deconstruction processes are receiving increasing attention, with publication volumes rising notably over the past eight years. This systematic review of 51 sources revealed a broad geographic distribution of studies, with many adopting an international perspective. The conceptually oriented analysis identified significant inconsistencies in the terminology used in the literature, potentially contributing to keeping the deconstruction approach in its current infancy.

The main contribution of this paper is a systematic analysis of core terms and expressions used in the field, including an examination of their variation and application across the literature. It was found that the term ‘demolition’ is used consistently to describe the destructive process of turning a building into waste, whereas ‘deconstruction’ generally refers to a more environmentally responsible approach focused on recovering materials for reuse or recycling. In contrast, the expression ‘selective demolition’ carries multiple meanings in the literature, and other terms, such as ‘disassembly’ and ‘selective dismantling’, are often used interchangeably, contributing to further confusion. Most sources employed four to six terms to describe the demolition or deconstruction processes, reflecting the fragmented terminology.

Another result of this study is a compiled list of general terms relevant to the deconstruction processes. This overview may help improve transparency and support efforts to clarify and stabilize the conceptual language of the field.

Given these conceptual findings, attention should be paid to the ongoing linguistic ambiguity in deconstruction research. The findings suggest relying on the widely recognized terms ‘demolition’ and ‘deconstruction’, while clearly defining any applied terms to avoid misunderstandings.

The implications of the identified terminological fragmentation extend across multiple stakeholder groups. For researchers, greater conceptual clarity may improve the comparability of studies and support cumulative knowledge development within deconstruction research. For practitioners, clearly defined terminology can facilitate communication, reduce misunderstandings, and improve on-site process planning and coordination. For policymakers and standard-setting bodies, consistent terminology is essential for drafting, interpreting, and implementing regulations and guidelines related to circular construction and end-of-life processes.

Three limitations suggest directions for future research. First, this study focused on term frequency; future work could incorporate influence measures, such as citation analysis, to assess the prominence and impact of specific terms. A second avenue for future research is a systematic comparison of terminology used in research publications with formal definitions in standards, regulations, and industry guidelines. Such an analysis could provide additional insight into the alignment or misalignment between academic discourse and normative frameworks. Third, as environmental challenges and technological developments reshape the field, particularly through the growing integration of digital tools such as BIM and material passports, the associated terminology is likely to evolve. These tools rely on standardized classifications and structured data models, potentially amplifying the need for conceptual alignment within deconstruction research. This study provides transparency regarding the current terminological landscape, and future replications of the analysis could offer valuable insights into how the language of deconstruction evolves.