Loughborough University

Institutional Repository

Circular economy in
construction: current
awareness, challenges and
enablers

This item was submitted to Loughborough University's Institutional Repository

by the/an author.

Citation: ADAMS, K. ... et al, 2017. Circular economy in construction:

current awareness, challenges and enablers. Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers: Waste and Resource Management, 170 (1), pp. 15-24.

Additional Information:

• This is an Open Access Article. Is is published by ICE

under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Li-

cence (CC BY). Full details of this licence are available at:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Metadata Record: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/24136

Version: Published

Publisher:
c ICE Publishing

Rights: This work is made available according to the conditions of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. Full details of this

licence are available at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Please cite the published version.

 Waste and Resource Management Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers
Waste and Resource Management 170 February 2017 Issue WR1
Volume 170 Issue WR1
Pages 15–24 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jwarm.16.00011
Circular economy in construction: current Paper 1600011
Received 28/06/2016 Accepted 23/01/2017
awareness, challenges and enablers
Published online 20/02/2017
Adams, Osmani, Thorpe and Thornback Keywords: recycling & reuse of materials/sustainability/
waste management & disposal
Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY licence
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Circular economy in construction: current

awareness, challenges and enablers
Katherine Tebbatt Adams BSc, MSc, LCIWM, PIEMA Tony Thorpe CEng, CITP, BSc, MSc, PhD, FICE, FBCS, FCIOB, FRICS,
PhD Researcher, School of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough MIMgt
University, Loughborough, UK (corresponding author: K.Adams@lboro.ac.uk) Dean, School of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University,
Mohamed Osmani BA, Dip. Arch., MSc, PhD, FHEA Loughborough, UK
Senior Lecturer, School Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough Jane Thornback BSc, MSc
University, Loughborough, UK Sustainability Policy Advisor, Construction Products Association, London, UK

The application of the concept of circular economy thinking in construction, which is in its infancy, has been largely
limited to construction waste minimisation and recycling. Little research on circular economy from a systems
perspective including how new business models might enable materials to retain high residual values has been
undertaken. Utilising the results from a survey and a follow-up workshop, this paper provides an analysis of an
industrywide perspective of circular economy awareness, challenges and enablers. The survey results indicate that
while there is industrywide awareness of the concept, clients, designers and subcontractors are the least informed and
this is a key challenge for greater adoption. The absence of incentives to design products and buildings for disassembly
and reuse at their end of life is a significant challenge. To encourage greater implementation of circular economy
principles throughout the supply chain, a clear economic case is paramount, supported by metrics, tools and guidance.

1. Introduction amount of waste, 821 Mt across Europe in 2012, one- third of

Globally, the human population continues to use more the total waste generated (Eurostat, 2016). Polices have been
material resources as the population grows and income developed at the European level to improve significantly the
increases (Behrens et al., 2007; McKinsey Global Institute, sustainability of the sector (EC, 2011a). While these do not
2011). As such, many material resources are likely to become focus on circular economy per se, there is a recognition of the
scarier and more costly to use and a large amount of them need for the construction industry to become more resource
may be lost for future use (Benton and Hazell, 2013; Defra, efficient (EC, 2014). The EMF (2015) has estimated that by
2012; Ecorys, 2012). In the UK, an estimated 37% of the applying circular economy thinking to the European built
overall annual materials input, equivalent to 158 Mt is lost environment by 2030, £300 billion from primary resource
(WRAP, 2016). Moving towards a circular economy system benefits, including energy, could be saved.
provides an opportunity to address this through the reduction
of the use of primary materials, protecting material resources Much of the recent thinking on circular economy has been on
and reducing the carbon footprint (EMF and MCK, 2014; short- and medium-lived consumer products (Benton et al.,
Pratt and Lenaghan, 2015). It is also predicted to bring econ- 2015; EMF, 2013b; Pollard et al., 2016). There is limited
omic benefits, including increases in gross domestic product, research and wide-scale practical applications of circular
net material savings, employment growth, and reduced risk of economy in the modern built environment at the product and
material price volatility and supply (EEA, 2016; EMF, 2013a; the component level. Research to date has largely focused on
Morgan and Mitchell, 2015). Business benefits may include recycling construction and demolition waste (CDW) with little
higher competitiveness, resource security, flexibility and differ- attention on the reuse of products and there is a subsequent
ent business models to enable value creation (Lacy et al., 2014; decrease in the materials reclaimed for reuse in the UK
Nasr, 2013; Stahel, 2016). The European Commission, (CRWP, 2008; Yuan and Shen, 2011). The prevention of CDW
national and regional administrations are developing circular is being considered more so, although more research is needed,
economy policies to bring benefits to the environment and the especially at the design stages (Osmani et al., 2006). Research
economy (EC, 2015; LWARB, 2015; SG, 2016). The built on the various aspects of material efficiency within construc-
environment is an important sector economically, with the con- tion, such as the design for deconstruction (DfD) (Kibert,
struction industry contributing, on average, 5–13% of the total 2003; Tingley, 2012) and achieving the same levels of perform-
gross added value (Eurostat, 2015). It is a highly material- ance with less material input is mostly limited to a particular
intensive sector, consuming between 1·2 and 1·8 Mt of con- material or product type (Allwood et al., 2011). At the build-
struction materials per annum in Europe (Ecorys, 2014). ing level, buildings can be reused many times (Brandt, 1994;
Construction and demolition activities also generate a large Bullen, 2007), although they are often not designed for this

15

Downloaded by [ LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY] on [11/05/17]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Waste and Resource Management Circular economy in construction: current
Volume 170 Issue WR1 awareness, challenges and enablers
Adams, Osmani, Thorpe and Thornback

purpose (Durmisevic and Yeang, 2009). The aim of this paper However, much of this recovered waste is downcycled, where
is to examine the level of circular economy awareness, chal- the value, quality and functionality are lower than the original
lenges and enablers for greater adoption within the UK con- product (Walsh, 2012).
struction sector.
The key aspects in applying circular economy across a build-
2. Circular economy concept and principles ing’s life cycle, derived from the literature, are shown in
The term ‘circular economy’ is becoming increasingly common- Table 2. However, these aspects lack wide-scale adoption and
place. Countries such as China and Germany have used the are often applied in isolation either within a particular sector
term within their legislation, although the emphasis can vary or project, with little consideration of the economic aspects
(Benton, 2015). Waste avoidance and closed-loop recycling are across a building’s life cycle. UKCG (2014) identified a key
the key components within the German legislation (Bilitewski, challenge of an unproven business case underpinned by viable
2012), while in the Chinese policy, the term is directed at eco- business models such as requiring manufacturers to be respon-
design, cleaner production and eco-industrial parks and net- sible for their products once they reach their end of life. While
works to create a recycling-oriented society (Geng et al., 2012). this is evident in such sectors as medium-lived consumer pro-
ducts, it is largely absent in the built environment (EMF and
Various definitions of the circular economy have been devel- MCK, 2014; Lacy et al., 2014; Pollard et al., 2016; Schulte,
oped, with largely similar principles derived from a number of 2013). Other barriers include the lack of a holistic approach
often interlinked schools of thought, as illustrated in Table 1. across the supply chain, short-term thinking and the low value
Common elements include eliminating the concept of waste of many construction products at the end of life (IC, 2015;
and maximising the value of materials (EC, 2015; EMF, Schult et al., 2015). Nevertheless, there are a few examples
2013a; WRAP, 2016). The EMF (2013a) uses the term emerging on the application of circular economy principles,
‘restorative and regenerative by design’, emphasising systems mainly related to material choice and design considerations
thinking and the need to design out negative externalities. (Kiser, 2016; Laubscher and Marinelli, 2014; Thornback and
Concern has been raised on the lack of an accepted definition Adams, 2016).
which is seen as a challenge to its uptake (Cossu and Williams,
2015; Preston, 2012; ZWS, 2015). This is compounded by the 4. Research methodology
work being undertaken by various organisations to drive the The adopted methodology combined both a quantitative
circular economy forward resulting in the term evolving and approach, in the form of an online survey and a qualitative
the boundaries constantly shifting (Benton and Hazell, 2013; approach, through an event convened by the government and
CPA, 2016; ISWA, 2015; MPA, 2016; WEF, 2015). There has industry Green Construction Board (GCB). The online survey
been a tendency to interpret circular economy as another recy- was used to establish the construction industry’s level of aware-
cling or sustainability initiative (Chamberlin et al., 2013). ness of the circular economy and their view on the importance
of the challenges and enablers for greater adoption. Some of
3. Circular economy in the the issues were replicated to allow comparison and analysis of
built environment any relationships. The survey was available for completion over
There has been limited research on the application of circular a 2-month period and resulted in 110 valid responses. The
economy principles in the built environment, within a whole- sampling frame comprised construction industry associations,
systems context. Across Europe, most research and activity has representing industry activities, consultants and researchers,
focused on end-of-pipe solutions to manage waste generation building owners, manufacturers, designers and contractors.
(EC, 2011b; Yuan and Shen, 2011). This has led to overall There were seven sections and a total of 18 questions. For
improvement in the management of CDW (Defra, 2015). every question, a four-point Likert scale was used to gauge the

Table 1. Circular economy principles (compiled from the main sources within the literature)
Principle Source

Increasing the productivity of materials by doing the same or more with less Fuller (1973), Hawken et al. (1999), Lund (1955),
Stahel (2010), Womack et al. (1990)
Eliminating waste by defining materials as either technical or biological nutrients EMF (2013a, 2013b), Lyle (1994), McDonough and
enabling them to be within closed material loops; ‘waste as food’ Braungart (2002)
Maintaining or increasing the value of materials, environmentally and economically EMF (2013a, 2013b), Weizsäcker et al. (1997)
Thinking in systems by studying the flows of material and energy through Graedel and Allenby (1995), Meadows and Wright
industrialised systems, understanding the links, how they influence each other and (2008), Pauli (2010)
the consequences, enabling closed-loop processes where waste serves as an input

16

Downloaded by [ LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY] on [11/05/17]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Waste and Resource Management Circular economy in construction: current
Volume 170 Issue WR1 awareness, challenges and enablers
Adams, Osmani, Thorpe and Thornback

Table 2. Circular economy aspects across a building’s life cycle 5. Results

stage (developed from the main sources within the literature) The following section is subdivided into the respondent’s profile,
Life cycle stage Circular economy aspect an analysis of the level of awareness derived from the online
survey and an examination of the challenges and enablers result-
Design DfD
Design for adaptability and flexibility ing from the online survey and breakout sessions.
Design for standardisation
Design out waste
5.1 Respondent’s profile
Design in modularity
Specify reclaimed materials The questionnaire respondents comprised: researchers and con-
Specify recycled materials sultants (26%), contractors (25%), clients (14%), product man-
Manufacture and supply Eco-design principles ufacturers (10%), demolition contractors (10%) and designers
Use less materials/optimise material use (7%). Other respondents included government representatives
Use less hazardous materials (4%) and trade associations covering building products, reuse,
Increase the lifespan
flooring and concrete (4%).
Design for product disassembly
Design for product standardisation
Use secondary materials Over half of the survey respondents were from large organisations
Take-back schemes with an annual turnover of more than £50 million and more than
Reverse logistics 500 employees. The remaining respondents were distributed fairly
Construction Minimise waste evenly between small- (1–49 employees) and medium-sized
Procure reused materials
organisations (50–500 employees). Of the event attendees, 58%
Procure recycled materials
Off-site construction were from large companies with the remainder from small- and
medium-sized companies. Of these, 73 and 60% of the respon-
In use and refurbishment Minimise waste
Minimal maintenance dents had more than 10 years of experience in construction and
Easy repair and upgrade sustainability practice, respectively. For the event, the attendees
Adaptability were broadly representative of the construction industry compris-
Flexibility ing clients (5%), designers (9%), manufacturers (10%), contrac-
End of life Deconstruction tors (23%), consultants (30%), government representatives (12%),
Selective demolition
and trade and professional associations (9%). Twenty-two of the
Reuse of products and components
Closed-loop recycling attendees also participated in the online survey.
Open-loop recycling
All stages: management of information including metrics and 5.2 Circular economy awareness
datasets
The questionnaire respondents were asked to rank their level of
awareness of the circular economy with ‘1’ as unaware and ‘4’
fully aware. The results are summarised in Figure 1. The respon-
respondent’s level of awareness and the relative importance of dents were largely aware of the circular economy (3·30), thought
various challenges and enablers. An appropriate rating was this diminished within their own organisation (2·71) and further
provided from ‘1’ – the lowest level to ‘4’ – the highest level. still industrywide (2·16). In all cases, the level of awareness
Respondents could also give their qualitative views for each within the respondent’s organisations was lower than their own.
question. The Statistics Package for Social Science version 22 The manually tabulated responses indicate that while there is a
was used to analyse the quantitative data. This assisted in good level of awareness, there is a clear need to articulate the
obtaining the overall mean response levels and any qualitative benefits of the circular economy in a transparent and measur-
data were tabulated manually. able manner; this was supported by the views from the breakout
sessions particularly in regard to the business case.
To ensure the participation of a wide range of stakeholders
and to establish reasonable coverage, qualitative information The participating designers (2·09), clients (1·96) and subcon-
was derived from a GCB event ‘circular economy thinking – tractors (1·63) were generally perceived to have a lower aware-
challenges and opportunities for the construction sector’, with ness than the rest of the respondents. This may have a negative
97 attendees (GCB, 2016). Breakout sessions were held impact on the uptake or a circular economy as a strong view
to discuss the challenges and enablers in the adoption of the emerged from the manually tabulated responses and the break-
circular economy in the built environment, with 25 attendees out sessions of the need for client buy-in and designers to be
at each session. The analysis of these sessions has focused fully engaged. Manufacturers were considered to be the most
on exploring the key themes and trends complementing the aware (2·19); this could be due to the existing work of various
findings of the online survey. material sector trade associations on sustainability.

17

Downloaded by [ LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY] on [11/05/17]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Waste and Resource Management Circular economy in construction: current
Volume 170 Issue WR1 awareness, challenges and enablers
Adams, Osmani, Thorpe and Thornback

Yourself Your organisation Industy wide greater recovery (3·26), the low value of products at end of life
4·0
(3·06) and an unclear financial case (3·25). The construction
3·5
industry’s structure also was viewed to be a significant chal-
Response: mean

3·0
2·5 lenge in the form of a fragmented supply chain (3·15), as well
2·0 as a perceived general lack of interest (3·12), awareness (3·11)
1·5 and knowledge (3·03). Design considerations including the
1·0 lack of consideration for end-of-life issues at a building level
0·5 (3·19) and the complexity of buildings (3·23) were also thought
0 to be significant challenges. This was broadly similar to those
s

rs

rs

s discussed in the breakout sessions, with financial, structural

nt

or

or
ne

re
ie

ct

ct
tu
ig
Cl

ra

tra

and knowledge all considered to be important issues.

ac
s

nt
De

on
uf

co
an

bc
n
M

Su
ai
M

The survey results for the circular economy enablers are shown
in Figure 3. The most important is a clear business case (3·61)
Figure 1. Levels of awareness for circular economy in the which was ranked the most significant by all stakeholders and
construction sector as highly important in the breakout sessions with the need to
understand the commercial viability. Enabling the recovery of
materials through viable (logistically and commercially) take-
An analysis by the type of organisation shows slightly different back schemes (3·43), development of higher value markets
results with manufacturers, researchers and consultants rating (3·42) and enabling technologies (3·35) were all ranked as
designers with a high level of awareness. Conversely, demoli- highly significant. An awareness raising campaign (3·24) and
tion contractors thought designers to be the least aware. This is best practice case studies were also considered as very impor-
unsurprising as the demolition companies’ deal with buildings tant (3·31) with the breakout sessions emphasising the need for
which rarely have circularity designed in. Designers were also delivery by example.
perceived to have a lack of knowledge on how to adopt circular
economy principles, during the breakout sessions. The main The following section provides an analysis of specific chal-
contractors were the most varied with the demolition respon- lenges and enablers by survey respondent type and from the
dents ranking them with the highest awareness (2·45); however, breakout sessions.
designers reported that they had low awareness (1·75). These
results may be partially explained by the level of relationship
between sectors. Interestingly, most of the respondents viewed 5.3.1 Legislation and policy
their sector as the most aware, except for clients, which could While legislation and policy did not feature within the most
be due to a certain amount of bias. significant challenges, ambiguous end-of-waste regulations was
ranked as the largest legislation and policy challenge (2·91)
with demolition contractors ranking it the highest (3·27).
5.3 Challenges and enablers for the
Having no circular economy-specific legislation in place was
circular economy
thought to be an important challenge (2·82) and an important
The survey respondents were asked to rank the significance of
enabler (3·00), although clients, designers and manufacturers
various challenges for adopting circular economy industrywide
thought it to be less important. This view was also echoed in
and the potential enablers (for challenges: ‘1’ – insignificant,
the breakout sessions, although it was thought unlikely for
‘4’ – major challenge and for enablers: ‘1’ – not important,
specific legislation to be developed. Consequently, other incen-
‘4’ – very important). The challenges and enablers were sub-
tives were suggested as important within the breakout sessions,
divided into a number of categories, which are discussed in
such as planning requirements. Green public procurement
Sections 5.3.1–5.3.7. The breakout sessions focused on the
requirements were also seen as an important enabler (3·10),
applicability of business models, material flows, and recovery
especially by designers (3·57), and researchers and consultants
and design considerations.
(3·17). A challenge of most policy focused on landfill diversion
(2·70) was suggested to be detrimental to reuse and during the
The key challenges identified by the survey respondents for
breakout sessions it was noted that at a European level, a focus
adopting circular economy industrywide are shown in
on recycling has in many cases led to downcycling.
Figure 2. The most significant challenge, which was ranked
highly by all stakeholders, is the lack of an incentive to design
for end-of-life issues for construction products (3·32). 5.3.2 Awareness and understanding
A number of economic challenges were also deemed the most Limited awareness, interest and knowledge are identified as
significant including a lack of market mechanisms to aid significant challenges. However, these views were not

18

Downloaded by [ LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY] on [11/05/17]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Waste and Resource Management Circular economy in construction: current
Volume 170 Issue WR1 awareness, challenges and enablers
Adams, Osmani, Thorpe and Thornback

Complexity of buildings

Fragmented supply chain

Low value of material/products at

end of life

Unclear financial case

Lack of market mechanisms for

recovery Researchers and consultants
Lack of consideration for end-of-life Contractors
issues (buildings)
Clients
Lack of incentive to design for end
of life (products) Overall

Lack of circular economy knowledge

Limited awareness across supply

chain

Lack of interest

1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 4·0

Mean score

Figure 2. The most significant challenges for implementing circular economy industrywide

Design tools and guidance

Measure the value of material/product

Financial incentives to use secondary

materials

Best practice case studies

Assurance schemes for

reused/secondary materials Researchers and consultants
Contractors
Awareness raising campaign
Clients
Development of enabling technologies
Overall
to recover materials
Development of higher value
secondary markets

Viable take-back schemes

Clear business case

1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 4·0

Mean score

Figure 3. The most significant enablers for implementing circular economy industrywide

19

Downloaded by [ LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY] on [11/05/17]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Waste and Resource Management Circular economy in construction: current
Volume 170 Issue WR1 awareness, challenges and enablers
Adams, Osmani, Thorpe and Thornback

represented throughout; client respondents ranked the chal- tabulated responses thought it important that the market vola-
lenges of lack of knowledge (2·80) and interest (2·73) as of tility for secondary materials was addressed and the dependence
medium significance as did manufacturers (2·55 and 2·64). of certain secondary materials on the marketplace. A theme
Medium- and large-sized companies believed that the lack of emerging from the breakout sessions was how to ensure that the
knowledge was a greater challenge than smaller companies, right quality and quality of secondary materials are available for
although companies of all sizes believed that an awareness reuse. Clients (2·50), manufacturers (2·45) and demolition con-
campaign would be an important enabler. Survey respondents tractors (2·36) ranked the issue of downcycling as low. This may
with greater construction experience believed that a lack of link to a general lack of understanding of the circular economy,
interest was a highly significant challenge. A theme evident whereby the maintaining value is an important principle.
from the tabulated responses and the breakout sessions was a
lack of clarity on what the circular economy actually entailed There was a general agreement from the tabulated responses
and the apparent confusion between terms such as reuse and that there is a current lack of knowledge of what can be done
recycling, suggesting that greater precision is required. with products at the end of life. This was exemplified by one
respondent stating ‘there is a technical challenge of how a com-
5.3.3 Manufacture of construction products ponent designed 150 years ago can be envisaged to be reused’.
Designers (3·57) and researchers and consultants (3·54) ranked Linked to this were the challenges stated by a number of
a lack of incentive to design products for end of life as the respondents of the insurance and warranty issues of using
biggest challenge. This view was held regardless of the company reused materials, especially in a structural capacity and the
size or length of experience. Having some form of producer practicalities of finding time to enable this to happen. As such,
responsibility for construction products was viewed as an impor- assurance schemes for reused/secondary materials was ranked
tant enabler, particularly by contractors (3·30) and demolition high as an enabler, especially by contractors (3·44) and demoli-
contractors (3·55). However, it was viewed as the least important tion contractors (3·27). Unsurprisingly, contractors scored
enabler by manufacturers (2·27). A strong view from the break- take-back schemes to be particularly high (3·54), with the tabu-
out sessions was that due to the differences within the construc- lated responses suggesting that the current schemes were
tion products sector and associated product lifespans, different restrictive, while demolition contractors viewed the recovery of
types of approaches and solutions are needed; therefore such materials by way of markets (3·55) and technical advancements
producer responsibility requirements may not be appropriate for (3·55) as hugely significant.
products that remain in situ over a building’s lifetime.

5.3.6 Business
5.3.4 Designing and operating buildings
The fragmented supply chain was viewed as a key challenge by
The lack of end-of-life considerations during a building’s researchers and consultants (3·32) and contractors (3·14) with
commissioning, design and construction was deemed to be a sig- a number of survey respondents criticising the lack of a holistic
nificant challenge by designers (3·50), researchers and consult- approach; this was also echoed in the breakout sessions along
ants (3·46). A key issue noted in the breakout sessions was the with the competitive nature of the construction industry.
uncertainty surrounding long-term user needs, with adaptability Manufacturers and demolition contractors (2·73) viewed
and flexibility being important aspects. From the tabulated limited viable business models as less important than other
results, a key theme was the importance of optimising the life- stakeholders. Indeed, the development of leasing models was
span and the value of refurbishing to extend the life of buildings, ranked as the least important enabler (2·68) by the majority of
resulting in less resource usage through more utilisation. The stakeholders and, particularly for demolition, (1·73) and manu-
complexity of buildings was viewed as a major challenge particu- facturers (2·36). Contracts based on performance/function was
larly by clients (3·21) and a number of views from the breakout viewed as important by contractors (3·15) but less so for other
sessions were provided on moving towards more modularisation stakeholders. Discussion from the breakout sessions questioned
and simplification of design to counteract this. Overall, enablers the value of these business models, especially for longer lived
such as a standard for DfD design tools and guidance were products. A view from the tabulated responses was of the risk
viewed as important (3·02 and 3·14, respectively), with designers of changing practices, in particular the time and cost impli-
rating these particularly highly important (3·43). cations and how any initial cost could be offset.

5.3.5 Recovery of materials and products Information and metrics as enablers were viewed as important
The lack of market mechanisms to aid recovery was ranked as including providing information on circularity within the
one of the top challenges (3·26) by all of the stakeholders, which building information models (BIM), particularly by designers
corresponds with the development of financial incentives to use (3·14), contractors (3·07) and manufacturers (3·00). This may
secondary materials as an enabler (3·21). A number of the be because these stakeholders are likely to be familiar with

20

Downloaded by [ LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY] on [11/05/17]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Waste and Resource Management Circular economy in construction: current
Volume 170 Issue WR1 awareness, challenges and enablers
Adams, Osmani, Thorpe and Thornback

BIM. The development of a decision-making framework products at their end of life at today’s prices are also low in
across a building’s life cycle was viewed as the most important value, making it uneconomical to reuse (Kay and Essex, 2012;
business enabler for clients (3·00), designers (3·50), and for Thornback, 2016). Keeping upfront costs low is still an issue
researchers and consultants (3·29). This could be due to these in construction, which may negate any future value and it has
stakeholders having more of an interest in the life cycle’s per- been highlighted that the initial investor may not benefit
formance. A key finding from the breakout sessions was the directly, as the benefits may fall to the final owner (Zuidema,
need for a set of common circularity metrics across the build- 2015). Therefore, a greater understanding of the cost benefit of
ing life cycle in order to understand the key opportunities. applying circular economy principles to each party involved is
It was noted that the European standards (CEN TC 350 required. While alternative business models have been explored
(AFNOR, 2016)) has a renewed focus on end-of life-issues, in other sectors (Bocken et al., 2014; Lewandowski, 2016;
known within the formal construction life cycle as Module D. Tukker, 2015), with Schult et al. (2015) questioning their viabi-
lity for long-life structures, they lack research and application
5.3.7 Economic in the construction sector. How building and material assets
One of the largest challenges for adopting circularity in the built are currently valued may also provide disincentives for their
environment is the unclear financial case, which ranked number future use (Wallace and Raingold, 2012).
one for the majority of stakeholders; having a clear business
case was the most important enabler (3·61). The need to articu-
6.2 Organisational issues
late the value aspects of the circular economy was viewed as
paramount during the breakout sessions and the ability to Issues relating to the fragmented structure of the construction
measure the value of a product/material across its life cycle industry are commonly at the core when implementing new or
(3·19) was a significant enabler for designers (3·71) and clients different strategies (BIS, 2013). The research findings have
(3·20). There was a common thread of the cost benefit for each shown that this is similar for applying circular economy prin-
party adopting the circular economy not being fully understood ciples with the respondents stating that a lack of holistic
and a general perception that the initial investor may not approach and the ‘silo’ approach of undertaking design, con-
benefit. Cost and associated profit was seen to be the dominant struction, facility management and end-of-life activities are the
factor in any decision-making process which can be com- key challenges. This is compounded by the short-termism of
pounded by the short-termism of many clients. The challenge of some clients/developers (Bordass and Leaman, 2013). The lack
low value of products/materials at the end of life was also sig- of client awareness and the problem of the continuity of actors
nificant for designers (3·43) and manufacturers (3·18), which across a building’s life cycle have been explored within the
can make take-back schemes and reprocessing uneconomical. context of sustainable buildings (Häkkinen and Belloni, 2011).
From a circular economy perspective, it is likely to make the
establishment of the ownership of material flows within the
6. Discussion built environment sector more difficult, which is an important
Although there was a general awareness of the circular ingredient for circularity. In addition, the benefits of adopting
economy among the survey respondents and event attendees, circular economy may not be shared equally across the supply
there are a number of considerable economic, organisational chain. This is reflected in the survey findings with the major
and technical challenges that need to be overcome to enable challenge of a lack of an incentive to design for end of life.
wide-scale adoption. The following sections summarise these While there has been research undertaken on improving the
main themes from the survey and breakout sessions in the resource efficiency of construction products and their supply
context of the literature and examines the implications of pro- chains (AIS, 2012; Dunster, 2014; Hobbs and Ashford, 2013;
gressing towards a circular economy in the construction sector. Smith, 2013a, 2013b), there is less clarity on the activities each
part of the construction sector can undertake to enable them-
6.1 The value element of the circular economy selves and other parts to become more circular. It is likely that
One of the key principles often quoted of the circular economy the application of the circular economy will vary depending on
is to keep materials at a high value wherever possible (EMF, the circumstance of a project and its supply chain due to their
2013a; SG, 2015; ZWE, 2016). However, there has been criti- diverse nature. This is where the circular economy principle of
cism of limited research in this area (Lieder and Rashid, 2015) systems thinking is central, identifying where synergies and
and there is an underlying question on how to develop a clear divergences lie and the potential for unintended or perverse
economic case for circularity in the built environment. There is consequences. Collaboration has been identified as a key
a large amount of uncertainty on material resource prices into requirement for progressing the circular economy (Chamberlin
the future (Morgan, 2014), resulting in the difficulty to predict et al., 2013; Preston, 2012) and this should be explored within
the potential value of materials at the end of life, particularly the procurement and supply chain management activities, as
for long-lived products. Additionally, many construction well as within the information sharing capabilities of BIM.

21

Downloaded by [ LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY] on [11/05/17]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Waste and Resource Management Circular economy in construction: current
Volume 170 Issue WR1 awareness, challenges and enablers
Adams, Osmani, Thorpe and Thornback

6.3 Technical issues circular economy. Indeed, a clear business case was ranked the
To enable an increased circularity of materials at their highest most important enabler by all stakeholders, with commercial
possible value, technical challenges will need to be overcome viability identified in the breakout sessions as fundamental to
(Geng and Doberstein, 2008). These challenges may present shift current practices. Technical challenges including the lack
themselves at the material, product and/or building level. This is of recovery routes and the complex design of buildings, whilst
a principal issue for the existing building stock, which has not significant, are likely to be overcome to some extent through
been designed for circularity (Wallace and Raingold, 2012). further research on enabling technologies and sharing of
This may be intensified by the move towards more thermal- knowledge. A larger obstacle is the existing stock of buildings
efficient building stock, modern methods of construction and and infrastructure where circularity principles have not been
intelligent buildings, which may encourage the greater use of adopted. That said, there are many opportunities to advance
products that are more difficult to reuse and recover (Adams the circular economy through the enabling factors identified.
et al., 2013). To enable circularity, through an increase in the Ones that ranked highly significant include the greater recovery
lifespan of buildings, the design should take into account adap- of materials through viable take-back schemes and higher
tability and flexibility, as well as deconstruction at the end of value markets, assurance schemes for reused materials, best
life (Cheshire, 2016). While these aspects are continuing to be practice exemplar case studies and an awareness scheme.
explored with a growing interest (Pinder et al., 2013), there is a
shortage of knowledge of how the design of buildings, com- This research will contribute to a much needed debate within
ponents and products can affect their circularity. However, this the construction industry supply chain to better engage with,
is likely to improve, with the concept of material passports start- understand and prioritise the key issues influencing the formu-
ing to evolve, although this still is in its infancy (BAMB, 2016). lation and implementation of informed circular economy strat-
egies. The research findings will be used to inform the next
piece of research, to develop a framework for applying circular
7. Conclusions economy to buildings overcoming key economic, technical and
There is a significant body of literature on the drivers and organisational challenges.
benefits of circular economy; however, little research or wide-
scale application has been undertaken within a construction
Acknowledgements
context. Hence, this research sets out to provide an indication
This paper was based on research conducted within a
of the awareness levels of circular economy in the construction
research project ‘Embedding Circular Economy in the Built
sector and presents the challenges for greater adoption and
Environment’ funded by the BRE Trust. The authors acknowl-
how these may be overcome through enabling factors. The
edge all those who participated in the questionnaire survey
research was undertaken through surveying the UK construc-
and the workshop event. Thanks are extended to the
tion industry by way of an electronic survey and undertaking
Green Construction Board Circular Economy Working
breakout sessions at an industry event. These two streams of
Group and sponsors of the workshop event: BRE Trust,
activity intended to provide a representative picture of the
Construction Products Association and the Knowledge
larger companies operating across the industry.
Transfer Network.

The findings show that at an individual level, the majority of

the survey respondents were aware of the circular economy
concept. However, at an industrywide level there was a lack of REFERENCES
Adams K, Hobbs G and Yapp C (2013) Dealing with Difficult Demolition
awareness. The absence of a broad consensus of what the circu-
Wastes. IHS BRE Press, Watford, UK.
lar economy looks like in the built environment could be a AFNOR (2016) CEN/TC 350 – Sustainability of construction works.
contributing factor to this. This perceived lack of industrywide AFNOR Normalisation. See http://portailgroupe.afnor.fr/public_
awareness, supported by the survey and breakout session find- espacenormalisation/centc350/index.html (accessed 13/02/2017).
ings that parts of the supply chain, such as clients and AIS (Association of Interior Specialists) (2012) Mineral Wood Ceiling
Tiles: A Resource Efficiency Action Plan. AIS, Birmingham, UK.
designers, have little knowledge on how to adopt circular
Allwood JM, Ashby MF, Gutowski TG and Worell E (2011) Material
economy principles is likely to impede uptake of circularity in efficiency: a white paper. Resources, Conservation and Recycling
the short term. The most significant challenges identified by 55(3): 362–381.
the survey were a lack of incentive to design for end-of-life BAMB (Building As Material Banks) (2016) Home – BAMB. BAMB,
issues, followed by the lack of market mechanisms to aid Brussels, Belgium. See http://www.bamb2020.eu/ (accessed
greater recovery and an unclear financial case. These chal- 24/06/2016).
Behrens A, Giljum S, Kovanda J and Niza S (2007) The material basis of
lenges, combined with the fragmented nature of the construc- the global economy. Worldwide patterns of natural resource
tion industry (which was also rated significant), suggest that extraction and their implications for sustainable resource use
further incentives are required to enable a transition to a policies. Ecological Economics 64(2): 444–453.

22

Downloaded by [ LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY] on [11/05/17]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Waste and Resource Management Circular economy in construction: current
Volume 170 Issue WR1 awareness, challenges and enablers
Adams, Osmani, Thorpe and Thornback

Benton D (2015) Circular Economy Scotland. Green Alliance, EMF (Ellen MacArthur Foundation) (2013a) Towards the Circular
London, UK. Economy: Economy and Business Rationale for Accelerated
Benton D and Hazell J (2013) Resource Resilient UK: A Report from the Transition. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Cowes, UK.
Circular Economy Task Force. Green Alliance, London, UK. EMF (2013b) Towards the Circular Economy: Opportunities for the
Benton D, Coats E and Hazell J (2015) A Circular Economy for Smart Consumer Goods Sector. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Cowes, UK.
Devices. Green Alliance, London, UK. EMF (2015) Growth Within: A Circular Economy Vision for a
BIS (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) (2013) Supply Chain Competitive Europe. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Cowes, UK.
Analysis into the Construction Industry, A Report for the EMF and MCK (Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company)
Construction Industrial Strategy. BIS, London, UK. (2014) Towards the Circular Economy: Accelerating the Scale-Up
Bilitewski B (2012) The circular economy and its risks. Waste Across Global Supply Chains. World Economic Forum, Cologny,
Management 32(1): 1–2. Switzerland.
Bocken NMP, Short SW, Rana P and Evans S (2014) A literature and Eurostat (2015) Construction Statistics – NACE Rev. 2. Eurostat,
practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Luxembourg, Luxembourg. See http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
Journal of Cleaner Production 65: 42–56. statistics-explained/index.php/Construction_statistics_-_NACE_
Bordass B and Leaman A (2013) A new professionalism: remedy or Rev._2 (accessed 23/05/2016).
fantasy? Building Research and Information 41(1): 1–7. Eurostat (2016) Waste Statistics. Eurostat, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
Brandt S (1994) How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re See http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/
Built. Viking, New York, NY, USA. Waste_statistics (accessed 20/05/2016).
Bullen P (2007) Adaptive reuse and sustainability of commercial Fuller BR (1973) Nine Chains to the Moon: An Adventure Story of
buildings. Facilities 25(1/2): 20–31. Thought. Jonathan Cape, London, UK.
Chamberlin L, Jasmin E and Raskit A (2013) Wales and the Circular GCB (Green Construction Board) (2016) Circular Economy Thinking
Economy: Favourable System Conditions and Economic #CEThinking Live Blog – Challenges and Opportunities for the
Opportunities. WRAP, Banbury, UK. Construction Sector. Green Construction Board, London, UK.
Cheshire D (2016) Building Revolutions: Applying the Circular Economy See http://www.greenconstructionboard.org/index.php/2012-09-
to the Built Environment. RIBA Publishing, London, UK. 05-09-17-39/item/2370-circular-economy-thinking-cethinking-
Cossu R and Williams ID (2015) Urban mining: concepts, terminology, challenges-and-opportunities-for-the-construction-sector (accessed
challenges. Waste Management 45: 1–3. 22/05/2016).
CPA (Construction Products Association) (2016) A Knowledge Resource Geng Y and Doberstein B (2008) Developing the circular economy in
for Circular Economy Thinking in Construction. Construction China: challenges and opportunities for achieving ‘leapfrog
Products Association, London, UK. See http://www. development’. International Journal of Sustainable Development
constructionproducts.org.uk/news-media-events/blog/2016/ and World Ecology 15(3): 231–239.
february/a-knowledge-resource-for-circular-economy-thinking-in- Geng Y, Fu J, Sarkis J and Xue B (2012) Towards a national circular
construction/ (accessed 22/04/2016). economy indicator system in China: an evaluation and critical
CRWP (Construction and Wastes Resources Platform) (2008) BigRec analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 23(1): 216–224.
Survey – A Survey of the UK Reclamation and Salvage Trade. Graedel T and Allenby B (1995) Industrial Ecology. Englewood Cliffs,
CRWP, Watford, UK. Prentice Hall, NJ, USA.
Defra (2012) Resource Security Action Plan: Making the Most of Häkkinen T and Belloni K (2011) Barriers and drivers for sustainable
Valuable Materials. Defra, London, UK. building. Building Research and Information 39(3): 239–255.
Defra (2015) UK Statistics on Waste. Defra, London, UK. Hawken P, Lovins A and Lovins L (1999) Natural Capitalism. Little,
Dunster A (2014) Ready-Mixed Concrete: A Resource Efficiency Action Brown and Company, Boston, MA, USA.
Plan. British Ready Mixed-Concrete Association, London, UK. Hobbs G and Ashford P (2013) Foam Resource Efficiency Partnership:
Durmisevic E and Yeang K (2009) Designing for disassembly (DfD). A Resource Efficiency Action Plan. Foam Resource Efficiency
Architectural Design 79(6): 134–137. Partnership, Watford, UK.
EC (European Commission) (2011a) Roadmap to a Resource Efficient IC (Imperial College) (2015) Business Models and Enablers for the Circular
Europe COM/2011/0571 Final. European Commission, Brussels, Economy in the Built Environment. Imperial College, London, UK.
Belgium. ISWA (International Solid Waste Association) (2015) Circular Economy:
EC (2011b) Supporting Environmentally Sound Decisions for Resources and Opportunities. International Solid Waste
Construction and Demolition (C &D) Waste Management – A Association, Vienna, Austria.
Practical Guide to Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) and Life Cycle Kay T and Essex J (2012) Pushing Reuse – Towards a Low Carbon
Assessment (LCA). JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. Construction Industry. BioRegional, Wallington, UK.
European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. Kibert CJ (2003) Deconstruction: the start of a sustainable materials
EC (2014) Resource Efficiency Opportunities in the Building Sector strategy for the built environment. UNEP Industry and
COM/2014/0445 Final. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. Environment 26(2–3): 84–88.
EC (2015) Closing the Loop – An EU Action Plan for the Circular Kiser B (2016) Getting the circulation going. Nature 531: 443–446.
Economy COM(2015) 614 Annex 1. European Commission, Lacy P, Keeble J, Robert M and Jacob R (2014) Circular Advantage.
Brussels, Belgium. Accenture, Chicago, IL, USA, Report No. 14-3357.
Ecorys (2012) Mapping Resource Prices: The Past and the Future. Laubscher M and Marinelli T (2014) Integration of circular economy in
Ecorys, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. business. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference: Going Green –
Ecorys (2014) Resource Efficiency in the Building Sector. Ecorys, CARE INNOVATION 2014, Vienna, UK. International CARE
Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronics Office, Vienna, Austria.
EEA (European Environment Agency) (2016) Circular Economy in Lewandowski M (2016) Designing the business models for circular
Europe Developing the Knowledge Base. European Environment economy – towards the conceptual framework. Sustainability
Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark, EEA Report No. 2/2016. 8(1): 43.

23

Downloaded by [ LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY] on [11/05/17]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license
 Waste and Resource Management Circular economy in construction: current
Volume 170 Issue WR1 awareness, challenges and enablers
Adams, Osmani, Thorpe and Thornback

Lieder M and Rashid A (2015) Towards circular economy Smith A (2013a) Clay Bricks and Clay Blocks Resource Efficiency
implementation: a comprehensive review in context of Action Plan. Brick Development Association, London, UK.
manufacturing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 115: 36–51. Smith A (2013b) Precast Concrete: A Resource Efficiency Action Plan.
Lund RT (1955) ‘Making Products Live Longer’ a Paper for the Mineral Products Association, London, UK.
Environment Directorate of the Organization of Economic Stahel WR (2010) The Performance Economy. Palgrave Macmillan,
Cooperation and Development. Massachusetts Institute of Basingstoke, UK.
Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. Stahel WR (2016) The business angle of a circular economy. Higher
LWARB (London Waste and Recycling Board) (2015) London – The competitiveness, higher resource scarcity and material efficiency.
Circular Economy Capital. London Waste and Recycling Board, In A New Dynamic: Effective Business in a Circular Economy
London, UK. (Webster K, Bleriot J and Johnson C (eds)). Ellen MacArthur
Lyle J (1994) Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development. Foundation, Cowes, UK, pp. 45–60.
John Wiley, New York, NY, USA. Thornback J (2016) Circular Economy Thinking in Construction: A View
McDonough W and Braungart M (2002) Cradle to Cradle. North Point from UK Manufacturers. Construction Products Association,
Press, New York, NY, USA. London, UK. See http://www.constructionproducts.org.
McKinsey Global Institute (2011) Resource Revolution: Meeting the uk/media/87907/cpa-circular-economy-thinking-the-role-of-
World’s Energy, Materials, Food and Water Needs. McKinsey and manufacturers-12-february-2016.pdf (accessed 22/05/2016).
Company, New York, NY, USA. Thornback J and Adams K (2016) Knowledge Resource for Circular
Meadows D and Wright D (2008) Thinking in Systems – A Primer. Economy Thinking in Construction. Green Construction Board,
Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, VT, USA. London, UK. See http://www.greenconstructionboard.
Morgan J (2014) The Great Resource Price Shock. Green Alliance, org/images/stories/112212%20GCB%20Circular%20Economy%
London, UK. 20April%202016%20v3.pdf (accessed 22/05/2016).
Morgan J and Mitchell P (2015) Employment and the Circular Economy: Tingley D (2012) Design for Deconstruction: An Appraisal. PhD thesis,
Job Creation in a More Resource Efficient Britain. Green Alliance The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
and WRAP, London, UK. Tukker A (2015) Product services for a resource-efficient and
MPA (Mineral Products Association) (2016) Mineral Products circular economy – a review. Journal of Cleaner Production 97:
Association – Press Release 2015. Mineral Products Association, 76–91.
London, UK. See http://www.mineralproducts.org/16-release11. UKCG (UK Contractors Group) (2014) Circular Economy. UK
htm (accessed 22/06/2016). Contractors Group, London, UK. See http://www.wrap.org.
Nasr N (2013) The circular economy is going global. Industrial uk/sites/files/wrap/WRAP%20Built%20Environment%20-%
Engineer 45(9): 22. 20Circular%20Economy%20Jan%202013.pdf (accessed
Osmani M, Price A and Glass J (2006) Architect and contractor attitudes 22/05/2016).
to waste minimisation. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Wallace S and Raingold A (2012) Resilience in the Round. Aldersgate
Engineers – Waste and Resource Management 159(2): 65–72, Group, London, UK.
https://doi.org/10.1680/warm.2006.159.2.65. Walsh B (2012) Standards, Module L2m4-1 in WR1403 – Business
Pauli G (2010) The Blue Economy: 10 Years – 100 Innovations – Waste Prevention Evidence Review. Defra, London, UK.
100 Million, Report to the Club of Rome. Paradigm Publications, WEF (World Economic Forum) (2015) Project MainStream – A Global
Taos, NM, USA. Collaboration to Accelerate the Transition Towards the Circular
Pinder J, Schmidt R III and Saker J (2013) Stakeholder perspectives on Economy Status Update. World Economic Forum, Geneva,
developing more adaptable buildings. Construction Management Switzerland.
and Economics 31(5): 440–459. Weizsäcker E, Lovins A and Lovins L (1997) Factor Four. Earthscan,
Pollard S, Turney A, Charley F and Webster K (2016) The circular London, UK.
economy – a reappraisal of the ‘stuff’ we love. Geography 101: Womack JP, Jones DT and Roos D (1990) The Machine that Changed the
17–28. World. Free Press, New York, NY, USA.
Pratt K and Lenaghan M (2015) The Carbon Impacts of the Circular WRAP (Waste Resources Action Programme) (2016) WRAP and the
Economy Summary Report. Zero Waste Scotland, Stirling, UK. Circular Economy. Waste Resources Action Programme, Banbury,
Preston F (2012) A Global Redesign? Shaping the Circular Economy. UK. See http://www.wrap.org.uk/about-us/about/wrap-and-
Energy, Environment and Resource Governance. Chatham House, circular-economy (accessed 11/05/2016).
London, UK. Yuan H and Shen L (2011) Trend of the research on construction and
Schulte UG (2013) New business models for a radical change in demolition waste management. Waste Management 31(4): 670–679.
resource efficiency. Environmental Innovation and Societal Zuidema R (2015) Material Value and Reuse? The End-User Couldn’t
Transitions 9: 43–47. Care Less. Or Otherwise? – BRIQS Fit-Out Mastery.
Schult E, Crielaard M and Mesman M (2015) Circular Economy in BRIQS, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. See http://www.briqs.
the Dutch Construction Sector. Rijkswaterstaat – Water, org/material-value-and-reuse-the-end-user-couldnt-care-less/
Verkeer en Leefomgeving and National Institute for Public (accessed 24/06/2016).
Health and the Environment (RIVM), Hague, the Netherlands, ZWE (Zero Waste Europe) (2016) Circular Economy, Zero Waste
RIVM Report 2016-0024. Europe. Zero Waste Europe, Brussels, Belgium. See http://www.
SG (Scottish Government) (2015) Making Things Last. Consultation on zerowasteeurope.eu/category/waste/circular-economy/
Creating a More Circular Economy in Scotland. Scottish (accessed 24/06/2016).
Government, Edinburgh, UK. ZWS (Zero Waste Scotland) (2015) Circular Economy Thinking and
SG (2016) A Circular Economy Strategy for Scotland. Scottish Action at the University of Edinburgh. Zero Waste Scotland,
Government, Edinburgh, UK. Stirling, UK.

24

Downloaded by [ LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY] on [11/05/17]. Published with permission by the ICE under the CC-BY license