Content from this work may be used under the terms of theCreativeCommonsAttribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd
SBE-BERLIN-2022
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1078 (2022) 012002
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012002
1
Circular Material Systems: anticipating whole-system design
in architecture and construction
G Hubmann1* and V van Maaren2
1Technical University of Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni, 10623 Berlin
2C-Creators, Overhoeksplein 2, 1031 KS Amsterdam
*Corresponding email: g.hubmann@tu-berlin.de
Abstract. The construction sector is one of the most resource intense and environmentally
damaging industries in the world. A promising approach to counteract this is to use principles of
the Circular Economy (input reduction, reuse, and recycling) to ensure the continuity of value of
a building’s materials. Thus, we translated the learnings of an in-depth case study analysis
including four buildings and their construction processes into a definition and framework for
circular construction. We conceptualise buildings as circular systems that produce reusable
components or biodegradable materials by practices operating across a building’s lifecycle.
These practices do not only include material and design aspects to close biological and
technological loops, but also immaterial practices such as knowledge and expertise, locality,
management and skills, and information. We argue that these organisational aspects that go
beyond the current state of the art are critical enablers for circularity in construction. This
perspective is relevant for practitioners in the field and allows for a new and holistic look at
buildings as ‘waste generators’ or, in a positive scenario, as ‘material depots’. Designing for
recycling and reuse will require architects to build collaborations and knowledge across and
beyond material value chains.
Keywords. Circular Construction, Sustainable Architecture, Circular Economy, Built
environment, Whole-system Design.
1. Introduction and background
Urbanisation and climate change are two of the major concerns for humanity today. Rates of
urbanisation are rapidly increasing and the effects of climate change impact ecosystems, economies, and
communities around the world [1]. In this context, the construction, use, and demolition of buildings
play a critical role. Conventional buildings consume massive amounts of energy, have an enormous
material intensity, and produce exorbitant levels of emissions during their entire lifecycle. Globally,
construction is the single most energy and emission intensive sector responsible for at least 39% of all
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions [2]. Besides that, the construction industry creates vast amounts of
waste. For example, in Germany, 52% of the total waste produced is caused by construction and
demolition [3], and across the globe about 35% of waste from construction goes to landfill [4]. Thus,
buildings cause serious ecological externalities that manifest in both emissions and waste. In order to
provide healthy and sustainable livelihoods in the future, approaches for architecture and construction
are required that respect the planetary boundaries.
SBE-BERLIN-2022
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1078 (2022) 012002
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012002
2
The relevance for increased sustainability in buildings is underlined by the recent proposal of a New
European Bauhaus, an initiative under the umbrella of the European Green Deal that is in pursuit of a
paradigm change for living spaces based on beauty, sustainability, and inclusion. The New European
Bauhaus defines not only an environmental or economic approach but suggests a cultural project with
aesthetic ambitions to transition to alternative models of construction [5]. At the same time, at city or
regional levels of governance, initiatives that support lower emissions and less waste in construction are
observable. For example, the adaptation of the building code in Berlin (Germany) to enable increased
use of timber in public buildings [6] or the planned introduction of wide-spread digital material passports
to transform the building stock into a material depot in the Netherlands [7].
There is widespread agreement among practitioners and scientists that the construction sector
requires fundamental change regarding its production of emissions and waste. The question is how,
when, and with what pace this transition will take place. Answers reach from make do, an approach
practised by Pritzker-Prize winners Anne Lacaton and Jean-Phillipe Vassal that suggests to never
demolish existing structures but to add, transform, and reuse them; re-materialising, keeping products
in the cycle through regenerative design proposed by the cradle-to-cradle inventors William
McDonough and Michael Braungart; dematerialisation, an argument for reducing the amount of
physical substance that goes into the built environment – supported, amongst others, by R. Buckminster
Fuller; to a global building moratorium, initiated by Charlotte Malterre-Barthes and colleagues [8].
Central to all the above-mentioned concepts is the continuity of value of a building’s materials and
the reduction of materials as such. This is in line with the principal ideas of the Circular Economy (CE).
Generally, an economy that operates in a circular way should not have negative effects on the
environment; rather, the damage done in resource acquisition should be restored while as little waste as
possible is generated [9]. CE enables thinking in cycles and aims at keeping the valuation of materials
in closed loops instead of having an open-ended conception of value chains. When designing products,
this requires including the notions of input reduction, reuse, and recycling [10]. In other words, virgin
material or energy inputs to the system and waste as well as emission outputs from the system should
be reduced [11]. However, the CE discussion regarding definition, objectives, and forms of
implementation is highly fragmented but there is an opportunity to use it as a tool for transformative
change because it has become widely adopted in academic and non-academic sectors [12]. Yet, to make
CE applicable for practitioners in construction, it requires a translation to the domain of architecture.
The CE is primarily focused on products and their lifecycles. A building is a very specific ‘product’
since it provides services, is usually made from a complex set of materials, and includes layers with
different lifecycles. The concept of Circular Construction is trying to link the CE with construction by
emphasizing recycled and renewable materials and by using design methods to make components
reusable after a building’s end-of-life [13]. This enlarges the traditional view of a building’s lifecycle
with for example modular design, secondary material use, and digital innovation (See Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Key dimensions of a building’s life cycle in Circular Construction, adapted from [14]
SBE-BERLIN-2022
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1078 (2022) 012002
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012002
3
2. Methodology and overview
The aim of this paper is to learn from practice. We will develop a definition and framework for
circularity in construction based on the in-depth analysis of four buildings and their construction
processes that included circular thinking. The goal is to give guidance for practitioners in the field on
how to implement circular processes in construction while enriching the current literature with case-
based insights. Bearing in mind a building’s entire life cycle, the question of this paper is how to prevent
waste and keep construction materials in the value chain.
Therefore, we firstly carried out a literature review to give a short overview of the existing literature
for Circular Construction and to identify current knowledge gaps. Methodologically, we used a Google
Scholar search with the key words ‘Circular Construction’ and filtered peer-reviewed articles published
in scientific journals. Our interest was to take into consideration a holistic idea of the construction
process that includes all lifecycle stages of a building’s materials. Therefore, we defined the following
four categories that cover the processes from sourcing a material to reusing it. The categories under
which we then sorted the papers are: ‘Materials & Supply Chains’, ‘Design and Construction’, Operation
and Use’, and ‘Deconstruction and Repurposing’. Altogether, we identified 21 relevant papers that are
related to or include a definition or a conceptual framework for Circular Construction. In a next step,
we dismissed 8 papers because of a lack of applicability or a misleading focus, and eventually included
13 papers to create a classification (See Table 1).
Secondly, to analyse the case studies, we worked with an accepted definition of the CE literature that
addresses closing resource loops for the biological and the technological cycle. For the former that
means to design products in such a way that it is possible to biodegrade materials after its end-of-first-
life in order to start a new cycle. For the latter this means to design products in such a way that materials
can be continuously recycled into new materials or products [15]. Based on this, we thirdly carried out
a case study analysis that includes four best-practice cases. The selection criteria for the cases were:
located in Europe, different building typologies, related to the Circular Construction paradigm, and
fulfilling resource-conscious strategies as outlined in Fig.1. The idea behind selecting cases with
outstanding performance regarding closed resource loops lies in the potential to get a deep understanding
how already realised projects incorporated circular thinking in construction processes. The in-depth
analysis of the buildings was based on interviews with their architects or engineers and the analysis of
the building’s plans, thus included both quantitative and qualitative elements. The following aspects
were considered: a material inventory of the building, the carbon footprint using a Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA), a mapping about the localisation of supply chains behind single materials or
components, an analysis of the planning approach as well as describing the necessary processes (stories
behind the system) that have contributed to establishing closed resource loops.
Fourthly, based on the learnings of the case study, we developed our own definition of Circular
Construction and a conceptual framework that makes the material use in buildings more explicit to give
architects, designers, and builders clear guidelines for improved sustainability in construction. This
framework combines material practices that are based on both the choice of materials and design
decisions with immaterial practices, which were identified as a critical part of establishing circularity in
construction. Finally, the paper closes with a discussion of the results, a conclusion, and an outlook.
3. Literature review and state of research
The Circular Economy (CE) has started to enter architectural design as a promising concept for
resource-conscious construction practices but the research about Circular Construction remains in its
infancy [16]. There is increasing awareness about the utility of the CE for construction, especially
regarding closing the biological cycle. For example, the use of bio-based materials in construction
replacing steel and concrete is seen as a solution to extensively store carbon in buildings and to answer
the challenge of urgent climate action [17]. For future construction, it is necessary to not only produce
less emissions during the production of building materials but also to sequester carbon in them to
mitigate climate change [18]. However, the current framing and definition of Circular Construction
implies only certain aspects within the scope of the building sector, which leads to a rather fragmented
SBE-BERLIN-2022
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1078 (2022) 012002
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012002
4
application of strategies in practice [12]. For example, extensive studies have focused on resource use
and waste management while neglecting whole life cycle costing and building designs [16]. Currently,
a systems perspective including how new business models might enable materials to retain high residual
values is missing [14]. Another level of analysis that is lacking is the building as an entity per se [13].
Yet, there was an urge identified to find frameworks and methods to “foreground material stocks and
flows in order to further the objectives […] of truly sustainable construction” [19].
Table 1. Results of the literature review.
Materials and
Supply Chains
Design and
Construction
Operation
and Use
Deconstruction and
Repurposing
Amiri et al. (2020)
Eberhardt et al. (2020)
Stephan & Athanassiadis (2018)
Furlan et al. (2020)
Churkina et al. (2020)
Hildebrand et al. (2017)
Ginga et al. (2020)
Nasir et al. (2017)
Lederer et al. (2020)
Zabek et al. (2017)
Osobajo et al. (2020)
Geldermans (2016)
Siew (2019)
Our analysis of the most relevant literature in the field of Circular Construction confirms a high
fragmentation. We found that the concept of Circular Construction is limited to the type of materials
used and to the recycling of waste after the end-of-life of a building – the two opposite poles of a
building’s lifecycle. Thus, in the existing literature we found a misbalanced interest focusing only on
the direct in- and outputs of material value chains. Out of the 13 papers analysed, 5 had a strong
emphasize on the use of materials and 5 on the recycling of construction and demolition waste.
Surprisingly, the roles of the designers, architects, engineers, and builders who potentially have
significant responsibilities regarding the choice of construction materials and their recycling as well as
aspects of operation and use of a building are only marginally represented in our literature review.
Another conclusion is a lack of systemic perspective across the different stages of a building’s lifecycle.
This suggests that the links between different stages (e.g., links between material choice, design of the
building, and options for reuse after the end-of-life of a building) are not sufficiently addressed. To
conclude, the identified gap is a lack of discussing the roles of design processes and construction as well
as a missing focus on the operation and use of a building. Taking into consideration the lack of systemic
perspective as well as the missing emphasis on the building as a unit of analysis, our further analysis is
targeted at buildings and their use of materials as well as on the question of how to implement whole-
system thinking in construction processes.
4. Case study: analysing best-practice examples
In this section, we highlight four innovative buildings with strategies of significantly reduced waste
generation and circularity of materials. Three of them use a substantial amount of biobased materials,
while two consist to a great extent of reused materials. Two of the cases are based on the design for
disassembly and reassembly (DFDR) approach and one is led by material-based design, in which the
materials define the design.
4.1 Mjøstårnet, Norway
The first case is the high-rise building Mjøstårnet, located in Brumunddal that was designed by Voll
Arkitekter AS. The analysis shows that this building consists of 68% biobased materials (Fig. 2). Apart
from the biobased construction that is addressing the biological cycle, the modular prefabrication of
building components as well as the DFDR approach are key elements that contribute to a circular
SBE-BERLIN-2022
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1078 (2022) 012002
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012002
5
material use regarding the technological cycle. Fig. 3 shows that hydropower was used for the steel
production process, which decreases carbon emissions.
In addition, most of the materials as well as most of the know-how on the production of these
materials are local. Another important detail is that the willingness of the local authorities to cooperate
on an all-timber structure accelerated the building permission process. Thus, the enhanced cooperation
with stakeholders shortens the construction process, which results in positive environmental and
economic effects.
4.2 Bombasei, Switzerland
The second case is the Bombasei Areal, located in Nänikon that was designed by Atelier Schmidt. It
consists of three independent residential buildings. The material inventory highlights the high amount
(65%) of biobased materials in these buildings addressing the biological cycle (Fig. 4). This together
with the prefabricated modules, which created efficiencies in the construction process, leads to a very
low carbon footprint for the buildings (technological cycle). Furthermore, the territorialisation of the
construction material’s supply chains makes the local sourcing and processing of these explicit (Fig. 5).
This case study reveals the potential of the residual material flow straw since approximately 20% of
the straw produced annually in Germany’s agriculture is not used. This would be enough material for
Figure 2. Material inventory of Mjøstårnet
© by M. Quante and J. von Rinck.
Figure 3. Circularity aspects of Mjøstårnet
© by M. Quante and J. von Rinck.
Figure 5. Mapping of the originations of
construction materials for Bombasei
Ó by P. Müller and L. Sedlmayr.
Figure 4. Material Inventory of Bombasei Areal
Ó by P. Müller and L. Sedlmayr.
SBE-BERLIN-2022
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1078 (2022) 012002
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012002
6
the thermal insulation of up to 350,000 single-family homes, underpinning the architect’s statement of
the underused market potential for straw [20].
4.3 K118, Switzerland
The third case is K118, a three-storey extension of an old warehouse in Winterthur, designed by baubüro
insitu. This construction predominantly consists of salvaged and biobased materials, addressing both the
biological and technological cycle. In the preparation phase of the building, it was vital to find reused
building components that only need minimal reprocessing for their new use. According to the architects,
this approach resulted in a 60% saving of carbon emissions and the avoidance of 500 tons of virgin
materials in comparison to designing a new building in the same size and function [21].
The reused components from nearby demolition sites were defining the design (Fig. 7). Their
availability required flexibility in the design process, resulting in a material-driven design method that
had impacts on the form and function of the building (Fig. 6). The reused components are inexpensive
but require significant amounts of manual labour to reinstall them. The architects underline the necessity
for a material passport or a digital platform that matches supply and demand of construction materials.
4.4 Résilience, France
Designed by Archipel Zéro, Résilience, the fourth case is the head office of Novaedia, a food cooperative
located in the proximity of Paris. This building addresses the biological and technological cycle by
mainly using biobased materials in combination with reused materials. This resulted in a very low carbon
footprint of only 41 kgCO2eq per m2. Biobased materials are in the façade (wood prefab composite walls
with compressed straw, coated with rammed earth), floors, and insulation of the roof. The glazed façade
was made from reused windows that came from a social housing complex just 4 km away. Apart from
the material use, the design is completely dismountable as all elements are assembled through bolting.
Remarkable was the participative work (including 150 participants), in which the suppliers and
contractors learned new construction techniques on site. Apart from that, the architect points out the
necessity for a flexible design process that anticipates the availability of materials and their use in the
project but also foresees a plan B in case of unexpected adaptions (Fig. 8).
Figure 6. Form follows availability: a material-based
design method Ó by J. Möller and M. Zountsa.
Figure 7. Local reuse of building components
for K118 Ó by J. Möller and M. Zountsa.
Figure 8. Thinking across lifecycle stages using
a flexible design process in the case of
Résilience Ó by M. Ponthieu and E. Toth.
SBE-BERLIN-2022
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1078 (2022) 012002
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012002
7
5. Discussion
In the light of the Circular Construction paradigm and the question how to reduce waste and emissions
in the construction of buildings, we analysed how these buildings contribute to closing resource loops
on the levels of biological and technological cycles as suggested in the literature. We found that three
out of four analysed cases consist of more than 60% biobased materials that potentially can be
biodegraded after the building’s end-of-life. At the same time, this is a significant factor for low carbon
footprints of the buildings (partly only around 12 kgCO2eq per m2). Additionally, in the case of
Mjøstårnet, a strategy was employed to consciously prevent emissions during the production of the steel
for the building. Thus, the choice of bio-based materials is significant to close the biological cycle but
low carbon footprints as well as CO2 prevention strategies during the production and construction might
be relevant supporting mechanisms. The technological cycle was addressed mainly by the following
methods: DFDR using dry connections and prefabricated modules as exemplified by Résilience and
Mjøstårnet, constructing with reused materials, and using a material-based design as shown by the K118
project. In summary, the material practices mentioned in this paragraph are relevant examples for the
construction industry to close resource loops.
However, the most striking result of the analysis was that immaterial practices on an organisational
level that we identified as systemic enablers play a significant role in establishing circularity for the
biological and technological cycles. Next to directly designing for the biological and technological
cycle, systemic enablers are relevant for construction processes targeted at less emissions and waste
(See Fig. 9). We have summarised them in four categories.
Knowledge and expertise: In the case of K118, the architects gained a lot of knowledge during the
process of material hunting and how to subsequently implement the reused components into the design.
Currently, there is limited knowledge available about these practices that differ from traditional
construction methods. The architects behind Mjøstårnet emphasize the importance of local know-how
as the traditional local expertise on building with wood was imporant to construct the high-rise building.
A similar know-how on local materials, which was used in combination with a participatory approach
was rendered critical in the case of Résilience.
Locality: Especially in the cases that use reused materials, sourcing the components from the vicinity
is key to avoid long transports and avoid emissions. In the case of K118, all the materials were sourced
locally within a radius of 50 kilometres from the construction site. But also in the other projects, local
sourcing and manufacturing plays a significant role. Additionally, working closely with local authorities,
strengthening local economies as well as accumulating and improving local knowledge are some of the
interlinked benefits demonstrated by the Mjøstårnet case.
Management and skills: Understanding the shift of skills needed in the construction sector, the K118
project exemplifies this by their explicit wish for a new job: a material hunter. That new jobs in circular
construction are required gets underpinned by the recent Circularity Gap Report (22).
Information: The architects of K118 underline the necessity for both a material passport of a building
that makes transparent the composition of components for the next cycle and a digital platform that
matches supply and demand of construction materials. The availability of information is key to a circular
approach in architecture. This was also expressed regarding building with straw in the Bombasei case.
Figure 9. Case study overview including material and immaterial practices, Ó by Vera van Maaren
SBE-BERLIN-2022
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1078 (2022) 012002
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012002
8
6. Circular Material Systems: definition and framework
Before we develop the conceptual framework, we suggest expanding the definition we used initially
with immaterial practices and subcategories for the biological and technological dimensions relevant for
the domain of construction (See Fig. 11). This way, we provide a more tangible definition of circularity
in construction that might be useful for practitioners. We see the choice of materials reflected in the
biological cycle and the design aspects including strategies regarding design for disassembly and
reassembly (DFDR) are reflected in the technological cycle. The former includes the subcategories ‘use
of bio-based materials’, ‘low carbon footprint’ (of the building), and ‘emission prevention during
production and construction’. The latter includes the subcategories ‘design for disassembly and
reassembly’, prefabrication of modules’, ‘material-based design’, and ‘use of reused materials’.
This definition leads to three criteria that are necessary preconditions for establishing circularity at the
building scale:
• Materials and their use (biological cycle). The use of biobased materials that store carbon on a
long-term basis or the reuse of materials in their highest possible value as well as an emphasis on
preserving already existing structures and the reuse of entire buildings through adaptation.
• Design techniques and methods (technological cycle). Construction methods allowing for
flexibility, disassembly, separability, and deconstruction as well as material-based design
techniques, in which the materials define the design.
• Systemic enablers (organisational aspects). A whole-system design approach focusing on
keeping materials in the value chain. This includes planning aspects, digital enabling technologies,
contracting and business models, and interfaces to stakeholders.
Based on the definition above, we propose a conceptual framework that we entitle Circular Material
Systems (CMS). This concept sees a building not as a mere composition of different materials but as a
material system. Borrowed from geomorphology, a material system defines the layers of soil and stones
under the surface of the Earth. If applied to a building, this creates an overview of the amount and type
of construction materials enclosed in the building. When adding the aspect of circularity, these materials
should be predominantly bio-based and used in such a way that they can be fully biodegraded after the
building’s end-of-life to start a new cycle, or it is possible to reuse them continuously in new lifecycles.
This level of circularity in a building can only be achieved by supporting immaterial practices (e.g.,
knowledge and expertise, locality, management and skills, information). Thus, CMS include a focus on
both material (choice of materials, sourcing, design, construction techniques) and immaterial practices
Figure 10. Immaterial practices are added to the
definition of circularity in construction
Ó by Vera van Maaren
Figure 11. Holistic building development
phases in comparison to the LCA phases.
SBE-BERLIN-2022
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1078 (2022) 012002
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012002
9
(planning, management, skills, knowledge) across the lifecycle of a building. We argue that the latter
are a way to better connect the single stages of a building’s lifecycle towards a whole-system design
approach (See Fig. 12). This means applying CE thinking to all the stages of a buildings’ lifecycle,
which results in taking into consideration building materials and their supply chains; design methods
and construction processes; organisational practices; operational aspects of buildings and their flexible
use over time (e.g., maintenance, modularity, repair, refurbish) as well as the deconstruction stage and
aspects of repurposing (including reuse, recycle, and remanufacture). For example, by considering the
value chain of building components, the (un-)sustainability of a building’s materialisation can be made
visible and conclusions can be drawn about both the material and immaterial practices of construction.
In summary, this perspective is relevant for practitioners in the field and allows for a new and holistic
look at buildings as ‘waste generators’ or, in a positive scenario, as ‘material depots’.
7. Conclusion
In this paper we addressed the serious ecological externalities of the construction sector (predominantly
high levels of waste and emissions) by asking how to prevent waste along the lifecycle stages of a
building and keep construction materials in the value chain. We identified the need to adapt the CE
concept to the construction of buildings, which we addressed by giving a definition of circularity in
construction that goes beyond the biological and technological cycle. The literature regarding Circular
Construction is limited to the materials used and the recycling processes after the end-of-life of a
building, thus a systemic perspective across a building’s lifecycle is missing. Our focus was on the in-
depth analysis of four buildings that took on board circular thinking, thus taking into consideration the
building as a unit of analysis, which was previously lacking.
The most remarkable finding is the recognition that immaterial practices play a key role to ensure
increased circularity in construction. Examples include circular business models, knowledge & skills
regarding the prefabrication of timber elements, process of sourcing reused materials, the information
layer in form of a building passport. These practices act as enablers for closing resource cycles on both
the biological and technological levels while they have the potential to make cross-connections between
different stages of a building’s lifecycle to avoid the production of emissions and waste. Based on this,
we developed the CMS framework that conceptually establishes architecture as a circular system. In
short, this means that all the components of a building are selected, produced, and installed in such a
way that they can stay in the value chain as long as possible or are biodegraded into a new cycle. But
apart from only focusing on the biological and technological cycle, this requires combining material
aspects such as the type of construction materials and design methods (e.g., DFDR) with organisational
aspects such as the systemic enablers identified in this research (knowledge and expertise, locality,
management and skills, information).
Our findings suggest that a radical shift is needed in the way we think, design, and use our buildings.
What is missing today is a processual focus on the complete lifecycle of a building, something we
address with the CMS framework. We want to emphasize the importance of a holistic approach in the
construction process and the role architects and engineers can play in that. Through the analysed cases
we noticed an enlargement of the traditional tasks of architects and engineers towards the management
of additional processes. For example, material harvesting, organising leasing contracts with suppliers,
or the capacity building for biobased construction techniques might lead to the creation of new jobs and
skills such as ‘the material hunter’ who organises the sourcing of reused building components. What
designing for recycling and reuse requires is building collaborations and knowledge across and beyond
material value chains.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the students of the two X-student research groups ‘Circular Material Systems
I+II for their hard work and the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier
versions of this paper.
SBE-BERLIN-2022
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1078 (2022) 012002
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012002
10
References
[1] IPCC, 2018: Global warming of 1.5 C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global
warming of 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission
pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change,
sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.
O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. P an, R.
Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T.
Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield (eds.)].
Lehmann, J., Mempel, F., & Coumou, D. (2018). Increased Occurrence of Record-Wet and
Record-Dry Months Reflect Changes in Mean Rainfall. Geophysical Research
Letters, 45(24), 13,468-13,476.
[2] Abergel, T., Dean, B., & Dulac, J. of. (2017). Towards a zero-emission, efficient, and resilient
buildings and construction sector. In Global Status Report 2017.
[3] Müller, F., Lehmann, C., Kosmol, J., Ke ler, H., Bolland, T. (2017). Urban Mining.
Ressourcenschonung im Anthropoz n. Umweltbundesamt. Bonn.
[4] Solís-Guzmán, J., Marrero, M., Montes-Delgado, M. V., & Ramírez-de-Arellano, A. (2009). A
Spanish model for quantification and management of construction waste. Waste
Management, 29(9), 2542-2548.
[5] https://europa.eu/new-european-bauhaus/about/about-initiative_en.
[6] https://www.parlament-berlin.de/ados/18/IIIPlen/vorgang/d18-2225.pdf.
[7] https://paspoorten.platformcb23.nl.
[8] Ruby, I., & Ruby, A. (2020). The Materials Book. Ruby Press. Berlin.
[9] Murray, A., Skene, K., & Haynes, K. (2017). The Circular Economy: An Interdisciplinary
Exploration of the Concept and Application in a Global Context. Journal of Business Ethics,
140(3), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2693-2, p. 371.
[10] Bocken, N. M. P., de Pauw, I., Bakker, C., & van der Grinten, B. (2016). Product design and
business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production
Engineering, 33(5), 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124, p. 308.
Homrich, A. S., Galvão, G., Abadia, L. G., & Carvalho, M. M. (2018). The circular economy
umbrella: Trends and gaps on integrating pathways. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 525–
543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.064, p. 526.
Winans, K., Kendall, A., & Deng, H. (2017). The history and current applications of the circular
economy concept. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 68(October 2015), 825–833.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.123, p. 825.
[11] Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A., & Birkie, S. E. (2018). Circular economy as an essentially
contested concept. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 544–552.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.111, p. 544.
[12] Calisto Friant, M., Vermeulen, W. J. V., & Salomone, R. (2020). A typology of circular economy
discourses: Navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 161 (November 2019), 104917.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104917, p.15.
[13] Pomponi, F., & Moncaster, A. (2017). Circular economy for the built environment: A research
framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 710–718.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.055
[14] Adams, K. T., Osmani, M., Thorpe, T., & Thornback, J. (2017, February). Circular economy in
construction: current awareness, challenges and enablers. In Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers-Waste and Resource Management (Vol. 170, No. 1, pp. 15-24).
[15] Bocken, N. M. P., de Pauw, I., Bakker, C., & van der Grinten, B. (2016). Product design and
business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production
Engineering, 33(5), 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124
[16] Osobajo, O. A., Oke, A., Omotayo, T., & Obi, L. I. (2020). A systematic review of circular
SBE-BERLIN-2022
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1078 (2022) 012002
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012002
11
economy research in the construction industry. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-04-2020-0034
[17] Churkina, G., Organschi, A., Reyer, C. P. O., Ruff, A., Vinke, K., Liu, Z., Reck, B. K., Graedel,
T. E., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2020). Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nature Sustainability,
3(4), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0462-4.
[18] Amiri, A., Ottelin, J., Sorvari, J., & Junnila, S. (2020). Cities as carbon sinks - Classification of
wooden buildings. Environmental Research Letters, 15(9). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
9326/aba134
[19] Angélil & Siress (2020). The Matter of Construction: Systemic Overhaul or Tweaking the Status
Quo?. In: The Materials Book, Ruby Press, p.12.
[20] Scharmer, D. & Kaesberg, B. (2017). FNR: Strohgedämmte Gebäude.
[21] Stricker, E. et al. (2021). Bauteile Wiederverwenden. Ein Kompendium zum zirkulären Bauen.
Park Books.
[22] Circle Economy, (2022, June). Closing the Circularity Gap in the Dutch Built Environment.
