Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component and System Level

Chapter 13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component and System Level Aidana Tleuken , Ferhat Karaca , Rand Askar , Gerald Leindecker , Ilker Kahraman , Christina Giarma, Genesis Camila Cervantes Puma , Rocío Pineda-Martos , Iskander Bolatkhanov, Michele Palermo , Lidiana Arrè , Ali Akbar Shah Syed, Inam Ul Ahad , Liljana Dimevska Sofronievska , Meri Cvetkovska , Vanessa Tavares , and Luís Bragança Abstract The implementation of circular economy principles in building activities holds the potential for substantial environmental, economic, and social benefits. Although extensive research has examined the impact of circularity strategies on various aspects of buildings, there is asignificant gap in the literature focusing specifically on building components and systems (BC&S). Most existing studies develop A. Tleuken ·F. Karaca (B )·I. Bolatkhanov Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering and Digital Sciences, Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan e-mail: [email protected] R. Askar ·G. C. Cervantes Puma ·L. Bragança ISISE, ARISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, 4804-533 Guimarães, Portugal G. Leindecker IAPL-Institut für Analytische Strukturentwicklungsplanung, University Applied Science of Upper Austria, Wels, Austria I. Kahraman Izmir Ekonomi University, İzmir, Türkiye C. Giarma Laboratory of Building Construction and Building Physics, Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece R. Pineda-Martos Departamento de Ingeniería Aeroespacial y Mecánica de Fluidos, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería Agronómica, Universidad de Sevilla, Ctra. de Utrera, Km. 1, 41005, Sevilla, Spain e-mail: [email protected] M. Palermo ·L. Arrè Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and Materials Engineering (DICAM), University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy © The Author(s) 2025 L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_13 335 336 A. Tleuken et al. indicators applicable to buildings as a whole or solely at the materials level. This study aims to address this gap by identifying and emphasising specific circularity criteria for BC&S, including structure, infill, and services. The primary objective is to elucidate the contribution of each system to the overall circularity of buildings, thereby prioritising the most impactful circularity aspects. At the component level, it is essential to consider the specific attributes of component assemblies that constitute a system. To enhance the practical application of these findings, the study is supplemented with relevant case studies demonstrating best practices for circularity in BC&S. These case studies provide empirical evidence and practical examples of how targeted circularity strategies can improve the sustainability and efficiency of building practices, thereby advancing the goals of the circular economy. Keywords Circular economy ·Building components and systems ·Circularity criteria ·Sustainability ·Efficiency ·Case studies 13.1 Introduction It is widely acknowledgeable that buildings and their related activities have a significant impact on the environment. The construction industry, in particular, consumes vast amounts of natural resources and raw materials, making it a leading resourceintensive sector [1]. The building sector is accountable for the utilisation of 3 000 million tonnes of natural resources each year [2]. Furthermore, a study conducted by the World Resources Institute indicated that 40% of the worldwide waste generation is attributed to the construction industry [3]. To address these environmental challenges and promotesustainability, the concept of the circular economy (CE) has emerged as a transformative approach aimed at reversing the narrative by creating positive impacts on the environment, economy and society. Traditionally, the construction industry follows a linear supply chain often characterised by a “take, make, and dispose of” model, involving activities such as mining and extraction, processing and manufacturing, and waste management and disposal. In contrast, the CE seeks to establish a closed-loop system where resources are conserved and brought back into the lifecycle after use [4]. A. A. S. Syed ·I. U. Ahad The SFI Research Centre for Advanced Manufacturing, School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, I-Form, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland L. D. Sofronievska ·M. Cvetkovska Faculty of Civil Engineering, University “Ss. Cyril and Methodius”, Skopje, North Macedonia V. Tavares BUILT CoLAB Porto, Porto, Portugal CEAU-FAUP, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal 13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 337 Buildings are essential components of urban landscapes, shaping their architectural character. However, they are also complex objects comprising intricate systems and numerous components and materials, all interconnected to ensure safety and functionality for occupants. The previous chapter explored the general circularity criteria for construction materials, highlighting practices for key materials such as concrete and steel. This chapter, however, focusses on the circularity criteria and indicators at two levels of building assembly: •Component level: Components are the most granular elements of buildings after materials. They can be made of single materials shaped to connect with surrounding components and building parts, or they can be assemblies of multiple materials forming different building components (e.g., windows, doors, roofs, walls, and foundations) [5]. •System level: Systems are assemblies of components and materials serving a specific function [6]. Given the significant potential for implementing CE principles in the building industry, this chapter sheds light on the circularity criteria and indicators for buildings at both the system and component levels. The chapter is structured as follows: Following the introduction in Sects. 13.1 presents a thematic analysis on nine key topics and strategies relevant to circularity in building components and systems (BC&S). Section 13.2 explores the relevance of two prominent circularity models— R-Principles and ReSOLVE—and their applicability to BC&S. Section 13.3 offers an approach to categorising CE criteria for BC&S. Section 13.4 provides examples of best practices for enhancing the circularity of BC&S. Lastly, Sect. 13.5 presents the chapter conclusions, highlighting potential directions for future work and research in this area. 13.1.1 Thematic Analysis for Building Components and Systems (BC&S) To evaluate the alignment of building components and systems (BC&S) with CE principles, it is essential to explore the circularity aspects applicable to BC&S, particularly in terms of resource efficiency, energy efficiency, and waste reduction throughout the various lifecycle stages. These aspects influence CE principles of closing, slowing, and narrowing material loops through reusing, recycling, and extending the lifespan of buildings and their products and materials. Thissectiondelvesintovariousthemesofcircularityand itsstrategiesasaddressed in the literature on the construction sector, presenting a comprehensive exploration of key elements, with a focus on BC&S. The thematic analysis navigates through diverse topics, starting from the design stage, addressing design for adaptability, disassembly, and durability, through the construction stage, focusing on modularity 338 A. Tleuken et al. and standardisation, to the use stage, highlighting the advantages of adaptive building reuse and maintainability for energy-efficient operations. Finally, at the end-of-life (EoL) stage, it explores the principles of reducing, reusing, and recycling BC&S and the need for adopting product responsibility throughout the lifecycle, along with the opportunities for transitioning to circular business models through sharing and exchanging approaches. By dissecting these themes, readers will gain a holistic understanding of the indicators and criteria shaping the circular construction landscape for BC&S. 13.1.2 Design for Adaptability (DfA) Adaptability,as described in ISO 20887:2020(E), refers to the capacity to “accommodate changes in use type, demographics, user needs or due to the need for adaptation to external factors, such as climate change, for resilience or futureproofing. The initial cost may be balanced against the future cost of adaptation” ([7], p. 11). In the literature, adaptability is described as the capacity of buildings to change in response to varying needs [8]. These needs arise from various circumstances throughout a building’s lifecycle, including social and local factors, environmental changes, emergent technical needs, functional improvements, economic and legislative factors, and differing stakeholder interests [8]. Theterm“adaptability” hasbeeninterpretedindifferentformsinliteraturestudies, depending on the context [9]. It is widely recognised that Design for Adaptability (DfA) strategies and concepts pertain to BC&S. This relevance is evident in the various interpretations and definitions provided by literature studies. Table 13.1 outlines some of the most common definitions and their relevance to specific BC&S. However, all the definitions refer to strategies to address different dimensions of change in buildings, which can include changes in size, use or function, performance, configuration or space, location, and changeable components. The concept of adaptability can be alternatively referred to by other terminologies that describe specific strategies or dimensions of adaptability for particular building systems. For example, flexibility often refers to the rearrangement of elements and systems within the infill or building interiors [15]. In this sense, flexibility is considered a part of adaptability, which encompass both internal and external changes. Other terms used to refer to size adaptability include expandability, extendibility, scalability, and elasticity. Meanwhile, terms such as transformability, changeability, and convertibility refer to spatial changes and reconfiguration of the interior to fit new use or function requirements. Design complexity affects the level of adaptability, and key strategies addressing this aspect are referred to as generality, simplicity, commonality, and open plan. All these strategies share the primary goal of supporting change and ultimately extending the useful life of a building, therefore, they are considered dimensions of adaptability [8]. The importance of designing buildings for adaptability within the context of the CE lies in its potential to slow material loops by extending the service life of buildings 13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 339 Table 13.1 Common definitions of adaptability Definition Referred systems/ components Source “A building that has been designed with thought of how it might be easily altered to prolong its life.” All types of systems [10], p. 8 Structural adaptability is “The capacity of the building structure to be able to undergo changes to the structure itself, with or without only small consequences for the remaining building storeys.” Structure [11], p. 2 The capacity of a building to accommodate effectively the evolving demands of its context, thus maximising value through life • Space plan • Structural facility systems [12], p. 3 Adaptable architecture is “an architecture from which specific components can be changed in response to external stimuli, for example, the users or environment.” • Space plan • Structure components [13], p. 167 “The ease with which buildings can be physically modified, deconstructed, refurbished, reconfigured, repurposed, and/or expanded” • All types of systems components [14], p. 2 “The capacity of a building to accommodate change in response to the emerging needs or varying contextual conditions, therefore prolonging its useful life while preserving the value for its users over time.” • All types of systems [8], p. 11 despite inevitable changes over time [8,16]. This approach is essential for avoiding premature demolition, reducing material waste, and cutting costs, all of which are valuable for a CE by conserving resources and minimising emissions. Adaptability can be incorporated into building systems to address both unknown futurechangesorspecificanticipatedchangescenarios.ISO20887:2020(E)identifies three main dimensions of adaptability: versatility, convertibility, and expandability [7]. These principles represent different levels of change: 1. Versatility applies to spatial systems, referring to their ability to accommodate various functions with minor system modifications. 2. Convertibility involves making more significant modifications to meet substantial changes in user needs, yet it is related to versatility as both principles involve using single spaces for multiple purposes. 3. Expandability involves the addition of extra space horizontally or vertically, significantlyimpactingthestructuralsystem,facadesystems,andservicesneeded for the additional space. DfA involves incorporating specific design features in building systems, enabling them to adapt to emerging needs throughout their lifecycle. This type of adaptability, known as “preconfigured adaptability” [17], entails integrating certain features during the design stage to foster a building’s capacity to respond to changes during subsequent lifecycle stages. 340 A. Tleuken et al. However,adaptabilitycanalsobeappliedtobuildings not originally designed with adaptability in mind. This can be achieved through adaptive reuse strategies, which involve the “reconfiguration” of systems during the operational stage to prevent a premature EoL [17]. Adaptive reuse, or reconfigured adaptability, is discussed in a later subsection in the thematic analysis. Historically, the “open building” concept [18] is considered the foundation of the concept of adaptability in building design. The open building approach distinguishes between two types of building systems: support system, which is the structural core, and infill systems, which is the flexible interior subject to user changes. These two systems should be integrated with minimal interface problems to support adaptations by allowing functional independence for each. The “shearing layers” concept introduced by Brand [19] provides a different categorisationofsystemsandelementsinbuildings.Theconcept iswidelyrecognised in the literature as a key enabler to adaptability [8,20]. It identifies six layers of building systems and components, as illustrated in Fig. 13.1: site (lasts forever), structure (30 to 300 years), skin (20 to 40 years), space plan (3 to 30 years), services (7 to 20 years), and stuff (approximately ten years). These layers represent categories of building systems according to their timescales, with each layer including components and functions of similar lifespans. By ensuring functional independence for each of these layers and minimising their interactions, a building can adapt and respond to change. A distinct categorisation of building elements was introduced by Durmisevic and Brouwer [21], who described a three-dimensional transformation: structural, spatial, and material. This transformation is enabled by a certain level of interdependency and exchangeability among components. They emphasised the role of demountable connections as a critical factor in facilitating change between four functional levels in buildings: building, system, component, and materials. Using a top-down approach, a building can be separated into systems, which in turn can be split into components, and further broken down into materials. The role of demountable connections is also Fig. 13.1 Brand’s shearing layers of change (1994) 13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 341 emphasised by Design for Disassembly (DfD), which is seen as a supportive strategy for DfA. DfD will be discussed in a subsequent subsection of this chapter. Multiple frameworks to assess adaptability based on different criteria have been proposed by studies. Table 13.2 addresses these criteria and indicators grouped into Brand’s layers, excluding the site andstuff layers. The site is context-relatedandmore relevant to the building as a whole, while stuff is usually the user’s responsibility and does not act as part of the building’s rigid entity. Some criteria can pertain to more than one layer and can influence different systems. Therefore, it is important to avoid double-counting these criteria, especially when evaluating the adaptability of layers or systems separately. The DfA criteria are typically addressed during the concept design phase using a checklist to ensure proper planning. In a more detailed design stage, buildings can be evaluated using a semi-quantitative approach by weighting the criteria based on experts’ opinions to prioritise the most impactful adaptability criteria. Alternatively, pre-weighted criteria from existing frameworks like FLEX 4.0 [24], the AdaptSTAR model [22], or the Level(s) framework Indicator 2.3 Design for Adaptability and Renovation [23] can be used. At the component level, the most important characteristics to enable DfA are standardisation, durability, and reversibility [25]. Standardisation can occur at different levels: material, component, and interfaces and connections [8]. Standardising materials used in assemblies and components provides manageable conditions for more efficient and effective recycling processes. Standardising components or assemblies creates specific conditions for connections and interfaces, allowing design simplicity. Standardising interfaces or connections is regarded as more advantageous for circularity and more efficient to achieve, as it allows interchangeability and exempts components themselves from being standardised while providing efficiency for material disassembly [8]. Component durability can be defined by the length of product use life and the intensity of use, addressing multiple use cycles. Component durability is also related to the conditions of the system to which it belongs, making it important to address accessibility for repair and replacement. More details are explained in the following subsection on Design for Durability. Lastly, component reversibility, which allows for the safe recovery of components or their composing materials with minimal damage, is defined by the types of interfaces and connections, as well as accessibility for replacement and recovery. However, reversibility criterion significantly overlaps with DfD concepts and will be further addressed in DfD subsection. 13.1.3 Design for Durability Design for durability involves considerations of expected lifespan, intensive use, maintenance requirements, and resistance to wear and tear. These parameters are crucial in industrial construction methodologies to ensure slower material loops by 342 A. Tleuken et al. Table 13.2 Classification of existing adaptability criteria and indicators for building systems (nonexhaustive list) System Criteria Framework and source Structure Structural Integrity-structural design of the building to cater to future uses and loads AdaptSTAR [22] Level(s) [23] Positioning of columns/design complexity AdaptSTAR [22] FLEX 4.0 [24] Level(s) [23] Greater ceiling heights for surface routes FLEX 4.0 [24] Level(s) [23] Structural durability AdaptSTAR [22] Surplus of building space/floor space FLEX 4.0 [24] Skin Façade windows to be opened FLEX 4.0 [24] Day light facilities Non-load bearing facades Level(s) [23] Façade pattern Space plan Flexibility/multifunctional building AdaptSTAR [22] FLEX 4.0 [24] Access to building: horizontal routing, corridors, gallery Disassembly/disconnecting, removable, relocatable units in building Disassembly/disconnecting, removable, relocatable interior walls Disassembly/disconnecting/detailed connection interior walls Column grid spans/structural grid AdaptSTAR [22] Level(s) [23] Compartmentalisation/internal wall system Compartmentalisation/the potential for segregated home working spaces Compartmentalisation/the potential for ground floor conversion to a contained unit Possibility of suspended ceilings FLEX 4.0 [24] Possibility of raised floors Distinction between support and infill Unit size and access Level(s) [23] Services Ease of access to service ducts and building services AdaptSTAR [22] Level(s) [23] Ease of access to plant rooms Level(s) [23] Longitudinal ducts for service touts Higher ceilings for service routes Services to sub-divisions Ease of adaptation of the distribution networks and connectors 13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 343 allowing intensive and prolonged use of BC&S, thus postponing their EoL phase. Durability should be prioritised for structural systems, which must be robust enough to handle various load scenarios, facilitating future adaptations [20]. In this sense, durability is essential for adaptability, which requires structures strong enough to meet performance requirements for changes in use, function and size [8]. Durability is also important for other systems, such as façade and interior systems, to ensure they are used to their fullest extent, thereby reducing material inputs. This not only extends the service life of these systems but also minimises the need for frequent replacements and repairs, leading to lower resource consumption and waste generation. Additionally, durable façade and interior systems contribute to the overall energy efficiency and performance of the building, further supporting sustainability goals. By focusing on durability across all building systems, the longterm environmental impact and operational costs can be significantly reduced. At the component level, durability depends on the duration and intensity of use, defined by the service life and the number of cycles the component or product undergoes, respectively. According to the Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and Granta Design [26], components that last longer than their industry average equivalents contribute to greater circularity. This is related to component quality and the conditions of materials constituting the component. A component’s service life is determined by the shortest lifespan among its materials; ideally, these materials should have similar lifespans. If one material deteriorates while the rest remain functional, the component reaches its EoL. In this sense, DfD becomes a key complementary strategy for durability, ensuring that components can be dismantled and their materials recovered for reuse or recycling. Furthermore, durability is relevant to the accessibility of components for replacement and maintenance. Thus, durability is again associated with DfD and easy maintenance strategies, which provide criteria for the accessibility of elements and their demountability without causing damage to them or adjacent elements. 13.1.4 Design for Disassembly (DfD) DfA encompasses several circularity strategies and associated concepts, such as flexibility, convertibility, and expandability [27], which have a significant impact at the building system level. At the component level, DfA principles are closely associated with Design for Disassembly (DfD). However, DfD is also relevant at system level, particularly impacting shorter-life systems like services, and often overlaps with multiple DfA strategies. The close association between DfA and DfD is reflected in the fact that multiple aspects of these two concepts are often approached under the same umbrella. For example, well-known methods for assessing adaptability often consider DfD-related issues, as seen in studies by Geraedts [24] and Conejos et al. [22]. In some cases, these concepts are treated in a unified context (e.g., [28]). Table 13.3 presents DfD criteria considered in DfA models, namely AdaptSTAR by Conejos et al. [22], and 350 A. Tleuken et al. Table 13.6 Key benefits and considerations of adaptive reuse in buildings Environmental benefits Reducing overall lifecycle energy consumption Conserving embodied energy and resources Lowering carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions Decreasing fossil fuel consumption Reducing freshwater consumption Optimising materials use Minimising landfill waste Historic and cultural significance Maintaining architectural integrity Contributing to the cultural heritage of a place Preserving unique historical and cultural characteristics Highlighting urban cultural heritage buildings Structural safety assessment Retrofitting structure to meet safety standards and building codes Ensuring compliance with current safety standards Infrastructure and system upgrades Upgrading electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems Enhancing energy efficiency Financial incentives Supporting financial incentives Providing tax credits Facilitating grants Implementing easy maintenance strategies enables businesses and individuals to extend the lifespan and performance of physical assets, prevent breakdowns, reduce downtime, and avoid costly repairs or replacements [55,56]. Additionally, these strategies optimise energy efficiency and resource consumption of their equipment, which reduces their environmental footprint and operational expenses. These benefits of easy maintenance make it a compelling strategy for incorporating CE into buildings, their systems and components. Table 13.7 outlines various concepts and strategies that call for easy maintenance or maintainability for improved closing and slowing material loops. To effectively implement easy maintenance strategies in the CE, businesses and individuals can take several actionable steps depending on each case conditions [57]. Table 13.7 outlines some of the actions to facilitate the implementation of these strategies. Designing buildings with easy maintenance in mind, such as incorporating modular components and accessible infrastructure, can simplify repairs and upgrades, thereby extending the lifespan of the building and its components. Moreover, adopting preventive and predictive maintenance approaches allows building owners and facility managers to proactively identify and address issues before they escalate into major problems. Regular maintenance inspections and servicing ensure 13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 351 Table 13.7 Actions for implementing easy maintenance strategies (adapted from [57–59]) Maintenance programme Regularly maintaining products to extend their lifespan and reduce the need for replacement Accessibility Ensuring all components are easily accessible for inspection, maintenance, and repair Designing products for durability Creating products that are made to last, with component parts or materials that can be reused Ease of disassembly Designing products that can be easily disassembled for repair, refurbishment, or recycling Choosing reusable products Selecting products that can be reused for their original purpose without significant alteration Repairing products Fixing products when they break down instead of replacing them Recycling products Separating products into their component parts and recycling them Composting organic waste Breaking down organic waste into nutrient-rich soil that can be used to grow new plants Condition-based maintenance Monitoring the condition of equipment in real-time to prevent breakdowns and optimise performance Predictive maintenance Using data and analytics to predict when equipment will need maintenance, allowing for proactive interventions Remote monitoring Using sensors and other technology to monitor equipment remotely, allowing for early detection of issues and proactive maintenance optimal performance and reduce the likelihood of premature replacements, thereby conserving resources and minimising waste [59]. Additionally, embracing the CE in building maintenance can contribute to a more sustainable materials and waste management system. Proper waste segregation, recycling programmes, and the promotion of repair and refurbishment services can divert materials from landfills and reduce the demand for virgin resources. Furthermore, incorporating energy-efficient technologies and renewable energy systems into building maintenance practices can significantly reduce the environmental footprint of buildings. 13.1.8 Component Recovery for Reuse and Recycling DfA and DfD are important enablers of a CE in BC&S. Although these strategies are implemented at the design stage, the full realisation of their value happens at the EoL stage when components are recovered. Component recovery, enabled by DfA and DfD, is essential for closing the loop by creating potential for reuse, refurbishment, remanufacturingandrecycling.However, the realvalueisleveragedwhen established 352 A. Tleuken et al. methods for these reuse and recovery pathways are in place. This relies on regional and national factors, including prevailing techniques and materials, market conditions, stakeholder embracing, skilled labour, supporting regulations, and existing standards indicating recycling and reuse rates. Theselectionofmaterials fromtheplanningphasethrough thedesignandprocurement phases significantly influences their reusability and recyclability at the EoL stage. Here are key strategies to enhance component recovery for reuse and recycling: 1. Material Selection: Choose materials that are durable, recyclable, and reusable from the outset. This ensures that at the EoL stage, materials can be efficiently recovered and repurposed. 2. Establishing Recovery Pathways: Develop clear and efficient methods for recovering building components at the EoL stage. This includes setting up systems for sorting, transporting, and processing materials. 3. Lifecycle Management: Implement Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to evaluate the environmental impact of building materials throughout their lifecycle. This helps identify opportunities for reuse and recycling, ensuring that materials are utilised to their fullest potential [60,61]. 4. Collaborative Networks: Foster collaboration among stakeholders, including architects, engineers, contractors, and waste management companies. This collaboration can lead to innovative approaches and technologies that improve recovery processes and material reuse. 5. Regulatory Support: Advocate for policies and regulations that support the recovery and reuse of building components. This includes incentives for using recycled materials and penalties for improper disposal. 6. Market Conditions: Understand and adapt to market conditions that affect the viability of reused and recycled materials. This includes creating demand for such materials and ensuring their competitiveness in the market. 7. Stakeholder Engagement: Engage all stakeholdersinthe value chain to embrace CE practices. This includes training and educating skilled labour to handle recovery processes effectively. 13.1.9 Product Responsibility Circularity practices for buildings aim to reduce environmental impact and resource consumption through strategies that consider the entire lifecycle of a building. Product responsibility plays a key role in addressing the environmental and social challenges associated with the building lifecycle, focusing on the ethical and practical aspects of the materials, components and products used in construction. Responsible sourcing of materials is crucial, emphasising sustainability from the design phase onward. Factors such as recyclability and reusability should be integrated into Product Service Systems (PSS) to minimise environmental pollution. PSS is an innovative business model that encompasses the design, installation, 13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 353 Table 13.8 Key elements of product responsibility to enhance CE in buildings Responsible sourcing Ensuring that materials are sustainably sourced, recyclable, renewable, and have a low carbon footprint Lifecycle assessment Evaluating the environmental impacts of materials and components from production to disposal, supporting informed decisions for long-term sustainability Recyclability and reusability Designing components for easy disassembly, reuse, or recycling at the end of their service life, reducing waste and promoting resource efficiency Innovative business models Adopting PSS to focus on providing sustainable services covering design, installation, maintenance, and deconstruction Stakeholder collaboration Engaging suppliers, contractors, and clients to ensure sustainable practices throughout the construction process Regulatory compliance Adhering to environmental regulations and standards that promote sustainable construction practices and the use of eco-friendly materials maintenance, and deconstruction of building materials and components, providing sustainable and efficient solutions throughout the building’s lifecycle. An exemplary application of PSS is seen in the Moringa Company of Germany, whose project in Hamburg HafenCity aims to construct a sustainable building using numerous recycled materials without any pollutants [42]. Table 13.8 outlines key elements of product responsibility for circularity in buildings. 13.1.10 Sharing and Exchange Opportunities One of the primary objectives of implementing circularity in the construction sector is to achieve maximum efficiency and optimise common processes by moving away from the traditional produce-use-dispose engineering model. The closed-loop system of the CE can be enhanced by integrating and developing a culture of Sharing and Exchange (S&E), as proposed by the ReSOLVE framework [62], among construction industry stakeholders. By sharing common machinery, equipment, databases, software, and by-products from various processes, or by exchanging outdated technologies with innovative ones, the construction sector can align with CE principles [63]. However, several challenges are associated with implementing S&E opportunities in the building sector. An important example is the disjointed supply chain and inefficient information exchange between big players [64]. The resolution lies in adopting new technologies such as Big Data Analysis (BDA), Blockchain technology (BTC), and Digital Platforms, which allow designers to investigate reusable materials and collaborate more effectively [64]. While the implementation of these technologies can be costly, posing a barrier for smaller companies, leading firms like Arup are setting as example by advancing the construction industry towards these new methods, optimised by statements like “from bin to BIM” [65]. 354 A. Tleuken et al. Sharing assets like office spaces and public facilities, also known as the collaborative economy or pooling of goods, is gaining popularity in the construction industry. A noteworthy example is the South Australian Government’s promotion of collaborative use, management, and maintenance of facilities with similar inputs and outputs, aiming to extract more value while reducing resource flow and consumption [64]. Enhancing the exchange of equipment and materials is crucial for the construction sector. Guidance for transitioning from outdated approaches to contemporary practices can be drawn from the Industrial Symbiosis model, where large companies share services commonly used by everyone [66]. Similarly, construction companies can benefit from sharing machinery or equipment instead of purchasing. Equipment sharing between contractors can be advantageous in terms of finances, time, and convenience, while purchasing or renting equipment in emergencies or shortage can delay work due to additional bureaucracy, transportation, and installation [67, 68]. Practical centralised and decentralised resource-sharing and exchange models, considering allocation and conflict-resolution models, demonstrate the construction sector’s progress in implementing CE concepts [68]. Table 13.9 highlights various indicators and criteria for evaluating the implementation of CE in this context. Table 13.9 Indicators and criteria for evaluating the implementation of the circular economy in sharing and exchange opportunities in building components and services Efficiency and optimisation Moving away from the traditional “produce-use-dispose” model towards circularity Sharing and exchange culture Sharing common resources such as machinery, equipment, databases, software, and by-products, as well as exchanging outdated technologies with innovative ones Resolution of challenges Adoption of technologies like big data analysis (BDA), Blockchain technology (BTC), and digital platforms to resolve inefficiencies and improve collaboration Collaborative economy The trend of sharing assets like office spaces and public facilities in the construction industry, also known as a collaborative economy or pooling of goods Resource efficiency Extracting more value while reducing resource flow and consumption, a key criterion for CE implementation Equipment and material exchange Shifting from traditional purchasing or renting approaches to more collaborative sharing models Industrial symbiosis Following the Industrial symbiosis model, where large companies share services, as a direction for transitioning from outdated to contemporary practices in the construction sector 13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 355 13.2 Circular Economy for Building Components and Systems: R-approaches and ReSOLVE Framework The principles of the CE are extensively discussed in the literature, evolving from the basic 3R (reduce, reuse, recycle) framework to the more comprehensive 9R framework (refuse, rethink, reduce, reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, repurpose, recycle, recover) [69,70]. The core idea behind R-approaches is to establish a waste hierarchy that prioritises the most effective strategies for minimising resource consumption and waste production, with EoL recycling as the last circular resort. The 3R principles can be applied to define, apprise and prioritise indicators of circularity for BC&S. The “Reduce” approach involves optimising the number of connections, structural elements, layers, facades components and finishing materials, as well as selecting materials that are lightweight yet durable and maintainable. The “Reuse” approach focuses on preserving the quality of building components from existing buildings for use in new constructions, employing circular practices such as dry methods of structural connections. The “Recycle” approach, as a last resort, involves extracting valuable resources from waste for further use. Recycling can be further categorised into three levels, ranked from most to least preferable: upcycling (e.g. creating new wooden furniture from old wooden boards), recycling (e.g. crushingdemolishedconcreteforuseasaggregate in newconcrete),anddowncycling (e.g., using concrete beams for aggregates for road pavement) [71,72]. The ReSOLVE framework outlines key actions for transitioning from linear to circular business models: Regenerate, Share, Optimise, Loop, Virtualise, and Exchange [63]. Each of these actions can relate to the circularity of BC&S, guiding the decision-making process. “Regenerate” suggests selecting materials that can be replenished naturally. “Share” advocates for business models that encourage collaborative use of materials, components, equipment, and technology, thus minimising the need for new resources. “Optimise” involves reducing the number of building components and choosing durable elements that require less maintenance. “Loop” aims to minimise waste through reuse and recycling, applying to both the recovery of construction and demolition waste (C&DW) at the EoL stage and the design stage, which should consider disassembly and adaptability techniques to facilitate recycling/upcycling practices without extensive sorting. “Virtualise” involves creating virtual databases to collect data on building materials and components, content, history, and labelling, improving reuse opportunities and reducing waste generation. “Exchange” promotes the development of reclaimed materials markets, connecting value chain stakeholders through providing platforms for sharing, selling or purchasing secondary construction components. While the R-approaches and the ReSOLVE framework provide valuable guidelinesforCEbusiness models, othersupportingfactorsareessential, including arobust regulatory framework, financial incentives, stakeholder interest, and involvement. 356 A. Tleuken et al. 13.3 Classification of Circularity Criteria and Indicators for Building Components and Systems (BC&S) In general, the circularity criteria for BC&S can be grouped into the following categories: characteristics of a building component or system, construction and demolition waste (C&DW) management, connections conditions, regulations and documentation and stakeholder involvement. These categories were derived from a comprehensive thematic analysis, which also highlighted additional aspects such as material reuse potential, lifecycle assessment, and economic feasibility. Including these aspectsprovidesamoreholisticapproachtoevaluating circularity in buildingcomponents and systems. These criteria categories are connected to multiple indicators of the EU monitoring framework of CE by Eurostat [73]. This framework encompasses five distinct thematic areas (TA): production and consumption (TA1), waste handling (TA2), secondary raw materials (TA3), competitiveness and innovation (TA4), and global sustainability and resilience (TA5). Table 13.10 provides information on CE criteria and indicators for BC&S circularity criteria categories and corresponding Eurostat indicators. 13.3.1 The Characteristics of Building Components and Systems These include the following indicators: maintainability (meaning they can continue to be kept in use through maintenance) and durability [69]. It is also important to consider the recyclability or reusability of the recycled materials to ensure they can continue contributing to the CE beyond their current application. Talking about the interaction with other objects in the structure, systems, and components should be reversible, simple, and fast for connection [74]. From Eurostat circular criteria, the following indicators can be related to BC&S: •Circular Material Use Rate (can be used to evaluate the circularity level of BC&S materials); •Contribution of Recycled Materials to Raw Materials Demand •End-of-Life Recycling Input Rates (EOL-RIR) (this indicator can be used to evaluate the number of recycled materials used in BC&S) •Trade in Recyclable Raw Materials (this indicator can be used to assess reuse of materials used for BC&S) •Material Footprint (this indicator can be related to the total amount of building materials and structural elements used during construction and maintenance life stages of a structure) •Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Production Activities (this indicator relates to the production of BC&S causing GHG emissions, which requires optimised production of BC&S, as well as reuse, sharing, and recycling) 13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 357 Table 13.10 A summary of circularity criteria for buildings at component and system levels Circularity criteria for BC&S Related indicators from eurostat monitoring framework Category Criteria Source Characteristics (TA1, TA3, TA4) Maintainability of the components Durability of the components [69]Circular material use rate (cei_ srm030) Contribution of recycled materials to raw materials demand-end-of-liferecycling input rates (EOL-RIR) (cei_ srm010) Trade in recyclable raw materials (cei_srm020) Material footprint (cei_pc020) Greenhouse gas emissions from production activities (cei_gsr011) Material import dependency (cei_gsr030) EU self-sufficiency for raw materials (cei_gsr020) Reuse, recycling, and upcycling potential interface: reversibility, simplicity, speed [74] Construction and demolition waste (C&DW) management (TA2, TA3) Total amount of C&DW produced Reuse rate Recovery rate Recycling rate Separate collection rate Reused products from C&DW [75]Waste generation per capita (cei_pc034) Generation of waste excluding major mineral wastes per GDP unit (cei_pc032) Generation of packaging waste per capita (cei_pc040) Generation of plastic packaging waste per capita (cei_pc050) Recycling rate of all waste excluding major mineral waste (cei_wm010) Recycling rate of packaging waste by type of packaging (cei_wm020) Recycling rate of waste of electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) separately collected (cei_wm060) Connections conditions (TA1, TA2, TA4) Reversible connections [20,76–78] Resource productivity (cei_ pc030) Standardised connections and fasteners [79] Modular construction [8,75,80] Standardised labelling [81] Minimise structural elements used [82] (continued) 358 A. Tleuken et al. Table 13.10 (continued) Circularity criteria for BC&S Related indicators from eurostat monitoring framework Category Criteria Source Regulations and documentation (TA5) Guides for the use of building materials efficiently Protocols for incentivisation of CE practices use Procurement that covers circular products Voluntary agreements Sequence of disassembly, recommended tools, and safety guides [75,83]Private investment and gross added value related to circular economy sectors (cei_cie012) Patents related to recycling and secondary raw materials (cei_ cie020) Stakeholder involvement Initiatives on reuse Construction companies that prioritise the use of circular methods and components Stakeholders’ engagement in the design process Training [75] Persons employed in circular economy sectors (cei_cie011) •Material Import Dependency & EU Self-Sufficiency for Raw Materials (higher import dependency of BC&S from other countries rather than use of local resources, can lead to higher carbon footprint, this is why local materials should be preferred for circularity). 13.3.2 Construction and Demolition Waste (C&DW) Management Various indicators exist for evaluating the construction and demolition waste (C&DW) criterion, including reuse, recycling and recovery rates, the separate treatment of C&DW, and the extent and frequency of the reuse of BC&S. These indicators can be further detailed, as seen in Portugal’s action plan for the CE, which measures the execution rate of the requirement to use a minimum of 5% recycled materials in construction [75]. Prioritising the use of recycled or reused materials over raw materials in construction and renovation processes is beneficial for resource conservation. However, the quality and condition of the recycled or materials to be reused materials are crucial 13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 359 in this case; therefore, it is essential to assess their quality and condition to ensure they meet the desired standards for structural integrity, appearance, and performance and health. AccordingtoEurostat’scircularitycriteria,such indicatorscanberelatedto BC&S for C&DW: •Waste Generation per Capita: Lower waste generation per capita during the lifecycle of BC&S indicates improved circularity, as it implies less material being wasted. •Generation of Waste Excluding Major Mineral Wastes per GDP Unit: This measures how efficiently components and systems are used to minimise waste. •Generation of Packaging Waste per Capita and generation of Plastic Packaging Waste per Capita: These indicators relate to the packaging materials used for deliveringBC&S,withenvironmentallysound packaging preferred for circularity. •Recycling Rate of All Waste Excluding Major Mineral Waste: This measures how efficiently waste composed of components and systems is recycled for further applications. •Recycling Rate of Packaging Waste by Type of Packaging: This indicator relates to the recycling of packaging materials used for delivering BC&S. •Recycling Rate of Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Separately Collected: This indicator relates to circularity practices in the electrical systems of buildings. 13.3.3 Connections Conditions In the implementation of a CE, the connections between the BC&S should be designed as demountable units that can be easily separated and removed without causing damage to attached elements and parts [78]. This involves using reversible connections, such as bolts or screws, click connections, velcro connections, and magnetic connections, instead of permanent adhesives, welds, or complex fixtures [76,77].Theseconnectionsfacilitatethereuseofrecoveredelementsandcomponents [84], and help achieve functional independence [20]. Standardisation of connections is also an important enabler for circularity, as standardised connections and fasteners enable quick and simple assembly and disassembly.Additionally,standardisedconnectionscompensatetheneedfor standardised components and elements, simplifying the process and further supporting circularity [79]. The utilisation of modular construction techniques enhances circularity process by enabling easy assembly and disassembly of building components [75,80]. Modularity is a significant enabler for adaptability, allowing for design simplicity and facilitating spatial system modification and transformability [8]. Implementing standardised labelling systems with clear identification tags or markings on BC&S can greatly aid in their identification, sorting, and tracking during 366 A. Tleuken et al. 5. Han L, Hong T, Lee SH, Sofos M (2020) System-level key performance indicators for building performance evaluation. Energy and Buildings 209:109703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild. 2019.109703 6. Khadim N, Agliata R, Mollo L (2022) How circular is an Italian apartment building? testing of a whole-building circularity indicator. In: Colloqui.AT.e 2022–Memoria e Innovazione. Genova, pp 7–10 7. International Organization for Standardization (2020) ISO 20887:2020; Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works—design for disassembly and adaptability—principles, requirements, and guidance. pp 3, 11 8. Askar R, Bragança L, Gervásio H (2021) Adaptability of buildings: a critical review on the concept evolution. Appl Sci 11(10):4483. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11104483 9. Pinder JA, Schmidt R, Austin SA, Gibb A, Saker J (2017) What is meant by adaptability in buildings? Facilities 35(1–2):2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-07-2015-0053 10. Addis W, Schouten J (2004) Principles of design for deconstruction to facilitate reuse and recycling (CIRIA), vol 607. Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) 11. Gijsbers R (2006) Towards adaptability in structures to extend the functional lifespan of buildings related to flexibility in future use of space. Adaptables 2006(1):1–5 12. Schmidt R, Eguchi T, Austin S, Gibb A (2010) What is the meaning of adaptability in the building industry?. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on open and sustainable buildings. pp 227–236 13. Ismail Z, Rahim AA (2011) Adaptability and modularity in housing: a case study of raines court and next2. pp 167–186. http://irep.iium.edu.my/id/eprint/12603 14. Ross BE, Chen DA, Conejos S, Khademi A (2016) Enabling adaptable buildings: results of a preliminary expert survey. Procedia Eng 145:420–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016. 04.009 15. Gu P, Xue D, Nee AYC (2009) Adaptable design: concepts, methods, and applications. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part B: J Eng Manuf 223(11):1367–1387. https://doi.org/10.1243/09544054J EM1387 16. Askar R, Bragança L, Gervásio H (2021b) Designing buildings for adaptability, flexibility and durability. In: Bragança L, de Alvarez CE, Cabeza LF (Eds) Sustainable urban development— topics, trends and solutions, vol 10. IOP Publishing Ltd, pp 10–10.15. https://doi.org/10.1088/ 978-0-7503-3971-1ch10 17. Beadle K, Gibb A, Austin S, Madden P, Fuster A (2008) Adaptable futures: setting the agenda. In: Proceedings of the 1st I3CON international conference. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ 2cc8/f044b6f5f5dfb446d6438cfa18db7665d150.pdf 18. Habraken NJ (1972) Supports: an alternative to mass housing. Praeger Publishers 19. Brand S (1994) How buildings learn: what happens after they’re built. Penguin Books, New York, NY, USA. 978-0-14-013996-9 20. GrahamP (2005)Design for adaptability—anintroduction to theprinciples andbasicstrategies. Environ Des Guid 66:1–9. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26148326 21. Durmisevic E, Brouwer J (2002) Design aspects of decomposable building structures 22. Conejos S, Langston C, Smith J (2013) AdaptSTAR model: a climate-friendly strategy to promote built environment sustainability. Habitat Int 37:95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hab itatint.2011.12.003 23. Dodd N, Donatello S, Cordella M (2021) Level(s) indicator 2.3: design for adaptability and renovation user manual: introductory briefing, instructions, and guidance. Technical Report 1.1; JRC Technical Reports, p 23. European Commission-Joint Research Centre. https://sus proc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/product-bureau/product-groups/412/documents 24. Geraedts R (2016) FLEX 4.0, a practical instrument to assess the adaptive capacity of buildings. Energy Procedia 96:568–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.102 25. Askar R, Bragança L, Gervásio H (2022) Design for adaptability (DfA)—frameworks and assessment models for enhanced circularity in buildings. Applied System Innovation 5(1):24. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi5010024 13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 367 26. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019) Granta design circularity indicators: an approach to measuring circularity. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Cowes, UK 27. Russell P, Moffatt S (2001) Assessing buildings for adaptability. IEA Annex 31 Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings 28. Munaro MR, Tavares SF (2023) Design for adaptability and disassembly: guidelines for building deconstruction. Constr Innov vol ahead-of-print No ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/CI-10-2022-0266 29. Kręt-Grześkowiak A, Baborska-Narożny M (2023) Guidelines for disassembly and adaptation in architectural design compared to circular economy goals-a literature review. Sustain Prod Consum 39:1–12 30. Bakx MJM, Beurskens P, Ritzen M, Durmisevic E, Lichtenberg JJN (2016) A morphological design and evaluation model for the development of circular facades. In: Proceedings of the conference: sustainable built environment (SBE): Transition zero, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 6–8 April 2016. p 257 31. MunaroMR,TavaresSF,BragançaL(2022)Theecodesignmethodologiestoachievebuildings’ deconstruction: a review and framework. Sustain Prod Consum 30(566–583):572 32. Dams B, Maskell D, Shea A, Allen S, Driesser M, Kretschmann T, Walker P, Emmitt S (2021) A circular construction evaluation framework to promote designing for disassembly and adaptability. J Clean Prod 316:128122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128122 33. Bertin I, Saadé M, Le Roy R, Jaeger JM, Feraille A (2022) Environmental impacts of design for reuse practices in the building sector. J Clean Prod 349:131228 34. Anastasiades K, Blom J, Buyle M, Audenaert A (2020) Translating the circular economy to bridge construction: lessons learnt from a critical literature review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 117:109522 35. O’Grady T, Minunno R, Chong HY, Morrison GM (2021) Design for disassembly, deconstruction and resilience: a circular economy index for the built environment. Resour Conserv Recycl 175:105847 36. Akinade OO, Oyedele LO, Ajayi SO, Bilal M, Alaka HA, Owolabi HA, Bello SA, Jaiyeoba BE, Kadiri KO (2017) Design for deconstruction (DfD): critical success factors for diverting end-of-life waste from landfills. Waste Manage 60:3–13 37. Van Nunen H, Hendriks NA, Erkelens PA (2004) Service life as the main aspect in environmental assessment. In: 16th CIB world building congress, May 1–7, 2004, Toronto, Canada. In-house publishing, p 10 38. Durmisevic E (2006) Transformable building structures-design for disassembly as a way to introduce sustainable engineering to building design & construction. Ph.D Thesis, Delft University of Technology: The Netherlands 39. Van Vliet M, van Grinsven J, Teunizen J (2021) Circular buildings-disassembly potential measurement method version 2.0, published by DGBC 40. Verberne JJH (2016) Building circularity indicators. Master Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands 41. Sariatli F (2017) Linear economy versus circular economy: a comparative and analyzer study for optimization of economy for sustainability. Visegr J Bioeconomy Sustain Dev 6(1):31–34 42. Dräger P, Letmathe P (2023) Who drives circularity?—the role of construction company employees in achieving high circular economy efficiency. Sustain 15(9):7110 43. Lovell H, Smith SJ (2010) Agencement in housing markets: the case of the UK construction industry. Geoforum 41(3):457–468 44. Michelini G, Moraes RN, Cunha RN, Costa JMH, Ometto AR (2017) From linear to circular economy: PSS conducting the transition. Procedia CIRP 64:2–6 45. Bates A, Kelly P, Schoonhoven J, Riis-Tolman T, Snabe K (2021) The business case for circular buildings: exploring the economic, environmental, and social value. World Bus Counc Sustain Dev 49. Geneva, Switzerland 46. Hernández H, Ossio F, Silva M (2023) Assessment of sustainability and efficiency metrics in modern methods of construction: a case study using a life cycle assessment approach. Sustain 15(7):6267 368 A. Tleuken et al. 47. Assefa G, Ambler C (2017) To demolish or not to demolish: life cycle consideration of repurposing buildings. Sustain Cities Soc 28:146–153 48. Baker H, Moncaster A, Al-Tabbaa A (2017) Decision-making for the demolition or adaptation of Buildings 49. Jorge-Ortiz A, Braulio-Gonzalo M, Bovea MD (2023) Exploring how waste management is being approached in green building rating systems: a case study. Waste Manage Res 41(6):1121–1133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X221143952 50. Pan W, Sidwell R (2011) Demystifying the cost barriers to offsite construction in the UK. Constr Manag Econ 29(11):1081–1099 51. Langston C, Wong FKW, Hui ECM, Shen L-Y (2007) Strategic assessment of building adaptive reuse opportunities in Hong Kong. Build Environ 43:1709–1718 52. Langston C, Smith J (2012) Modelling property management decisions using ‘iconCUR.’ Autom Constr 22:406–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.10.001 53. Wilkinson S (2014) The preliminary assessment of adaptation potential in existing office buildings. Int J Strateg Prop Manag 18(1):77–87. https://doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2013. 853705 54. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013) Towards the circular economy: economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition 55. Çimen Ö (2023) development of a circular building lifecycle framework: inception to circulation. Results Eng 17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100861 56. Mahpour A (2023) Building maintenance cost estimation and circular economy: the role of machine-learning. Sustain Mater Technol 37:e00679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2023. e00679 57. Vanegas P, Peeters JR, Cattrysse D, Tecchio P, Ardente F, Mathieux F, Dewulf W, Duflou JR (2018) Ease of disassembly of products to support circular economy strategies. Resour Conserv Recycl 135:323–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.06.022 58. World Green Building Council (2023) Circular economy in buildings: easy maintenance. https://viewer.ipaper.io/worldgbc/the-circular-built-environment-playbook 59. Su S, Zhong RY, Jiang Y (2023) Digital twin and its applications in the construction industry: a state-of-art systematic review. Digital Twin 2:15 60. Malik N, Ahmad R, Chen Y, Altaf MS, Al-Hussein M (2021) Minimizing joist cutting waste through dynamic waste allocation in panelized floor manufacturing. Int J Constr Manag 21(10):1011–1023 61. Hussein M, Eltoukhy AEE, Karam A, Shaban IA, Zayed T (2021) Modelling in off-site construction supply chain management: a review and future directions for sustainable modular integrated construction. J Clean Prod 310:127503 62. Costa A, Ossmane ESRM, Santos H, Camargo J, Carvalho LC (2023) ReSOLVE framework: when circular business models become digital. In: Internet of behaviors implementation in organizational contexts. IGI Global, pp 313–334 63. Torgautov B, Zhanabayev A, Tleuken A, Turkyilmaz A, Mustafa M, Karaca F (2021) Circular economy: challenges and opportunities in the construction sector of Kazakhstan. Buildings 11(11):501. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11110501 64. David AN, Ke X (2017) Toward a resource-efficient built environment: a literature review and conceptual model. J Ind Ecol 21(3):572–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12586 65. Winther K The future is a digital, circular construction process. ARUP. https://www.arup.com/ perspectives/the-future-is-a-digital-circular-construction-process. Accessed 8 September 2023 66. John SM, Sybil D, Welsynne SA, Shauhrat SC (2017) Industrial symbiosis at the facility scale. J Ind Ecol 21(3):559–571. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12592 67. Jiuping X, Jun M, Ziqiang Z, Shiyong W, Manbin S (2012) Resource sharing-based multiobjective multistage construction equipment allocation under fuzzy environment. J Constr Eng Manag 139(2). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000593 68. Zhi L, Hogwei W, Heng L (2019) Model of equipment sharing between contractors on construction projects. J Constr Eng Manag 144(6). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.000 1485 13 Circularity Criteria and Indicators at the Building Component … 369 69. Rahla KM, Mateus R, Bragança, L Selection criteria for building materials and components in line with the circular economy principles in the built environment—a review of current trends. Infrastruct 6:49. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures6040049 70. van den Berg MC (2019) Managing circular building projects. Ph.D Thesis-Research UT, graduation UT, University of Twente, University of Twente. https://doi.org/10.3990/1.978903 6547703 71. Oyenuga AA, Bhamidimarri R (2017) Upcycling ideas for sustainable construction and demolition waste management: challenges, opportunities and boundaries. Int J Innov Res Sci, Eng Technol 6(3). https://www.ijirset.com 72. Wang G, Krzywda D, Kondrashev S, Vorona-Slivinskaya L (2021) Recycling and upcycling in the practice of waste management of construction giants. Sustain 13(2):640. MDPI AG. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su13020640 73. European Commission (n.d.) Circular economy-eurostat database. https://ec.europa.eu/eur ostat/web/circular-economy/database 74. Antonini E, Boeri A, Lauria M, Giglio F Reversibility and durability as potential indicators for circular building technologies. Sustain 12:7659. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187659 75. OECD (2018) Inventory of circular economy indicators. https://www.oecd.org/cfe/cities/Inv entoryCircularEconomyIndicators.pdf 76. Crowther P (2005) Design for disassembly–themes and Principles. Environ Des Guid 1–7. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26149108 77. Cottafava D, Ritzen M (2021) Circularity indicator for residential buildings: addressing the gap between embodied impacts and design aspects. Resour Conserv Recycl 164:105120. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105120 78. Tleuken A, Torgautov B, Zhanabayev A, Turkyilmaz A, Mustafa M, Karaca F (2022) Design for deconstruction and disassembly: barriers, opportunities, and practices in developing economies of central Asia. Procedia CIRP 106:15–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.02.148 79. Geldermans RJ (2016) Design for change and circularity–accommodating circular material & product flows in construction. Energy Procedia 96:301–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro. 2016.09.153 80. Rios FC, Chong WK, Grau D (2015) Design for disassembly and deconstruction—challenges and opportunities. Procedia Eng. 118:1296–1304 81. Johannesson A, Rimac I (2010) Marking of products and tranportation units-information contents and marking technologies 82. Haftka RT, Gürdal Z (2012) Elements of structural optimization, vol 11. Springer Science & Business Media 83. Koc K, Durdyev S, Tleuken A, Ekmekcioglu O, Mbachu J, Karaca F (2023) Critical success factors for construction industry transition to circular economy: developing countries’ perspectives.Eng,Constr ArchManagahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM02-2023-0129 84. Akanbi LA, Oyedele LO, Akinade OO, Ajayi AO, Davila Delgado M, Bilal M, Bello SA (2018) Salvaging building materials in a circular economy: a BIM-based whole-life performance estimator. Resour Conserv Recycl 129:175–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec. 2017.10.026 85. Gardner L (2023) Metal additive manufacturing in structural engineering–review, advances, opportunities and outlook. Structures 47:2178–2193. Elsevier. 86. Shah IH, Hadjipantelis N, Walter L, Myers RJ, Gardner L (2023) Environmental life cycle assessment of wire arc additively manufactured steel structural components. J Clean Prod 389:136071 87. Al-Shargabi AA, Almhafdy A, Ibrahim DM, Alghieth M, Chiclana F (2022) Buildings’ energy consumption prediction models based on buildings’ characteristics: research trends, taxonomy, and performance measures. J Build Eng 54 88. Röck M, Ruschi M, Saade M, Balouktsi M, Rasmussen Nygaard F, Birgisdottir H, Frischknecht R,HabertG,LützkendorfT,PasserA(2020)EmbodiedGHGemissionsofbuildings–thehidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation. Appl Energy 258 370 A. Tleuken et al. 89. Krstic H, Marenjak S (2020) Analysis of buildings operation and maintenance costs 90. Stratton M (1997) Conserving 20th century buildings, structure and style, 1st edn 91. Curto DD, Cinieri V (2020) Aerogel-based plasters and energy efficiency of historic buildings. Literature review and guidelines for manufacturing specimens destined for thermal tests. Sustain 12:9457 92. Stahl T, Brunner S, Zimmermann M, Ghazi WK (2016) Thermohygric properties of a newly developed aerogel based insulation rendering for both exterior and interior applications. Energy and Buildings 44:114–117 93. HandojoDU,XiaodongL,EngTJN(2022)Sustainableproductionincirculareconomy:aerogel upscaling production. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:20078–20084 94. Carty L (2017) Analysis of the effects of aerogel insulation on the thermal performance of existing building envelopes. Edinburgh Napier University, p 09013398 95. Meliță L, Croitoru C (2019) Aerogel, a high performance material for thermal insulation-a brief overview of the building applications. In: E3S web of conferences, vol 111. EDP Sciences, p 06069 96. Ganobjak M (2019) Aerogel materials for heritage buildings: materials, properties, and case studies. Journal of Cultural Heritage, J Cult Herit. Elsevier 97. Castro-Díaz M, Osmani M, Cavalaro S, Parker B, Lovato T, Needham P, Thompson J, Philippe K, Ruiz F (2022) Impact of circular silica aerogel on plasterboard recycling. Loughborough University. Conference contribution. https://hdl.handle.net/2134/21435765.v1 98. Pineda-Martos R, Calheiros CSC (2021) Nature-based solutions in cities–contribution of the Portuguese national association of green roofs to urban circularity. Circ Econ Sustain 1:1019−1035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00070-9 99. Hayas A, López A, Espada D, Ruiz de Adana M, Martín-Consuegra E, Peña A, Ayuso Muñoz J, Lora González A, Giráldez JV, Laguna A, Guzmán G, Contreras V, Manzano JR, Jiménez FJ, Cáceres V, Ramajo L, Jiménez JR, Pérez A, Vanwalleghem T (2015) Optimizando el potencial de techos verdes para la rehabilitación energética de edificios: interacción entre sustratos reciclados, propiedades hídricas y eficiencia energética. Córdoba: Agencia de Obra Pública de la Junta de Andalucía, Consejería Fomento y Vivienda, Junta de Andalucía. https://www.aopandalucia.es/inetfiles/resultados_IDI/GGI3003IDIB/memoria/ final_informe_cientifico_v3_0.pdf. Accessed 8 Oct 2023 Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.