Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles

Chapter 7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles Paulo Santos ,AimeeByrne , Ferhat Karaca , Paola Villoria , Mercedes del Rio , Rocío Pineda-Martos , and Genesis Camila Cervantes Puma Abstract The construction industry significantly contributes to global greenhouse gas emissions, raw material extraction, and waste production. Implementing circular economy (CE) principles in this sector could greatly reduce these impacts. However, adoption within the industry remains slow due to barriers such as limited knowledge and experience. This chapter aims to assess and help overcome these obstacles by providing a comprehensive analysis of circular material usage principles and strategiesinconstruction.Italsohighlightsopportunitiesandenablersofchange,including innovations and emerging technologies in recycling, digitization, robotic systems, new materials, and processing techniques. Four case studies illustrate the application of circular theory through a Bio-Building, Urban Mining and Recycling (UMAR) Experimental Unit, Open-spaced apartment, and an “Escuela Politécnica Superior”. The conclusions emphasize the need for strong regulatory frameworks, awareness initiatives, and international cooperation. Integrating technological advancements P. Santos (B ) Civil Engineering Department, ISISE, ARISE, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] A. Byrne Office of the Vice President for Sustainability, Technological University Dublin, Grangegorman, Ireland P. Villoria ·M. del Rio Escuela Técnica Superior de Edificación, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain F. Karaca Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering and Digital Sciences, Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan R. Pineda-Martos Departamento de Ingeniería Aeroespacial y Mecánica de Fluidos, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería Agronómica, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain G. C. Cervantes Puma ISISE, ARISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, 4804-533 Guimarães, Portugal © 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_7 175 176 P. Santos et al. like AI, robotics, and blockchain is crucial for optimizing waste management. Additionally, education on circular practices is vital. By fostering global collaboration, standardizing circular construction approaches can lead to a more sustainable and resilient building industry. Keywords Circular economy ·Buildings ·Circular materials ·Strategies · Principles ·Overview One of the main waste flows in the European Union (EU) is construction and demolition waste (CDW), representing in 2018 around 36% of total waste generated [1]. Besides soils, concrete, bricks, gypsum, wood, glass, metals, plastic and solvents are the most often CDW found in the EU-27 countries [2], exhibiting not only a high resource value, but also a high potential for re-use and recycling [1]. Even with high financial penalties, illegal fly-tipping of CDW continues to take place (Fig. 7.1). In this context, the EU has made the management of CDW a priority [3] and the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) 2008/98/EC [4] imposed a mandatory recovery target (70% recovery rate of CDW in weight by 2020). Included in these recovery activities are “the preparation of non-hazardous CDW for re-use, recycling and other material recovery, including backfilling operations” [1]. This chapter presents an updated review of circular material usage principles and strategies within the construction sector. First, some basic concepts about circular economy and material usage are presented as an introductory framework. Next, the main principles for circular material usage at the design stage are described. After, the circular material usage strategies and principles in construction activities are presented, including: extending lifespan and end-of-life strategies, collaborative approaches and business models, technological innovations, main barriers and enablers of circular material usage. Finally, to conclude this subsection, some best Fig. 7.1 Construction and demotion waste illegally discarded in the middle of a forest 7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 177 practices related to the previous theoretical concepts about circular material usage in the building industry, are illustrated using some selected case studies. 7.1 Understanding Circular Economy and Material Usage Section The circular economy (CE) is a model of production and consumption which focuses on retaining existing materials and products as long as possible and reducing waste [5]. Circularity aims to move away from the traditional linear model of ‘take-makedispose’ where materials are extracted, manufactured into products, and ultimately disposed of. Instead, it focuses on creating a closed-loop system where materials are continuously reused, recycled, or regenerated to minimize the need for new resources and reduce the environmental impact. In the built environment, there is no clear and accepted definition of a CE [6]. However, a circular built environment can be a sustainable approach which caters to the growing needs of the sector without causing additional detrimental impacts on the environment. The EU has agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030 (of 1990 levels) and to become carbon neutral by 2050 [7]. Although figures fluctuate year on year, the Circular Economy Action Plan [8] attributes 50% of extracted material and 35% of the EU’s waste generation to construction. The sector accounts for 5–12% of total greenhouse gas emissions through material extraction, construction product manufacture, and building work. This includes cement, aluminium, steel, brick and glass production which account for approximately 9% of global energy related CO2 emissions [9]. Confounding this issue, 10–15% of building material is wasted during construction and the majority of demolition waste is currently landfilled in the EU [10]. National construction and demolition waste (CDW) recycling rates vary greatly across Europe, from 10 to 90% [11]. A CE has the potential to reduce global CO2 emissions from building materials by 38% by 2050 [12,13]. According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation [14] the three principles of a CE are: the elimination of waste and pollution, the use of circular products and materials and thirdly, the regeneration of nature. Within these principles, there are several subcategories and concepts which will be discussed below. 7.1.1 Eliminating Waste and Pollution The first principle aims to move away from a linear system whereby raw materials are extracted, consumed and eventually thrown largely into landfills and incinerators. In circular design, raw materials use is minimized, and materials can be designed to remain in use for multiple cycles by following the R principles. There are many versions of the R principles for a CE which are based on the original 3; 178 P. Santos et al. Fig. 7.2 Circularity hierarchy of principles in the product chain with examples from construction. Based on a table by Potting et al. [19] Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. This can then be subdivided multiple times to make to up to 14 and even 22 Rs [15,16]. Reike et al. [17] identified 38 “re-” words, as listed next by alphabetic order: “re-assembly, recapture, reconditioning, recollect, recover, recreate, rectify, recycle, redesign, redistribute, reduce, re-envision, refit, refurbish, refuse, remarket, remanufacture, renovate, repair, replacement, reprocess, reproduce, repurpose, resale, resell, re-service, restoration, resynthesize, rethink, retrieve, retrofit, retrograde, return, reuse, reutilize, revenue, reverse and revitalize”. Ten of the most common include: Refuse/Reject, Rethink, Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Refurbish,Remanufacture,Repurpose,RecycleandRecover.Figure7.2indicatesthe hierarchy of these, prioritized from 1 to 10 based on maximizing resource efficiency, minimizing waste generation, and highest value creation and retention. Recycling and recovery are ranked lowest because of the loss of complex state and the need for higher energy inputs [18]. 7.1.2 Use of Circular Products and Materials Circular Materials used within construction can be largely divided into two groups; low or zero-carbon materials such as wood and reused or recovered materials with minimal reprocessing or transport-related emissions [20]. The technical cycle and the biological cycle support circular material use and are illustrated in Fig. 7.3. The technical cycle on the right involves materials such as metals, concrete, plastics, glass, or synthetic composites in building products. At the end of a structure’s life, or construction products’ life, these materials are recovered from the demolition or deconstruction process, sorted and processed before being reprocessed or reused in construction or other applications. The inner loops in the Fig. 7.3 butterfly 7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 179 Fig. 7.3 Circular economy butterfly diagram interpreted for the construction industry by Ottenhaus [22] diagram applied to the construction industry, retain most value in the material or product. This is based on the more general circular economy butterfly diagram [21], in which the innermost loop, ‘Maintenance’, prolongs the life of the material or product. This is followed by ‘Reusing’ and ‘Redistributing’ which keeps materials in their original form and displaces the need to manufacture new items or extract new materials. ‘Refurbishing’ and ‘Remanufacturing’ then include some processing and the outmost loop, ‘Recycling’, is a last resort when other options are not possible. The biological cycle, orbio-loop, only includes materials that can be safely regeneratedin the biospherevia composting or anaerobic digestion suchas timber, bamboo or straw. Materials from the technical cycle can end up in the biological cycle, once they can no longer make a product. The inner loops of the left side of the butterfly diagram shows the ‘cascading principle’ which is the cascading use of renewable resources, with several reuse and recycling cycles [23]. For the construction industry, thisismostapplicabletotimber,whichcouldbeginitsfirstproductlifeassolidtimber beams and end its fifth life being incinerated for energy recovery [24]. Cascading ensures that biogenic carbon remains in the system for a longer period of time, resulting in lower environmental burdens and can support other industries such as farming via feedstock or soil fertilizer [25]. 180 P. Santos et al. 7.1.3 Regenerate Nature Circular construction can contribute to the regeneration of nature by incorporating strategies that support ecological restoration, biodiversity enhancement, and sustainable land management practices. The aforementioned biological cycle contributes to biodiversity and ecosystem health by promoting the use of renewable materials that can be regrown and replenished. Maintaining materials in use also contributes to this principle as less land is required for sourcing virgin raw materials, which allows more land to be returned to nature. While circular construction materials hold great potential for sustainable and resource-efficient building practices, there are several challenges that need to be addressed to facilitate widespread adoption. The details of the challenges faced can be specific to each stakeholder’s role. However, they can be broadly grouped as economic, informational, institutional, political and technical challenges [26] with commonly encountered subcategories listed in Table 7.1. A key challenge in the sector is the volume of existing buildings not designed for deconstruction, containing toxic materials, and lacking detailed documentation [28]. Reused materials require additional time and more qualified labour, and there is a lack of market mechanisms to aid recovery [6]. A system needs to be developed Table 7.1 Challenge areas for a circular built environment compiled from review articles [6,26, 27] Challenge subcategories Challenge Economic – Lack of grants/unclear financial case – Lack of financial aid, incentives or short-term benefits – Low value of circular materials – Cost of upfront investment Informational – Lack of research, education and information – Lack of awareness, interest and knowledge – Lack of best practice case studies and leadership Institutional/structural – Lack of strategic vision and collaborative platforms – Fragmented supply chains – Lack of market mechanisms for recovery Political – Lack of regulatory instruments/regulatory pressure – Lack of tax actions – Lack of circular vision Technological – Lack of integrated processes, tools, and practices – Lack of an information management system – Complexity of buildings – Technology and infrastructure readiness 7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 181 which supports the use of circular materials which includes quality assurance, standardization, certification and classification, mechanisms for transport and storage and access to the market [26,29]. Finances, or lack of financial case, were identified as a leading barrier for stakeholders [6,10,27]. For circular construction materials, this includes the high availability and low cost [27] of virgin raw material, the cost of deconstruction, the work involved in providing the material for reuse, the cost of recycled/reused materials, and the lack of reward or penalty [26]. Institutional or informational challenges include the lack of guidance and tools, and lack of knowledge [26]. Stakeholders throughout construction value chains in Europe are unfamiliar with how CE principles do or could operate in the built environment, with many unable to identify first steps in initiating the transition to a CE [10]. Addressing these challenges requires collaborative efforts from various stakeholders, including policymakers, industry professionals, researchers, and end users. Overcoming these barriers will pave the way for a more widespread adoption of circular construction materials, however there is a need initially to provide evidence, compile best practice examples and develop guidance. 7.2 Design Principles for Circular Material Usage 7.2.1 Designing for Circularity There are several principles within the design stage to promote circularity in building constructions. These principles can be clustered into the following points [30,31]: – Design standardized products and materials, using regular and simple modular shapes to avoid waste. – Design to decrease the need to extract and produce virgin materials. – Design using recovered materials: by detecting unused materials from technical or natural flows and transforming them into circular materials which can be incorporated within the production of new materials and products, promoting the design of materials with high recycled content. – Design durable materials so that they can prolong their use in the building and therefore increase lifetime and delay the end-of-use cycle. – Design considering the setting procedure of the materials, so that the materials can be easily disassembled: Materials should be designed thinking that, when placed in a construction project, they should allow deconstruction and promote reuse and recycling. For example, using mechanical joints to avoid the use of binders and adhesives. 182 P. Santos et al. 7.2.2 Material Selection and Management The construction sector, in particular, plays a pivotal role in transitioning towards a less resource-intensive economy by maximizing the use and recovery of resources in building design and construction. Sustainable material sourcing and efficient recycling techniques are crucial for achieving a circular economy. 1. Criteria for Selecting Circular Materials The EU emphasizes the significance of applying circular economy (CE) principles acrossall economic sectors, with a particular focuson water and energyconservation, waste prevention, material recycling, promotion of reuse and repair, and utilization of secondary raw materials [32]. CE in the construction sector aims to maximize the use and recovery of resources and buildings, reducing the environmental impact. Thus, it is of importance that designs aim to extend the useful life of buildings through rehabilitation, using recyclable materials; and the usage of new industrialized long-life materials based on recovered and valued resources. Additionally, adopting new industrialized long-life materials derived from recovered and valued resources can contribute to sustainable practices [33]. By implementing these recommendations, the construction sector can play a pivotal role in transitioning towards a less resource-intensive economy and fostering circularity. This approach aligns with the broader objectives of the CE, such as reducing waste generation, conserving resources, and promoting sustainable material use. 2. Sustainable Material Sourcing Regarding the availability of raw materials, critical raw materials are of particular importance as their great economic importance for the European Union (EU); very sensitive to supply interruption; and being their extraction of a significant impact on the environment. Critical raw materials—e.g., lithium, are often present in electronic devices. The current low recycling rate of these materials means that significant economic opportunities are being lost. Thus, the fundamental directions that the circularity strategy must take at the European level are those that consider the need to incorporate these materials into reduction, reuse and recycling practices. To achieve autonomywithrespecttothesematerials, theEUproposes diversifiedand undistorted access to global raw materials markets, while seeking to reduce external dependence on these materials as well as the environmental pressures associated with their import [32]. 3. Material Efficiency and Recycling Techniques TheEUinsistsontheimportanceof incentivesfortheadoptionofefficiencymeasures in the use of resources and for increasing recycling, eco-innovative performance, and investments in green products and services [32]. To move towards an economic model of material efficiency, economic priorities and lifestyles must be in line with reducing excessive economic material dependence by applying the principles of circularity—i.e., reduce and reuse before recycling [32]. Fundamental aspects of CE 7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 183 Fig. 7.4 Important recycle points (Source authors, based on Situación y evolución de la economía circular en by Morató et al. [32]) related to recycling are: (i) design oriented towards economy of materials and energy, use of recyclable and renewable materials, and easy disassembly and replacement of materials and components; and, (ii) recycling and recovery of non-reusable materials [33]. Waste prevention continues to pose a major challenge in all Member States of the EU, including those with high recycling rates [32]. The use of recycled materials can contribute to partially covering the total demand for materials, thus reducing the extraction of raw materials. Creating efficient secondary materials markets enables higher value recycling cycles since most materials are recycled after disassembly. The principles are outlined in Fig. 7.4. 4. Lifecycle Assessment and Material Management Production systems concerning efficient use of materials—given priority to activities allowing the development of CE principles from the beginning of the production process phases, and not only in its final dimensions; i.e., recycling and reconversion of waste—would serve as recommendations aimed at the change of economic models and the transition towards a less resource-intensive economy. Efficient use of materials in production systems is a critical aspect of the CE. It is essential to prioritize activities that promote CE principles from the beginning of the production process phases, rather than only focusing on recycling and reconversion of waste in its final dimensions. 190 P. Santos et al. 7.3.2 Collaborative Approaches and Business Models In this section, some of the innovations in business models that are affecting the construction sector in favour of CE applied to its products are collected. 1. Circular Supply Chains and Networks Currently, the conversion of traditional linear supply chains into circular ones to improve the management of natural resources and reduce the volume of waste produced is included as one of the goals for the transition of the construction sector towards CE [82]. The amount of material lost in demolition processes is equivalent to 40% of the total mass of raw materials extracted in production, making the construction industry one of the most polluting industries globally [9]. In this sense, one of the most ambitious targets included in CE is “closing the loop” in the flows of raw materials and resources used throughout the life cycle of construction products [42, 49,83]. Figure 7.7 provides a schematic overview of the relationship between the stages within the supply chain and the stakeholders. In this general overview, a transition towards CE in the building materials supply chain requires a joint effort of all participants included in the network [84]. Therefore, it is necessary to increase transparency, avoiding possible weaknesses in the chain and gaps in the agreements. This would generate opportunities for industrial symbiosis and the integration of reverse logistics in manufacturing processes, moving towards a redesign of current industrial processes and improving coordination between resources/inventories [49]. On the other hand, the creation of a welldefined market for CDW would make it possible to increase consumer demand for theserecycledproducts, movingtowardsagreensupplychainthatintegratesthe environmental costs derived from the product distribution process [26]. In addition, for a transition towards circularity in the construction sector, it is necessary to recover the secondary raw materials generated in demolished buildings at the end of their useful life and, in turn, to analyse their viability for recycling, recovery or reincorporation Fig. 7.7 Fullsupplychaincycleandstakeholdersinvolved(Source ownelaborationbasedon Cheng et al. [82]) 7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 191 in the production of new products [85]. At this point, several authors agree on the importance of reducing and separating CDW at source to improve its management process [86]. With this separation at the starting point, the logistical costs and environmental impact in terms of CO2equivalent emissions derived from transport to the processing plant would be reduced, so that both transport journeys and transported mass would be reduced. 2. Sharing Economy and Product-as-a-Service Models Industrial strategies for value creation have changed radically in recent years as a consequence of globalisation and progressive technological development [87]. This evolution has affected the construction industry, which is evolving from product procurement-centred thinking towards product-service systems (PSS) [88]. In this way, building product manufacturers are forced to redesign their manufacturing processes and complexity increases in the early stages of development to accommodate this new business model [89]. By offering product-associated functionality, manufacturers are obliged to have a deep understanding of how their products behave after continuous use, which provides additional motivation to improve the skills associated with the engineering and product design stages through experience [90]. However, as in other industrial sectors, there must be a receptiveness on the part of consumers when it comes to accepting this product and service model. In this regard, Fig. 7.8 schematically shows the external and internal factors found in the literature that to a certain extent condition the acceptance of this business model in construction. Several authors have worked with this business model trying to adapt different products to this “servitisation” process. Examples are linked to construction equipment [87], construction machinery [90], prefabricated building components [91] or building components [92]. Importantly, the product-as-a-service model brings Fig. 7.8 Internalandexternaldeterminantsofproduct-as-a-servicemodels(Source ownelaboration based on Cook et al. [89]) 192 P. Santos et al. advantages from an environmental point of view, considering the full life cycle of the product and its subsequent recovery possibilities [93], as well as continuous improvement based on information sharing that boosts the sustainability of building products [88]. Finally, and in relation to the product-as-a-service business model, it is worth highlighting how in recent decades the collaborative economy has been encouraged to promote sustainability. This concept addresses the possibility of using high-priced physical assets without the need to buy them, reducing waste due to obsolescence or disuse [91]. Furthermore, thanks to the advancement of information and communication technologies, it is possible to promote a more democratic organization and reduce information asymmetries in favour of a CE in construction [94]. 3. Extended Product Responsibility Extended product responsibility (EPR) was first defined at the beginning of the century by Lindhqvist as a strategy to protect the environment and is intended to ensure that any product manufacturer takes responsibility for its entire life cycle, incorporating the stages of recovery, recycling, collection and disposal [95]. This approach would change the current production model affecting the construction industry by regularizing and setting the rules for the proper management of construction and demolition waste in line with the European Green Deal guidelines [1]. This approachisalreadybeingadaptedforcertainproductsaroundtheworld,suchasEuropean legislation for plastic products [96], or air conditioners and washing machines in Japan [97]. However, final construction products, understood as civil infrastructures or buildings, are complex and tailor-made entities in each design, which makes it difficult to standardize and trace the prototypes produced for the market [98]. In this sense, it is possible to think of an EPR localized to the main raw materials used in the elaboration of construction systems. However, the useful life of these is rarely less than 50 years and it is difficult to manage the final management of these products [98]. Therefore,as faras EPR isconcerned,itisnecessary to examinecurrentinitiatives, regulations and practices in the construction sector to understand their suitability and ability to address the issue of end-of-life management of CDW [99]. Only in this way, it will be possible to build a legislative framework for building and civil works, built on the “polluter pays” principle, encouraging producers to incorporate CE criteria in their manufacturing processes, promoting eco-design and supporting the recycling, recovery and final reuse of construction products [100,101]. 4. Public–Private Partnerships and Policy Implications Public–private partnerships (PPPs) are a useful tool in the construction sector to leverage public resources and private management expertise in moving towards a circular and sustainable economy [102]. These partnerships are established based on a long-term relationship of trust, where resources, knowledge, skills and shared 7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 193 Table 7.3 Advantages and disadvantages of public–private partnerships in the construction sector (Source Bao et al. [109]) Advantages Disadvantages ✓Public sectors can alleviate responsibility ✓Long negotiation periods ✓Private sectors can moderate investment ✓Lack of flexibility ✓Public sectors can draw on private sector expertise ✓Inequality of risk and return ✓Public–private partnership is strengthened in the long term ✓Lack of transparency in Agreements responsibility for decision-making are exchanged [103,104]. However, these partnerships are not always favourable and have several advantages and disadvantages that can be seen in Table 7.3. While it is true that PPPs are commonly accepted in the development of facilities, including design, financing and implementation [105], such as the supply of drinking water in large cities [106], in waste management for a CE there is still a long way to go. In the EU, progress is being made towards a policy framework to promote such an agreement to reduce the environmental impact of the construction sector [107]. However, this transition is slow and often not as efficient as desired and making infrastructure resilient will require a change of mindset on the part of private management and lasting support from governments [108]. 7.3.3 Technological Innovations for Circular Material Usage CE constitutes an impulse for improving the productivity of the construction sector with a need for investment in technology and digitalisation. According to Ferrer et al. [33], the scale and efficiency of networks of recycled, valued and recovered construction materials are fundamental to the following points outlined in Fig. 7.9. Innovation ecosystems to boost re-industrialization and sustainability in the construction sector advocate the promotion and support of R +D+I (Research, Development and Innovation) and knowledge transfer instruments on: technologies 4.0; recycling and recovery of materials and components which are more complex to recycle (plastics, composites, waste); productivity improvements in component manufacturing and recovery (3D, robotics, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT); new long-lasting materials; and materials traceability technologies (blockchain) [33]. 1. Advanced Recycling Technologies Resource recovery as business model and driver of CE focuses primarily on recovery of used materials or energy from waste—e.g., recycled steel and fibres, and recycled aggregates for their use in construction or in other sectors; being industrial and 194 P. Santos et al. Fig. 7.9 Fundamentals in circular material usage (Source own elaboration based on Ferrer et al. [33]) energy symbiosis among complementary sectors essential for the adoption of the CE principles [33]. In the context of construction, disassembly and recycling best practices are employed to revalue the use of construction waste, which is often considered “low value” material. Testing methods for disassembly, treatment, and recycling would help to optimize the recovery and reuse of materials, contributing to the efficient use of resources in the production process [33]. By implementing these advanced recycling technologies, the construction industry can reduce waste, minimize the extraction of virgin resources, and promote a more sustainable approach to materials management. Furthermore, these technologies enable the transformation of waste into valuable resources, promoting the development of a CE. Recycled steel, fibres, and aggregates can be utilized in various sectors, including construction; creating a closed-loop system where materials are continuously reused and recycled. This not only reduces the environmental impact of resource extraction but also contributes to the development of a more resource-efficient and less wasteful economy [110]. Overall, advanced recycling technologies and resource recovery play a crucial role in driving the transition towards a CE by maximizing the value of waste materials and minimizing resource consumption. By adopting these technologies and principles, industries can contribute to a more sustainable and resource-efficient future. 7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 195 2. Intelligent Sorting and Separation Systems Intelligent sorting and separation systems are pivotal in advancing the principles of the CE by enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of waste management and resource recovery processes. These systems leverage cutting-edge technologies such as AI, machine learning, computer vision, and robotics to accurately identify, sort, and segregate diverse materials. This enables their appropriate recycling, reuse, or recovery,therebypromotingsustainablepractices.Byautomatingthesortingprocess, these systems enhance the purity and quality of recovered materials, augmenting their value for subsequent reuse or recycling. Moreover, they optimize resource allocation by dynamically adjusting parameters, such as conveyor speed and sensor settings, thereby maximizing efficiency while minimizing waste. These systems also play a critical role in detecting and eliminating contaminants, thereby improving the quality of recovered materials and mitigating the risk of cross-contamination. With their exceptional accuracy and speed in sorting, they reduce manual labour requirements, increase throughput capacity, and enable the processing of larger volumes of waste. Furthermore, intelligent sorting systems generate valuable data pertaining to waste composition, quantity, and quality [33]. This data-driven approach facilitates informed decision-making, process optimization, and the development of novel recycling technologies. By integrating into circular supply chains, these systems facilitate the efficient recovery and reintroduction of recycled materials, thereby closing the loop in the CE. As technology continues to advance, these systems are poised to makesignificantcontributionstoresourceefficiency,wastereduction,andsustainable material utilization. 3. Digitalisation and Blockchain Applications The promotion of the guaranteed system for components and spare parts, digital traceability (European passport) and associated documentation are requirements for the delivery of sustainable and circular built environment [33]. Complementarily, financial aid for investments by industrialized and sustainable construction companies—e.g., modular design, BIM (Building Information Modelling), IoT digitalization, 3D printing, cutting robotics, …—, and support for components’ banks and material passports, are proposed as drivers for offers in public–private collaboration [33]. Regarding circularity of materials, blockchain solution for materials passport embraces technology against the low transparency and traceability of the materials used—e.g., fibre plates, steels, coatings, facades. Collaborative design and manufacturing (BIM, IoT, …) benefit by the availability of new technologies which integrate design, with production and delivery systems—JIT (Just-In-Time) delivery—at the construction site. 4. Robotic Deconstruction Technological innovations in deconstruction include advanced tools and techniques used to dismantle and repurpose buildings and structures in a more efficient, sustainable, and profitable manner. These innovations aim to reduce waste, minimize environmental impact, and improve safety during the deconstruction process. The use 196 P. Santos et al. of robots for deconstruction is a promising approach that can improve efficiency and sustainability in the construction industry. Traditional demolition methods have significant risks and environmental impacts, especially in congested urban areas [111].In Japan, alternativemethods using Single-Task Construction Robots (STCRs) andsemi-automatedon-sitefactorieshavebeendevelopedtoaddresslegal,economic, and ecological needs. However, implementing traditional industrial robots in a deconstruction environment poses challenges, particularly in terms of human–robot interaction and collaboration. To overcome these challenges, efficient human–robot collaboration is considered in the design of deconstruction STCRs. Additionally, the application of the Robot-Oriented Design method can make the operation of the deconstruction system more efficient. Building components should be compatible with robotic applications, and connectors and joints between components should provide easy access for equipment during the disassembly phase. The use of robots for deconstruction can save energy, money, and time while minimizing casualties and disturbance to the economic environment [111]. A framework for the evaluation of robot-assisted, systemized deconstruction has been proposed, which includes performance indicators that can be adjusted based on stakeholder perspectives. Overall, the use of robots in deconstruction offers a scalable and sustainable solution for the industry. 5. Emerging Materials and Sustainable Manufacturing Processes Innovation in materials, sustainable design, and the development of alternative technologies that require different materials can help mitigate supply risk. Solutions to reduce the ecological footprint and increase material recovery to improve the safety and competitiveness of production processes are within reach. However, global scenarios continue to present greater complexity and competition for natural resources [32]. The duration and footprints of carbon dioxide (CO2), water and material consumption are lower in industrialized systems, being the environmental impact of circular and sustainable industrialized construction susceptible of different modelling scenarios of recycling percentage [33]. 7.3.4 Barriers and Enablers of Circular Material Usage Extensive literature has identified barriers and enablers to developing a circular economy in the construction sector. However, it is important to note that a circular economy is a multidimensional concept, and a closer inspection of existing literature reveals that barriers and enablers have primarily focused on the technical aspects of materials and products. According to a recent study by Charef et al. [112], barriers to the development of a circular economy in the construction sector can be categorized into six distinct types: economic (referring to market barriers), sociological (pertaining to cultural or psychological obstacles), political, organizational (involving stakeholders), technological, and environmental (concerning ecological impact). Similarly, Ababio and Lu [113] identified five categories of barriers: social 7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 197 and cultural, political and legislative, financial and economic, technological, and framework and theory related. While research on barriers to circular economy development has been extensive, studies on enablers of the circular economy have yet to be conducted to the same extent.AbabioandLu [113]havedepartedfrom classifyingandlistingenablersunder specific categories and instead discussed them under broader themes. Generally, enablers are related to technology and innovation, policy, education and awareness, as well as financing and market creation. It is important to note that a comprehensive understanding of both barriers and enablers is critical for promoting a successful transition to a circular economy in the construction sector. This part of the report focuses on the material usage-related barriers to enablers addressed in the literature. They are discussed under four categories. 1. Economic and Regulatory Barriers Numerous studies have identified insufficient and immature markets, as well as a lack of demand for reused and recycled materials, as the primary economic barriers to the implementation of circular economy practices in the construction sector [114–116]. These studies also suggest that the construction industry is often criticized for its poor flexibility in adopting innovative practices due to the perceived risk of losing profits [112,115]. In the construction sector, adopting CE practices is met with a major challenge— the higher resource cost associated with deconstruction compared to demolition. Moreover, virgin materials tend to be less expensive than recycled materials, while recycling costs more than the disposal of CDW. Unfortunately, the recent COVID19 pandemic has only worsened these challenges by stalling economic development and increasing the use of single-use materials. The implementation of CE practices in the construction industry requires significant investments, such as the renewal of equipment [116]. Moreover, outdated legislation and the lack of standardized guides regarding design and procurement procedures are major regulatory barriers to CE development [112,117]. Additionally, a lack of government support and the absence of support from public institutions have been highlighted as critical barriers to CE adoption [112,118]. In order to promote the integration of circular economy practices in the construction industry, it is necessary to adopt new business models and methods of evaluating assets that prioritize material value. For instance, long-term investments can be made to support the circular economy business case by utilizing whole-life costing. Another opportunity presented by the implementation of circular economy practices is the ability to transform the business model into a product-as-a-service contract (PSS), as noted by Rizos et al. [119]. Enablers that have been commonly identified include design-build-operate-maintain contracts and their variations, according to Ababio and Lu [113]. Furthermore, stakeholders in the construction industry have reported that implementing circular economy practices can offer more flexible working arrangements, as Torgautov et al. [117] reported. 198 P. Santos et al. 2. Cultural and Behavioural Challenges Cultural and behavioural changes can present significant obstacles to the adoption of innovative practices in the construction industry. This sector is known for its conservative nature and resistance to new ideas that challenge existing attitudes, customs, and beliefs. Some of the cultural issues that hinder the adoption of circular economy (CE) and sustainability practices among construction stakeholders include a lack of awareness, reluctance, and risk aversion. Moreover, there is a preference for virgin construction materials over reused and recycled products, which is reinforced by ingrained beliefs that circular economy practices are not feasible [112,118]. Several studies have investigated stakeholders’ perceptions of the adoption of CE practices in the construction industry. The literature reviewed in this section highlights that contractors are hesitant to use refurbished and recycled materials in their construction due to concerns about a potential decrease in the quality of their products [27,112,118]. Customers, on the other hand, may not prefer buildings constructed using old materials. Additionally, the quality of recovered materials is often perceived as inferior to virgin materials, further fuelling scepticism about the feasibility of CE practices [117]. 3. Stakeholder Engagement and Awareness In order to facilitate the widespread adoption of circular economy (CE) practices in the construction industry, it is important to address the existing cultural and behavioural barriers. This can be achieved through a variety of means, such as education,awareness-raising, and cultural change initiatives. By doing so, stakeholders can work towards creating a more sustainable and circular economy, which would not only benefit the industry but also the environment. One effective enabling tool for increasing awareness, changing attitudes, and affecting behaviours is dialogue [113]. This can involve open and honest communication between different groups of stakeholders, including industry professionals, academics, and government officials. Through dialogue, stakeholders can gain a better understanding of each other’s perspectives and work collaboratively towards finding solutions to industry challenges. Academic curricula and professional workshops are also important enablers for capturing CE and its range of sustainable practices [113]. These educational opportunitiesprovidestakeholderswiththerequisiteideas and knowledgetoaddressindustry challenges. Additionally, they help to ensure that industry professionals are equipped with the skills and expertise needed to implement sustainable practices in their work. By investing in education and training opportunities, stakeholders can work towards a more sustainable and circular economy in the construction industry. 4. Governmental Support and Incentives The global construction industry is facing a significant challenge in embracing circular practices and business models due to the absence of adequate policies, laws, and frameworks. The lack of government support, such as financial aid or tax incentives, is making it less economically feasible to invest in circular models, 7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 199 and as a result, discouraging their adoption. The absence of regulatory pressure and strict laws also fails to establish the necessary urgency for circularity, and the required behavioural changes in the construction industry are not taking place. This is a pressing issue that needs to be addressed so that the construction industry can move towards a more sustainable and circular future [27]. Sustainable development is becoming increasingly essential, and as a result, circular buildings are gaining popularity. The main objective of circular buildings is to foster the idea of “building as a material bank” [115], where the materials used in the construction are stored and reused when the building’s life comes to an end. However, this can only be achieved if there is a financial incentive to design buildings that can be easily deconstructed and reconstructed. It is worth noting that circular buildings are generally more costly than traditional buildings. The circular economy in the construction industry is a complex issue that requires the involvement of all stakeholders, including governments, investors, designers, constructors, and users. The transition towards circular practices requires a significant change in mindset and approach, as well as the adoption of new technologies and systems. Nonetheless, the benefits of circularity in the construction industry are far-reaching, including reduced waste and carbon emissions, increased resource efficiency, and improved social and economic outcomes. Therefore, it is essential for all stakeholders to collaborate and work towards a more sustainable future for the construction industry. 7.4 Case Studies and Best Practices 7.4.1 Case Study 1—Gonsi Sócrates Bio-building (Barcelona, Spain) Figure 7.10 shows the Gonsi Sócrates Bio-Building which was built by Construcía Company. They followed the Lean2Cradle®circular construction methodology [120]. Almost all the building materials (99%) were characterized and its components were reviewed, and up to 50 types of materials were inventoried. Among these materials, 89% (8,400 tons) will not become waste at their end-of-life but have a circular way to be reintroduced into the production process. Thus, when the useful life of the building ends, they can be reused, repaired or recycled in the way that is most convenient at that time, allowing them to preserve greater value for the next use [121]. 206 P. Santos et al. conserving resources, and fostering innovation. Furthermore, integrating these principles supports the broader global sustainability agenda, significantly advancing CE practices beyond the construction sector. This chapter related to implementing CE principles in the construction industry has revealed crucial insights for enhancing sustainability and reducing environmental impact. However, the slow adoption of these principles is due to industryspecific barriers such as limited knowledge and experience. Therefore, a collective effort to educate and disseminate information is essential to overcome these obstacles. Embracing innovation offers a promising path to promoting circularity. Successful case studies of circular practices can provide valuable insights for wider industry adoption. Developing robust regulatory frameworks can incentivize sustainable practices, and integrating advanced technologies can optimize waste management processes. Education on circular practices is vital, and global collaboration is essential for standardizing universally accepted approaches. References 1. Moschen-Schimek J, Kasper T, Huber-Humer M (2023) Critical review of the recovery rates of construction and demolition waste in the European Union—an analysis of influencing factors in selected EU countries. Waste Manag Elsevier Ltd 167(December 2022):150–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2023.05.020 2. Giorgi S, Lavagna M, Campioli A (2018) Guidelines for effective and sustainable recycling of construction and demolition waste. In: Benetto E, Gericke K, Guiton M (eds) Designing sustainable technologies, products and policies. Springer International Publishing, pp 211– 221. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66981-6 3. European Commission (2019) Construction and demolition waste—environment. https://env ironment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/construction-and-demolition-waste_en. Accessed 14 July 2023 4. European Parliament and of Council (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste, known as “Waste Framework Directive” (WFD), consolidated (revised 7-5-2018). Off J Eur Union 5. European Parliament (2023) Circular economy: definition, importance and benefits. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/economy/20151201STO05603/circulareconomy-definition-importance-and-benefits?&at_campaign=20234-Economy&at_med ium=Google_Ads&at_platform=Search&at_creation=RSA&at_goal=TR_G&at_audience= importance%20of%20circular%20economy&at_topic=Circular_Economy&at_location= IE&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIv-6jtryVgAMVt4poCR1LrQBdEAAYASAAEgLUT_D_BwE. Accessed 9 July 2023 6. Adams KT, Osmani M, Thorpe T, Thornback J (2017) Circular economy in construction: current awareness, challenges and enablers. Proc Inst Civ Eng Waste Resour Manag 170(1):15–24 7. European Commission (2019) COM/2019/640 The European green deal. Brussels 8. EuropeanCommission(2020)COM/2020/98Anewcirculareconomyactionplanforacleaner and more competitive Europe. Brussels 9. United Nations Environmental Programme (2022) 2022 Global status report for buildings and construction: towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector, Nairobi 10. Acharya D, Boyd R, Finch O (2018) From principles to practice: first steps towards a circular built environment 7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 207 11. European Commission (2020) Construction and demolition waste. https://environment.ec. europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/construction-and-demolition-waste_en#publications. Accessed 9 July 2023 12. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2022) Reimagining our buildings and spaces for a circular economy. https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/built-environment/overview. Accessed 8 July 2023 13. Мaterial Economics (2019) Industrial transformation 2050: pathways to net-zero emissions from EU heavy industry. University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL), Cambridge 14. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2018) What is a circular economy? https://ellenmacarthurfoun dation.org/topics/circular-economy-introduction/overview. Accessed 9 July 2023 15. Çimen Ö (2023) Development of a circular building lifecycle framework: inception to circulation. Results Eng 17:100861 16. Çimen Ö (2021) Construction and built environment in circular economy: a comprehensive literature review. J Clean Prod 305:127180 17. Reike D, Vermeulen WJV, Witjes S (2018) The circular economy: new or Refurbished as CE 3.0?—Exploring controversies in the conceptualization of the circular economy through a focus on history and resource value retention options. Resour Conserv Recycl Elsevier 135(November 2017):246–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.027 18. Mesa JA, Esparragoza I (2021) Towards the implementation of circular economy in engineering education: a systematic review. In: 2021 IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE), 13–16 Oct 2021, pp 1–8 19. Potting J, Hekkert M, Worrelland E, Hanemaaijer A (2017) Circular economy: measuring innovation in the product chain. PBL 20. Garg R (2022) Here’s how to create a circular system for the built environment. In: United Nations climate change conference COP27: world economic forum 21. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019) Circular economy butterfly diagram. https://ellenmaca rthurfoundation.org/circular-economy-diagram. Accessed 9 July 2023 22. Ottenhaus LM (2022) Butterfly diagram of circular buildings (version 1). figshare. https:// doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21249573.v1 23. European Commission (2019) A sustainable bioeconomy for Europe: strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment: updated bioeconomy strategy. Publications Office of the European Union, Brussels 24. Technical University Munich (2017) Cascading use of wood to ensure sustainability. https:// phys.org/news/2017-12-cascading-wood-sustainability.html 25. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2022) The biological cycle of the butterfly diagram. https://ell enmacarthurfoundation.org/articles/the-biological-cycle-of-the-butterfly-diagram. Accessed 9 July 2023 26. Munaro MR, Tavares SF (2023) A review on barriers, drivers, and stakeholders towards the circular economy: the construction sector perspective. Clean Respons Consump 8:100107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100107 27. Wuni IY (2022) Mapping the barriers to circular economy adoption in the construction industry: a systematic review, Pareto analysis, and mitigation strategy map. Build Environ 223:109453 28. Sparandara L, Werner M, Kaminsky A, Finch L, Douglas K (2020) Accelerating the circular economy through commercial deconstruction and reuse 29. Akinade O, Oyedele L, Oyedele A, Davila Delgado JM, Bilal M, Akanbi L, Ajayi A, Owolabi H (2020) Design for deconstruction using a circular economy approach: barriers and strategies for improvement. Prod Plan Control 31(10):829–840 30. Brown M, Haselsteiner E, Apró D, Kopeva D, Luca E, Pulkkinen K, Vula Rizvanolli B (2018) Sustainability, restorative to regenerative. Publications COST action RESTORE CA16114, working group one report. https://www.eurestore.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Sustainab ility-Restorative-to-Regenerative.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2023 208 P. Santos et al. 31. Dumée LF (2022) Circular materials and circular design—review on challenges towards sustainable manufacturing and recycling. Circ Econ Sustain 2:9–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s43615-021-00085-2. Accessed 14 July 2023 32. Morató J, Jiménez LM, Calleros-Islas A, De la Cruz JL, Díaz LD, Martínez J, P-Lagüela E, Penagos G, Pernas JJ, Rovira S, Sanz FJ, Tollin N, Villanueva B, Woischnik A (2021) Informe COTEC – Situación y Evolución de la Economía Circular en España. Madrid: Fundación Cotec para la innovación. https://cotec.es/observacion/economia-circular/f62c16db-5823deb4-7986-a786e5c3401c. Accessed 18 Aug 2023 33. Ferrer J, Herrería N, Remón A, Armas R, Díez de Rivera T, Ramos I, Sartori T, Isla M, Morató J, Villanueva B, Batalla J, Villa M (2022) Proyecto Economía Circular España – Acelerando la Transición en el Sector de Construcción. https://www.accenture.com/content/dam/acc enture/final/accenture-com/document/Accenture-EC-Espana-Informe-Sector-Construccion. pdf. Accessed 19 Aug 2023 34. Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2023) https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/. Accessed 8 July 2023 35. Charef R, Lu W, Hall D (2022) The transition to the circular economy of the construction industry: insights into sustainable approaches to improve the understanding. J Clean Prod Elsevier Ltd 364(June):132421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132421 36. Nußholz J et al (2023) From circular strategies to actions: 65 European circular building cases and their decarbonisation potential. Resour Conserv Recycl Adv 17(January). https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200130 37. Setaki F, van Timmeren A (2022) Disruptive technologies for a circular building industry. Build Environ Elsevier Ltd 223(July):109394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv. 2022.109394 38. Tavares TM et al (2023) The benefits and barriers of additive manufacturing for circular economy: a framework proposal. Sustain Prod Consump Elsevier Ltd 37:369–388. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.03.006 39. Oluleye BI, Chan DWM, Antwi-Afari P (2023) Adopting Artificial Intelligence for enhancing the implementation of systemic circularity in the construction industry: a critical review. SustainProdConsumpInst ChemEng 35:509–524.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.12.002 40. Marsh ATM, Velenturf APM, Bernal SA (2022) Circular economy strategies for concrete: implementationand integration.JClean Prod Elsevier Ltd362(October 2021):132486. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132486 41. Figge F et al (2018) Longevity and circularity as indicators of eco-efficient resource use in the circular economy. Ecol Econ Elsevier 150(November 2017):297–306. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.030 42. Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resour Conserv Recycl 127:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec. 2017.09.005 43. Mollaei A, Bachmann C, Haas C (2023) Estimating the recoverable value of in-situ building materials. Sustain Cities Soc 91:104455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104455.66 44. Zhuang GL, Shih SG, Wagiri F (2023) Circular economy and sustainable development goals: exploring the potentials of reusable modular components in circular economy business model. J Clean Prod Elsevier Ltd 414:137503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137503 45. Haines-Gadd M, Charnley F, Encinas-Oropesa A (2021) Self-healing materials: a pathway to immortal products or a risk to circular economy systems? J Clean Prod Elsevier Ltd 315(May 2020):128193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128193 46. Atta N (2023) Remanufacturing towards circularity in the construction sector: the role of digitaltechnologies. In:Technologicalimagination inthe greenand digitaltransition. Springer International Publishing, pp 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29515-7_45 47. Van Stijn A, Gruis V (2020) Towards a circular built environment: an integral design tool for circular building components. Smart Sustain Built Environ 9(4):635–653. https://doi.org/10. 1108/SASBE-05-2019-0063 7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 209 48. Hosseini MR et al (2015) Reverse logistics in the construction industry. Waste Manag Res 33(6):499–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X15584842 49. Ding L, Wang T, Chan PW (2023) Forward and reverse logistics for circular economy in construction: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 388:135891. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclepro.2023.135981 50. Antwi-Afari P, Ng ST, Hossain MU (2021) A review of the circularity gap in the construction industry through scientometric analysis. J Clean Prod Elsevier Ltd 298:126870. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126870 51. Hart J et al (2019) Barriers and drivers in a circular economy: the case of the built environment. Procedia CIRP Elsevier B.V. 80(March):619–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir. 2018.12.015 52. rebuydeal.com (2023) https://www.rebuydeal.com/en/buy-sell-second-hand/115/buildingmaterials. Accessed 15 July 2023 53. seconduse.com (2023) https://www.seconduse.com/inventory/categories/lumber/. Accessed 15 July 2023 54. rotordc.com (2023) RotorDC—deconstruction and consulting. https://rotordc.com/shop/cat egory/door-32. Accessed 15 July 2023 55. Oluleye BI et al (2022) Circular economy research on building construction and demolition waste: a review of current trends and future research directions. J Clean Prod Elsevier Ltd 357(December 2021):131927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131927 56. Ghobadi M, Sepasgozar SME (2023) Circular economy strategies in modern timber construction as a potential response to climate change. J Build Eng Elsevier Ltd 107229. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107229 57. Ahn N et al (2022) Circular economy in mass timber construction: state-of-the-art, gaps and pressing research needs. J Build Eng Elsevier Ltd 53(May):104562. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jobe.2022.104562 58. Llana DF et al (2022) Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) manufactured with European oak recovered from demolition: structural properties and non-destructive evaluation. Constr Build Mater 339(November 2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.127635 59. Cobîrzan N et al (2020) Microscopical and macroscopical analysis of recovered bricks for assessing their reusability in masonry buildings. Procedia Manuf Elsevier B.V. 46:144–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.03.022 60. Ramos M et al (2023) Local scale dynamics to promote the sustainable management of construction and demolition waste. Resour Conserv Recycl Adv 17(February). https://doi. org/10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200135 61. dos Reis GS et al (2021) Current applications of recycled aggregates from construction and demolition: a review. Materials 14(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14071700 62. Sahoo P et al (2023) Sequestration and utilization of carbon dioxide to improve engineering properties of cement-based construction materials with recycled brick powder: a pathway for cleaner construction. Constr Build Mater Elsevier Ltd 395(June):132268. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.132268 63. Bergonzoni M, Melloni R, Botti L (2023) Analysis of sustainable concrete obtained from the by-productsof anindustrial process andrecycledaggregatesfrom constructionand demolition waste. Procedia Comput Sci Elsevier B.V. 217(2022):41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs. 2022.12.200 64. Ferrández D et al (2023) Towards a more sustainable environmentally production system for the treatment of recycled aggregates in the construction industry: an experimental study. Heliyon 9(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16641 65. Zaragoza-Benzal A, Ferrández D, Santos P et al (2023) Recovery of end-of-life tyres and mineralwool waste:a case study with gypsumcomposite materials applying circular economy criteria. Materials 16(1):243. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16010243 66. Zaragoza-Benzal A, Ferrández D, Atanes-Sánchez E et al (2023) New lightened plaster material with dissolved recycled expanded polystyrene and end-of-life tyres fibres for building prefabricated industry. Case Stud Constr Mater 18(October 2022):e02178. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.cscm.2023.e02178 210 P. Santos et al. 67. Sormunen P et al (2021) An evaluation of thermoplastic composite fillers derived from construction and demolition waste based on their economic and environmental characteristics. J Clean Prod 280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125198 68. Ahmed N (2023) Utilizing plastic waste in the building and construction industry: a pathway towards the circular economy. Constr Build Mater Elsevier Ltd 383(December 2022):131311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.131311 69. Özçelikci E et al (2023) Eco-hybrid cement-based building insulation materials as a circular economysolutiontoconstructionand demolitionwaste.CementConcrCompos141(January). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2023.105149 70. Seco A et al (2018) Sustainable unfired bricks manufacturing from construction and demolition wastes. Constr Build Mater Elsevier Ltd 167:154–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbui ldmat.2018.02.026 71. dos Reis GS et al (2020) Fabrication, microstructure, and properties of fired clay bricks using construction and demolition waste sludge as the main additive. J Clean Prod 258. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120733 72. Islam S, Islam J, Robiul Hoque NM (2022) Improvement of consolidation properties of clay soil using fine-grained construction and demolition waste. Heliyon The Author(s) 8(10):e11029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11029 73. GiannopoulouIet al(2023)High temperatureperformanceof geopolymersbasedon construction and demolition waste. J Build Eng Elsevier Ltd 72(February):106575. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jobe.2023.106575 74. He X et al (2022) Recycling of plastic waste concrete to prepare an effective additive for early strength and late permeability improvement of cement paste. Constr Build Mater Elsevier Ltd 347(June):128581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.128581 75. Thwe Win T et al (2023) Use of polypropylene fibers extracted from recycled surgical face masks in cement mortar. Constr Build Mater Elsevier Ltd 391(March):131845. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.131845 76. Álvarez M et al (2022) ‘Performance characterisation of a new plaster composite lightened with end-of-life tyres’ recycled materials for false ceiling plates. Materials 5660. https://doi. org/10.3390/ma15165660 77. Santos P, Mateus D (2020) Experimental assessment of thermal break strips performance in load-bearing and non-load-bearing LSF walls. J Build Eng Elsevier Ltd 32:101693. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101693 78. Santos P et al (2022) Numerical simulation and experimental validation of thermal break strips’ Improvement in Facade LSF Walls. Energies 15(21):8169. https://doi.org/10.3390/en1 5218169 79. Paihte PL, Lalngaihawma AC, Saini G (2019) Recycled aggregate filled waste plastic bottles as a replacement of bricks. Mater Today Proc Elsevier Ltd. 15:663–668. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.matpr.2019.04.135 80. Lamy-mendes A et al (2022) Aerogel composites produced from silica and recycled rubber sols for thermal insulation. Materials 15(22):7897. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15227897 81. Rodrigues Pontinha AD et al (2023) Thermomechanical performance assessment of sustainable buildings’ insulating materials under accelerated ageing conditions. Gels 9(3):241. https://doi.org/10.3390/gels9030241 82. Cheng Q, Feng H, Garcia de Soto B (2022) Revamping construction supply chain processes with circular economy strategies: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 335:130240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130240 83. Bocken NMP, Olivetti EA, Cullen JM, Potting J, Lifset R (2017) Taking the circularity to the next level: a special issue on the circular economy: taking circularity to the next level. J Ind Ecol 21:476–482 84. Rabnawaz R, Zhang X (2021) Multi-stage network-based two-type cost minimization for the reverse logistics management of inert construction waste. Waste Manag 120:805–819. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.11.004 7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 211 85. Komkova A, Kabert G (2023) Optimal supply chain networks for waste materials used in alkali-activated concrete fostering circular economy. Resour Conserv Recycl 193:106949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.106949 86. Pallewatt S, Weerasooriyagedara M, Bordoloi S, Sarmah AK, Vithanage M (2023) Reprocessed construction and demolition waste as an adsorbent: an appraisal. Sci Tot Environ 882:163340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163340 87. Ruvald R, Bertoni A, Johansson C (2019) A role for physical prototyping in product-service system design: case study in construction equipment. Procedia 83:358–362. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.099 88. Tseng ML, Lin S, Chen CC, Calahorrano LS, Tan CL (2019) A causal sustainable productservice system using hierarchical structure with linguistic preferences in the Ecuadorian construction industry. J Clean Prod 230:477–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019. 05.140 89. Cook M, Gottberg A, Angus A, Longhurst P (2012) Receptivity to the production of product service systems in the UK construction and manufacturing sectors: a comparative analysis. J Clean Prod 32:61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.03.018 90. DongminZ,DachaoH,YuchunX,HongZ(2012)Aframeworkfordesignknowledgemanagement and reuse for product-service systems in construction machinery industry. Comput Ind 63:328–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2012.02.008 91. Li CZ, Chen Z, Xue F, Kong X, Xiao B, Lai X, Zhao Y (2019) A blockchainand IoT-based smart product-service system for the sustainability of prefabricated housing construction. J Clean Prod 286:125391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125391 92. Ness D, Xing K, Kim K, Jenkins A (2019) An ICT-enabled product service system for reuse of building components. IFAC 52:761–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.207 93. Kristensen HS, Remmen A (2019) A framework for sustainable value propositions in productservice systems. J Clean Prod 223:25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.074 94. Thierer A, Koopman C, Hobson A, Kuiper C (2016) How the Internet, the sharing economy, and reputational feedback mechanisms solve the “Lemons Problem”. Law Rev 830. https:// repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol70/iss3/6 95. Lindhqvist T (2000) Extended producer responsibility in cleaner production: policy principle to promote environmental improvements of product systems. Lund University 96. Filho WL, Saari U, Fedoruk M, Iital A, Moora H, Klöga M, Voronova V (2019) An overview of the problems posed by plastic products and the role of extended producer responsibility in Europe. J Clean Prod 214:550–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.256 97. Jang YC (2010) Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) management in Korea: generation, collection, and recycling systems. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 12:283–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-010-0298-5 98. Xu J, Ye M, Lu W, Bao Z, Webster C (2021) A four-quadrant conceptual framework for analyzing extended producer responsibility in offshore prefabrication construction. J Clean Prod 282:124540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124540 99. Campbell-JhonsonK, CalistoM, ThapaK, Lakerveld D,Vermeulen WJV(2020) Howcircular is your tyre: Experiences with extended producer responsibility from a circular economy perspective. J Clean Prod 279:122042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122042 100. Ferrão P, Ribeiro P, Silva P (2008) A management system for end-of-life tyres: a Portuguese case study. Waste Manage 28(3):604–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.02.033 101. Deutz P (2009) Producer responsibility in a sustainable development context: ecological modernisationorindustrialecology?GeogrJ175(4):274–285.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14754959.2009.00330.x 102. ZhangX,UllahYousafHMA(2020)Greensupplychaincoordinationconsideringgovernment intervention, green investment, and customer green preferences in the petroleum industry. J Clean Prod 246:118984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118984 103. Glasbergen P (2011) Mechanisms of private meta-governance: an analysis of global private governance for sustainable development. Int J Strat Bus Alliances 2(3):19–206. https://doi. org/10.1504/IJSBA.2011.040886 212 P. Santos et al. 104. Xie Y, Zhao Y, Chen Y, Allen C (2022) Green construction supply chain management: integrating governmental intervention and public–private partnerships through ecological modernisation. J Clean Prod 331:129986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129986 105. Tang L,Shen Q,Cheng EWL (2009)A review of studieson Public-Private partnershipprojects in the construction industry. Int J Proj Manag 28:683–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman. 2009.11.009 106. Munoz-Jofre J, Hinojosa S, Mascle-Allemand AL, Temprano J (2023) A selectivity index for public-private partnership projects in the urban water and sanitation sector in Latin America and the Caribbean. J Environ Manage 335:117564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023. 117564 107. Azarian M, Tadege A, Laedre O, Wondimu P, Kristian T (2023) Project ownership in publicprivate partnership (PPP) projects of Norway. Procedia Comput Sci 219:1838–1846. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.01.481 108. Ampratwum G, Osei R, Tam VWY (2022) Exploring the concept of public-private partnership in building critical infrastructure resilience against unexpected events: a systematic review. Int J Crit Infrastruct Prot 39:100556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcip.2022.100556 109. Bao Z, Lu W, Chi B, Yuan H, Hao J (2019) Procurement innovation for a circular economy of construction and demolition waste: lessons learnt from Suzhou, China. Waste Manag 99:12– 21. ISSN 0956-053X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.08.031 110. European Environment Agency (2023) Construction and demolition waste: challenges and opportunities in a circular economy. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/constructionand-demolition-waste-challenges. Accessed 24 September 2023 111. Lee S, Pan W, Linner T, Bock T (2015) A framework for robot assisted deconstruction: process, sub-systems and modelling. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ISARC, Oulu, Finland, pp 1–8. https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2015/0093 112. Charef R, Morel CJ, Rakhshan K (2021) Barriers to implementing the circular economy in the construction industry: a critical review. Sustainability 13(23):12989 113. Ababio BK, Lu W (2023) Barriers and enablers of circular economy in construction: a multisystem perspective towards the development of a practical framework. Constr Manag Econ 41(1):3–21 114. Hosseini MR, Chileshe N, Rameezdeen R, Lehmann S (2014) Reverse logistics for the construction industry: lessons from the manufacturing context. Int J Constr Eng Manag 3:75–90 115. Kanters J (2020) Circular building design: an analysis of barriers and drivers for a circular building sector. Buildings 10:77 116. Tleuken A, Tokazhanov G, Jemal KM, Shaimakhanov R, Sovetbek M, Karaca F (2022) Legislative, institutional, industrial and governmental involvement in circular economy in Central Asia: a systematic review. Sustainability 14:8064 117. Torgautov B, Zhanabayev A, Tleuken A, Turkyilmaz A, Borucki C, Karaca F (2022) Performance assessment of construction companies for the circular economy: a balanced scorecard approach. Sustain Prod Consump 33:991–1004 118. Bilal M, Khan KIA, Thaheem MJ, Nasir AR (2020) Current state and barriers to the circular economy in the building sector: towards a mitigation framework. J Clean Prod 123250 119. Rizos V et al (2016) Implementation of circular economy business models by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): barriers and enablers. Sustainability 8(11):1212 120. Vera Cornejo SE (2018) Propuesta de indicadores lean2cradle® en fases de uso y deconstrucción. Master thesis. Escuela de Caminos. Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña. https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/2117/341616/TFM_SOLANGE_V ERA.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 14 July 2023 121. Construcía(2020)LaConstrucciónCircular conLean2Cradle®.https://www.construcia.com/ construccion-circular-lean2cradle/. Accessed 14 July 2023 122. Construcía (2020) Edificio Sócrates. https://www.construcia.com/edificio-socrates. Accessed 14 July 2023 7 Circular Material Usage Strategies—Principles 213 123. KPMG (2019) True Value de edificios Lean2Cradle®. Economía circular en el diseño arquitectónico, Construcía and eco intelligent growth, 2. https://www.picharchitects.com/2020/05/ 20/economia-circular-en-el-disenoarquitectonico-pt-2/. Accessed 14 July 2023 124. Heisel F, Hebel DE, Sobek W (2019) Resource-respectful construction—the case of the Urban Mining and Recycling unit (UMAR). In: Proceedings of IOP conference series: earth and environmental science (EES), vol 225, p 012049. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/ 1755-1315/225/1/012049/pdf. Accessed 14 July 2023 125. Heisel F, Hebel DE, Sobek W (2018) Urban mining and recycling. https://www.nest-umar.net. Accessed 14 July 2023 126. Heisel F, Hebel DE, Sobek W (2018) Urban Mining and Recycling (UMAR) experimental unit. Materials. https://nest-umar.net/#materials. Accessed 14 July 2023 127. StoneCycling (2023) https://www.stonecycling.com/. Accessed 14 July 2023 128. Magna Glaskeramik (2023) https://magna-glaskeramik.com/. Accessed 14 July 2023 129. ReWall (2023) https://elemental.green/rewall-recycled-high-performance-roof-and-wall-mat erials/. Accessed 14 July 2023 130. RobertsonGL(2021)Recyclingofasepticbeveragecartons:areview.Recycling6(20).https:// doi.org/10.3390/recycling6010020 131. Ultratouch (2023). Denim insulation. https://www.bondedlogic.com/ultratouch-denim-insula tion/. Accessed 14 July 2023 132. Divisare (2023) https://divisare.com/authors/2144897897-alex-shoots-buildings. Accessed 14 July 2023 133. Packwall (2023) Boards. https://www.packwall.at/en/homepage/. Accessed 14 July 2023 134. RECOMA (2023) https://www.recoma.com/product/design-board. Accessed 14 July 2023 135. Repolyuse (2018) EU funded project. Life +.https://life-repolyuse.com/.Accessed14July 2023 136. Yesyforma (2023) SKY techos ecosostenibles. https://www.yesyforma.es/sky-techos-ecosot enibles/. Accessed 14 July 2023 137. Rodrigo-Bravo A, Cuenca-Romero LA, Calderón V, Rodríguez Á, Gutiérrez-González S (2022) Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) between standard gypsum ceiling tile and polyurethane gypsum ceiling tile. Energy Build 259. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S037877882200038X?via%3Dihub. Accessed 14 July 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.