The application of the circular economy (CE) in the building industry is critical for achieving the carbon reduction goals defined in the Paris Agreement and is increasingly promoted through European policies. In recent years, CE strategies have been applied and tested in numerous building projects in practice. However, insights into their application and decarbonisation potential are limited. This study analysed and visualised 65 novel real-world cases of new build, renovation, and demolition projects in Europe compiled from academic and grey literature. Cases were analysed regarding the circular solution applied, level of application in buildings, and decarbonisation potential reported, making this study one of the first comprehensive studies on the application and decarbonisation potential of circular strategies in the building industry in practice. The identified challenges of using LCA for CE assessment in buildings are discussed and methodological approaches for future research are suggested.

The transition towards a Circular Economy (CE) in the built environment is vital to reduce environmental impacts, resource consumption and waste generation. The built environment can be made circular by replacing building components with more circular ones. There are many circular design options for building components and knowledge about which options perform better – from an environmental perspective – is limited. Existing guidelines focussed on single components, single circular design options, applied different assessment methods and provide conflicting guidelines. Therefore, in this article, we develop environmental design guidelines by comparing multiple circular design options for two building components: a kitchen (short service life) and renovation façade (medium service life). First, we synthesize design variants based on distinct circular pathways, such as renewable-, non-virgin material use, and modularity for reuse. Second, we compare their environmental performance to a ‘business-as-usual’ variant through Material Flow Analysis (MFA) and a multi-cycle Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) including extensive sensitivity analysis on circular parameters. Analysing the 78 LCAs and MFAs, we derive 8 lessons learned on the environmental design of circular building components. We compare our findings to existing guidelines, including those for circular building structures (long service life). Amongst other lessons, we found components with a short service life benefit more from prioritizing circular design options to slow and close future cycles, whilst components with a longer service life benefit more from reducing resources and slowing loops on site. However, applying circular design options does not always result in a better environmental performance. Tipping-points were identified based on the number of use cycles, lifespans and the assessment methods applied.

The construction sector can become more sustainable by applying the Circular Economy concept, which distinguishes two main pathways: substituting materials for biological materials, or optimizing the use or reuse of technical materials. Practitioners sometimes choose one pathway over the other, but knowledge of which of these pathways yields the best circular performance for the building industry is lacking. To determine which pathway is the most circular, the performance of biological, technical, and hybrid variants for a circular kitchen and renovation façade are developed and compared with one another and with the linear ‘business-as-usual’ (BAU) practice components. The novel methods of Circular Economy Life Cycle Assessment (CE-LCA) and Circular Economy Life Cycle Costing (CE-LCC), and traditional material flow analysis (MFA) are used. The results show that the biological kitchen and façade consistently perform best in the CE-LCA, but perform second best and worst in the MFA respectively, and consistently perform the worst in the CE-LCC. Technical solutions perform best in the MFA. However, while the technical kitchen performs second best in the CE-LCA and best in the CE-LCC, the technical façade performs worst in the CE-LCA and third best in the CE-LCC. A purposeful, reversible, hybrid application of biological and technical materials yields the most consistent circular performance overall, performing best in the CE-LCC (saving 17 % compared to BAU), second best in the MFA (saving 23 % compared to BAU), and third best in the CE-LCA (an increase of 21 % compared to the BAU). This study shows that neither a purely biological nor purely technical solution performs best overall, but that a purposeful hybrid solution can mitigate the disadvantages of both pathways. Further research is recommended to assess more building components and other hybrid variants.

Transitioning to a circular built environment can reduce the environmental impacts, resource consumption and waste generation emanating from buildings. However, there are many options to design circular building components, and limited knowledge on which options lead to the best environmental performance. Few guidelines exist and they build on conventional environmental performance assessments that focus on single life cycles, whereas the circular economy (CE) focuses on a sequence of multiple use-and life cycles. In this article, environmental design guidelines for circular building components were developed in five steps. First, examples of circular variants of a building structure were synthesized. Second, the environmental performance of these variants was compared with a business-as-usual variant through Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) and Material Flow Analysis (MFA) respectively. Circular parameters of these variants were tested using a scenario-specific approach. Third, from 24 LCAs and MFAs, a scorecard, rules-of-thumb and nine environmental design guidelines for designing circular building components were developed that provide guidance on which circular pathways and variants lead to the best environmental performance. For components with a long functional–technical lifespan, the following are promoted: resource efficiency, longer use through adaptable design, low-impact biomaterials and facilitating multiple cycles after and of use. Fourth, the design guidelines were evaluated by 49 experts from academia, industry and government in seven expert sessions. Further research is needed to validate the generalizability of the design guidelines. However, this research makes an important step in supporting the development of circular building components and, subsequently, the transition to a circular built environment.

The transition towards a Circular Economy (CE) in the built environment is vital to reduce resource consumption, emissions and waste generation. To support the development of circular building components, assessment metrics are needed. Previous work identified Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as an important method to analyse the environmental performance in a CE context. However, questions arise about how to model and calculate circular buildings components. We develop an LCA model for circular building components in four steps. First, we elaborate on the CE principles and LCA standards to identify requirements and gaps. Second, we adapt LCA standards and propose the ‘Circular Economy Life Cycle Assessment’ (CE-LCA) model. Third, we test the model by assessing an exemplary building component: the Circular Kitchen (CIK). Finally, we evaluate the CE-LCA model with 44 experts. In the CE-LCA model, building components are considered as a composite of parts and materials with different and multiple use cycles; the system boundary is extended to include these cycles, dividing the impacts using a circular allocation approach. The case of the CIK shows that the CE-LCA model supports an ex-ante assessment of circular building components in theoretical context; it makes an important step to support the transition to a circular built environment.

Transitioning the built environment to a circular economy (CE) is vital to achieve sustainability goals but requires metrics. Life cycle assessment (LCA) can analyse the environmental performance of CE. However, conventional LCA methods assess individual products and single life cycles whereas circular assessment requires a systems perspective as buildings, components and materials potentially have multiple use and life cycles. How should benefits and burdens be allocated between life cycles? This study compares four different LCA allocation approaches: (a) the EN 15804/15978 cut-off approach, (b) the Circular Footprint Formula (CFF), (c) the 50:50 approach, and (d) the linearly degressive (LD) approach. The environmental impacts of four ‘circular building components’ is calculated: (1) a concrete column and (2) a timber column both designed for direct reuse, (3) a recyclable roof felt and (4) a window with a reusable frame. Notable differences in impact distributions between the allocation approaches were found, thus incentivising different CE principles. The LD approach was found to be promising for open and closed-loop systems within a closed loop supply chain (such as the ones assessed here). A CE LD approach was developed to enhance the LD approach’s applicability, to closer align it with the CE concept, and to create an incentive for CE in the industry.

Introduction. The building sector consumes 40% of resources globally, produces 40% of global waste and 33% of all emissions. The transition towards a Circular Economy (CE) in the built environment is vital to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) such as responsible consumption and production. The built environment can gradually be made circular by replacing the current 'linear' building components with circular ones during maintenance and renovation. However, there are many possible design alternatives for circular building components; knowledge on which variants perform best - from an environmental perspective - is lacking. Methods. In this article, we develop environmental design guidelines for circular building components. First, we synthesize design variants for an exemplary circular building component: the Circular Kitchen (CIK). Second, we compare the environmental performance of these variants and a 'business-as-usual' variant by applying a Material Flow Analysis (MFA) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Finally, from the results, we derive design guidelines. Results. We synthesized four design variants: (1) a kitchen made from bio-based, biodegradable materials, (2) a kitchen made from re-used materials, (3) a kitchen which optimises lifespans and materials, and (4) a modular kitchen in which components (with varying lifespans) are re-used by the manufacturer. From the LCA and MFA, we derived 7 design guidelines, which include: consider building components as a composite of sub-components, parts and materials with different and multiple use-, and life-cycles; match the materialisation of each part with the expected life cycle (merely substituting for re-used or low-impact materials does not provide the most circular design); facilitate various loops (e.g., repair, re-use, recycling) simultaneously. Conclusions. The presented design guidelines can support industry in developing circular building components and, through implementation of these components, support the creation of a circular built environment.

Introduction. The building sector consumes 40% of resources globally, produces 40% of global waste and 33% of greenhouse gas emissions. The transition towards a Circular Economy (CE) in the built environment is vital to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of climate action and responsible consumption and production. Metrics are needed to support this transition; previous work identified Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as the best method to analyse the environmental performance of the CE. However, current LCA methods focus on the individual system, considering a single lifecycle. Circular assessment requires a systems-perspective: buildings, components, parts and materials have multiple lifecycles. Thus, questions arise about how benefits and burdens should be allocated between systems. Method. In this study, we compare the potential influence of applying different allocation approaches in LCA method. We calculate the environmental impacts of two 'circular building components': (1) a concrete column designed for direct reuse and (2) a recyclable roof felt. We applied four allocation approaches: (a) the cut-off approach stated in EN 15804/15978, (b) the Circular Footprint Formula (CFF) from the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF), (c) the 50:50 approach, and (d) the linearly degressive (LD) approach. Results. The allocation approaches resulted in notable differences in impact distributions thereby incentivising different CE principles (narrowing, slowing and closing). Due to the long lifespan of building components, concerns regarding uncertainty and 'green-washing' resulting from allocation of impacts between cycles arise. However, the LD approach was, for closed-loop systems (such as the ones assessed here), found to be promising: it is simple to use; it creates incentives for narrowing, slowing and closing loops and to design for these in the future; it deals with the uncertainty, material quality and number of use cycles. Conclusion. The comparison of allocation approaches and first recommendation on an allocation approach provides an important step towards circular life cycle assessment and, subsequently, helps promote the CE concept within the building industry.