IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i10p5621-d556653.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental Design Guidelines for Circular Building Components: The Case of the Circular Building Structure

Author

Listed:
  • Leonora Charlotte Malabi Eberhardt

    (Department of the Built Environment, Aalborg University, 2450 Copenhagen, Denmark)

  • Anne van Stijn

    (Department of Management in the Built Environment, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, 2628 BL Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Liv Kristensen Stranddorf

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark)

  • Morten Birkved

    (SDU Life Cycle Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, Biotechnology and Environmental Technology, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense-M, Denmark)

  • Harpa Birgisdottir

    (Department of the Built Environment, Aalborg University, 2450 Copenhagen, Denmark)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonora Charlotte Malabi Eberhardt & Anne van Stijn & Liv Kristensen Stranddorf & Morten Birkved & Harpa Birgisdottir, 2021. "Environmental Design Guidelines for Circular Building Components: The Case of the Circular Building Structure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-27, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:10:p:5621-:d:556653
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/10/5621/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/10/5621/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin Sanchez & Carl Haas, 2018. "Capital project planning for a circular economy," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(6), pages 303-312, June.
    2. Chau, C.K. & Xu, J.M. & Leung, T.M. & Ng, W.Y., 2017. "Evaluation of the impacts of end-of-life management strategies for deconstruction of a high-rise concrete framed office building," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 185(P2), pages 1595-1603.
    3. Alexander Dahlsrud, 2008. "How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, January.
    4. Leonora Charlotte Malabi Eberhardt & Anne van Stijn & Freja Nygaard Rasmussen & Morten Birkved & Harpa Birgisdottir, 2020. "Development of a Life Cycle Assessment Allocation Approach for Circular Economy in the Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-16, November.
    5. Pedro Nuñez-Cacho & Jaroslaw Górecki & Valentín Molina-Moreno & Francisco A. Corpas-Iglesias, 2018. "What Gets Measured, Gets Done: Development of a Circular Economy Measurement Scale for Building Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-22, July.
    6. Niko Heeren & Stefanie Hellweg, 2019. "Tracking Construction Material over Space and Time: Prospective and Geo‐referenced Modeling of Building Stocks and Construction Material Flows," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 23(1), pages 253-267, February.
    7. Anand, Chirjiv Kaur & Amor, Ben, 2017. "Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in LCA of buildings: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 408-416.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Roope Husgafvel & Daishi Sakaguchi, 2023. "Circular Economy Development in the Wood Construction Sector in Finland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-36, May.
    2. Sarah C. Andersen & Harpa Birgisdottir & Morten Birkved, 2022. "Life Cycle Assessments of Circular Economy in the Built Environment—A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-31, June.
    3. Hjördís Sóley Sigurðardóttir & Jukka Heinonen & Ólafur Ögmundarson & Áróra Árnadóttir, 2023. "Neighborhood-Level LCA and Hotspot Analysis of Embodied Emissions of a New Urban Area in Reykjavík," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-24, March.
    4. Antwi-Afari, Prince & Ng, S. Thomas & Chen, Ji, 2023. "Determining the optimal partition system of a modular building from a circular economy perspective: A multicriteria decision-making process," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    5. Bas Wouterszoon Jansen & Anne van Stijn & Vincent Gruis & Gerard van Bortel, 2022. "Cooking Up a Circular Kitchen: A Longitudinal Study of Stakeholder Choices in the Development of a Circular Building Component," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-20, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bas Wouterszoon Jansen & Anne van Stijn & Vincent Gruis & Gerard van Bortel, 2022. "Cooking Up a Circular Kitchen: A Longitudinal Study of Stakeholder Choices in the Development of a Circular Building Component," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-20, November.
    2. Leonora Charlotte Malabi Eberhardt & Anne van Stijn & Freja Nygaard Rasmussen & Morten Birkved & Harpa Birgisdottir, 2020. "Development of a Life Cycle Assessment Allocation Approach for Circular Economy in the Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-16, November.
    3. Charef, Rabia & Ganjian, Eshmaiel & Emmitt, Stephen, 2021. "Socio-economic and environmental barriers for a holistic asset lifecycle approach to achieve circular economy: A pattern-matching method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    4. Apostolopoulos, Vasilis & Mamounakis, Ioannis & Seitaridis, Andreas & Tagkoulis, Nikolas & Kourkoumpas, Dimitrios-Sotirios & Iliadis, Petros & Angelakoglou, Komninos & Nikolopoulos, Nikolaos, 2023. "Αn integrated life cycle assessment and life cycle costing approach towards sustainable building renovation via a dynamic online tool," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 334(C).
    5. Hossain, Md. Uzzal & Ng, S. Thomas & Antwi-Afari, Prince & Amor, Ben, 2020. "Circular economy and the construction industry: Existing trends, challenges and prospective framework for sustainable construction," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    6. Ivan Hilliard, 2013. "Responsible Management, Incentive Systems, and Productivity," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(2), pages 365-377, December.
    7. Zhonghua Zhao & Fanchen Meng & Yin He & Zhouyang Gu, 2019. "The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility on Competitive Advantage with Multiple Mediations from Social Capital and Dynamic Capabilities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, January.
    8. David Benjamin Billedeau & Jeffrey Wilson & Naima Samuel, 2022. "From Responsibility to Requirement: COVID, Cars, and the Future of Corporate Social Responsibility in Canada," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-16, May.
    9. Maria del Mar Miras & Bernabe Escobar & Amalia Carrasco, 2014. "Are Spanish Listed Firms Betting on CSR during the Crisis? Evidence from the Agency Problem," Business and Management Research, Business and Management Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 3(1), pages 85-95, March.
    10. Fernando Ubeda & Alvaro Mendez & Francisco Javier Forcadell, 2024. "Sustainable banking and trust in the global South," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(S1), pages 34-44, March.
    11. Veronica Devenin & Constanza Bianchi, 2018. "Soccer fields? What for? Effectiveness of corporate social responsibility initiatives in the mining industry," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 866-879, September.
    12. Juan Carlos Bárcena‐Ruiz & Amagoia Sagasta, 2021. "Cross‐ownership and corporate social responsibility," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 89(4), pages 367-384, July.
    13. Sarah C. Andersen & Harpa Birgisdottir & Morten Birkved, 2022. "Life Cycle Assessments of Circular Economy in the Built Environment—A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-31, June.
    14. Daozhi Zhao & Jiaqin Hao & Cejun Cao & Hongshuai Han, 2019. "Evolutionary Game Analysis of Three-Player for Low-Carbon Production Capacity Sharing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-20, May.
    15. Nathaniel P Springer & Kelly Garbach & Kathleen Guillozet & Van R Haden & Prashant Hedao & Allan D Hollander & Patrick R Huber & Christina Ingersoll & Megan Langner & Genevieve Lipari & Yaser Mohammad, 2015. "Sustainable Sourcing of Global Agricultural Raw Materials: Assessing Gaps in Key Impact and Vulnerability Issues and Indicators," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, June.
    16. Lei Wang & Heikki Juslin, 2011. "The effects of value on the perception of corporate social responsibility implementation: A study of Chinese youth," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 246-262, July.
    17. Joanna Rucińska & Anna Komerska & Jerzy Kwiatkowski, 2020. "Preliminary Study on the GWP Benchmark of Office Buildings in Poland Using the LCA Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-18, June.
    18. Yong Liu & Bing-ting Quan & Jiao Li & Jeffrey Yi-Lin Forrest, 2018. "A Supply Chain Coordination Mechanism with Cost Sharing of Corporate Social Responsibility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-25, April.
    19. Abdelmoety, Ziad Hassan & Aboul-Dahab, Sameh & Agag, Gomaa, 2022. "A cross cultural investigation of retailers commitment to CSR and customer citizenship behaviour: The role of ethical standard and value relevance," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    20. Abd Alla, Sara & Bianco, Vincenzo & Tagliafico, Luca A. & Scarpa, Federico, 2020. "Life-cycle approach to the estimation of energy efficiency measures in the buildings sector," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:10:p:5621-:d:556653. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.