IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i10p4434-d1654899.html

Digital Inventories for Circular Design: Solutions for the Built Environment

Author

Listed:
  • Arianna Fonsati

    (Sustainable Buildings Division, Civil and Architectural Engineering Department, School of Architecture and Built Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 114 28 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Kjartan Gudmundsson

    (Sustainable Buildings Division, Civil and Architectural Engineering Department, School of Architecture and Built Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 114 28 Stockholm, Sweden)

Abstract

Despite growing efforts to promote circular design in the built environment—supported by recent EU directives and digital innovation—the implementation of such strategies remains limited by a critical gap: the lack of reliable, structured, and accessible data on existing buildings. Although well-established in cultural heritage management, traditional inventory methods are not fully leveraged in the construction sector to support circularity. Furthermore, while Digital Twins offer the potential to address data-related challenges, their adoption is fragmented and hindered by the absence of standardised protocols and integration mechanisms. To address this gap, this paper examines the role of digital inventories in the built environment as valuable tools for promoting circular design in alignment with circular economy principles. It addresses the evolution of traditional inventories into advanced databases, emphasising their importance for informed decision-making, particularly in light of the European Commission’s emission reduction targets for the building sector. The study defines the concept of ‘digital inventory’ by analysing differences and overlaps between similar concepts used in the built environment. Through a bibliometric analysis, the research systematically organises the state of the art on the topic, identifying four main clusters to group the selected documents based on their focus. Ultimately, it analyses and compares examples of platforms for circular economy. The study concludes by advocating for open, updatable digital inventories to facilitate the integration of circular design practices within the construction industry, contributing to sustainable development in the built environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Arianna Fonsati & Kjartan Gudmundsson, 2025. "Digital Inventories for Circular Design: Solutions for the Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-30, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:10:p:4434-:d:1654899
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/10/4434/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/10/4434/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kai Xue & Md. Uzzal Hossain & Meng Liu & Mingjun Ma & Yizhi Zhang & Mengqiang Hu & XiaoYi Chen & Guangyu Cao, 2021. "BIM Integrated LCA for Promoting Circular Economy towards Sustainable Construction: An Analytical Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-21, January.
    2. Anne-Wil Harzing & Satu Alakangas, 2016. "Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 787-804, February.
    3. Pei-Yu Wu & Kristina Mjörnell & Mikael Mangold & Claes Sandels & Tim Johansson, 2021. "A Data-Driven Approach to Assess the Risk of Encountering Hazardous Materials in the Building Stock Based on Environmental Inventories," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-23, July.
    4. Luisa F. Cabeza & Marta Chàfer & Érika Mata, 2020. "Comparative Analysis of Web of Science and Scopus on the Energy Efficiency and Climate Impact of Buildings," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-24, January.
    5. Gi-Wook Cha & Choon-Wook Park & Young-Chan Kim, 2024. "Optimal Machine Learning Model to Predict Demolition Waste Generation for a Circular Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-20, August.
    6. Marco Casini, 2022. "Extended Reality for Smart Building Operation and Maintenance: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-36, May.
    7. Rafaela Bortolini & Raul Rodrigues & Hamidreza Alavi & Luisa Felix Dalla Vecchia & Núria Forcada, 2022. "Digital Twins’ Applications for Building Energy Efficiency: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-17, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Md. Masud Rana & Shah Ridwan Chowdhury & Mohammad Safaet Siddiqee & Elma Noorain Momo & Afnan Yusuf & Md. Mahbubur Rahman, 2026. "Thirty years of digital entrepreneurship research through a systematic review and bibliometric analysis," Future Business Journal, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-30, December.
    2. Gaviria-Marin, Magaly & Merigó, José M. & Baier-Fuentes, Hugo, 2019. "Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 194-220.
    3. Cristina López-Duarte & Jane F. Maley & Marta M. Vidal-Suárez, 2021. "Main challenges to international student mobility in the European arena," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 8957-8980, November.
    4. David Vérez & Luisa F. Cabeza, 2021. "Which Building Services Are Considered to Have Impact on Climate Change?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-16, June.
    5. de Camargo Fiorini, Paula & Roman Pais Seles, Bruno Michel & Chiappetta Jabbour, Charbel Jose & Barberio Mariano, Enzo & de Sousa Jabbour, Ana Beatriz Lopes, 2018. "Management theory and big data literature: From a review to a research agenda," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 112-129.
    6. Wil M. P. Aalst & Oliver Hinz & Christof Weinhardt, 2023. "Ranking the Ranker: How to Evaluate Institutions, Researchers, Journals, and Conferences?," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 65(6), pages 615-621, December.
    7. Kuckertz, Andreas & Scheu, Maximilian, 2024. "From chalkboard to boardroom: Unveiling the role of entrepreneurship in bolstering academic achievement among professors," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    8. Wirapong Chansanam & Chunqiu Li, 2022. "Scientometrics of Poverty Research for Sustainability Development: Trend Analysis of the 1964–2022 Data through Scopus," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    9. Zheng Yuan & Baohua Wen & Cheng He & Jin Zhou & Zhonghua Zhou & Feng Xu, 2022. "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-31, May.
    10. Mehdi Rhaiem & Nabil Amara, 2020. "Determinants of research efficiency in Canadian business schools: evidence from scholar-level data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 53-99, October.
    11. Ana Batlles-delaFuente & Luis Jesús Belmonte-Ureña & José Antonio Plaza-Úbeda & Emilio Abad-Segura, 2021. "Sustainable Business Model in the Product-Service System: Analysis of Global Research and Associated EU Legislation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-33, September.
    12. Dušan Nikolić & Dragan Ivanović & Lidija Ivanović, 2024. "An open-source tool for merging data from multiple citation databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4573-4595, July.
    13. repec:plo:pone00:0189091 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Vincent Caby & Lise Frehen, 2021. "How to Produce and Measure Throughput Legitimacy? Lessons from a Systematic Literature Review," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 226-236.
    15. Margarida Rodrigues & Cidália Oliveira & MárioFranco & Ana Daniel, 2024. "A Bibliometric Study About the Rural Creative Class: Proposal of a Conceptual Framework and Future Agenda," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(3), pages 15278-15303, September.
    16. Martín-Martín, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Thelwall, Mike & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2018. "Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1160-1177.
    17. Lyudmyla Shkulipa, 2021. "Evaluation of accounting journals by coverage of accounting topics in 2018–2019," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7251-7327, September.
    18. Wildgaard, Lorna, 2016. "A critical cluster analysis of 44 indicators of author-level performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1055-1078.
    19. Pattarin Sanguankaew & Vichita Vathanophas Ractham, 2019. "Bibliometric Review of Research on Knowledge Management and Sustainability, 1994–2018," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-20, August.
    20. James C. Ryan, 2016. "A validation of the individual annual h-index (hIa): application of the hIa to a qualitatively and quantitatively different sample," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(1), pages 577-590, October.
    21. Kaffash, Sepideh & Azizi, Roza & Huang, Ying & Zhu, Joe, 2020. "A survey of data envelopment analysis applications in the insurance industry 1993–2018," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 284(3), pages 801-813.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:17:y:2025:i:10:p:4434-:d:1654899. 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.