Circular Campus: A Value-Based Approach to Public Real Estate

Real estate owners and developers are increasingly striving to incorporate circularity into their practices. Among them, public real estate, stands out for its dual role: advancing sustainability agendas while grappling with limited income streams and a focus beyond real estate as a core business. University campuses are particularly interesting, as they not only peddle circular practices with vision, goal-setting and innovative research programs, but they also prepare the next generation to lead sustainable careers. Despite its importance and the internal push towards circularity goals, campus management still struggle to account for circularity in its valuation. One course of action lies in effectively capturing circularity in real estate valuation, which must account for multi-dimensional benefits like use, social, and environmental values. A gap exists in the explicit definitions of these different types of values, along with the stakeholders involved in the creation of this value. Here, we seek to understand these valuation gaps by considering the TU Delft campus as a case study; TU Delft has committed to achieving carbon neutrality, climate adaptability, and circularity by 2030. However, reaching these sustainability goals requires clear and explicit definitions. This research aims to define the value of circularity, not as inherent attribute to the campus, but rather as an outcome of a process of “valuing” by its stakeholders. This process is influenced by perceptions, experiences, and the context in which the valuation occurs per unique stakeholder group. By conducting a two-round Delphi of various stakeholder groups, the definition of the different types of value is better understood to prioritize criteria for the evaluation of circular property investments. Based upon the added value framework of Macmillan (2006), six main types of value, namely, social value, image value, added value (the non-use values), and economic value, use value, environmental value (the use values) were asked to be defined and then ranked among different stakeholder groups in terms of how circularity can be addressed in sustainable campus management. Primary results indicate use value, defined to be facilitating research and education in a safe environment, was near ubiquitously ranked to be the most important for all stakeholder groups. Environmental value ranked second and was defined to be the direct impacts of the campus on the environment, as well as the future impacts of its users on their environments. While campus management stakeholders are intrinsically motivated to make the most sustainable decisions within the primary use function, these efforts are largely constrained by budget limitations. A possible pathway to addressing these financial constraints could be capturing the value of circularity more effectively—particularly through operational expense savings or tenant and users interest— discussed during interviews with financial stakeholders. This research presents an advancement in understanding of how various campus stakeholders define and prioritize different types of value in the context of circular, public property investments. It will guide better informed valuation-based decision-making by also advancing the conceptual clarity of value within circular real estate literature by addressing its inconsistent usage, offering a definition rooted in stakeholder perceptions of worth, impact, and outcomes.