Content uploaded by Vincent Augiseau
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vincent Augiseau on Apr 22, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Author’s version of the chapter Circular economy and construction in Delchet-Cochet, K. (Ed.).
(2020). Circular Economy: From Waste Reduction to Value Creation. John Wiley & Sons.
Dr Vincent Augiseau, co-manager of CitéSource
10.1. Introduction
This chapter focuses on the application of the concept of circular economy to construction. The latter is understood in
the sense of an economic sector and, according to Vincent (1985), comprises five main segments: building materials,
distribution-trading, construction and public works, designers and project managers, contracting authorities. To these
five segments, we think it is appropriate to add construction and demolition waste managers.
The chapter consists of four paragraphs. The environmental issues related to construction are first briefly presented.
Then sixteen elements of definition of circular economy applied to construction that were found in the literature are
studied. In the third part, a brief overview of policies, research and development projects and construction and urban
development projects are provided. Finally, four main limitations to these definitions, policies and projects are discussed.
10.2. Global environmental issues related to construction
Construction generates significant material flows from the extraction of natural resources, the production of materials
and their use on construction sites, to waste management. Construction materials are the first materials consumed by
mankind after water (IRP 2018). Among construction materials, non-metallic minerals and in particular aggregates (sand
and gravel) are the most commonly used (Krausmann et al. 2009). Aggregates are used in concrete, asphalt mixes and
road pavement subbases. They are also used as backfill.
The construction, maintenance, repair and demolition of buildings and networks, as well as certain civil engineering works
such as site levelling, generate outgoing flows of materials commonly known as construction and demolition waste. The
latter constitute by their mass the first solid waste generated by mankind (Krausmann et al. 2017). They are composed
of non-metallic minerals from concrete, stone or brick structures, as well as metals, wood, plastics and bituminous
materials. They also consist of excavated materials, i.e. soil and minerals removed from a site during excavations.
On a global scale, only one third by mass of waste excluding excavated materials is recycled as construction materials
(ibid.). Recycled materials represent only one-tenth of all the construction materials consumed (ibid.). Moreover, they
are mainly used for purposes which are unsuited to their quality. For instance, recycled aggregates are predominantly
used as backfill and for road building, uses which are the least demanding in terms of quality (see Hashimoto et al., 2007;
Augiseau, 2017).
Material and waste flows are a source of environmental impacts and land use conflicts. The production of materials
generates a significant extraction of natural resources. The latter are largely non-renewable and sometimes in a situation
of scarcity: on a global scale such as copper (Gordon et al. 2006) or on a local scale such as sand (Peduzzi 2014). In
addition, mining activities, as well as the expansion of the built environment and the management of construction site
waste, generate land use that temporarily or permanently reduces the possibility of producing or extracting both
renewable and non-renewable resources (Bringezu 2002).
In addition to contributing to the depletion of non-renewable resources, construction generates pressures on natural
environments and harmful effects on human health. Mineral extraction transforms landscapes and impacts aquatic
environments, fauna and flora. This is particularly the case for the extraction of marine aggregates, which generates
conflicts of use with fishing activity, as well as risks in terms of biodiversity, fisheries resources and coastal erosion
(Peduzzi 2014).
The production of materials also generates emissions into the air. Producing cement generates 5 to 6% of the world's
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (Mishra and Siddiqui 2014). In addition, on a local scale, air emissions from
some cement plants cause respiratory diseases (ibid.). In addition, energy flows that are also sources of environmental
impacts are associated with material flows generated by construction (Pullen 2000).
World population growth combined with an increase in the proportion of the population living in cities will lead to the
development of built-up areas, which will accentuate the environmental challenges associated with construction.
According to Elmqvist et al. (2013), 60% of the built space that will be needed by the world's population in 2050 has not
yet been built. Krausmann et al. (2017) estimate that the mass of materials accumulated in buildings and networks will
quadruple by 2050. Global material consumption, which increased tenfold from 1950 to 2005 (Krausmann et al. 2009),
could therefore double by 2060 compared to 2011 (OECD 2018). The generation of construction site waste, which
increased sixfold from 1950 to 2005, will also continue to grow (Krausmann et al. 2017).
Figure 10.1 shows schematically the material, energy and emission flows generated by the construction industry, as well
as the environmental impacts and land-use conflicts. According to Krausmann et al. (2017), approximately one third of
construction and demolition waste excluding excavated materials is considered to be recycled for construction,
regardless of the form of recycling. In the absence of an estimation source, excavated materials and emissions flows are
not proportionally represented to other materials flows.
Figure 10.1. Schematic representation of flows, environmental impacts and land-use conflicts generated by the
construction industry
Source : author
10.3. Sixteen elements of definition
Applying the concept of circular economy to construction could be a response to the environmental issues presented
above. Economic and social benefits could also result (European Commission 2019). However, the concept of circular
economy applied to construction is not currently the subject of a consensual and shared definition. Thus, the different
existing definitions are studied here from a review of technical and scientific literature. Thirteen documents presenting
sixteen elements of definition are selected.
The scope of the review does not fully cover the construction sector as defined in the introduction. Indeed, some
documents adopt an object-based approach and deal with the building or built environment1. However, they provide
definitions that we felt were relevant to our study.
1
The built environment, which includes buildings and networks, is an intermediate scale between the building and the city.
Five main sets of definitions, presented in Table 4.1 on the following page, can be distinguished. Several documents,
although referring to the construction sector or industry, are rather located between construction and building. In
addition, definitions are formulated in a wide variety of forms. Also, the terms used by the authors are specified in
brackets in the table.
Table 10.1. Sixteen elements of the definition of circular economy applied to construction, building and the built
environment classified into five groups
Construction
Building
Built environment
Three principles of circular economy
according to Ellen MacArthur
Foundation
Athanassiadis (2017) (strategies)
EMF (2017) (principles)
Six levers for a transition to the
circular economy according to Ellen
MacArthur Foundation
ARUP (2016) (actions or
elements)
BAM et al. (2016)
(elements)
Strategies similar to an R scale
Circle Economy et al. (2018)
(principles)
Geldermans (2016) (steps)
Gemeente Amsterdam et al. (2019)
(principles)
Sommer and Guldager (2016)
According to the stages of a building's
life cycle
Adams et al. (2017) (aspects)
French Ministry of Ecological and Solidarity Transition et
al. (2017) (levers)
CSTC (2017) (axes)
UKGBC (2019) (principles)
Definitions close to that of sustainable
development
Circular Economy
Programme cited
by Circle Economy
et al. (2018)
Circle Economy et al. (2018)
(impact areas)
Gemeente Amsterdam et al. (2019)
(characteristics or themes)
Pomponi and Moncaster
(2017) (dimensions)
Source: author
10.3.1. Three principles of circular economy according to Ellen MacArthur Foundation
Three principles of circular economy are proposed by Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF): "Preserve and enhance natural
capital by controlling finite stocks and balancing renewable resource flows"; "Optimise resource yields by circulating
products, components, and materials in use at the highest utility at all times in both technical and biological cycles"; and
"Foster system effectiveness by revealing and designing out negative externalities" (EMF 2015, p. 23).
Two documents use these principles. First, a definition of the circular built environment based on these principles is
proposed by EMF (2017, p. 7): "A built environment that is designed in a modular and flexible manner, sourcing healthy
materials that improve the life quality of the residents, and minimise virgin material use. It will be built using efficient
construction techniques, and will be highly utilised thanks to shared, flexible and modular office spaces and housing.
Components of buildings will be maintained and renewed when needed".
In addition, the strategies constituting the model for the construction sector within the Brussels Region are derived from
the three EMF principles (Athanassiadis 2017). The construction sector defined by the author excludes the construction
and demolition of infrastructure. The model highlights several sets of loops: "care, repair, maintenance; reuse, reusage;
upcycling, remanufacturing, reconditioning; recycling, composting"2 (ibid., p. 38). The author recommends "promoting
the tightest loops of the model [as] recycling should be minimized and the elimination of building materials [...] should
be prohibited"3 (ibid., p. 37). The current model of the construction sector in Brussels is compared with the theoretical
model developed by EMF "in order to understand the transition needed to move from one to the other"4 (ibid., p. 36).
10.3.2. Definitions from the six levers for a transition to circular economy according to Ellen MacArthur Foundation
In addition to the three principles presented above, the EMF (2015, p. 26) defines a framework composed of six levers
which “offers companies a tool for generating circular strategies and growth initiatives”. These levers are formulated in
the form of verbs constituting the acronym RESOLVE: REgenerate, Share, Optimize, Loop, Virtualize, and Exchange (ibid.).
Two documents are based on these levers. A census of projects representative of circular economy for the built
environment published by the EMF (BAM et al. 2016) presents examples of actions for each of the levers. The first three
include regenerating and restoring soils by building on wasteland; sharing housing, offices or infrastructure; optimizing
construction through prefabrication, optimizing space use through the use of vacant plots and dense urban growth. The
next three measures involve in particular optimising the end of life of buildings and materials, modularity of buildings
and refurbishment of materials, virtualization of products and processes, and finally exchange using more efficient
materials and technologies.
A second document is based on the levers to illustrate how circular economy can be applied to the built environment
(ARUP 2016). It also cross-references the levers with an adaptation of the concept of building in ‘layers’ designed by
architect Frank Duffy (1990) and developed by Stewart Brand (1994). According to this model, buildings are made up of
six separate and interconnected layers, each with a different lifespan. According to the authors, the application of this
concept would allow a better separation and removal of each element and thus facilitate reuse and recycling. It would
also allow each element to be repaired, replaced, changed, or adapted without affecting the building or infrastructure as
a whole, thereby reducing obsolescence and increasing flexibility and service life.
To the six formulated layers defined by Brand (1994) is added a so-called system layer with the longest life span, which
according to the authors allows them to apply their proposed circular economy approach to a neighborhood or city. In
order of maximum lifetime, the seven layers are: system (urban structures and services including transport, energy and
water networks); site (location of the building); structure (foundation and load-bearing elements); skin (façade and
exterior); services (pipes, wires, energy and heating systems); space (walls and floors); and stuff (furniture, lighting and
information and communication technologies) (ARUP 2016). Actions for the 42 elements formed by the crossing of the
six levers and seven layers are proposed.
10.3.3. Definitions according to a strategy similar to an R scale
According to Reike et al. (2018, pp. 249-250), "in CE [i.e. circular economy], the distinction of various preservation stages
of resource value using hierarchical “R-ladders” or imperatives, is an essential operationalization principle". A variety of
R scales are identified by the authors, the most shared scale being reduce, reuse and recycle. Three documents on the
application of the concept of circular economy to buildings present strategies similar to a R scale.
Dutch authors propose four building design strategies: "Reduce, Synergise, Supply and Manage" (Circle Economy et al.
2018, p. 15). These strategies are prioritized. The aim is to reduce the demand for resources, then when the demand for
resources and the associated impacts have been reduced to a minimum, to identify local synergies that can satisfy these
demands. When the opportunities for sourcing from synergies have been exploited, requests are covered by clean,
renewable, recycled or low-impact sources.
2
« entretien, réparation, maintenance ; réemploi, réutilisation ; upcycling, refabrication, reconditionnement ; recyclage, compostage
». Author’s translation.
3
« favoriser les boucles les plus serrées du modèle [car] le recyclage est à minimiser et l’élimination des matériaux de construction [...]
est à proscrire ». Author’s translation.
4
« afin de comprendre la transition nécessaire pour passer de l’un à l’autre ». Author’s translation.
A fairly similar scale of imperatives is proposed by Geldermans (2016). The author uses the New Stepped Strategy defined
by van den Dobbelsteen (2008) based on Cradle to Cradle concepts, which consists of reducing demand, reusing and
recycling, and then meeting the remaining demand in a sustainable way by releasing only emissions with no
environmental impact. Geldermans (2016) proposes a six-step strategy. In the first step, “the added value of the intended
functions and their materialization” is evaluated, which means questioning the need for a new construction. Step 2 aims
at exploring “current and future vacant buildings with regard to availability and usability” (ibid.). Step 3 is about
integrating “change in a new adaptable design” and step 4 applying “intelligent dimensioning” (ibid.). The two last steps
consist of exploring “the availability and usability of existing materials” and integrating “high quality future reuse" (ibid.).
Finally, although it is only partially similar to an R scale, the definition of the circular building proposed by Sommer and
Guldager (2016) highlights the requirements related to the reuse and recycling of waste. Indeed, according to the authors,
"A circular building is a temporary aggregation of components, elements, and materials with a documented identity,
recording their origin and possible future repurposing, assembled in a certain form, which accommodates a function for
an established period of time" (ibid., p. 132).
10.3.4. Definitions according to the stages of a building's life cycle
Four documents propose elements for defining the application of circular economy to construction or building using a
life-cycle approach. CSTC (2017) proposes an "approach" and "concrete themes of the circular economy for the
construction sector"5 (ibid, p. 6) structured around three axes: "The adaptability of construction, the choice of materials
and assemblies as well as the minimization of waste production [...]; At the end of life, selective deconstruction, reuse,
remanufacturing and recycling [...]; new economic models of the circular economy such as lifetime extension, sharing
economy and functionality economy"6 (ibid., p. 108). The document also refers to Stuart's (1994) layers model.
A second document proposes a "framework for defining circular economy [...] for buildings [...] in order to support the
actors and facilitate its operational implementation in the construction sector"7 (Ministère de la transition écologique et
solidaire et al. 2017, p. 6). According to the authors, the framework makes "the link with the reference framework for
sustainable building"8 (ibid.) that they have previously formulated. This framework consists of fifteen levers grouped into
five groups: territorial optimization of flows, sobriety, life-time extension, resources production so as to limit waste and
stakeholder management9. In this context, some pillars of the circular economy according to ADEME (2014) can be found:
sustainable procurement, eco-design, functional economy, life-time extension, recycling10.
An article by researchers at Loughborough University in England provides a list of key aspects for the application of
circular economy over the lifetime of a building (Adams et al. 2017): design, manufacture and supply, construction, in use
and refurbishment, and end of life. At the design stage, some concepts already mentioned above are indicated: design
for disassembly, design for adaptability and flexibility, design for standardisation, design out waste, design in modularity
(ibid.). For all stages, the authors recommend the management of information.
A guide published by UKGBC (2019) defines five sets of principles partly organized around the stages of a building's life
cycle. These principles are: reuse; design buildings for optimization; standardisation or modularization; servitisation and
leasing; and design and construct responsibly. The actions proposed for the application of these principles are similar to
the aspects of Adams et al. (2017). In addition, as well as ARUP (2016), the guide refers to Stewart Brand's (1994) layers
building model and proposes strategies for each layer.
5
« thématiques concrètes de l’économie circulaire pour le secteur de la construction ». Author’s translation.
6
« L’adaptabilité de la construction, le choix des matériaux et des assemblages ainsi que la minimisation de la production des déchets
[...]; En fin de vie, la déconstruction sélective, le réemploi, la refabrication et le recyclage [...]; de nouveaux modèles économiques de
l’économie circulaire tels que l’extension de la durée de vie, l’économie du partage et l’économie de la fonctionnalité ». Author’s
translation.
7
« cadre de définition de l’économie circulaire [...] dans le bâtiment [...] afin d’accompagner les acteurs et leur faciliter sa mise en
œuvre opérationnelle dans le secteur de la construction ». Author’s translation.
8
« le lien avec celui de référence du bâtiment durable ». Author’s translation.
9
« optimisation territoriale des flux, sobriété, allongement de la durée de vie, création de ressources pour limiter les déchets et
management des parties prenantes ». Author’s translation.
10
« approvisionnement durable, éco-conception, économie de la fonctionnalité, allongement de la durée d'usage, recyclage ». Author’s
translation.
10.3.5. Definitions of the circular economy close to that of sustainable development
Two sets of documents propose definitions of circular economy applied to the built environment or building close to
definitions of sustainable development. Pomponi and Moncaster (2017), in an article which aims at defining a framework
for research on circular economy applied to the built environment, propose six dimensions for the latter: economic,
environmental, technological, societal, governmental and behavioural. The authors refer to the three pillars of
sustainable development. They also propose a definition of a circular building: "a building that is designed, planned, built,
operated, maintained, and deconstructed in a manner consistent with CE principles" (ibid., p. 711). If these principles are
not clearly explained, the authors refer to the six dimensions mentioned above.
Circle Economy et al. (2018) also propose elements of a definition similar to that of sustainable development. The latter
are based on the Circular Economy Programme defined by the Dutch government, which includes the objective of "the
development, use and reuse of buildings, area’s and infrastructure, without avoidable depletion of natural resources,
pollution of the environment or negatively impacting ecosystems. Construction which is economically responsible and
contributes to wellbeing of humans and animals, now and in the future" (cited in Circle Economy et al. 2018, p. 11).
The authors also refer to the work of the EMF, as well as Gladek (2017) which “considers the circular economy from a
broader sustainability perspective" (Circle Economy et al. 2018, p. 8). An adaptation of the Dutch government's definition
for a building is proposed: "A building that is developed, used and reused without unnecessary resource depletion,
environmental pollution and ecosystem degradation. It is constructed in an economically responsible way and
contributes to the wellbeing of people and other inhabitants of this earth. Here and there, now and later. Technical
elements are demountable and reusable, and biological elements can also be brought back into the biological cycle"
(ibid., pp. 11-12). Seven impact areas are defined: materials, energy, water; biodiversity and ecosystems; human culture
and society; health and wellbeing; and multiple forms of value (ibid). These areas are cross-referenced with the four
building design strategies presented above. Similar elements of definition are formulated by some of the authors in a
document for the City of Amsterdam (Gemeente Amsterdam et al. 2019).
10.3.6. Cross-referenced analysis of definitions
Common points and differences can be observed between the elements of definition. First of all, we can note some
common references to a large number of the documents: the texts published by the EMF and the concepts of Cradle to
Cradle from McDonough and Braungart (2002) which themselves strongly influenced EMF. At the building level, Brand's
(1994) layers model is frequently used, as are the concepts of design for disassembly, design for adaptability or flexibility,
or design in modularity. All the definitions emphasize, in a more or less marked and exclusive way, the importance of
recycling construction and demolition waste, generally by anticipating future waste flows at the design stage.
The review shows that few documents cover all segments of the construction industry as defined in the introduction.
Indeed, a majority of studies focus on buildings and in particular the new construction of buildings, the only modality
taken into account by some authors to consider the application of the concept of circular economy. In addition, the
definitions use very different terms. Most of them define principles or strategies, but also aspects, axes, characteristics,
dimensions, impact areas, elements, stages, levers, or themes. The majority of authors favor the means to be used to
achieve a circular economy, while others favor the purpose of the latter.
The recommendations are generally not prioritized. This is the case for the three principles and six levers proposed by
the EMF. However, several authors formulate hierarchical strategies that highlight the importance of reducing materials
and waste flows and their associated environmental impacts. Finally, we can observe more or less broad thematic scopes,
some authors focusing only on the material aspect of the circular economy, while others integrate all or part of the
themes usually related to sustainable development. Before returning to some of the analytical points briefly introduced
here, we propose to draw up a brief table of policies and projects.
10.4. Policies and projects aiming at applying the concept of circular economy to construction
10.4.1. Policies
While the variety of definitions that can be observed seems to reflect a lack of stability in the concept of circular economy
applied to construction, the latter is nevertheless the subject of policies and projects: European, national or local policies,
research and development projects leading to the creation of tools, and construction and urban development projects.
Construction and demolition is one of the five priority sectors defined by the European Commission for the European
Action Plan for a Circular Economy and for which the Union "should [...] continue to support research, innovation and
investment" (European Commission 2019, p. 12). The same document identifies the built environment as one of the
"many other sectors with high environmental impact and strong potential for circularity" (ibid.).
Several European Union member countries have defined circular economy policies for construction. This is particularly
the case in the Netherlands, where the definition from the Circular Economy Programme was presented earlier. This is
also the case in France where several measures of the roadmap towards a circular economy published in 2018 deal with
construction sector and aim in particular at promoting the recycling of construction and demolition waste (Ministère de
la transition écologique et solidaire et Ministère de l’économie et des finances 2018).
Construction is also a key sector for eleven of the twelve strategies for the circular economy supported by cities observed
by the European Economic and Social Committee (2019). 9 % of the 210 local circular economy strategies studied by
Petit-Boix and Leipold (2018) focus on the recycling of construction and demolition waste or the eco-design of buildings.
As well as the circular economy policies for construction initiated by the City of Amsterdam and the Brussels Region
mentioned above, approaches are being developed in France. This is particularly the case for the roadmap towards a
circular economy of Paris, the first three actions of which concern construction and urban development (Mairie de Paris
2017).
10.4.2. Research and development projects
The application of the concept of circular economy to construction has led to research and development projects in
Europe and France, resulting in the creation of tools. Level(s), "the first framework of indicators for measuring
sustainability in the sector" according to the European Commission (2019, p. 9), is being tested by 130 projects in Europe
in 2019. The second objective is to “optimise the building design, engineering and form in order to support lean and
circular flows, extend long-term material utility and reduce significant environmental impacts” (European Commission
Joint Research Centre 2017, p. 10).
The European research project Horizon 2020 Buildings as Material Banks (BAMB) carried out from 2015 to 2019 led to
the development of the evaluation tool Circular Building Assessment (Hobbs 2019). The latter aims to evaluate the
difference between a standard building design scenario and a so-called circular scenario. It is based in particular on
Stewart Brand's (1994) layers model. A relatively similar tool, the CE Meter, is developed by Geraedts and Prins (2015).
Leising et al. (2018) propose a tool to facilitate the organization of a project and in particular to enhance collaboration in
the building sector.
Two calls for research and development projects from ADEME in 2012 and 2014 focus on circular economy for
construction. The vast majority of these projects aimed at developing the recycling of construction and demolition waste,
with only two of the eighteen projects dealing with waste prevention. The OVALEC project, financed by ADEME under
another call for projects, resulted in the development of an evaluation tool composed of four sets of indicators about the
supply and use of aggregates and waste management (CSTB et al. 2018). Four so-called circularity indicators have also
been defined in order to integrate criteria related to circular economy into green building certification (HQE) (Oury 2019).
This work on indicators is being pursued as part of a project launched in 2018 by the Fondation Bâtiment Energie (2018).
10.4.3. Construction and urban development projects
Examples of projects illustrating the application of the concept of circular economy in construction are provided in the
documents reviewed. ARUP (2016) presents forty-one case studies that "exemplify elements of circularity [while] few of
them are perfectly circular" (ibid., p. 18). Indeed, according to the authors, "circular practices tend to occur at the
individual component or asset level. They include modular, prefabricated and off-site construction, design for
disassembly, materials reuse and recycling, and designing out waste" (ibid., p. 43). Therefore, "the prospect of linking all
aspects of the built environment through a fully inclusive and comprehensive circular economy remains a challenge"
(ibid.). BAM et al. (2016) present twelve examples including research projects such as BAMB.
Two documents, van den Dobbelsteen (2008) and Leising et al. (2018), present the example of the Park20|20 business
park in Hoofddorp in the Netherlands. The concept of Cradle to Cradle was used in the design of this neighborhood by
McDonough and his associates. Six innovative business models are identified by Leising et al. (2018, p. 981): "Create value
from waste [...]; Deliver functionality without ownership [...]; Optimize material efficiency [...]; Substitute with
renewables [...]; Repurpose for society by designing buildings with a healthy indoor climate [...]; Inclusive value creation,
via alternative solutions for ownership".
10.5. Four main limitations
In our view, the definitions given to the concept of circular economy applied to construction and the policies and projects
aiming at this application have four main limitations: an uncertain delimitation of the scope of circular economy, a low
consideration of the territorial context, a scale for the application of the circular economy concept that is often too
narrow, and an insufficient articulation between circular economy and spatial planning.
10.5.1. An uncertain delimitation of the scope of circular economy between waste management and sustainable
development
The first limit that can be identified concerns the extent of the scope of the concept of circular economy applied to
construction. A focus on the recycling of construction and demolition waste, including reuse, can be observed. This focus
is even more pronounced in policies and projects, particularly in research and development. Emphasis on the recycling
of construction and demolition waste is entirely relevant given that the issues related to this waste have only recently
been addressed, in particular by strengthening regulatory objectives. However, the risk is to lock the circular economy
into a curative or end-of-pipe approach and to reproduce some of the limitations identified for the application of the
concept of industrial ecology (O'Rourke et al. 1996). Narrowing circular economy by relating it to waste management
only is a limit observed by Ghisellini et al. (2016) for other activities than construction.
Moreover, it seems to us that this risk is more pronounced when the principles or strategies defined for the application
of circular economy to construction (and sometimes for all activities) are not prioritized. This is particularly the case for
the three principles and six EMF levers (2015). While the absence of a hierarchy makes it easier to adapt the
recommended principles and strategies to different situations, it has the counterpart of putting on the same level the
benefits that can be expected from waste recyling on the one hand and from the reduction of materials and waste flows
on the other hand.
However, research shows that even if the recycling rates of construction and demolition waste increase, secondary
resources can only partially replace primary resources. In Vienna, if all construction and demolition waste was treated in
a recycling centre, the consumption of primary resources would only be reduced by 7 % (Obernosterer et al. 1998). In
Orléans (France), recycling 70 % of mineral waste would only cover a quarter of aggregates consumption from 2005 to
2030 (Serrand et al. 2013). In twenty-seven European Union countries, this recycling rate would only meet half of the
required consumption by 2020 (Wiedenhofer et al. 2015).
Therefore, a circular economy model for construction cannot be achieved solely by a change, however strong it may be,
in the practices of recycling construction and demolition waste. An absolute reduction in inflows (as well as outflows), as
advocated by the transformationist school of the circular economy identified by Reike et al. (2018), is necessary to address
the challenges associated with the depletion of materials resources. It should also be noted, as Gemeente Amsterdam et
al. (2019) points out, that energy resources also present strong constraints and limit in particular the possibilities of
recycling waste.
On the other hand, extending the limits of the scope of circular economy to confuse its limits with those of sustainable
development, as proposed by Pomponi and Moncaster (2017), presents the risk of removing the operational
characteristic of circular economy, which is one of the main strengths of this concept (Geissdoerfer et al. 2017). As such,
a balance must be found between an operational concept aiming at responding to the material and energy challenges
facing human societies by reintegrating the activities of these societies within the limits of the biosphere and sustainable
development which has broader purposes.
10.5.2. Low consideration of the territorial context
The second limitation that can be identified is the universality of many of the definitions of circular economy for
construction and of the tools for its application. Indeed, very few definitions refer to local construction issues, and in
particular to issues related to the availability of resources for construction. In addition, some tools aiming at taking into
account the local context are largely based on data from national average values, as well as in CSTB et al. (2018) and Oury
(2019).
However, the availability of natural resources (known as primary resources) on the one hand and anthropogenic
resources (known as secondary resources) consisting of waste resulting from the renewal or demolition of built works on
the other hand, varies greatly according to the territories. The same is true of the potential for substitution of primary
resources by secondary resources. Brunner (2011) considers in particular that three phases of urban development must
be distinguished: availability and potential are lower for fast-growing cities; they are higher for shrinking cities
experiencing demographic decline, while mature urbanized areas undergoing high renewal are in an intermediate
situation.
Among the documents studied, the recommendations for the Brussels Region by Athanassiadis (2017) are an exception
as they relate the current situation of the region to the desired situation. These recommendations are based on the
analysis of flows and stocks of materials and energy, an observation also known as the study of metabolism and using
methods developed in the scientific fields of industrial and territorial ecology. The operational concept of circular
economy could be better linked to the analytical concept of metabolism to define strategies that take better account of
the territorial context.
10.5.3. A scale for the application of the circular economy concept that is too narrow
The third limitation that can be observed is the scale defined to apply the concept of circular economy. A majority of the
definitions studied, as well as a large proportion of policies and projects, are limited to the scale of the construction site.
Targeting new construction may be relevant in the case of fast-growing cities. However, in already urbanized areas, the
buildings resulting from new construction represent relatively small surfaces compared to the existing buildings. As noted
by Pomponi and Moncaster (2017), more than three-quarters of the built stocks currently present in developed countries
will still be present in 2050. In these territories, the scale of the individual building must be exceeded in order to transform
the entire existing built area.
In addition, the barriers to the implementation of circular economy strategies for construction take place at multiple
scales, from the construction site or project to the city, region, country, European Union or even a larger international
scale. This is particularly the case for the barriers to the use of secondary resources in construction in France, which fall
within the insurance and regulatory framework (Augiseau 2020). Acting only at the scale of the construction site will not
remove these constraints. As ARUP (2016) observes, a circular economy can only be achieved if strategies integrate
different scales in a coherent way.
10.5.4. Insufficient coordination between circular economy and spatial planning
The fourth limitation that can be observed is the lack of spatialization of the strategies implemented and their weak
coordination with spatial planning. This low spatialization is related to the two previous limitations. It also results from
the transposition of ideas originally formulated to improve the production of manufactured goods (Obersteg et al. 2019).
The lack of coordination between circular economic strategies led by cities and spatial planning is observed by Petit-Boix
and Leipold (2018). Obersteg et al. (2019) make the same observation for the six regional strategies in Europe they
analyzed.
While an "urban plan or project also has a volume[...], mass and energy content"11 (Barles 2015), the impact of urban
plans and projects on materials consumption and waste generation is rarely a decision-making criterion for urban actors
(Kennedy et al. 2011). However, the work led by the International Resource Panel of the United Nations Environment
Programme (IRP 2018) recommends reducing materials flows by influencing urbanization processes. This work highlights
in particular the risk of high urban sprawl in developing countries. Reducing materials flows "requires rethinking the shape
of urban agglomerations to minimize infrastructure stocks [and] reducing resource consumption induced by the structure
and spread of the urban fabric"12 (Erkman 2004, p. 182). Urban planning can also ensure that the waste flows resulting
from demolition are limited by giving priority to the refurbishment of buildings.
Local authorities can also promote the use of secondary resources by linking urban planning with stocks and materials
flows planning. The creation of a spatialized database or cadastre of secondary resources (Brunner 2011) can provide a
basis for coordinating urban projects in order to promote flow exchanges between sites. The Plaine Commune Urban
Metabolism project (Bellastock et al. 2018), as well as the Est Ensemble project (Augiseau 2020), aim to build such bases.
Urban planning and urban development are means of action on urban metabolism and can lead to reducing materials
flows. Circular economy policies and projects could be strengthened by integrating spatial planning into their scope of
action.
10.6. Conclusion
The literature review on the concept of circular economy applied to construction identified sixteen elements of definition.
A great heterogeneity can be observed among these elements but the recommendations to anticipate and apply the
recycling of construction and demolition waste at the building scale dominate. While this heterogeneity seems to reflect
a lack of stability in the concept of circular economy for construction, a proliferation of policies, research and
development projects as well as construction and urban development projects is nevertheless observed. The circular
economy strategies that were reviewed could be a response to the high challenges that the construction industry faces,
but they should overcome four limitations observed in the definitions, policies and projects: the uncertain delimitation
of the scope of circular economy, the low consideration of the territorial context when defining strategies, the too narrow
scale for the application of the circular economy concept and the lack of coordination between circular economy and
spatial planning.
11
"plan ou un projet d’urbanisme a aussi un volume […], une masse et un contenu énergétique". Author’s translation.
12
"suppose de repenser la forme des agglomérations urbaines pour minimiser les stocks d'infrastructures [et] diminuer les
consommations de ressources induites par la structure et l'étalement du tissu urbain". Author’s translation.
10.7. References
Adams, K., Osmani, M., Thorpe, T., Thornback, J. (2017). Circular economy in construction: current awareness, challenges and enablers.
In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Waste and Resource Management, cс ICE Publishing, 15-24.
ADEME. (2014). Economie circulaire : notions. Technical file.
ADEME. (2018). Economie circulaire dans le BTP. Bilan des 18 projets de R&D de l’APR 2012-2014.
ARUP. (2016). The Circular Economy in the Built Environment.
Athanassiadis, A. (2017). Economie circulaire dans le secteur de la construction à Bruxelles : état des lieux, enjeux et modèle à venir.
Augiseau, V. (2017). La dimension matérielle de l’urbanisation. Flux et stocks de matériaux de construction en Ile-de-France. PhD thesis,
Université Panthéon-Sorbonne-Paris I.
Augiseau, V. (2020). Utiliser les ressources secondaires de matériaux de construction : contraintes et pistes d’action pour des politiques
territoriales. Flux 116-117: 21-36
BAM, BRE, cd2e, London Waste & Recycling Board, Ouroboros, Tarkett, Turntoo. (2016). Circular economy in the built environment:
case studies. A compilation of case studies from the CE100.
Barles, S. (2015). “L’urbanisme, le génie urbain et l’environnement : une lecture par la technique”, Riurba 5(1).
Bellastock, Albert & Compagnie, Auxilia, Recovering, Le Phares, CSTB, Encore Heureux, Halage, BTP Consultants. (2018). Bilan technique
et stratégique. An 1 de la phase opérationnelle du projet Métabolisme urbain. 2017-2018.
Brand, S. (1994). How Buildings Learn: what Happens after They are Built, Viking Penguin, New York.
Bringezu, S. (2002). Towards sustainable resource management in the European Union.
Brunner, P. H. (2011). Urban Mining, A Contribution to Reindustrializing the City. Journal of Industrial Ecology 15(3): 339-341.
Circle Economy, DGBC, Metabolic, SGS Search, REDEVCO Foundation. (2018). A framework for circular buildings. Indicators for possible
inclusion in BREEAM.
CSTB, BRGM, Bouygues Construction, Alliance HQE-GBC. (2018). Manuel de l'utilisateur. OVALEC. Outils pour VALoriser les actions de
transition vers une Economie Circulaire dans la construction - focus sur les flux matériaux / déchets de bâtiment.
CSTC. (2017). Innovation Paper. Construire circulaire – vers une économie circulaire dans la construction.
van den Dobbelsteen, A. (2008). 655: Towards closed cycles-New strategy steps inspired by the Cradle to Cradle approach.
Duffy, F. (1990). Measuring building performance. Facilities 8(5): 17-20.
Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., et al. (eds.). (2013). Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and
opportunities: a global assessment, Springer.
EMF. (2015). Growth Within: a circular economy vision for a competitive Europe.
EMF. (2017). Cities in the circular economy: an initial exploration.
Erkman, S. (2004). Vers une écologie industrielle. Ccomment mettre en pratique le développement durable dans une société hyper-
industrielle, Paris, La librairie FPH. Edition Charles Léopold Mayer, 2nd edition.
European Commission. (2019). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and Committee of the Regions on the implementation of the Circular Economy Action Plan.
European Commission Joint Research Centre. (2017). Level(s) – A common EU framework of core sustainability indicators for office
and residential buildings. Parts 1 and 2: Introduction to Level(s) and how it works (Draft Beta v1.0).
European Economic and Social Committee. (2019). Circular economy strategies and roadmaps in Europe: identifying synergies and the
potential for cooperation and alliance building. Final Report.
Fondation Bâtiment Energie. (2018). Appel à manifestation d’intérêt sur l’Economie Circulaire. Elaboration de critères et indicateurs
pour le développement de bases scientifiques à la caractérisation de l’économie circulaire dans le secteur du bâtiment.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. MP, et al. (2017). The Circular Economy–A new sustainability paradigm?. Journal of cleaner
production 143: 757-768.
Geldermans, R. J. (2016). Design for change and circularity–accommodating circular material & product flows in construction. Energy
procedia 96: 301-311.
Gemeente Amsterdam, SGS Search, Metabolic. (2019). Roadmap circular land tendering. An introduction to circular building projects.
Geraedts, R. P., Prins, M. (2015). The CE Meter: an instrument to assess the circular economy capacity of buildings.
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of
environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner production 114: 11-32.
Gladek, E. (2017). The seven pillars of the circular economy. En ligne (page consultée le 2/11/2019) : http://www.metabolic.nl/the-
seven-pillars-of-the-circular-economy
Gordon, R., Bertram, M., Graedel, T. E. (2006). Metal stocks and sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(5):
1209-1214.
Hashimoto, S., Tanikawa, H., Morigushi, Y. (2007). Where will large amounts of material accumulated within the economy go? – A
material flow analysis of construction minerals for Japan. Waste Management 27: 1725-1738.
Hobbs, G. (2019). Circular Building Assessment-A new tool made possible by BAMB.
IRP. 2018. The Weight of Cities: Resource Requirements of Future Urbanization. A Report by the International Resource Panel. United
Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Kennedy, C., Pincetl, S., Bunje, P. (2011). The study of urban metabolism and its applications to urban planning and design.
Environmental pollution 159(8): 1965-1973.
Krausmann, F., Gingrich, S., Eisenmenger, N., et al. (2009). Growth in global materials use, GDP and population during the 20th century.
Ecological Economics 68(10): 2696-2705.
Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., Lauk, C., et al. (2017). Global socioeconomic material stocks rise 23-fold over the 20th century and
require half of annual resource use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(8): 1880-1885.
Leising, E., Quist, J., Bocken, N. (2018). Circular Economy in the building sector: three cases and a collaboration tool. Journal of Cleaner
production 176: 976-989.
Mairie de Paris. (2017). Plan économie circulaire de Paris 2017-2020. 1ère feuille de route.
McDonough, W. Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to Cradle – Remaking the way we make things, North Point Press, New York.
Ministère de la transition écologique et solidaire, Ministère de la cohésion des territoires, ADEME, CSTB, Association OREE. (2017).
Cadre de définition de l'économie circulaire dans le bâtiment.
Ministère de la transition écologique et solidaire, Ministère de l’économie et des finances. (2018). Feuille de route économie circulaire.
50 mesures pour une économie 100 % circulaire.
Mishra, S., Siddiqui, N. A. (2014). A review on environmental and health impacts of cement manufacturing emissions. International
journal of geology, agriculture and environmental sciences 2(3): 26-31.
Obernosterer, R., Brunner, P. H., Daxbeck, H. et al. (1998). Materials accounting as a tool for decision making in environmental policy:
MAcTEmPo case study report. Urban metabolism, the city of Vienna.
Obersteg, A., Arlati, A., Acke, A., et al. (2019). Urban regions shifting to circular economy: Understanding challenges for new ways of
governance. Urban Planning 4(3): 1-13.
OECD. (2018). Global Material Resources Outlook to 2060 – Economic Drivers and Environmental Consequences. Highlights.
O'Rourke, D., Connelly, L., Koshland, C. (1996). Industrial ecology: a critical review. International Journal of Environment and Pollution
6 (2/3): 89-112.
Oury, N. (2019). Réunion de lancement. Test HQE Performance Economie circulaire. Présentation, 12 March 2019, Paris.
Peduzzi, P. (2014). Sand, rarer than one thinks. Environmental Development 2014/11 : 208-218.
Petit-Boix, A., Leipold, S. (2018). Circular economy in cities: Reviewing how environmental research aligns with local practices. Journal
of Cleaner Production 195: 1270-1281.
Pomponi, F., Moncaster, A. (2017). Circular economy for the built environment: a research framework. Journal of Cleaner Production
143: 710-718.
Pullen, S. F. (2000). Energy used in the construction and operation of houses. Architectural Science Review 43(2): 87-94.
Reike, D. Vermeulen, W. J.V., 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. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling 135 : 246-264.
Serrand, M., Monfort-Climent, D., Vaxelaire, S., et al. (2013). Projet ANR ASURET - Méthodologie d’aide à la décision : Evolution
prospective des besoins en matériaux et de la disponibilité des ressources primaires et secondaires - Exemple de la Ville d’Orléans
(tâche 5). Final Report BRGM/RP -62586-FR.
Sommer, J., Guldager, K. (2016). Building a circular future.
UKGBC. (2019). Circular economy guidance for construction clients: How to practically apply circular economy principles at the project
brief stage.
Vincent, M. (1985). Les secteurs de la construction, un panorama des analyses récentes et des voies de recherches. Revue d'économie
industrielle 32 (2nd quarter) : 86-109.
Wiedenhofer, D. Steinberger, J. K., Eisenmenger, N., et al. (2015). Maintenance and expansion: Modeling material stocks and flows for
residential buildings and transportation networks in the EU25. Journal of Industrial Ecology 19(4): 538–551.
