Impact of Circular Economy Measures in the European Union Built Environment on a Net-Zero Target

Abstract

Environmental benefits of circular economy (CE) measures, such as waste reduction, need to be weighed against the urgent need to reduce CO 2 emissions to zero, in line with the Paris Agreement climate goals of 1.5-2 °C. Several studies have quantified CO 2 emissions associated with CE measures in the construction sector in different EU countries, with the literature's focus ranging from bricks and insulation products, to individual buildings, to the entire construction sector. We find that there is a lack of synthesis and comparison of such studies to each other and to the EU CO 2 emission reduction targets, showing a need for estimating the EU-wide mitigation potential of CE strategies. To evaluate the contribution that CE strategies can make to reducing the EU's emissions, we scale up the CO 2 emission estimates from the existing studies to the EU level and compare them to each other, from both construction-element and sector-wide perspectives. Our analysis shows that average CO 2 savings from sector-wide estimates (mean 39.28 Mt CO 2 eq./year) slightly exceeded construction-element savings (mean 25.06 Mt CO 2 eq./year). We also find that a conservative estimate of 234 Mt CO 2 eq./year in combined emission savings from CE strategies targeting construction elements can significantly contribute towards managing the EU's remaining carbon budget. While this is a significant mitigation potential, our analysis suggests caution as to how the performance and trade-offs of CE strategies are evaluated, in relation to wider sustainability concerns beyond material and waste considerations.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
Circular Economy and Sustainability
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-023-00257-2
1 3
ORIGINAL PAPER
Impact ofCircular Economy Measures intheEuropean Union
Built Environment onaNet‑Zero Target
M.Sharmina1 · D.Pappas2,3· K.Scott4· A.Gallego‑Schmid1
Received: 10 October 2022 / Accepted: 6 February 2023
© The Author(s) 2023
Abstract
Environmental benefits of circular economy (CE) measures, such as waste reduction, need
to be weighed against the urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions to zero, in line with the
Paris Agreement climate goals of 1.5–2°C. Several studies have quantified CO2 emissions
associated with CE measures in the construction sector in different EU countries, with the
literature’s focus ranging from bricks and insulation products, to individual buildings, to
the entire construction sector. We find that there is a lack of synthesis and comparison of
such studies to each other and to the EU CO2 emission reduction targets, showing a need
for estimating the EU-wide mitigation potential of CE strategies. To evaluate the contribu-
tion that CE strategies can make to reducing the EU’s emissions, we scale up the CO2 emis-
sion estimates from the existing studies to the EU level and compare them to each other,
from both construction-element and sector-wide perspectives. Our analysis shows that
average CO2 savings from sector-wide estimates (mean 39.28 Mt CO2 eq./year) slightly
exceeded construction-element savings (mean 25.06 Mt CO2 eq./year). We also find that a
conservative estimate of 234 Mt CO2 eq./year in combined emission savings from CE strat-
egies targeting construction elements can significantly contribute towards managing the
EU’s remaining carbon budget. While this is a significant mitigation potential, our analysis
suggests caution as to how the performance and trade-offs of CE strategies are evaluated,
in relation to wider sustainability concerns beyond material and waste considerations.
Keywords Carbon emissions· Construction sector· Carbon budget· Decarbonisation·
Emission reduction· Climate change
* M. Sharmina
maria.sharmina@manchester.ac.uk
1 Tyndall Centre forClimate Change Research, School ofEngineering, The University
ofManchester, M139PLManchester, UK
2 Business School, Liverpool Hope University, L169JDLiverpool, UK
3 Tyndall Centre forClimate Change Research, Faculty ofScience, University ofEast Anglia,
NR47TJNorwich, UK
4 Geography Department, The University ofManchester, M139PLManchester, UK
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Circular Economy and Sustainability
1 3
Introduction
The Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming to well below 2°C, preferably to
1.5°C, compared to pre-industrial levels [1]. A sharp reduction in greenhouse gas emis-
sions is needed in the following years to avoid the most severe consequences of climate
change, including extreme droughts, heatwaves and floods [2]. To this end, the Euro-
pean Union (EU) has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030 com-
pared with 1990 levels and to become carbon neutral by 2050 [3]. The European Com-
mission [4] has identified transport, agriculture and construction as the key sectors to
focus on. All these sectors are high emitters, and the construction sector is particularly
challenging to fully decarbonise due to increasing demand for buildings and infrastruc-
ture, the stock’s long lifespan and reliance on carbon-intensive materials such as steel
and cement [5].
The building sector currently accounts for more than a third of the total greenhouse
gas emissions both worldwide [6] and in the EU [7]. Until recently, the reduction of
operational emissions has been the main focus of policies such as the Energy Efficiency
Directive [8] and research [9]. The subsequent improvement in energy efficiency and
performance has reduced the level of operational emissions. However, less attention has
been given to buildings-embodied emissions, and their relative contribution has become
increasingly significant [5, 10]. It has been estimated that between 5 and 12% of total
greenhouse gas emissions from the EU are associated with the extraction of raw mate-
rials, the manufacturing of construction products and the construction and renovation
of the buildings [11]. Up to 80% of those greenhouse gas emissions could be saved
by improving material efficiency [12]. As the urban population is expected to represent
68% of the total by 2050, adding 2.5billion to the world’s urban population [13], meas-
ures to increase material efficiency in the construction sector are key to achieving the
goals set in the Paris Agreement [1].
Circular economy (CE) principles can play a crucial role in improving the material effi-
ciency of the building sector and, therefore, influence embodied emissions [14, 15]. The
CE can be defined as ‘a regenerative system in which resource input and waste, emission,
and energy leakage are minimised by slowing, closing, and narrowing material and energy
loops’ [16]. Slowing resource loops implies intensifying and expanding the use of products
to prolong their value over time, whereas closing resource loops entails upcycling to create
or restore new value from used materials [17]. Finally, narrowing resource loops implies
reducing environmental impacts and resource consumption per unit of product [18]. How-
ever, studies have lamented a lack of empirical evidence that shows the contribution of CE
to sustainability and the potential trade-offs [19, 20].
Material economics [21] has estimated that CE approaches can cut by 38% the green-
house gas emissions (up to 2billion t of CO2) in the building sector by 2050 by reduc-
ing the demand for four key materials: aluminium, steel, plastic and cement. Examples
of CE strategies that can be applied to achieve this reduction include the following:
• Increasing material efficiency with a better design, e.g. the same structural strength
can be achieved using 50–60% of the amount of cement currently applied [21]. The
potential reduction of emissions by 2050 is 1billion t of CO2/year.
• Reducing waste in the construction site, e.g. modular offsite construction can reduce
waste by up to 90% compared with traditional onside construction [22]. The poten-
tial reduction of emissions by 2050 is 0.2billion t of CO2/year.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Circular Economy and Sustainability
1 3
• Increasing the use of building, e.g. by sharing offices or multi-purposed and repur-
posed buildings [23]. The potential reduction of emissions by 2050 is 0.3billion t of
CO2/year.
• Reusing and recycling materials, e.g. the reuse of materials in the construction of 70
thousand new apartments could lead to reducing by 500,000 tonnes the amount of
used materials [24]. The potential reduction of emissions by 2050 is 0.6billion t of
CO2/year.
• Prolonging the functional lifetime of the buildings, e.g. durable, flexible and
modular designs [25]. The potential reduction of emissions is 1billion t of CO2
beyond 2050.
Although CE implementation can curtail overall CO2 emissions at the country level
[26], particularly in the long term [27], evidence in the building sector is mixed [25, 28].
While some CE strategies in this sector can and do reduce CO2, other strategies might in
fact result in higher emissions. For example, increased durability of floor coverings through
repair and maintenance can lead to 38.9 CO2 eq./m2 in additional emissions [29], while
significantly refurbishing a building every 10 years can increase the building’s embodied
carbon by 67% [30]. Reuse almost consistently leads to lower CO2 across several studies,
whether focused on a single construction element such as rail track [31] or focused on the
entire construction sector [32]. However, some studies do estimate extra emissions from
reuse [33]. Such differences are due partly to how the CE strategies are implemented, and
partly to how CO2 emissions are measured [25].
Exacerbating the challenges of assessing CO2 emissions, arising or saved as a result
of CE strategies, are inadequate datasets that often lack consistency [34] or geographical
specificity [35]; diversity of metrics for ‘circularity’ [36]; and absence of a unifying CE
framework [37]. Another key challenge in this area includes the difficulty of comparing CE
assessments to each other and to sectoral and national emission reduction targets, informed
by the Paris Agreement climate change goal [25]. Consequently, reviews of CE’s impact
on CO2 in construction so far have been qualitative [25, 38]. A multiplicity of locations,
timeframes and other methodological assumptions points to a research need essential for
informing low-carbon policy in the construction sector.
Accordingly, this paper’s aim is to estimate a range of trade-offs between CE measures
and climate change mitigation (expressed in CO2 emission savings or extra CO2 emissions)
in the EU construction sector, to inform the region’s emission reduction targets. The main
contribution of our study is in synthesising knowledge in this area in an interdisciplinary
way by comparing existing CO2 estimates for a range of CE strategies to one other and to
the EU’s remaining carbon budget for the first time. As an important contribution to com-
paring estimates at different scales, our study brings together the micro-level (construc-
tion elements and buildings), meso-level (neighbourhoods and the buildings sector as a
whole) and macro-level (national and supra-national carbon budgets and emission reduc-
tion targets).
We achieve the aim of this paper through three objectives: we first extract CO2 estimates
from existing studies on CE measures in the construction sector in the European Union
(plus the UK). We then scale up these estimates to the EU level where they refer to an
individual country, and annualise them where a multi-year estimate is provided, to make
them comparable. Finally, we compare the scaled-up annual CO2 emission estimates to
each other as well as to the EU’s carbon budgets. In addition, we reflect on the challenges
of comparing such estimates across studies that employ a variety of modelling approaches
and assumptions.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Circular Economy and Sustainability
1 3
Methods
This section explains the logic behind the process of scaling up the CO2 estimates from
the existing literature. We deliberately call the process ‘scaling up’ rather than ‘model-
ling’, as the intention is to use a simple and transparent method to gauge approximate
CO2 emissions and their orders of magnitude as estimated across the literature. The
main advantages of our scaling-up method are its simplicity and transparency, as well
as lower data intensity, compared to more complex modelling. These characteristics are
particularly important for first-of-a-kind exploratory studies, like ours, that compare
quantitative results from other studies based on different models, inputs and baselines.
So, to achieve comparability and (as it were) to obtain the common denominator, we
have developed a straightforward and easy-to-trace method to scale up the CO2 esti-
mates both temporally and spatially, while drawing attention to the challenges of evalu-
ating circular economy strategies and measuring their impact on the climate.
Although this scaling-up exercise is the first synthesis of CE measures in the EU con-
struction sector, the methodological approach itself is not uncommon: it is used widely
in mitigation potential synthesis studies (see e.g. IPCC Working Group III assessment
reports, or [39]). Throughout the paper, and particularly in the Discussion section, we
acknowledge the challenges of comparing CO2 estimates derived from a variety of
methodologies, assumptions and models.
Selecting Our Sample ofQuantitative CO2 Emission Estimates
As a starting point, we used a sample of 24 studies shortlisted and reviewed by Gallego-
Schmid etal. [25] on the co-benefits and trade-offs between CE measures in the built
environment and climate change mitigation. We repeated the search on the same data-
base (Scopus) and expanded the sample to 34 papers, grouping them by CE loop and
CE strategy (Fig.1). The relatively small number of studies covered here is due to the
search terms used: understandably, some relevant studies might have slipped through
the net. Although a more comprehensive list of search terms could yield a larger number
of search results, the reviewed studies already provide a good spread of CO2 estimates,
as demonstrated in the Results section.
We applied a range of search strings that included ‘circular economy’ AND ‘con-
struction OR buil*’ AND one of the following terms: durability, remanufacturing, refur-
bishment, product service systems, servitisation, sharing, closed-loop, material circular-
ity, reuse, upcycling, maintenance, repair, upgrade, upgrading, circular supplies, reverse
supply chains, reverse logistics, take back systems, cascading, by-product exchange,
repurpose, recover, extended producer responsibility, cycling and industrial symbio-
sis [25]. Note that while material efficiency has been conceptualised by others [40] as
broadly as the CE framework, here, we treat it as one of the CE strategies.
Supplementary TablesS1–3 summarise the full sample of analysed studies by their
scale, country or region of focus, timeframe and CE strategy. The final column of each
table provides our estimates of extra emissions (or emission savings) per year at the
EU level, based on our scaling up of each study’s data. Note that where a study covers
several CE strategies and thereby fits into different CE loops, it is listed in more than
one Supplementary Table. For example, Cooper etal. [41] model both reuse (slowing
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Circular Economy and Sustainability
1 3
loops) and lightweighting (narrowing loops) and therefore appear in both Supplemen-
tary TablesS1 and S3.
Scaling Up theEstimates totheEU Level
For each study, we extracted estimates of CO2 savings or extra emissions arising from CE
strategies. Where a range of estimates was provided in a study, we recorded the minimum
of the range as a ‘lower bound’ and the maximum of the range as an ‘upper bound’, to get
an idea of the spread. For comparability of results within the boxplots presented in this
paper, where a study provided only one estimate, this value was assumed to represent both
the upper and lower bounds.
For the purposes of our paper, the studies’ estimates often needed to be scaled up spa-
tially (i.e. from one country or one construction element to the entire EU level) and in
some cases scaled down temporally (i.e. from a multi-year lifecycle emission estimate to
an annual estimate). Both types of scaling required a number of assumptions and additional
data and statistics outside the sample of studies. The assumptions are explained in this sec-
tion, while information on additional data and sources used in this paper can be found in
Supplementary TableS4.
To spatially scale up CO2 estimates provided per construction element (e.g. per brick,
m2, or wall assembly), we used the following steps:
Fig. 1 The number of analysed studies by circular economy loop and by circular economy strategy. Note:
some studies cover circular economy strategies from two loops and, hence, are counted in this figure twice
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Circular Economy and Sustainability
1 3
1 Searched for available numbers for, or estimated, how many of such construction ele-
ments are likely to be in Europe or, if an estimate at the European level was not available,
in one or several European countries.
2 Scaled up the number of the construction elements from the country level to the EU
level in proportion to the country’s share in the EU population.
3 Multiplied the number of construction elements in the EU by the CO2 emissions per
construction element.
For example, if the CO2 emission estimate was given per cantilever truss [42], we
estimated how many cantilever trusses there are in the EU, or at least in one of the EU
countries, and then scaled it up proportionately based on the country-vs-EU popula-
tion numbers (see Eq.1). In another example, Migliore etal. [43] estimated emission
savings from using recycled material in bricks, providing CO2 eq.per tonne of bricks.
Here, we arrived at EU-wide emission savings from this CE strategy by combining it
with data on the number of bricks used annually in the EU and the average weight of a
brick (see Eq.2 and Supplementary TableS4).
where
CEU
=carbon emissions from EU
�
s construction sector
;

PEU =EU population;

Pi=i country�s population;

Nji =number of j infrastructures in i country;

Cj=carbon emissions from one infrastructure of type j

where
Wj=weight of one infrastructure of type j;

Cw=carbon emissions per unit of weight

To spatially scale up CO2 estimates provided per sector in a particular EU country
(e.g. for the entire construction sector in the UK), we again used the country-vs-EU
population ratio. For example, Barrett and Scott [44] estimated emission savings from
modular buildings and the substitution of cement at the construction sector level in the
UK. As the UK population is around 13% of that of the EU [45], we scaled up this esti-
mate to the EU level in proportion to the population (see Eq.3).
where
Csec,i
=carbon emissions from country i
�s construction sector

In relation to the temporal scaling up, we came across two types of studies. Firstly, some
studies presented CO2 estimates that are one-off actions [30, 46], for example cavity wall
insulation, so such savings could not be implemented annually or multiple times on the
same building stock; hence, we treated them as a one-off CO2 saving. Secondly, where
studies provided cumulative estimates for CO2 savings within their own timeframe (e.g. up
(1)
C
EU =
P
EU
P
i
×Nji ×C
j
(2)
C
EU =
P
EU
Pi
×Nji ×Wj×C
w
(3)
C
EU =
P
EU
P
i
×Csec,
i
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Circular Economy and Sustainability
1 3
to 2032 in [32]), we divided the savings by their provided timeframe to obtain an annual
estimate (see Eq.4).
where
Cm=multiyear carbon emission estimate;

Yt=target year;

Y0=base year

Calculating theEU’s Remaining Carbon Budget
After scaling up the estimates from the studies, we compared them to the remaining EU-27
carbon budget, using 2019 as a baseline year. To calculate the latter, we deducted the 2019
global annual emissions [47] from the 2018 global carbon budget [48], to derive the budget
remaining after 2020. We then divided this remaining global carbon budget by the world
population for 2019 [49] and multiplied it by the EU-27 population for the same year [45].
We then assumed that this remaining EU-27 carbon budget would be spent linearly before
2050, with the same annual amount of CO2 emitted (i.e. the same annual amount of the
carbon budget spent). We, therefore, divided the budget by 31 years covering the period
between 2019 and 2050 (see Eq.5).
where
CBEU,t=EU�s remaining annualised carbon budget before target year;

CBG=global carbon budget remaining between base year and target year;

PG,0 =global population in base year;

PEU
,0
=EU population in base year

Results
Here, we present our analysis of the scaled-up emission estimates by their scope (studies
covering the entire construction sector, a neighbourhood, or construction elements such
as bricks or tarmac), by CE loop (slowing, closing or narrowing) and by CE strategy (e.g.
reuse, upcycling or material substitution). We then compare the emission estimates to the
EU-27 carbon budget remaining before 2050, to put them into perspective. All estimates
presented in this paper are our scaled-up numbers, rather than the original numbers from
the literature.
Mitigation Potential byScope
There are only three studies [29, 50, 51] in the sample estimating both savings and extra
emissions from CE measures in the construction sector within the same study. Emission
savings of, for example, using ceramic tiles instead of synthetic carpet around Europe
(4)
C
EU =
C
m
Y
t
−Y
0
(5)
CB
EU,t=
CB
G
P
G,0
×PEU,0 ÷(Yt−Y0
)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Circular Economy and Sustainability
1 3
would be around 4.52 to 41.85 Mt CO2 eq.per annum [29]. By contrast, more intensive
use, repair, maintenance and replacement of flooring surfaces would lead to extra emis-
sions of 3.77–18.11 Mt CO2 eq.per annum at the EU level (ibid.). Among the studies esti-
mating both extensive extra emissions and emission savings, De Wolf etal. [50] demon-
strate large uncertainty: from extra emissions of 320.04 Mt CO2 to emission savings of
960.12 Mt CO2 eq.per annum. The construction elements in this study include exterior and
interior walls, floors and intermediate floors, roofs, fire protection elements and windows.
Among the analysed studies, only three focused on modelling the entire construction
sector [32, 41, 44], while the rest focused on separate construction elements such as bricks
[43], train station roofs [42] or asphalt [52]. Note that ‘construction elements’ in this con-
text could be rather substantial, for example, reuse, recycling and energy recovery from
building materials in schools, offices and residential buildings [53]. Only one study focused
on the neighbourhood building stock [51] rather than on either the sector or construction
element, with an estimate of 0.01 Mt CO2 eq.annual emission savings from intensive use
of the stock. Our comparison shows that sector-wide emission savings (mean 39.28 Mt
CO2 eq.) were on average slightly higher than construction-element savings (mean 25.06
Mt CO2 eq.). In particular, sector-wide estimates ranged between 0.01 Mt CO2 eq./year
from refurbishment, which did not include savings from operation energy [44], and 124.76
Mt CO2 eq.from combined lightweighting, substitution and efficiency increase [41]. Con-
struction-element estimates had a wider range: between 320.04 Mt CO2 of extra emissions
and 960.12 Mt CO2 of emission savings when looking at the reuse case, with both esti-
mates scaled up from the same study [50].
Extra emissions (rather than emission savings) only appeared among the studies focused
on construction elements, and not among the sector-wide studies. Estimates in the sector-
wide studies could exceed the larger positive impacts of other CE strategies, resulting in
the overall emission savings. It is plausible that the more aggregated nature of economy-
wide models makes it difficult to distinguish between impacts of alternative sources of steel
such as high strength or recycled.
Mitigation Potential byCE Strategy
Extra emissions are present among studies focused on slowing (using products for longer
or more intensively) and closing resource loops (upcycling and closed-loop recycling), but
not among studies on narrowing loops (e.g. lightweighting and material substitution). Cas-
tro and Pasanen [30], Ros-Dosda etal. [29] and Sánchez and Hass [33] focusing on slow-
ing loops and Wiprachtiger etal. [54] focusing on closing loops estimate exclusively extra
emissions between 0.05 [33] and 63.31 Mt CO2eq.[30] per annum. Other studies explor-
ing slowing loops show that refurbishment and durability can result in small to moderate
emission savings, for example, up to 5.8 kt CO2 eq.in saved emissions from refurbishment
[44] and up to 1.2 Mt CO2 eq.in saved emissions from durability [55].
The studies where a combination of CE strategies was explored, such as both reuse and
recycling, present greater emission savings at the lower bound when compared to studies
exploring an isolated CE strategy. We find that among studies focused on slowing resource
loops, Eberhardt etal. [53] estimate savings of 360.67 Mt CO2 eq.At the upper bound, the
reuse case explored in isolation by De Wolf etal. [50] presents the greatest emission sav-
ings among all studies, at 960.12 Mt CO2 eq.In the studies focused on upcycling in isola-
tion, emission savings reach 0.11–4.33 Mt CO2eq.[43, 52, 56], whereas upcycling with
design for disassembly saves 12.39–19.48 Mt CO2eq.[57].
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Circular Economy and Sustainability
1 3
Among the slowing resource loops for the studies focused on construction ele-
ments (Fig.2), refurbishment is the leading contributor to extra emissions, at 69.57 Mt
CO2eq.[30], followed by durability, which ranged from 3.77 to 18.11 Mt CO2eq.[29].
However, Campbell [55] highlights durability as cutting emissions by 1.2 Mt CO2 eq.The
combined range of emission estimates for durability adds up to extra emissions, rather than
to emission savings.
As illustrated in Figs.3 and 4, there is much variability in the emission estimates for
the CE strategy of reuse, ranging from 320.04 Mt CO2eq.[50] in extra emissions to 35.02
Fig. 2 Potential extra emissions and emission savings (MtCO2 eq. per year) in the European Union from
slowing resource loops per circular economy strategy. Note: reuse is excluded from this figure and, instead,
explored in Figs.2 and 3
Fig. 3 Potential extra emissions and emission savings (MtCO2 eq. per year) in the European Union from
reuse across a range of studies. Note: reuse cases combined with other circular economy strategies are
excluded from this figure and, instead, explored in Fig.4
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Circular Economy and Sustainability
1 3
Mt CO2 eq.[58], 124.76 Mt CO2eq. [41] and 960.12 Mt CO2 eq.in emission savings.
This variability can be partly explained by the large number of studies exploring reuse,
compared to other CE strategies. Specifically, thirteen studies focus on reuse as a single
strategy (Fig.3) and four more focus on reuse in combination with other strategies (Fig.4)
such as optimisation and material substitution [46], recycling [59], design for disassembly
[60] and intensive use [61]. The dominance of studies on reuse (along with recycling) is
consistent with findings by other researchers [14].
Focusing on the reuse case further, when assessing emissions from reuse of construc-
tion elements (i.e. after excluding sector-wide studies), we observe significant variability
between the estimates, ranging from emission savings of 960.12 Mt CO2eq.[50] to extra
emissions of 0.21 Mt CO2 eq. [33] (Fig. 3). By contrast, when scaling up at the lower
bound for the reuse cases, we observe lower emission savings and higher extra emis-
sions, with 320.04 Mt CO2 eq.of extra emissions [50] and emission savings of 9.92 Mt
CO2eq.[31]. All other reuse options result in emission savings [e.g.62–65], with com-
bined reuse, recycling and recovery saving the largest amount of carbon dioxide at 360.67
Mt CO2 [53].
While reuse is largely discussed in our literature sample as a single strategy, four stud-
ies discuss it in conjunction with other CE strategies. We present scaled-up estimates from
these sources in Fig.4. We exclusively find emission savings across these combined strate-
gies, ranging from 4.01 Mt CO2 eq.at the lower bound when looking at reuse combined
with design for disassembly [60], and up to 360.67 Mt CO2 eq.from reuse combined with
recycling and energy recovery [53].
Among the studies on closing loops, emission savings mainly derive from recycling,
with 77.01 Mt CO2 eq. at the upper bound and 18.11 Mt CO2 eq. at the lower bound
[66–68], and closed-loop recycling with savings of 44.16 Mt CO2eq.[69]. Further emis-
sion savings come from upcycling and design for disassembly [43, 52, 56] and from upcy-
cling [57], as Fig.5 presents.
When examining the narrowing resource loops by CE strategy in the sector-wide stud-
ies (Fig. 6), it is evident that the lightweighting, substitution and efficiency are leading
Fig. 4 Potential extra emissions and emission savings (MtCO2 eq. per year) in the European Union from
reuse cases combined with other circular economy strategies
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Circular Economy and Sustainability
1 3
contributors to emission savings, amounting to 124.76 Mt CO2eq.[41]. Design optimisa-
tion to reduce and substitute material inputs also leads to emission savings, with 40.87
Mt CO2 eq.of savings at the upper bound of scaling up and 1.07 Mt CO2 eq.at the lower
bound [32]. Emission savings additionally come from improved construction products,
reaching 16.73 Mt CO2 eq. [66], while material substitution presents a range of 13.94 to
51.27 Mt CO2 eq.of emission savings [29, 44, 46, 54].
Fig. 5 Potential extra emissions and emission savings (MtCO2 eq. per year) in the European Union from
closing resource loops per circular economy strategy. Note: all of the closing-loop studies focus on con-
struction elements rather than on sector-wide estimates
Fig. 6 Potential extra emissions and emission savings (MtCO2 eq. per year) in the European Union from
narrowing resource loops per circular economy strategy
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Circular Economy and Sustainability
1 3
Comparison withtheEU‑27 Remaining Carbon Budget
Before proceeding to the comparison of our CO2 estimates with the EU-27 carbon budget,
it is worth noting several points. First, for this part of the analysis, we have added up the
estimates from all of the analysed studies, which raises several thorny methodological
issues discussed in the next section. Second, some of the CE strategies are one-off or take
place at long intervals, so cannot be repeated annually until 2050. Such CE strategies, e.g.
refurbishing the building skin and interiors every 10 or 20 years [30], are mainly evident
among the slowing loop studies in our sample (see Supplementary TablesS1–3 for more
information on the timescales of the CE strategies). Therefore, the summed-up values in
Fig.6 are more optimistic than the CO2 emission reductions from the construction sec-
tor that would in practice be available year on year. Third, note that in this section, as the
summed-up values are relatively high compared to those in the preceding sections, the val-
ues are rounded up to whole numbers for ease of reading.
When comparing the emission estimates to the EU-27 carbon budget remaining before
2050 (Fig. 7), the potential of CE in the construction sector to manage this budget is
remarkable. The remaining carbon budget of around 726 Mt CO2 eq.per year would be
more than twice compensated for by the upper bound 1671 Mt CO2 eq.from construction
element focused studies. However, as noted in the previous paragraph, this is an optimistic
assessment. The lower bound of 234 Mt CO2 eq.might give a more conservative estimate
of potential annual CO2 emission savings from the CE strategies applied to individual con-
struction elements such as bricks [43] or cantilever trusses [58]. The aggregated range for
the sector-wide studies is between 252 and 298 Mt CO2 eq.For this comparison, we have
not summed up the sector-wide estimates with those from the construction element focused
studies, as the latter would then likely be double-counted.
Fig. 7 Extra emissions and emission savings (MtCO2 eq.per year) from the circular economy strategies in
the European Union’s construction sector compared to the remaining EU-27 carbon budget per annum. The
carbon budget was divided by the number of years between 2019 and 2050
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Circular Economy and Sustainability
1 3
Discussion
The current literature on the circular economy has been criticised for its lack of empirical
work, its bespoke, case-specific nature of studies and limited focus on service-based strate-
gies such as sharing and leasing [19]. These limitations can be at least in part attributed to
the absence of a unifying framework [20] and a prevalent focus on China [70], restricting
analyses of the mitigation potential of EU-wide CE strategies. We start to address this in
our analysis of the construction and use-patterns of the building sector in the EU. Given
the significance of greenhouse gas emissions from the sector, our study provides a first and
vital attempt to estimate the total mitigation potential of CE strategies in the EU’s built
environment.
We have calculated the upper and lower bounds of possible emission savings from ana-
lysed CE strategies from a systematic review of the literature (including studies on the
UK). Spatial and temporal scaling techniques have been applied to construction elements
and countries to evaluate the CO2 mitigation potential at the EU level. A realistic emission
reduction potential is likely to lie somewhere within those boundaries.
Most studies focused on specific construction elements, as critically observed by Kirch-
herr and van Santen [19], with three looking across the construction sector more broadly.
Studies focusing on one element risk neglecting trade-offs between alternative strategies,
and provide less validation for practitioners working across the sector. Studies looking
across the sector estimated slightly greater mean emission savings of 14 Mt CO2 eq.; how-
ever, one study on reuse of multiple construction elements, including walls, floors, roofs
and windows (which we categorised as construction elements), reported the highest mitiga-
tion potential of 960 Mt CO2 eq., yet the range of savings across elements was large (+ 320
to −1200 Mt CO2 eq.). Without consistent data, it is difficult to understand how much
these differences relate to data and modelling, or different building and material contexts.
Fig. 8 Extra emissions and emission savings (MtCO2 eq.per year) from the circular economy loops in the
European Union’s construction sector. Note: some studies cover circular economy strategies from two loops
and, hence, are counted in this figure twice
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Circular Economy and Sustainability
1 3
Comparing the CE strategies by loop (Fig.8), we found some studies that considered
slowing and closing resource loops estimated exclusively extra emissions of up to 63 Mt
CO2 eq. It is important to acknowledge that not all circularity strategies are inherently
‘win-win’ [71]. Strategies sitting outside of this ‘win-win’ paradigm that address trade-
offs become at risk of being overlooked, and oversimplifying circularity solutions. Slow-
ing loops focused on refurbishment and durability of construction elements. Sector-wide
studies looking at the same CE strategies however estimated moderate emission savings in
the region of up to 1 Mt CO2 eq.There was a wide range of emission estimates for reuse
(+ 35 to −960 Mt CO2 eq.), also categorised here as slowing resource loops. This perhaps
reflected the large number of studies focused on this strategy (11 focused solely on reuse),
yet all but one study that focused on construction elements showed emission savings within
a smaller range of 0 to 35 Mt CO2 eq.When reuse was combined with additional strategies
including recycling and energy recovery, overall savings were on average higher, albeit
without the extremes (−4 to −361 Mt CO2 eq.).
While some CE strategies that closed resource loops led to negligible additional emis-
sions (less than 0.5 Mt CO2 eq.), these were outweighed by potential savings. The highest
mitigation potential was reported for recycling (−18 to −77 Mt CO2 eq.), then closed-loop
recycling (−44 Mt CO2 eq.) and upcycling combined with design for disassembly (−12
to −19 Mt CO2 eq.). Considering the narrowing of resource loops, only emission savings
were reported, with lightweighting, substitution and efficiency in combination contributing
the highest savings potential (−125 Mt CO2 eq.) in one sector-wide study. When taking
CE strategies in isolation, material substitution (−14 to −51 Mt CO2 eq.) and material effi-
ciency (−6 to −15 Mt CO2 eq.) showed the greatest savings. On balance, our analysis sug-
gests that, at the upper bound, a combination of CE strategies where possible (for example
upcycling and design for disassembly) would lead to higher emission savings per strategy
than if they were implemented individually.
We compared summed-up annual emission savings, at both upper and lower bounds,
with an available carbon budget for the EU-27 annualised from 2019 to 2050, finding a
significant potential for CE strategies in the construction sector to stay within the EU’s
remaining carbon budget. While the upper bound is optimistic as it inevitably includes
some double counting when adding estimated CO2 savings together, the lower bound esti-
mates from the sector-wide studies indicate CO2 savings equivalent to a third of the EU’s
remaining budget. While our search terms covered CE strategies in the building or con-
struction sector, not all construction elements and CE strategies will have been considered
in the analysed studies, indicating additional potential savings exist elsewhere.
Despite the EU’s CE Action Plan providing a prerequisite to achieve climate neutral-
ity by 2050 [11], some measures presented in the literature as circular resulted in extra
emissions, for example, the repair and maintenance of more intensively used floor surfaces.
While this relates to both how CE strategies are implemented and how emissions are meas-
ured (a methodological challenge identified in e.g. Korhonen etal. [72]), it leads to wider
debates about whether these circular strategies are environmentally sustainable. Although
arguably complete circularity is theoretically possible [72], context is important, such as
the energy used in the recycling process. While these strategies were incorporated in our
study because ‘circular’ was one of the key search terms, it highlights the need to consider
carefully how the sustainability of CE strategies is measured, to avoid and address unin-
tended consequences.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Circular Economy and Sustainability
1 3
Limitations andFuture Research
Limitations of this work arise from the need to provide a harmonised dataset from a diverse
and inconsistent evidence base. The scaling up of construction elements using an estimate
of their quantity in the EU-27 and emission estimates in proportion to the country’s share
in the EU-27 population required several assumptions and additional data and statistics
outside the sample of studies. However, countries can use very different building materials
and in different amounts depending on design and standards. For example, not all countries
will use predominantly bricks, or the same construction elements. In addition, population
shares will not be fully representative of building demands due to different house sizes and
occupancy rates. These factors could over- or underestimate the emissions associated with
different construction elements, depending on how the case country compares to the Euro-
pean average.
There is a large variation in methods, functional units, location and timeframe, sys-
tem boundary, assumptions about uptake rate and other potential sources of heterogene-
ity, which will affect the scaling up of mitigation potentials. Input-output-based studies,
for example, do not generally consider end-of-life impacts and the associated emissions,
but have a wider system boundary compared to life cycle assessments, which include only
the main processes albeit at a more detailed product level. Studies have shown that LCA
analyses often underestimate emission savings [73]. Broader socio-economic assumptions
within the analysed studies are also determining factors in estimating emission savings.
For example, Barrett and Scott [44] assume certain levels of economic growth, consump-
tion and decarbonisation of power in their emissions baseline, which will differ compared
to other studies. The scaling-up process assumes similar emission savings will be realised
in other EU countries (in proportion to the share of population), yet rates of economic
development, population growth and decarbonisation will differ. Going forward, more
advanced comparisons of CE-focused studies could consider replacement rates across the
nations, including the lifetimes of buildings and construction elements, as well as differ-
ences between new builds and existing building stock.
While we have added CO2 emission estimates from construction elements separately
to sector-wide estimates when evaluating the total contribution of CE strategies to staying
within the EU-27’s remaining carbon budget, the addition of the estimates is likely to lead
to double counting. For example, we have summed the results of all reuse studies, some
of which will consider reuse of the same construction element (not always specified in an
underlying analysed study). Additionally, presenting these savings as annual does not rec-
ognise that some CO2 emission estimates, for example from refurbishment, will not result
in extra emissions or emission savings annually but e.g. once a decade.
Although a comparison of studies needs to be performed with caution and we have
undoubtedly missed papers as a result of our search terms, such cross-study comparisons
are common, for example as part of regular overviews of state-of-the-art research by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other reviews [39]. This study provides
a starting point to evaluate the contribution of CE strategies towards carbon neutral targets
at scale, while future research in this area needs to focus on more sophisticated modelling
and comparison. Future research could look at the standardisation of methods for assessing
CE strategies. For example, there is merit in conducting large ensemble studies similar to
those in the areas of climate change and integrated assessment modelling, alongside criti-
cal studies on participation in a CE, for example, new business models and consumption
norms [74].
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Circular Economy and Sustainability
1 3
We have also not discussed the social and economic dimensions of CE and the rede-
sign of existing consumption cultures and linear business models. There are a variety of
critiques and limitations of the CE concept, its implementation and outcomes [20, 71,
72]. These demonstrate the enormity of the shift and extra research needed in how the
economy operates and society behaves; in the need to thoroughly and carefully assess the
sustainability outcomes; and in how to govern the transition in a very interlinked yet une-
ven global economy.
Conclusion
Decarbonising the construction sector is challenging given the rising demand for build-
ings and infrastructure, their long lifespan and their reliance on carbon-intensive steel and
cement. Given the need for urgent and ambitious emission reductions to achieve the Paris
Agreement climate goals of 1.5–2°C, circular economy strategies provide an additional
policy lever for improving the energy efficiency of buildings and decarbonising heating and
cooling. While many studies have started quantifying the mitigation potential of slowing,
closing and narrowing resource loops in the built environment in specific local and national
contexts, the combined potential to meet the EU’s climate goals remains underexplored.
Our study is the first to estimate the trade-offs between circular economy strategies and
climate change mitigation at the EU level. We applied a scaling-up process to a systematic
review of the mitigation potential of circular economy strategies in construction across the
EU (including the UK) to compare alternative strategies to each other and to the EU’s car-
bon budgets. While we found a significant potential for the circular economy to contribute
to a low-carbon economy, we also found the need to prioritise methods that enable similar
analyses at scale, an appraisal of what counts as circular (since many strategies add CO2
emissions instead of reducing them), alongside a critical assessment of the circular econo-
my’s wider environmental and related socio-economic impacts.
To ensure well-informed policies, our analysis highlights the need for better quality
data to measure circularity contributions towards decarbonisation. Otherwise, the lack of
monitoring and evaluation of construction sector choices towards achieving carbon budgets
would limit policymakers in this area. Improved data on material and carbon intensities and
on material flows would support a broader assessment of the impact of circular economy
measures in the European Union built environment on a net-zero target. Accordingly, we
recommend that European Union policy in the construction sector should include assessing
the potential trade-offs, synergies and unintended consequences of implementing circular
economy. In addition, policy incentives are needed for combining circular economy strate-
gies (e.g. upcycling and design for disassembly), as this unification would likely lead to
higher CO2 emission savings per strategy than if they were implemented individually. Such
trade-off assessments and incentives would lead to more systemic thinking across policy
domains.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1007/ s43615- 023- 00257-2.
Author Contribution Conceptualisation: Maria Sharmina; methodology: Maria Sharmina, Dimitrios Pap-
pas, Kate Scott, Alejandro Gallego-Schmid; formal analysis and investigation: Maria Sharmina, Dimitrios
Pappas; writing—original draft preparation: Maria Sharmina, Dimitrios Pappas, Kate Scott, Alejandro
Gallego-Schmid; writing—review and editing: Maria Sharmina, Dimitrios Pappas, Kate Scott, Alejandro
Gallego-Schmid; funding acquisition: Maria Sharmina.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Circular Economy and Sustainability
1 3
Funding This work has been funded by the Sustainable Consumption Institute (grant reference: 118206) at
the University of Manchester.
Data Availability Available on request.
Declarations
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate Not applicable
Consent for Publication Not applicable
Competing Interests Alejandro Gallego-Schmid is an Editorial Board member of the Circular Economy and
Sustainability Journal.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
References
1. United Nations. The Paris Agreement (2015) [cited 2021 21st Oct]; Available from: https:// unfccc. int/
proce ss- and- meeti ngs/ the- paris- agree ment/ the- paris- agree ment
2. IPCC (2021) Summary for policymakers. In: Masson-Delmotte etal (eds) Climate Change 2021: the
physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change V. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
3. European Commission (2019) A European Green Deal. European Commission, Brussels
4. European Commission (2020) Stepping up Europe’s 2030 climate ambition. Investing in a climate-
neutral future for the benefit of our people. European Commission, Brussels
5. Giesekam J, Tingley DD, Cotton I (2018) Aligning carbon targets for construction with (inter)national
climate change mitigation commitments. Energy Build 165:106–117
6. UNEP (2020) 2020 global Status Report for buildings and construction: towards a Zero-emission,
efficient and resilient buildings and Construction Sector. United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP): Nairobi, Kenya
7. European Commission. Energy performance of buildings (2019) [cited 2021 20th Oct]; Available
from: https:// ec. europa. eu/ energy/ en/ topics/ energy- effic iency/ energy- perfo rmanc eof- build ings
8. European Parliament and, Council (2012) Directive 2012/27/EU of the European parliament and of the
Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU
and repealing directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC. European Parliament and Council: Strasbourg,
France
9. Ng ST, Wong JMW, Skitmore M (2013) Challenges facing carbon dioxide labelling of construction
materials. Proc Inst Civ Eng - Eng Sustain 166(1):20–31
10. Ingrao C etal (2019) Sustainability issues of by-product and waste management systems, to produce
building material commodities: a comprehensive review of findings from a virtual special issue, vol
146. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, pp 358–365
11. European Commission, Circular economy action plan. For a cleaner and more competitive Europe
2020, European Commission, Brussels
12. Hertwich EG etal (2020) Resource Efficiency and Climate Change: material efficiency strategies for
a Low-Carbon Future. A report of the International Resource Panel. United Nations Environment Pro-
gramme Nairobi, Kenya
13. Nations U (2019) World urbanization prospects: the 2018 Revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/420). United
Nations, New York
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Circular Economy and Sustainability
1 3
14. Caldas LR etal (2022) How different tools contribute to climate change mitigation in a circular build-
ing environment? - a systematic literature review. Sustainability 14(7):3759
15. Parece S etal (2022) A methodology to qualitatively select upcycled building materials from Urban
and Industrial Waste. Sustainability 14(6):3430
16. Geissdoerfer M etal (2017) The Circular economy – a new sustainability paradigm? J Clean Prod
143:757–768
17. Bocken NMP et al (2016) Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. J
Industrial Prod Eng 33(5):308–320
18. Mendoza JMF, Gallego-Schmid A, Azapagic A (2019) Building a business case for implementation of
a circular economy in higher education institutions. J Clean Prod 220:553–567
19. Kirchherr J, van Santen R (2019) Research on the circular economy: a critique of the field Resources.
Conserv Recycl 151:104480
20. Korhonen J, Honkasalo A, Seppälä J (2018) Circular economy: the concept and its limitations. Ecol
Econ 143:37–46
21. Economics M (2019) Industrial Transformation 2050 - pathways to net-zero emissions from EU Heavy
Industry. University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL), Cambridge
22. WRAP, Case study: Waste minimisation through offsite construction 2004. Waste & Resources Action
Programme (WRAP), Banbury
23. Waste L, Board R (2015) Towards a circular economy – context and opportunities. London Waste and
Recycling Board, London
24. Circle, Economy (2016) Circular Amsterdam: a vision and action agenda for the city and metro-
politan area. Circle Economy, Amsterdam
25. Gallego-Schmid A etal (2020) Links between circular economy and climate change mitigation in
the built environment. J Clean Prod 260:121115
26. Hailemariam A, Erdiaw‐Kwasie MO (2022) Towards a circular economy: Implications for emis-
sion reduction and environmental sustainability. Bus Strat Env bse.3229. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/
bse. 3229
27. Mongo M et al (2022) Assessment of the impact of the circular economy on CO2 emissions in
Europe. J Innov Econ Manag 39(3):15–43
28. Ma W etal (2023) Evaluating carbon emissions of China’s waste management strategies for build-
ing refurbishment projects: contributing to a circular economy. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30:8657–
8671. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11356- 021- 18188-6
29. Ros-Dosdá T etal (2019) Environmental comparison of indoor floor coverings. Sci Total Environ
693:133519
30. Castro R, Pasanen P (2019) How to design buildings with Life Cycle Assessment by accounting for
the material flows in refurbishment.IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci225:012019. https:// doi. org/
10. 1088/ 1755- 1315/ 225/1/ 012019
31. de Bortoli A, Bouhaya L, Feraille A (2020) A life cycle model for high-speed rail infrastructure:
environmental inventories and assessment of the Tours-Bordeaux railway in France. Int J Life
Cycle Assess 25(4):814–830
32. Scott K etal (2019) Bridging the climate mitigation gap with economy-wide material productivity.
J Ind Ecol 23(4):918–931
33. Sanchez B, Haas C (2018) A novel selective disassembly sequence planning method for adaptive
reuse of buildings. J Clean Prod 183:998–1010
34. Wu P-Y etal (2021) A data-driven approach to assess the risk of encountering hazardous materials
in the building stock based on environmental inventories. Sustainability 13(14):7836
35. Mukoro V, Gallego-Schmid A, Sharmina M (2021) Life cycle assessment of renewable energy in
Africa. Sustain Prod Consum 28:1314–1332
36. Corona B etal (2019) Towards sustainable development through the circular economy—a review
and critical assessment on current circularity metrics. Resour Conserv Recycl 151:104498
37. Mendoza JMF etal (2017) Integrating backcasting and eco-design for the circular economy: the
BECE framework. J Ind Ecol 21(3):526–544
38. Bleischwitz R etal (2022) The circular economy in China: achievements, challenges and potential
implications for decarbonisation. Resour Conserv Recycl 183:106350
39. Ivanova D et al (2020) Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption
options. Environ Res Lett 15(9):093001
40. Allwood JM etal (2011) Material efficiency: a white paper. Resour Conserv Recycl 55(3):362–381
41. Cooper SJG et al (2017) Thermodynamic insights and assessment of the ‘circular economy’. J
Clean Prod 162:1356–1367
42. Brütting J etal (2019) Design of truss structures through reuse. Structures 18:128–137
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Circular Economy and Sustainability
1 3
43. Migliore M etal (2018) Innovative use of scrap and waste deriving from the stone and the construc-
tion sector for the manufacturing of bricks. Review of the international scenario and analysis of an
Italian case study. Environ Eng Manag J 17:2507–2514. https:// doi. org/ 10. 30638/ eemj. 2018. 249
44. Barrett J, Scott K (2012) Link between climate change mitigation and resource efficiency: a UK
case study. Glob Environ Change 22(1):299–307
45. Eurostat (2020) Population & demography. Online, Eurostat, Editor
46. Eberhardt LCM, Birgisdóttir H, Birkved M (2019) Comparing life cycle assessment modelling of
linear vs. circular building components. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 225:012039
47. IEA. Global CO2 emissions in 2019 (2020) [cited 2021 28th Sept]; Available from: https:// www.
iea. org/ artic les/ global- co2- emiss ions- in- 2019
48. IPCC (2018) Global warming of 1.5C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming
of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the
context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable develop-
ment, and efforts to eradicate poverty. V. Masson-Delmotte, etal., Editors
49. United, Nations (2020) The 2019 revision of World Population prospects D.o.E.a.S.A. United
Nations, Population Division Editor. Online
50. De Wolf C, Hoxha E, Fivet C (2020) Comparison of environmental assessment methods when reus-
ing building components: a case study. Sustainable Cities and Society 61:102322
51. Lausselet C etal (2021) Temporal analysis of the material flows and embodied greenhouse gas
emissions of a neighborhood building stock. J Ind Ecol 25(2):419–434
52. Antunes V, Freire AC, Neves J (2019) A review on the effect of RAP recycling on bituminous mix-
tures properties and the viability of multi-recycling. Constr Build Mater 211:453–469
53. Eberhardt LCM et al (2021) Circular economy potential within the building stock - mapping the
embodied greenhouse gas emissions of four danish examples. J Building Eng 33:101845
54. Wiprächtiger M etal (2020) A framework for sustainable and circular system design: development and
application on thermal insulation materials. Resour Conserv Recycl 154:104631
55. Campbell A (2019) Mass timber in the circular economy: paradigm in practice? Proc Inst Civ Eng -
Eng Sustain 172(3):141–152
56. Nasir MHA etal (2017) Comparing linear and circular supply chains: a case study from the construc-
tion industry. Int J Prod Econ 183:443–457
57. Rasmussen FN, Birkved M, Birgisdóttir H (2019) Upcycling and design for disassembly – LCA of
buildings employing circular design strategies. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 225:012040
58. Brütting J, De Wolf C, Fivet C (2019) The reuse of load-bearing components. IOP Conf Ser: Earth
Environ Sci 225:012025
59. Eberhardt LCM, Birgisdóttir H, Birkved M (2019) Life cycle assessment of a Danish office building
designed for disassembly. Build Res Inf 47(5):666–680
60. Cottafava D, Ritzen M (2021) Circularity indicator for residential buildings: addressing the gap
between embodied impacts and design aspects. Resour Conserv Recycl164:105120
61. Hertwich EG etal (2019) Material efficiency strategies to reducing greenhouse gas emissions associ-
ated with buildings, vehicles, and electronics—a review. Environ Res Lett 14(4):043004
62. Brambilla G et al (2019) Environmental benefits arising from demountable steel-concrete composite
floor systems in buildings. Resour Conserv Recycl 141:133–142
63. Cooper DR, Allwood JM (2012) Reusing steel and aluminum components at end of product life. Envi-
ron Sci Technol 46(18):10334–10340
64. Hopkinson P etal (2019) Recovery and reuse of structural products from end-of-life buildings. Proc
Inst Civ Eng - Eng Sustain 172(3):119–128
65. Nußholz JLK, Nygaard Rasmussen F, Milios L (2019) Circular building materials: carbon sav-
ing potential and the role of business model innovation and public policy. Resour Conserv Recycl
141:308–316
66. Lonca G, Bernard S, Margni M (2019) A versatile approach to assess circularity: the case of decou-
pling. J Clean Prod 240:118174
67. Moreno-Juez J etal (2020) Treatment of end-of-life concrete in an innovative heating-air classification
system for circular cement-based products. J Clean Prod 263:121515
68. Vandewalle D etal (2020) Assessment of Eco-Friendly Pavement construction and maintenance using
multi-recycled RAP mixtures. Recycling 5(3):17
69. Giama E, Papadopoulos AM (2020) Benchmarking carbon footprint and circularity in production pro-
cesses: the case of stonewool and extruded polysterene. J Clean Prod 257:120559
70. Çimen Ö (2021) Construction and built environment in circular economy: a comprehensive literature
review. J Clean Prod 305:127180
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Circular Economy and Sustainability
1 3
71. Corvellec H, Stowell AF, Johansson N (2022) Critiques of the circular economy. J Ind Ecol
26(2):421–432
72. Korhonen J et al (2018) Circular economy as an essentially contested concept. J Clean Prod
175:544–552
73. Huysman S etal (2016) Quantifying the environmental impacts of a european citizen through a macro-
economic approach, a focus on climate change and resource consumption. J Clean Prod 124:217–225
74. Hobson K etal (2021) Consumption work in the circular economy: a research agenda. J Clean Prod
321:128969
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com