Circular economy in construction and demolition waste management: an in-depth review and future perspectives in the construction sector

Vikas Swarnakar (Department of Management Science and Engineering, Khalifa University of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates)
Malik Khalfan (Department of Management Science and Engineering, Khalifa University of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates)

Smart and Sustainable Built Environment

ISSN: 2046-6099

Article publication date: 28 June 2024

1515

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to present state-of-the-art research on circular economy (CE) implementation in construction and demolition waste management (CDWM) within the construction sector.

Design/methodology/approach

A mixed-method (scientometric and critical analysis) review strategy was adopted, involving scientometric and critical analysis to uncover the evolutionary progress within the research area, investigate key research themes in the field, and explore ten issues of CE in CDWM. Moreover, avenues for future research are provided for researchers, practitioners, decision-makers, and planners to bring innovative and new knowledge to this field.

Findings

A total of 212 articles were analyzed, and scientometric analysis was performed. The critical analysis findings reveal extensive use of surveys, interviews, case studies, or mixed-method approaches as study methodologies. Furthermore, there is limited focus on the application of modern technologies, modeling approaches, decision support systems, and monitoring and traceability tools of CE in the CDWM field. Additionally, no structured framework to implement CE in CDWM areas has been found, as existing frameworks are based on traditional linear models. Moreover, none of the studies discuss readiness factors, knowledge management systems, performance measurement systems, and life cycle assessment indicators.

Practical implications

The outcomes of this study can be utilized by construction and demolition sector managers, researchers, practitioners, decision-makers, and policymakers to comprehend the state-of-the-art, explore current research topics, and gain detailed insights into future research areas. Additionally, the study offers suggestions on addressing these areas effectively.

Originality/value

This study employs a universal approach to provide the current research progress and holistic knowledge about various important issues of CE in CDWM, offering opportunities for future research directions in the area.

Keywords

Citation

Swarnakar, V. and Khalfan, M. (2024), "Circular economy in construction and demolition waste management: an in-depth review and future perspectives in the construction sector", Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-02-2024-0056

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2024, Vikas Swarnakar and Malik Khalfan

License

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode


1. Introduction

The construction and demolition industry (CDI) is a crucial sector that significantly contributes to the socio-economy growth (Mhlanga et al., 2022). Globally, it accounts for approximately 7% of job opportunities and contributes around 25% to the gross domestic product (GDP) (Norouzi et al., 2021). In the Middle East alone, the CDI employs over 13 million people and plays a key role in rapid urbanization, generating approximately $600bn annually with an average annual growth rate of 3–4%. However, the sustainability of this industry is challenged by the extensive generation of waste and carbon dioxide emissions compared to other sectors (Mahpour, 2018). Its unsustainable nature is rooted in its traditional linear approach of “Take, Make, and Dispose” (Mahpour, 2018). This approach leads to the disposal of raw materials used in construction without considering their end-of-life implications (Esa et al., 2017; Huang et al., 2018). Consequently, concerns have arisen among construction professionals, decision-makers, planners, scholars, and governments regarding the depletion of natural resources and environmental consequences (Ruiz et al., 2020). In response, the CE has emerged as a model promoting reduce, reuse, refurbish, repair, and recycle approaches, thereby extending the life span of resources and mitigating environmental concerns (Mahpour, 2018).

While the adoption of CE principles has been widespread in various sectors, including utilities, basic materials, telecommunications, oil and gas, consumer service, and finance (García-Sánchez et al., 2021), its application in construction and demolition sector is relatively nascent (Oluleye et al., 2022). As a result, several definitions of CE have emerged in the literature. For example, Bressanelli et al. (2021) describe it as an approach that reconfigures current methods of production or resource usage to enhance efficiency and attain a sustainable environment. Bilal et al. (2020) view CE as an effective approach to solve linear economy problems. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015) defines it as an effective method to promote cleaner production and sustainable consumption through treating, reusing, and recycling wastes. Previous studies have not clearly elaborated on the definitions of construction and demolition waste management. Therefore, this study spotlighting its definition as “Construction and demolition waste management (CDWM) refers to the process of effectively handling, disposing of, and recycling the waste materials generated from renovation, construction, and demolition activities. CDWM includes implementing strategies to minimize waste generation, segregating and sorting materials for reuse or recycling, and ensuring proper disposal of non-recyclable waste in a manner that minimizes environmental impact”.

Moreover, recent years have witnessed a growing recognition of the benefits of CE in CDI, such as enhanced resource efficiency, cost savings, customer engagement, resilience, security, and sustainability (Huang et al., 2018). Despite, these advancements, the adoption of CE practices in CDI remains at an early stage (Cristiano et al., 2021). Effective implementation of CE in CDI holds the potential to optimize resource recovery, minimize construction and demolition waste (CDW), ensure regulatory compliance, assess environmental impact, support decision-making, foster stakeholder collaboration, and drive continuous improvement in CDW management (Illankoon and Vithanage, 2023; Mhlanga et al., 2022). Therefore, there is a pressing need to embrace CE principles in CDI to manage construction and demolition wastes (CDWs) effectively and conserve resources for the long term. However, the increasing demand for CE adoption in CDW management has attracted researchers’ attention, resulting in numerous existing publications.

While previous reviews on CE in construction and demolition areas offer valuable insights (see Table 1), there are still some knowledge gaps that need addressing. For example, the existing reviews is focused on either digital technologies, 3R strategies, general overview of CDWM, tools and techniques of CDWM, contribution on SDGs, CE frameworks, and general science mapping. There is no comprehenshive state-of-the-art analysis of CE in CDWM using a mixed-method approach providing holistic knowledge and highlighting strong future research directions. Hence, there is an urgent need to fill these gaps by delving into a deeper understanding of the current research progress and gaining holistic knowledge about various important issues of CE in CDWM. Moreover, previous reviews have not provided comprehensive knowledge or strong research directions for future studies. To address these limitations and bridge previous research gaps, this study offers a state-of-the-art analysis of CE in CDWM using a mixed-method (scientometric and critical analysis) review strategy. The scientometric study is conducted from four perspectives: publication trends, mapping journal publications, mapping countries, and mapping keyword occurrences. On the other hand, a critical review is conducted based on ten themes including research characteristics, CDW monitoring, traceability and management tools, benefits and challenges of CE in CDWM, modeling approaches, modern technologies, decision support systems, enablers, barriers, performance measures, and existing models/frameworks.

Achieving the above objectives will assist researchers and academics in understanding the state-of-the-art and identifying hot research topics in CE implementation in the CDWM field. Furthermore, this study provides detailed guidelines and knowledge about future research areas, along with suggestions on how to address them. The findings will be invaluable to CE practitioners, managers, decision-makers, policymakers, construction and demolition planners, and other stakeholders, serving as a knowledge base to effectively manage CDWs. Additionally, the outcome may enable them to fund research efforts in identified salient fields.

The structure of this article is as follows: the methodology employed in this study is discussed in Section 2. Section 3 provides the results and discussion. Recommendations for researchers, practitioners, decision-makers, and policymakers are provided in Section 4. Section 5 discusses the future research areas by detailing key issues identified in the present study. Conclusion, followed by limitations, is provided in Section 6.

2. Methodology

The methodology employed in this study adopts an interpretive philosophical approach, drawing from previous publications (Ghosh et al., 2021; Oluleye et al., 2022). This approach elucidates the nuance and variabilities present in published literature, aiding researchers in conceptualizing novel research ideas. A mixed-method review process, comprising scientometric and critical analysis, was utilized. This method is also known as “explanatory design” approach. The integrated review approach fulfills the shortcomings of each other, as one can analyze the articles quantitatively while the other evaluates qualitatively. For example, the scientometric review approach helps investigate research developments and trends, describing the existing articles, their nature, sources, and information in quantitative form (Oluleye et al., 2022). Whereas the critical review approach examines and evaluates article contents through in-depth analysis. Furthermore, it helps explore the evolution and advancement of research by identifying gaps qualitatively (Ghosh et al., 2021). Moreover, the findings from the integrated approach have more strength than a single approach to illustrate the research gaps. Figure 1 outlines the research methodology process, the details of scientometric and critical analysis approach is separately discussed in subsections below.

2.1 Scientometric analysis

Scientometric analysis is employed to investigate research development and trends in quantitative form, offering comprehensive insights into authorship, country of origin, journal distribution, publishers, research fields, and citations (Oluleye et al., 2022). It can also analyze various aspects of scientific publications, including collaboration networks, journal impact, and research topics, to gain insights into the development, structure, and dynamics of scientific knowledge, facilitating evidence-based decision-making (Oluleye et al., 2022). The analysis has utilized across various sectors, including construction and demolition, this analysis provides valuable insights into topics such as CE in construction (Illankoon and Vithanage, 2023), sustainability (Soyinka et al., 2023), waste management (Sharma et al., 2022), and barriers modeling (Oluleye et al., 2022). The present study utilized VOSviewer software, Mendeley, and Excel spreadsheet to conduct the scientometric analysis. Further details regarding the findings are elaborated on in subsequent subsections.

2.1.1 Preliminary research

Initial research was conducted using popular open-source tools such as Google scholar to evaluate the availability, suitability, and usability of published articles for review purposes. The preliminary investigation revealed a scarcity of systematic reviews on the subject matter. None provided comprehensive insights into the CE in CDWM, particularly regarding CDW monitoring, traceability and management tools, enablers, barriers, modern technologies, decision support systems, benefits, challenges, modeling approaches, performance measures, and existing frameworks. The identified gaps informed the development of robust research questions.

2.1.2 Database selection, search strategy, and data synthesis

The selection of an appropriate database is the most critical part of conducting a literature review, as improper selection may result in missing relevant articles (Jahan et al., 2022). Various databases are available, but the most popular once in the field of engineering and management are Scopus, Web of Science, and EBSCO (Illankoon and Vithanage, 2023; Soto-Paz et al., 2023). Choosing these databases also minimizes the chances of overlooking any relevant article. Therefore, this study opted for these databases for article search and data extraction. A basic search was conducted in the selected databases using the search string “AND”, “OR”, and “AND/OR”, in titles, abstracts, and keywords. Subsequently, articles were synthesized to remove duplicity. Several rounds of refinement were employed to improve the article search outcome, utilizing keywords such as “Circularity”, “Circular economy”, “Circular business”, “Building project”, “Housing project”, “Construction and demolition”, and “Waste”. The initial search yielded 818 articles from Scopus, 634 from Web of Science, and 712 articles from EBSCO. The search was performed independently by two authors to reduce the chances of missing articles, and the outcomes were then validated to minimize bias in the findings.

2.1.3 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the present study were aligned with Oluleye et al. (2023). The inclusion criteria encompassed articles focusing on the circular economy specifically within the construction sector, articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and no restrictions on publication year. Conversely, the exclusion criteria comprised articles focusing solely on the circular economy without considering construction and demolition waste management issues, articles published in sources other than peer-reviewed journals, articles in languages other than English, and the exclusion of book chapters, conference papers, and editorial notes. Additionally, duplicate articles were removed during the synthesis of articles from three selected databases. This process resulted in 212 articles exported to VosViewer software for bibliometric mapping.

2.1.4 Bibliometric mapping of articles

Bibliometric mapping is used for the in-depth mapping of existing articles and is typically performed using various software available in the marketplace such as VosViewer, CiteSpace, BibExcel, etc. VosViewer is the most popular and widely used software for text mining in the construction sector (Soto-Paz et al., 2023). This software is extensively utilized for creating and visualizing massive networks. VOSviewer was adopted in this study for loading the dataset, data mining, keywords analysis, co-citation analysis, and analysis of countries and co-occurrences.

2.2 Critical analysis

A critical analysis of selected articles was performed using a theory-driven approach. Critical analysis entails conducting a comprehensive examination and evaluation of existing works, subjects, information, or ideas to understand their strengths, weaknesses, and implications (Jahan et al., 2022). The goal is to explore research developments and qualitatively identify gaps. This process provides deep insights into various aspects such as facts, observations, evidence, strategies, tools, techniques, challenges, and arguments, enabling a judgment to be formed through skeptical, rational, and unbiased evaluation. The critical analysis goes beyond general description or simple summarization of the contents. It requires the ability to engage in analytical thinking, critically assess, analyze, and articulate insights. Over the years, critical analysis has been widely utilized to explore the evolution and advancement of research across different sectors, including construction. The detailed information presented in Figure 1 is briefly discussed in the following subsections.

2.2.1 Manual screening

The 212 shortlisted articles underwent manual screening to select relevant studies aligned with the current research themes. Each article was individually reviewed in full text by two authors to ensure relevance and minimize outcome biases. This manual screening process resulted in 47 articles being retained for further data extraction.

2.2.2 Data extraction

The study employed a theory-driven approach to extract data from the shortlisted articles. Data extraction was conducted on the selected 47 articles to analyze applied methodologies, CDW monitoring, traceability and management tools, enablers, barriers, modern technologies, decision support systems, benefits, challenges, modeling approaches, performance measures, and existing frameworks. Content analysis of these articles discussing the mentioned aspects was performed and is presented in Appendix.

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Bibliometric mapping outcomes

The outcomes of bibliometric mapping for the present study were performed from the following perspectives: (1) publication trends, (2) mapping journal publications, (3) mapping countries, and (4) mapping keywords occurrence.

3.1.1 Publication trends

The yearly publication trend of the shortlisted 212 articles related to CE in the CDWM field is presented in Figure 2. In this pool, the earliest study was conducted by Esa et al. (2017). The outcomes show that the real implication of CE in CDWM started in 2017 and has been explored since then. However, the application of CE in CDWM is still in its primary stage or new for many nations across the globe, which is slowly gaining interest, as evidenced by the continually increasing publications. The findings also imply a significant interest in CE research in CDWM in the last six years. Our findings align with previous publications, which state CE as one of the hottest approaches extensively applied in the construction sector (Véliz et al., 2022; Luciano et al., 2021). The start of the New Year (2024) with two publications in the first week itself shows increased interest levels and commitment towards annual publication trends. The shift from a linear approach to CE in the construction sector represents the social and governmental thinking toward the conservation of natural resources for the long term. It is also observed that CE is becoming imperative in the construction sector worldwide in managing CDW. The continuous increase in publications also signifies a global shift in the construction sector from a linear approach to a sustainable one, aimed at preventing natural resource depletion and promoting conservation.

3.1.2 Mapping journal publications

Figure 3 represents that the 212 articles are published in 79 different journals. The outcomes imply that 41% of articles are published in 6 journals, which include sustainability (Switzerland) (11%), Journal of Cleaner Production (10%), Resource, Conservation and Recycling (6%), Materials (5%), Waste Management and Research (5%), and Waste Management (4%). The larger publication rate in sustainability background journals also implies a greater linkage of CE in CDWM to a sustainable direction. Moreover, the adoption of CE to manage CDWM is growing interest globally and has a strong association with sustainable research backgrounds.

3.1.3 Mapping countries

The network collaboration of authors’ countries helps in understanding the most productive countries in a specific research area. A clear understanding of the most productive countries is important in promoting research collaborations and funding (Ruiz et al., 2020). This study used the following search criteria for mapping countries in VOSviewer software: type of analysis: co-authorship, unit of analysis: countries, maximum number of countries per document: 25. While the threshold was set as the minimum number of documents of a country: 3 and the minimum number of citations of a country: 5. Based on these criteria, of the 60 countries developing articles on CE in CDWM, only 26 meet the threshold presented in Table 2. However, the results imply that a total of 13% (26 out of 195) countries across the world are conducting research on CE in CDWM areas. Based on the findings, 13% is a relatively low percentage that conforms to our previous findings related to the early stages of the CE concept in CDWM. The contribution of each country in terms of publications is presented by the size of the node in Figure 4.

Figure 4 shows that Spain and China have the largest node size than other contributors, indicating that these are the highest productive countries with 24 articles each. Italy, Australia, and the United Kingdom contributed with 23, 22, and 19 articles respectively. The most contributed countries in CE research in the domain of CDWM are Spain, China, Italy, Australia, and the United Kingdom. These countries might have implemented the CE concept in CDWM earlier than the other countries. Furthermore, the outcomes enlighten that developed countries are making more promising efforts than developing countries in promoting CE in CDWM fields. However, these efforts are still insufficient, as other countries such as Hong Kong, Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, the United States, Austria, France, etc., are developed countries that have adopted CE in the effective management of CDW but have not conducted thorough research. This could be due to ineffective policy, lack of government support, or lack of experience in promoting CE for CDW management in the construction sector.

Moreover, Figure 4 represents six different clusters of countries based on how often they cite each other. For example, Australia, Greece, Iran, Malaysia, and Turkey belong to one cluster represented by the green color. The remaining countries are denoted in red, blue, yellow, pink, and purple color. Similarly, the network between countries and line thickness represents grater affinity; thus a strong link is represented by thicker lines.

3.1.4 Mapping keywords Co-occurrence

The key research areas of CE in CDWM were determined through mapping keyword co-occurrence. Utilizing the authors’ keywords, six clusters were identified (Figure 5). The keyword network aids in representing knowledge about key research areas and understanding how they are mutually interconnected and organized (Wuni et al., 2019). For keyword mapping, a minimum benchmark of three occurrences was set to ensure comprehensive cluster outcomes. During the process, some similar and redundant keywords were observed and combined using the thesaurus file. For instance, “Circular Economy (CE)”, “CE”, and “circular economy approach” were replaced by “circular economy”. A few redundant keywords such as “China”, and “bibliometric analysis” were removed to enhance outcome quality. After filtering results, 30 keywords remained, grouped into six different clusters. Figure 5 illustrates each cluster using different colors. The node size represents keyword co-occurrence, while line thickness indicates affinity. For example, the keyword “circular economy” exhibits the highest co-occurrence, and the thicker line between “circular economy” and “construction and demolition waste” represents a greater association between these two keywords. Each cluster, combined with key research areas, is discussed in detail below.

Cluster 1. This cluster includes keywords such as “BIM”, “buildings”, “circular economy”, “construction”, “material recovery”, “resource efficiency”, “sustainable construction”, “urban metabolism”, “urban mining”, and “waste minimization” (Figure 5). The classification of these keywords under a single cluster signifies grater linkages among them. However, the results imply that the majority of authors focused their research on these themes. For instance, most studies related to CE in CDWM discussed BIM (Building Information Modeling), a structured process involving the systematic generation and management of building information using various software, digital tools, and technologies (Ismail, 2023; Mollaei et al., 2023; Takyi-Annan and Zhang, 2023; Jayasinghe and Waldmann, 2020). Furthermore, BIM can contribute to improving material recovery and increasing resource efficiency in construction projects through material tracking and management, waste minimization, optimized design and planning, resource visualization, asset management, and recycling. Circular economy and construction and demolition waste management are the most prominent keywords in this cluster based on their node size, indicating a greater interest in these two research areas compared to others in this cluster. However, most studies focused on construction and demolition waste management strategies, policies, and challenges, while a structured roadmap to implement CE for effective management of CDW is still limited (Jahan et al., 2022). Therefore, future studies should focus on developing theoretical and conceptual roadmaps for CE adoption in CDWM.

Cluster 2. This cluster includes keywords such as “construction and demolition waste”, “construction material”, “mechanical properties”, “recycled aggregates”, “recycled concrete”, “sustainability”, and “sustainable development”. These keywords are related to construction and demolition waste materials, their circularity, properties, and sustainability. Extensive research on CE in CDWM has been conducted in these areas (Almokdad and Zentar, 2023; Li et al., 2023; Tefa et al., 2022; Morón et al., 2021), demonstrating sustainable development in the construction sector. However, the use of recycled aggregates and concrete was more explained compared to other CDW materials such as steel, wood, glass, and plastic (Meglin et al., 2022). Figure 5 illustrates that “construction and demolition waste” and “sustainability” have a bigger node size, indicating greater interest in these two topics than others classified in this cluster. Furthermore, there is minimum research on other CDW materials and their sustainability strategies, suggesting a need for future research in these areas. Moreover, there is limited research on trading platforms and customer buying interest in recycled, reused, and recovered materials through CDW.

Cluster 3. This cluster encompasses keywords such as “build environment”, “construction and demolition waste management”, “construction waste”, “machine learning”, and “material flow analyses”. Previous studies have focused heavily on planning structured construction processes and proper management of CDW during the planning stage (Rybak-Niedziółka et al., 2023; Cristiano et al., 2021; Lachat et al., 2021). However, the implementation of CE in the planning stage of construction effectively contributes to the systematic management of CDWs (Ismail, 2023). Furthermore, digital technologies such as machine learning and artificial intelligence contribute to predicting hazardous materials in buildings (Yu et al., 2022). Additionally, the material flow analysis (MFA) approach has the potential for proper management of CDW materials. The MFA system helps understand the process function and its interrelation in CDW management (Abdelshafy and Walther, 2023). Although systematic linkages between MFA systems, resource optimization, waste minimization, and CDW management need further exploration.

Cluster 4. Substantial contributions have been made in the areas of CDWM, as evidenced in Figure 5, where key research themes such as “reuse”, “demolition”, and “resource recovery” are classified under a single cluster. Reuse is a major keyword in this cluster due to its larger node size than others, indicating its higher significance in CDWM. The high prominence of “reuse” in CDWM itself represents the need for CE in the effective management of CDW. Furthermore, the reuse concept contributes more to resource conservation and sustainable development. Although research exists related to resource recovery in CDWM areas, there is a lack of a structured approach or automated systems available for CDW recovery (van den Berg et al., 2023). Moreover, limited research has been conducted on the challenges of material recovery and the adoption of used CDW materials. Additionally, research on the development of an efficient decision support system for effective CDW management and its association with resource recovery is scarce. The development of such an integrated system could be highly beneficial for optimizing resource recovery, minimizing CDWs, regulating compliance, assessing environmental impact, supporting decision-making, collaborating with stakeholders, and bringing continuous improvement in CDWM.

Cluster 5. This cluster encompasses only two keywords: “construction project” and “life cycle assessment”. The research contribution in this cluster focuses on the life cycle assessment of construction projects. The life cycle assessment of construction projects is one of the most effective ways to assess the impact of construction materials, methods, approaches, components, and products on the environment (Tefa et al., 2022). However, the systematic analysis of materials’ life cycle in construction projects contributes to minimizing landfill wastes, ultimately aiding in resource conservation and sustainability (Ivanica et al., 2022). Life cycle assessment has a larger node size in this cluster, demonstrating its higher contribution to literature in CDWM areas. Although studies focus on the life cycle assessment of construction materials, the limited contribution is noticed on life cycle assessment indicators and a structured assessment approach in the CDWM field.

Cluster 6. This cluster consists of two key research themes: “concrete” and “recycling” (Figure 5). This cluster illustrates the circularity approach of concrete material, mainly produced from construction and demolition projects. The recycling approach helps promote sustainability and conserve natural resources for the future (Czekała et al., 2023). Several CE strategies exist in the literature such as Refuse, Rethink, Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Remanufacturing, Refurbish, Repurpose, Recycling, and Recover, but Recycling is extensively adopted in the CDW field (Ramos et al., 2023a, b). Several CDWs that cannot be used directly could be recycled (Oluleye et al., 2023). Although the recycling strategy is applied to various CDW materials, there is still research needed to develop a structured decision support system that can be integrated with CE strategies.

3.2 Critical review outcomes

The outcomes of the critical review for the present study are based on the following themes: (1) Research characteristics, (2) CDW monitoring, traceability, and management tools, (3) Benefits and challenges of CE in CDWM, (4) Modeling approaches for CDWM, (5) Modern technologies for CDWM, (6) Decision support system developed for CDWM, (7) Enablers discussed in previous publications, (8) Barriers reported in previous articles, (9) Performance measures covering CDWM, and (10) Existing CE-based CDWM models/frameworks.

3.2.1 Research characteristics

Over the past few years, research in the CE domain, specifically in the CDW management field, has been conducted, utilizing various research types to increase understanding and promote the shift from linear to CE. These research types include deductive research, qualitative, quantitative, mixed-method study, case study, descriptive, and theoretical research (Table 3). A summary reveals that case study, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method research have been extensively utilized by researchers than other approaches, indicating these research types are more appropriate for emerging/developing research fields. However, survey and interview methods have gained momentum in recent years, representing their strength in capturing individual perceptions, knowledge, and experience for making critical decisions. Additionally, these methods help increase researchers’ knowledge through the utilization of modern tools, techniques, or software such as NVivo, Microsoft Teams, LinkedIn, Zoom, SPSS, Google Meet, SPSS, Qualtrics, Excel, R, Python, Google forms, and Survey Monkey. Although some statistical approaches are gaining attention, modeling approaches and survival analysis to solve CDWM problems in CE are scarce. Moreover, few studies applied machine learning for CDW management; the application of artificial intelligence in this field could bring impactful benefits in managing CDWs. Therefore, attention should be given to AI research in the future to promote digitalization in the CE transition in the CDWM field. It has also been observed that the application of IoT and blockchain has been extensively applied in the construction sector, but there is a lack of practical applicability, especially in the management of CDW. Therefore, the adoption of these innovative technologies into CDWM could bring extensive sustainable benefits. For example, the adoption of IoT devices such as mobile applications and sensors can capture information about CDW. Robotics can recover CDW within a minimum time period. Meanwhile, the adoption of blockchain applications secures CDW data with transparency (Bao and Lu, 2020).

3.2.2 CDW monitoring, traceability and management tools

Tools are an essential part of optimizing any process, reducing time, effort, and resources, ensuring accuracy, and improving quality. The right tool can efficiently complete tasks within the designated time frame, facilitating project completion by the due date (Guo et al., 2022). Time is a crucial constraint in CDW management, and tools can help minimize it, enhancing overall efficiency and reducing CDW management costs (Shooshtarian et al., 2022a, b, c). The summary of tools used in CDW management is presented in Table 4. The findings reveal that there are very few tools existing in previous research; therefore, there is a need to develop more advanced tools for CDW management.

3.2.3 Benefits and challenges of CE in CDWM

The terms “benefits” and “challenges” are interconnected, as understanding the benefits can motivate overcoming challenges. However, challenges arise alongside benefits, associated with adopting circular practices in effective CDWM. Understanding and addressing these interconnected terms are crucial for successfully integrating CE principles into effective CDW management in the construction sector (Huang et al., 2018; Luciano et al., 2022; Al Zulayq et al., 2022). Facing challenges is essential for both personal and organizational growth because it pushes us out of our comfort zones, encourages the development of new skills, and fosters resilience (Huang et al., 2018). Furthermore, challenges identified in the adoption of CE practices in organizations can serve as opportunities for continuous improvement (Bao and Lu, 2020). Effectively addressing CE challenges in CDW management can enhance organizational performance, leading to higher benefits (Oliveira et al., 2021). Figure 6 depicts the common challenges and benefits existing in the literature.

3.2.4 Modeling approaches for CDWM

Modeling approaches play a vital role in CDWM by providing structured models to guide, understand, analyze, and optimize the processes involved. They aid in decision-making across various aspects such as scenario analysis, life cycle assessment, resource optimization, technology integration, policy development, and continuous improvement (Ma et al., 2022; Kabirifar et al., 2023). Modeling enables quantitative analysis of factors like total quantity, type, and nature of wastes generated in construction and demolition projects (Sobotka and Sagan, 2021), as well as assists in resource optimization including materials, manpower, equipment, and circular facilities (Kabirifar et al., 2023). Additionally, modeling facilities assess life cycle assessment approaches, considering the environmental impact of construction and demolition (C&D) materials and circular processes from extraction to disposal (Ma et al., 2022). Various applications and advantages of modeling approaches in the field of CE in CDWM have been observed, and a few approaches discussed in existing articles are summarized in Table 5.

3.2.5 Modern technologies for CDWM

Technologies play an important role in the C&D field by introducing innovative solutions to manage CDW, resulting in improved efficiency, enhanced resource recovery, and maintained material circularity. Modern technologies aid in better planning, monitoring, tracing, sorting, and optimizing C&D wastes, leading to enhanced resource consumption and sustainability (Wu et al., 2022a). The existing modern technologies in the reviewed articles in the context of CDWM are presented in Table 6.

3.2.6 Decision support system developed for CDWM

A decision support system (DSS) is a comprehensive tool that assists stakeholders in various aspects of CDWM, playing a crucial role in facilitating effective decision-making in this field and leading to improved planning and management of C&D wastes (Sobotka and Sagan, 2021). The integration of DSS in CDWM can enhance decision-making processes by optimizing resources, managing data, ensuring compliance, analyzing scenarios, tracking information, generating reports, and promoting collaborations among stakeholders (Saeed et al., 2023). However, the absence of DSS in the CDWM process results in a less streamlined process, leading to inefficient operational efficiency of organizational processes (Tsydenova et al., 2021). This leads to resource wastage, data integrity, and security risks, reduced environmental impact, and impact on stakeholders and overall strategic objectives. Therefore, efforts are needed to develop the right DSS to mitigate these losses. Table 7 presents the DSS proposed in previous studies.

3.2.7 Enablers discussed in previous publications

Enablers of CE play a vital role in optimizing CDW management, enhancing resource efficiency, and promoting circular materials. These enablers drive the implementation of modern technologies in CDW management, facilitating innovative processes such as smart waste tracking, collection, sorting, and recycling techniques (Noll et al., 2019). Addressing these enablers effectively is crucial for the successful adoption of CE practices in CDW management, as failure to do so can lead to unsustainable losses (Mahpour, 2018; Yu et al., 2022). Therefore, organizational managers must consider these enablers and address them effectively before initiating CE adoption. The CE enablers related to CDW management, identified in reviewed articles, are provided in Table 8, which includes enablers across various dimensions such as cultural, environmental, organizational, technical, regulatory, and economic.

3.2.8 Barriers reported in previous articles

Barriers serve as obstacles that hinder the successful adoption of CE practices in managing CDW (Liu et al., 2021). However, the consideration of CE enablers in the construction industry helps managers in the effective management of CDWM, whereas ignoring barriers could lead to failures (Shooshtarian et al., 2022a, b, c). Therefore, proper consideration of CE barriers is also mandatory, along with considering enablers, to increase the chances of successful implementation of CE in organizations for the effective management of CDW. The barriers proposed in reviewed articles are presented in Table 9.

3.2.9 Performance measures covering CDWM

Performance measures are essential parameters for assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of programs, projects, or initiatives. These measures are used as primary inputs in the performance measurement process to evaluate the performance of any project, individual, group, system, component, or organization (Ratnasabapathy et al., 2021). However, performance measures are crucial for evaluating circular strategies and enhancing sustainability in the construction sector (Nie et al., 2024). Furthermore, these measures evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of CDWM practices in minimizing environmental impacts and achieving the company’s circular goals. The performance measures used in previous studies are depicted in Figure 7. The financial perspective encompasses strategies and plans aimed at increasing revenue and managing a business's financial risk. An organization achieves these goals by meeting the needs of customers, shareholders, and suppliers. The customers' and stakeholders' perspective refers to evaluating a company's performance from the viewpoint of its customers and stakeholders. This assessment involves understanding their needs, expectations, and satisfaction levels regarding the products, services, and overall performance of the organization. The Internal Process perspective measures an organization's ability to meet customer needs and expectations through internal processes, products, and services. It encompasses various aspects such as manufacturing, marketing, sales processes, as well as customer service and support services. The learning and growth perspective examines the company's vitality in terms of training employees on rapidly changing technologies and enhancing their productivity.

3.2.10 Existing CE-based CDWM models/frameworks

A model or framework plays an important role in stepwise guiding stakeholders to attain project goals or objectives. The CE-based framework, integrated with various components including circular strategies, practices, tools, techniques, indicators, measures, support systems, and innovative technologies, helps in promoting sustainable practices in CDWM in the construction sector and conserving natural resources. The CE-based structured framework can assist managers and other associated employees in the effective management of CDW, resulting in enhanced resource efficiency, sustainability, reduced waste, environmental foot prints, improved financial benefits, stakeholder engagement, and compliance with regulations (Huang et al., 2018). The successful adoption of the CE framework in the construction industry can enhance circularity by effectively managing CDW and efficiently optimizing resources. Therefore, the adoption of a structured and clear roadmap is essential to integrate CE in CDWM in the construction sector. A few CE-based models/frameworks related to CDWM proposed in existing articles are presented in Table 10.

4. Recommendations for researchers, practitioners, decision-makers, and policymakers

The study findings provide stepwise recommendations for researchers, practitioners, decision-makers, and policymakers on how CE principles can be integrated into CDWM practices in the construction sector:

Researchers can conduct comprehensive case studies to analyze the adoption of CE principles in the real environment of CDWM projects by referring to previous studies' knowledge. They can explore innovative technologies discussed in this study for the reuse, recycling, and upcycling of CDW materials. Furthermore, life cycle assessment can be performed to investigate the economic viability and environmental impact of the current project. Additionally, investigating and comparing the enablers, barriers, and challenges discussed in the present study through collaborating with industry stakeholders. Finally, developing a strategy on how to adopt enablers, handle barriers, and overcome challenges. A structured framework can also be developed to simplify the process of CE adoption in the construction sector to effectively manage CDW.

Practitioners can implement CDW sorting and segregating systems to recover materials for reuse and recycling on construction sites. Hence, the incorporation of design for deconstruction and disassembly principles during the building design process could be an effective approach to maximize material recovery. The adoption of recycling facilities by establishing partnerships with waste management organizations could ensure smooth handling of CDW materials and reduce the social and environmental impact. Collaboration with waste management firms could also save time, effort, and resources in terms of the economy, improving quality, increasing construction speed, and enhancing the circular construction process. Additionally, educating construction managers, supervisors, and workers on the benefits, challenges, enablers, barriers, tools, performance measures, and modern technologies of CE principles and providing structured training on effective CDW reduction and recycling techniques.

Furthermore, the findings can guide decision-makers to develop rules and regulations such as waste diversion targets, incentives for sustainable construction projects, appraisals for resource reduction, increments for zero waste, and fast recovery, etc., towards implementing CE principles in CDWM practices. Funding and resource allocation within an organization for research and development initiatives could enhance the development of advanced CE methodologies and technologies for CDW management. Decision-makers can also collaborate with industry and academic stakeholders to establish benchmarks and standard practices for circular CDW management. Promoting public-private partnerships could enhance the collection, sorting, and processing of CDW materials in the construction sector. The implementation of CDW monitoring and traceability tools could also help to effectively manage CDW.

This study recommends policymakers to integrate CE principles into local and national CDW management strategies, targeting maximum material recovery and minimum landfill disposal. Policymakers should incorporate tax rebates and incentive schemes to adopt CE principles in the construction process. The identified barriers and challenges in this study towards implementing policies for circular construction can be overcome by collaborating between industry stakeholders, government agencies, and research institutions, leading to more sustainable and resource-efficient outcomes in the built environment.

5. Future research areas

The outcomes of this review reveal that the adoption of CE in the CDWM field is still in its initial stages. While studies have explored a few issues, there is a need for more in-depth exploration and research (refer to Table 11) to fully harness the potential of CE integration in CDWM. The future research directions are discussed pointwise in subsections to assist in implementing CE in CDWM within the construction sector.

5.1 Adoption of CE strategies in the CDWM field

Research on CE strategies specific to the CDWM field is limited, with the majority of existing studies focused on 3R (Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle). However, a thoughtful and systematic approach to selecting CE strategies for managing CDW is lacking. Furthermore, the implementation of CE practices and strategies cannot occur in isolation without considering its measures, contextual issues, and the dynamism of factors surrounding it (Oluleye et al., 2022). There is a scarcity of empirical research on measures for integrating CE strategies with CDW categories, the dynamism of factors affecting CE strategies, and contextual parameters for adopting CE based on economies. Moreover, less research has been undertaken on appropriate selection approaches of CE strategies in managing CDW. Investigating these issues through conducting empirical studies using mixed-method approaches (interviews, surveys, and site visits) would enhance CE implementation in the construction sector for CDWM.

5.2 Model for CE adoption enablers and barriers in CDWM

While studies on the barriers and enablers of CE in CDWM are prevalent in literature, a structured model for systematically considering these factors for effective CE adoption in the CDWM field is still scarce. Enhancing, the understanding of these enablers and barriers can improve their effective consideration within organizations, ultimately, leading to successful CE implementation in CDWM. Furthermore, such a structured model assists managers in identifying the leading factors, and optimizing the use of limited resources, time, and efforts, thus resulting in financial savings. Researchers can use multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) tools to develop the structured model for CE adoption of enablers and barriers.

5.3 Development of CE readiness assessment tool in CDWM

Research on readiness assessment tools (RAT) for CE adoption in the CDWM field is limited. RATs are essential for evaluating the readiness level of CE adoption in CDWM and assessing the maturity level of CE adoption in waste management. Additionally, these tools aid in identifying factors crucial for the effective implementation of CE in CDWM. Therefore, future research focusing on readiness factors and the development of RATs for CE in CDWM is warranted. The identification and utilization of readiness factors for CDWM could help develop the RAT in the construction sector.

5.4 Integration of life cycle assessment indicators for CE in CDWM

While studies on the circular lifecycle of CDWs exist, the proper integration of LCA indicators with CDWM practices is still scarce. Integrating LCA indicators with CDWM practices would enable stakeholders to prioritize resource efficiency, circularity, and environmental sustainability when making decisions. Hence, empirical research on various LCA indicators at different phases of CDWM is necessary.

5.5 Development of a CE performance measurement system in CDWM

Research on performance measurement systems (PMS) for assessing CE adoption performance in managing and optimizing CDWs is limited. The need for a PMS is imperative as it will facilitate the evaluation of CE initiatives’ effectiveness in CDWM. A PMS could be designed to evaluate the efficiency of resource utilization, energy consumption, and emissions, material recovery and recycling, stakeholder involvement, waste minimization, and procurement in CE. The existence of a PMS would motivate construction and demolition practitioners, managers, and other stakeholders to make circularity decisions. Therefore, the development of a PMS for CE in CDWM is needed in the near future. The PMS can be developed by setting standards through collaboration among industry stakeholders, government agencies, and research institutions.

5.6 Contextual challenges of CE in CDWM and their solutions

CE challenges are prominent in the literature; few of them provide specific solutions based on their present problem. However, the contextual challenges for CE adoption, based on the economics of both developing and developed regions, and their specific solutions, are still scarce. A system could be developed to prioritize solutions based on associated challenges. Investigating this issue and developing a structured system would enhance the adoption of CE in the CDWM field. Empirical studies using survey methodology could help gather relevant information about the challenges of CE in CDWM from experts. Additionally, case studies involving interviews with practitioners, decision-makers, and planners could help identify potential solutions.

5.7 Roadmap for CE adoption in CDWM

Existing models/frameworks in the CDWM field still stand on the linear economy foundation. However, there are no systematic guidelines or structured paths to follow systematically toward achieving the successful adoption of CE in the CDWM sector (Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018; Oluleye et al., 2022). Further, the existing frameworks lack integration of measures, indicators, barriers, enablers, decision support systems, tools, techniques, standards, challenges, modern technologies, and knowledge management systems that support increasing the implementation success of CE practices in CDWM. The majority of existing models adopt cradle-to-cradle strategies as a replacement for the traditional linear model. These models mostly fail to achieve successful adoption of CE in CDWM due to several challenges such as inadequate standardization, absence of design standards for circularity, inadequate technologies, low financial incentives, lack of balance between supply and demand, and life cycle costs. Therefore, future studies should develop a new roadmap or improve existing frameworks towards effective adoption of CE in CDWM. The actual implementation of existing frameworks across multiple CDWM sites could offer insights into their applicability, challenges, and shortcomings, thereby guiding the modification or development of new frameworks.

5.8 Application of innovative and modern technologies for CE adoption in CDWM

In the fourth industrial revolution, the integration of Industry 4.0 (I4.0) technologies such as additive manufacturing, artificial intelligence, could computing, blockchain, digital twins, Industrial Internet of Things, machine learning, and autonomous robotic systems in CE for the management of CDW is still limited (Bao and Lu, 2020; Wu et al., 2022a). However, I4.0 technologies have emerged as key players in shifting from linear to circular economy practices in the manufacturing sector (Norouzi et al., 2021). The effective integration of I4.0 technologies in CE could efficiently manage CDW and promote sustainable development goals (SDGs). The compatibility of I4.0 technologies with CE practices facilitates optimizing resource utilization in the industrial system (Norouzi et al., 2021). Future studies are needed to explore these integrations through empirical studies to achieve circularity in CDWM.

5.9 Build an effective knowledge management system

Knowledge can drive innovative changes in any organization, and these changes can be realized through proper creation, sharing, and management of knowledge across the organization. However, the utilization of knowledge management in the area of CE in CDWM is limited. The construction sector in many developing and developed countries is even unaware of adopting CE practices in the CDWM field, and their understanding of how to promote CE for managing CDWs remains insufficiently illuminated (Mahpour, 2018; Oluleye et al., 2022). A knowledge management system facilitates creating awareness and improving in-depth understanding of concerned areas (Mahpour, 2018). Therefore, more research is needed to investigate the building process of an effective knowledge management system and its systematic integration with CE processes, especially in the CDWM field.

6. Conclusions

The CE serves as a production and consumption model, greatly impacting the management of CDWs. To discern trends and research issues in CDW management within the context of CE, a mixed-method review strategy was employed. This approach proved beneficial in mitigating the ambiguities inherent in solely qualitative or quantitative review techniques. Analyzing existing articles on CE in CDWM revealed prevalent research trends and highlighted ongoing debates, thus identifying knowledge gaps for future studies. The review delineates key research themes, explores ten issues, and knowledge gaps, and outlines directions for future research endeavors. Previous studies in the field extensively utilized surveys, interviews, case studies, or mixed-method approaches as methodologies, with a notable focus on CDW monitoring and traceability tools to enhance CE adoption rates in the construction sector. The outcomes of the present study have shed light on key issues and provided several suggestions for future research aimed at promoting sustainable construction. The successful incorporation of the suggested recommendations into the construction sector would help achieve zero waste goals, facilitate natural resource conservation, and reduce carbon emissions. This, in turn, would support society and improve the quality of life for people.

This research offers significant insights into CDW management by synthesizing previous studies, bolstering the practicality and efficacy of the CE in the construction and demolition industries. The findings pave the way for future research in the realm of CDW management within the CE paradigm, delineating avenues for researchers and academics to explore innovative approaches and expand knowledge in this field. Practitioners stand to benefit from understanding the challenges, enablers, barriers, tools, and modern technologies associated with CE adoption in CDWM. Construction and demolition managers can utilize identified performance measures to evaluate CE performance in CDWM, while policymakers can address associated challenges and barriers to inform policy adjustments or new developments. Additionally, construction and demolition planners can leverage existing frameworks to enhance their understanding and develop compatible frameworks for CDWM based on contemporary requirements and challenges.

Despite these significant contributions, this research has limitations. It focused solely on peer-reviewed articles published in journals, potentially influencing the coverage of publications on the topic. The use of specific keywords for article searches may introduce bias, with alternative keywords possibly yielding more relevant papers. Future investigations should consider these limitations for comprehensive exploration.

Figures

Research methodology

Figure 1

Research methodology

Publication trends per year

Figure 2

Publication trends per year

Distribution of articles per journal

Figure 3

Distribution of articles per journal

Most productive countries exploring research on CE in CDWM

Figure 4

Most productive countries exploring research on CE in CDWM

Key research areas of CE in CDWM

Figure 5

Key research areas of CE in CDWM

Benefits and challenges of CE in CDWM

Figure 6

Benefits and challenges of CE in CDWM

Performance measures covering CDWM

Figure 7

Performance measures covering CDWM

Top Countries exploring research on CE in CDWM

CountriesDocumentsCitationsTotal link strength
China241,94019
United Kingdom191,78218
Spain241,37617
Italy2388315
Australia2256012
Hong Kong1499211
United States833411
Canada105710
Chile6405
India91285
Malaysia41705
Turkey7545
Brazil81014
France10724
Iran32834
Netherland93304
Poland6654
Belgium4143
Portugal92683
Switzerland6843
Austria72102
Colombia7762
Denmark3252
Germany94802
Greece3431
Serbia3211

Source(s): Table created by authors

Summary of research characteristics

Research typeMethodSoftware/Tools/TechniqueStatistical test/Analysis approachReference
Deductive researchHypothesis development Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Shapiro-Wilk testRamos et al. (2023a, b)
QualitativeSemi-structured interviewsNVivo, Microsoft Teams, LinkedIn, Zoom, SPSS, Google MeetDelphi technique, Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP), Thematic analysis, Balanced scorecard approachBoateng et al. (2023), Ramos et al. (2023a), Boonkanit and Suthiluck (2023), Villoria Sáez et al. (2023), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c), Torgautov et al. (2022), Sobotka and Sagan (2021), Huang et al. (2018)
QuantitativeSurveyTimed Petri net, Google Forms, Survey Monkey, Qualtrics, Excel, R software, SPSSBarrier mapping, MICMAC analysis, Exploratory factor analysis (EFA), Rank agreement analysis (RAA), Fuzzy synthetic evaluation (FSE), Contingent valuation method, fuzzy TOPSISMa et al. (2023), Véliz et al. (2023), Oluleye et al. (2023), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a), Véliz et al. (2022), Wu et al. (2022b), Guo et al. (2022), Salleh et al. (2022), Mahpour (2018)
Mixed Method study (Qualitative and Quantitative)Interview and SurveySPSS, Qualtrics, Excel, NVivo, Google Forms, Microsoft Teams, Zoom, Google MeetANOVA, SWOT analysis, Relative Importance Index (RII), Factor Analysis, Regression analysisMa et al. (2023), Kabirifar et al. (2023), Meng et al. (2023), Cheng et al. (2023), Luciano et al. (2022), Liu et al. (2021), Esguícero et al. (2021), Condotta and Zatta (2021), Noll et al. (2019), Ghaffar et al. (2020), Bao and Lu (2020)
Case studyOn-site visits and data collection3D printer, i-Tree CanopyResource mapping, Environmental screening, Deep convolutional neural networks, Mathematic modeling, Optimization modeling, SWOT analysisSaeed et al. (2023), Christensen et al. (2022), Rigillo et al. (2022), Lin et al. (2022), Mercader-Moyano et al. (2022), Tsydenova et al. (2021), Cristiano et al. (2021), Lachat et al. (2021), Davis et al. (2021), Oliveira et al. (2021), Mihai (2019)
Descriptive ResearchData collected from online repositoriesMachine learning Wu et al. (2022a), Jayasinghe and Waldmann (2020)
Theoretical ResearchAnalysis of scientific and practical information Mathematical modelingShuvaiev et al. (2022)

Source(s): Table created by authors

Summary of CDW monitoring and management tools

ToolObjectiveEntities/UserAbilityReference
CORDOVA Mobile ApplicationHelps estimate, trace, and manage the amount of CDW generated, ensuring proper waste managementConstruction managers, CDW truck drivers, Recycling plant managersEstimate the total amount, type, total distance traveled, and total cost of CDW, and generate the reportVilloria Sáez et al. (2023)
i-Tree Canopy softwareIdentifies the total available buildings in the area, and estimates materialsEvaluatorsObtains buildings-related dataCristiano et al. (2021)
Mobile appTraceability and Management of CDWConstruction companies, Citizens, CDW disposal companiesCommercialize, donate, exchange, advertiseOliveira et al. (2021)
DECORUM platformHelps manage CDW efficiently with transparencyPublic tender, Design, and construction company, CDW managersFacilitates green public procurementLuciano et al. (2021)
Building
Information Modelling (BIM)
Stores material information, building components, and promotes the recycling and reuse of componentsProjects and Materials managersExtracts materials and component informationJayasinghe and Waldmann (2020)

Source(s): Table created by authors

Modeling approaches for CDWM

Modeling methodObjectiveReference
Integrated Fuzzy Delphi Technique and Analytic Hierarchy ProcessTo adopt the CE in CDW managementKabirifar et al. (2023)
Timed Petri NetsTo develop a trading platform for CD wastesWu et al. (2022b)
Replication Dynamic System Four-Party GameTo develop a system for sustainable CDW recyclingGuo et al. (2022)
Kolmogorov’s Differentiated EquationsTo develop a model for forecasting the total CDW amountShuvaiev et al. (2022)
Integrated System Dynamics and LCA ApproachTo develop an integrated model for evaluating the carbon emissions of CDWMa et al. (2022)
Multi-criteria Analysis ModuleTo identify the most favorable solution for managing CDWSobotka and Sagan (2021)
Dynamic Stock-Driven ModellingTo assess the CDW material flows associated with the construction sectorNoll et al. (2019)

Source(s): Table created by authors

Modern technologies for CDWM

TechnologyObjectiveReference
Digital TwinTo deal efficiently with real-time and dynamic information concerning CDWMMeng et al. (2023)
3D PrintingTo construct buildings using recycled aggregates and produce cement mortars suitable for 3D printing technologyRigillo et al. (2022)
Deep Convolutional Neural NetworksTo classify and automate CDW separationLin et al. (2022), Davis et al. (2021)
Machine LearningTo predict potential hazardous CDW inventoriesWu et al. (2022a)
GPS-Based Vehicle SystemTo systematically transport CDWBao and Lu (2020)

Source(s): Table created by authors

Decision support system for CDWM

Decision support systemObjectiveReference
Multi-objective modelOptimizes decision-making for managing CDW generated during construction project demolitionSaeed et al. (2023)
Decision-Making Support SystemHelps in selecting the appropriate concrete waste management approach using Fuzzy AHPBoonkanit and Suthiluck (2023)
Bi-objective mixed integer linear optimization modelProvides information about the location of installed sorting screens and material flows from building demolition to the construction of new buildingsTsydenova et al. (2021)
Spider web methodSupports the decision-making process of technology selection solutions for concrete waste managementSobotka and Sagan (2021)

Source(s): Table created by authors

Existing enablers in articles

DimensionsEnablersAuthor(s)
CulturalIncrease awareness of CE adoption benefits in CDW managementGherman et al. (2023), Oluleye et al. (2023)
Provide training/organize workshops to teach CE adoption for CDWMGherman et al. (2023), Oluleye et al. (2023)
Promote the green image of organizationsGherman et al. (2023)
EnvironmentalSite waste managementNoll et al. (2019), Kabirifar et al. (2023), Ma et al. (2023)
On-site sorting, recycling, and reusing of wasted materialBao and Lu (2020), Kabirifar et al. (2023), Oluleye et al. (2023)
Waste avoidanceKabirifar et al. (2023)
Use of durable materialsMa et al. (2023)
Minimize the use of virgin materialsGherman et al. (2023)
OrganizationalAdoption of advanced processing and sourcing technologiesCharef et al. (2021), Ma et al. (2022, 2023)
Adoption of advanced CDWM technicsCharef et al. (2021), Yu et al. (2022)
Demolition audits to increase CDW recyclability/reusabilityLuciano et al. (2022), Kabirifar et al. (2023)
Collaboration between CDWM stakeholdersGherman et al. (2023)
Integrate CE principles in the design phaseGherman et al. (2023)
Management commitment and supportGherman et al. (2023)
Availability of space for storageGherman et al. (2023)
Adoption of low waste generation technologiesKabirifar et al. (2023)
Adoption of less wastes demolition techniquesKabirifar et al. (2023)
TechnicalCircular designEsa et al. (2017), Mahpour (2018), Gálvez-Martos et al. (2018)
Development of circular/green procurement systemLiu et al. (2021), Gherman et al. (2023)
Development of digital markets for secondary materialsGherman et al., (2023), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c), Ma et al. (2023), Oluleye et al. (2023)
Develop tools and guidelines for CDW collection and separationGherman et al. (2023), Oluleye et al. (2023)
Development and adoption of circular business model and decision support system for CDW managementOluleye et al. (2023), Gherman et al. (2023)
Develop CE metrics and indicators for CDWMOluleye et al. (2023)
Establish structured guidelines and roadmap for implementation of CE in CDWMOluleye et al. (2023)
Develop advanced CDW recycling logistics (e.g., Adverse logistics, GIS)Pani et al. (2020), Yu et al. (2022)
Develop advanced demolition approaches (e. g. Deconstruction)Ghaffar et al. (2020), Ginga et al. (2020)
Development and adoption of the advanced information technologies (e.g., BIM)Charef et al. (2021), Ma et al. (2022), Gherman et al. (2023)
Continuous research on CE-based research in CDW managementOluleye et al. (2023)
Regulatory economicStandards for secondary materialsMa et al. (2023)
Global agreement on regulationsGherman et al. (2023)
Clear national plans on CE goals in CDWM and policy supportGherman et al. (2023), Oluleye et al. (2023)
Improve secondary material value and qualitySharma et al. (2022), Ma et al. (2023)
Incentives for waste recoveryMa et al. (2023)
Incentives for utilizing Circular/Secondary materialsMa et al. (2023), Gherman et al. (2023), Oluleye et al. (2023)
Increase costs of landfilling/penalties for illegal dampingGherman et al. (2023), Oluleye et al. (2023)
Funding for circular projectsGherman et al. (2023)
Budget allocation for CE adoption in CDWM by the governmentOluleye et al. (2023)

Source(s): Table created by authors

Existing barriers in articles

DimensionBarriersAuthor(s)
EnvironmentalLack of storage space/siteCharef et al. (2021), Alite et al. (2023), Mhatre et al. (2023)
CDW transportation emissions for the 3R processCharef et al. (2021)
Limitations of site access for CDWMCharef et al. (2021), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c)
Health and safety risks from contaminated materialsCharef et al. (2021), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c), Mhatre et al. (2023)
Short-term/Rapid Urban growth planVéliz et al. (2023)
Availability of cheaper virgin products/materialsShooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c), Mhatre et al. (2023)
EconomicMinimum landfilling costCharef et al. (2021), Luciano et al. (2022), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c)
Underdeveloped market for secondary/recycled materialsCharef et al. (2021), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c), Mhatre et al. (2023)
Profit-driven decision-makingCharef et al. (2021), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c)
High costs of secondary/circular materialsCharef et al. (2021), Véliz et al. (2023), Christensen et al. (2022), HaitherAli and Anjali (2023), Luciano et al. (2022), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c), Mhatre et al. (2023), Liu et al. (2021), Mahpour (2018)
High upfront investment costs for CDWMCharef et al. (2021), Véliz et al. (2023), HaitherAli and Anjali (2023), Mhatre et al. (2023)
Lack of investment in infrastructure and equipmentRamos et al. (2023a), HaitherAli and Anjali (2023), Mhatre et al. (2023)
Availability of limited funding for circular projectsCharef et al. (2021), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c), Mahpour (2018)
Private recycling and processingAlite et al. (2023), Ramos et al. (2023a), Mahpour (2018)
Absence of Incentives for circular CDWMVéliz et al. (2023), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c), Liu et al. (2021)
CulturalLimited strategic vision and stakeholders’ collaborationCharef et al. (2021), Véliz et al. (2023), Mahpour (2018)
Lack of awareness about the CDWM benefitsCharef et al. (2021), Christensen et al. (2022), Liu et al. (2021), Mahpour (2018)
Resistance to adopting secondary/circular materials by stakeholdersCharef et al. (2021), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c), Mhatre et al. (2023), Mahpour (2018)
Lack of information available on the quality of recycled materialsCharef et al. (2021), Luciano et al. (2022)
Lack of awareness and treatment centers for CDWMAlite et al. (2023), Charef et al. (2021)
OrganizationalDepends on the linear systemCharef et al. (2021), Mhatre et al. (2023), Mahpour (2018)
Poor supply chain and partnershipCharef et al. (2021), Mhatre et al. (2023)
Lack of information, skills, training and experienceCharef et al. (2021), Christensen et al. (2022), Liu et al. (2021)
Lack of time and human resourcesCharef et al. (2021), Ramos et al. (2023a), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c), Mhatre et al. (2023), Mahpour (2018)
Absence of top management commitment and support for circularityCharef et al. (2021), Mahpour (2018)
Lack of proper enforcement, supervision, and controlHaitherAli and Anjali (2023), Luciano et al. (2022), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c), Mahpour (2018)
Lack of communication, co-ordination, and collaboration among stakeholdersHaitherAli and Anjali (2023), Liu et al. (2021)
Lack of demand for C&D waste recycling and reuseLuciano et al. (2022), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c), Mhatre et al. (2023)
Lack of balance between supply and demand of circular materials/products in the marketLuciano et al. (2022), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c), Mhatre et al. (2023)
TechnicalHigh investment costs for new CDWM technology adoptionCharef et al. (2021), Luciano et al. (2022), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c), Liu et al. (2021), Mahpour (2018)
Absence of an information exchange system related to data on CDW generation, material flow/characteristics, cost involved, etcCharef et al. (2021), HaitherAli and Anjali (2023), Luciano et al. (2022), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c), Mahpour (2018)
Lack of tools/techniques for material sorting and recoveryCharef et al. (2021), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c)
Absence of circular design procedure/guidelinesCharef et al. (2021)
Poor record keepingAlite et al. (2023), Mahpour (2018)
Absence of proper CDW management solutionsRamos et al. (2023a), Liu et al. (2021), Mahpour (2018)
Lack of structured roadmap or framework to manage CDWAlite et al. (2023), Ramos and Martinho (2021), Christensen et al. (2022), Liu et al. (2021), Mahpour (2018)
Lack of Infrastructure and poor knowledge of material treatment/CDWM advanced technologiesVéliz et al. (2023), HaitherAli and Anjali (2023), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c), Mhatre et al. (2023), Liu et al. (2021)
Absence of certified recycled materialsVéliz et al. (2023), Christensen et al. (2022)
Lack of local market for circular/secondary materialsShooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c), HaitherAli and Anjali (2023), Mhatre et al. (2023)
Availability of poor-quality recycled materials/productsHaitherAli and Anjali (2023), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c), Luciano et al. (2022), Mhatre et al. (2023), Liu et al. (2021)
Lack of Reverse logistics and circular business modelsHaitherAli and Anjali (2023), Mahpour (2018)
Lack of effective technology for CDW data tracingHaitherAli and Anjali (2023), Mahpour (2018)
Lack of a stable supplier for C&DW transportVéliz et al. (2022)
RegulatoryLack of circular procurementCharef et al. (2021), Mhatre et al. (2023)
Absence of global consensus about CECharef et al. (2021), Luciano et al. (2022)
Absence of standardizationCharef et al. (2021), Christensen et al. (2022), HaitherAli and Anjali (2023), Mahpour (2018)
Absence of structured procedures and guidelines to comply with legal orientationsRamos et al. (2023a), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c)
Lack of regulations/policy and unclear responsibilitiesHaitherAli and Anjali (2023), Luciano et al. (2022), Mhatre et al. (2023), Liu et al. (2021)
Lack of environmental management system and certificationsVéliz et al. (2022)
Lack of potential actions against CDW managementVéliz et al. (2022), Luciano et al. (2022), Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c), Liu et al. (2021)

Source(s): Table created by authors

Summary of existing CE-Based CDWM frameworks

CDWM phase IPhase IIPhase IIIPhase IVPhase VReference
Preparation-(Planning, permitting, and licensing of CDWM operators)Generation- (Activities leading to the generation of CDW)Collection and TransportProcessingTemporary StorageAlite et al. (2023)
Onsite CDW separationRecycling of CDW considering government regulationsAuditor certification of recycled productSale in the end market Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c)
Set targetEstablish infrastructureEnact rules and regulationsEnforce and implementMonitor, Control, Analyze, and feedback
Research & Improve
HaitherAli and Anjali (2023)
Characterization and selection of sampleCDW quantificationCDW environmental indicatorsMaterial resource circularity Mercader-Moyano et al. (2022)
Generation (CDW generation through traditional/selective approach)Source separation (concrete, recyclable, non-recyclable, or other materials)Collection and transportWaste treatment (Stationary/Mobile recycling, landfill, biological plant)Substitutions (Plastic, Insulating, Wood, Natural aggregates, etc.)Iodice et al. (2021)
CDW collection from sites and TransportationCursing and Grinding of CDWSeparation through Flotation, Magnetic, Washing, etcProduction and StorageTransport for use and landfillLachat et al. (2021)
CDW collectionTransportationRecycling plantMarketplaceUse in constructionLuciano et al. (2021)
Waste generationCollection and TransportInspectionRecycling/Reuse/Final disposal Esguícero et al. (2021)
Waste identificationSource separation and collectionWaste logisticsWaste processingUse in constructionCondotta and Zatta (2021)
Open dumping of CDWCollection and disposal in Urban LandfillsTreatment and Reuse in Civil ConstructionIntegrated waste management systemBuilding materialsMihai (2019)
On-site CDW classificationReclassificationCrushParticle size classificationMaterial market/Backfill material/Landfills/Roadbed filterHuang et al. (2018)

Source(s): Table created by authors

Summary of key issues from reviewed articles

ThemesKey findingsHow knowledge could be improved
Research characteristicsThe majority of the studies rely on surveys, interviews, case studies, and mixed-method strategy methodologyIntegration of interview, survey, and case study methodologies could compare findings and enhance the soundness of outcomes
CDW monitoring, Traceability, and Management toolsOnly a few tools have been developed and introduced in the literatureThorough contextual-based empirical studies are needed to understand actual needs and challenges in CDWM to rethink the development of new tools
Benefits and Challenges of CE in CDWMCase-based benefits and challenges are discussedComparative studies could help understand contextual economic-based challenges and provide solutions. A system could be developed to prioritize solutions based on associated challenges
Modeling Approaches for CDWMFew modeling approaches are used to solve issues related to CE in CDWMOther modeling approaches such as optimization modeling, system dynamics modeling, agent-based modeling, network modeling, and conceptual modeling could be explored to solve CDWM-related issues
Modern Technologies for CDWMLimited application of modern technologies is observedEffective integration of Industry 4.0 technologies such as additive manufacturing, artificial intelligence, cloud computing, blockchain, digital twins, Industrial Internet of Things, Machine learning, and autonomous robots could enhance the effective adoption of CE in CDWM areas
Decision Support System Developed for CDWMExisting decision support systems can decide on separate issuesThe development of a single knowledge-based decision support system for CDWM could enhance CE adoption in the construction sector
Enablers & Barriers Discussed in PublicationsEnablers and barriers have been identified manually and listedDeveloping a structured model could improve the successful implementation of CE in CDWM fields
Performance Measures Covering CDWMNo metric system exists in the literature for performance measuresThe creation of a proper metric system could improve the assessment of CE performance in CDWM effectively
Existing CE-Based CDWM Models/FrameworksExisting models or frameworks still rely on a linear economy foundationDeveloping the framework by integrating indicators, measures, barriers, enablers, decision support systems, tools, techniques, standards, challenges, modern technologies, and knowledge management systems could improve the implementation success of CE practices in CDWM

Source(s): Table created by authors

Content analysis of selected articles

Author(s)Published journalStudy scopeLocationData sourceObjectiveFindings
Ramos et al. (2023a, b)Waste ManagementStrategies to promote CE for CDWMPortugalFieldworkTo test strategies to overcome identified problems and understand factors contributing to successSuccessful CE implementation can be facilitated by frequent monitoring, proper training, and awareness
Ma et al. (2023)Sustainable Chemistry and PharmacyCSFs to deploy CE for CDWMChinaInterviews and SurveyTo explore CSFs to adopt closed-loop CE for CDWM in ChinaCSFs for CDWM in a CE could overcome the present drawbacks of the 3R approach in China
Boateng et al. (2023)Journal of Material Cycles and Waste ManagementThe environmental and economic outlook of CDWM practicesFargoInterviewTo apply life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) to evaluate benefits of CDWMThe study found that a 75% reduction in CDW can reduce 35% environmental burden and generate income of $61/ton
Ramos et al. (2023a)Resources, Conservation & Recycling AdvancesManagement of construction and demolition wastesPortugalInterviewTo understand the contribution of local scale dynamics in the promotion of CDWM from an operational perspectiveResults reveal that strategies related to investment in local solutions improve the market for recycled aggregates
Kabirifar et al. (2023)Applied Soft ComputingMCDM modeling for CDWMTehranInterview and SurveyTo identify and prioritize factors affecting CE implementation in the CDWM fieldResults indicate that ‘on-site sorting, reusing, waste recycling, and ‘waste management plans/regulations’ are the most important factors
Meng et al. (2023)SustainabilityIntegration of Digital Twin and CEMixed countriesInterviews and SurveyTo investigate CE implementation, as well as integration of digital twin and CE in CDWMThe digital twin has great potential to improve circular economy practice
Alite et al. (2023)Journal of Material Cycles and Waste ManagementChallenges and opportunities on the road to circular economyPristinaOn-site visitsTo identify instruments and policies of sustainable/circular CDW management system for KosovoThe analysis identified gaps in Kosovo's CDWM and its enforcement of existing CDW legislation
Saeed et al. (2023)Journal of Construction Engineering and ManagementEnvironmental Impact and Cost Assessment for Reusing WasteCanadaOn-site visitsTo propose a decision support framework (DSF) for managing construction waste generated during end-of-life activitiesDSF is used to evaluate trade-offs for recovery planning activities
Véliz et al. (2023)Resources, Conservation & Recycling AdvancesModeling barriers to CE for CDWChileSurveyTo analyze the interaction of inhibiting factors impacting CE-CDWLimited policy and regulation as key barriers impacting financial and technical elements of CE-CDW adoption
Boonkanit and Suthiluck (2023)SustainabilityDeveloping a Decision Support System for a Smart CDWMThailandInterviewTo develop a DSS to select the most appropriate concrete waste management methodThe developed system helps in analyzing alternative solutions for CDWM
Oluleye et al. (2023)Sustainable Production and ConsumptionModeling success factors for systemic circularityMixedSurveyTo evaluate the CSFs for attaining systemic circularity in the BCIThe EFA helps organize the CSF pool, and the FSE helps establish the significance level between the two economies
Villoria Sáez et al. (2023)BuildingsDesign a mobile application for CDWMMadridInterviewTo develop a hybrid mobile app for real-time traceability of construction waste managementThe app allows estimation and tracing of the amount of CDW generated in real-time
Christensen et al. (2022)Resources, Conservation & Recycling AdvancesClosing the material loops for CDWDenmarkCase studyTo demonstrate practices and procedures for reusing and recycling CDWThe findings analyze and discuss economic and practical barriers
Rigillo et al. (2022)Environmental Research and TechnologyA process algorithm for C&D materials reuseItalyCase studyTo identify the use of file-to-factory technologies in the reuse process of C&D materialsA process algorithm is designed for material reuse purposes in different contexts
Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c)Sustainable Production and ConsumptionFactors influencing the market for recycled CDWAustraliaInterviewTo propose a waste market development framework and provide solutions to overcome current barriersThe findings guide the government and practitioners in facilitating end markets for CDW
Cheng et al. (2023)International Journal of Construction ManagementSustainable construction through CDWM practicesChinaPublished materials, InterviewTo develop a systematic framework for analyzing internal and external CDWM conditionsThe findings proposed five strategic recommendations for improving CDWM practices
Victar and Waidyasekara (2023)Waste Management & ResearchCircular economy strategies for CDWSri LankaInterview, Delphi techniqueTo focus on waste generation, reduction, and optimization of resources in building project life cyclesFindings reveal 14 issues for effective CDWM
Torgautov et al. (2022)Sustainable Production and ConsumptionPerformance measures of the construction sectorKazakhstanInterviewTo create a strategic framework to identify and select specific CE actionsThe developed framework can measure CDW performance
Lin et al. (2022)Journal of Environmental ManagementDeep convolutional neural networks for CDW classificationChinaSite visit, Google searchTo develop an efficient method for sorting CDW using deep learning and knowledge transfer approachesThe proposed method enables automatic sorting of CDW
Shooshtarian et al. (2022a)Engineering, Construction, and Architectural ManagementAn investigation into challenges and opportunitiesAustraliaSurveyTo understand the challenges and opportunities of effective CDWMThe main barriers are “overregulation, lack of local market and culture, poor education, and low acceptance”
Luciano et al. (2022)Sustainable Chemistry and PharmacyIssues hindering widespread CDW recycling practiceMixedDesk research, survey, and interviewTo discuss the issues hindering widespread CDW recycling practiceDifficulties have been analyzed and suggestions provided to improve waste recycling and reuse
Véliz et al. (2022)Waste ManagementWillingness to pay for CDWChileSurveyTo analyze the willingness of companies to pay attention to improving CDWMThe outcome found a greater quantity of inert and non-inert wastes
Wu et al. (2022b)Sustainable Chemistry and PharmacyTrading platform for CDW recoveryChinaSurveyTo investigate the trading platform for CDWMFindings compared the time delay of two kinds of CDW transaction processes
Wu et al. (2022a)Building and EnvironmentPredicting the presence of hazardous materialsSwedenRecords registerTo highlight challenges in machine learning pipeline developmentModels perform well on limited datasets; the model’s generalizability could be improved by collecting more data
Mercader-Moyano et al. (2022)Waste Management & ResearchCDWM model applied to social housingMexicoSurvey, and Case StudyTo quantify on-site 61 Mexican social housing CDWFindings reveal that social housing consumes 1.24 tm and produces 0.083 tm of CDW
Guo et al. (2022)Sustainable Production and ConsumptionSustainable development of CDW recycling systemsChinaCase studyTo develop a four-party evolutionary game modelUsing this model, companies promote the sustainable development of CDWR systems
Salleh et al. (2022)Planning MalaysiaCE adoption guidance in CDWMMalaysiaSurveyTo develop the strategy for the adoption of CE for CDWMDeveloped strategies can improve the performance of the current CDWM system
Shuvaiev et al. (2022)Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise TechnologiesManaging the flows of CDWUkraineScientific and practical recordsTo manage CDW flows and examine the
environmental and economic efficiency of the process
Proposed mathematical modeling could solve practical tasks effectively
manage CDW flows
Ma et al. (2022)Waste and Biomass ValorizationEvaluating the Carbon Emissions of CDWChinaCase studyTo provide a causal loop model for evaluating the carbon emissions of CDWFive causal loops are developed for evaluating the life cycle of CDW
Liu et al. (2021)Journal of Cleaner ProductionExplore barriers of CE in CDW recyclingIndiaInterview and SurveyTo examine barriers to CE practices in the Indian construction industryFindings reveal that Political, Social, and Economic category barriers affect CE adoption in emerging economies
Tsydenova et al. (2021)Waste ManagementOptimized design of concrete recycling networksGermanyCase studyTo develop a DSS to investigate the economic impacts of recycling concrete from building demolitionRC aggregates are economically viable predominantly in areas without local supplies of natural aggregates
Cristiano et al. (2021)Journal of Cleaner ProductionCDW in the Metropolitan CityItalyCase study, Public databasesTo provide useful feedback to stakeholders and administration to improve CDWM flowsThe transition to CE in the concerned region is still at an early stage due to several weaknesses
Iodice et al. (2021)Waste ManagementSustainability assessment of CDWMItalyCase studyTo focus on the socio-economic and environmental implications of the CDWMThe practices and socio-environmental benefits of selective demolition are significant
Lachat et al. (2021)SustainabilityFrom buildings’ end of life to aggregate recyclingFranceCase StudyTo present a life cycle inventory compilation and assessment study of two buildingsThe results indicate that the transport of waste, and its treatment are the most impactful phases
Davis et al. (2021)Automation in constructionClassification of CDWAustraliaCase studyTo identify and design CDW classifications using digital images of waste deposited in a construction siteThis approach emulates authentic construction site scenarios where on-site sorting is difficult
Oliveira et al. (2021)Clean Technologies and Environmental PolicyStrategies to promote CE in the CDWMBrazilCase studyTo identify strategies for CDWM at the regional levelThese strategies were successfully operationalized through a case study
Luciano et al. (2021)Environmental Science and Pollution ResearchCD recycling unified managementItalyCase studyTo develop an approach for managing CD projects to ensure compliance with technical standards and environmental criteriaThis platform promotes an informed and transparent use of recycled products
Esguícero et al. (2021)Journal of Material Cycles and Waste ManagementCDW management process modelingBrazilInterview, Direct observationTo develop a framework for managing CDWM processesThe framework could improve the quality of recycled products
Condotta and Zatta (2021)Journal of Cleaner ProductionReuse of building elements in the architectural practiceEuropeInterview, Desk Study, and Activity AnalysisThis study discusses possible improvements of a circular built environmentThe examined regulatory context highlights how the reuse of building elements
Sobotka and Sagan (2021)Automation in ConstructionDecision support system in CDWMPolandInterviewTo develop a model to support decision-making in concrete waste managementThe model explains the management of concrete waste by recovery or disposal
Mihai (2019)SustainabilityCDW in RomaniaRomaniaReports, Field observationsThe paper performs a critical overview of the CDWM issuesThe paper reveals the poor monitoring of CDW flows across Romanian counties
Noll et al. (2019)Resources, Conservation, and RecyclingWaste generation and EU recyclingGreeceField survey, InterviewTo develop a dynamic stock-driven model for different infrastructure and building typesOur results show that the material stock expanded from 175 t/cap to 350 t/cap, leading to an increase in annual CDW generation
Ghaffar et al. (2020)Journal of Cleaner ProductionPathways to Circular ConstructionUnited KingdomInterviewTo investigate current practices of CDWM and circular constructionThe study revealed that government legislation on the reuse and recycling threshold for every new project
Jayasinghe and Waldmann (2020)SustainabilityDevelopment of a BIM-based web toolLuxembourgSource dataTo propose a BIM-based system to effectively manage the recycled materials and reused componentsThis system can extract the materials and component information of a building
Bao and Lu (2020)Science of the Total EnvironmentEfficient circularity for CDWMChinaCase study, Site investigations, InterviewThis study reports lessons learned from China, which developed an effective CDW circular economy from a low baseThe study findings can be used as a reference for other economies in developing effective circularity
Huang et al. (2018)Resources, Conservation, and RecyclingCDWM through the 3R principlesChinaInterviewTo investigate existing policies and management situations and analyze based on 3R principlesThe primary barriers and key challenges are identified to improve the current situation based on 3R principles
Mahpour (2018)Resources, conservation, and recyclingPrioritizing barriers to adopting CE in CDWMIranSurveyTo identify and classify the barriers of CE in CDWMThe study classified barriers into three different categories: behavioral, technical, and legal

Source(s): Table created by authors

Appendix

Table A1

Table 1

Summary of previous review articles

Author(s)Published journalPeriodArticle consideredDatabaseFocus areaApplied methodologyOutcomesResearch gaps
Rodrigo et al. (2024)Smart and Sustainable Built EnvironmentUp to 2022365Web of ScienceDigital technologies for CE in constructionBibliometric, Text-mining, Content AnalysisClassified digital technologies into two categoriesFocus solely on digital technologies
Illankoon and Vithanage (2023)Journal of Building Engineering2013–202278Scopus and Web of ScienceDevelopment of CE in the Construction SectorDescriptive, Bibliometric, Content AnalysisClassified CE literature into eight different themesNeed to determine the impact of greenhouse gas emissions and digital technologies in realizing the benefits of CE adoption
Soyinka et al. (2023)Environment, Development and Sustainability2000–20214,374Web of ScienceCDWM Overview from a Global Sustainability PerspectiveScientometric ReviewRevealed active research on CDWM overviewFocused only on reducing, recycling, and reusing strategies
Soto-Paz et al. (2023)Journal of Building Engineering2010–2022214Scopus and Web of ScienceComparative analysis of CDWM in Emerging and Developed CountriesBibliometric AnalysisHighlighted the role of eco-design in reducing CDWFocused only on a general overview
Gherman et al. (2023)Recycling2015–202172Open Source ArticleCircularity Outlines in the CDWMDescriptiveProvided strategy, enablers,
Barriers, computational tools, and building material development process in CDW management
Inadequate emphasis on educational mechanisms and tools
Zhang et al. (2023)Journal of Environmental Management1990–2022303Web of Science, Derwent Innovation IndexHow CDWM has addressed SDGsDescriptive, BibliometricAddresses trends in CDWM between the pre and post SDGs declaration era in academia and industryFocus solely on industry and academia perspectives regarding how CDWM contributes to achieving SDGs
Rayhan and Bhuiyan (2023)Waste Disposal & Sustainable EnergyNot mentioned121PubMed, Scopus, Web of ScienceTools and frameworks of CDWMDescriptiveHighlighted the tools and frameworks to manage CDWFocus solely on tools and frameworks
Papamichael et al. (2023)Waste Management & Research2019–202351Scopus, Online sourcesCE-based framework for CDWDescriptiveTheoretical discussion on CE-based frameworksCaptured only CE-related frameworks
Ismail (2023)Engineering, Construction and Architectural ManagementUp to 202120Scopus and Web of ScienceExisting issues in CE practices during movement control orderDescriptiveDescribed the Sophisticated CE system solutions to manage the resourcesDiscuss key issues in CE practices during movement control order and explore how BIM can fill the gaps
Rigillo et al. (2023)International Journal of Architecture, Art and Design2016–202262ScopusCircularity and digital technologies applicability in CDWMScoping ReviewExplored the potential and limitations of digital technologies in circular CDWMFocus solely on digital technologies
Centobelli et al. (2023)Journal of Cleaner Production1991–20204,027Web of ScienceSustainable and circular constructionBibliometric analysisProvided a bird-eye-view of existing quantitative and qualitative research within seven identified themesFocused only on a general overview
Santos et al. (2023)Journal of Polymers and the EnvironmentUp to 2021Not mentionedNot mentionedConstruction, renovation, & demolition (CRD) of plastic waste treatmentState-of-artReviewed status quo, challenges, technologies, opportunities, barriers, and recent initiatives on recycling CRD plastic wasteOnly capture CRD plastic waste
Oluleye et al. (2022)Journal of Cleaner Production2014–2021116ScopusCE research on building CDWBibliometric, Content AnalysisState-of-the-art on five research issuesMore focus on CE-strategies for building CDW
Mhlanga et al. (2022)Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology2005–202131ScopusShaping CE in the Built Environment in AfricaBibliometric AnalysisIdentified low CE research output in AfricaFocused only on African perspectives
Jahan et al. (2022)Sustainability2009–202049Scopus, Web of Science, and Google ScholarCE of construction and demolition wood wasteBibliometric, Content AnalysisIdentified waste management strategies involved in construction life cycle phasesFocused only on wood waste
Yang et al. (2022)Journal of cleaner productionUp to 20221068 (Construction field)
873 (Manufacturing field)
Scopus and Web of ScienceAttaining Circularity in constructionScientometric review and cross-industry explorationCircularity could be attained through the use of remanufactured and recycled non-CDWThis review outcomes are not specific to construction sector
Shooshtarian et al. (2022a, b, c)Sustainable Production and Consumption2000–202162Google Scholar, Web of Science and ScopusCE in the Australian CDW ManagementDescriptive and Thematic analysisIdentified CDW disposal reduction opportunities and barriers in materials lifecycleFocused only on Australian context
Aslam et al. (2020)Journal of Environmental ManagementNot mentionedNot mentionedOnline platformsCDWM in China and USAThematic AnalysisThe USA has a more developed CDWM system than China due to some management deficienciesConsidered articles related to China and the USA only
Jin et al. (2019)Resources, Conservation, and Recycling2009–2018410ScopusOverview of CDWM researchBibliometric AnalysisProvided the overall picture of CDWM-related researchGeneral science mapping of articles
Present study-Up to 2024212Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCOState-of-the-art research on CE implementation in CDWMMixed-method (scientometric and critical analysis)Uncovered the evolutionary progress, explored ten issues, and provided avenues for future research of CE in the CDWM fields

Source(s): Table created by authors

References

Abdelshafy, A. and Walther, G. (2023), “Using dynamic-locational material flow analysis to model the development of urban stock”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 5-20, doi: 10.1080/09613218.2022.2142495.

Al Zulayq, D.M., O'Brien, B.T., Kowalewski, M.J., Berenjian, A., Tarighaleslami, A.H. and Seifan, M. (2022), “Circular economy of construction and demolition waste: a literature review on lessons, challenges, and benefits”, Materials, Vol. 15, p. 76, doi: 10.3390/ma15010076.

Alite, M., Abu-Omar, H., Agurcia, M.T., Jácome, M., Kenney, J., Tapia, A. and Siebel, M. (2023), “Construction and demolition waste management in Kosovo: a survey of challenges and opportunities on the road to circular economy”, Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 1191-1203, doi: 10.1007/s10163-022-01577-5.

Almokdad, M. and Zentar, R. (2023), “Characterization of recycled dredged Sediments: toward circular economy in road construction”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 402, 132974, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.132974.

Aslam, M.S., Huang, B. and Cui, L. (2020), “Review of construction and demolition waste management in China and USA”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 264, 110445, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110445.

Bao, Z. and Lu, W. (2020), “Developing efficient circularity for construction and demolition waste management in fast emerging economies: lessons learned from Shenzhen, China”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 724, 138264, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138264.

Bilal, M., Khan, K.I.A., Thaheem, M.J. and Nasir, A.R. (2020), “Current state and barriers to the circular economy in the building sector: towards a mitigation framework”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 276, 123250, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123250.

Boateng, S.B., Banawi, A.A., Asa, E., Yu, Y. and Ahiable, C. (2023), “Environmental and economic outlook of construction and demolition waste management practices in a mid-sized city”, Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.1007/s10163-023-01667-y.

Boonkanit, P. and Suthiluck, K. (2023), “Developing a decision-making support system for a smart construction and demolition waste transition to a circular economy”, Sustainability, Vol. 15 No. 12, p. 9672, doi: 10.3390/su15129672.

Bressanelli, G., Pigosso, D.C., Saccani, N. and Perona, M. (2021), “Enablers, levers and benefits of Circular Economy in the Electrical and Electronic Equipment supply chain: a literature review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 298, 126819, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126819.

Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., Ertz, M. and Oropallo, E. (2023), “What we learn is what we earn from sustainable and circular construction”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 382, 135183, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135183.

Charef, R., Morel, J.C. and Rakhshan, K. (2021), “Barriers to implementing the circular economy in the construction industry: a critical review”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 23, 12989, doi: 10.3390/su132312989.

Cheng, B., Huang, J., Guo, Z., Li, J. and Chen, H. (2023), “Towards sustainable construction through better construction and demolition waste management practices: a SWOT analysis of Suzhou, China”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 23 No. 15, pp. 2614-2624, doi: 10.1080/15623599.2022.2081406.

Christensen, T.B., Johansen, M.R., Buchard, M.V. and Glarborg, C.N. (2022), “Closing the material loops for construction and demolition waste: the circular economy on the island Bornholm, Denmark”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling Advances, Vol. 15, 200104, doi: 10.1016/j.rcradv.2022.200104.

Condotta, M. and Zatta, E. (2021), “Reuse of building elements in the architectural practice and the European regulatory context: inconsistencies and possible improvements”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 318, 128413, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128413.

Cristiano, S., Ghisellini, P., D'Ambrosio, G., Xue, J., Nesticò, A., Gonella, F. and Ulgiati, S. (2021), “Construction and demolition waste in the Metropolitan City of Naples, Italy: state of the art, circular design, and sustainable planning opportunities”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 293, 125856, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125856.

Czekała, W., Drozdowski, J. and Łabiak, P. (2023), “Modern technologies for waste management: a review”, Applied Sciences, Vol. 13 No. 15, p. 8847, doi: 10.3390/app13158847.

Davis, P., Aziz, F., Newaz, M.T., Sher, W. and Simon, L. (2021), “The classification of construction waste material using a deep convolutional neural network”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 122, 103481, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103481.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015), Delivering the Circular Economy: A Toolkit for Policymakers, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Cowes.

Esa, M.R., Halog, A. and Rigamonti, L. (2017), “Developing strategies for managing construction and demolition wastes in Malaysia based on the concept of circular economy”, Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 1144-1154, doi: 10.1007/s10163-016-0516-x.

Esguícero, F.J., Deus, R.M., Battistelle, R., Martins, B.L. and Bezerra, B.S. (2021), “Construction and demolition waste management process modeling: a framework for the Brazilian context”, Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 2037-2050, doi: 10.1007/s10163-021-01247-y.

Gálvez-Martos, J.L., Styles, D., Schoenberger, H. and Zeschmar-Lahl, B. (2018), “Construction and demolition waste best management practice in Europe”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 136, pp. 166-178, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.04.016.

García-Sánchez, I.M., Somohano-Rodríguez, F.M., Amor-Esteban, V. and Frías-Aceituno, J.V. (2021), “Which region and which sector leads the circular economy? CEBIX, a multivariant index based on business actions”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 297, 113299, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113299.

Ghaffar, S.H., Burman, M. and Braimah, N. (2020), “Pathways to circular construction: an integrated management of construction and demolition waste for resource recovery”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 244, 118710, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118710.

Gherman, I.E., Lakatos, E.S., Clinci, S.D., Lungu, F., Constandoiu, V.V., Cioca, L.I. and Rada, E.C. (2023), “Circularity outlines in the construction and demolition waste management: a literature review”, Recycling, Vol. 8 No. 5, p. 69, doi: 10.3390/recycling8050069.

Ghosh, A., Edwards, D.J. and Hosseini, M.R. (2021), “Patterns and trends in Internet of Things (IoT) research: future applications in the construction industry”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 457-481, doi: 10.1108/ecam-04-2020-0271.

Ginga, C.P., Ongpeng, J.M.C. and Daly, M.K.M. (2020), “Circular economy on construction and demolition waste: a literature review on material recovery and production”, Materials, Vol. 13 No. 13, p. 2970, doi: 10.3390/ma13132970.

Govindan, K. and Hasanagic, M. (2018), “A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular economy: a supply chain perspective”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 Nos 1-2, pp. 278-311, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2017.1402141.

Guo, F., Wang, J. and Song, Y. (2022), “How to promote sustainable development of construction and demolition waste recycling systems: production subsidies or consumption subsidies?”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 32, pp. 407-423, doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2022.05.002.

HaitherAli, H. and Anjali, G. (2023), “Circular economy in construction sector—a guideline for policy makers from global perspective”, Circular Economy and Sustainability, pp. 1-29, doi: 10.1007/s43615-023-00321-x.

Huang, B., Wang, X., Kua, H., Geng, Y., Bleischwitz, R. and Ren, J. (2018), “Construction and demolition waste management in China through the 3R principle”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 129, pp. 36-44, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.029.

Illankoon, C. and Vithanage, S.C. (2023), “Closing the loop in the construction industry: a systematic literature review on the development of circular economy”, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 76, 107362, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107362.

Iodice, S., Garbarino, E., Cerreta, M. and Tonini, D. (2021), “Sustainability assessment of Construction and Demolition Waste management applied to an Italian case”, Waste Management, Vol. 128, pp. 83-98, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2021.04.031.

Ismail, Z.A.B. (2023), “A critical study of the existing issues in circular economy practices during movement control order: can BIM fill the gap?”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 3224-3241, doi: 10.1108/ecam-08-2021-0676.

Ivanica, R., Risse, M., Weber-Blaschke, G. and Richter, K. (2022), “Development of a life cycle inventory database and life cycle impact assessment of the building demolition stage: a case study in Germany”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 338, 130631, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130631.

Jahan, I., Zhang, G., Bhuiyan, M. and Navaratnam, S. (2022), “Circular economy of construction and demolition wood waste—a theoretical framework approach”, Sustainability, Vol. 14 No. 17, 10478, doi: 10.3390/su141710478.

Jayasinghe, L.B. and Waldmann, D. (2020), “Development of a BIM-based web tool as a material and component bank for a sustainable construction industry”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 5, p. 1766, doi: 10.3390/su12051766.

Jin, R., Yuan, H. and Chen, Q. (2019), “Science mapping approach to assisting the review of construction and demolition waste management research published between 2009 and 2018”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 140, pp. 175-188, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.029.

Kabirifar, K., Ashour, M., Yazdani, M., Mahdiyar, A. and Malekjafarian, M. (2023), “Cybernetic-parsimonious MCDM modeling with application to the adoption of Circular Economy in waste management”, Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 139, 110186, doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110186.

Lachat, A., Mantalovas, K., Desbois, T., Yazoghli-Marzouk, O., Colas, A.S., Di Mino, G. and Feraille, A. (2021), “From buildings' end of life to aggregate recycling under a circular economic perspective: a comparative life cycle assessment case study”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 17, p. 9625, doi: 10.3390/su13179625.

Li, J., Zhao, X., Yong, Q., Liang, J. and Wu, H. (2023), “Revealing the implicit and explicit attitudes of the public towards recycled aggregate based on psychological experiment”, Developments in the Built Environment, Vol. 16, 100280, doi: 10.1016/j.dibe.2023.100280.

Lin, K., Zhou, T., Gao, X., Li, Z., Duan, H., Wu, H., Lu, G. and Zhao, Y. (2022), “Deep convolutional neural networks for construction and demolition waste classification: VGGNet structures, cyclical learning rate, and knowledge transfer”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 318, 115501, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115501.

Liu, J., Wu, P., Jiang, Y. and Wang, X. (2021), “Explore potential barriers of applying circular economy in construction and demolition waste recycling”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 326, 129400, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129400.

Luciano, A., Cutaia, L., Cioffi, F. and Sinibaldi, C. (2021), “Demolition and construction recycling unified management: the DECORUM platform for improvement of resource efficiency in the construction sector”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 28 No. 19, pp. 24558-24569, doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-09513-6.

Luciano, A., Cutaia, L., Altamura, P. and Penalvo, E. (2022), “Critical issues hindering a widespread construction and demolition waste (CDW) recycling practice in EU countries and actions to undertake: the stakeholder's perspective”, Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy, Vol. 29, 100745, doi: 10.1016/j.scp.2022.100745.

Ma, W., Hao, J.L., Zhang, C., Guo, F. and Di Sarno, L. (2022), “System dynamics-life cycle assessment causal loop model for evaluating the carbon emissions of building refurbishment construction and demolition waste”, Waste and Biomass Valorization, Vol. 13 No. 9, pp. 4099-4113, doi: 10.1007/s12649-022-01796-9.

Ma, W., Liu, T., Hao, J.L., Wu, W. and Gu, X. (2023), “Towards a circular economy for construction and demolition waste management in China: critical success factors”, Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy, Vol. 35, 101226, doi: 10.1016/j.scp.2023.101226.

Mahpour, A. (2018), “Prioritizing barriers to adopt circular economy in construction and demolition waste management”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 134, pp. 216-227, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.026.

Meglin, R., Kytzia, S. and Habert, G. (2022), “Regional environmental-economic assessment of building materials to promote circular economy: comparison of three Swiss cantons”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 181, 106247, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106247.

Meng, X., Das, S. and Meng, J. (2023), “Integration of digital twin and circular economy in the construction industry”, Sustainability, Vol. 15 No. 17, 13186, doi: 10.3390/su151713186.

Mercader-Moyano, P., Camporeale, P.E. and Lopez-Lopez, J. (2022), “A construction and demolition waste management model applied to social housing to trigger post-pandemic economic recovery in Mexico”, Waste Management and Research, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 1027-1038, doi: 10.1177/0734242x211052856.

Mhatre, P., Gedam, V.V. and Unnikrishnan, S. (2023), “Management insights for reuse of materials in a circular built environment”, Waste Management and Research, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 396-405.

Mhlanga, J., Haupt, T.C. and Loggia, C. (2022), “Shaping circular economy in the built environment in Africa. A bibliometric analysis”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 613-642, doi: 10.1108/jedt-03-2022-0175.

Mihai, F.C. (2019), “Construction and demolition waste in Romania: the route from illegal dumping to building materials”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 11, p. 3179, doi: 10.3390/su11113179.

Mollaei, A., Bachmann, C. and Haas, C. (2023), “Estimating the recoverable value of in-situ building materials”, Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 91, 104455, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2023.104455.

Morón, A., Ferrández, D., Saiz, P. and Morón, C. (2021), “Experimental study with cement mortars made with recycled concrete aggregate and reinforced with aramid fibers”, Applied Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 17, p. 7791, doi: 10.3390/app11177791.

Nie, P., Dahanayake, K.C. and Sumanarathna, N. (2024), “Exploring UAE’s transition towards circular economy through construction and demolition waste management in the pre-construction stage–a case study approach”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 246-266.

Noll, D., Wiedenhofer, D., Miatto, A. and Singh, S.J. (2019), “The expansion of the built environment, waste generation and EU recycling targets on Samothraki, Greece: an island's dilemma”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 150, 104405, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104405.

Norouzi, M., Chàfer, M., Cabeza, L.F., Jiménez, L. and Boer, D. (2021), “Circular economy in the building and construction sector: a scientific evolution analysis”, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 44, 102704, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102704.

Oliveira, M.D.P.S.L., de Oliveira, E.A. and Fonseca, A.M. (2021), “Strategies to promote circular economy in the management of construction and demolition waste at the regional level: a case study in Manaus, Brazil”, Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 2713-2725, doi: 10.1007/s10098-021-02197-7.

Oluleye, B.I., Chan, D.W., Saka, A.B. and Olawumi, T.O. (2022), “Circular economy research on building construction and demolition waste: a review of current trends and future research directions”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 357, 131927, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131927.

Oluleye, B.I., Chan, D.W., Antwi-Afari, P. and Olawumi, T.O. (2023), “Modeling the principal success factors for attaining systemic circularity in the building construction industry: an international survey of circular economy experts”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 37, pp. 268-283, doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2023.03.008.

Pani, L., Rombi, J., Francesconi, L. and Mereu, A. (2020), “Circular economy model of recycled aggregates for the construction sector of Sardinia island”, Environmental Engineering & Management Journal (EEMJ), Vol. 19 No. 10, pp. 1847-1855, doi: 10.30638/eemj.2020.177.

Papamichael, I., Voukkali, I., Loizia, P. and Zorpas, A.A. (2023), “Construction and demolition waste framework of circular economy: a mini review”, Waste Management and Research, Vol. 41 No. 12, pp. 1728-1740, doi: 10.1177/0734242x231190804.

Ramos, M. and Martinho, G. (2021), “Influence of construction company size on the determining factors for construction and demolition waste management”, Waste Management, Vol. 136, pp. 295-302, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2021.10.032.

Ramos, M., Martinho, G. and Pina, J. (2023a), “Strategies to promote construction and demolition waste management in the context of local dynamics”, Waste Management, Vol. 162, pp. 102-112, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2023.02.028.

Ramos, M., Martinho, G., Vasconcelos, L. and Ferreira, F. (2023b), “Local scale dynamics to promote the sustainable management of construction and demolition waste”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling Advances, Vol. 17, 200135, doi: 10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200135.

Ratnasabapathy, S., Alashwal, A. and Perera, S. (2021), “Investigation of waste diversion rates in the construction and demolition sector in Australia”, Built Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 427-439, doi: 10.1108/bepam-01-2020-0012.

Rayhan, D.S.A. and Bhuiyan, I.U. (2023), “Review of construction and demolition waste management tools and frameworks with the classification, causes, and impacts of the waste”, Waste Disposal and Sustainable Energy, Vol. 6, pp. 1-27, doi: 10.1007/s42768-023-00166-y.

Rigillo, M., Ermolli̇, S.R., Gallucci̇o, G., Pi̇cci̇ri̇llo, S., Tordo, S., Galdi̇, F. and Musto, M. (2022), “A process ‘algorithm’ for C&D materials reuse through file-to-factory processes”, Environmental Research and Technology, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 340-348, doi: 10.35208/ert.1150743.

Rigillo, M., Galluccio, G. and Paragliola, F. (2023), “Digital and circularity in building. KETs for waste management in the European Union”, AGATHÓN| International Journal of Architecture, Art and Design, Vol. 13, pp. 247-258.

Rodrigo, N., Omrany, H., Chang, R. and Zuo, J. (2024), “Leveraging digital technologies for circular economy in construction industry: a way forward”, Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 85-116, doi: 10.1108/sasbe-05-2023-0111.

Ruiz, L.A.L., Ramón, X.R. and Domingo, S.G. (2020), “The circular economy in the construction and demolition waste sector–A review and an integrative model approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 248, 119238, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119238.

Rybak-Niedziółka, K., Starzyk, A., Łacek, P., Mazur, Ł., Myszka, I., Stefańska, A., Kurcjusz, M., Nowysz, A. and Langie, K. (2023), “Use of waste building materials in architecture and urban planning—a review of selected examples”, Sustainability, Vol. 15 No. 6, p. 5047, doi: 10.3390/su15065047.

Saeed, F., Mostafa, K., Rausch, C. and Hegazy, T. (2023), “Environmental impact and cost assessment for reusing waste during end-of-life activities on building projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 149 No. 10, 04023099, doi: 10.1061/jcemd4.coeng-12943.

Salleh, H., Ying, C.K., Hanid, M., Samad, Z.A., Sabli, N.A.M. and Khuzzan, S.M.S. (2022), “Development of guidance for the adoption of circular economy in construction and demolition waste management”, Planning Malaysia, Vol. 20, doi: 10.21837/pm.v20i24.1216.

Santos, G., Esmizadeh, E. and Riahinezhad, M. (2023), “Recycling construction, renovation, and demolition plastic waste: review of the status quo, challenges and opportunities”, Journal of Polymers and the Environment, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 1-31, doi: 10.1007/s10924-023-02982-z.

Sharma, N., Kalbar, P.P. and Salman, M. (2022), “Global review of circular economy and life cycle thinking in building Demolition Waste Management: a way ahead for India”, Building and Environment, Vol. 222, 109413, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109413.

Shooshtarian, S., Caldera, S., Maqsood, T., Ryley, T. and Khalfan, M. (2022a), “An investigation into challenges and opportunities in the Australian construction and demolition waste management system”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 4313-4330, doi: 10.1108/ecam-05-2021-0439.

Shooshtarian, S., Caldera, S., Maqsood, T., Ryley, T., Wong, P.S. and Zaman, A. (2022b), “Analysis of factors influencing the creation and stimulation of the Australian market for recycled construction and demolition waste products”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 34, pp. 163-176, doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2022.09.005.

Shooshtarian, S., Maqsood, T., Caldera, S. and Ryley, T. (2022c), “Transformation towards a circular economy in the Australian construction and demolition waste management system”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 30, pp. 89-106, doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2021.11.032.

Shuvaiev, A., Arutiunian, I., Anin, V., Ichetovkin, A. and Sylenko, S. (2022), “Ensuring the economic and environmental efficiency in managing the flows of construction and demolition waste by using tools of economic and mathematical modeling”, Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, Vol. 117 No. 10, pp. 6-14, doi: 10.15587/1729-4061.2022.259537.

Sobotka, A. and Sagan, J. (2021), “Decision support system in management of concrete demolition waste”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 128, 103734, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103734.

Soto-Paz, J., Arroyo, O., Torres-Guevara, L.E., Parra-Orobio, B.A. and Casallas-Ojeda, M. (2023), “The circular economy in the construction and demolition waste management: a comparative analysis in emerging and developed countries”, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 78, 107724, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107724.

Soyinka, O.A., Wadu, M.J., Lebunu Hewage, U.W.A. and Oladinrin, T.O. (2023), “Scientometric review of construction demolition waste management: a global sustainability perspective”, Environment, Development and Sustainability, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 10533-10565, doi: 10.1007/s10668-022-02537-7.

Takyi-Annan, G.E. and Zhang, H. (2023), “Assessing the impact of overcoming BIM implementation barriers on BIM usage frequency and circular economy in the project lifecycle using Partial least Squares structural Equation modelling (PLS-SEM) analysis”, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 295, 113329, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113329.

Tefa, L., Bianco, I., Blengini, G.A. and Bassani, M. (2022), “Integrated and comparative Structural-LCA analysis of unbound and cement-stabilized construction and demolition waste aggregate for subbase road pavement layers formation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 352, 131599, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131599.

Torgautov, B., Zhanabayev, A., Tleuken, A., Turkyilmaz, A., Borucki, C. and Karaca, F. (2022), “Performance assessment of construction companies for the circular economy: a balanced scorecard approach”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 33, pp. 991-1004, doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2022.08.021.

Tsydenova, N., Becker, T. and Walther, G. (2021), “Optimised design of concrete recycling networks: the case of North Rhine-Westphalia”, Waste Management, Vol. 135, pp. 309-317, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2021.09.013.

van den Berg, M., Hulsbeek, L. and Voordijk, H. (2023), “Decision-support for selecting demolition waste management strategies”, Buildings and Cities, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 883-901, doi: 10.5334/bc.318.

Véliz, K.D., Ramírez-Rodríguez, G. and Ossio, F. (2022), “Willingness to pay for construction and demolition waste from buildings in Chile”, Waste Management, Vol. 137, pp. 222-230, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2021.11.008.

Véliz, K.D., Walters, J.P., Busco, C. and Vargas, M. (2023), “Modeling barriers to a circular economy for construction demolition waste in the Aysén region of Chile”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling Advances, Vol. 18, 200145, doi: 10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200145.

Victar, H.C. and Waidyasekara, K.G.A.S. (2023), “Circular economy strategies for waste management in Sri Lanka: a focus on demolitions and repurpose and material recovery and production stages”, Waste Management and Research, pp. 1-26, doi: 10.1177/0734242x231206988.

Villoria Sáez, P., Barbero-Álvarez, M.A., Porras-Amores, C., Álvarez Alonso, M. and García Torres, Á. (2023), “Design and validation of a mobile application for construction and demolition waste traceability”, Buildings, Vol. 13 No. 8, p. 1908, doi: 10.3390/buildings13081908.

Wu, P.Y., Sandels, C., Mjörnell, K., Mangold, M. and Johansson, T. (2022a), “Predicting the presence of hazardous materials in buildings using machine learning”, Building and Environment, Vol. 213, 108894, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.108894.

Wu, W., Xie, L. and Hao, J.L. (2022b), “An integrated trading platform for construction and demolition waste recovery in a circular economy”, Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy, Vol. 25, 100597, doi: 10.1016/j.scp.2022.100597.

Wuni, I.Y., Shen, G.Q. and Osei-Kyei, R. (2019), “Scientometric review of global research trends on green buildings in construction journals from 1992 to 2018”, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 190, pp. 69-85, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.02.010.

Yang, Y., Guan, J., Nwaogu, J.M., Chan, A.P., Chi, H.L. and Luk, C.W. (2022), “Attaining higher levels of circularity in construction: scientometric review and cross-industry exploration”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 375, 133934, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133934.

Yu, S., Awasthi, A.K., Ma, W., Wen, M., Di Sarno, L., Wen, C. and Hao, J.L. (2022), “In support of circular economy to evaluate the effects of policies of construction and demolition waste management in three key cities in Yangtze River Delta”, Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy, Vol. 26, 100625, doi: 10.1016/j.scp.2022.100625.

Zhang, K., Qing, Y., Umer, Q. and Asmi, F. (2023), “How construction and demolition waste management has addressed sustainable development goals: exploring academic and industrial trends”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 345, 118823, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118823.

Acknowledgements

Funding: This publication is based upon work supported by Khalifa University of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates under Award No. FSU-2023-007.

Corresponding author

Vikas Swarnakar can be contacted at: vikkiswarnakar@gmail.com, vikas.swarnakar@ku.ac.ae

Related articles