Cited by 270BIM and Construction IntegrationSustainable Supply Chain ManagementSustainable Building Design and Assessment

Strategies for Applying the Circular Economy to Prefabricated Buildings

Open access
Minunno, Roberto, O’Grady, Timothy, Morrison, Gregory M., Gruner, Richard L., Colling, Michael·2018·Buildings

Abstract

In this paper, a circular-economy framework is applied to the prefabricated building sector to explore the environmental advantages of prefabrication in terms of reduction, reusability, adaptability, and recyclability of its components. A qualitative approach is used to revisit the design, construction, and demolition stages of prefabricated buildings; in so doing, the circular-economy framework is applied to foster circular prefabricated modi operandi. Prefabrication of buildings can be divided into four entities: elements and components, panels (or non-volumetric elements), volumetric, and entire modules. Through an analysis of published research on how the circular economy can be applied to different industry sectors and production processes, seven strategies emerged, each of which revealed the potential of improving the circular economy of buildings. The first strategy is reduction of waste through a lean production chain. By reusing the waste, the second strategy investigates the use of by-products in the production of new components. The third strategy focuses on the reuse of replacement parts and components. The fourth strategy is based on design toward adaptability, respectively focusing on reusability of components and adapting components for a second use with a different purpose. Similarly, the fifth strategy considers the implications of designing for disassembly with Building Information Modeling so as to improve the end-of-life deconstruction phase. The sixth strategy focuses on design with attention to recyclability of used material. Finally, the seventh strategy considers the use of tracking technologies with embedded information on components’ geometric and mechanic characteristics as well as their location and life cycle to enable second use after deconstruction. It is demonstrated that prefabricated buildings are key to material savings, waste reduction, reuse of components, and various other forms of optimization for the construction sector. By adopting the identified strategies in prefabricated buildings, a circular economy could be implemented within the construction industry. Finally, seven guidelines were distilled from the review and linked to the identified strategies. Owing to their degree of adaptability and capacity of being disassembled, prefabricated buildings would allow waste reduction and facilitate a second life of components.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/buildings8090125

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Material reuse is cost-effective and environmentally friendly.

    “It is cost-effective and environmentally friendly [79,81,95].”

    From Circular Economy of Construction and Demolition Wood Waste—A Theoretical Framework Approach (2022) · cites this paper as [81]

    The ‘Reuse of replacement parts or entire components’ section says reuse can reduce waste, supporting an environmental benefit. Section 3.1.3 says reuse is not always economically convenient and is feasible only when a disassembled component costs less than a new one. The paper therefore does not support the unqualified claim that material reuse is cost-effective. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Through BIM, the detailed composition of waste materials can be calculated at the early design stage.

    “Through BIM, the detailed composition of waste materials can be calculated at the early design stage [79][80][81][82].”

    From Circular Economy of Construction and Demolition Wood Waste—A Theoretical Framework Approach (2022) · cites this paper as [81]

    Section 3.1.5 says BIM lets designers track detailed information about building components, and Section 3.1.1 says BIM has potential to reduce construction waste. Neither section says BIM can calculate the detailed composition of waste materials at the early design stage. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 77

  1. Merli, R.; Preziosi, M.; Acampora, A. How do scholars approach the circular economy? A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 178, 703-722. [CrossRef] · DOI
  2. Shih, P.H.; Chang, J.E.; Lu, H.C.; Chiang, L.C. Reuse of heavy metal-containing sludges in cement production. Cem. Concr. Res. 2005, 35, 2110-2115. [CrossRef] · DOI
  3. Haas, W.; Krausmann, F.; Wiedenhofer, D.; Heinz, M. How circular is the global economy?: An assessment of material flows, waste production, and recycling in the European Union and the world in 2005. J. Ind. Ecol. 2015, 19, 765-777. [CrossRef] · DOI
  4. Siddique, R.; Naik, T.R. Properties of concrete containing scrap-tire rubber-An overview. Waste Manag. 2004, 24, 563-569. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  5. Di Maria, A.; Eyckmans, J.; Van Acker, K. Downcycling versus recycling of construction and demolition waste: Combining LCA and LCC to support sustainable policy making. Waste Manag. 2018, 75, 3-21. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI · Paper page
  6. Allwood, J.M. Squaring the circular economy: The role of recycling within a hierarchy of material management strategies. In Handbook of Recycling; Elsevier Science: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2014; pp. 445-477.
  7. Stahel, W.R. The circular economy. Nat. News 2016, 531, 435. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI · Paper page
  8. Gibb, A.G. Off-Site Fabrication: Prefabrication, Pre-Assembly and Modularisation; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1999.
  9. Jackson, M.; Marra, F. Roman Stone Masonry: Volcanic Foundations of the Ancient City. Am. J. Archaeol. 2006, 110, 403-436. [CrossRef] · DOI
  10. Condit, C.W. The Chicago School of Architecture: A History of Commercial and Public Building in the Chicago Area, 1875-1925; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1973.
  11. Mao, C.; Shen, Q.; Shen, L.; Tang, L. Comparative study of greenhouse gas emissions between off-site prefabrication and conventional construction methods: Two case studies of residential projects. Energy Build. 2013, 66, 165-176. [CrossRef] · DOI
  12. Fregonara, E.; Giordano, R.; Ferrando, D.G.; Pattono, S. Economic-environmental indicators to support investment decisions: A focus on the buildings' end-of-life stage. Buildings 2017, 7, 65. [CrossRef] · DOI
  13. Fercoq, A.; Lamouri, S.; Carbone, V. Lean/Green integration focused on waste reduction techniques. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 137, 567-578. [CrossRef] · DOI
  14. Lin, Y.K.; Chang, P.C.; Chen, J.C. Reliability evaluation for a waste-reduction parallel-line manufacturing system. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 35, 93-101. [CrossRef] · DOI
  15. Van Der Wiel, A.; Bossink, B.; Masurel, E. Reverse logistics for waste reduction in cradle-to-cradle-oriented firms: Waste management strategies in the Dutch metal industry. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2012, 60, 96-113. [CrossRef] · DOI
  16. Scherrer-Rathje, M.; Boyle, T.A.; Deflorin, P. Lean, take two! Reflections from the second attempt at lean implementation. Bus. Horiz. 2009, 52, 79-88. [CrossRef] · DOI
  17. Browning, T.R.; Heath, R.D. Reconceptualizing the effects of lean on production costs with evidence from the F-22 program. J. Oper. Manag. 2009, 27, 23-44. [CrossRef] · DOI
  18. Brown, M.T.; Buranakarn, V. Emergy indices and ratios for sustainable material cycles and recycle options. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2003, 38, 1-22. [CrossRef] · DOI
  19. Elia, V.; Gnoni, M.G.; Tornese, F. Measuring circular economy strategies through index methods: A critical analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 2741-2751. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  20. Formoso, C.T.; Soibelman, L.; De Cesare, C.; Isatto, E.L. Material waste in building industry: Main causes and prevention. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2002, 128, 316-325. [CrossRef] · DOI
  21. Myhre, M.; Mackillop, D.A. Rubber recycling. Rubber Chem. Technol. 2002, 75, 429-474. [CrossRef] · DOI
  22. Pollard, S.J.T.; Fowler, G.D.; Sollars, C.J.; Perry, R. Low-cost adsorbents for waste and wastewater treatment: A review. Sci. Total. Environ. 1992, 116, 31-52. [CrossRef] · DOI
  23. Al-Obaidi, K.M.; Wei, S.L.; Ismail, M.A.; Kam, K.J. Sustainable building assessment of colonial shophouses after adaptive reuse in Kuala Lumpur. Buildings 2017, 7, 87. [CrossRef] · DOI
  24. Bocken, N.M.P.; Olivetti, E.A.; Cullen, J.M.; Potting, J.; Lifset, R. Taking the Circularity to the Next Level: A Special Issue on the Circular Economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, 476-482. [CrossRef] · DOI
  25. Galle, W.; de Temmerman, N.; Meyer, R.D. Integrating scenarios into life cycle assessment: Understanding the value and financial feasibility of a demountable building. Buildings 2017, 7, 64. [CrossRef] · DOI
  26. Mok, H.S.; Kim, H.J.; Moon, K.S. Disassemblability of mechanical parts in automobile for recycling. Comput. Ind. Eng. 1997, 33, 621-624. [CrossRef] · DOI
  27. Adams, K.T.; Osmani, M.; Thorpe, T.; Thornback, J. Circular economy in construction: Current awareness, challenges and enablers. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Waste Resour. Manag. 2017, 170, 15-24. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  28. Bakker, C.; Wang, F.; Huisman, J.; Den Hollander, M. Products that go round: Exploring product life extension through design. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 69, 10-16. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  29. Hirschl, B.; Konrad, W.; Scholl, G. New concepts in product use for sustainable consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 2003, 11, 873-881. [CrossRef] · DOI
  30. Sanchez, B.; Haas, C. Capital project planning for a circular economy. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2018, 36, 303-312. [CrossRef] · DOI
  31. Truttmann, N.; Rechberger, H. Contribution to resource conservation by reuse of electrical and electronic household appliances. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2006, 48, 249-262. [CrossRef] · DOI
  32. Catalli, V.; Williams, M. Designing for disassembly [An innovative strategy for attaining environmental goals and building adaptability] [Mountain Equipment Co-op Ottawa store case study]. Can. Arch. 2001, 46, 27-29.
  33. Ashcraft, H.W. Building information modeling: A framework for collaboration. Constr. Law 2008, 28, 5.
  34. Desai, A.; Mital, A. Incorporating work factors in design for disassembly in product design. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2005, 16, 712-732. [CrossRef] · DOI
  35. Blengini, G.A. Life cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: A case study in Turin, Italy. Build. Environ. 2009, 44, 319-330. [CrossRef] · DOI
  36. Knoeri, C.; Sanyé-Mengual, E.; Althaus, H.-J. Comparative LCA of recycled and conventional concrete for structural applications. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 909-918. [CrossRef] · DOI
  37. Tam, V.W.Y. Economic comparison of concrete recycling: A case study approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2008, 52, 821-828. [CrossRef] · DOI
  38. Yellishetty, M.; Mudd, G.M.; Ranjith, P.G.; Tharumarajah, A. Environmental life-cycle comparisons of steel production and recycling: Sustainability issues, problems and prospects. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 650-663. [CrossRef] · DOI
  39. Ahmadian FF, A.; Rashidi, T.H.; Akbarnezhad, A.; Waller, S.T. BIM-enabled sustainability assessment of material supply decisions. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2017, 24, 668-695. [CrossRef] · DOI
  40. Akadiri, P.O.; Olomolaiye, P.O. Development of sustainable assessment criteria for building materials selection. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2012, 19, 666-687. [CrossRef] · DOI
  41. Power, D.; Gruner, R.L. Variable use of standards-based IOS enabling technologies in Australian SMEs: An examination of deliberate and emergent decision making processes. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2017, 26, 164-184. [CrossRef] · DOI
  42. Pearce, D.W.; Turner, R.K. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment; JHU Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1990.
  43. Lan, C.H. The design of multiple production lines under deadline constraint. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2007, 106, 191-203. [CrossRef] · DOI
  44. Sacks, R.; Radosavljevic, M.; Barak, R. Requirements for building information modeling based lean production management systems for construction. Autom. Constr. 2010, 19, 641-655. [CrossRef] · DOI
  45. Yu, H.; Tweed, T.; Al-Hussein, M.; Nasseri, R. Development of lean model for house construction using value stream mapping. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2009, 135, 782-790. [CrossRef] · DOI
  46. Höök, M.; Stehn, L. Applicability of lean principles and practices in industrialized housing production. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2008, 26, 1091-1100. [CrossRef] · DOI
  47. Allwood, J.M.; Cullen, J.M.; Carruth, M.A.; Cooper, D.R.; McBrien, M.; Milford, R.L.; Moynihan, M.C.; Patel, A.C. Sustainable Materials: With Both Eyes Open; UIT Cambridge: Cambridge, UK, 2012.
  48. Allwood, J.M.; Ashby, M.F.; Gutowski, T.G.; Worrell, E. Material efficiency: A white paper. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 362-381.
  49. CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  50. Steinhilper, R.; Hieber, M. Remanufacturing-the key solution for transforming "downcycling" into "upcycling" of electronics. In Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, Denver, CO, USA, 9 May 2001; pp. 161-166.
  51. Tabsh, S.W.; Abdelfatah, A.S. Influence of recycled concrete aggregates on strength properties of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 1163-1167. [CrossRef] · DOI
  52. Penteado, C.S.G.; Viviani De Carvalho, E.; Lintz, R.C.C. Reusing ceramic tile polishing waste in paving block manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 514-520. [CrossRef] · DOI
  53. Demir, I.; Orhan, M. Reuse of waste bricks in the production line. Build. Environ. 2003, 38, 1451-1455. [CrossRef] · DOI
  54. Junak, J.; Sicakova, A. Effect of surface modifications of recycled concrete aggregate on concrete properties. Buildings 2017, 8, 2. [CrossRef] · DOI
  55. Meyer, C. The greening of the concrete industry. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2009, 31, 601-605. [CrossRef] · DOI
  56. Teixeira, E.R.; Mateus, R.; Camõesa, A.F.; Bragança, L.; Branco, F.G. Comparative environmental life-cycle analysis of concretes using biomass and coal fly ashes as partial cement replacement material. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2221-2230. [CrossRef] · DOI
  57. Imbabi, M.S.; Carrigan, C.; McKenna, S. Trends and developments in green cement and concrete technology. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2012, 1, 194-216. [CrossRef] · DOI
  58. Omran, A.; Tagnit-Hamou, A. Performance of glass-powder concrete in field applications. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 109, 84-95. [CrossRef] · DOI
  59. Aye, L.; Ngo, T.; Crawford, R.H.; Gammampila, R.; Mendis, P. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy analysis of prefabricated reusable building modules. Energy Build. 2012, 47, 159-168. [CrossRef] · DOI
  60. Cullen, J.M. Circular Economy: Theoretical Benchmark or Perpetual Motion Machine? J. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, 483-486. [CrossRef] · DOI
  61. Desai, A.; Mital, A. Evaluation of disassemblability to enable design for disassembly in mass production. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2003, 32, 265-281. [CrossRef] · DOI
  62. De Ron, A.; Penev, K. Disassembly and recycling of electronic consumer products: An overview. Technovation 1995, 15, 363-374. [CrossRef] · DOI
  63. Go, T.F.; Wahab, D.A.; Rahman, M.N.A.; Ramli, R.; Azhari, C.H. Disassemblability of end-of-life vehicle: A critical review of evaluation methods. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 1536-1546. [CrossRef] · DOI
  64. Langerak, E. To shred or to disassemble? Recycling of plastics in mass consumer goods. In Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, San Francisco, CA, USA, 5-7 May 1997; pp. 63-68.
  65. Gorgolewski, M. Designing with reused building components: Some challenges. Build. Res. Inf. 2008, 36, 175-188. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  66. Oguchi, M.; Tasaki, T.; Moriguchi, Y. Decomposition analysis of waste generation from stocks in a dynamic system: Factors in the generation of waste consumer durables. J. Ind. Ecol. 2010, 14, 627-640. [CrossRef] · DOI
  67. Woods, L.; Bakshi, B.R. Reusable vs. disposable cups revisited: Guidance in life cycle comparisons addressing scenario, model, and parameter uncertainties for the US consumer. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 931-940. [CrossRef] · DOI
  68. Arge, K. Adaptable office buildings: Theory and practice. Facilities 2005, 23, 119-127. [CrossRef] · DOI
  69. Sanchez, B.; Haas, C. A novel selective disassembly sequence planning method for adaptive reuse of buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 183, 998-1010. [CrossRef] · DOI
  70. Wheaton, W.G. Designing for Disassembly in the Built Environment. Master's Thesis, Univesrity of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA, 2017.
  71. Wu, S.-H. Use BIM and Prefabrication to Reduce Construction Waste. Master's Thesis, Univesrity of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA, March 2017.
  72. Braungart, M.; McDonough, W.; Bollinger, A. Cradle-to-cradle design: Creating healthy emissions-a strategy for eco-effective product and system design. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 1337-1348. [CrossRef] · DOI
  73. Van Erp, G.; Rogers, D. A highly sustainable fibre composite building panel. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Fibre Composites in Civil Infrastructure-Past, Present and Future, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia, 1-2 December 2008.
  74. Sri Ravindrarajah, R.; Tam, C.T. Recycling concrete as fine aggregate in concrete. Int. J. Cem. Compos. Lightweight Concr. 1987, 9, 235-241. [CrossRef] · DOI
  75. Noguchi, T.; Tamura, M. Concrete design towards complete recycling. Struct. Concr. 2001, 2, 155-167. [CrossRef] · DOI
  76. Evangelista, L.; de Brito, J. Mechanical behaviour of concrete made with fine recycled concrete aggregates. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2007, 29, 397-401. [CrossRef] · DOI
  77. Park, J.Y.; Chertow, M.R. Establishing and testing the "reuse potential" indicator for managing wastes as resources. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 137, 45-53. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Minunno, R., O’Grady, T., Morrison, G. M., Gruner, R. L., & Colling, M.
Affiliations
  • Curtin University (AU)
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
  • Fleetwood Australia, 1202 Abernethy Rd, Perth Airport, WA 6105, Australia
Corresponding author
Minunno, Roberto
Venue
Buildings
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2018-09-06
Volume
8
Issue
9
Pages
125
ISSN
2075-5309 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2891093812
Cited by
270
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2
FWCI
13.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Buildings (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Australian Research Council
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › BIM and Construction Integration
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Sustainable Building Design and Assessment
Keywords
circular economy, prefabricated buildings, waste reduction, component reuse, recyclability, design for disassembly, building information modeling, deconstruction, lean manufacturing, by-product utilization, construction waste, end-of-life buildings, construction industry sustainability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review