Circular building hubs as intermediate step for the transition towards a circular economy

Van Uden, M; Wamelink, H; Van Bueren, E and Heurkens, E (2025) Circular building hubs as intermediate step for the transition towards a circular economy. Construction Management and Economics, 43(6), pp. 446-464. ISSN 0144-6193

Abstract

Despite growing government and market interest to use Circular Building Hubs for reusing construction components, few academic articles have been written about them. We know little about the potential of hubs to answer to the challenges of reuse in the present and future, and their potential to drive systemic changes towards a circular economy. Using various qualitative research methods, this article aims to respond to this research gap by applying social practice theory and the multilevel perspective on past and future practice reconfigurations within the system-of-practices in which these hubs reside. Results show that within hubs reconfiguration from demolition to deconstruction and repair and refurbishment practices have been developed. However, selling components remains challenging, and procurement for reuse and design skill remain underdeveloped. Practitioners expect the system-of-practices to professionalize in the coming years, resulting in market growth for secondary components. Long term, practitioners expect hubs to shrink or disappear because the balance between supply and demand will be controlled digitally. Hubs are therefore a driver for the transition, but only as intermediate step, not as solution for a circular economy. This article is particularly interesting for academics studying CE and transitions, and policy makers interested in developing Circular Building Hubs.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: circular building hubs; circular economy; reconfiguration; social practice theory; transitions
Index terms: qualitative research method, repair, multilevel perspective, reconfiguration, practitioner, circular economy, supply and demand, social practice theory
Subjects: organization, practitioner, maintenance engineering, theoretical framing, sustainable design, market analysis, research design and methodology
Topics: Sustainability, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Roles and Professions
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here