Mani, S.; Karunasena, G.; Hosseini, M. R. and Hasan, A. (2026) Building circularity performance model: A weighted multi-level assessment framework aligned with ISO standards. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, ISSN 2046-6099
Abstract
Purpose – This paper proposes the building circularity performance (BCP) model to address fragmentation in existing building circularity assessments, which lack comprehensive coverage of circular economy (CE) aspects, standardized KPI weightings and multi-level evaluation across buildings. Design/methodology/approach – Using a design science research approach, a holistic and weighted assessment framework spanning five building levels (material, subcomponent, component, system and building) was developed. The BCP integrates 52 validated and weighted key performance indicators (KPIs) covering material flows, waste, energy, water, CO2 emissions and design strategies, aligned with ISO 20887 and ISO 59020. The model was demonstrated through a single case study, and evaluated through an expert focus group, four design scenarios and sensitivity analyses of KPIs and weights. Findings – Results show that circularity performance improves most through strategies extending building lifespan, promoting modularity and optimizing renewable resource use. The findings reveal that circularity emerges from the interaction of material, environmental and design strategies rather than isolated interventions. Sensitivity analyses confirm that the model is both responsive and robust, with bounded variations in outputs and consistent scenario rankings under input and weight changes. Originality/value – The novelty of BCP lies in its systematic integration and weighting of multiple KPIs in various CE dimensions through a five-level structure. BCP advances existing approaches by integrating previously overlooked dimensions, including locality, hazardous content, environmental performance and design strategies such as repairability and take-back systems, within a single building assessment framework. It also contributes to the Sustainable Development Goals by supporting climate-resilient, resource-efficient and circular building practices.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building circularity indicators; building circularity measurement; circular built environment; circularity evaluation; circularity model; environmental assessment |
| Index terms: | environmental performance, building lifespan, variation, circularity, sustainable development goal, focus group, integration, design science research, design strategy, building assessment, strategy, environmental assessment, building practice, case study, circular economy, CO2 emissions, key performance indicator, sensitivity analysis, modularity, ISO, built environment, methodology, fragmentation, dimension, interaction |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, sustainable materials, infrastructure and transport systems, standards development, asset management, building construction, design practice, behavioral psychology, design flexibility, environmental hazards, sustainability assessment, health monitoring assessment and metrics, design methods, business, air quality, environmental impact, sustainable design, organizational analysis, project delivery, management, research methods, contractual condition |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Design Practice, Sustainability, Organizational Design, Project Management, Research Practice, Quality Management, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Contract Administration, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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