Abadi, M and Sammuneh, M A (2020) Integrating circular economy and constructability research: An initial development of a lifecycle "circularity" assessment framework and indicators. In: Scott, L and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 36th Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-8 September 2020, Online Event, UK.
Abstract
The Circular Economy (CE) paradigm is attracting more interest in the "constructability" literature, with no much attention paid to the project-based nature of the construction process. Hitherto, no complete framework is available to assess "circularity" of the entire construction project lifecycle. This paper adopts a collective approach to evaluate the overall conformity of construction practices to bundles of CE concepts grouped in themes relevant to different stages of a project lifecycle, rather than tracking their casual links with individual CE concepts. A framework with five themes and twelve circularity indicators was developed to assess circularity of construction practices in general. Themes include: 1) design for circularity, 2) reduced construction impact, 3) sustainable utilisation & maintenance, 4) construction and demolition (C&D) waste management, and 5) business models, education, and CE data management. Consequently a systematic review of 57 articles was conducted to assess compliance of “constructability” practices, as reported in the literature, with CE concepts using the proposed framework. Firstly, results reveal a weak association between CE and "constructability" despite the well-established literature on both topics. However, an increasing interest in CE concepts has recently been detected in "constructability" literature. Secondly, the design stage plays a key role in maximising future circularity throughout the project lifecycle; however, the current literature provides no evidence to embedding the use of recycled materials in design practices. Thirdly, C&D waste management is attracting an increasing attention in the literature while the environmental impact of buildings during the operation stage remains an area for further research. Fourthly, the literature identifies opportunities for better "constructability" practices through improved CE management, including: CE data management, improved collaboration, and new business models. The proposed framework can be extended for rating/evaluating "circularity" of construction firms and projects to identify areas of good practice and areas for improvement and further research.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | circular economy CE; lifecycle "circularity" assessment framework lcaf; circularity indicators cis; constructability; sustainable development |
| Index terms: | construction process, sustainable development, environmental impact, business model, construction and demolition, evidence, collaboration, data management, lifecycle, good practice, construction project, paradigm, constructability, design stage, circular economy, project lifecycle, construction firm, circularity, recycled materials, compliance, systematic literature review, design practice, waste management |
| Subjects: | waste management, production management, sustainable design, research evaluation and metrics, organization, management, education and knowledge transfer, evaluation and assessment methods, business, data management, design process, project completion, construction integration, sustainable materials, building construction, health safety and environment, project delivery, professional practice, performance measurement, environmental impact |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Site Management, Organizational Design, Quality Management, Digital Applications, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Design Practice, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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