Shooshtarian, S; Hosseini, M R; Kocaturk, T; Arnel, T and T. Garofano, N (2023) Circular economy in the Australian AEC industry: Investigation of barriers and enablers. Building Research & Information, 51(1), pp. 56-68. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry has a reputation for low resource efficiency worldwide. Policymakers are exploring various avenues to address the issue, with one option being a shift toward a circular economy (CE). However, first one must identify how the relevant stakeholders perceive the concept. Hence, this study aimed to elicit stakeholders' perceptions about CE and identify the main barriers and enablers affecting its adoption in the Australian context. A total of 132 respondents representing various stakeholder groups were surveyed. The findings revealed that only participants' awareness of CE has a meaningful link with adoption; and this has a statistically significant association with major CE adoption indicators (i.e. adoption, willingness to apply, level of agreement on considering CE as business ethics and that CE is beneficial). The top three barriers were a: 'lack of incentives'; 'lack of specific regulations'; and a 'lack of knowledge'. The three top enablers were reported to be 'R&D of enabling technologies', 'educate project stakeholders' and 'provide evidence for the CE added value'. This paper could inform policy development activities in the Australian context and provides the foundation for a roadmap to a CE within the national AEC industry.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | circular business models; construction and demolition waste management; infrastructure; productivity; resource efficiency; sustainable construction |
| Index terms: | circular economy, productivity, added value, option, investigation, business model, resource efficiency, business ethics, construction and demolition, sustainable construction, evidence, waste management, project stakeholder, regulation |
| Subjects: | decision analysis, sociology, political science, management, sustainable design, sustainable construction, professional practice, economic analysis, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, business, waste management |
| Topics: | Ethics, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Governance, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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