Mapping Circularity Strategies in Building Sustainability Assessment Methods

2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.3390/su18052585
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

The widespread adoption of circularity principles in the building sector fuels the need for robust and comprehensive evaluation systems, which could benefit from the approaches and indicators employed in widely accepted building sustainability assessment (BSA) methods. Simultaneously, the effective consideration of circular economy (CE) principles into BSA methods becomes increasingly urgent. An important step towards achieving these targets is the investigation of whether, and to which degree, the existing BSA methods encompass and express circularity principles; this study focuses on this relatively underexplored theme. Specifically, this study investigates the degree of association between five widely used BSA methods and the circularity strategies included in the 10R Framework. The methods examined are BREEAM, DGNB, LEED, Level(s) and SBTool (versions and criteria for new buildings). The examination was conducted at the lowest self-contained and score-attributing level of each method and was undertaken by five expert groups—each assigned one method. A quantitative scale from 0 to 5 was used to assess the strength of the association. The results are analysed in terms of (i) the criteria/thematic areas within each method receiving high/low scores, and (ii) the circularity strategies deduced to be strongly/weakly represented in and across the BSA methods. Common trends and milder differences across these axes are observed. Generally, the associations appear stronger in thematic areas relevant to, among others, resources and lifecycle performance, and weaker regarding parameters linked to user comfort. The R-strategies Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Rethink emerge as more intensely represented in the examined methods. The study’s results indicate areas for further research and potential methodological enhancement.