Fragmentation to Harmonisation: An Empirical Comparison of Circularity Assessment Methods in Modular and Conventional Building Retrofits
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15377/2409-9821.2026.13.10Keywords:
Multi-cycle LCA, Building retrofit, Circularity assessment, Design for disassembly, Harmonisation framework, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Methodological fragmentation, Modular construction systems, Circular economy in construction.Abstract
The transition from linear to circular economy models in construction has led to the rapid development of circularity assessment methods; however, substantial fragmentation persists due to divergent definitions, indicators, system boundaries, and temporal frameworks. While previous studies have systematically reviewed these methods, limited empirical research compares methods and performance when applied to practice based identical building cases.
This study addresses this gap through a controlled comparative analysis of four circularity assessment approaches applied to two functionally equivalent façade retrofit systems: a conventional adhesive-bonded external wall insulation (EWI) system and a prefabricated modular system designed for disassembly. The methods include a simplified circularity / Design-for-Disassembly (DfD) assessment, the STaMPD hierarchical DfD framework, the Whole Building Circularity Indicator (WBCI) with Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and a combined single and multi-cycle LCA approach with supplementary DfD evaluation.
Results show consistent convergence in identifying the modular system as superior in circularity performance, confirming that fundamental design features, such as reversible connections and functional independence, are robustly detected. However, significant divergence in outcomes arises from differences in indicator selection, weighting, hierarchy, and temporal framing. Single-lifecycle LCA indicates substantially higher upfront embodied carbon for the specific modular system case (+82%), highlighting a key tension between particular circular reversible design and short-term carbon targets. Multi-cycle LCA accounted for re-use enabled by disassembly but remains sensitive to allocation methods and future reuse assumptions.
Downloads
References
[1] World Economic Forum, The Boston Consulting Group. Shaping the future of construction: A breakthrough in mindset and technology. Geneva: World Economic Forum; 2016.
[2] Eurostat. Waste statistics. Luxembourg: Eurostat. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
[3] Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Circular economy principles. Available from: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy-principles/
[4] Akinade OO, Oyedele LO, Bilal M, Ajayi SO, Owolabi HA, Alaka HA, et al. Design for deconstruction (DfD): Critical success factors for diverting end-of-life waste from landfills. Waste Manag. 2017; 60: 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.08.017
[5] Hernández H, Ossio F, Silva M. Assessment of sustainability and efficiency metrics in modern methods of construction: A case study using a life cycle assessment approach. Sustainability. 2023; 15(7): 6267. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076267
[6] Ossio F, Salinas C, Hernández H. Circular economy in the built environment: A systematic literature review and definition of the circular construction concept. J Clean Prod. 2023; 414: 137738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137738
[7] Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Towards the circular economy. Vol. 1. Economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition. Cowes: Ellen MacArthur Foundation; 2014.
[8] Charef R, Lu W. Factor dynamics to facilitate circular economy adoption in construction. J Clean Prod. 2021; 319: 128639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128639
[9] Mhatre P, Panchal R, Singh A, Bibyan S. A systematic literature review on the circular economy initiatives in the European Union. Sustain Prod Consum. 2021; 26: 187-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.09.008
[10] Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2017; 127: 221-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005
[11] Saidani M, Yannou B, Leroy Y, Cluzel F, Kendall A. A taxonomy of circular economy indicators. J Clean Prod. 2019; 207: 542-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.014
[12] Parchomenko A, Nelen D, Gillabel J, Rechberger H. Measuring the circular economy: A multiple correspondence analysis of 63 metrics. J Clean Prod. 2019; 210: 200-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.357
[13] Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Circular indicators: An approach to measuring circularity. Methodology. Cowes: Ellen MacArthur Foundation; 2019.
[14] Verberne JJH. Building circularity indicators: An approach for measuring circularity of a building (master's thesis). Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology; 2016.
[15] Khadim N, Agliata R, Marino A, Thaheem MJ, Mollo L. Critical review of nano and micro-level building circularity indicators and frameworks. J Clean Prod. 2022; 357: 131859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131859
[16] Durmisevic E. Transformable building structures: Design for disassembly as a way to introduce sustainable engineering to building design and construction. Delft: TUDelft; 2006.
[17] Guy B, Ciarimboli N. Design for disassembly in the built environment: A guide to closed-loop design and building. Seattle; 2007.
[18] International Organization for Standardization. ISO 20887:2020. Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works—Design for disassembly and adaptability—Principles, requirements and guidance. Geneva: ISO; 2020.
[19] Cottafava D, Ritzen M. Circularity indicator for residential buildings: Addressing the gap between embodied impacts and design aspects. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2021; 164: 105120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105120
[20] Eberhardt LCM, Birkved M, Birgisdottir H. Building design and construction strategies for a circular economy. Archit Eng Des Manag. 2022; 18(2): 93-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2020.1781588
[21] Lei H, Li L, Yang W, Bian Y, Li CQ. An analytical review on application of life cycle assessment in circular economy for built environment. J Build Eng. 2021; 44: 103374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103374
[22] Andersen SC, Birgisdottir H, Birkved M. Life cycle assessments of circular economy in the built environment: A scoping review. Sustainability. 2022; 14(11): 6887. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116887
[23] Rigamonti L, Mancini E. Life cycle assessment and circularity indicators. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2021; 26(10): 1937-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01966-2
[24] Lam WC, Claes S, Ritzen M. Exploring the missing link between life cycle assessment and circularity assessment in the built environment. Buildings. 2022; 12(12): 2152. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122152
[25] Eberhardt LCM, van Stijn A, Rasmussen FN, Birkved M, Birgisdottir H. Development of a life cycle assessment allocation approach for circular economy in the built environment. Sustainability. 2020; 12(22): 9579. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229579
[26] Samani P. Synergies and gaps between circularity assessment and life cycle assessment (LCA). Sci Total Environ. 2023; 903: 166611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166611
[27] Daly P. A critical review of circularity 'design for disassembly' assessment methods applied in the development of modular construction panels: An Irish case study. e-Prime Adv Electr Eng Electron Energy. 2023; 5: 100252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prime.2023.100252
[28] Gasparri E, Arasteh S, Kuru A, Stracchi P, Brambilla A. Circular economy in construction: A systematic review of knowledge gaps towards a novel research framework. Front Built Environ. 2023; 9: 1239757. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2023.1239757
[29] Ness DA, Xing K. Toward a resource-efficient built environment: A literature review and conceptual model. J Ind Ecol. 2017; 21(3): 572-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12586
[30] Ghisellini P, Ripa M, Ulgiati S. Exploring environmental and economic costs and benefits of a circular economy approach to the construction and demolition sector: A literature review. J Clean Prod. 2018; 178: 618-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.207
[31] Hossain MU, Ng ST. Influence of waste materials on buildings' life cycle environmental impacts: Adopting resource recovery principle. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2019; 142: 10-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.11.010
[32] Benachio GLF, Freitas MCD, Tavares SF. Circular economy in the construction industry: A systematic literature review. J Clean Prod. 2020; 260: 121046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121046
[33] Harris S, Martin M, Diener D. Circularity for circularity's sake? Scoping review of assessment methods for environmental performance in the circular economy. Sustain Prod Consum. 2021; 26: 172-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.09.018
[34] Hossain MU, Ng ST. Critical consideration of buildings' environmental impact assessment towards adoption of circular economy: An analytical review. J Clean Prod. 2018; 205: 763-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.120
[35] Van Gulck L, Lam W, Mertens S. How to evaluate circularity through an LCA study based on the standards EN 15804 and EN 15978. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2022; 27(9): 1249-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02099-w
[36] Honic M, Kovacic I, Rechberger H. Improving the recycling potential of buildings through material passports (MP): An Austrian case study. J Clean Prod. 2019; 217: 787-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.212
[37] Anastasiades K, Blom J, Buyle M, Audenaert A. Translating the circular economy to bridge construction: Lessons learnt from a critical literature review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2020; 117: 109522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109522
[38] Allacker K, Mathieux F, Pennington D, Pant R. The search for an appropriate end-of-life formula for the purpose of the European Commission Environmental Footprint initiative. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2017; 22(9): 1441-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1244-0
[39] Munaro MR, Tavares SF. Materials passports review: Challenges and opportunities toward a circular economy building sector. Built Environ Proj Asset Manag. 2021; 11(4): 667-86. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-02-2020-0027
[40] Guerra BC, Leite F. Circular economy in the construction industry: An overview of United States stakeholders' awareness, major challenges, and enablers. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2021; 170: 105617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105617
[41] Potting J, Hekkert M, Worrell E, Hanemaaijer A. Circular economy: Measuring innovation in the product chain. The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; 2017.
[42] Kubbinga B, Mooij B, van Nijen E, van den Reek D, Gooijer R, Jonker H, et al. A framework for circular buildings: Indicators for possible inclusion in BREEAM. Dutch Green Building Council; 2018. Available from: www.dgbc.nl/
[43] Luebkeman C, Doepel F. Rethinking design: Shearing layers. In: ARUP Foresight + Research + Innovation. p. 62-5.
[44] Arup. The circular economy in the built environment. Available from: https://www.arup.com/perspectives/publications/research/
section/circular-economy-in-the-built-environment.
[45] van Vliet M. Disassembling the steps towards building circularity: Redeveloping the building disassembly assessment method in the building circularity indicator (master's thesis). Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology; 2018. Available from: https://research.tue.nl/en/studentTheses/disassembling-the-steps-towards-building-circularity.
[46] Jiang L, Bhochhibhoya S, Slot N, de Graaf R. Measuring product-level circularity performance: An economic value-based metric with the indicator of residual value. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2022; 186: 106541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106541
[47] Braakman L, Bhochhibhoya S, de Graaf R. Exploring the relationship between the level of circularity and the life cycle costs of a one-family house. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2021; 164: 105149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105149
[48] Durmisevic E. Circular economy in construction: Design strategies for reversible buildings. 2019.
[49] De Wolf C, Hoxha E, Fivet C. Comparison of environmental assessment methods when reusing building components: A case study. Sustain Cities Soc. 2020; 61: 102322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102322
[50] DRIVE 0. Available from: https://www.drive0.eu/
[51] European Commission. European Green Deal: Commission proposes to boost renovation and decarbonisation of buildings. Brussels: European Commission; 2021.
[52] Daly P, Barril PG. Development and pilot application of a novel design for disassembly assessment framework and method entitled "STaMPD" applied in the design and prototyping of a modular circular wall over cladding system. J Build Des Environ. 2025; 2: 21. https://doi.org/10.70401/jbde.2025.0021
[53] Kavanagh I. An investigation of the environmental-circularity impacts of modern methods of construction (off-site) versus conventional (on-site) Irish external wall construction methods through simultaneous circularity and environmental performance assessment (LCA) (master's thesis). Dublin: Technological University Dublin; 2025.
[54] Carrigan S. A life cycle assessment and circularity investigation of external wall insulation strategies in an Irish domestic retrofit in context of the revised EPBD (master's dissertation). Dublin: Technological University Dublin; 2024. https://doi.org/10.69554/EGLU5674
Downloads
Published
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Patrick Daly
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All the published articles are licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (CC BY-NC 4.0) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.
