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.
Mapping Circularity Strategies in Building Sustainability Assessment Methods / Giarma, Christina; Askar, Rand; Trubina, Nika; Salles, Adriana; Lombardi, Patrizia; Karaca, Ferhat; Mateus, Ricardo; Feizollahbeigi, Bahar; Karanafti, Aikaterina; Torabi Moghadam, Sara; Pineda-Martos, Rocío; Santana Tovar, Daniela; Borg, Ruben Paul; Bragança, Luís. - In: SUSTAINABILITY. - ISSN 2071-1050. - ELETTRONICO. - 18:5(2026). [10.3390/su18052585]
Mapping Circularity Strategies in Building Sustainability Assessment Methods
Lombardi, Patrizia;Torabi Moghadam, Sara;Santana Tovar, Daniela;
2026
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.Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/11583/3008364
Attenzione
Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo
