Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International Sustainability Assessment Methods

Chapter 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International Sustainability Assessment Methods Christina Giarma, Patrizia Lombardi , Rand Askar , Nika Trubina , Daniela Santana Tovar , Adriana Salles , Hasan Volkan Oral , Rocío Pineda-Martos , Aikaterina Karanafti , Bahar Feizollahbeigi , Ricardo Mateus , Sara Torabi Moghadam , Janez Turk , Ruben Paul Borg , and Luís Bragança Abstract The construction sector is a major contributor to environmental degradation, prompting the need for integrating sustainability into its practices. This need has driven the development of sustainability assessment methods across various scales of the built environment. Simultaneously, the recent emphasis on Circular C. Giarma (B )·A. Karanafti Laboratory of Building Construction and Building Physics, Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece e-mail: [email protected] P. Lombardi ·D. Santana Tovar ·S. Torabi Moghadam Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning, Polytechnic University of Turin, Turin, Italy R. Askar ·A. Salles ·B. Feizollahbeigi ·R. Mateus ·L. Bragança ISISE, ARISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, 4804-533 Guimarães, Portugal N. Trubina University Centre for Energy Efficient Buildings, Czech Technical University in Prague, Buštěhrad, Czech Republic H. V. Oral Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, İstanbul Aydın University, Florya Besyol Kampus, İstanbul, Türkiye R. Pineda-Martos Departamento de Ingeniería Aeroespacial y Mecánica de Fluidos, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería Agronómica, Área de Ingeniería Agroforestal, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain J. Turk Slovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia R. P. Borg Faculty for the Built Environment, University of Malta, Msida, Malta © The Author(s) 2025 L. Bragança et al. (eds.), Circular Economy Design and Management in the Built Environment, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_19 545 546 C. Giarma et al. Economy (CE) principles has introduced challenges in translating these principles into measurable outcomes within the construction sector. This study aims to investigate the extent to which circularity principles are embedded within existing sustainability assessment methods for new buildings. The study begins by addressing the interrelationships and distinctions between circularity and sustainability concepts, establishing a foundation for the subsequent analysis. Five internationally recognised sustainability assessment methods for new buildings—BREEAM, DGNB, LEED, Level(s),SBTool—wereexaminedtoassesstheirincorporationofcircularityaspects. Each component of these methods was scrutinised for alignment with the 10 circularity strategies outlined in the well-established 10-R framework of waste hierarchy. Expert groups, consisting of CircularB COST Action members, independently evaluated the methods and provided opinions on the direct and indirect associations between the assessed components and the 10-R principles. Disagreements were resolved through group discussions. The analysis revealed varying degrees of integration and explicit reference to circularity principles across the assessed methods. Thestudy alsohighlightedthe subjectivityinherentinidentifyingcorrelationsandthe challenges connected to linking certain circularity-related concepts in the built environment—such as resilience and adaptability—with the 10-R strategies. The findings underscore the need for a more in-depth analysis before making direct comparisons of the integration of circularity principles among different sustainability assessment methods, given their methodological differences. The study also identifies directions for future research. Keywords Circular economy ·Sustainability ·Buildings’ Sustainability assessment ·10-R Framework 19.1 Introduction The main aim of this chapter is to investigate the extent to which circular economyrelated aspects and strategies are integrated in the evaluation process supported and performed by well-known sustainability assessment methods of buildings. The need for this investigation arises from the intersection of COST Action CircularB’s objectives and the evolving role and nature of sustainability assessment methods in the built environment. Among the core targets of CircularB Action is the proposal of appropriate circularity indicators for evaluating the built environment. These indicators may be existing ones, modified versions, or entirely new proposals, and their effective development and application should be supported by robust data and frameworks, including regulatory standards. In parallel, Level(s) framework represents one of this Action’s main interests, with the effective integration of circularity indicators into its structure being one of the foreseen research areas. Although Level(s) has distinct characteristics, it shares important similarities with other sustainability assessment methods used in the built environment. 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 547 Over the past decades, sustainability assessment methods for the built environment have evolved significantly and gained widespread adoption and recognition globally. These methods are crucial for embedding sustainability principles into the built environment. They essentially comprise sets of criteria and or indicators wellstructured, relevant to the built environment and accompanied by grids of standards, data and regulations. The combination of these factors, along with the recognition that sustainability, while closely related, is not synonymous with circularity, underscores the importance of the work presented in this chapter. The concepts and scopes of circularity and sustainability are discussed in Sect. 19.2, primarily through a comparative lens that highlights their interrelationships and distinctions. This study involved the selection of five widely recognised sustainability assessment methods for buildings and their examination within the context of a circular economy framework. The methods considered are: BREEAM, DGNB, LEED, Level(s), and SBTool. In both academic and practical settings, various R-frameworks have been employed to define strategies encompassed by the circular economy concept. At the European Union level, the 4-R framework (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recover), which forms the core of the EU Waste Framework Directive [18], was expanded with the introduction of the EU’s Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) in 2015 and the updated CEAP in 2020 (European Commission, 2020). These developments are integral to the EU Industrial Strategy, a key component of the European Green Deal. A more comprehensive framework, as presented by [28], includes 10 common circular economy (CE) strategies as illustrated in Fig. 19.1: Refuse, Rethink, Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Refurbish, Remanufacture, Repurpose, Recycle, and Recover. This framework was adopted in this study to scrutinise all the aspects covered by the selected assessment protocols in terms of circularity, given its clear and nearly exhaustive representation of existing CE strategies. It is worth noting that other similar frameworks exist in the literature, such as those proposed by [34] and [38]. The investigation focused on analysing whether, to what extent, and how circularityprinciplesand strategiesareimplemented in the examinedsustainability assessment methods. This analysis was conducted at the most granular, self-contained, distinct, and scored level within each method’s assessment structure, as explained in the respective sections. The methodology involved conducting expert focus group exercises with five sub-groups (corresponding to the five examined methods), composed of researchers contributing to this study. Participation in each sub-group was voluntary, with the number of members varying; some researchers participated in multiple sub-groups, while others were involved in only one. Detailed information regarding the number of contributors in each sub-group is provided in the respective sections of this chapter. Each sub-group analysed a specific protocol/assessment method by studying the technical manuals, guides, or descriptive materials accompanying each method, which contain comprehensive descriptions of the content, benchmarks, and intended goals of the assessment levels under consideration. For SBTool, the analysis was based on the study of the method’s computational tools (Excel-type files). The 548 C. Giarma et al. Fig. 19.1 The employed 10-R framework (adapted from [28]) members of each subgroup independently provided their opinions on whether and which of the strategies outlined in the 10-R framework are reflected in the examined components of the analysed method. It is important to note that, for this correlation to be meaningful and effective in the context of individual buildings, the investigation centred on assessing building products and buildings as products through the lens of the 10-R framework. Differences in estimations and assessments within each sub-group were resolved through discussions. Through this process, two types of 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 549 associations were established: direct and indirect. Direct associations are based on direct, explicit references to one or more of the employed framework’s strategies/ principles within the content, aim, indicators, and overall structure of the examined component. Indirect associations reflect relationships where no explicit references werefound,butcorrelationscouldbeinferredona consequential basis. More detailed classifications, and information on each method’s unique features influencing the treatment of this issue, are provided in the sections presenting the results for the examined methods. The results are presented in tables listing the components of each method directly and indirectly associated with the 10-R strategies. The discussion of the findings follows. This approach outlines the consideration of various circular strategies in the context of the examined methods, highlighting the differences and similarities among the adopted approaches. An important outcome of this analysis pertains to the challenge of distinguishing between sustainability and circularity and the resulting variations in the related interpretations. The structure of the chapter is as follows: Sect. 19.2 discusses the interrelationships and distinctions between circularity and sustainability. Section 19.3 provides an overview of sustainability assessment methods for the built environment and analyses the integration of circularity in five international methods: BREEAM, DGNB, LEED, Level(s), and SBTool. Finally, Sect. 4 concludes the chapter. 19.2 Sustainability Versus Circularity The relationship between the concepts of circular economy (CE) and sustainability has sparked an ongoing debate [33]. However, the lack of clear boundaries defining each concept has fueled this conflict, despite their widespread use among scholars and practitioners. Unfortunately, this lack of clarity hinders the effective application of these concepts in both theory and practice [22]. Sustainability can be defined as the balanced integration of economic performance, social value, and environmental resilience, benefiting both present and future generations [22]. On the other hand, the circular economy is defined as an industrial system intentionally designed for restoration and regeneration. It aims to replace the concept of disposal “end-oflife” with regenerative growth, prioritise renewable energy, eliminate toxic chemicals that hinder reuse, and strive for waste elimination through superior material, product, system, and business model design [17]. While various scholars have proposed multiple definitions of circular economy, the definition put forth by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation is the most accepted [23,28]. While both sustainability and circular economy share concerns about technologicaladvancements,industrial practices, andconsumptionpatterns, theyalso highlight the importance of integrating environmental and social dimensions with economic progress [22]. Despite these similarities, the two approaches differ significantly in their origins, objectives, scopes, motivations, institutionalisations, timespans, and beneficiaries [22]. Sustainability embodies a more open-ended essence in the context 550 C. Giarma et al. of sustainable development compared to a circular economy [22,46]. It encompasses a wide range of goals that can be reframed over time to align with the interests of involved parties. Conversely, the circular economy is more specific in defining its goals and aspirations for closed-loop systems that eliminate waste and minimise emissions. These goals are to be achieved within defined theoretical and practical thresholds [17]. Scholars diverge into two directions regarding the relationship between CE and sustainability. The first direction argues that CE surpasses the linear thinking models of sustainability and offers prospective solutions to its shortcomings [28,40]. Geissdoerfer et al. [22] provide a more comprehensive perspective, acknowledging both positions. They identify three major types of relationships between sustainability and circular economy: (1) circular economy as a condition for sustainability, (2) a mutually beneficial relation, or (3) a trade-off. These relationship patterns foster diversity and encourage the deployment of a wide range of complementary strategies. According to Brundtland Report (1987), sustainable development is defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This definition highlights that sustainable development is an ever-evolving goal for our planet and society. A circular economy, in this regard, establishes new sustainability benchmarks to meet modern-day goals for sustainable development. However, employing the circular economy without considering sustainability would lead to undesirable results. For example, multiple cycles of reusing or recycling a product may eventually either produce more emissions or consume more energy than producing a new one. Therefore, it is crucial to strike the right balance between resource circularity and their environmental, economic, and social impacts, taking into account case-specific requirements. The relationship between circular economy and sustainability also extends to the built environment, particularly the building sector [27]. However, while sustainability has often been associated with “doing less bad” instead of good, the CE has been all about “doing good”. Sustainability comes from the gradual optimisation of things, whilst the circular economy is about new business models that sell services rather than products [27]. Many literature studies on circular economy prioritise environmental improvements, neglecting a systemic integration of all three pillars of sustainability. The strong relationship between circular economy and environmental sustainability lies in the efficient solutions that circular economy concepts provide to alleviate the pressure of human activities on natural ecosystems [33]. However, most cases tend to link the environmental focus with economic aspects, paying marginal attention to social and institutional levels. The social value brought by the circular economy is often overlooked, with discussions mainly centred around job creation. This limited coverage of social aspects reflects a blurred perception of the circular economy’s ability to contribute to subjective well-being [22]. The marginal attention giventosocialissuesincirculareconomystudiesmaybeattributedtotheirfocusonan industrial context [12]. Consequently, the circular economy should broaden its scope to include societal concerns, which require a radical shift in consumer and stakeholders’ attitudes. However, recent studies show a growing awareness of the need for a more inclusive approach that embraces the triple bottom line of sustainability [33]. 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 551 Table 19.1 Differences between sustainability and circular economy on various levels Aspects Sustainability Circular economy Objective More open-ended essence regarding sustainable development More specific in defining its goals and aspirations for closed-loop systems that eliminate waste and minimise emissions Impact “doing less bad” “doing good” Focus Focuses on the triple bottom line: People, the Planet and the Economy Focuses on Resource Cycles Practice ground The practice of sustainability is grounded in and focused on the Biosphere The practice of circularity is grounded in and focused on the Techno and Bio spheres Responsibility Responsibility is shared but not clearly defined More defined responsibility primarily focusing on private businesses, regulators and policymakers Beneficiaries Main beneficiaries: the environment, the economy, and society Main beneficiaries: the economic actors that implement the system Interests Interests are aligned between stakeholders and can be reframed over time Interests prioritise financial advantages for companies Prioritised aspects Comes around the gradual optimisation of things Prioritises improvements on the environmental aspect while the social aspect is marginally addressed Table 19.1 summarises the differences between sustainability and circular economy in terms of objective, impact, focus, practice ground, responsibility, beneficiaries, interest and prioritised aspects. 19.3 Analysis of Circularity Implementation in Five Well-Known International Methods (BREEAM, DGNB, LEED, Level(S), SBTool) 19.3.1 General Information Over the past few decades, sustainability assessment methods for buildings have evolved into a critical asset for implementing sustainability principles in the building sector. These methods have gained significant acceptance and recognition internationally across various stakeholders. The 1990s marked the inception of environmental performance assessment methods for buildings, with the first versions of BREEAM and LEED being published in 1990 and 1998, respectively [1,41]. Additionally, GBTool, later known as SBTool, was initially launched in 1998 following 552 C. Giarma et al. an international development effort that began in 1996 [11]. In subsequent years, numerous sustainability assessment methods have been developed by organisations, institutions, and researchers across various countries and continents [4,45,16]. These methods exhibit varying degrees of similarity and differentiation in terms of their philosophy, scope of application (whether international or national, building uses addressed, etc.), range of criteria, and methodological structure. Notably, some differences can also be observed among the successive versions of these methods themselves, as they continuously evolve, expand in scope, and adapt to new challenges and conditions, which is key to their effectiveness and relevance. When considering trends in the sustainability assessment of the built environment, it is important to note the growing interest in scales larger than individual buildings. Methods addressing neighbourhood or even city scales have emerged as early as the 2000s, with their development receiving continuous and intensive enhancement. Whilemanyissuesatthebuildingscalearebeingadequatelyaddressed(withroomfor improvement), the broader scope offers greater opportunities and challenges, leading to a focus on larger entities within the built environment. Moreover, the principles of theCircularEconomycanbe effectivelyappliednotonlyatthebuilding scale butalso at the neighbourhood and urban scales, considering key factors of circularity in the built environment. Prominent sustainability assessment methods for buildings, such as BREEAM, LEED, DGNB, and CASBEE, have expanded to develop tools for the urban scale (e.g., BREEAM Communities, LEED for Neighborhood Development, DGNB for Urban Districts, and CASBEE for Urban Development, respectively). Another example of a multi-scale approach is CESBA (Common European SustainableBuiltEnvironmentAssessments),whichextendsthereliabilityofSBTool to both the building and neighbourhood scales. CESBA represents a bottom-up initiative aimed at promoting the harmonisation of sustainability assessments across Europe, from buildings to neighbourhoods and regions. It particularly emphasises a neighbourhood-level approach to developing synergies in energy efficiency1. However, the analysis in this work focuses on the building scale. Asignificantnumber of comparativereviewsof buildingsustainabilityassessment methods can be found in the literature, addressing their basic characteristics or their approaches to specific performance aspects (for example, see [2–6,10,15,21,24, 35–37,39,41,45]. Detailed information about comparative review studies of such tools can also be found in various works, e.g., in [30]. Some of the most widely known and applied sustainability assessment methods appear more frequently in these review studies, highlighting their importance and influence. It is evident that the simultaneous, critical, and comparative consideration of multiple methods has been a focal point in scientific efforts aimed at improving these tools since their early development. In this review, the analysis focuses on four sustainability assessment methods for buildings: BREEAM, DGNB, LEED, and SBTool. The versions studied are the most 1The CESBA SNTool led to the MED Passport enabling the comparison of the performances of buildings and neighbourhoods, in line with the EC COM 2014 445. A CESBA MED network of cities was setup in order to maximise the transferability of results [9]. 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 553 recent, applicable to new buildings and suitable for international use. Where different schemes exist for tertiary and residential buildings, the tertiary sector version is examined. These methods were selected based on their widespread use in Europe and their international scope. Additionally, Level(s) is included in this review. Although Level(s) differs in some aspects of its philosophy compared to the other “typical” methodsexamined,itisaconstantlyevolvingcommonEuropeanframeworkthatmay serve as a common axis for implementing sustainability assessment principles and procedures in the building sector and construction practices in the future. Moreover, given that Level(s) is a focal point of CircularB Action’s interests, its inclusion alongside the other methods is essential. 19.3.2 BREEAM Introductory remarks. BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) is a widely recognised environmental assessment method and rating system used to evaluate and measure the sustainability performance of various building types. Developed by the Building Research Establishment (BRE)intheUnited Kingdomin 1990,BREEAMhascontinuouslyevolved,adapting to advancements in sustainability practices and expanding its scope [7]. The system employs established performance indicators that adhere to defined standards and benchmarks, assessing the technical performance, design, construction, and ongoing use of buildings. These indicators encompass a broad range of factors, from energy consumption to ecological impact, covering multiple dimensions of environmental performance. BREEAM’s holistic approach and continuous development have enabled it to be successfully adapted to almost any building type and to various scales within the built environment. The method includes applications for different scenarios, such as evaluating new sustainable building projects through BREEAM New Construction or its international counterpart, assessing existing non-domestic, commercial, industrial, retail, and institutional buildings using the BREEAM In-Use scheme, applying a sustainable assessment method for refurbishment projects with BREEAM Refurbishment, and even planning for the creation of neighbourhoods and urban areas for new communities through BREEAM Communities [7]. This analysis focuses on the BREEAM International New Construction 2021 scheme (BRE [8]). BREEAM currently categorises its assessment into nine environmental sections: (i) Management, (ii) Health and Wellbeing, (iii) Energy, (iv) Transport, (v) Water, (vi) Materials, (vii) Waste, (viii) Land Use and Ecology, (ix) Pollutionandanadditionalone–(x)Innovation.Eachenvironmentalsection contains a varying number of specific issues. For example, the Management section includes five issues; Health and Wellbeing comprises nine issues; Energy covers 11 issues; Transport includes seven issues; both Water and Materials comprise four issues each; Land Use and Ecology and Waste cover four and seven issues respectively; Pollution 560 C. Giarma et al. Table 19.2 (continued) Environmental section Issue Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) Wst 05 Adaptation to climate change REDUCE resources consumption (reduced need for repair and reconfiguration as structural and fabric resilience is under consideration, with adaptation to climate change being also included as an exemplary credit) RETHINK: the previous design approach by conducting a climate change adaptation strategy, as one of the principles of circular construction, appraisal for structural and fabric resilience by the end of Concept Design Design Wst 06 Functional adaptability REDUCE resources consumption for future adaptations and change of use (adaptability is under consideration) REFURBISH as the facilitation of an “update” of the building uses in the context of its adaptability RETHINK: the previous design approach by introducing functional adaptation measures, as one of the principles of circular construction, through the finalisation of the technical design Material, design & management (in the sense of preparing a functional adaptation strategy study) Land use and ecology (LE) LE 01 Site selection REUSE land—as a consequence: REDUCE the consumption (“occupation”) of previously unoccupied land REUSE/REPURPOSE in terms of brownfields REFURBISH (in the sense of restoring) contaminated land Site the level at which these associations occur (e.g., site, material, design, construction, management). It is important to note that general circularity principles, such as adaptability and resilience, have also been considered in this analysis, even though they are not explicitly mentioned in the 10-R framework used. Where applicable, these general principles were correlated with one or more of the 10 strategies in the framework, and the related information is included in the tables. 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 561 Table 19.3 Issues which are indirectly4associated with circularity (circular principles as reflected in the employed framework) Environmental section Issue Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) Management (Man) Man 03 Responsible construction practices REDUCE: Environmental impacts as result of monitoring site impacts like waste or water Site, material, design, construction & management Man 05 Aftercare REDUCE: water and energy consumption (setting targets for those items in the context of the exemplary level criteria) RETHINK: by increasing multifunctionality, existing approach and start providing aftercare to ensure the building operates and adapts for future needs Design & management Health and wellbeing (Hea) Hea 09 Water quality REDUCE water contamination by increasing efficiency in product or system manufacture—e.g., greywater treatment at the building scale Design & management Energy (Ene) Ene 02a Energy monitoring REDUCE: energy consumption by monitoring energy input and output (energy cycling process) Management Ene 02b Energy monitoring REDUCE: energy consumption by monitoring energy input and output (energy cycling process) Management Ene 10 Flexible demand side response REDUCE: energy consumption reduction due to flexible demand side response capability for electricity, which is promoted. (adaptability/flexibility aspect issue) Design & management Trasport (Tra) Tra 02 Proximity to amenities REDUCE transport use and as result its impacts (objective as a whole), the need to access amenities elsewhere RETHINK the space in the neighbourhood Site & design (continued) 4Indirect association: no reference/description in the intent, indicator, benchmarks, and generally, in the structure and content of the criterion. However, a clear connection of the following type can be seen: if this criterion is met, then, as a consequence, a circularity principle will be served. 562 C. Giarma et al. Table 19.3 (continued) Environmental section Issue Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) Tra 05 Travel plan REDUCE reliance on and, therefore, use of forms of travel and transportation that have the highest environmental impact (objective as a whole) RETHINK existing travel plan issues Site & design Tra 06 Home office REDUCE/REFUSE transportation use to and from work as result its negative impacts (objective as a whole) Site & design Water (Wat) Wat 02 Water monitoring REDUCE water consumption by monitoring water input and output Management Pollution (Pol) Pol 03 Surface water run-off RETHINK: multifunctionality of green roofs REDUCE resources consumption in the sense of promoting flood resilience Site & design As with all the methods examined in this study, the results presented reflect the estimations and opinions of the sub-groups that worked on them. The determination of whether an association was direct or indirect was the outcome of discussions among sub-group members. These discussions led to a consensus on each issue; in cases where disagreements persisted, the majority opinion was recorded. The associations listed in the relevant columns of the tables indicate the principles that at least one sub-group member identified as being reflected in the respective BREEAM criteria. TheBREEAMstudywasconductedbyasub-groupconsistingof threeresearchers working on this chapter. As with the other methods examined, the researchers’ opinions exhibited varying degrees of agreement and divergence. This variability is expected, given the inherent subjectivity in interpreting and estimating whether certain issues are more closely related to sustainability or circularity. Based on the results shown in Tables 19.2 and 19.3, a key conclusion is that all the major environmental sections of the BREEAM method are represented to some extent, although with varying degrees of emphasis. It is important to note that the Innovation is neither included in Table 19.4 nor in the preceding analysis. This exclusion is due to the fact that credits in the Innovation section are awarded either for exemplary performance in certain issues (as defined in the BREEAM manual [8]) or when a “particular building technology or feature, design, construction method, or process” [8], p. 35, is recognised as innovative. In the first case, these associations are 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 563 considered within the context of the respective issues, while the second case cannot be easily categorised or included in this type of analysis. Regarding the nine environmental sections examined, it is evident that some are more strongly represented in Tables 19.2 and 19.3 than others. Specifically, direct associations were identified for all issues (seven out of seven) in the Waste environmental section. Another strongly represented environmental section is Water, where three out of four issues have direct associations, with the remaining issue being indirectly related to the employed circular economy framework. The Energy section presents a similar image, with seven directly and three indirectly associated issues among the ten ones that are included in it. The Transport section also shows a significant connection to circularity, with three direct and three indirect associations out of a total of seven issues. The Materials section is similarly well-represented, with three of its four issues included in Table 19.2. In contrast, Health and Well-being section and the Management section are less represented in Table 19.2, with only two out of nine and one out of five issues, respectively, showing direct associations. The same pattern is observed in Table 19.3, where only one of the nine Health and Well-being issues and two of the five Management issues are indirectly related to circularity. The Land Use and Ecology section is represented by one issue in Table 19.2, while the Pollution section shows even weaker representation, with only one indirect association identified. Overall, direct associations outnumber indirect ones. However, it is important to remember that BREEAM uses weighted scores, meaning that some issues contribute more to the final score than others. For instance, the fact that three out of nine Health and Well-being issues are associated with circularity does not imply that one-third of the available credits in this section are linked to circular principles or strategies. Moreover, within any given issue, only a portion of the available credits may be related to circularity. Additionally, each environmental section has its own relative weighting, which affects its contribution to the final score. The results in Tables 19.2 and 19.3 also indicate that certain strategies and principles are more strongly represented than others in the identified associations. For example, the “Reduce” principle appears frequently across different sections. “Rethink” is also commonly found in both tables, while “Recycle” and “Reuse” are strongly represented among the direct associations. All levels examined (site, material, design, construction, management) appear in Tables 19.2 and 19.3, with some levels being more frequently encountered than others. It is expected that the design level is the most frequently referenced, given that the examined BREEAM method primarily addresses new constructions. 19.3.3 DGNB Introductory remarks. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DGNB) System is a buildings’ environmental performance assessment system developed by theGermanSustainableBuildingCouncil(DGNBinGerman).Theratingsystemwas 564 C. Giarma et al. Table 19.4 Criteria which are directly5associated with circularity (circular principles as reflected in the employed framework) Topic Criteria group Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) Environmental quality (ENV) ENV1-Effects on the global and local environment ENV1.1 Building life cycle assessment REUSE: reusing components or structural elements is taken into consideration (indicator 3) REDUCE: resources consumption (energy, materials) is considered (indicator 3) RECYCLE &RECOVER: taken into consideration within LCA (indicator 3) REPAIR: more indirect association in comparison to the other 3, detected in the fact that service-life considerations are included in LCA Material & design & construction ENV1.3 Sustainable resource extraction REDUCE the primary raw materials extraction (indicator 2) RECYCLE: for secondary raw materials use (indicator 2) Material ENV2-Resource consumption and waste generation ENV2.2 Potable water demand and wastewater volume REDUCE waste water production and potable water consumption (indicator 1) RECYCLE greywater & rainwater (indicator 1) Site & design ENV2.3 Land use REPURPOSE/REUSE land and REDUCE “consumption” of free land (indicator 1) REPAIR land in case of contamination (CE bonus) Site & design (continued) 5Direct association: direct reference/description in the intent, indicator, benchmarks, and generally, in the structure and content of the criterion. Also, CE association declared in the manual or CE bonus available. 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 565 Table 19.4 (continued) Topic Criteria group Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) Economic quality (ECO) ECO1-Life cycle costs ECO1.1 Life cycle cost REUSE of building components is taken into consideration (CE bonus) RECYCLE & RECOVER taken into consideration (CE bonus) REPAIR & REDUCE: more indirect association in comparison to the other 3 detected in the fact that service-life considerations are taken into consideration in LCC analysis Material & design & management ECO2-Economic development ECO2.1 Flexibility and adaptability REDUCE: doing more with the same building (all indicators) RETHINK: high intensity of use (CE bonus), REUSE & REPURPOSE via the flexibility and adaptability promotion (all indicators) Design ECO2.2 Commercial viability RETHINK: contribution to circular economy by at least one party (CE bonus) note: the association of this criterion with circular economy is not considered to be as clear as in the other cases; its inclusion in this table is established by the fact that within its framework, a CE bonus is offered Design & management (continued) 566 C. Giarma et al. Table 19.4 (continued) Topic Criteria group Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) Technical quality (TEC) TEC1-Technical quality TEC1.4 Use and integration of building technology REDUCE: promoting the reduction of non-renewable energy consumption by the integration of passive systems (indicators 1,2,4 and CE bonusses) REPAIR: All components of the technical facilities are easily accessible for repair. The technical facilities have a sufficient number of sufficiently large mounting openings, doors and corridors to minimise unnecessary interaction with materials during repair or maintenance REFURBISH: promoting the accessibility of the building technologies (indicator 3) Design & management TEC1.6 Ease of recovery and recycling REDUCE the primary resources required (CE Bonus 1.2-and general aim of the criterion) REUSE of building components taken into consideration (CE bonus 1.3), RECYCLE: easy to recycle materials (indicator 1), REFUSE: avoiding use of building components (CE bonus 1.3), RECOVER: the CE bonus promotes reuse and recovery of materials. The criteria assess the ability of building structures to be easily recoverable - ease of disassembly and ease of separation of building components in terms of max. possible material content (indicator 2) Materials & design (continued) 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 567 Table 19.4 (continued) Topic Criteria group Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) TEC3.1 Mobility infrastructure REFUSE: refuse to use inefficient mobility infrastructure and old approaches - instead use bicycles, electric vehicles (indicator 1,3); refuse to use personal vehicles - instead use the concept of sharing. (CE bonus 2.1) RETHINK: mobility sharing is promoted (CE bonus 2.1) REDUCE: more indirect association in comparison to the previous ones, as resources consumption may be achieved, e.g. with the provision of bicycle parking facilities (indicators 1–4, taking into account the references in Innovation area) Site & design & management Process quality (PRO) PRO1-Technical quality PRO1.4 Sustainability aspects in tender phase REUSE & REPURPOSE &RECYCLE: not excluding and or enhancing at the tender phase the use and or reuse of recycled and or secondary materials for specific applications is promoted (CE bonus 1.2) Material & management PRO2-Construction quality assurance PRO2.1 Construction site / construction process REDUCE the amount of generated waste (indicator 4, CE bonus 4.4.) Site & management Site quality (SITE) SITE1-Site quality SITE1.4 Access to amenities RETHINK the space and its possible uses (CE bonus) note: the association of this criterion with circular economy is not considered to be as clear as in the other cases; its inclusion in this table is established by the fact that within its framework, a CE bonus is offered Site & design 568 C. Giarma et al. initially launched in 2008 [4,15], with its first version addressing the sustainability assessment of new administrative and office buildings in Germany. The certification scheme was used for the first time in the market in 2009 [15]. In the following years, the constantly evolving method expanded to involve additional building uses and lifecycle stages. Currently, schemes / differentiated versions of the method are available for buildings of a plethora of uses, with regard to different stages of their lifecycle, and to areas of application of more specific interest (e.g. “Interiors”) are available. A DGNB system for the evaluation of built environment entities at larger scales (districts) has also been developed, encompassing schemes for business districts, event areas, commercial areas, industrial sites, urban districts and other cases (resorts and vertical cities) [15]. DGNB method can be applied also outside Germany (adaptation to local conditions, employment of international standards). The application of the method across Europe, but also in other continents keeps increasing. In this review, DGNB System for new buildings version 2020 (international) [14] is examined. The method addresses various building uses (office, education, residential, hotel, consumer market, shopping centre, department store, logistics, production, assembly buildings) and has an international scope of application. The aspects of the building that are evaluated (and, consequently, the assessment criteria) are classified into six major topics: (i) Environmental Quality (including six criteria), (ii) Economic Quality (incl. three criteria), (iii) Sociocultural and functional Quality (incl. eight criteria), (iv) Technical Quality (incl. eight criteria), (v) Process Quality (incl. nine criteria) and (vi) Site Quality (incl. four criteria). Within each one of those topics,thecriteria are organised into criteria groups. Each criterion includes a set of indicators, which form the basis for its assessment. Each indicator is associated with a maximum number of available points, which are awarded fully, partially or not at all to the assessed building, depending on whether and to which degree this building complies with the requirements and or conditions implemented in the examinedindicator’sstructureandcontent.The maximumnumberof availablepoints accompanying each indicator may differ for the various building uses. The score of each criterion is derived based on the points awarded to the building in the context of the indicators integrated in this criterion. Regarding the maximum number of points available to be awarded within each criterion, 100 is a key value; for some criteria 100 points can be achieved, for others more than 100 can be achieved but only 100 can be awarded, while in the context of several criteria additional (in regard to 100) bonus points can be “obtained” by the building. Based on the points achieved in the contextofeachcriterion anditsweightingfactor,6thescoresofthehigherlevelsofthe method’s structure are calculated. Taking into consideration the derived performance indices and the relative weightings of the six major topics (Environmental Quality: 22,5%; Economic Quality: 22,5%; Sociocultural and Functional Quality: 22,5%; Technical Quality: 15%; Process Quality: 12,5% and Site Quality: 5%), an overall performance score is calculated (total performance index). This overall performance 6Each criterion is accompanied by a weighting factor, which is associated with its share in the total score. The value of this weighting factor remains the same across all building uses for some criteria, while for others some differentiations appear for specific uses. 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 569 Fig. 19.3 Levels of certification (ranking classes) of buildings assessed with the application of DGNB System (adapted from [13,14]) score in combination with the individual performance indices calculated for the six major topics, all expressed as percentages, result in the classification of the buildings into a ranking level (platinum, gold or silver) as depicted in Fig. 19.3. It is noted that there are a few performance requirements within certain criteria that must be met by the building in order for the assessment as a whole to be carried out. Circularity implementation. The investigation of the circularity implementation is taking place at the level of criteria, i.e. the lowest rated level of the method’s structure—where the evaluation takes place via the examined indicators for each criterion). The criteria integrated in DGNB’s assessment structure, which are additionally associated with the circular economy-related strategies/principles that are outlined in the employed framework, are listed in Tables 19.4 and 19.5. Specifically, Table 19.4 includes the directly associated criteria, while in Table 19.5. the indirectly related ones are shown. The additional information appearing in those tables is of the same typesastheonesanalyticallyexplainedfortherespectivetables(Tables19.2and19.3) appearing in BREEAM’s analysis. Following a uniform methodological approach for all the examined methods, the nature of the association is established based on the whole content of each criterion (indicators, benchmarks, aim, etc.) and the consideration of general circularity principles (adaptability, resilience, etc.) has also been attempted. In total, the information appearing in the following tables (Tables 19.4 and 19.5) reflects the analysis conducted by the sub-group of researchers involved in it, via the process described for BREEAM. The sub-group working on DGNB consisted of four members. The fact that the opinions expressed by those researchers were characterised by differences and similarities of a smaller or larger degree, since subjectivity was inherent in the interpretations and the attempted estimations, with several issues lying in the limit between being considered as “sustainability-related” rather than “circularity-related” or vice versa. Specifically, for DGNB, the detection of the criteria association was facilitated by the fact that certain of them are accompanied by circular economy bonuses in the structure of the method itself. In those cases, a direct association with circular economy and, consequently, with one or more of the principles outlined in the employed framework is de facto established. However, it has to be pointed out that 576 C. Giarma et al. Table 19.6 (continued) Category Credit or prerequisite Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) Outdoor water use Reduction RETHINK: multifunctional systems for efficient water consumption, develop landscape design strategies for harvesting and using rain water for non-potable purposes REDUCE water consumption and outdoor potable water REUSE: use captured rainwater or recycled water for irrigation purposes RECYCLE: recycle water Site & design & management Indoor water use reduction REDUCE: water consumption REFUSE: using inefficient equipment (kitchen, washing mashines) which causes bigger water consumption Design & management Optimize process Water Use RETHINK: design strategies to reduce water consumption REDUCE water consumption REUSE: installing water treatment facilities to circulate indoor wastewater, use alternative water for cooling RECYCLE: recycle water Design & management Water metering RETHINK & REDUCE: metering provides an index that can help to predict and identify management strategies to reduce water consumption in the future Design & management Energy and Atmosphere (EA) Minimum energy performance RETHINK & REDUCE: adopting design strategies to optimise and reduce energy consumption Design & management Optimize energy performance RETHINK & REDUCE: adopting design strategies to optimise and reduce energy consumption and resources, as a result environmental and economic harms associated with excessive energy use and greenhouse gas emissions Design & management Renewable energy RETHINK: adopting strategies for transition to renewable & clean energy sources REDUCE fossil fuel consumption, GHG emission & carbon footprint Site & design & management (continued) 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 577 Table 19.6 (continued) Category Credit or prerequisite Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) Materials and Resources (MR) Storage and collection of recyclables RECYCLE: promote recycling practices by providing dedicated areas for collection and storage of recyclable materials REDUCE: waste storage and collection can lead to a reduction in the demand for new materials REMANUFACTURE: by adopting these strategies, valuable materials can be Remanufactured Design & management Building Life-Cycle impact reduction RETHINK: by using innovative and eco-friendly design principles and encouraging adaptive reuse REDUCE: reduce the environmental impact of construction and operation by using fewer materials and resources REUSE: adopting strategies for reusing materials and components from existing buildings RECYCLE: encourage recycling of construction materials, such as concrete, steel, and wood Material & design & construction Sourcing of raw materials REFUSE: by encouraging and supporting products and materials from responsible sources, which provides materials with lower environmental impact. And by refusing irresponsible sources RETHINK: design strategies, products and materials. And selecting materials that are easier to disassemble, repair, or recycle REDUCE: responsible sourcing contributes to circularity by promoting the closed-loop use of materials and reducing the demand for new raw materials REUSE: reused materials are encouraged RECYCLE: by encouraging the use of materials/ products with recycled content Material & design & construction Material ingredients REFUSE: by preventing hazardous materials use RETHINK: design strategies, products and materials. By knowing information about the product, it is assumed that this product can last longer, not be harmful to users and reduce the need to replace it Material & design & construction (continued) 578 C. Giarma et al. Table 19.6 (continued) Category Credit or prerequisite Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) Design for flexibility RETHINK/ REPURPOSE: by encouraging adaptive reuse, flexibility and adaptability, and possibly reducing the repair needs REDUCE: by implementing strategies to increase building flexibility Material & design & construction Construction and demolition waste management RETHINK/ REPURPOSE: by applying design strategies to use CDW REDUCE: by adopting waste management strategies to reduce the generation of waste REUSE/ RECYCLE: reusing and recycling of demolition waste like metal, wood, glass, etc Material & design & construction Transportation category, while seven out of 10 credits/prerequisites (in which three are directly related and four indirectly) of Energy and Atmosphere category are included in Tables 19.6 and 19.7. It is important to note, that as the LEED system is based on points awarded under the categories, and the number of possible points varies from credit to credit,the number of associations -by itselfwithin the circularity framework does not necessarily reflect the percentage of the available points that can be potentially achieved in the context of those credits. Furthermore, the results presented in the tables highlight that certain principles, such as “Reduce” and “Rethink,” appear in nearly all associations, while “Reuse” and “Recycle” also have a significant impact. Evidently, other principles and strategies have been listed in the preceding tables as well, outlining almost the whole spectrum of the considered framework. 19.3.5 Level(s) Introductory remarks. The Level(s) framework is a comprehensive EU framework developed to establish a common language towards sustainability assessment in both new-built and renovation projects, with a particular focus on office and residential buildings. It is designed to align with the circular economy action plan and incorporates a lifecycle approach from cradle to cradle to ensure long-term resource efficiency. The framework also utilises a value and risk rating system to emphasise the importance of sustainability. While the core sustainability indicators of Level(s) primarily concentrate on the environmental performance of buildings throughout 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 579 Table 19.7 Credits/prerequisites which are indirectly9associated with circularity (circular principles as reflected in the employed framework) Category Credit or Prerequisite Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) Location and Transportation (LT) LEED for neighborhood development location REFUSE: reduce vehicle distance travelled, avoid development on inappropriate sites RETHINK: design strategies REDUCE: encourage the reduction of automobile usage, adopting cost-effective strategies Site & design Sensitive land protection RETHINK: by promoting compact, mixed-use developments can reduce urban sprawl, preserve open space, and promoting efficient land use patterns REUSE: redevelopment of previously contaminated or underutilised areas can promote urban revitalisation and reusing existing infrastructure Site High-priority site and equitable development REUSE/RECOVER: by encouraging developments in Previously Developed Land and promoting the remediation of brownfields REDUCE: undeveloped land use Site (continued) 9Indirect association: no reference/description in the intent, indicator, benchmarks, and generally, in the structure and content of the criterion. However, a clear connection of the following type can be seen: if this criterion is met, then, as a consequence, a circularity principle will be served. 580 C. Giarma et al. Table 19.7 (continued) Category Credit or Prerequisite Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) Surrounding density and diverse uses REFUSE: promoting the reduction of vehicle distance travelled by encouraging development in areas with infrastructure RETHINK: design strategies REDUCE the use of the automobile by adopting cost-effective strategies REUSE: by promoting existing infrastructure. Higher urban density can reduce the overall consumption of land and resources per capita. Efficient land use minimises the need for transportation, lowers energy demand, and reduces the environmental footprint of urban areas REUSE/ REPURPOSE: diverse urban neighbourhoods often have older buildings that can be repurposed or adaptively reused for new functions which can preserve existing structures and reduce the need for new construction RECYCLE: urban areas with diverse uses can support robust recycling programs, allowing for the efficient collection and recycling of materials like paper, glass, and plastics Site Access to quality transit REDUCE/ REFUSE: reduce car dependency. Quality transit systems are typically more energy-efficient than private vehicles, which can lead to resource recovery and reduced energy consumption REPAIR/ REFUSBISH: regular maintenance and rehabilitation of transit vehicles and infrastructure extend their useful lifespan, allow for the reuse of existing assets rather than replacing them entirely, and reduce waste Site (continued) 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 581 Table 19.7 (continued) Category Credit or Prerequisite Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) Sustainable Sites (SS) Protect or restore habitat REUSE: Environmental Site Assessment promotes the preservation of natural site features like wetlands, forests, and topography, which can be considered as a form of reuse by maintaining the ecological functions of the site Site Site master plan REUSE: by encouraging the preservation and adaptive reuse of existing natural and built features on the site, such as trees, historic structures, or infrastructures. It can also reduce waste and conserve resources Site & design Tenant design and construction guidelines REDUCE/ REPAIR: Development of such plans, which include recommendations for maintenance, description of design solutions - prolong the life of materials and building Design & management Energy and Atmosphere (EA) Fundamental commissioning and verification RETHINK: commissioning plan can implement strategies to extend product’s life, and reduce material-water-energy consumption REDUCE: the Operations and Maintenance Plan could reduce unnecessary repair/ refurbish for equipment and plan maintenance activities carefully Design & construction & management Building-level energy metering RETHINK/ REDUCE: by identifying opportunities for energy savings. Metering provides an index that can help to predict and develop management strategies to optimise energy consumption in the future Design & management Enhanced commissioning RETHINK: commissioning plan, strategies to extend product’s life Design & construction & management (continued) 582 C. Giarma et al. Table 19.7 (continued) Category Credit or Prerequisite Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) Advanced energy metering RETHINK/ REDUCE: by identifying opportunities for energy savings. Metering provides an index that can help to predict and develop management strategies to optimise energy consumption in the future Design & management Indoor environmental Quality (EQ) Daylight RETHINK/ REDUCE: by applying design strategies to use more natural light reduce energy consumption for lighting Design their lifecycle, the framework also encompasses aspects related to comfort, health, and lifecycle costs. By adopting six macro-objectives, Level(s) translates them into 16 measuring indicators that contribute to key target areas set by the EU, such as energy efficiency, resource consumption, waste generation, water usage, indoor comfort and cost and risk assessments. This holistic approach allows the framework to provide building performance reports on individual aspects accompanying a project professional course since the conceptual design, through implementation and construction up to completion and operation. The end-of-life stage is also considered, particularly in macro-objective 2: Resource efficient and circular material life cycles, which includes indicators like design for adaptability (DfA) and design for disassembly (DfD). Additionally, the methodology incorporates a simplified Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) that encompasses inputs from macro-objectives 1, 2, and 3 as well as Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) in macro-objective 6. Table 19.8 presents an overview of the six macro-objectives of Level(s) framework along with their scope and objectives. Level(s) framework supports the project development at three levels of performance assessment: •Level1: Conceptual design,whichemploysaqualitativeassessment methodology primarily using simple checklists to report the intended implementation concepts. •Level 2: Detailed design and construction performance, which utilises a quantitative assessment methodology to evaluate the designed performance and monitor construction according to standardised units and methods. •Level 3: As-built and in-use performance assessment, which also employs a quantitative assessment for monitoring and surveying activities during the building’s use stage after completion. These levels enable a progression in terms of reporting accuracy and expertise, empowering stakeholders to continuously refine and improve the sustainability 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 583 Table 19.8 Level(s) Macro objectives scope Macro objective Scope MO1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Along a Building’s Life Cycle Aims to reduce a building’s carbon footprint. Considering all life cycle stages of buildings, greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming potential are evaluated. These emissions are referred to as whole life cycle carbon and apply to building materials and their management processes (embodied carbon emissions) as well as operational carbon emissions. Improvement of the building’s carbon footprint can refer to optimisation of material flows, enhancing productivity, reducing delays, eliminating waste, and minimising energy usage for heating and cooling MO2. Resource Efficient and Circular Material Life Cycles Aims to improve building’s performance by considering circularity principles, limiting the use of raw materials, identifying opportunities for reuse or recycling, and ensuring that buildings can be readily adapted to occupants’ needs change over time. The aim of macro-objective 3 (efficient use of water resources) is to make use of water resources more efficiently, particularly in areas of identified long-term or projected water stress [13]. Macro-objective 4 (healthy and comfortable spaces) aims to create buildings more comfortable, attractive, and productive to live and work in. In these ways, human health protection can be improved [13]. Macro-objective 5 (adaptation and resilience to climate change) aims to make new building resilient against projected climate changes and thus protect the health and comfort of occupiers. Moreover, long-term risks to property values and investments can be minimised [13]. Macro-objective 6 aims to optimise the life cycle cost and value of buildings. Considering this approach, the potential for long-term performance is improved. Moreover, costs related to inclusion of acquisition, operation, maintenance, refurbishment, disposal, and end-of-life treatment are reduced [13] MO3. Efficient Use of Water Resources Aims to make use of water resources more efficiently, particularly in areas of identified long-term or projected water stress [13] MO4. Healthy and Comfortable Spaces Aims to create buildings more comfortable, attractive, and productive to live and work in. In these ways, human health protection can be improved [13] MO5. Adaptation and Resilience to Climate Change Aims to make new building resilient against projected climate changes and thus protect the health and comfort of occupiers. Moreover, long-term risks to property values and investments can be minimised [13] MO6. Optimised life Cycle Cost and Value Aims to optimise the life cycle cost and value of buildings. Considering this approach, the potential for long-term performance is improved. Moreover, costs related to inclusion of acquisition, operation, maintenance, refurbishment, disposal, and end-of-life treatment are reduced [13] 584 C. Giarma et al. performance of their buildings. The Level(s) common framework offers multiple advantages for three main groups of stakeholders: (1) Project design teams, including architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, and specialist consultants; (2) Clients and investors, such as property owners, developers, managers, and investors; and (3) Public policy makers and procurers at national, regional, and local levels. To calculate each indicator at the three levels of assessment, Level(s) provides specificinstructionsandguidelines.Thesecanbefoundintherespectiveusermanuals for each indicator. To ensure comparability between buildings with the same function, the framework recommends the use of national tools and standards, along with renowned private ones, utilising common measurement units for indicator calculation. The manual for each indicator provides these recommendations. The framework does not introduce a new methodology for sustainability calculation; instead, it emphasises the importance of reporting and using appropriate tools and methods for fixed key parameters throughout the lifecycle using the three levels of assessment. The measurement unit varies across indicators, and the final scores are neither normalised nor accumulated to provide an overall sustainability or circularity score for benchmarking building performance. To utilise the framework, a Level(s) project plan must be established by following these steps: •Step 1: Define the macro-objectives to be addressed in the project and identify the indicators to be used for performance assessment and reporting under each macro objective. •Step 2: Determine the performance level of assessment for the preselected indicators. •Step 3: Plan the workflow requirements and resources needed for assessment at different lifecycle stages, including defining roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, discussing expertise, and training requirements, establishing management models for information and data acquisition and flow, and setting specific deadlines. The framework provides multiple tables and reporting formats to support the development of these steps. Additionally, it offers a specific format for a complete building description, which includes information on location and climate, typology and age, building usage, and building model and characteristics. This information is necessary for the calculation of multiple indicators within the framework. Detailed guidance and supportive information are provided to assist in developing a comprehensive building description. The level or levels of assessment can be determined based on the project’s needs and priorities. It is possible to assess only one level or progress up to a specific level. Combining certain levels is also an option. The level definition can be applied to different indicators, allowing for assessment at various levels. However, the more levels that are addressed, the more accurate the understanding of the project’s performance will be, including any gaps between design and the reality of the completed building. The framework also provides opportunities to further optimise performance in most indicators. This can be achieved by using input data with higher granularity, 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 585 considering additional design and performance aspects, testing and comparing additional scenarios, or utilising more advanced calculation methods. Table 19.9 presents the main points addressed in each of the three levels of assessment in terms of project stages, assessment approach, reporting rules and steps, optional additional steps, and the need for a full building description. Circularity implementation. The analysis of circularity implementation in this section focuses on the indicator level, which constitutes the third tier of the framework, following the thematic areas and macro-objectives, consequently. The examination involves assessing the alignment of 16 indicators in Level(s) V1.1, integrated within the six macro-objectives, with the 10-Rs principles. The findings of this assessment are summarised in Tables 19.10 and 19.11. Table 19.10 provides an in-depth analysis of the direct relationships between the indicator scope, criteria, guidelines, and objectives within the 10-R framework. In contrast, Table 19.11 delves into the secondary impacts that indirectly contribute to circularity. In both tables, each of the 16 indicators is evaluated for its relevance to the 10-Rs circularity principles, with the results detailed in the final column in each table. Only the principles that are pertinent to each indicator are mentioned. It is important to note that the examination results represent a consensus among threeresearchersinthefield.However,thesefindingsaimtoprovideabroadoverview of the indicator framework’s alignment with circularity principles without specifying their specific relationship to one or more of the three assessment levels of the framework. This is because all three assessment levels complement one another and ultimately support the same overarching logic and goal. The sub-group working on Level(s) comprised three researchers in the field. The opinions expressed by these researchers shared notable similarities while also exhibiting some low to moderate differences on certain indicators. The primary points of contention revolved around the indirect relationships of specific indicators with circularity. Nevertheless, these differences predominantly arose due to varying subjective interpretations of sustainability and circularity concepts, and the inherent, undefined interplay between them without clear delineation of their scope. However, it is important to note that these differences in opinions were expected and were effectively addressed through extensive discussions and the exchange of perspectives to refine the results and determine which indicators had a direct association and which had an indirect connection to the 10-R principles of circularity. The indicators that exhibit the strongest direct links to circularity implementation are the four indicators within Macro Objective 2, “Resource-efficient and circular material life cycles.“ These indicators concentrate on design and engineering to promote lean and circular material flows, extend product service life and material utility, and minimise environmental impacts. However, it is important to recognise that the majority of the remaining circularity-relevant indicators in the other Macro Objectives are influenced by the indicators within Macro Objective 2. A more detailed explanation on the indicators that establish direct circularity association (Indicators 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4) and their indirect impact on the framework’s other indicators is provided in the subsequent paragraphs. This is followed by paragraphs explaining LCA and LCC indicators in Macro Objectives 1 and 6, 592 C. Giarma et al. Table 19.10 (continued) Thematic Area Macro objective Indicator Association with circularity (employed framework) MO3. Efficient use of water resources 3.1 Use Stage Water Consumption (m3/ occupant/year) RETHINK: • The indicator supports appraising lower water consumption alternatives over water-intensive processes or products considering a full lifecycle perspective REDUCE: • The indicator contemplates reducing water consumption during the use stage for more efficient use of this critical resource, especially in areas with water scarcity • Reducing water consumption will reduce the embodied environmental impacts of delivering water to the point of demand 2. Health and comfort MO4. Healthy and comfortable spaces 4.1 Indoor Air Quality N/A 4.2 Time Out of Thermal Comfort Range N/A 4.3 Lighting REDUCE: • Applying design strategies as to allow more natural light to enter spaces reduces energy consumption for lighting and the associated GHG emissions 4.4 Acoustics RETHINK: • Acoustics performance is directly related to material used and structural architecture of the building (continued) 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 593 Table 19.10 (continued) Thematic Area Macro objective Indicator Association with circularity (employed framework) RE3. Cost, value and risk MO5. Adaption and resilience to climate change 5.1 Life Cycle Tools: Scenarios for Projected Future Climatic Conditions RETHINK: • The information provided by life cycle tools for climate scenarios can help appraise among multiple design options the alternative that better suits its environment minimising resource consumption and environmental impact REDUCE: • If the building is designed to meet future climate change, its lifetime will be extended and the probability of maintenance and repair will be lower reducing resource consumption and environmental impact 5.2 Increased Risk of Extreme Weather RETHINK: • The consideration of the increased risk of extreme weather can help appraise among multiple design options the alternative that better suits its context minimising therefore resource consumption and environmental impact REDUCE: • If the building is designed to meet future climate change particularly the risk of extreme weather, its lifetime will be extended and the probability of maintenance and repair will be lower thus reducing resource consumption and environmental impact 5.3 Sustainable Drainage RETHINK: • The indicator implies a creative approach to how sustainable drainage systems can mitigate the increased risk of flooding caused by urbanisation (continued) 594 C. Giarma et al. Table 19.10 (continued) Thematic Area Macro objective Indicator Association with circularity (employed framework) MO6. Optimised life cycle cost and value 6.1 Life Cycle Costs (e/m2/year) REDUCE: • LCC analysis considers the total costs related to resource consumption over the lifecycle of a product, which can help to optimise and reduce resources consumption 6.2 Value Creation and Risk Factors RETHINK: • The appraisal of product selection based on their future value help minimise risks, costs and resources REDUCE: • If an asset is designed to maximise its value and value retention over time, the probability of its lifetime to be extended will be higher. This will indirectly contribute to the reduction of resource consumption and environmental impact 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 595 Table 19.11 Criteria which are indirectly associated with circularity (circular principles as reflected in the employed framework) Thematic Area Macro Objective Indicator Association with circularity (employed framework) 1. Resource use and environmental performance MO1. Greenhouse gas emissions along a building’s life cycle 1.1 Use Stage Energy Performance (kWh/m2/year) RECYCLE: • Energy efficiency can indirectly impact recycling. Products that consume less energy during their usage stage might have a reduced carbon footprint, making them more environmentally friendly in terms of recycling processes. However, recycling energy-intensive products can pose greater challenges (continued) 596 C. Giarma et al. Table 19.11 (continued) Thematic Area Macro Objective Indicator Association with circularity (employed framework) 1.2 Life Cycle Global Warming Potential (CO2 eq./m2/year) REUSE: • The indicator contemplates future adaptive reuse, which, in comparison to new construction, will result in lower embodied and operational GHG emissions and GWP • Products with low GWP may have a minimal environmental footprint over their lifecycle, making them more likely to be reused REPAIR: • The indicator contemplates future adaptive reuse, which, in comparison to new construction, will create a circular path of preserved and recovered materials to be repaired REFURBISH: • The indicator considers future adaptive reuse of existing buildings and materials to be refurbished, aiming to reduce both embodied and operational GHG emissions and GWP REMANUFACTURE: • The indicator contemplates future adaptive reuse, which, in comparison to new construction, will create a circular path of recovered materials to be remanufactured • Products with low GWP are better candidates for remanufacturing because they have a smaller carbon footprint REPURPOSE: • The indicator contemplates future adaptive reuse, which, in comparison to new construction, will create a circular path of recovered materials to be repurposed RECYCLE: • The indicator contemplates future adaptive reuse, which, in comparison to new construction, will create a circular path of recovered materials to be recycled. Recycling products with low GWP can help reduce the overall carbon emissions in the product lifecycle (continued) 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 597 Table 19.11 (continued) Thematic Area Macro Objective Indicator Association with circularity (employed framework) MO2. Resource efficient and circular material life cycles 2.1 Bill of Quantities, (BoQ) Materials and Lifespans RECYCLE: • Compiling a BoQ properly support facilitated and efficient recycling of construction and demolition waste RECOVER: • Compiling a BoQ properly facilitate the streaming of non-recyclable or non-reusable components of construction and demolition waste for energy recovery 2.2 Construction and Demolition Waste The elements listed in Table 19.1 under indicator 2.2 can be categorised as having both direct and indirect impacts on circularity 2.3 Design for Adaptability and Renovation REDUCE: • Creating buildings and products that can be easily adapted and renovated rather than replaced, can reduce the need for new resource consumption and minimises waste REUSE: • Applying reusable products and material in buildings promote their adaptability and lifespan extension RECYCLE: • Designing buildings for adaptability and renovation often involves the use of recyclable materials and components which ensure that materials can be recycled at the end of their life, reducing waste and conserving resources 2.4 Design for Deconstruction RECOVER: • DfD minimises CDW to be sent to energy recovery. However, it facilities the process by efficient and effective separation of recoverable and unrecoverable waste for the last to be streamed for energy recovery (continued) 598 C. Giarma et al. Table 19.11 (continued) Thematic Area Macro Objective Indicator Association with circularity (employed framework) MO3. Efficient use of water resources 3.1 Use Stage Water Consumption (m3/occupant/ year) REDUCE & REUSE: • Employing technologies such as rainwater harvesting and grey water filtering supports the reduce and reuse principle REDUCE & REPAIR: • Repairing water infrastructure such as leaky pipes or malfunctioning water systems, can help reduce water waste during the Use stage 2. Health and comfort MO4. Healthy and comfortable spaces 4.1 Indoor Air Quality N/A 4.2 Time Out of Thermal Comfort Range REDUCE: • Applying strategies such as passive energy technologies for heating and cooling provides thermal comfort while reduces energy consumption and GHG emissions 4.3 Lighting N/A 4.4 Acoustics N/A 3. Cost, value and risk MO5. Adaption and resilience to climate change 5.1 Life Cycle Tools: Scenarios for Projected Future Climatic Conditions N/A 5.2 Increased Risk of Extreme Weather RETHINK: • The consideration of the increased risk of extreme weather can help appraise among multiple design options the alternative that better suits its context minimising therefore resource consumption and environmental impact REDUCE: • If the building is designed to meet future climate change particularly the risk of extreme weather, its lifetime will be extended and the probability of maintenance and repair will be lower thus reducing resource consumption and environmental impact (continued) 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 599 Table 19.11 (continued) Thematic Area Macro Objective Indicator Association with circularity (employed framework) 5.3 Sustainable Drainage REDUCE: • It indirectly allows to reduce the use of freshwater in the building REUSE: • Sustainable drainage practices like rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling can promote water reuse for irrigation or non-potable uses MO6. Optimised life cycle cost and value 6.1 Life Cycle Costs (e/m2/ year) REDUCE: • The indicator can contribute to achieving a reduced environmental impact because higher initial capital costs may be required to achieve lower life cycle running costs • The development of a maintenance and replacement plan by applying circularity design and material concepts can support more cost effective management of assets and subsequently, reduced overall building-associated costs through the whole lifecycle REUSE: • The indicator encourages the reuse of materials when it is cost-effective RECYCLE: • The indicator encourages the recycle of materials when it is cost-effective 6.2 Value Creation and Risk Factors RECYCLE: • A value can be created when contemplating recycling of waste 600 C. Giarma et al. respectively, which are also of great importance to circularity particularly the (R2) Reduce strategy, despite being well known for sustainability assessments. Indicator 2.1. Bill of quantities, materials and lifespans. The scope of this indicator encompasses data for all construction products and materials procured for constructing new buildings or renovating existing ones. With regard to circularity, this indicator offers recommendations for the following project aspects: 1. Achieving material savings by considering shared elements (Rethink R1) based onbuilding typology, such as common sidewalls,andbyreducingfloor-to-ceiling heights to minimise structural material use (Reduce R2). 2. Enhancing material efficiency by optimising the load-bearing capacity of beams, columns and floor plates to align with client needs. These decisions influence the future options for adaptability and renovation (indicator 2.3) facilitating adaptive reuse of the building (Reuse R3). 3. Reducing the material footprint by incorporating passive thermal devices and renewable energies to lower the energy consumption, cost and carbon emissions (Reduce R2). 4. Enhancing material durability to extend the building life service by designing for accessibility for repair (R4), disassembly (indicator 2.4), and potential refurbishment (R5) to support adaptability (indicator 2.3). 5. Optimising the use of fit-out materials that cater to occupants’ needs while avoiding unnecessary materials that might end up as waste (Reduce R2), as calculated in indicator 2.2 Construction and demolition waste. 6. Ensuring compliance with design for disassembly requirements and future element reuse (R3). The indicator also suggests using recycled content from reclaimed resources (supporting product refurbishment (R5),remanufacture (R6) and repurpose (R7)) and integrating it into new or renovated building projects. While this indicator does not rely on specific inputs from other indicators, the information gathered for it provides reporting requirements to several other Level(s) indicators, notably: •1.2. Life cycle global warming potential and/or any Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) by supplying material and product life service information as inputs to LCA analysis, controlling and reducing (R2) environmental impacts and carbon footprints through links between BoQ with LCA inventories or environmental databases like EPD. •2.2. Construction and demolition waste and materials by converting the BoQ to bill of materials (BoM), aiming to minimise and reduce (R2) waste production and natural resource usage. •6.1.LifeCycleCosts(LCC)analysisbyprovidingmaterialandproductlifeservice information, enabling BoQ to BoM conversion for costs breakdowns of each material or product, critical for cost control and reduction (R2). 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 601 Decisions made in this indicator regarding material selection significantly impact the efficiency of other circularity design indicators, specifically, 2.3 Design for adaptability and renovation and 2.4 Design for deconstruction for which material and product lifespans supply crucial inputs. Indicator 2.2. Construction and demolition waste and materials. In line with the waste hierarchy, this indicator assesses the total volume of waste and materials generated from construction, renovation, and demolition activities. This assessment subsequently helps facilitate and enable systematic planning for waste reduction (R2) as well as the reuse (R3),recycling (R8), or recovery of components for repair (R4),refurbishment (R5),remanufacturing (R6), and repurposing (R7) of materials and waste through the separate collection of CDW during construction, renovation, and demolition activities. For unrecoverable waste, the indicator helps streamline unrecoverable waste for material and energy recovery (R9). This indicator relies on critical inputs from indicator 2.1. Bill of quantities, materials and lifespans. It also closely relates to indicators 2.3 “Design for Adaptability and Renovation” and 2.4 “Design for Deconstruction,” as the design concept significantly influences waste management throughout construction, utilisation, and end-of-life stages. Indicator 2.3. Design for adaptability and renovation. Theprojectedservice lifeof a building holds significant implications for the extent of functional utility achievable through the initial investment of materials and resources in its construction. Deliberate considerations in designing a building for future adaptability indicate a primary focus on optimising resource utilisation to maximise the building’s functionality over an extended period (Rethink R1). Incorporating contemplations of future flexibility and adaptability from the early design stages holds tremendous potential in effectively addressing emerging changes over the building’s lifecycle. Consequently, this approach contributes to the reduction (R2) of environmental impacts and material consumption throughout the entire lifecycle of both the building and its constituent elements. The concept of Design for Adaptability (DfA) enables more efficient utilisation of space and building structures by providing the essential prerequisites to extend the lifespan of the main building structure and components. This extension facilitates multiple applications through adaptive reuse (R3),repair (R4), and refurbishment (R5). In essence, this indicator plays a pivotal role in mitigating CDW (Indicator 2.2), which typically arises from premature demolition when a building no longer aligns with evolving user and environmental requirements. DfA goes hand in hand with DfD (indicator 2.4) as both indicators share some important design concepts such as accessibility to services for easy maintenance, repair (R4) and replacement of components. Indicator 2.4. Design for Deconstruction. The indicator evaluates the capacity of a building’s design to enable the efficient recovery of materials for future reuse or recycling. It involves assessing the ease of disassembling essential building components, followed by evaluating the ease of reusing and recycling these parts, as well as their associated sub-assemblies and materials. 608 C. Giarma et al. Table 19.12 (continued) Issue Category Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) A3.3 Supply, storage and distribution of surplus hot water amongst groups of buildings RETHINK: the redistribution of surplus hot water generated from photovoltaic sources on site among buildings (aiming at the optimisation of its supply, storage and distribution amongst groups of buildings) is under consideration REDUCE: Rethink strategies can be focused on resources consumption reduction Site & design & management A3.4 Supply, storage and distribution of surplus rainwater and greywater in groups of buildings RETHINK: the redistribution to other buildings of the surplus rainwater and greywater generated from roof or site catchment areas or from sanitary waste is considered REDUCE: Rethink strategies can be focused on resources consumption reduction Site & design & management (continued) 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 609 Table 19.12 (continued) Issue Category Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) A3.7 Composting and re-use of organic sludge REUSE: the existence of an effective composting facility in the project to handle the organic sludge produced and measures regarding its reuse in or off site are assessed RECYCLE: if composting will be considered as a type of recycling Site & design & management A3.8 Provision of split grey / potable water services REDUCE the use of potable water REUSE greywater Site & design & management A3.10 On-site treatment of rainwater, stormwater and greywater REDUCE the use of potable water REUSE &RECYCLE greywater/rainwater Site & design & management B. Energy and resource consumption B1. Total life cycle non-renewable energy B1.1 Embodied non-renewable energy in original construction materials REDUCE resources consumption (the non-renewable embodied energy, as estimated by an acceptable LCA method, is assessed) Materials B1.2 Embodied non-renewable energy in construction materials for maintenance or replacement(s) REDUCE resources consumption (the non-renewable embodied energy, as estimated by an acceptable LCA method, is assessed) Materials (continued) 610 C. Giarma et al. Table 19.12 (continued) Issue Category Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) B1.4 Consumption of renewable energy for all building operations REDUCE resources consumption (criteria: renewable energy for building operations) Design & management B3. Use of materials B3.1 Degree of re-use of suitable existing structure(s) where available REUSE/REDUCE of existing structures for new constructions. Reduce embodied energy and construction costs Design B3.3 Material efficiency of structural and building envelope components REDUCE: Reduce the need for new materials, reduce embodied energy and costs. (Increase efficiency of materials) Design & materials B3.4 Use of virgin non-renewable materials REDUCE: Reduce consumption of non-renewable resources and encourage the use of recycled/refurbished/remanufactured products Design & materials B3.5 Efficient use of finishing materials REDUCE resources consumption (elimination or reduction in use of finishing materials, whether virgin, re-used or recycled) Design & materials B3.6 Ease of disassembly, re-use or recycling REDUCE/RECYCLE: Promotes recycling, reusing, refurbishing, and repurposing of building components Design & materials (continued) 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 611 Table 19.12 (continued) Issue Category Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) B.4 Use of potable water, stormwater and greywater B4.2 Use of water for occupant needs during operations REDUCE water consumption Design B4.3 Use of water for irrigation purposes REDUCE/RECYCLE: Reduce potable water consumption, encourage reuse and repurpose of greywater and rainwater for irrigation Design & management B4.4 Use of water for building systems REDUCE: Reduce the use of potable water, encourage reuse and repurpose of greywater and rainwater Design & management C. Environmental loadings C.3 Solid and liquid wastes C3.1 Solid waste from the construction and demolition process retained on the site REDUCE: Reduce solid waste from construction diverted to the waste management system RECYCLE/REUSE: Recycling and reuse of construction waste Materials & construction C3.5 Liquid effluents from building operations that are sent off the site REDUCE Liquid waste sent off site for treatment Construction C.4 Impacts on project site C4.3 Recharge of groundwater through permeable paving or landscaping REPAIR/REFURBISH: Recharging restoring groundwater Site & design E. Service quality E.2 Functionality & efficiency E2.7 Spatial efficiency RETHINK: Optimise spatial use of building Design E2.8 Volumetric efficiency RETHINK: Optimise spatial use of building Design (continued) 612 C. Giarma et al. Table 19.12 (continued) Issue Category Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) E.4 Flexibility and adaptability E4.1 Ability for building operator or tenant to modify facility technical systems REPURPOSE/REMANUFACTURE of spaces in the building by the possibility to relocate HVAC, lighting and control systems Design E4.2 Potential for horizontal or vertical extension of structure REPURPOSE/RETHINK: flexibility of the structure design to be extended when needed. Reduce resources consumption when extension is needed Design E4.3 Adaptability constraints imposed by structure or floor-to-floor heights REPURPOSE/REMANUFACTURE of spaces in the building by the possibility to adapt to other uses Design E.4.4 Adaptability constraints imposed by building envelope and technical systems REPURPOSE/REMANUFACTURE of building envelope and HVAC and electrical systems in the building by the possibility to adapt to other uses Design E4.5 Adaptability to future changes in type of energy supply REPURPOSE/REMANUFACTURE of spaces in the building by the possibility to update energy systems Design (continued) 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 613 Table 19.12 (continued) Issue Category Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) E.5 Optimization and maintenance of operating performance E5.2 Adequacy of the building envelope for maintenance of long-term performance REDUCE the need for maintenance by ensuring durable design of building envelope Design E5.4 Existence and implementation of a maintenance management plan RETHINK/REDUCE: Ensure the reduction of energy and water consumption over time by developing a maintenance plan Design & management G. Cost and economic aspects G.1 Cost and economics G1.3 Life-cycle cost REDUCE/RETHINK: Life cycle assessment is implied in circular economy Design, construction & management 614 C. Giarma et al. Table 19.13 Criteria which are indirectly11 associated with circularity (circular principles as reflected in the 10-R framework) Issue Category Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) A. Urban, site and infrastructure systems A.1 Site regeneration and development A1.6 Shading of building(s) by deciduous trees REDUCE: reduce energy needed for cooling of buildings RETHINK The use of trees for carbon sequestration Site A1.7 Use of vegetation to provide ambient outdoor cooling REPAIR / REFURBISH: restoring damaged wetland provides higher scores within the assessment scale of the criterion Site A1.10 Provision and quality of children’s play area(s) REDUCE: Indirect relation with the reduction of fuel consumption/CO2 emissions by reducing transportation needs Site A1.12 Provision and quality of bicycle pathways and parking REDUCE: indirect relation with the reduction of fuel consumption/CO2 emissions by reducing transportation needs Site A.2 Urban design A2.2 Reducing need for commuting transport through provision of mixed uses REDUCE: indirect relation with the reduction of fuel consumption/CO2 emissions by reducing transportation needs Site A2.3 Impact of orientation on the passive solar potential of building(s) REDUCE energy consumption via passive solar systems Design (continued) 11 Indirect association: no reference/description in the intent, indicator, benchmarks, and generally, in the structure and content of the criterion. However, we see a clear connection of the type: if this criterion is met, then, as a consequence, a circularity principle will be served. 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 615 Table 19.13 (continued) Issue Category Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) A2.5 Impact of site and building orientation on natural ventilation of building(s) during warm season(s) REDUCE energy consumption from the need of mechanical ventilation systems Design A2.6 Impact of site and building orientation on natural ventilation of building(s) during cold season(s) REDUCE energy consumption from the need of mechanical ventilation systems Design A.3 Project infrastructure and services A3.9 Provision of surface water management system REDUCE the impact of water sewage systems RETHINK: improve flood resilience capacity of the site Design A3.13 Provision of on-site parking facilities for private vehicles REDUCE: indirect relation with the reduction of fuel consumption/CO2 emissions by reducing transportation needs Design B. Energy and resource consumption B1. Total life cycle non-renewable energy B1.3 Consumption of non-renewable energy for all building operations REDUCE: reduces resources consumption Design & management B2.Electrical peak demand B2.1 Electrical peak demand for building operations REDUCE: reduce resources consumption, often obtained from fossil-fuel generated electrical power Design (continued) 616 C. Giarma et al. Table 19.13 (continued) Issue Category Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) B2.2 Scheduling of building operations to reduce peak loads on generating facilities REDUCE: Related with indicator B1.1 Management C. Environmental loadings C.1 Greenhouse gas emissions C1.1 GHG emissions from energy embodied in original construction materials REDUCE: Reduction of GHG emissions considering the entire life cycle of materials Materials C1.2 GHG emissions from energy embodied in construction materials used for maintenance or replacement(s) REDUCE: Reduction of GHG emissions considering the entire life cycle of materials Materials & management C1.3 GHG emissions from primary energy used for all purposes in facility operations REDUCE: Reduction of GHG emissions from calculated energy use in the building Materials, construction & management C.2 Other atmospheric emissions C2.1 Emissions of ozone-depleting substances during facility operations REDUCE: reduction of emissions, which are considered as an impact, consequence of the implementation of other circularity indicators Design & management C2.2 Emissions of acidifying emissions during facility operations REDUCE: reduction of emissions, which are considered as an impact, consequence of the implementation of other circularity indicators Design & management C2.3 Emissions leading to photo-oxidants during facility operations REDUCE: reduction of emissions, which are considered as an impact, consequence of the implementation of other circularity indicators Design & management (continued) 19 Implementation and Consideration of Circularity Within International … 617 Table 19.13 (continued) Issue Category Criterion Association with circularity (employed framework) Level (site, material, design, construction, management) C.3 Solid and liquid wastes C3.2 Solid non-hazardous waste from facility operations sent off the site RECYCLE: considering future recycling of construction waste Materials & construction C.5 Other local and regional impacts C5.1 Impact on access to daylight or solar energy potential of adjacent property REDUCE of resources consumption considering solar power potential Site & design E. Service quality E.1 Safety and security E1.3 Risk to occupants and facilities from flooding Related to resilience as a general circular economy principle. Hence, associations with principles of the employed framework are implied: REDUCE resources consumption for repair REUSE/REPAIR facilities Site & design E1.4 Risk to occupants and facilities from windstorms Related to resilience as a general circular economy principle. Hence, associations with principles of the employed framework are implied: REDUCE resources consumption for repair REUSE/REPAIR facilities Site & design E1.9 Maintenance of core building functions during power outages REDUCE: related to resilience Management E.3 Controllability E3.1 Effectiveness of facility management control system REDUCE (indirect impact on energy consumption) (continued) 624 C. Giarma et al. 41. Sev A (2011) A comparative analysis of building environmental assessment tools and suggestions for regional adaptations. Civ Eng Environ Syst 28(3):231–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10286608.2011.588327 42. USGBC (n.d.), https://www.usgbc.org/, last accessed 2023/10/16 43. USGBC (2023). LEED v4.1 Building design and construction (Getting started guide for beta participants) 44. USGBC (2021) More than One Billion Square Feet of Green Building Space Recertified under LEED. Available from: https://www.usgbc.org/articles/more-one-billion-square-feetgreen-building-space-recertified-under-leed, last accessed 2023/10/20. 45. Wei W, Ramalho O, Mandin C (2015) Indoor air quality requirements in green building certifications. Build Environ 92:10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.03.035 46. Yuan Z, Bi J, Moriguichi Y (2006) The circular economy: a new development strategy in China. J Ind Ecol 10(1–2):4–8. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819806775545321 Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.