Unlocking circular economy potential: knowledge requirements of design teams in Australian construction and demolition waste management

The construction industry generates approximately ten billion tons of Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste annually, representing 30–40% of global waste generation (Zhu and Feng, 2025). In Australia, the National Waste and Resource Recovery Report 2024 indicates that in 2022–23, the construction sector produced 29.2 million tonnes of C&D waste, which is 39% of the nation’s total waste, marking a 15% increase in per capita generation since 2016–17 (Pickin and Macklin, 2025). Circular economy (CE) has gained attention in the construction industry as a solution to address extensive resource consumption and C&D waste generation (Osei-Tutu et al., 2023). According to Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2016), it is a system in which materials are continually reused and nature is regenerated. The implementation of CE is guided by the “R principles”, namely, refuse, rethink, reduce, reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, repurpose, recycle and recover, which are often arranged hierarchically along a circularity ladder, with earlier principles representing higher circularity (Pickin and Macklin, 2025). Although the construction industry’s focus on implementing CE principles for C&D Waste Management (WM) has grown (Oluleye et al., 2022; She et al., 2024), it remains largely confined to lower-order principles such as recycling, which is insufficient to effectively address C&D waste generation (Pickin and Macklin, 2025).

Limited implementation of CE principles in C&D WM is attributed to various barriers, including financial, market, supply chain, technological, cultural, organisational, stakeholder, social, managerial, political, knowledge-based and environmental factors (She et al., 2024; Zhu and Feng, 2025). Among these, a lack of CE knowledge is identified as a critical barrier and a root cause of others (AlJaber et al., 2023; Soyinka et al., 2023). Accordingly, numerous studies emphasise the need to strengthen CE knowledge among construction stakeholders to enable effective C&D WM (Oluleye et al., 2022; Shooshtarian et al., 2022). Among the key stakeholders in construction projects, the design team is often the most influential yet overlooked in implementing CE practices (AlJaber et al., 2023; Mbadugha et al., 2022). Given their early involvement, decision-making authority and influence over clients, designers’ knowledge is pivotal to adopting CE in C&D WM (Sassanelli et al., 2020). However, studies have shown that design professionals often lack adequate CE knowledge for managing C&D waste (Adams et al., 2017; Ipsen et al., 2021; Oluleye et al., 2022). Consequently, CE principles are frequently applied based on individual knowledge and self-interest, rather than informed practice (Iyer-Raniga et al., 2022). This not only hinders progress but also leads to superficial solutions, for instance, an overemphasis on recycling of waste, without addressing long-term CE goals (Oluleye et al., 2022). Therefore, there is a need for an empirically validated, comprehensive set of CE knowledge requirements (Papamichael et al., 2023; Zaman et al., 2023) that enables design professionals to systematically learn and enhance their CE knowledge for C&D WM rather than relying on individually perceived practices.

While existing studies have made initial attempts to identify the knowledge required to design for CE in C&D WM, these efforts remain limited. For example, the Office of Energy and Climate Change NSW Treasury (2023) and Zaman et al. (2023) focus on CE design strategies in the built environment, without fully examining the underlying knowledge required for their implementation. Similarly, recent research studies highlight CE competencies in the built environment (Sanggoro et al., 2024; Wijayawardena et al., 2025), which is limited to overarching competencies like communication and analytical skills without in-depth exploration of underlying information, skills and values. Botchway et al. (2023) explore competencies for waste minimisation during the construction phase of buildings, which cannot itself be applied to design teams, considering their early involvement and difference in role. Sumter et al. (2021) address CE design competencies in general but do not consider the distinct knowledge demands of construction projects, given the industry’s fragmented nature. This study, therefore, aims to fill this research gap by identifying the CE knowledge required by design teams during the design stage, including the relevant information, skills and values for effective C&D WM. The upcoming sections describe the literature review, research methodology, findings and discussions with the literature, followed by conclusions and future research directions.

Lack of CE knowledge among designers is a key barrier impeding CE implementation for C&D WM (Agyekum and Amudjie, 2023; Mbadugha et al., 2022). Equipping designers with CE knowledge contributes to addressing this challenge. Knowledge has deep historical roots, and according to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), it is justified true belief. Despite the absence of a universal definition, different authors have defined knowledge, highlighting its features, benefits and elements. Accordingly, this study considers the definitions of Davenport et al. (1998) and Organisation for economic co-operation and development [OECD] (2018) as an informative definition for knowledge, applied in a construction context, which states knowledge as a fluid mix of (1) contextual information, (2) skills, (3) framed experience and (4) values, which are referred to as elements of knowledge.

Although a few studies have been conducted to identify elements of CE knowledge in construction, they generally target limited stakeholder groups, with design teams often being overlooked. Moreover, existing research has not provided a comprehensive overview of CE knowledge, but rather focused on a narrow set of competencies, without offering clear guidance on why these competencies are important and what assists in developing them. For example, Zaman et al. (2023) equipped a literature-based approach to propose CE design strategies for the Australian built environment. While this study incorporated CE values, it was confined only to the principles of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. These values were not adapted to the specific context of design teams, nor did the study identify the information required to effectively implement those strategies, which limits the required CE knowledge for designers. Further, Wijayawardena et al. (2025), adopted a literature-based approach to identify CE competencies of construction professionals. However, their findings were primarily centred on soft skills, lacking in-depth analysis of competencies specific to design teams and failing to explain why these competencies are necessary or how they might be supported. Similarly, Sanggoro et al. (2024) identified professional competencies for engineers to facilitate CE implementation. However, their study was limited to four prioritised competencies, without interpreting the underlying rationale or offering insights into how such competencies could be developed. Again, Botchway et al. (2023) identified four competency categories aimed at minimising waste during the construction phase. While these categories are important, they cannot be directly translated to designers due to the absence of design-specific competencies. Consequently, there remains a clear gap in the literature in terms of providing designers with effective CE knowledge, accompanied by explicit guidance on what (information), why (values) and how (skills) of implementing CE for C&D WM. This leads to a limited understanding of the underlying values that guide design teams in adopting CE approaches, the types of information necessary to enable them to execute these values and the specific skills that must be developed to apply such information effectively. Consequently, the capacity of design teams to design using CE approaches to manage C&D waste is constrained by gaps in availability of defined values, information and skills. The following section outlines the CE knowledge elements identified across existing studies conducted in diverse contexts.

The four elements of knowledge are defined in this study as follows. Accordingly, information refers to knowledge communicated about a fact, subject or event; skills denote the capability to accomplish tasks with precision, combining practical knowledge, ability and expertise; values are defined as “the relative worth, usefulness or importance of a thing” and experience is “actual observation or practical acquaintance with facts or events, considered as a source of knowledge” (Oxford English Dictionary, n.d.). An extensive review of the literature was conducted to identify relevant knowledge elements for implementing CE in C&D WM. Given the limited studies explicitly identifying designers’ information requirements for CE implementation to manage C&D waste, the initial categorisation of information was derived from literature discussing barriers to CE and highlighting information gaps within the construction sector. Although these studies do not directly specify designers’ requirements, they implicitly indicate key areas where information is lacking. A similar approach was applied to identify relevant skills and values, drawing on both construction-related and other sectoral studies as required. Table 1 summarises the knowledge elements identified from the literature.

As the above-identified information, skills and values are not specifically identified as required for designers to implement CE practices for C&D WM, this study has gained real-life insights about the knowledge requirements following the methodology described in Section 3.

Experience in CE is often viewed as embedded knowledge that guides the refinement of actions toward best practices and more effective methods. Atiku (2020) highlights the fact that experience shapes behaviour through accumulated learning, while Kruger and Dunning (1999) argue that, it enhances metacognitive ability by improving self-assessment and reducing cognitive biases. Moreover, experience enables practitioners to navigate the complexities of CE tasks, thereby strengthening relevant skills and values (Nold and Michel, 2023; Osei-Tutu et al., 2023). However, as effective experience is inherently subjective, difficult to measure and typically requires longitudinal study, this research focuses instead on specifying the information, skills and values that practitioners can apply directly. By defining these discrete knowledge elements, we offer a clear framework that, when applied, will naturally foster the development of experience over time. This approach provides immediate practical guidance for design teams while laying the foundation for future longitudinal research into how these elements cultivate professional expertise in CE for C&D WM. The following section details the methodology used to explore these knowledge requirements, with a focus on design teams involved in commercial building projects.

This study adopts a qualitative research approach, incorporating a comprehensive literature review followed by semi-structured interviews. This methodology was deemed appropriate due to the need for in-depth, context-specific insights into the knowledge requirements essential for CE adoption to manage C&D waste. These insights are not readily obtainable through quantitative methods, which may lack the capacity to capture the complexity and nuance of expert perspectives (Braun and Clarke, 2019). Moreover, the limited availability of empirical data in the existing literature regarding CE-related knowledge requirements in the C&D sector further justified the use of qualitative inquiry to explore this under-researched area.

CE design experts in construction industry, with minimum of five years of industry experience, two years of CE or C&D WM experience and experience in commercial building construction projects in Australian context have been selected as prospective participants of the study. This includes, residential, commercial and industrial building designers, architects, landscape architects, planners, specifiers, thermal performance assessors (Building Designers Association of Australia [BDAA], 2024), civil and architectural engineers (Ipsen et al., 2021).

Commercial building projects were selected considering the feasibility of data collection, as most of the current CE efforts are taking place in commercial setting, with the involvement of diversified professional design team. They were identified through LinkedIn, publicly available company profiles and CE groups and were contacted via email or LinkedIn messages, which follows purposive sampling. To ensure validity and reliability of the findings, diverse professionals involved in design teams were interviewed. Open ended questions were directed to them regarding information, skills and values required for them to implement CE for C&D WM and respondents were encouraged to share their experiences and ideas without framing to a predefined list of information, skills and values.

The professionals were selected to represent the design team for the data collection based on Royal Institute of British Architects (2020), the Building Designers Association of Australia (BDAA) (2024) website and existing studies conducted for C&D WM in the design phase (She et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2019), considering the professionals they have mentioned as influential in the design phase of construction projects. All interviews were conducted with the respondents’ written consent and were recorded. Zoom’s auto-generated transcripts were reviewed and manually cross-checked by the researcher for accuracy. In total, 19 interviews were conducted and labelled from PI-01 to PI-19 to ensure anonymity. Professionals from key States and Territories with CE related polices, as identified by Zaman et al. (2023) were selected for data collection. The data saturation was obtained with 16 interviews, where three additional interviews were conducted to confirm the saturation point. Figure 1 depicts the profile of respondents participated in the study.

The collected data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2019), which involved structured iterative process comprising of following six phases; (1) Data familiarisation and writing notes; (2) Systematic data coding; (3) Generating initial themes; (4) Developing and reviewing themes; (5) Refining, defining and naming themes and (6) Writing. This approach was selected due to its flexibility and systematic guidance for qualitative analysis, while also acknowledging the researcher’s active role in the interpretative process. Subsequently, content analysis was employed to examine the emphasis placed on particular concepts and responses by participants. This enabled an understanding of the contextual weight given to the data by the respondents and thereby enhancing interpretation of findings (Morgan, 1993). NVivo software was used as the coding interface as it is user-friendly and supports iterative coding and organisation of qualitative data.

The following section presents the findings of the preliminary interviews regarding knowledge-related requirements that contribute to enhance CE implementation for C&D WM followed by a discussion with existing literature.

Considering the cyclical and interconnected nature of knowledge, where information, values and skills continuously inform and reinforce one another, this study presents the findings in the form of cycles. Figure 2 outlines the “knowledge wheel” created, further detailed in Figures 3–5.

Although information, values and skills can influence each other interchangeably, the wheel model is considered for its capacity to illustrate their interconnections. At the core of Figure 2 are values underpinning CE implementation in the C&D WM. These values represent foundational beliefs and commitments guiding designers’ orientation towards CE and are positioned centrally due to their primary role in enabling meaningful CE implementation to manage C&D waste. Information serves as the middle layer, connecting values and skills. Values shape the desire to apply CE principles for C&D WM, while skills represent its practical execution through the processing of relevant information. Additionally, values guide the acquisition and interpretation of information, justifying its intermediary placement. Skills occupy the outermost layer, as they are shaped by both values and information. Further, skills can be considered as the observable outcome of CE implementation in C&D WM. Overall, this concentric structure reflects the interdependence and flow between layers. Skills are most visible but are shaped and directed by information and values. Without accurate information, skills may be misapplied, and without values, even well-informed actions may lack long-term vision and can be unsuccessful.

Figures 3–5 in upcoming sub-sections outline detailed CE information, skills and values for design teams to manage C&D waste. Numbers indicated within brackets represent the emergence of a particular theme, and the size of the bar represents the emergence of particular subtheme in expert interviews. Asterisk (*) has been used to indicate the new themes that emerged during the interviews.

Twenty-three values driving design team professionals for implementation of CE practices to manage C&D waste have been identified under the following six main themes, as shown in Figure 3. These six themes were developed inductively, with the researcher deriving them directly from the findings. However, the thematic structure was informed and enriched by the triple bottom line framework of sustainability, and themes were labelled to reflect the underlying sub-themes.

According to Figure 3, the top five values driving design teams to implement CE for C&D WM were: better use of materials, minimising carbon footprint, obtaining potential cost benefits by selling/sharing materials, balancing environmental impacts and prestige. These findings align with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s (2016) CE values to design out waste and pollution, keep materials in use and regenerate natural environment. Moreover, Gasparri et al. (2023) highlight that adopting CE practices within the construction industry can substantially reduce carbon emissions. However, this study is the first to identify carbon footprint reduction as a factor explicitly valued by design teams. For instance, PI-16 stated that “our expected outcome is to lower down the carbon footprint”, indicating these considerations should be embedded in the design stage. Similarly, PI-05 remarked that “the built environment contributes massive amounts of carbon to the atmosphere,” emphasising the imperative of “environmental stewardship” in design decisions. In contrast, PI-03 noted that, given the relatively minor contribution of waste to the overall carbon footprint, design professionals are less likely to prioritise WM as a primary strategy for carbon reduction. Instead, they tend to focus on alternative approaches to lowering carbon emissions. Furthermore, PI-12 stated that environmental concerns are typically addressed only when prompted by client requirements, which often override sustainability considerations. Even though there are emissions-reduction policies (Mullins et al., 2020) to mitigate climate change impacts, this highlights a potential avenue for policymakers to broaden the scope of carbon-related policies in the WM context, thereby encouraging more active engagement and participation from design professionals.

As identified by Ghisellini et al. (2018), the construction industry is profit-driven, where financial priorities dominate. This justified the emergence of more financial and commercial values by design teams for CE implementation in C&D WM. There are controversial views on the financial values of CE implementation. For example, PI-17 highlighted that initial capital costs outweigh whole-of-life considerations, which limits client interest in end-of-life waste. This view is similarly reflected in prior studies by Adams et al. (2017) and Bilal et al. (2020) that portray CE is considered as cost-intensive. Nonetheless, several participants highlighted CE-related cost-saving opportunities during design. PI-07 cited reduced mark-ups, PI-12 referred to avoiding over-ordering and PI-10 noted that standard material sizes reduce waste. PI-06 added that sourcing locally lowers supply chain risks and costs, positioning it as a CE design value. PI-08, PI-13 and PI-14 pointed to the underutilised potential of cross-industry material reuse (e.g. gypsum boards in agriculture, lift cables in zoos). These insights offer guidance for industry practitioners to convey cost-efficient opportunities of CE to attract clients and open avenues for policymakers to formulate guidelines for wider cross-industry collaborations.

An interesting finding on values is the identification of new business opportunities, for example, consulting on CE material production (PI-12) and accessing grants for CE initiatives (PI-04). This extends beyond traditional notions of competitive advantage, which typically refer to gaining projects within existing scopes. These opportunities represent an expansion into new areas, making this a unique contribution of the study, valuable for industry practitioners. Although prior studies of Osei-Tutu et al. (2023) and Wuni (2022) highlight consumer perceptions of reclaimed materials as a value, respondents did not express this directly. Instead, they emphasised responsibility to serve the best for client as a value. Social and moral values were also noted as influencing designers’ application of CE for C&D WM, though cited less frequently. This may be due to the construction industry’s limited adoption of CE, where implementation is often driven primarily by regulation (PI-18). Thus, design organisations can benefit from findings of this study to expand social and moral values of their employees to expand CE implementation for C&D WM.

Successful implementation of CE in managing C&D waste depends on access to relevant, accurate information (PI-03). Preliminary interviews identified 49 information requirements across eight categories necessary for design professionals, as shown in Figure 4.

As shown in Figure 4, this study identifies three new information categories critical for implementing CE in C&D WM: project information, stakeholder participation and waste information. Unlike commonly cited information gaps in construction (see Table 1), this study conveys that certain information types, including financial and business model information, are often embedded within other categories. For example, material costs fall under material information, while landfilling costs are included in waste information. Although business models are key to enabling CE, the information they provide is typically accessed through operational or project-level domains rather than as a distinct category, particularly by designers. Accordingly, business model-related information is integrated into relevant categories, including material information, stakeholder coordination and design for lifecycle management. This reflects how designers engage with CE in practice, by materials, processes and partnerships rather than abstract models. Additionally, supply chain and market information, previously identified as gaps, are addressed as sub-themes within the stakeholder participation category.

The topmost five categories of information requirements identified are maintenance requirements, circular pace of materials, WM methods, availability of materials and minimum circularity regulation requirements. Material information was frequently highlighted by design professionals, confirming the view of Zhu and Feng (2025), that C&D WM should start with material management. Material maintenance requirements were the most cited, reflecting the importance of predicting end-of-life outcomes early in the design stage (PI-08). This aligns with prior studies by Atiku (2020), She et al. (2024) and Shooshtarian et al. (2022). A notable but often overlooked requirement is the circular phase of materials, raised by PI-01. This refers to the “R” implementation potential (e.g. reuse, remanufacturing) of material. PI-10 highlighted the requirement to identify material in current market early, while PI-02 warned that current material data are often misleading, contributing to CE malpractices in the industry. This highlighted the necessity of an independent governing body for CE material data management as “… it can’t come from the Government because the government isn’t allowed to show preference to any commercial people. … It needs to be an independent industry body, …” (PI-08). This presents a potential business opportunity for organisations operating within the Australian construction sector.

PI-18 identified regulatory information as the most critical for advancing CE in C&D waste, providing legal frameworks and compliance guidance for resource reuse and WM. However, PI-03 and PI-05 reported a significant lack of those information in the Australian construction industry, which aligns with studies noting limited CE regulation development globally (Ghisellini et al., 2018) and in Australia (Shooshtarian et al., 2022). Therefore, there is an urgent requirement for expansion of regulatory frameworks, which articulates a common CE definition (PI-09) and a clear hierarchy of CE practices (PI-05) to guide designers. While the circularity ladder presented by Pickin and Macklin (2025) exists in literature, better communication and interpretation through regulations is required.

End-user engagement is recognised as essential for successful CE implementation, a finding supported by existing studies (Wuni and Shen, 2022; Zaman et al., 2023). Further, while reverse logistics is typically discussed from manufacturers’ and suppliers’ perspectives (Adams et al., 2017), this study uniquely identifies it as vital design-stage information to guide C&D WM decisions. Thus, professional development programmes could be designed to enhance knowledge of reverse logistics among practitioners, while authorities might also consider expanding tendering guidelines to explicitly incorporate reverse logistics requirements.

Figure 5 illustrates 20 skills required by design professionals to implement CE for C&D WM, categorised into four main types: design, analytical, managerial and communication skills. This classification is adapted from the OECD (2018), which outlines key skill categories and definitions, originally developed to inform skills, information and values in school education.

As shown in Figure 5, the topmost CE skills highlighted are CE understanding and impact assessment, CE storytelling, CE systems thinking, preparation of client brief, standard design and material assessment for CE. The findings are mainly centred on analytical and design skills, with managerial skills being less emphasised by the respondents. This contradicts with the findings of Sanggoro et al. (2024), who revealed managerial skills as a top priority for CE implementation while highlighting communication as a less important competency. However, this study identifies storytelling as one of the top skills. For example, PI-15 emphasised that the design teams should have the ability to educate clients and emphasise financial opportunities, through their experience and stories. This can be considered as potential avenue for industry professionals to prioritise from their current practices, and professional accreditation bodies can initiate courses and qualifications targeting to develop storytelling skills.

Many existing studies reveal the limited CE awareness as a barrier for CE implementation and reveal the necessity of CE awareness to accelerate CE implementation (Oluleye et al., 2022; Papamichael et al., 2023; Zaman et al., 2023). Furthermore, awareness competency has been revealed by Botchway et al. (2023) as the topmost important competency for contractors to manage C&D waste. However, this study identified the requirement for “impact assessment”, in addition to awareness, as a critical skill for design professionals. This difference may be attributed to the early involvement of designers, who play a pivotal role in evaluating potential future impacts (PI-14), compared to contractors whose engagement typically occur at later stages. This highlights an opportunity for CE education to prioritise the development of impact assessment skills in addition to fostering awareness.

PI-04 stressed the importance of risk analysis, observing that contractors may not always follow design intent and that private developers are reluctant to take risks, preferring institutions like universities to lead innovation. Thus, mastering strong risk analysis skills by design professionals could help attract clients to CE practices (PI-04). Additionally, PI-06 and PI-19 emphasised knowledge management skills, for example, applying lessons learned and managing data effectively as crucial for responding to C&D WM challenges. Given that Wuni and Shen (2022) identified lack of CE knowledge as one of the top two barriers for CE implementation, developing knowledge management skills among design professionals is important, where design organisations and educational institutes could consider this as a strategic opportunity. Further, though existing studies identify end-user engagement as a required skill for designers (Sumter et al., 2021), this study frames it as a type of information necessary to effectively apply design skills.

This study demonstrates a three-layered knowledge wheel for effective CE implementation for C&D WM during the design stage with six categories of values, eight categories of information, four categories of skills with 23, 49 and 20 subthemes respectively. When considering the topmost values, information and skills requirements identified by respondents, it is evident that knowledge requirements are mainly centred around material management. This knowledge wheel enriches existing theories by systematically presenting how elements of knowledge interact, initiating from values to develop skills.

It provides guidance for effective dissemination of CE knowledge to design professionals in C&D WM. The specific interactions among knowledge components have not been investigated detail in this study and the developed knowledge wheel served as a testable model for future studies to examine relationships between and among identified knowledge elements. In practice, this framework equip design teams with collective knowledge assisted to integrate CE to C&D WM, fostering effective decision making and facts-based implementation, in contrast to current practice of implementation based on self-interest and personal knowledge. Moreover, in policy, this framework provides evidence-based insights to guide regulations, standards and professional development initiatives in the C&D WM sector. This study contributes to several UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It supports SDG 4 (Quality Education) by identifying CE knowledge requirements for curriculum development and professional training. It advances SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) by promoting green jobs and resource-efficient practices in the construction sector. Through the exploration of values driving CE implementation in the C&D waste sector, it contributes to SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). Additionally, by enabling more sustainable design practices, improving material efficiency and minimising energy consumption, it supports SDG 13 (Climate Action).

The scope of this study is limited to the Australian construction industry and examining knowledge assist in design stage to manage solid C&D waste in new commercial building projects for design teams. While discipline-specific expertise essential for design professionals, this study highlights knowledge that directly support the application of CE principles to design for C&D WM. Since the collective interventions of the design team will contribute to successfully implement CE practices for C&D WM, the knowledge wheel is intended to be use by all the members of design team. Even though, these findings can be used for other construction project types as well (eg: renovation), there may be specific findings related to the context, which should be validated. As this study employed a qualitative methodology, findings are context-specific and reflect the perspectives of the respondents within this sample. While the interpretation of qualitative findings can introduce subjectivity, a reflexive analysis was used to mitigate researcher bias. Consequently, the results provide in-depth insights, though transferability to other populations may be limited. Though this study has been conducted in the Australian context, the findings can be applied to other geographical areas as well based on country-specific alterations to some information, like regulatory information.

Future work in this area can be focused on identifying CE knowledge requirements for other stakeholders in different project phases, as differences can be expected for those viewpoints. Moreover, these knowledge requirements can be differ based on stakeholders’ current knowledge level. Thus, future studies can be conducted to prioritise the information, skills and values and experiences based on professionals’ current knowledge levels.

Approval to undertake this research project has been given by the Human Ethics Advisory Group (HEAG), Faculty of Science, Engineering and Built Environment, Deakin University (reference number: 2024/HE000532).

This paper is an extended version of our previous work, presented at the International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Built Environment (SASBE 2024), held in Auckland, New Zealand. The authors acknowledge the support and feedback from the conference chairs, Prof. Ali GhaffarianHoseini, Prof. Amirhosein GhaffarianHoseini and Prof. Farzad Rahimian, along with their team, throughout the peer review process of SASBE 2024 and during the conference, which helped improve our submission.

This paper forms part of a special section “Circular Economy and Sustainable Practices in the Built Environment”, guest edited by Drs Xichen Chen, Farzad Pour Rahimian, Dat Doan and Ali GhaffarianHoseini.