Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Essay

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Circular Economy in the Conservation, Restoration and Rehabilitation

Submitted:

12 May 2025

Posted:

15 May 2025

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
This book explores the integration of circular economy principles into architectural conservation, restoration, and rehabilitation (CRR). Addressing the environmental, cultural, and regulatory challenges of the built environment, it frames CRR as a natural application of circular strategies that prioritize resource conservation, material reuse, and lifecycle extension. The volume critically examines European and Portuguese policy frameworks, adaptive reuse methodologies, and material circularity in historic structures, while offering practical guidelines for architects and decision-makers. Core themes include design for disassembly, urban mining, regenerative design, and the role of digital tools in documentation and lifecycle management. By aligning passive design strategies with circular thinking, the book highlights synergies between environmental performance and cultural preservation. It also discusses the implementation of building passports, stakeholder engagement, and the significance of embodied carbon in heritage contexts. Through a multidisciplinary lens, the work proposes a systems approach that connects material flows, policy mechanisms, and design strategies. The author emphasizes the role of architects as agents of circular transitions and encourages the integration of circular economy frameworks in architectural education. This book serves as a foundational reference for professionals, students, and policymakers engaged in sustainable transformation of the built heritage.
Keywords: 
Circular Economy
;  
Architectural Conservation
;  
Building Rehabilitation
;  
Material Circularity
;  
Design for Disassembly
;  
Adaptive Reuse
;  
Embodied Carbon
;  
Regenerative Design
Subject: 
Arts and Humanities  -   Architecture

Introduction to Circular Economy in the Built Environment

The circular economy represents a transformative framework for reimagining how we design, construct, maintain, and repurpose our built environment. In contrast to traditional linear economic models where resources follow a "take-make-dispose" pathway, circular approaches optimize resource use throughout the entire building lifecycle while minimizing waste. This paradigm shift is particularly relevant for conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration practices, which inherently embody circular principles through their focus on preserving and extending the life of existing structures. The European Union has placed circular economy at the center of its sustainability strategy through the Circular Economy Action Plan, which establishes ambitious targets for the construction sector. Portugal has aligned its national policies with these European frameworks while addressing its specific context and building traditions. For architecture students and professionals working in conservation and rehabilitation, understanding circular economy principles offers powerful tools to enhance the environmental, economic, and cultural value of their interventions while contributing to broader sustainability goals.
Definitions, Principles, and Evolution of Circularity
Historical Context and Conceptual Foundations
The concept of circularity is not entirely new in human development. Throughout history, pre-industrial societies practiced resource conservation, reuse, and regeneration out of necessity rather than choice. Traditional vernacular architecture often embodied circular principles through the use of local, renewable materials and building techniques that facilitated repair and adaptation. However, the formalization of circular economy as a coherent theoretical framework is relatively recent.
The intellectual foundations of the circular economy can be traced to various schools of thought that emerged in the second half of the 20th century. Industrial ecology, pioneered in the 1970s, conceptualized industrial systems as analogous to natural ecosystems, where waste from one process becomes input for another. The performance economy, advocated by Walter Stahel in the 1980s, emphasized service and performance over ownership, proposing "selling services rather than products" as a pathway to resource efficiency.
The cradle-to-cradle framework, developed by William McDonough and Michael Braungart in the 1990s, introduced the concept of technical and biological cycles for materials, challenging the very notion of waste. Biomimicry, championed by Janine Benyus, proposed learning from nature's time-tested patterns and strategies to inform more sustainable design approaches. Regenerative design, advanced by John T. Lyle, focused on systems that restore, renew, and revitalize their own sources of energy and materials.
These various strands of thought began to converge in the early 21st century, particularly with the work of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which has been instrumental in mainstreaming circular economy concepts since its founding in 2010. Their three core principles-design out waste and pollution, keep products and materials in use, and regenerate natural systems-have become widely adopted as the foundation of circular economy thinking.
Key Definitions and Terminology
The circular economy is commonly defined as "a systems solution framework that tackles global challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss, waste, and pollution" (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). More specifically, it is "an economic system that replaces the 'end-of-life' concept with reducing, reusing, recycling and recovering materials in production/distribution and consumption processes... with the aim to accomplish sustainable development" (Kirchherr et al., 2016).
In the context of the built environment, the circular economy represents "a regenerative system in which resource input and waste, emission, and energy leakage are minimized by slowing, closing, and narrowing material and energy loops" (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). This definition emphasizes not only waste reduction but active regeneration of systems-a crucial distinction from earlier sustainability frameworks that often focused merely on minimizing negative impacts.
Key terminology essential to understanding circular economy includes:
  • Linear economy: The traditional "take-make-dispose" model where resources are extracted, transformed into products, used, and discarded.
  • Technical cycles: The management of finite materials where products, components, and materials are kept in use through processes like reuse, repair, remanufacture, and recycling.
  • Biological cycles: The management of renewable materials where biodegradable materials can safely re-enter natural systems after use.
  • Upcycling: Transforming by-products, waste materials, or unwanted products into new materials or products of better quality or environmental value.
  • Downcycling: Converting materials into new materials of lesser quality.
  • Urban mining: The process of recovering compounds and elements from products, buildings, and waste.
  • Material passports: Digital datasets that describe defined characteristics of materials in products to give them value for recovery and reuse.
This specialized vocabulary provides the conceptual tools necessary for discussing and implementing circular approaches in architectural practice.
Core Principles of Circular Economy in the Built Environment
The most common themes and core principles of a circular economy in the built environment can be summarized as follows:
  • Reduction in consumption of materials and resources
  • Optimization of lifespan for material and product use
  • Design for disassembly, reuse, and recycling, and the elimination of all waste
  • Regeneration of nature[1]
These principles can be further elaborated into specific strategies for architectural application:
  • Design out waste and pollution: This involves considering the entire lifecycle of a building from the earliest design stages, selecting materials and systems that minimize environmental impacts, and designing with future disassembly in mind.
  • Keep products and materials in use: For buildings, this means designing for durability, adaptability, and maintainability, while ensuring that when components need replacement, they can be easily separated and recovered.
  • Regenerate natural systems: Architecture can contribute to ecosystem restoration through biophilic design, integration of green infrastructure, and selection of materials that support rather than deplete natural resources.
  • Focus on whole systems rather than individual components: Circular design requires understanding the relationships between different building elements, their lifespans, and how they interact with broader urban and ecological systems.
  • Think in cascades: The value of materials should be cascaded through different applications, with high-quality applications prioritized before eventual return to the biosphere or technical cycles.
Within the context of the built environment, these core principles must be implemented at multiple scales:
  • Product, building, neighborhood, infrastructure, city and system
  • All geographies and regions
  • All building typologies, including new and retrofitted buildings[1]
This multi-scalar approach recognizes that circular economy in the built environment extends beyond individual buildings to encompass material flows, infrastructure systems, and planning decisions at urban and regional scales.
Evolution of Circular Economy Thinking
Circular economy thinking has evolved significantly over recent decades, reflecting deepening understanding of environmental challenges and expanding technical possibilities. This evolution can be characterized by several phases:
  • Initial focus on waste management (1980s-1990s): Early circular approaches centered primarily on improving recycling rates and waste diversion from landfills, essentially addressing "end of pipe" solutions rather than systemic change.
  • Life cycle thinking (1990s-2000s): As understanding of environmental impacts matured, attention expanded to consider the entire life cycle of products and buildings, from raw material extraction through manufacturing, use, and disposal.
  • Design for environment (2000s): Emphasis shifted to the design phase, recognizing that approximately 80% of environmental impacts are determined at this stage. Ecodesign approaches gained prominence, focusing on reducing impacts through better initial decisions.
  • Systems approach (2010s): Circular economy emerged as a comprehensive framework, recognizing the need for changes at the system level, including business models, infrastructure, and governance, not just product design.
  • Regenerative approach (Present): Current thinking emphasizes moving beyond merely reducing negative impacts to creating positive environmental and social benefits through regenerative design approaches.
This evolution reflects a progressive deepening of understanding about what truly constitutes sustainability in the built environment. The current conception of circular economy represents a holistic approach that considers not only material flows but also energy, water, ecosystems, and social dimensions.
Systems Perspective and Material Flows
A systems perspective is fundamental to circular economy thinking. Rather than viewing buildings as static objects, the circular approach considers them as temporary repositories of materials within larger, dynamic material flows. Understanding these flows is essential for identifying intervention points where circular strategies can be most effective.
The EU Circular Economy Action Plan recognizes the importance of reintegrating resources into European material cycles. However, it acknowledges that "a fit for all approach to circularity will not work in construction due to the diversity of materials and the longer loops in service life time"[2]. This insight highlights the need for specialized approaches to circularity in the built environment.
In the built environment, a systems perspective requires consideration of:
  • Input flows: How materials enter the built environment, including extraction, processing, and manufacturing.
  • Stock: Materials currently embedded in buildings and infrastructure.
  • Output flows: How materials leave the built environment, whether as waste or recovered resources.
  • Feedback loops: Mechanisms that return materials from output back to input, closing the loop.
A Sankey diagram of material flows for the European Union in 2017 illustrates this systems perspective, showing the complex relationships between raw material inputs, processing, use, and eventual output as either stock or waste[2]. Such visualizations help architects understand the broader context in which their material decisions operate.
This systems view highlights the importance of decisions made at each stage of a building's lifecycle-from initial design through construction, use, retrofit, and eventual end-of-life. It also emphasizes the interconnections between different scales, from individual building components to entire urban systems.
Circular Economy Frameworks in the Built Environment
Adaptation of Circular Principles to Architecture and Construction
Adapting circular economy principles to the built environment requires translating theoretical concepts into practical design, construction, and management strategies. Unlike consumer products with relatively short lifespans, buildings typically exist for decades or centuries, creating both challenges and opportunities for circular approaches.
The application of circular economy to architecture and construction encompasses several key dimensions:
  • Temporal dimension: Buildings have multiple life phases-design, construction, use, retrofit, and end-of-life. Each phase requires different circular strategies appropriate to its specific characteristics and challenges.
  • Spatial dimension: Circular approaches can be applied at various scales, from materials and components to whole buildings, neighborhoods, and cities. Strategies effective at one scale may not translate directly to another.
  • Functional dimension: Buildings serve multiple functions beyond providing shelter, including cultural expression, social interaction, and economic activity. Circular strategies must preserve or enhance these functions while optimizing resource use.
  • Technical dimension: Buildings comprise complex assemblies of materials with different properties, lifespans, and recycling potential. Circular design must account for this complexity through layered thinking and careful detailing.
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation's ReSOLVE framework offers a useful structure for applying circular principles to architecture, proposing six action areas:
  • Regenerate: Shift to renewable energy and materials; restore ecosystem health
  • Share: Maximize utilization through sharing, reuse, and extended lifespans
  • Optimize: Increase performance and efficiency; remove waste from production and supply chains
  • Loop: Keep materials in closed cycles through remanufacturing, recycling, and composting
  • Virtualize: Deliver utility virtually rather than materially when possible
  • Exchange: Replace old materials and processes with advanced, renewable ones
These action areas can guide architects in developing comprehensive circular strategies appropriate to specific project contexts.
Material Cycles in Building Processes
In the circular built environment, materials flow through technical or biological cycles that maintain their value over multiple use periods. Technical cycles involve materials that can be kept in use through strategies such as maintenance, repair, reuse, remanufacturing, and recycling-including most conventional building materials like steel, concrete, glass, and plastics. Biological cycles involve materials that can safely biodegrade and return nutrients to natural systems, such as timber, bamboo, hemp, straw, and other plant-based materials.
Within these cycles, the circular built environment has distinct stages that must be thoughtfully managed:
  • MAKE: At the manufacturing stage, make use of local, alternative, and reused materials (particularly those deconstructed from existing buildings or assets), prioritizing renewable energy sources and efficient use of natural resources[1].
  • DESIGN: Prioritize energy efficiency, passive design strategies, renewable energy generation, water harvesting, and regeneration of nature. Design for ease of maintenance, disassembly, and deconstruction, ensuring non-toxic material choices to allow future reuse[1].
  • CONSTRUCTION: Utilize low embodied carbon construction processes-such as modular construction-and implement higher performance standards for construction waste. Prioritize sustainable materials and products through all decision-making processes[1].
  • USE: Optimize building performance through efficient operation, regular maintenance of components, and adaptation of spaces to changing needs without significant material impact.
  • RETROFIT: Update and renovate to extend building lifespan and improve performance while preserving embodied value in the existing structure.
  • END OF LIFE: When a building can no longer fulfill its function, ensure materials are recovered for reuse or recycling rather than becoming waste.
These stages are not linear but form a continuous loop, with materials from end-of-life buildings becoming inputs for new construction or renovation. This cyclical perspective fundamentally challenges conventional architectural thinking about building lifecycles.
Passive Design Strategies and Circular Economy Convergence
Passive design strategies work with natural forces to reduce operational energy needs without mechanical systems. These approaches have a natural synergy with circular economy principles, creating opportunities for integrated design approaches that address both resource efficiency and occupant comfort.
Research has identified passive design strategies that converge with circular economy principles, particularly for tropical regions where climate-responsive design can significantly reduce resource demands[1]. This convergence operates through several mechanisms:
  • Resource efficiency: Passive design reduces resource consumption by minimizing energy needs for heating, cooling, and lighting, thereby reducing operational impacts throughout the building's life.
  • Simplification: Passive systems typically have fewer components and mechanical parts than active systems, reducing maintenance needs and potential points of failure while simplifying future material recovery.
  • Longevity: Well-designed passive buildings can remain comfortable despite changing external conditions or power outages, increasing resilience and potential lifespan.
  • Local adaptation: Passive strategies are often based on local climate conditions and may utilize local materials, reducing transportation impacts and supporting regional material cycles.
  • Bioclimatic integration: Passive approaches often incorporate vegetation and water features that can support biodiversity and ecosystem services, contributing to regenerative aspects of circular economy.
Key passive design strategies that support circularity include:
  • Optimized building orientation and form
  • High-performance building envelope with appropriate thermal mass
  • Natural ventilation systems
  • Daylighting strategies that reduce artificial lighting needs
  • Solar shading appropriate to climate and orientation
  • Water harvesting and reuse systems
By integrating these strategies with material-focused circular approaches, architects can create buildings that minimize both operational and embodied environmental impacts while providing comfortable, healthy spaces for occupants.
Design for Disassembly, Reuse, and Recycling
Design for disassembly (DfD) is a key circular strategy that facilitates future material recovery by enabling building components to be easily separated at end-of-life, allowing for reuse or recycling. This approach requires consideration of several key principles:
  • Documentation: Providing comprehensive information about materials, components, and assembly methods for future reference, ideally through digital building passports.
  • Accessible connections: Designing connections that can be easily reached and understood without specialized knowledge.
  • Mechanical rather than chemical connections: Using bolts, screws, and clips rather than adhesives, welding, or other permanent joining methods where possible.
  • Standardization: Using standardized, modular dimensions and connection details to facilitate future reuse in different contexts.
  • Simplification: Minimizing the number of different materials and connection types to simplify disassembly processes.
  • Layer independence: Separating building layers with different lifespans (structure, skin, services, space plan) to allow selective replacement without disturbing other systems.
  • Durability: Ensuring connection points can withstand multiple assembly and disassembly cycles without degradation.
Design for reuse involves selecting materials and components that maintain their value and functionality through multiple use cycles. This requires attention to durability, adaptability, and timeless design approaches that resist premature obsolescence.
Design for recycling focuses on ensuring materials can be effectively processed into new resources at end-of-life. Key considerations include material purity (minimizing composites and contaminants), non-toxic compositions (avoiding hazardous substances), and clear identification (labeling materials for future sorting).
These approaches represent a significant shift from conventional architectural detailing, requiring new technical knowledge and creative solutions to maintain performance and aesthetics while enabling future material recovery.
Relevance to Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration
Building Preservation as Inherently Circular
Conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration (CRR) practices are inherently aligned with circular economy principles. By extending the useful life of existing buildings, these approaches preserve embodied resources and cultural value while reducing demand for new construction materials and energy.
The relationship between CRR and circular economy can be understood through several lenses:
  • Resource conservation: Preserving existing buildings conserves the materials, energy, and labor already invested in their construction, avoiding the environmental impacts of replacement.
  • Waste prevention: Avoiding demolition prevents construction and demolition waste, which accounts for approximately 30-40% of solid waste in developed countries and represents a significant environmental burden.
  • Cultural sustainability: Maintaining historic buildings preserves cultural knowledge, techniques, and identity that might otherwise be lost-a dimension of sustainability often overlooked in purely environmental analyses.
  • Economic value creation: Well-executed CRR projects can increase property values and stimulate local economies through heritage tourism and revitalization of urban areas.
  • Skill preservation and development: Traditional conservation practices maintain specialized craftsmanship that supports both cultural continuity and high-quality material interventions.
The circular economy framework provides a contemporary rationale for traditional conservation practices, emphasizing not only cultural and historical values but also environmental and resource benefits. This convergence strengthens the case for preservation in contexts where cultural arguments alone might be insufficient to prevent demolition.
Adaptive Reuse as a Circular Strategy
Adaptive reuse-the process of repurposing buildings for new functions-represents one of the most powerful circular strategies in the built environment. "Adaptive reuse directly supports circular economy principles by preserving embodied energy, reducing the need for raw materials, and preventing waste"[3]. It allows buildings to evolve and remain relevant as needs change, avoiding the premature obsolescence that often leads to demolition.
The benefits of adaptive reuse from a circular economy perspective include:
  • Resource efficiency: Utilizing existing building stock rather than consuming new resources for ground-up construction.
  • Embodied carbon preservation: Retaining the carbon already invested in existing structures, particularly in foundation systems and structural elements.
  • Cultural continuity: Maintaining connection to architectural heritage while allowing evolution to meet contemporary needs.
  • Urban regeneration: Revitalizing underutilized buildings and neighborhoods, often catalyzing broader urban renewal.
  • Innovation platform: Creating opportunities for creative technical and design solutions that can advance circular building practices.
For adaptive reuse to fully align with circular principles, several factors should be considered:
  • Reversibility: Designing interventions that can be removed without damaging the original structure, allowing for future adaptations.
  • Minimal intervention: Making only necessary changes to accommodate new functions, preserving as much original material as possible.
  • Material compatibility: Using compatible, low-impact materials for interventions that will not accelerate deterioration of existing elements.
  • Energy performance enhancement: Improving operational efficiency while respecting heritage values through sensitive technical interventions.
  • Future adaptability: Designing current interventions to facilitate future changes, recognizing that current uses may not be permanent.
Research on "desirable futures for the circular adaptive reuse of buildings" emphasizes the importance of these factors in maximizing the circular benefits of adaptive reuse projects[3]. By approaching adaptive reuse through a circular economy lens, architects can enhance both the environmental and cultural value of their interventions.
Embodied Energy and Carbon Considerations
One of the most significant circular benefits of building rehabilitation is the preservation of embodied energy and carbon. Embodied energy refers to the sum of all energy required to produce, transport, install, and dispose of building materials. Embodied carbon refers specifically to the greenhouse gas emissions associated with these processes.
As operational energy efficiency improves through better building standards, embodied energy and carbon represent an increasing proportion of buildings' environmental impact. Studies have shown that renovating existing buildings typically requires 50-75% less embodied carbon than new construction, even when achieving comparable energy performance.
This embodied energy preservation occurs through:
  • Structure retention: Preserving structural elements (foundations, frame, floors) that typically represent the highest embodied energy components of a building.
  • Material conservation: Maintaining original materials that would require significant energy to replace, particularly those involving energy-intensive manufacturing processes.
  • Craft value preservation: Conserving handcrafted elements that embody cultural knowledge and skills that may be energy-intensive or impossible to replicate.
  • Extended material lifespan: Demonstrating that many traditional materials can function effectively for centuries rather than decades, challenging planned obsolescence in contemporary construction.
The EU Circular Economy Action Plan specifically mentions "setting of carbon reduction targets and the potential of carbon storage" in relation to buildings[2], indicating growing policy attention to embodied carbon considerations. For conservation architects, this represents an opportunity to quantify and communicate the carbon benefits of preservation strategies alongside their cultural value.
Challenges and Opportunities in Heritage Contexts
Applying circular economy principles to heritage structures presents unique challenges that require specialized knowledge and careful balancing of competing values:
  • Conservation priorities: Historic significance may necessitate preserving elements that would not be considered optimal from a purely resource efficiency perspective, creating tensions between cultural and environmental values.
  • Technical compatibility: Contemporary circular materials may not be compatible with traditional building systems, potentially accelerating deterioration if inappropriately applied.
  • Regulatory constraints: Heritage protection regulations may limit certain interventions that would enhance circularity, requiring creative solutions within established parameters.
  • Knowledge gaps: Traditional building methods may be poorly documented or understood, complicating circular approaches that depend on material knowledge.
  • Performance expectations: Modern comfort and safety expectations may be difficult to reconcile with historic fabric preservation without significant intervention.
However, these challenges are balanced by significant opportunities:
  • Learning from tradition: Historical buildings often embody circular principles like repairability, adaptability, and use of local, renewable materials that can inform contemporary practice.
  • Demonstration value: Successfully retrofitted heritage buildings can demonstrate the compatibility of preservation and sustainability, serving as powerful case studies.
  • Innovation catalyst: The constraints of working with historic structures can drive creative circular solutions applicable to other contexts, advancing the field as a whole.
  • Material knowledge recovery: Restoration projects can recover lost knowledge about traditional materials and techniques that may have superior circular characteristics compared to modern alternatives.
  • Cultural continuity: Preserving and adapting historic buildings maintains connections to place and tradition that support social sustainability alongside environmental benefits.
The tension between preservation and adaptation represents a productive space for architectural innovation, requiring balanced consideration of cultural, environmental, and functional priorities. By approaching this tension through a circular economy framework, architects can develop solutions that enhance both the cultural significance and environmental performance of heritage buildings.
European Policy Context
EU Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP)
The European Union's Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) represents one of the most comprehensive policy frameworks globally for transitioning to a circular economy. The latest iteration, CEAP 2020, is a cornerstone of the European Green Deal and sets out an ambitious agenda for sustainable growth across multiple sectors, including the built environment[4].
The CEAP 2020 is structured around several key themes relevant to architectural practice:
  • Make sustainable products the norm in the EU: This includes establishing a sustainable product policy framework with initiatives on product design, consumer empowerment, and production processes.
  • Focus on key product value chains: The built environment is identified as one of seven key sectors requiring targeted action due to its environmental footprint.
  • Ensure less waste: Setting waste reduction targets and creating a well-functioning EU market for secondary raw materials.
  • Make circularity work for people, regions, and cities: Supporting circular economy transitions through skills development, investments, and monitoring.
For the construction sector specifically, the CEAP includes several targeted actions:
  • Construction Product Regulation revision: Addressing sustainability of construction products, potentially including recycled content requirements.
  • Digital building logbooks: Promoting comprehensive documentation to support future material recovery.
  • Level(s) framework implementation: Using this EU framework to integrate life cycle assessment in public procurement and sustainable finance.
  • Carbon reduction targets: Exploring the setting of carbon reduction targets and the potential of carbon storage in building materials.
  • Material recovery targets: Considering revision of material recovery targets for construction and demolition waste.
  • Renovation Wave: Significantly improving energy efficiency in existing buildings through large-scale renovation programs[2,4].
The CEAP recognizes that "a fit for all approach to circularity will not work in construction due to the diversity of materials and the longer loops in service life time"[2]. This acknowledgment highlights the need for sector-specific strategies that account for the unique characteristics of the built environment.
European Green Deal Relationship to Built Environment
The European Green Deal represents the EU's overarching strategy to become climate-neutral by 2050 while ensuring economic growth is decoupled from resource use. The CEAP 2020 is integrated within this broader framework, with several areas of direct relevance to the built environment:
  • Mobilizing industry for a clean and circular economy: Encouraging industrial sectors, including construction, to adopt circular approaches that minimize virgin resource use and maximize material recovery.
  • Building and renovating in a resource-efficient way: The "Renovation Wave" initiative aims to double renovation rates and ensure renovations lead to higher energy and resource efficiency in existing buildings.
  • A zero-pollution ambition for a toxic-free environment: Addressing the interface between chemicals, products, and waste legislation, with implications for building materials and indoor air quality.
  • Preserving and restoring ecosystems and biodiversity: Promoting nature-based solutions in the built environment that support ecosystem health while providing benefits like stormwater management and urban cooling.
  • Clean, affordable, and secure energy: Supporting renewable energy integration in buildings and energy-efficient design to reduce operational impacts[4].
The European Green Deal envisions a transformation of the built environment that goes beyond incremental improvements to fundamentally rethink how buildings are designed, constructed, operated, and eventually dismantled. This vision aligns closely with circular economy principles and creates a powerful policy framework for their implementation.
Level(s) Framework and Assessment Tools
Level(s) is the European Commission's common framework for assessing and reporting on the sustainability performance of buildings. It provides a standardized approach to measuring how buildings perform across environmental, social, and economic dimensions, with specific attention to circular economy principles.
The framework includes indicators in six macro-objectives:
  • Greenhouse gas emissions throughout the building's life cycle: Including both operational and embodied carbon.
  • Resource efficient and circular material life cycles: Measuring material use, waste generation, and recycling potential.
  • Efficient use of water resources: Assessing water consumption, reuse, and efficiency measures.
  • Healthy and comfortable spaces: Evaluating indoor air quality, thermal comfort, lighting, and acoustics.
  • Adaptation and resilience to climate change: Assessing building performance under future climate scenarios.
  • Life cycle cost and value creation: Considering economic impacts across the building lifetime, including maintenance and end-of-life.
The CEAP specifically mentions using "Level(s) to integrate life-cycle assessment in public procurement and the EU sustainable finance taxonomy and exploring the appropriateness of setting of carbon reduction targets and the potential of carbon storage"[2]. This indicates the framework's growing importance in implementing circular economy principles in the built environment.
For architects, Level(s) provides both a methodology for assessing the circularity of designs and a common language for communicating sustainability performance to clients and other stakeholders. Its life-cycle approach is particularly relevant for conservation and rehabilitation projects, where embodied value preservation represents a significant sustainability benefit.
Legislation and Directives Affecting Architectural Practice
Several EU directives and regulations have significant implications for architectural practice in relation to circular economy:
  • Construction Products Regulation (CPR): The revision of the CPR aims to "address the sustainability of construction products," potentially including recycled content requirements[2]. The regulation provides "reliable and detailed information as regards circularity but it is not enough to promote circular design because issues such as legacy substances or availability of secondary materials may slow down circularity"[2].
  • Waste Framework Directive: Sets targets for construction and demolition waste recovery and includes provisions for the SCIP database (Substances of Concern In Products), which requires reporting on hazardous substances in products.
  • Energy Performance of Buildings Directive: Establishes requirements for building energy efficiency, with implications for renovation strategies that must balance operational improvements with embodied value preservation.
  • Ecodesign Directive: Being expanded into the Sustainable Product Initiative, with potential application to building components and systems.
  • Green Public Procurement (GPP): The CEAP includes "mandatory Green Public Procurement criteria – targets in sectoral legislation and phasing-in mandatory reporting on GPP by 2021"[4], which will influence public sector architectural projects.
These regulatory instruments are increasingly aligned with circular economy principles, creating both compliance requirements and market opportunities for architects specialized in conservation and rehabilitation. Understanding these evolving requirements is essential for effective practice in the European context.
Portuguese Policy Context
National Circular Economy Strategy and Implementation
Following the European Circular Economy Action Plan (ECEAP), Portugal has developed its own national circular economy strategy aligned with but adapted to the specific context of the country. "Multiple efforts have been made to apply circular thinking to construction practices and include circular economy principles in national construction strategies"[5].
The Portuguese strategy, "Economia Circular em Portugal: Um Roteiro para a Transição" (Circular Economy in Portugal: A Roadmap for Transition), establishes the framework for implementing circular principles in the Portuguese economy, including specific actions for the built environment. This roadmap recognizes the particular importance of the construction sector in Portugal's economy and its significant environmental footprint.
The Portuguese strategy emphasizes several priority areas for the built environment:
  • Urban rehabilitation: Leveraging Portugal's focus on urban rehabilitation as a natural opportunity for implementing circular approaches.
  • Construction and demolition waste management: Improving recovery rates and quality of secondary materials from construction activities.
  • Product standards and regulations: Adapting national building codes and standards to support circular materials and practices.
  • Training and capacity building: Developing skills and knowledge in the construction sector to implement circular approaches effectively.
The implementation of this strategy involves cooperation between various ministries, industry associations, research institutions, and professional organizations, creating a multi-stakeholder approach to the circular transition in the built environment.
Challenges and Opportunities in the Portuguese Context
The implementation of circular economy principles in the Portuguese built environment faces specific challenges related to:
  • Building stock characteristics: Portugal has a significant stock of historic buildings, particularly in cities like Lisbon and Porto, presenting both challenges and opportunities for circular approaches in conservation and rehabilitation.
  • Technical capacity: The Portuguese construction sector, characterized by many small and medium enterprises, requires targeted support to develop the technical capacity for implementing circular approaches.
  • Economic context: Financial constraints in the Portuguese economy necessitate circular solutions that demonstrate clear economic benefits alongside environmental advantages.
  • Regulatory framework: The alignment of Portuguese building regulations with circular principles remains a work in progress, with ongoing efforts to remove barriers to innovation.
However, these challenges are balanced by distinctive opportunities:
  • Traditional knowledge: Portugal's rich tradition of vernacular architecture, which often embodied circular principles before the concept was formalized, represents a valuable knowledge resource.
  • Rehabilitation emphasis: National policies emphasizing urban rehabilitation create a favorable context for circular approaches focused on extending the life of existing buildings.
  • Research excellence: Portuguese universities and research centers are actively contributing to circular economy innovation in the built environment, creating a strong knowledge base.
  • Tourism-driven investment: The growth of tourism has driven investment in building rehabilitation, creating opportunities to implement circular approaches at scale.
Understanding these specific contextual factors is essential for effectively implementing circular economy principles in Portuguese architectural practice, particularly in the field of conservation and rehabilitation.
Practical Implementation in Conservation and Rehabilitation
Design Strategies for Circularity in Existing Buildings
Translating circular economy principles into practical design strategies for conservation and rehabilitation requires systematic approaches throughout the architectural process. Key strategies include:
  • Minimal intervention principle: Following the conservation principle of minimal intervention aligns naturally with circular economy by preserving embodied resources and cultural value. This approach involves making only necessary changes to meet functional requirements while preserving as much original material as possible.
  • Reversible interventions: Designing additions or modifications that can be removed in the future without damaging the original fabric allows for adaptation to changing needs while preserving options for future generations.
  • Layer-based thinking: Following Steward Brand's concept of "shearing layers" (site, structure, skin, services, space plan, stuff), interventions should recognize the different lifespans of building elements and make changes that respect these temporal differences.
  • Strategic additions: When new elements are necessary, positioning them as clearly distinguishable additions rather than imitations helps maintain architectural legibility while allowing for contemporary expression and improved performance.
  • Energy retrofit integration: Carefully integrating energy performance improvements in ways that respect historic fabric, such as interior insulation where appropriate, secondary glazing, and discrete service integration.
  • Passive system optimization: Restoring and enhancing original passive design features (natural ventilation, thermal mass, daylighting) to improve performance with minimal technological intervention.
  • Material conservation and repair: Prioritizing repair over replacement whenever possible, and when replacement is necessary, choosing compatible materials that support rather than compromise the building's long-term integrity.
These strategies require thorough understanding of both the existing building's characteristics and circular economy principles, creating a specialized practice area that bridges conservation and sustainability disciplines.
Material Selection and Management in Heritage Contexts
Material selection for conservation and rehabilitation projects presents particular challenges when viewed through a circular economy lens. Key considerations include:
  • Compatibility with existing materials: New materials must be physically and chemically compatible with existing building elements to prevent accelerated deterioration through incompatible properties (different thermal expansion, moisture transmission, or chemical reactivity).
  • Authenticity and integrity: Material choices must balance circular principles with heritage values that may prioritize historical authenticity over purely environmental considerations.
  • Reversibility: Materials should allow for future removal or replacement without damaging original elements, supporting future circular interventions.
  • Durability and maintenance requirements: Selected materials should match or exceed the longevity of the existing building, with maintenance requirements appropriate to the building type and ownership context.
  • Local sourcing: Utilizing locally available materials reduces transportation impacts while often better matching regional building traditions.
  • Non-toxic compositions: Avoiding materials containing hazardous substances that could complicate future reuse or recycling, particularly important in buildings that may undergo multiple future adaptations.
  • Repaired and salvaged materials: Where replacement is necessary, considering repaired original materials or appropriate salvaged materials from similar buildings as alternatives to new production.
For conservation professionals, material management extends beyond initial selection to ongoing care throughout the building's life. This includes developing appropriate maintenance regimes, documenting interventions for future reference, and planning for eventual material recovery when components reach end-of-life.
Documentation and Building Passports for Historic Structures
Comprehensive documentation is essential for enabling effective conservation and future circular interventions. Building passports-detailed records of building materials, components, and systems-provide the information needed for informed decisions throughout a building's life.
For historic structures, documentation should include:
  • Historical analysis: Documentation of original construction, subsequent alterations, and historical significance to inform appropriate intervention strategies.
  • Material assessment: Detailed inventory of existing materials, their condition, composition, and cultural significance.
  • As-built documentation: Accurate records of the building's current state, including hidden elements that may be revealed during interventions.
  • Intervention documentation: Comprehensive records of all conservation or rehabilitation work, including materials used, techniques employed, and rationale for decisions.
  • Maintenance plans: Scheduled maintenance requirements and procedures to extend component lifespans and prevent deterioration.
  • Future adaptation guidance: Recommendations for appropriate approaches to potential future adaptations, identifying sensitive areas and opportunities for enhancement.
The EU is promoting "digital building logbooks" as part of its circular economy strategy[2], indicating the growing importance of comprehensive building documentation for enabling circular approaches. For historic buildings, these digital tools can be adapted to include heritage-specific information alongside material and technical data, creating integrated resources for future stewards.
Collaboration and Stakeholder Engagement
Circular approaches in conservation and rehabilitation require collaboration across disciplines and engagement with diverse stakeholders. Key aspects include:
  • Interdisciplinary teams: Bringing together conservation specialists, sustainability experts, engineers, material scientists, and other technical professionals to develop integrated solutions.
  • Community involvement: Engaging with local communities to understand the social and cultural value of historic buildings and ensure that interventions respond to community needs and aspirations.
  • Knowledge exchange: Sharing lessons learned from successful projects to build collective expertise in circular conservation approaches.
  • Client education: Helping building owners understand the long-term value proposition of circular approaches, including life-cycle cost benefits and enhanced cultural significance.
  • Regulatory dialogue: Working with heritage and building authorities to develop appropriate interpretations of regulations that support circular innovation while protecting significant heritage values.
  • Supply chain development: Collaborating with material suppliers and specialist contractors to develop appropriate products and skills for circular conservation.
Effective stakeholder engagement helps resolve the potential tensions between preservation and adaptation, finding solutions that enhance both cultural and environmental values while meeting functional needs. This collaborative approach is essential for the successful implementation of circular principles in heritage contexts.
Synthesis of Circular Economy and Conservation Principles
The convergence of circular economy and conservation principles represents a powerful framework for addressing the environmental challenges facing the built environment while preserving cultural heritage. Throughout this chapter, we have explored how these two fields, which developed from different historical contexts and value systems, share fundamental commitments to resource stewardship, longevity, and cultural continuity.
Key points of synthesis include:
Life extension as a core strategy: Both circular economy and conservation prioritize extending the useful life of existing structures and materials, though sometimes for different primary reasons-resource efficiency in one case, cultural preservation in the other.
  • Whole-systems thinking: Both approaches require consideration of buildings within broader contexts-material flows and ecosystem impacts for circular economy, cultural landscapes and historical continuity for conservation.
  • Future-oriented preservation: Both fields are concerned with maintaining options for future generations, whether through reversible interventions in conservation or design for disassembly in circular approaches.
  • Material knowledge and craft: Both value detailed understanding of material properties and traditional craft knowledge that supports long-term performance and repairability.
  • Adaptation balanced with preservation: Both recognize the need to balance preservation of existing value with adaptation to changing needs, though they may weight these priorities differently in specific contexts.
The integration of these perspectives creates opportunities for more holistic approaches to the built environment that address both environmental impacts and cultural significance. This synthesis is particularly relevant in the European context, where historic urban fabric represents both cultural heritage and embodied resources worthy of preservation.
Future Challenges and Opportunities
Looking forward, several key challenges and opportunities can be anticipated for circular economy in conservation and rehabilitation:
  • Measuring and valuing cultural aspects of circularity: Developing metrics and evaluation frameworks that capture the full range of benefits from circular approaches in heritage contexts, including cultural and social dimensions that may be difficult to quantify.
  • Climate adaptation integration: Incorporating climate resilience into circular conservation strategies to ensure historic buildings can withstand changing environmental conditions while maintaining their cultural significance.
  • Digital tools for heritage management: Adapting emerging technologies like Building Information Modeling (BIM), digital twins, and material passports to the specific needs of historic buildings, capturing both heritage values and material information.
  • Skills development and knowledge transfer: Addressing the shortage of professionals with expertise in both conservation and circular economy principles through education, training, and knowledge exchange.
  • Policy evolution: Developing regulatory frameworks that recognize and incentivize the environmental benefits of building conservation alongside cultural protection, potentially including embodied carbon accounting in heritage decisions.
  • Material innovation for heritage applications: Developing new materials and techniques specifically designed for conservation applications that meet both heritage compatibility requirements and circular principles.
These challenges represent opportunities for innovation at the intersection of conservation and circular economy-a frontier that will increasingly engage architectural professionals as environmental and cultural imperatives converge.
The Role of Architects in Leading Circular Transitions
Architects specialized in conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration have a crucial role to play in leading the transition to more circular approaches in the built environment. Their expertise in working with existing buildings positions them uniquely to demonstrate how heritage structures can meet contemporary needs while preserving embodied resources and cultural value.
This leadership role encompasses several dimensions:
  • Practice innovation: Developing and implementing circular design approaches in conservation and rehabilitation projects, creating exemplars that demonstrate technical feasibility and design excellence.
  • Knowledge development: Contributing to research and knowledge building at the intersection of conservation and circular economy, documenting outcomes and sharing lessons learned.
  • Client advocacy: Helping building owners understand the value proposition of circular approaches in heritage contexts, including potential economic benefits alongside cultural and environmental advantages.
  • Policy engagement: Participating in the development of standards, regulations, and incentives that support circular approaches in historic buildings.
  • Education and mentoring: Sharing expertise with emerging professionals to build capacity for the next generation of practice.
By embracing this leadership role, architects can help transform how society values and manages its built heritage, positioning historic buildings not as obstacles to sustainability but as resources for addressing environmental challenges while maintaining cultural continuity.
Integrating Theory and Practice in Architectural Education
For architecture students preparing to enter professional practice, integrating circular economy principles into their education about conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration is increasingly essential. This integration requires attention to both theoretical understanding and practical application skills:
  • Interdisciplinary knowledge: Developing foundational understanding of both heritage conservation principles and circular economy concepts, recognizing areas of alignment and potential tension.
  • Technical competencies: Building skills in assessment methodologies (condition surveys, heritage significance evaluation, life cycle assessment) that support informed decision-making.
  • Design methodologies: Learning approaches to intervention design that respect heritage values while implementing circular strategies appropriate to specific building types and contexts.
  • Critical thinking: Developing the ability to navigate complex trade-offs between competing values and priorities, making well-reasoned decisions in ambiguous situations.
  • Communication skills: Building capacity to articulate the rationale for circular conservation approaches to diverse stakeholders, from heritage authorities to building users.
Educational approaches that combine theoretical knowledge with practical application-through design studios, technical workshops, site visits, and case study analysis-can prepare students for the complex challenges they will face in professional practice. By grounding circular principles in concrete conservation contexts, education can bridge the gap between abstract concepts and practical implementation.
The transition to a circular built environment represents both a challenge and an opportunity for the architectural profession. By integrating circular principles with conservation expertise, architects can lead the way in creating a more sustainable, culturally rich future that honors the past while addressing the pressing environmental challenges of our time.

Regulatory and Policy Frameworks for Circular Economy in Architectural Conservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration

The transition toward circular economy principles represents a paradigm shift for the architectural field, particularly for conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration practices. Current regulatory frameworks at both European and Portuguese levels are increasingly mandating and incentivizing circular approaches to extend building lifespans, minimize waste, and reduce resource consumption. This chapter explores the comprehensive policy landscape that architects must navigate when implementing circular economy principles in preservation projects, focusing on key frameworks that provide both requirements and opportunities for sustainable architectural interventions in existing buildings.
The European Green Deal and Circular Economy
Vision and Core Objectives
The European Green Deal, launched in December 2019, represents the European Union's comprehensive roadmap for transitioning to a sustainable, climate-neutral economy by 2050. This landmark policy initiative fundamentally reshapes how architects approach building design, construction, and renovation across the European continent, including Portugal. At its core, the European Green Deal establishes the ambitious target of carbon neutrality by 2050, with an interim goal of reducing carbon emissions by 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels[1]. These targets directly impact architectural practice by necessitating dramatic reductions in both operational and embodied carbon in buildings.
For conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration (CRR) projects, the European Green Deal reinforces the inherent sustainability advantage of working with existing structures. The Green Deal includes several components with direct implications for architectural CRR projects:
  • The Just Transition Mechanism, which aims to mobilize approximately €55 billion to ensure equitable social outcomes during the transition to sustainability[1]. This funding mechanism can support building renovation projects in economically vulnerable regions, including historic preservation efforts.
  • The Renovation Wave strategy, which aims to double annual energy renovation rates across the EU over the next decade. This directly impacts rehabilitation projects by establishing standards and funding mechanisms for improving the energy performance of existing buildings.
  • The Circular Economy Action Plan, which focuses on minimizing waste and promoting recycling across sectors[1]. For architecture, this means rethinking material flows throughout a building's lifecycle, from initial design through demolition or deconstruction.
The European Commission's "Renovation Wave" initiative, launched in October 2020 as part of the Green Deal, specifically targets the building sector. It aims to renovate 35 million building units by 2030, improving energy efficiency while reducing carbon emissions. This initiative directly supports conservation and rehabilitation projects that extend the useful life of existing buildings while improving their performance.
The New Circular Economy Action Plan
In March 2020, the European Commission adopted a new Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP), which constitutes one of the main pillars of the European Green Deal[2]. This plan establishes a future-oriented strategy aimed at creating a cleaner and more competitive Europe through the application of circular economy principles. The CEAP builds upon actions developed in the circular economy domain since 2015 and accelerates the transition required within the context of the European Green Deal.
The new CEAP applies measures throughout the entire product lifecycle with objectives to:
  • Ensure product sustainability
  • Empower consumers
  • Focus action on resource-intensive sectors with high circularity potential
  • Reduce waste production[2]
For the architectural sector, particularly in conservation and rehabilitation projects, the CEAP emphasizes:
  • The extension of building lifespans through proper maintenance and adaptation
  • Design for disassembly to enable future reuse of building components
  • Material passport systems to document and track building materials
  • Integration of recycled and renewable materials in renovation projects
  • Selective demolition practices to maximize material recovery
The CEAP recognizes that the built environment has a particularly high potential for circularity implementation, as buildings account for approximately 50% of all extracted materials and 35% of EU waste generation. By establishing sector-specific measures for construction and buildings, the plan creates both regulatory requirements and market opportunities for architects working on CRR projects.
EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities
Framework and Environmental Objectives
The EU Taxonomy represents a groundbreaking classification system that defines which economic activities can be considered environmentally sustainable. For architects working on conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration projects, the Taxonomy provides a crucial framework for aligning design decisions with EU sustainability objectives and accessing green financing.
The Taxonomy Regulation, which entered into force on July 12, 2020, establishes four overarching conditions that an economic activity must meet to qualify as environmentally sustainable[3]:
  • It must make a substantial contribution to at least one of six environmental objectives
  • It must do no significant harm to any of the other objectives
  • It must comply with minimum social safeguards
  • It must comply with technical screening criteria
The Taxonomy establishes six environmental objectives[3]:
  • Climate change mitigation
  • Climate change adaptation
  • Sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources
  • Transition to a circular economy
  • Pollution prevention and control
  • Protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems
The Taxonomy creates a common language for sustainability in the built environment. Its detailed classification system helps architects communicate the environmental benefits of conservation and adaptive reuse projects to clients, investors, and regulatory authorities. As the European Commission states, "The EU taxonomy is a cornerstone of the EU's sustainable finance framework and an important market transparency tool. It helps direct investments to the economic activities most needed for the transition, in line with the European Green Deal objectives"[3].
Technical Screening Criteria for Buildings
For building renovation projects, including conservation and rehabilitation, the Taxonomy establishes specific technical screening criteria that determine whether an activity substantially contributes to climate change mitigation. These criteria include achieving:
  • At least 30% reduction in primary energy demand compared to pre-renovation performance
  • Compliance with national requirements for major renovations
  • Minimum energy performance requirements for building components
For conservation and restoration projects involving heritage buildings, there may be tensions between preserving historic fabric and meeting Taxonomy criteria, particularly around energy efficiency. However, the Taxonomy does recognize that certain buildings may be exempt from specific requirements due to their status as officially protected or their architectural or historical value. This acknowledges the importance of cultural heritage preservation while still encouraging improvement where possible.
The EU Taxonomy influences architectural practice in several critical ways:
First, it affects access to financing. Projects that align with Taxonomy criteria are increasingly able to access preferential financing rates, green bonds, and other financial instruments aimed at supporting sustainable activities. For historic preservation projects, which often struggle with financing challenges, Taxonomy alignment can open new funding opportunities.
Second, it establishes clear technical standards for renovation projects. By defining specific performance thresholds that constitute "substantial contribution" to environmental objectives, the Taxonomy creates measurable targets for architects to achieve in retrofit projects.
Level(s) Framework
Structure and Core Indicators
The Level(s) framework represents the European Union's common language for assessing and reporting on the sustainability performance of buildings. Developed by the European Commission in collaboration with industry stakeholders, Level(s) provides a set of core indicators and common metrics for measuring building performance across six macro-objectives:
  • Greenhouse gas emissions throughout the building lifecycle
  • Resource-efficient and circular material lifecycles
  • Efficient use of water resources
  • Healthy and comfortable spaces
  • Adaptation and resilience to climate change
  • Life cycle cost and value
For architects working on conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration projects, Level(s) offers a structured approach to integrating sustainability considerations across multiple dimensions, beyond just energy efficiency. The framework explicitly recognizes the value of extending building lifespans and incorporates circular economy principles throughout its indicators.
Level(s) is particularly relevant to CRR projects through its emphasis on:
  • Lifecycle Assessment (LCA): By requiring assessment of environmental impacts across the entire building lifecycle, Level(s) helps architects quantify the environmental benefits of building preservation compared to new construction. This includes consideration of embodied carbon, which is largely preserved when existing structures are maintained.
  • Design for adaptability and renovation: Level(s) includes indicators that assess how easily a building can be adapted to changing needs over time, a key consideration for rehabilitation projects that aim to extend building lifespans.
  • Design for deconstruction, reuse, and recyclability: For restoration projects, these indicators encourage architects to consider how components replaced during renovation can be recovered for future use.
  • Material circularity: Level(s) promotes the use of recycled or reused materials and components, which aligns with preservation projects that often incorporate salvaged building elements.
Implementation in Architectural Practice
Unlike regulatory frameworks that mandate specific outcomes, Level(s) is a voluntary tool designed to guide design decisions and enable comparison between projects using common metrics. It serves as a bridge between project-level actions and EU sustainability objectives, helping architects demonstrate how their work contributes to broader policy goals.
The framework operates at three levels of sophistication:
  • Level 1 (Conceptual design): Basic assessment using common units of measurement
  • Level 2 (Detailed design and construction): Comparative assessment between design options
  • Level 3 (As-built and in-use): Optimization of performance based on actual data
This tiered approach allows architects to apply the framework at different project stages and with varying levels of detail, making it adaptable to different types of CRR projects.
For architectural education, Level(s) provides a valuable framework for teaching integrated sustainability assessment. Its holistic approach helps students understand the interconnections between different sustainability aspects and provides them with practical tools they can apply in professional practice.
As the EU continues to implement its Green Deal and Circular Economy Action Plan, Level(s) is likely to gain increasing importance as a reference point for sustainable building assessment, potentially informing future building regulations and green financing criteria.
Waste Framework Directive
Circular Hierarchy and Construction Applications
The EU Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC, as amended) establishes the fundamental legal framework for waste management across the European Union, with significant implications for architectural practice in conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration projects. The directive establishes a waste hierarchy that prioritizes prevention, reuse, and recycling over disposal, directly aligning with circular economy principles.
For architectural CRR projects, the Waste Framework Directive introduces several key requirements:
  • The waste hierarchy prioritization (Article 4), which mandates that waste management decisions follow the priority order of: prevention, preparing for reuse, recycling, other recovery (e.g., energy recovery), and disposal. For rehabilitation projects, this hierarchy reinforces the value of preserving existing building elements where possible and carefully planning for the management of materials removed during renovation.
  • Extended Producer Responsibility (Article 8), which holds producers partially responsible for the end-of-life management of their products. This concept is increasingly being applied to building materials and components, creating new take-back systems that architects can integrate into renovation projects.
  • By-product and end-of-waste criteria (Articles 5 and 6), which establish conditions under which materials resulting from production processes or recovered from waste can be classified as products rather than waste. These provisions facilitate the reuse of materials in architectural projects, including salvaged elements from building deconstruction.
  • Waste management plans and waste prevention programs (Articles 28 and 29), which member states must develop. These plans often include specific measures for construction and demolition waste, which accounts for approximately one-third of all waste generated in the EU.
2018 Amendments and Construction & Demolition Waste
The 2018 amendment to the Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2018/851) strengthened the circular economy focus by establishing more ambitious recycling targets and requiring member states to take specific measures to promote waste prevention, reuse, and recycling. This amendment also introduced a specific obligation for member states to promote selective demolition and site sorting of construction and demolition waste, at minimum for wood, mineral fractions, metal, glass, plastic, and plaster.
For conservation and restoration projects involving heritage buildings, proper waste management presents unique challenges. Historic buildings often contain materials that are no longer commonly used, may contain hazardous substances (such as lead paint or asbestos), or have cultural value that warrants preservation rather than disposal. The directive's emphasis on waste prevention aligns well with conservation principles that prioritize retention and repair of original materials.
In practical terms, architects working on CRR projects must develop waste management strategies that:
  • Conduct pre-demolition audits to identify materials that can be salvaged, recycled, or that require special handling
  • Design for disassembly of new components added during rehabilitation
  • Specify materials with recycled content where appropriate
  • Develop site waste management plans that maximize segregation of waste streams
Document the chain of custody for materials to ensure proper handling
The implementation of the Waste Framework Directive varies across EU member states, with some countries establishing more stringent requirements than others. In Portugal, the directive has been transposed into national law through Decreto-Lei n.º 102-D/2020, which consolidates the legal regimes for waste management and landfills. This legislation establishes specific requirements for construction and demolition waste management, including the obligation to conduct pre-demolition audits for certain projects.
Portuguese National Frameworks
Plano de Ação para a Economia Circular (PAEC)
Portugal's National Action Plan for the Circular Economy (Plano de Ação para a Economia Circular, PAEC) represents the country's comprehensive strategy for transitioning from a linear to a circular economic model. Approved through Resolution 190-A/2017 of the Council of Ministers on November 23, 2017, the PAEC establishes a national framework that directly impacts architectural practice in conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration projects[4].
The PAEC carries the motto "LIDERAR A TRANSIÇÃO" (Leading the Transition) and sets forth a strategy aimed at changing the economic paradigm from "linear" to "circular"[4]. The plan incorporates seven concrete actions to be implemented through 2020, designed to accelerate this transition while promoting job creation, economic growth, investment, and social justice.
For architects working on CRR projects, the PAEC is structured around three levels of actions that create a comprehensive framework[4]:
  • Macro actions: Cross-cutting initiatives with national scope
  • Meso actions: Sectoral agendas focused on resource-intensive and export-oriented sectors
  • Micro actions: Regional agendas adapted to the socioeconomic specificities of each region
The construction sector features prominently in the PAEC due to its significant environmental footprint and its potential for circular innovation. For architectural conservation and rehabilitation projects, the plan encourages several key practices:
  • Built environment longevity through proper maintenance and adaptation
  • Material passport systems to document and track building materials
  • Design for disassembly and eventual reuse of building components
  • Integration of recycled and renewable materials in renovation projects
  • Reduction of construction and demolition waste through selective demolition
The PAEC aligns with the European Circular Economy Action Plan while addressing Portugal's specific economic and environmental context. In March 2020, the European Commission adopted a new Circular Economy Action Plan, which constitutes one of the main pillars of the European Green Deal[4,2]. Portugal's national framework operates in concert with this EU-level initiative, creating a multi-level governance approach to circular economy implementation.
A report on the activities developed under the PAEC and the results achieved in the 2018-2020 triennium has been published, providing insights into implementation progress and challenges[4]. This assessment serves as a foundation for ongoing policy development and implementation strategies.
PNEC 2030 (Plano Nacional Energia e Clima)
The National Energy and Climate Plan 2030 (Plano Nacional Energia e Clima 2030, PNEC 2030) represents Portugal's integrated strategy for energy and climate policy through 2030. While not exclusively focused on circular economy, the PNEC 2030 establishes important targets and measures that intersect with circular principles, particularly in the built environment sector.
Approved in 2020, the PNEC 2030 responds to the requirement established in the European Union's Regulation on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action (Regulation EU 2018/1999) for each member state to develop an integrated national energy and climate plan. The plan establishes Portugal's contribution to the EU's 2030 climate and energy targets while addressing national priorities.
  • For architectural conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration projects, the PNEC 2030 creates several important policy directions:
  • Energy renovation of existing buildings: The plan establishes targets for increasing the energy renovation rate of buildings, directly supporting rehabilitation projects that improve energy performance while preserving building stock.
  • Decarbonization of the built environment: PNEC 2030 includes measures to reduce carbon emissions from buildings, both operational (through improved energy efficiency) and embodied (through material choices and circular approaches).
  • Integration of renewable energy in buildings: The plan promotes increased use of renewable energy systems in buildings, which must be sensitively integrated into rehabilitation projects, particularly for historic structures.
Climate resilience: As climate change impacts intensify, PNEC 2030 emphasizes the need to adapt buildings to withstand changing conditions, including more frequent extreme weather events. This has particular relevance for historic building conservation, where traditional construction techniques may require modification to ensure long-term resilience.
The PNEC 2030 complements the PAEC by focusing specifically on energy and climate dimensions of sustainability. Together, these frameworks create a comprehensive national approach to sustainable building practices that architects must navigate in CRR projects.
The plan establishes specific targets for 2030, including:
  • 47% renewable energy in gross final energy consumption
  • 55% renewable electricity in electricity production
  • 35% reduction in primary energy consumption
  • 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 2005
These targets create a policy environment that increasingly favors building rehabilitation over new construction, as renovating existing buildings typically produces fewer carbon emissions than demolition and new construction, even when the new building is highly energy efficient.
Implementation Challenges and Opportunities
Regulatory Integration Challenges
The implementation of circular economy principles in architectural conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration projects within current regulatory frameworks presents both significant challenges and promising opportunities.
Among the primary regulatory challenges architects face are:
  • Policy fragmentation: Circular economy objectives are distributed across multiple regulatory instruments, from waste legislation to energy performance standards, creating complex compliance requirements for CRR projects.
  • Conflicting requirements: Heritage protection regulations sometimes conflict with energy efficiency standards, creating regulatory tensions in historic building rehabilitation projects.
  • Performance-based vs. prescriptive approaches: While EU frameworks increasingly adopt performance-based approaches that allow flexibility in implementation, national building codes often retain prescriptive requirements that can hinder innovative circular solutions.
  • Evolving standards: The rapid development of circular economy policy, particularly at the EU level, creates uncertainty for long-duration projects, as requirements may change between design and completion.
  • Varying implementation: Inconsistent implementation of EU directives across member states creates regulatory disparities, particularly challenging for architectural firms working across borders.
  • Verification and documentation burden: Meeting circular economy criteria often requires extensive documentation and verification, adding administrative complexity to CRR projects.
Technical and Market Barriers
Beyond regulatory challenges, architects implementing circular approaches in CRR projects face several technical and market barriers:
  • Material characterization: Existing buildings often contain materials that are difficult to identify precisely, complicating efforts to assess their reuse potential and environmental impact.
  • Supply chain limitations: The market for reclaimed building materials remains fragmented, making it difficult to source sufficient quantities of consistent quality for large rehabilitation projects.
  • Performance guarantees: Architectural specifications typically require performance guarantees that suppliers of reclaimed materials may be unable to provide, creating liability concerns.
  • Skills gap: Many construction professionals lack training in circular construction techniques, such as design for disassembly or selective demolition methods.
  • Financing barriers: Traditional financing models often fail to value the long-term benefits of circular approaches, focusing instead on initial capital costs.
Emerging Opportunities
Despite these challenges, several developments create new opportunities for implementing circular approaches in CRR projects:
  • Green financing: The EU Taxonomy is driving the development of financial products that offer preferential terms for projects meeting sustainability criteria, potentially reducing the cost barrier for circular rehabilitation projects.
  • Digital tools: Building Information Modeling (BIM), material passports, and blockchain technology are enabling better documentation and tracking of materials throughout the building lifecycle, facilitating future reuse.
  • Technical standardization: Emerging standards for assessing the reusability and recyclability of building components provide greater certainty for specifying reclaimed materials.
  • Professional education: Architecture schools, including the Faculdade de Arquitetura da Universidade de Lisboa, are increasingly incorporating circular economy principles into curricula, preparing a new generation of architects for circular practice.
  • Policy integration: The European Green Deal is driving greater coherence between previously separate policy areas, potentially reducing regulatory conflicts over time.
  • Public procurement: Revised public procurement directives increasingly allow for environmental considerations in tender evaluations, creating market demand for circular approaches in public building renovations.
Strategic Approaches for Architects
To navigate these challenges and capitalize on emerging opportunities, architects working on CRR projects can adopt several strategic approaches:
  • Regulatory mapping: Systematically identifying all applicable regulations early in the design process helps anticipate potential conflicts and compliance requirements.
  • Alternative compliance paths: Where prescriptive requirements conflict with circular objectives, exploring alternative compliance paths or variance processes may allow more sustainable solutions.
  • Performance-based justification: Using life cycle assessment and other quantitative methods to demonstrate superior environmental performance can support approval of innovative circular approaches.
  • Policy engagement: Architectural professional organizations can participate in policy development processes to ensure regulatory frameworks accommodate the unique challenges of CRR projects.
  • Public-private partnerships: Collaboration between public authorities and private developers can create demonstration projects that test new regulatory approaches for circular renovation.
Best Practices and Case Studies
Portuguese Implementation Examples
Several Portuguese projects demonstrate successful implementation of circular economy principles within the national regulatory frameworks:
Case Study: Convento das Bernardas, Tavira
This project by architect Eduardo Souto de Moura demonstrates how historic preservation can embrace circular principles while meeting contemporary performance standards. The 16th-century convent was converted into residential units through an approach that:
  • Preserved the existing stone structure, retaining embodied carbon and cultural value
  • Selectively demolished non-original additions, with careful waste sorting for recycling
  • Used locally sourced materials for new elements, reducing transportation impacts
  • Incorporated passive design strategies for thermal comfort, minimizing energy needs
  • Designed for future adaptability, allowing the spaces to evolve over time
The project navigated Portugal's heritage protection regulations while implementing energy efficiency measures that aligned with national climate targets. The rehabilitation demonstrates how the PAEC's emphasis on extending building lifespans can be realized in practice while respecting historical value.
Case Study: Almeida Garrett Library, Porto
This rehabilitation project represents successful implementation of Portugal's circular economy strategy in public buildings. The renovation:
  • Retained 95% of the existing structure, minimizing new material inputs
  • Used a selective demolition approach to maximize material recovery
  • Installed building management systems to optimize energy use
  • Incorporated biophilic design elements to improve indoor environmental quality
  • Documented material flows to establish a baseline for future circular interventions
The project received funding through Portugal's Environmental Fund, which prioritizes projects aligned with PAEC objectives, demonstrating how policy frameworks can create financial incentives for circular approaches.
European Best Practices
Looking beyond Portugal, several European projects demonstrate innovative approaches to implementing circular economy principles within EU regulatory frameworks:
Case Study: CIRCL Pavilion, Amsterdam, Netherlands
This commercial building exemplifies circular construction principles within the EU regulatory framework. Key features include:
  • Use of demountable connections that allow for future disassembly and material recovery
  • Material passport documenting all materials used in the building, their sources, and potential for future reuse
  • Incorporation of reclaimed materials, including wooden floorboards from old train wagons
  • Design for adaptability to accommodate changing functions over time
  • Energy-positive performance through renewable energy generation
The project demonstrates how EU Taxonomy criteria for circular economy contribution can be met in practice, particularly through material selection and design for disassembly.
Implementing Circular Strategies in Practice
Based on these case studies and broader industry experience, several best practices emerge for implementing circular approaches within current regulatory frameworks:
  • Early regulatory engagement: Successful projects involve permitting authorities early in the design process to identify potential conflicts between conservation requirements and performance standards.
  • Documentation of circular strategies: Comprehensive documentation of circular approaches helps demonstrate compliance with increasingly performance-based regulations.
  • Life cycle assessment: Quantifying environmental impacts across the building life cycle supports compliance with EU Taxonomy criteria and helps justify conservation decisions.
  • Material audits and inventories: Detailed assessment of existing materials before renovation supports waste prevention and identifies opportunities for material recovery.
  • Integrated design teams: Cross-disciplinary collaboration helps navigate complex regulatory requirements spanning heritage protection, energy performance, and waste management.
  • Performance monitoring: Post-occupancy evaluation confirms whether regulatory compliance objectives are met in practice and provides data for future optimization.
These practices help architects navigate the sometimes conflicting requirements of heritage protection, building performance, and circular economy objectives within current regulatory frameworks.
The regulatory and policy frameworks governing circular economy approaches in architectural conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration represent a complex but increasingly coherent ecosystem shaping building practice across the European Union and within Portugal. From the overarching vision of the European Green Deal to the technical specificity of the EU Taxonomy and the national implementation strategies of PAEC and PNEC 2030, these frameworks collectively establish a direction of travel toward more sustainable, circular building practices.
For Master's architecture students preparing to enter professional practice, understanding these frameworks is not merely an academic exercise but a fundamental professional competency. The future of architectural practice will increasingly require fluency in navigating these regulations, identifying synergies and conflicts, and developing design approaches that satisfy multiple policy objectives simultaneously.
Several key principles emerge from this analysis:
First, the preservation and extension of existing building stock inherently aligns with circular economy objectives by maintaining the embodied resources and cultural value of these structures. The regulatory frameworks reviewed increasingly recognize and reinforce this alignment, creating policy support for conservation and rehabilitation approaches over demolition and new construction.
Second, successful implementation of circular principles in CRR projects requires integrating considerations across the entire building lifecycle, from material sourcing through operational use to eventual adaptation or deconstruction. This holistic perspective is increasingly embedded in policy frameworks, particularly through tools like Level(s) that establish common metrics across multiple sustainability dimensions.
Third, tensions between different regulatory objectives-such as heritage preservation, energy efficiency, and material circularity-require architects to develop sophisticated design approaches that balance these considerations rather than treating them as binary choices. The case studies presented demonstrate that such integration is possible but requires intentional design strategies and early regulatory engagement.
Fourth, the rapid evolution of circular economy policy creates both challenges and opportunities for architectural practice. While changing requirements can create uncertainty, they also open space for innovation and leadership in developing new approaches to building conservation and rehabilitation.
As Portugal and the European Union continue to develop and refine their circular economy frameworks, architectural education must evolve in parallel, equipping students with the knowledge, skills, and critical thinking abilities to navigate this complex regulatory landscape. This chapter provides a foundation for that understanding, contextualizing current frameworks while acknowledging the dynamic nature of policy development in this field.
The transition to circular building practices represents not merely a technical challenge but a fundamental rethinking of how we value, maintain, and adapt our built environment. The regulatory frameworks discussed herein provide the structure and incentives for this transition, but its successful implementation will ultimately depend on the creativity, knowledge, and commitment of architects who translate policy into practice through thoughtful design approaches to conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration.

Material Circularity in Historic and Existing Buildings: Strategies for Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration

The concept of material circularity in historic and existing buildings represents a paradigm shift in architectural thinking, offering innovative pathways for conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration that align with contemporary sustainability imperatives. This chapter examines how circular economy principles can be applied to heritage contexts, emphasizing strategies that maximize resource efficiency while preserving cultural significance. The integration of circular approaches in heritage conservation not only addresses pressing environmental concerns but also enhances the resilience and longevity of our built heritage, creating a bridge between past architectural achievements and future sustainability needs.
Introduction to Circular Economy in Architecture
The built environment sector currently operates predominantly within a linear economy model characterized by a "take, make, dispose" approach that results in substantial waste and environmental degradation. In contrast, a circular economy in architecture emphasizes the continuous use of resources by creating structures that are designed for disassembly, reuse, and recycling[1]. This approach considers a building's entire lifecycle, from material selection and construction techniques to eventual adaptation or deconstruction.
The circular economy represents a fundamental reimagining of our economic systems, moving away from extractive, wasteful practices toward regenerative, value-preserving ones. As defined by Geissdoerfer et al. (2017), the circular economy is "a regenerative system in which resource input and waste, emission, and energy leakage are minimized by slowing, closing, and narrowing material and energy loops." This can be achieved through long-lasting design, maintenance, repair, reuse, remanufacturing, refurbishing, and recycling.
The application of circular principles to historic buildings presents both unique challenges and opportunities. Historic structures embody significant cultural, social, and architectural values that must be preserved, while simultaneously adapting to contemporary performance standards and environmental considerations. The European Environment Agency (2016) has identified the built environment as one of the key sectors for circular economy implementation, with buildings representing significant material banks and repositories of embodied energy.
In recent years, circular approaches have gained momentum in architectural practice and policy. The European Commission's Circular Economy Action Plan (2020) explicitly addresses the construction sector, emphasizing material efficiency and building longevity. Similarly, the Level(s) framework developed by the EU provides indicators for assessing building sustainability performance throughout the lifecycle, including circular aspects. These developments signal a growing recognition that architectural heritage can-and must-participate in broader sustainability transitions.
From Linear to Circular: The Paradigm Shift
The conventional approach to architectural heritage has often been preservation-focused, emphasizing material authenticity and minimal intervention. However, contemporary challenges related to climate change, resource depletion, and waste management necessitate a more dynamic relationship with historic buildings. The circular economy paradigm offers a framework for reimagining heritage conservation as an active contributor to sustainability, rather than a passive recipient of preservation efforts.
This shift requires reconceptualizing historic buildings as material banks and energy repositories that can be strategically managed, adapted, and reintegrated into contemporary use cycles. It involves developing new methodologies for assessment, intervention, and monitoring that balance preservation requirements with circular principles. The goal is not to compromise heritage values but to enhance them through approaches that extend building lifespans, optimize resource use, and minimize environmental impacts.
Understanding Material Circularity in Historic Built Environments
Material circularity in historic buildings encompasses strategies that preserve, reuse, and recycle building materials while maintaining cultural significance. This concept extends beyond simple material conservation to include the entire lifecycle of building components, from initial construction through multiple use cycles and eventual transformation. Unlike new construction, where circularity can be designed from inception, historic buildings require retrospective approaches that work within existing constraints.
Historic buildings present specific challenges for circular implementation, including:
  • Heritage protection regulations that may limit intervention options
  • Traditional materials and techniques that require specialized knowledge
  • Unknown material compositions and performance characteristics
  • Contamination or degradation of existing materials
  • Balancing energy efficiency improvements with heritage conservation
However, historic buildings also offer distinct advantages for circular approaches:
  • Proven durability and longevity of materials and structures
  • Embodied cultural and historical values that justify preservation investments
  • Traditional construction methods often designed for repair and adaptation
  • High-quality materials with potential for multiple reuse cycles
  • Existing structures that represent significant stored resources and embodied energy
The application of circular principles to historic buildings requires a hierarchical approach that prioritizes interventions according to their impact and heritage compatibility. The "circularity hierarchy" for historic buildings can be conceptualized as follows:
  • Maintain and preserve (extending lifespan of existing materials)
  • Repair and refurbish (minimal material replacement)
  • Adapt and retrofit (strategic interventions to improve performance)
  • Selective deconstruction and material reuse (when structural elements must be removed)
  • Material recycling and repurposing (for elements that cannot be reused intact)
This hierarchy emphasizes preservation as the most circular approach, followed by increasingly intensive interventions only when necessary. The goal is to maximize the retention of embedded resources while enhancing building functionality and performance.
Frameworks for Circularity Assessment in Heritage Contexts
Several frameworks have emerged for evaluating circularity in built environment contexts, though few address the specific considerations of historic buildings. Gravagnuolo et al. (2019) propose a three-level framework specifically for cultural heritage adaptive reuse from a circular economy perspective[2]:
  • Cultural values conservation/regeneration (extending the lifetime of heritage assets, including the rights of future generations to benefit from cultural capital)
  • Circularity of conservation interventions (adopting circular building strategies such as material reuse, efficient energy systems, nature-based solutions, etc.)
  • Circularity of outcomes from reuse initiatives (economic, social, environmental, and cultural impacts linked to new functions, including jobs creation, improved urban environment, community engagement, and avoided costs of abandonment)
This framework acknowledges that circularity in historic contexts extends beyond material considerations to include cultural and social dimensions. It recognizes that cultural heritage adaptive reuse can serve as an "entry point to circular cities," catalyzing broader sustainability transitions at the urban scale[2].
Material Reuse and Salvage in Historic Contexts
Material reuse and salvage represent core strategies for implementing circularity in historic building interventions. This approach involves the careful recovery, documentation, and reintegration of original building materials during conservation, rehabilitation, or restoration processes. It also encompasses the incorporation of salvaged materials from other historic sources when replacement is necessary.
Assessment and Documentation of Existing Materials
Effective material reuse begins with comprehensive assessment and documentation of existing building fabric. This process includes:
  • Material identification and classification (type, age, composition)
  • Condition assessment (structural integrity, deterioration patterns, contamination)
  • Cultural significance evaluation (historical, aesthetic, rarity value)
  • Performance analysis (thermal, acoustic, durability properties)
  • Detailed documentation (location, dimensions, connections, removal requirements)
Advanced technologies such as 3D scanning, photogrammetry, and non-destructive testing facilitate accurate documentation while minimizing impact on historic fabric. Building Information Modeling (BIM) systems can integrate this information into comprehensive digital twins that support material management throughout conservation processes.
The assessment should identify materials with high reuse potential based on both technical and cultural criteria. Materials with significant heritage value, exceptional durability, or high embodied energy are primary candidates for careful salvage and reintegration. Materials that cannot be directly reused may still offer potential for recycling or repurposing.
Technical Considerations for Material Salvage
The salvage process for historic materials requires specialized approaches that differ from conventional demolition or disassembly. Key considerations include:
  • Non-destructive dismantling techniques to preserve material integrity
  • Sequencing of salvage operations to access valuable elements without damage
  • Temporary protection measures during removal and storage
  • Appropriate cleaning and conservation treatments
  • Secure labeling and storage systems that preserve material provenance information
Traditional construction systems often facilitate disassembly, as they frequently employ mechanical connections rather than chemical adhesives or composite assemblies. For example, timber frame structures with jointed connections, masonry construction with lime mortar, and decorative elements designed for removal and maintenance all present opportunities for non-destructive salvage.
The recent emergence of "design for disassembly" in new construction draws inspiration from these traditional approaches, reintroducing detachable connections and modular systems. Historic buildings can thus provide valuable lessons for contemporary circular design strategies[1].
Integration of Salvaged Materials in Conservation Projects
Reintegration of salvaged materials should follow conservation principles while leveraging circular benefits. Approaches include:
  • In-situ reuse of materials in their original locations (preferred approach)
  • Repositioning of materials within the same structure to accommodate new functions
  • Selective introduction of salvaged materials from compatible historic sources
  • Visible differentiation between original and introduced materials to maintain authenticity
  • Documentation of material sources and intervention history
These approaches align with established conservation principles such as material authenticity, minimal intervention, and legibility of additions. Circular material use thus enhances rather than compromises heritage conservation values.
Case Study: Rehafutur Engineer's House Project
The Rehafutur Engineer's House project in France exemplifies circular material strategies in heritage contexts. This adaptive reuse of a historic villa employed:
  • Careful salvage and reuse of original materials including timber, masonry, and decorative elements
  • Integration of compatible salvaged materials from contemporary sources
  • Application of circular principles focused on building materials
  • Balance between heritage preservation and performance improvement
  • Comprehensive documentation of material flows throughout the project[2]
This project demonstrates how circular material strategies can support heritage conservation while improving building performance and extending functional lifespan.
Adaptive Reuse as a Circular Strategy
Adaptive reuse represents perhaps the most comprehensive application of circular economy principles to historic buildings. This approach involves repurposing existing structures for new functions while preserving their heritage significance. Unlike preservation approaches that focus primarily on material authenticity, adaptive reuse emphasizes the continuation of building lifecycles through functional transformation.
Theoretical Framework for Circular Adaptive Reuse
Adaptive reuse inherently supports circularity by:
  • Extending building lifespans beyond original functional obsolescence
  • Preserving embodied energy and carbon in existing structures
  • Reducing waste associated with demolition and new construction
  • Conserving land resources through intensification of existing urban fabric
  • Maintaining cultural continuity while accommodating contemporary needs
Pomponi and Moncaster (2017) propose that adaptive reuse exemplifies circularity by "slowing" material loops-extending the functional life of building components far beyond their original intended duration. This approach stands in contrast to recycling, which often involves energy-intensive processes to transform materials.
Gravagnuolo et al. (2019) suggest that "cultural heritage adaptive reuse seems to be one of the most viable solutions to apply circular economy in the historic built environment," offering a pathway to circularity that accommodates the unique characteristics and regulatory requirements of heritage buildings[2].
Metabolic Flows in Adaptive Reuse Projects
Adaptive reuse projects can be conceptualized through an urban metabolism lens, examining how they transform material, energy, and information flows. This perspective draws from Kennedy et al.'s (2007) definition of urban metabolism as "the sum of technical and socioeconomic processes that occur in cities, resulting in growth, production of energy, and elimination of waste"[2].
Circular adaptive reuse minimizes metabolic inputs (new materials, energy) and outputs (waste, emissions) by:
  • Maximizing retention of existing building fabric
  • Strategically introducing new elements to enhance performance
  • Upgrading systems to improve operational efficiency
  • Integrating renewable energy and resource recovery systems
  • Designing for future adaptability and material recovery
This approach creates buildings with reduced metabolic throughput and enhanced circularity compared to both unmodified historic structures and new construction.
Case Studies: Circular Adaptive Reuse in Practice
Several exemplary projects demonstrate circular adaptive reuse approaches at different scales:
De Ceuvel Project (Amsterdam)
The De Ceuvel project involved the reuse of old boats to create a complete "circular neighborhood," addressing circularity at multiple levels:
  • Reuse of obsolete boats as building shells for new workspace functions
  • Implementation of closed-loop systems for energy, water, and nutrients
  • Remediation of contaminated brownfield site through phytoremediation
  • Development of circular business models to support continued operation
  • Creation of a demonstration site for circular urban development principles[2]
This project demonstrates how adaptive reuse can extend beyond individual buildings to create circular systems at the neighborhood scale.
ReDock Project (La Junquera, Spain)
The ReDock project involved the adaptive reuse of an entire rural village in the Altiplano region of Spain, focusing on:
  • Landscape heritage regeneration and traditional farming conservation
  • Recovery of abandoned heritage buildings for new compatible uses
  • Development of renewable energy systems and water reuse infrastructure
  • Digital infrastructure to support remote work and rural revitalization
  • Sustainable financial systems and business models for long-term viability[2]
This case illustrates how circular adaptive reuse can address rural heritage contexts, countering abandonment while preserving cultural landscapes and building traditions.
Evaluation Frameworks for Circular Adaptive Reuse
Assessing the circularity of adaptive reuse projects requires comprehensive evaluation frameworks that integrate heritage values with circular performance metrics. Gravagnuolo et al. (2019) propose the development of "key performance indicators" that could be used to "foster and monitor the implementation of circular economy strategies in the adaptive reuse of cultural heritage"[2].
Such frameworks should assess:
  • Material retention rates (percentage of original fabric preserved)
  • Energy efficiency improvements relative to heritage constraints
  • Waste reduction compared to equivalent new construction
  • Extended functional lifespan projections
  • Cultural value preservation and enhancement
  • Economic feasibility and long-term financial sustainability
  • Social benefits including accessibility and community engagement
These multidimensional assessments align with the concept of "circularity of outcomes" from reuse initiatives, acknowledging that successful projects generate benefits across economic, social, environmental, and cultural domains[2].
Life Cycle Assessment in Historic Building Rehabilitation
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) provides a systematic methodology for evaluating the environmental impacts of buildings throughout their entire lifespan, from material extraction and manufacturing through construction, operation, and end-of-life scenarios. When applied to historic building rehabilitation, LCA offers valuable insights into the comparative sustainability of preservation versus replacement and helps guide material and system selection decisions.
LCA Methodology Adaptations for Heritage Contexts
Standard LCA methodologies require adaptation for heritage applications due to several unique factors:
  • Extended building lifespans that exceed typical assessment timeframes
  • Historical material production methods with different impact profiles
  • Unknown material compositions requiring specialized testing
  • Cultural value considerations that influence decision criteria
  • Regulatory constraints on intervention options
Adapted LCA frameworks for heritage contexts should incorporate:
  • Extended time horizons to capture long building lifecycles
  • Methods for evaluating pre-industrial materials and techniques
  • Integration of cultural significance as a parallel assessment factor
  • Scenario analysis for different levels of intervention intensity
  • Consideration of embodied energy already invested in existing structures
Unlike LCA for new construction, which begins at the material production stage, heritage LCA must account for the "sunk" environmental impacts of existing structures while evaluating the relative impacts of various intervention strategies.
Comparing Traditional and Modern Materials
LCA provides a framework for comparing the environmental performance of traditional and modern materials in heritage rehabilitation projects. Recent research presents comparative analyses showing both advantages and disadvantages of traditional materials:
  • Traditional materials often have lower embodied energy due to simpler production methods but may require more frequent maintenance
  • Modern materials may offer superior thermal or moisture performance but contain higher embodied carbon
  • Traditional materials typically offer superior repairability and recyclability at end-of-life
  • Modern composite materials may present disposal challenges but extend maintenance intervals
  • Local traditional materials reduce transportation impacts but may have higher labor requirements[3]
These comparative assessments support evidence-based selection of appropriate materials for heritage interventions, balancing performance, longevity, and environmental impact.
Life-Cycle Energy Cost Analysis for Heritage Buildings
Life-cycle energy cost analysis represents a specific application of LCA focused on energy flows throughout building lifespans. For heritage buildings, this assessment encompasses:
  • Embodied energy in existing materials and structures
  • Energy requirements for rehabilitation interventions
  • Operational energy performance post-intervention
  • Maintenance energy requirements over extended timeframes
  • End-of-life energy implications for different material choices
Research on life-cycle energy costs indicates that heritage building rehabilitation typically offers significant energy advantages compared to demolition and replacement, primarily due to the retention of embodied energy in existing structures. These advantages increase further when operational energy improvements are incorporated through sensitive retrofitting measures[4].
Methodological Framework for Heritage Building LCA
A comprehensive methodological framework for heritage building LCA can follow these steps:
  • Define assessment boundaries and functional units specific to heritage contexts
  • Identify criteria, factors, and indicators affecting life-cycle energy and environmental costs
  • Inventory existing materials, their quantities, and characteristics
  • Assess current building performance as baseline
  • Develop intervention scenarios with varying preservation intensity
  • Evaluate environmental impacts of each scenario using adapted impact categories
  • Analyze results through both sustainability and heritage value lenses
  • Perform sensitivity analysis to identify critical variables
  • Model validation through comparison with similar case studies
  • Documentation and reporting of findings for stakeholder communication[4]
This systematic approach supports informed decision-making in heritage projects, helping identify interventions that maximize sustainability while respecting cultural significance.
Embodied Energy Considerations
Embodied energy-the sum of all energy required to produce, transport, install, and dispose of building materials-represents a critical consideration in historic building assessment. Heritage structures contain significant "pre-invested" embodied energy that constitutes both an environmental asset and a sustainability argument for preservation.
Quantifying Embodied Energy in Historic Structures
Accurately quantifying embodied energy in historic buildings presents methodological challenges due to:
  • Limited documentation of original construction processes
  • Historical production methods with different energy profiles than modern equivalents
  • Multiple renovation campaigns throughout building lifespans
  • Material degradation and replacement over time
  • Lack of standardized embodied energy data for traditional materials
Despite these challenges, several approaches can provide reasonable estimates:
  • Comparative analysis with similar buildings of known embodied energy
  • Material quantity surveys combined with adjusted contemporary embodied energy values
  • Historical research into production methods to develop period-specific energy coefficients
  • Non-destructive testing to identify material compositions and quantities
  • Adjustment factors for durability and lifespan extensions
These assessments typically reveal that historic buildings contain substantial embodied energy investments that would require significant resources to replicate today, strengthening the environmental case for preservation.
Embodied Energy as Preservation Rationale
The embodied energy perspective offers compelling arguments for building preservation as a sustainability strategy:
  • Demolition wastes the energy investment in existing structures
  • New construction requires substantial additional energy inputs
  • Historic buildings often use durable materials with long service lives
  • Traditional construction methods typically facilitate repair and component replacement
  • Local materials in historic buildings represent lower transportation energy than global supply chains
Research comparing the embodied energy of preservation versus new construction consistently demonstrates significant advantages for preservation approaches, particularly when buildings can be adapted to contemporary functions without substantial fabric replacement. This recognition has led to the saying that "the greenest building is the one already built," reflecting the inherent sustainability of retaining existing structures[4].
Balancing Embodied and Operational Energy
While embodied energy considerations favor preservation, operational energy performance remains critical for overall building sustainability. Successful approaches balance these factors by:
  • Prioritizing non-destructive energy efficiency improvements
  • Focusing interventions on building elements with poor performance
  • Accepting appropriate levels of energy performance specific to heritage contexts
  • Considering the extended timeframe for energy payback calculations
  • Implementing energy improvements during natural repair and replacement cycles
This balanced approach recognizes that both embodied and operational energy contribute to overall building sustainability, avoiding interventions that compromise heritage significance for marginal performance gains.
Sustainability Index Development
To facilitate decision-making that incorporates embodied energy considerations, researchers have developed sustainability indices specific to heritage contexts. These indices typically include:
  • Weighting factors for heritage significance and material authenticity
  • Assessment of performance improvements relative to intervention intensity
  • Calculation of embodied energy retention percentages
  • Operational energy improvement projections
  • Overall sustainability scores that balance multiple factors
These indices support evidence-based decision-making in heritage projects by quantifying the sustainability implications of different intervention approaches. They help practitioners identify strategies that maximize both heritage conservation and environmental performance[4].
Material Passports and Digital Documentation
Material passports represent an emerging tool for documenting and tracking building materials throughout their lifecycles. When applied to historic buildings, these digital documentation systems support circular approaches by facilitating material reuse, accurate intervention planning, and knowledge preservation.
Material Passport Concept for Heritage Buildings
A material passport provides a digital repository of information about building materials, including:
  • Material composition and physical properties
  • Origin and manufacturing processes
  • Installation date and methods
  • Maintenance history and condition assessments
  • Disassembly requirements and reuse potential
  • Environmental impact data and circularity metrics
For historic buildings, material passports additionally incorporate:
  • Historical significance and provenance information
  • Traditional craftsmanship details and techniques
  • Past intervention documentation
  • Conservation restrictions and requirements
  • Cultural value assessments
A Circular Material Passport specifically provides "a digital set of data that provides information on the technical characteristics of a construction product and identifies the circular value of its components to facilitate recovery, recycling, and reuse"[5]. This approach supports circular material flows by making information accessible throughout building lifecycles.
Implementation Strategies for Heritage Contexts
Implementing material passports for historic buildings requires specialized approaches:
  • Non-destructive investigation methods to identify existing materials
  • Integration with heritage documentation systems and historic building records
  • Graduated detail levels to accommodate information uncertainty
  • Protocols for updating information during conservation interventions
  • Accessibility for various stakeholders including conservators, owners, and regulatory authorities
Implementation can begin with pilot projects on significant heritage buildings, gradually expanding to broader building stocks as methodologies mature and databases develop. Public buildings with regular maintenance programs offer particularly suitable candidates for initial implementation.
Digital Technologies Supporting Material Documentation
Several digital technologies enhance material passport implementation for heritage buildings:
  • Building Information Modeling (BIM) for Heritage (HBIM) provides platforms for integrating material data with 3D building models
  • Reality capture technologies (photogrammetry, laser scanning) enable accurate documentation of existing conditions
  • Non-destructive testing methods identify material compositions without damaging heritage fabric
  • Blockchain systems ensure data provenance and security throughout building lifecycles
  • Mobile applications facilitate on-site data access and updates during conservation work
These technologies support comprehensive material documentation while minimizing physical intervention in historic fabric. They create digital twins of heritage buildings that serve both conservation and circular economy objectives.
Integration with Circular Building Management Systems
Material passports achieve maximum utility when integrated with broader circular building management approaches:
  • Preventive conservation planning based on material vulnerability data
  • Maintenance scheduling informed by material lifecycle information
  • Intervention design guided by material compatibility and reversibility considerations
  • Procurement systems that prioritize compatible materials from circular sources
  • End-of-life planning that maximizes material recovery and reuse potential
This integration creates comprehensive information systems that support circular material management throughout building lifecycles, from ongoing maintenance through major interventions and potential deconstruction phases.
Case Study: European Material Passport Initiatives
Several European initiatives demonstrate material passport applications relevant to heritage contexts:
  • The Buildings as Material Banks (BAMB) project has developed material passport protocols that can be adapted for historic buildings
  • The Madaster platform provides digital material registry services applicable to existing building stocks
  • The CHARM (Circular Housing Asset Renovation & Management) program integrates material passports with renovation planning
  • Portugal's circular construction initiatives incorporate material documentation systems that consider the country's substantial heritage building stock[5]
These initiatives provide models for implementing material passports in heritage contexts, offering methodologies that can be adapted to specific conservation requirements.
Circularity and Urban Metabolism in Heritage Settings
Heritage buildings exist within broader urban systems characterized by flows of materials, energy, resources, and information. The urban metabolism perspective examines these flows to identify opportunities for enhancing circularity at scales beyond individual buildings. Historic districts and cultural landscapes present specific challenges and opportunities for circular urban metabolism.
Conceptual Framework for Circular Heritage Districts
Historic urban areas can function as components of circular cities through strategic approaches that preserve heritage values while enhancing resource efficiency. Key principles include:
  • Viewing historic districts as material and cultural repositories with inherent circular value
  • Identifying and optimizing metabolic flows within heritage contexts
  • Recognizing the embodied energy and carbon sequestered in historic urban fabric
  • Leveraging traditional urban patterns that often demonstrate inherent sustainability
  • Balancing preservation requirements with circular economy objectives
This framework positions heritage not as an obstacle to circularity but as a potential catalyst for sustainable urban development. Historic areas often exemplify compact, walkable urbanism with adaptable building stock-characteristics that align with contemporary sustainability goals.
Material and Energy Flows in Historic Urban Areas
Analysis of material and energy flows in historic districts reveals both challenges and opportunities:
  • Building materials typically remain in use for extended periods, demonstrating "slowed" material loops
  • Traditional construction often facilitates maintenance and component replacement without wholesale demolition
  • Historic water and waste management systems may offer inspiration for contemporary circular solutions
  • Energy inefficiencies in historic buildings may be partially offset by urban form advantages
  • Cultural and tourist activities generate economic flows that can support conservation
Understanding these flows supports targeted interventions that enhance circularity while preserving heritage characteristics. For example, district-scale energy systems can improve efficiency while minimizing interventions in individual historic buildings.
Adaptive Reuse at Urban Scale
Adaptive reuse can extend beyond individual buildings to encompass entire districts or complexes. Examples include:
  • Industrial heritage areas transformed into cultural and creative districts
  • Historic institutional complexes adapted for contemporary educational or residential use
  • Traditional agricultural landscapes maintained through new economic models
  • Historic infrastructure (harbors, railways) repurposed for contemporary functions
  • Heritage-led regeneration of abandoned or underutilized urban areas
These large-scale adaptive reuse initiatives demonstrate circular economy principles by reactivating existing resources, generating new value from heritage assets, and avoiding resource-intensive new development.
Case Study: Circular Urban Metabolism in Heritage Contexts
The De Ceuvel project in Amsterdam demonstrates circular urban metabolism principles at the district scale:
  • Conversion of a polluted industrial site into a sustainable creative community
  • Remediation of contaminated soil through phytoremediation techniques
  • Adaptive reuse of decommissioned houseboats as office spaces
  • Implementation of closed-loop systems for energy, water, and nutrients
  • Development of circular business models that support continued operation[2]
This project illustrates how circular approaches can regenerate historic industrial areas while creating new economic, social, and environmental value. It demonstrates the potential for heritage-led circular development at scales beyond individual buildings.
Implementation Strategies and Policy Frameworks
Implementing circular approaches in heritage contexts requires supportive policy frameworks, stakeholder engagement, and practical methodologies. This section examines implementation strategies that bridge theoretical concepts with practical application.
Policy Integration: Heritage Conservation and Circular Economy
Effective implementation requires integration between heritage conservation and circular economy policy frameworks. Approaches include:
  • Recognition of heritage conservation as an inherently circular practice in policy documents
  • Adaptation of circular economy indicators and targets for heritage contexts
  • Development of specific guidance for circular interventions in protected buildings
  • Financial incentives that support both heritage conservation and circular outcomes
  • Research programs addressing the intersection of heritage and circularity
The European Commission's New Circular Economy Action Plan acknowledges the built environment as a key sector, while initiatives such as the New European Bauhaus explicitly connect cultural heritage with sustainability objectives. These high-level policy frameworks create opportunities for more specific implementation measures.
Assessment and Certification Systems
Assessment systems help evaluate and recognize circular achievements in heritage projects:
  • Adaptation of general circular building assessment tools for heritage applications
  • Development of certification systems that recognize exemplary circular heritage projects
  • Integration of circular criteria into existing heritage awards and recognition programs
  • Monitoring frameworks that track material flows in heritage buildings over time
  • Standardized reporting methodologies for circular interventions in historic contexts
These assessment systems provide transparency, recognition, and benchmarking capabilities that support continuous improvement in circular heritage practices.
Economic Models and Financing Mechanisms
Successful implementation requires viable economic models that support circular heritage approaches:
  • Lifecycle costing methodologies that capture long-term benefits of circular strategies
  • Valuation approaches that recognize the multiple values of heritage buildings
  • Financial products designed for circular heritage projects (green loans, impact bonds)
  • Public-private partnership models that share risks and benefits
  • Circular business models specifically adapted for heritage contexts
These economic mechanisms help overcome initial cost barriers to circular implementation, recognizing that heritage buildings often deliver returns over extended timeframes that exceed conventional financial planning horizons.
Capacity Building and Knowledge Transfer
Building professional capacity represents a critical implementation requirement:
  • Integration of circular economy principles in conservation education programs
  • Continuing professional development for heritage practitioners
  • Knowledge exchange platforms connecting circular economy and heritage sectors
  • Documentation and dissemination of best practice examples and case studies
  • Research networks addressing circular heritage challenges
These capacity-building initiatives develop the skills and knowledge required for effective implementation, helping professionals bridge disciplinary boundaries between conservation practice and circular economy principles.
Toward an Integrated Approach
Material circularity in historic and existing buildings represents an evolving field that connects heritage conservation with contemporary sustainability imperatives. This chapter has examined approaches for implementing circular principles in heritage contexts, from individual material considerations to urban-scale strategies. Several key themes emerge from this exploration:
  • Heritage buildings offer inherent circularity advantages through their durability, adaptability, and embodied resources that can be leveraged through appropriate intervention strategies.
  • Circular approaches in heritage contexts require balanced consideration of material, energy, cultural, and social factors, avoiding simplistic solutions that compromise significance for marginal sustainability gains.
  • A graduated approach to intervention intensity supports both heritage conservation and circular objectives, prioritizing maintenance and repair over material replacement and focusing interventions where they deliver maximum benefit.
  • Digital documentation systems, including material passports, support circular material management throughout building lifecycles and preserve knowledge for future interventions.
  • Urban-scale perspectives reveal opportunities for enhancing circularity through district approaches that maintain heritage characteristics while improving resource efficiency.
As research and practice in this field continue to develop, several areas merit further investigation:
  • Standardized assessment methodologies for circular heritage interventions that integrate technical, environmental, cultural, and social factors.
  • Economic valuation approaches that capture the multiple benefits of circular heritage conservation, supporting investment and policy decisions.
  • Material-specific research on the performance, compatibility, and circular potential of traditional materials in contemporary applications.
  • Policy frameworks that effectively bridge heritage regulation and circular economy objectives without compromising either.
The integration of circular economy principles in heritage conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration offers promising pathways for extending the lives of historic buildings while enhancing their environmental performance. By viewing heritage structures not as static artifacts but as dynamic components of sustainable systems, architects and conservators can ensure their continued relevance and value for future generations.

Design for Deconstruction and Reuse in Conservation Projects: Strategies for a Circular Built Heritage

Design for Deconstruction (DfD) represents a transformative approach within architectural conservation that aligns historic preservation with circular economy principles. As resource scarcity intensifies and environmental challenges mount, the integration of circular principles in the built environment becomes critical, particularly for heritage structures. This chapter explores how DfD principles can be systematically applied to conservation projects to enhance both sustainability outcomes and heritage preservation goals. Through examination of reversible design strategies, modular approaches, disassembly techniques, and heritage-sensitive methodologies, architecture professionals can develop interventions that respect cultural significance while enabling future adaptability and material recovery. Case studies from Portugal and international contexts demonstrate that successful implementation balances technical innovation with heritage values, creating pathways for extending building lifespans while preserving embodied resources and cultural knowledge.
Theoretical Framework of Design for Deconstruction
Evolution of DfD Concepts in Architecture
Design for Deconstruction has its conceptual roots in industrial design, where it emerged as "Design for Disassembly" in the 1970s, initially focused on product design for easier recycling and remanufacturing. The concept gained prominence in architecture during the early 2000s as environmental concerns about construction waste intensified. DfD is defined as "a method where a design team designs a building that facilitates not only adaptation and renovation, but also the reuse of building [components]"[1]. This definition highlights the dual purpose of DfD: enabling both ongoing adaptations during a building's life and material recovery at end-of-life.
The transition of DfD concepts from products to buildings required significant adaptation due to the complexity, scale, and longevity of architectural works. As a design philosophy, DfD has evolved alongside broader sustainability frameworks, including cradle-to-cradle design, performance-based building, and more recently, circular economy principles. In heritage contexts, DfD aligns remarkably well with long-established conservation principles such as reversibility and minimal intervention, which have been part of conservation theory since at least the Venice Charter of 1964.
Principles and Objectives of DfD
Design for Deconstruction is guided by several core principles that apply to both new construction and conservation interventions. These principles have been refined through research and practice to create a framework for enabling future material recovery and building adaptation:
  • Use mechanical rather than chemical connections
  • Design accessible connections and separation points
  • Minimize the number and types of fasteners
  • Design for prefabrication, preassembly, and modular systems
  • Document materials, methods, and maintenance requirements
  • Design layers independently to allow for separate removal
  • Use materials with high reuse and recycling potential
  • Minimize the number of different materials
  • Avoid secondary finishes and coatings where possible
  • Design for handling during assembly and disassembly[2]
The primary objectives of DfD in conservation contexts extend beyond environmental benefits to include:
  • Extending the useful life of buildings through adaptability
  • Facilitating maintenance and repair with minimal disruption
  • Preserving valuable historic materials for future reuse
  • Reducing waste during renovation and at end-of-life
  • Enabling future changes while protecting heritage value
  • Creating a repository of materials for future heritage conservation
These objectives align DfD with both conservation ethics and sustainable development goals, creating a framework that values cultural and environmental resources equally.
Relationship to Circular Economy in the Built Environment
Design for Deconstruction operates within the broader framework of circular economy, which represents "a regenerative system in which resource input and waste, emission, and energy leakage are minimized by slowing, closing, and narrowing material and energy loops." When applied to the built environment, this paradigm demands rethinking how we interact with historic structures throughout their lifecycle.
DfD is one of several complementary circular strategies relevant to architecture and conservation. Others include designing for durability, maintenance, adaptability, remanufacture, and recycling. DfD is particularly powerful when combined with these approaches. For example, designing for both adaptability and disassembly allows a historic building to accommodate changing uses while preserving the option for complete material recovery in the future.
In the context of conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration, these circular approaches take on additional significance because heritage buildings already represent substantial investments of materials, energy, and cultural value. As Adams et al. (2017) note, awareness of circular economy principles in construction is growing, though challenges remain in implementation[3]. Conservation projects that incorporate DfD principles contribute to this awareness while demonstrating practical applications in the most challenging building contexts.
Strategies for Reversible Design in Conservation
Principles of Reversibility in Heritage Interventions
Reversibility has been a core principle in conservation theory for decades, referring to the ability to undo an intervention without damaging the original fabric. This concept aligns perfectly with Design for Deconstruction and has particular relevance in heritage contexts.
The principle acknowledges that conservation approaches evolve over time, and future generations may have different priorities or better techniques. Key aspects of reversibility in heritage conservation include:
  • Ability to return to pre-intervention state
  • Minimal damage to original fabric during intervention
  • Clear distinction between original and new elements
  • Documentation of all interventions for future reference
  • Consideration of future access and maintenance needs
These principles guide interventions that respect both the past and future of heritage buildings, allowing for ongoing adaptation while preserving cultural significance.
Connection Types and Detailing for Reversibility
The design of connections is critical to creating reversible interventions in heritage contexts. Several connection strategies support reversibility and future disassembly:
Mechanical Fasteners:
  • Bolted connections rather than welded or glued joints
  • Screws instead of nails where appropriate
  • Friction-fit and interlocking components
  • Clamping systems that avoid penetrating historic fabric
Layered Systems:
  • Independent layers that can be removed separately
  • Access points for future disassembly
  • Avoiding adhesives between different material types
  • Use of sacrificial layers between historic and new materials
Strategic Joinery:
  • Traditional joinery techniques that allow disassembly
  • Modern adaptations of reversible historic connections
  • Visible connection points for ease of understanding
  • Standardized connection types to minimize specialized tools
Research indicates that "A modular system is used in 17% cases as the main solution for big volumes of the building, while smaller scale modularity also often accompanies the frame"[4]. This suggests that combining modular approaches with careful connection design is a common strategy in disassembly-focused projects.
Documentation and Information Management
Effective reversible design requires comprehensive documentation to ensure future interventions can understand and properly remove additions. Documentation strategies include:
  • As-built drawings highlighting connection points and disassembly sequence
  • Building Information Modeling (BIM) with embedded disassembly information
  • Material passports documenting specifications and sources
  • Maintenance manuals with disassembly instructions
  • Photographic documentation of assembly process
  • Physical labeling of components where appropriate
"Digitalized information tracking for individual modules" has been identified as a key facilitator for the successful relocation and reuse of components[5]. Documentation must be stored in formats accessible over the long term and made available to future conservation teams. This information continuity is essential for enabling future generations to understand intervention strategies and successfully implement reversible approaches.
Case Studies of Reversible Interventions
Several notable projects demonstrate successful implementation of reversible design principles in heritage contexts:
Neues Museum, Berlin (David Chipperfield Architects)This museum restoration employed a distinct approach to reversibility, using contemporary materials and techniques that are clearly differentiated from the historic fabric while being potentially removable in the future. The new interventions are designed as independent insertions within the historic shell, with careful detailing to avoid damaging original elements.
Renovation in Porto's Historic CenterA case study from Porto's World Heritage historical center demonstrates how deconstruction approaches can be applied to heritage buildings. The methodology involved "step-by-step, the unwanted or damaged parts were removed without damaging other elements, and inspection actions were made to the critical elements, such as the wooden structures of the floors and roofs"[6]. This careful approach allowed for the preservation of valuable components while adapting the building to new uses. The project successfully preserved the historic value of the existing typological and construction characteristics while enabling necessary functional updates.
These case studies illustrate that reversible design can be successfully implemented across different scales and typologies of heritage buildings, from major cultural institutions to vernacular structures. The common thread is a systematic approach to intervention that anticipates future changes and designs connections accordingly.
Modularity in Conservation and Rehabilitation
Concept of Modularity in Historic Buildings
Modularity is a design approach that divides systems into smaller parts (modules) that can be independently created, modified, replaced, or exchanged. While modern modular construction is often associated with prefabrication and standardization, historical buildings frequently exhibit modular characteristics in their traditional construction systems.
Traditional building techniques often employed natural forms of modularity through:
  • Standardized brick and stone dimensions
  • Repetitive timber framing elements
  • Panelized decorative elements
  • Modular window and door units
  • Grid-based structural systems
Understanding the inherent modularity in historic structures provides a foundation for implementing compatible modular approaches in conservation. As noted in research on design for disassembly, "Design for assembly in architecture consists of fabricating modular and standardized components in factory to assemble them on the construction site"[7]. This principle can be adapted for conservation contexts by identifying and working with the modular logic already present in historic buildings.
Adapting Modular Approaches to Heritage Contexts
When integrating modern modular systems into heritage buildings, several approaches can ensure compatibility with historic fabric:
Additive Modularity:
Independent systems that attach to but don't alter the historic structure
Reversible modular insertions within existing spaces
"Buildings within buildings" that preserve the original envelope
Adaptive Modularity:
  • Modular systems sized to fit historic dimensions
  • Customizable modules that adapt to irregular historic spaces
  • Modular services integrated within existing building layers
Hierarchical Modularity:
  • Primary structure preserved intact
  • Secondary elements modified with reversible systems
  • Tertiary elements (finishes, services) designed as fully removable modules
Research indicates that while large-scale modular systems are used in some cases (17%), smaller-scale modularity is more common in conjunction with frame structures[4]. This suggests that hierarchical approaches to modularity may be most appropriate in heritage contexts, where the primary historic structure is typically preserved while secondary and tertiary systems are more adaptable.
Standardization vs. Customization Challenges
A fundamental tension exists between the benefits of standardization (efficiency, cost, predictability) and the need for customization in heritage buildings with irregular dimensions and unique features. This tension requires creative approaches that balance industrial logic with heritage sensitivity:
  • Mass customization techniques for modular elements
  • Digital fabrication to create precisely fitted components
  • Flexible connection systems that accommodate irregularities
  • Standardized cores with customizable interfaces
  • Modular systems with adjustable dimensions
The goal is to achieve a balance that captures the benefits of modularity while respecting the unique characteristics of heritage buildings. This often requires a hybrid approach that combines standardized components with customized interfaces or adaptable connections.
Case Studies of Modular Systems in Conservation Projects
Demountable Modular Building System ReuseA study of a four-story demountable modular building provides insights into modular reuse. The research found that "factors such as client ownership, digital material tracking, and ease of value retention play crucial roles in facilitating building reuse"[5]. This case demonstrates that successful modular reuse requires consideration of not just technical design but also ownership models and information systems.
Porto Heritage Building RehabilitationA project in Porto's historic center demonstrates how traditional building systems can be treated as modules for rehabilitation. The project preserved wooden roof structures, floor systems, and decorative elements through careful deconstruction and reassembly, treating each building system as a module that could be preserved, repaired, or replaced as needed. The result successfully maintained both the building's heritage value and embodied energy: "The renewed building keeps the historic value of the existent typological and construction characteristics by successfully preserving the construction systems and materials"[6].
These case studies highlight the potential for modular approaches to support both heritage conservation and circular economy goals, particularly when systems are designed with future disassembly and reuse in mind. They also demonstrate that modularity in heritage contexts often builds upon the inherent logic of traditional construction systems rather than imposing entirely new modular frameworks.
Disassembly Techniques and Processes
Planning for Disassembly in Conservation
Effective disassembly begins with thorough planning, which is especially important in heritage contexts where unexpected conditions are common. Key planning considerations include:
  • Historical research to understand original construction methods
  • Non-destructive testing to assess material conditions
  • Identification of hazardous materials from previous interventions
  • Establishment of heritage significance hierarchy
  • Determination of disassembly sequence and critical path
  • Development of material handling and storage protocols
  • Identification of reuse opportunities for removed elements
A case study from Porto's historic center illustrates this approach: "The methodology applied was based on a deconstruction approach: step-by-step, the unwanted or damaged parts were removed without damaging other elements, and inspection actions were made to the critical elements"[6]. This methodology allows for adaptive planning as conditions are revealed during the disassembly process.
Planning for disassembly must be integrated early in the project process and should involve multidisciplinary expertise spanning heritage conservation, structural engineering, and material science. This collaborative approach ensures that technical and cultural considerations are balanced throughout the disassembly process.
Disassembly Sequencing and Logistics
Disassembly of building components must follow a logical sequence to prevent damage and ensure worker safety. Research indicates that "the disassembly process consists of a hybrid sequential and parallel disassembly of modular units"[5]. This suggests that effective disassembly combines both sequential operations (where one step must follow another) and parallel work streams where appropriate.
Key sequencing considerations include:
  • Removing non-structural before structural elements
  • Working from top to bottom for most components
  • Identifying and preserving bracing and temporary supports
  • Accounting for load paths during partial disassembly
  • Coordinating utility disconnections and service systems
  • Managing waste streams by material type
Logistics planning must address site access, material movement paths, temporary storage, weather protection, equipment requirements, worker training, and ongoing documentation. These practical considerations are essential for successful implementation but are often overlooked in theoretical discussions of disassembly.
Tools and Technologies for Non-Destructive Disassembly
Non-destructive disassembly requires specialized tools and approaches appropriate to the building's age, construction type, and material composition:
Traditional Tools:
  • Hand tools appropriate to the building period
  • Non-marring pry bars and separators
  • Precision cutting tools for selective removal
Temporary Support Systems:
  • Adjustable shoring and bracing
  • Custom jigs for component removal
  • Lifting and handling frames for delicate elements
Advanced Technologies:
  • Thermal methods for adhesive separation
  • Ultrasonic tools for mortar removal
  • Robotic systems for precision cutting and handling
  • 3D scanning for documentation before and during disassembly
Even with seemingly reversible connection systems, disassembly may present unexpected challenges. Research notes that even when bolt and nut connection systems are used, "it does not automatically imply the effortless ease of disassembly, because potential lock-in stress of the connections may be present"[5]. This highlights the need for specialized knowledge and techniques even with theoretically reversible connections.
Documentation and Material Tracking Systems
Thorough documentation is essential for successful material reuse after disassembly. This process encompasses pre-disassembly documentation, tracking during the disassembly process, and systems for managing recovered materials:
Pre-Disassembly Documentation:
  • Detailed photography and videography
  • 3D scanning and modeling
  • Component labeling and identification
  • Connection and assembly documentation
During Disassembly:
  • Log of disassembly sequence
  • Documentation of unexpected conditions
  • Recording of connection types and challenges
  • Updating of as-built information
Material Tracking:
  • Digital material passports
  • RFID or QR code tagging systems
  • Blockchain-based chain of custody
  • BIM integration with material inventory
Research confirms that "digitalized information tracking for individual modules" is a key facilitator for successful reuse[5]. The reuse process consists of "four subprocesses: take-back, material tracking, quality inspection, and touch-ups," highlighting the importance of systematic tracking throughout the lifecycle.
Heritage-Sensitive Approaches to DfD
Balancing Heritage Values with Circular Principles
Heritage conservation and circular economy goals can sometimes appear in tension: conservation aims to preserve original materials and authenticity, while circular approaches emphasize adaptability and material recirculation. Reconciling these requires careful consideration of values:
  • Cultural significance assessment to identify essential characteristics
  • Differentiation between fabric of different heritage value
  • Definition of "character-defining elements" that must be preserved
  • Identification of components that can be modified or replaced
  • Consideration of layered history and previous interventions
  • Development of reversibility hierarchy based on significance
The ICOMOS Burra Charter principle that "as much as necessary, as little as possible" provides a useful framework for integrating circular approaches while respecting heritage values. This balance requires nuanced decision-making that considers both material conservation and functional adaptation.
Assessment Methodologies for Heritage Significance
Before implementing DfD strategies, a systematic assessment of heritage significance should guide decision-making. This assessment should consider multiple value dimensions and physical characteristics:
Value Assessment Frameworks:
  • Historical value (association with events, periods, people)
  • Aesthetic value (design, artistic elements)
  • Scientific/technical value (innovation, construction methods)
  • Social value (community connections, cultural identity)
  • Spiritual/religious value (sacred associations)
Physical Assessment Methodologies:
  • Building archeology approaches
  • Material dating and analysis
  • Construction system mapping
  • Condition assessment
  • Previous intervention documentation
A heritage rehabilitation project in Porto demonstrates how this assessment informed decision-making: "Analyzed the building typology, made it possible to conclude that it was rather easy to match the internal spatial structure with the new functional program, solving the problem of redundancy"[6]. This assessment guided decisions about what could be changed versus preserved.
Minimal Intervention Strategies
Minimal intervention is a core conservation principle that aligns with circular thinking by reducing resource use and preserving embodied value. Strategies include:
Preservation in Place:
  • Retention and repair rather than replacement
  • Stabilization of existing conditions
  • Preventive conservation to limit further degradation
Strategic Replacement:
  • Replacing only degraded portions rather than entire elements
  • Using traditional repair techniques with compatible materials
  • Designing replacements for future repairability
Additive Rather than Subtractive:
  • Adding new systems without removing historic fabric
  • Creating buffer zones between old and new
  • Designing interventions that "float" within historic spaces
The rehabilitation project in Porto exemplifies this approach: "The renewed building keeps the historic value of the existent typological and construction characteristics by successfully preserving the construction systems and materials"[6]. This preservation-focused approach can achieve significant environmental benefits: "In comparison with scenarios of façade retention, as shown in the results obtained for the case study, preserving the existing as a whole reduce significantly the embodied mass and the embodied energy, and reduce the amount of construction debris"[6].
Authenticity Considerations in Disassembly and Reuse
The concept of authenticity in heritage conservation must be carefully considered when implementing disassembly and reuse strategies. Multiple dimensions of authenticity must be addressed:
Material Authenticity:
  • Retention of original materials where possible
  • Documentation of removed materials
  • Distinction between original and replacement components
Workmanship Authenticity:
  • Preservation of traditional craft techniques
  • Documentation of assembly methods before disassembly
  • Training in historic construction methods for reassembly
Form and Design Authenticity:
  • Maintaining spatial relationships and proportions
  • Preserving visible construction systems
  • Ensuring legibility of historic design intent
Function and Use:
  • Consideration of historic use patterns
  • Compatibility of new uses with historic spatial organization
  • Reversible adaptations that allow understanding of original function
As stated in advocacy materials on architectural salvage, "Deconstruction is not an alternative to preservation. Deconstruction is an alternative to demolition"[8]. This principle should guide heritage-sensitive DfD approaches, ensuring that disassembly is employed only when necessary and always in service of broader conservation goals.
Case Studies of Successful Implementation
International Best Practices
Several international projects demonstrate successful integration of DfD principles in heritage contexts:
Boxel Pavilion, Switzerland (2018)This temporary exhibition structure was designed for complete disassembly and reassembly at multiple locations. Using only mechanical connections and standardized components, the pavilion demonstrates how design for disassembly can enable multiple use cycles while preserving architectural integrity.
Stadskantoor Venlo, Netherlands (2016)This municipal building employs Cradle to Cradle principles with a material passport documenting all components. All materials are designed for disassembly and reuse, with leased building systems rather than purchased products, creating circular material flows.
These projects, while not all heritage buildings, provide valuable lessons for applying DfD principles in conservation contexts. They demonstrate technical solutions, documentation systems, and material management approaches that can be adapted for heritage buildings.
Portuguese Case Study: Porto Historic Center Rehabilitation
A detailed case study from Porto's World Heritage historical center demonstrates successful application of deconstruction principles in a heritage context. The project involved the rehabilitation of a traditional building while preserving its cultural and material value.
The methodology employed a systematic deconstruction approach: "step-by-step, the unwanted or damaged parts were removed without damaging other elements, and inspection actions were made to the critical elements, such as the wooden structures of the floors and roofs"[6]. This approach allowed the design team to gain detailed knowledge of the building's condition and adjust solutions accordingly.
The project carefully preserved key elements while enabling necessary updates: "A combination of partial demolition, maintenance, and repair actions was necessary in order to improve the reused parts, such as floors and roofs' structure, wood pavements, windows and doors frames, ceramic tiles, plaster ceilings and gypsum mortars"[6]. This balanced approach maintained heritage value while improving functionality.
The results showed significant environmental benefits compared to more invasive approaches: "In a scenario of only façade retention, also considered, this value is comparable as can be seen in Table 2. The result related to embodied energy shows a reduction of the [environmental impact]"[6]. This demonstrates that heritage-sensitive approaches can achieve substantial environmental benefits through material preservation.
Lessons Learned and Critical Evaluation
Analysis of these case studies reveals several key lessons for implementing DfD in conservation projects:
Critical Success Factors:
  • Early integration of disassembly planning in the design process
  • Thorough documentation before and during interventions
  • Collaborative teams with both heritage and technical expertise
  • Client commitment to circular principles
  • Skilled craftspeople for careful disassembly and reassembly
Common Challenges:
  • Regulatory barriers and inflexible building codes
  • Knowledge gaps regarding traditional construction systems
  • Higher initial costs despite lifecycle savings
  • Limited supply chains for reused materials
  • Unexpected conditions revealed during disassembly
An important insight from empirical research is that "design for deconstruction does not inherently ensure effortless ease of disassembly"[5]. This underscores the importance of moving beyond theoretical principles to practical implementation knowledge, addressing the real-world challenges that emerge during disassembly processes.
Implementation Frameworks and Challenges
Regulatory and Policy Contexts
The implementation of DfD in conservation projects is influenced by various regulatory frameworks that can either support or hinder circular approaches:
Heritage Protection Legislation:
  • National heritage protection laws
  • UNESCO World Heritage guidelines
  • Local conservation area regulations
  • Listed building consent requirements
Building Regulations:
  • Health and safety requirements
  • Fire safety standards
  • Accessibility regulations
  • Energy performance standards
Circular Economy Policies:
  • EU Circular Economy Action Plan
  • National circular economy roadmaps
  • Green public procurement requirements
  • Material passports and building documentation requirements
Policy support is crucial for enabling widespread adoption of deconstruction approaches. As noted in advocacy work, it's "important to build community buy-in and establish city ordinances that prioritize deconstruction over demolition"[8]. Aligning these sometimes conflicting regulatory frameworks requires integrated approaches and possibly regulatory innovation to support both heritage and circular goals.
Economic Considerations and Business Models
The economic viability of DfD in conservation depends on new business and financial models that account for lifecycle benefits and embodied value:
Value Assessment:
  • Life cycle costing rather than initial capital cost focus
  • Valuation of embodied resources in existing structures
  • Recognition of cultural and historical value
  • Quantification of environmental benefits
Business Models:
  • Material banks and repositories for heritage components
  • Product-service systems for building elements
  • Performance-based contracting for interventions
  • Deposit-return systems for reusable components
Research highlights the importance of business models, noting that "retained building ownership by the client" was one of three key facilitators for successful reuse[5]. This suggests that ownership models significantly impact the viability of circular approaches, particularly for enabling component reuse across multiple building cycles.
Stakeholder Engagement and Education
Implementing DfD in conservation requires engagement with diverse stakeholders and education about both technical approaches and heritage values:
Key Stakeholders:
  • Heritage authorities and conservation officers
  • Building owners and developers
  • Architects and conservation specialists
  • Contractors and craftspeople
  • Material suppliers and salvage operators
  • Building users and community members
Education plays a critical role in building capacity for DfD in conservation. Efforts to "incorporate deconstruction within traditional trades apprenticeships"[8] represent an important development in bridging heritage craft skills with circular construction approaches. This integration of disassembly techniques into traditional trades education creates a workforce capable of implementing heritage-sensitive DfD.
Technical and Cultural Barriers
Despite growing interest, significant barriers to implementation remain:
Technical Barriers:
  • Knowledge gaps in historic construction techniques
  • Limited tools specifically designed for non-destructive disassembly
  • Challenges in assessing reused material performance
  • Lack of standardized documentation systems
  • Incomplete supply chains for salvaged materials
Cultural Barriers:
  • Perception that "new is better" in building components
  • Risk aversion among professionals and clients
  • Traditional separation between heritage and sustainability disciplines
  • Resistance to visible intervention in historic fabric
  • Limited awareness of circular approaches among conservation professionals
Addressing these barriers requires integrated approaches that combine technical innovation, education, policy support, and cultural change within the conservation profession. Progress will require collaborative efforts across disciplines and sectors.
Future Directions
Emerging Technologies and Approaches
Several emerging technologies and approaches promise to advance DfD in conservation:
Digital Technologies:
  • BIM integration with heritage documentation
  • Augmented reality guidance for disassembly
  • Machine learning for material assessment
  • Blockchain for material provenance tracking
  • Digital material marketplaces for heritage components
Material Innovations:
  • Bio-based reversible adhesives
  • Shape memory alloys for self-disassembling connections
  • Smart materials that respond to disassembly triggers
  • Composite materials designed for separation at end of life
  • 3D printing with reused heritage materials
These technologies must be evaluated for compatibility with conservation principles, ensuring they serve rather than drive heritage decisions. The goal should be technologies that enhance our ability to implement conservation principles rather than requiring compromises to those principles.
Research Gaps and Opportunities
Future research should address several key gaps in our understanding of DfD in conservation contexts:
Technical Research Needs:
  • Performance testing of reused heritage materials
  • Development of non-destructive connection systems
  • Optimization of disassembly sequences for different building types
  • Assessment methodologies for reuse potential
  • Integration of traditional and contemporary connection systems
Economic Research Needs:
  • Lifecycle cost analysis of DfD in conservation
  • Value propositions for different stakeholders
  • Business models for heritage material banking
  • Quantification of embodied value in historic components
  • Market development for reused heritage materials
Collaborative research between architecture, engineering, conservation, economics, and social sciences will be essential to address these complex questions. Research should be practice-oriented, developing tools and methodologies that can be directly applied by conservation professionals.
Educational Implications for Architecture Students
Architectural education must evolve to prepare students for circular approaches to conservation:
Curriculum Development:
  • Integration of circular principles in heritage conservation courses
  • Studio projects focused on disassembly and reuse
  • Technical training in non-destructive assessment
  • Interdisciplinary workshops with engineering and preservation students
  • Field experience with deconstruction projects
Skill Development:
  • Documentation of existing buildings for reuse potential
  • Design of reversible interventions in historic contexts
  • Assessment of heritage significance and intervention impacts
  • Technical detailing for disassembly
  • Communication with diverse stakeholders
The integration of deconstruction principles within architectural education creates a foundation for future practice that naturally combines heritage sensitivity with circular approaches. As the field evolves, education will play a crucial role in developing professionals equipped to implement these integrated approaches.
Design for Deconstruction offers a powerful framework for aligning heritage conservation with circular economy principles. Through strategies such as reversible design, modularity, and heritage-sensitive disassembly, architects and conservation professionals can preserve cultural value while enabling future adaptation and material reuse.
The case studies and approaches discussed in this chapter demonstrate that successful implementation requires balancing technical, economic, cultural, and regulatory considerations. Heritage buildings present unique challenges for disassembly, but also unique opportunities to preserve embodied resources and cultural knowledge. As demonstrated in the Porto case study, "preserving the existing as a whole reduce significantly the embodied mass and the embodied energy, and reduce the amount of construction debris"[6] compared to more invasive approaches.
Looking forward, emerging technologies and innovative business models promise to advance these approaches, but must be guided by core conservation principles. The integration of Design for Deconstruction into conservation practice requires not just technical knowledge but also a shift in how we conceptualize interventions in historic buildings-from permanent solutions to reversible contributions within an ongoing building biography.
For architecture students preparing to work with our built heritage, these approaches offer an opportunity to reconcile preservation with environmental responsibility. By designing interventions that can be carefully disassembled in the future, today's architects can respect both the past and the future, enabling ongoing adaptation while preserving the cultural value that makes heritage buildings worth conserving in the first place.
The field of heritage conservation has always recognized that our interventions are part of a building's ongoing story rather than its final chapter. Design for Deconstruction formalizes this understanding, providing a framework for interventions that respect both the building's past and its future potential. In doing so, it helps ensure that our existing building stock-particularly our heritage buildings-can continue to adapt and evolve while preserving the cultural value and material resources they embody.

Digital Tools and Innovation for Circular Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration

The digital revolution is transforming how architects approach heritage buildings, creating unprecedented opportunities to implement circular economy principles in conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration projects. This chapter explores the powerful digital toolkit emerging at this intersection, demonstrating how technology enables more sustainable approaches to preserving our architectural heritage.
Introduction to Digital Transformation in CRR
Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration (CRR) projects present unique opportunities to implement circular economy principles. The preservation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings inherently aligns with circularity by extending the lifespan of embodied materials and reducing waste. However, achieving truly circular outcomes in heritage contexts requires sophisticated tools that can manage complex building systems and material flows throughout the building lifecycle.
Digital technologies are revolutionizing how architects approach CRR projects, offering unprecedented capabilities to document, analyze, simulate, and optimize interventions. These tools enable more precise understanding of existing structures, facilitate better decision-making, and support closed-loop material cycles essential for circular economy implementation[1].
The European Commission's Circular Economy Action Plan identifies construction and buildings as a key value chain, emphasizing the importance of improving durability and adaptability of built assets. Portugal's National Circular Economy Roadmap similarly recognizes the construction sector as a priority area, acknowledging the significance of building stock in resource consumption.
This chapter explores how Building Information Modeling (BIM), Digital Twins, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), material flow analysis, and performance simulations can be integrated into comprehensive workflows that support circular economy objectives in CRR projects. By leveraging these digital tools effectively, architects can enhance the longevity of historic structures while minimizing environmental impacts and resource consumption.
Theoretical Framework of Circular Economy in CRR
Principles of Circular Economy in the Built Environment
The circular economy represents a fundamental shift from the traditional linear "take-make-dispose" model toward a regenerative approach that minimizes waste and maximizes resource value. In the built environment, circular economy principles encompass strategies to extend building lifespans, facilitate adaptability and disassembly, utilize sustainable materials, and integrate buildings with ecological systems.
The construction sector is responsible for approximately 40% of global resource consumption and generates substantial waste, presenting significant opportunities for circular economy implementation. For CRR projects, circular economy principles translate to practices that:
  • Prioritize retention and repair over replacement
  • Enable future adaptability through reversible interventions
  • Minimize waste during construction and operation
  • Optimize material and energy flows throughout the building lifecycle
  • Document material composition to facilitate future reuse and recycling
Following the European Circular Economy Action Plan, these practices contribute to broader sustainability goals while preserving cultural heritage values[2].
Digital Enablers for Circular CRR
Digital technologies serve as key enablers for implementing circular economy principles in CRR projects. These tools support circularity through:
  • Enhanced documentation of existing buildings and embedded materials
  • More accurate assessment of building condition and performance
  • Precise planning of interventions to minimize waste
  • Optimization of material and energy flows
  • Tracking of material origins, properties, and maintenance history
  • Real-time monitoring of building performance and condition
The integration of these capabilities creates a digital ecosystem that supports circular decision-making throughout the CRR project lifecycle, from initial documentation to ongoing operation and maintenance[3].
Building Information Modeling (BIM) for Circular CRR
BIM Fundamentals and Heritage Applications
Building Information Modeling (BIM) provides the foundation for digital approaches to circular CRR. BIM creates data-rich digital representations of buildings that include not only three-dimensional geometry but also comprehensive information about building components, materials, and systems.
For heritage buildings, specialized Heritage BIM (HBIM) approaches adapt standard BIM methodologies to address the unique challenges of historic structures. HBIM involves creating parametric objects that represent historic building elements, often with irregular geometries and traditional construction techniques not found in standard BIM libraries[4].
The application of BIM to CRR projects enables precise documentation of existing conditions, careful planning of interventions, and comprehensive management of building information throughout the project lifecycle. With BIM, it is possible to model high-precision geometry and store essential parameters for thermal energy analysis, including lighting, mechanical systems, and material properties[5].
Material Data Management and Circular BIM
A key application of BIM in circular CRR is material data management. BIM models can serve as repositories for detailed information about existing and new materials, creating digital material passports that document composition, condition, origin, and potential for future reuse.
The CIRCULAR-BIM project demonstrates how BIM can support calculation of circularity indicators and mapping of opportunities for better resource management at different levels. This integration of BIM with circularity metrics provides architects with quantifiable measures to assess and improve the circular performance of their designs[6].
For heritage buildings, BIM can document valuable traditional materials and techniques, preserving knowledge that might otherwise be lost. This documentation supports more informed decisions about material conservation, repair, and replacement, helping balance preservation values with sustainability objectives.
BIM Throughout the CRR Project Lifecycle
BIM supports circular economy principles throughout the CRR project lifecycle:
Pre-intervention phase: BIM facilitates comprehensive documentation of existing conditions through integration with laser scanning, photogrammetry, and other survey techniques. This digital documentation creates a valuable record of the heritage building before intervention.
Design phase: BIM enables virtual testing of different intervention strategies, supporting selection of approaches that maximize material retention and minimize waste. The data-rich environment allows for more accurate quantity takeoffs and material assessments.
Construction phase: BIM supports precise planning and coordination of construction activities, reducing on-site waste and improving efficiency. Digital fabrication techniques can be integrated with BIM to enable custom solutions that minimize material use.
Operation phase: BIM provides a comprehensive digital record of the building as constructed, supporting ongoing maintenance and future interventions. Integration with facility management systems creates a continuous digital thread throughout the building lifecycle[4].
Digital Twins: Advanced Visualization and Simulation
Digital Twin Concept and Evolution
A Digital Twin is a data-rich, interactive model that replicates its built asset, leveraging a 3D BIM design to act as a common interface that centralizes data for the entire building's lifecycle. Digital twins go beyond static models to incorporate real-time data from sensors, creating dynamic virtual counterparts of physical buildings[7].
As described by MIT's Real Estate Innovation Lab, "A Digital Twin generally consists of a 3D graphic of the structural components of the building (think of a BIM model illustrating the building's outline, its walls, floor plans, internal systems). This graphic then incorporates all of the devices and sensors within a building to showcase all of the past and present data, ultimately creating a real-time picture of what is happening in the building at that precise moment."[8]
The evolution of digital twins has been driven by advancements in Internet of Things (IoT) technology, data analytics, and simulation capabilities. While their adoption in the Architecture, Engineering, Construction, and Operation (AECO) field, particularly for Built Cultural Heritage (BCH) conservation, is still in its early stages, digital twins show significant promise for transforming heritage preservation approaches[9].
Components and Functionality for Heritage Buildings
For heritage buildings, digital twins typically integrate:
  • A detailed 3D model based on HBIM or laser scanning
  • Sensors monitoring structural stability, environmental conditions, and visitor impacts
  • Historical documentation and conservation records
  • Performance simulation capabilities
  • Visualization interfaces for different stakeholders
These components work together to create a comprehensive digital representation that supports both preservation and sustainability objectives. Digital twins in heritage constructions cover 3D techniques, virtual reality, HBIM, IoT, building management, and structural analysis[10].
From a process standpoint, a digital twin creates a digital record of the building's experience, helping to learn how the building can optimize future experiences for occupants while maintaining the physical, functional, and economic integrity of the heritage asset[8].
Real-time Monitoring and Preventive Conservation
One of the most powerful applications of digital twins in CRR projects is real-time monitoring and preventive conservation. By continuously collecting data on building conditions, digital twins can identify emerging issues before they cause significant damage, enabling proactive rather than reactive maintenance strategies.
For heritage buildings, which may be particularly vulnerable to environmental factors and aging processes, this predictive capability is crucial for preventing deterioration and minimizing the need for invasive interventions. Digital twins can monitor parameters such as:
  • Humidity and temperature fluctuations
  • Structural movement and deformation
  • Material degradation and weathering
  • Visitor impact and usage patterns
  • Energy consumption and system performance
Combined with real-time data and machine learning techniques, digital twins allow building operators to make real predictions, understand occupant behavior, and ultimately get ahead of issues before they happen, thus creating truly smart heritage buildings[8].
Simulation Capabilities for Circular Interventions
Digital twins provide powerful simulation capabilities that support circular approaches to heritage interventions. These simulations enable virtual testing of different intervention strategies, assessing their impact on both heritage values and environmental performance.
Digital twins can simulate:
  • Energy performance under different climatic conditions
  • Structural behavior under various loading scenarios
  • Effects of material aging and weathering
  • Impact of changing usage patterns
  • Response to extreme events such as earthquakes or floods
This simulation environment allows architects to re-imagine what the asset would be like if re-programmed, supporting more informed decisions about adaptive reuse and functional optimization. As noted by MIT's Real Estate Innovation Lab, this is "one of the most exciting elements of what the future of Digital Twins has in store."[8]
A systematic literature review of 85 academic publications evaluated the current state of digital twin implementation in heritage building conservation and identified areas for optimizing preventive management. The findings demonstrate the potential of digital twins to revolutionize BCH conservation through a holistic approach, though further focus is needed on features and tools for enhancing performance-based management with targeted strategies and advanced data analysis[9].
GIS Integration and Spatial Context Analysis
GIS Fundamentals for Heritage Contexts
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) provide tools for capturing, storing, analyzing, and displaying geographically referenced information. In the context of circular CRR, GIS enables spatial analysis of resource flows, urban patterns, and heritage contexts at scales beyond the individual building.
For heritage buildings, GIS provides valuable contextual information about:
  • Historical development patterns
  • Cultural and social significance of surrounding areas
  • Environmental conditions and risks
  • Infrastructural connections and resource availability
  • Regulatory frameworks and protection designations
This spatial perspective complements the detailed building-scale information provided by BIM and digital twins, creating a more comprehensive understanding of heritage buildings in their broader contexts.
Integration of BIM, GIS, and Digital Twins
The integration of BIM, GIS, and digital twins creates a powerful platform for holistic planning that considers both building-specific details and broader contextual factors. This integration bridges the gap between building-scale and urban-scale analysis, enabling more comprehensive approaches to circular CRR.
In this integrated framework:
  • BIM provides detailed building information and material data
  • GIS contributes spatial context and urban-scale analysis
  • Digital twins add real-time monitoring and simulation capabilities
Together, these tools support circular economy principles by enabling better understanding of material flows across spatial scales, from individual buildings to neighborhoods and cities. This multi-scalar approach is essential for implementing circular strategies that extend beyond individual buildings to consider broader material and energy networks.
Urban-scale Material Flow Analysis
At the urban scale, GIS can support circular economy implementation by mapping material stocks embedded in the existing building stock, identifying potential material flows between projects, and analyzing patterns of building use and adaptation over time.
For heritage districts or cultural landscapes, this urban-scale analysis provides valuable insights into:
  • Traditional material sourcing and supply chains
  • Patterns of building adaptation and transformation over time
  • Potential material synergies between nearby rehabilitation projects
  • Local craft traditions and construction techniques
  • Waste management infrastructure and recycling facilities
These insights can inform urban planning decisions that promote circularity, such as policies that encourage adaptive reuse of historic buildings or create material reuse networks specific to heritage construction materials.
Material Flow Analysis and Circularity Assessment
Digital Tools for Material Documentation
Digital tools enable comprehensive documentation of materials in heritage buildings, creating valuable records that support circular approaches to conservation and rehabilitation. These tools range from non-destructive testing technologies to advanced imaging techniques and database systems.
For heritage buildings, material documentation typically addresses:
  • Material composition and physical properties
  • Historical significance and authenticity
  • Condition assessment and deterioration patterns
  • Previous interventions and treatments
  • Potential for conservation, repair, or replacement
This detailed material information provides the foundation for circular decision-making in CRR projects, supporting strategies that prioritize retention, repair, and reuse of existing materials wherever possible.
Material Passports and Tracking Systems
Material passports are digital datasets that catalog the characteristics of building materials to facilitate their future reuse or recycling. When integrated with BIM and digital twins, material passports provide a powerful tool for implementing circular economy principles in CRR projects.
For heritage buildings, material passports can document both historic materials and new additions, creating comprehensive records that support future interventions. These digital passports typically include information about:
  • Material composition and properties
  • Manufacturing process and origin
  • Installation date and method
  • Maintenance history and condition
  • Disassembly instructions and reuse potential
Digitalization can help address many of the challenges faced when transitioning towards a more circular economic model, particularly in tracking materials throughout their lifecycle[3].
Circularity Assessment Frameworks
Various frameworks and indicators have been developed to assess circularity in building projects. These assessment frameworks provide structured approaches for evaluating the circular performance of CRR interventions, helping architects balance preservation objectives with circularity goals.
Digital tools facilitate the application of these assessment frameworks by automating data collection and calculation processes. Integration with BIM and digital twins enables tracking of circularity metrics throughout the project lifecycle, supporting continuous improvement in circular performance.
The CIRCULAR-BIM project demonstrates how digital tools can support calculation of aggregate circularity indicators and mapping of opportunities for better resource management at different levels[6]. These indicators provide quantifiable measures of circular performance, helping architects and clients make more informed decisions about intervention strategies.
Performance Simulations for Circular Design
Energy Performance Simulation in Heritage Contexts
Energy performance simulation is a critical tool for circular CRR projects, enabling architects to assess and optimize the energy efficiency of interventions while respecting heritage values. Digital simulation tools allow for detailed analysis of thermal behavior, daylight performance, and HVAC system operation.
With BIM, it is possible to model high-precision geometry and store essential parameters for thermal energy analysis, including lighting and other environmental factors[5]. This integration of BIM with energy simulation creates a powerful platform for optimizing the performance of heritage buildings while preserving their character-defining features.
For heritage buildings, energy performance simulation must address unique challenges such as:
  • Traditional construction techniques with unknown thermal properties
  • Irregular geometries and non-standard assemblies
  • Moisture management in historic materials
  • Balancing energy efficiency with preservation of historic features
  • Limited opportunities for conventional insulation or system upgrades
Advanced simulation tools can model these complex conditions, helping architects develop tailored energy strategies that improve performance while respecting heritage values.
Life Cycle Assessment for Heritage Interventions
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) provides a framework for evaluating the environmental impacts of different intervention strategies across the full building lifecycle. For heritage buildings, LCA can help quantify the environmental benefits of retention and rehabilitation compared to demolition and new construction.
Integration of LCA with BIM and digital twins enables more comprehensive and accurate assessments by providing detailed information about material quantities, compositions, and expected service lives. This integration supports decision-making that balances preservation objectives with environmental performance.
Key considerations for LCA in heritage contexts include:
  • Embodied carbon in existing materials
  • Durability and maintenance requirements of traditional materials
  • Environmental impacts of specialized conservation treatments
  • Energy performance improvements from various intervention strategies
  • End-of-life scenarios for both historic and new materials
By quantifying these factors, LCA helps architects develop intervention strategies that maximize both heritage conservation and environmental sustainability.
Adaptive Reuse Optimization
Adaptive reuse-the process of repurposing existing buildings for functions other than those originally intended-is a fundamental strategy for implementing circular economy principles in the built environment. Digital simulation tools support adaptive reuse optimization by enabling virtual testing of different use scenarios and intervention strategies.
For heritage buildings, adaptive reuse must balance new functional requirements with preservation of significant features. Performance simulations can help assess factors such as:
Spatial functionality for new uses
  • Structural capacity for changed loading conditions
  • Thermal comfort and indoor environmental quality
  • Acoustic performance for different activities
  • Accessibility and safety requirements
  • Energy and resource consumption
By simulating these factors, architects can identify the most appropriate new uses for heritage buildings and develop interventions that maximize retention of existing fabric while meeting contemporary requirements.
Climate Resilience and Future-proofing
Climate change presents significant challenges for heritage buildings, which may be vulnerable to changing weather patterns, increased flooding, rising temperatures, and other environmental stresses. Performance simulations enable assessment of climate change impacts on historic structures and testing of potential adaptation strategies.
Digital tools support climate resilience by enabling dynamic simulation of building performance under various climate scenarios, helping architects develop interventions that protect heritage values while enhancing resilience to future conditions.
Key aspects of climate resilience simulation for heritage buildings include:
  • Response to increased temperature extremes
  • Performance during intense precipitation events
  • Vulnerability to flooding and sea level rise
  • Resistance to stronger wind loads and storms
  • Durability under changed freeze-thaw cycles
These forward-looking simulations align with circular economy principles by extending building lifespans and reducing the need for resource-intensive reconstructions following climate-related damage.
Integrated Digital Workflows for Circular CRR
Creating Cohesive Digital Ecosystems
The full potential of digital tools for circular CRR is realized when they are integrated into cohesive workflows that span the entire project lifecycle. Digitalized workflows can consist of several stages and depending on their scope, employ different digital tools[3].
An integrated digital ecosystem for circular CRR might include:
  • Documentation phase: Laser scanning, photogrammetry, and non-destructive testing
  • Analysis phase: HBIM modeling, condition assessment, and performance simulation
  • Design phase: Circular intervention strategies, material selection, and performance optimization
  • Implementation phase: Digital fabrication, construction management, and quality control
  • Operation phase: Digital twin monitoring, predictive maintenance, and performance tracking
These integrated workflows support circular economy principles by ensuring continuity of information throughout the building lifecycle, facilitating better decision-making regarding resource use and intervention strategies.
Interoperability Challenges and Solutions
While integrated digital workflows offer significant benefits for circular CRR, they also present challenges related to data management and interoperability. Understanding how to combine different digital tools to create integrated approaches is essential for streamlining circular processes[3].
Common interoperability challenges include:
  • Incompatibility between software platforms from different vendors
  • Data loss during transfers between systems
  • Varying levels of detail and accuracy across different tools
  • Lack of standardized formats for heritage-specific information
  • Limited integration between building-scale and urban-scale tools
Addressing these challenges requires coordinated efforts from software developers, industry practitioners, and regulatory bodies to establish common standards and platforms that support circular economy implementation in heritage contexts.
Collaborative Platforms for Multidisciplinary Teams
Effective implementation of circular economy principles in CRR projects requires collaboration among diverse stakeholders, including architects, engineers, conservation specialists, historians, building owners, and regulatory authorities. Digital collaboration platforms facilitate this interdisciplinary approach by providing shared environments for information exchange and decision-making.
Cloud-based BIM platforms, common data environments, and virtual/augmented reality tools enable more effective communication of complex information about historic buildings and proposed interventions. These platforms support knowledge sharing and collective problem-solving, essential for addressing the multifaceted challenges of circular CRR.
Future research should prioritize developing tools and platforms that fully leverage the potential of digital paradigms in BCH conservation[9]. This includes creating more accessible interfaces for non-technical stakeholders and developing specialized tools for heritage-specific workflows.
Case Studies and Implementation Examples
Institutional Approaches to Digital Tools for Circular CRR
Leading academic institutions are pioneering innovative approaches to digital tools for circular CRR:
ETH Zurich's Master in Integrated Building Systems program exemplifies the interdisciplinary approach necessary for circular CRR. The program focuses on the integration of sustainable energy technologies at building and urban levels, the methodology and tools to master the complex design of integrated building systems, as well as the operation and management of buildings[11]. This integrated approach combines methods from architecture, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, socio-economics, environmental engineering, and electrical engineering-creating professionals equipped to implement circular strategies in complex heritage contexts.
TU Delft's research on digitalization for circularity explores the potential of digitalization to support circular flows of materials in the AEC sector. Researchers at TU Delft are investigating how digitization (converting physical data to digital format), digital tools (technological solutions for collecting, sharing, analyzing, and automating data), and digitalization (application of digitized data and digital tools to impact processes) can address challenges in transitioning to a circular economic model[3].
MIT's Real Estate Innovation Lab is investigating how digital twins can create efficiency and value across the real estate sector. Their research highlights how digital twins combine 3D graphics of structural components with data from building systems and human input to create comprehensive digital dashboards. These digital twins help learn how buildings can optimize experiences for occupants while maintaining physical, functional, and economic integrity[8].
Heritage-Specific Digital Twin Applications
A systematic literature review of 85 academic publications on digital twins for built cultural heritage conservation evaluated the current state of implementation and identified areas for optimization. The findings demonstrate the potential of digital twins to revolutionize heritage conservation through a holistic approach that integrates documentation, monitoring, analysis, and simulation[9].
Digital twins in heritage constructions cover multiple functionalities including 3D techniques, virtual reality, HBIM, IoT, building management, and structural analysis[10]. This multi-faceted approach enables comprehensive documentation and analysis of heritage structures, supporting more informed conservation decisions.
For heritage preservation and restoration efforts, digital twins deliver data-led insights that can help reduce the risk of rework, optimize operations, and preserve historic buildings[7]. In an age when sustainability practices are front of mind, this innovative technology offers both cost efficiencies and more sustainable workflows.
Emerging Trends and Future Directions
Advanced Sensing and Monitoring Technologies
Emerging sensing technologies are expanding the capabilities of digital twins and monitoring systems for heritage buildings. These include:
  • Wireless sensor networks that minimize intervention in historic fabric
  • Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) for non-invasive structural monitoring
  • Computer vision and image recognition for automated condition assessment
  • Environmental DNA sampling for biological deterioration monitoring
  • Smart materials with self-sensing capabilities
These advanced sensing technologies enable more comprehensive and less invasive monitoring of heritage buildings, supporting preventive conservation approaches that minimize the need for interventions.
Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Applications
Artificial intelligence and machine learning are transforming how digital tools process and interpret data from heritage buildings. These technologies enable:
  • Automated recognition of damage patterns and deterioration mechanisms
  • Predictive maintenance based on pattern recognition in sensor data
  • Optimization of energy use while respecting heritage constraints
  • Virtual reconstruction of missing elements based on fragmentary evidence
  • Natural language processing for analyzing historical documentation
As research continues to advance and refine these digital tools, it is essential to understand how they can be combined to create integrated approaches that streamline current circular processes, paving the way for a more circular built environment[3].
Integration with Digital Fabrication
Digital fabrication technologies are creating new possibilities for circular approaches to heritage conservation. These technologies enable:
  • Custom replacement of damaged elements with minimal material waste
  • Precise replication of historic details using digital templates
  • Reversible interventions through custom-designed solutions
  • Repair strategies that minimize removal of original material
  • Prefabrication of compatible additions that minimize on-site disruption
The integration of digital documentation, design, and fabrication creates seamless workflows that support circular principles by maximizing preservation of existing fabric and minimizing waste in new interventions.
Blockchain for Material Traceability
Blockchain technology offers promising applications for tracking materials throughout their lifecycle, supporting circular economy principles in heritage contexts. Potential applications include:
  • Creating immutable records of material provenance and history
  • Establishing material passports that travel with building components
  • Certifying authenticity of traditional materials and techniques
  • Documenting chain of custody for salvaged heritage materials
  • Creating decentralized marketplaces for reclaimed traditional materials
These blockchain applications enhance transparency and trust in material information, supporting more informed decisions about material retention, reuse, and recycling in heritage contexts.
Digital tools and innovations are transforming how architects approach Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration projects, enabling more effective implementation of circular economy principles. From BIM and digital twins to GIS integration and performance simulations, these tools provide unprecedented capabilities to document, analyze, optimize, and monitor interventions in built heritage.
The integration of these digital technologies creates powerful workflows that support circular economy objectives throughout the building lifecycle. By enabling better understanding of existing buildings, facilitating material tracking and reuse, and supporting performance optimization, digital tools help architects balance preservation values with environmental imperatives.
As noted by Dr. Andrea Chegut of MIT's Real Estate Innovation Lab, "Technologies that can merge two different domains of a sector are always really exciting. The reason why people are getting excited about Digital Twins is that the use cases exist for almost every single domain of the real estate sector."[8] This observation applies equally to the heritage sector, where digital tools are creating new possibilities for preserving our architectural heritage while implementing circular economy principles.
For architecture students and practitioners, developing proficiency in these digital tools and understanding their application to circular economy principles is increasingly essential for addressing the complex challenges of built heritage conservation in an era of climate change and resource constraints. The integration of digital innovation with preservation expertise creates new opportunities to extend the life of our built heritage while minimizing environmental impacts and conserving valuable resources.

Urban Mining and Resource Efficiency in Conservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration

Urban mining represents a paradigm shift in how we conceive the built environment-not merely as a consumer of resources but as a repository of valuable materials that can be harvested, reused, and recycled. For architecture students and professionals engaged in Conservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration (CRR), understanding this approach is increasingly critical as we confront climate change and resource depletion challenges.
This chapter explores urban mining as a strategy for resource efficiency in architectural practice, examining its theoretical foundations, methodological approaches, and practical applications with particular emphasis on Portuguese and European contexts. By reconceptualizing buildings as material banks rather than waste producers, we can transform our approach to architectural conservation and rehabilitation.
Urban Mining in the Circular Economy Context
Urban mining refers to the systematic recovery of resources from the built environment, particularly from buildings that have reached the end of their functional life or require significant renovation. Unlike conventional demolition, which treats buildings as waste to be disposed of, urban mining views them as valuable material repositories to be harvested strategically.
Defining Urban Mining in Architecture
Urban mining in architecture involves "reclaiming waste materials from unused structures" that are either recycled into composite materials for new building products or reused in their whole form in new structures when dismantling does not damage the building products[1]. This practice represents a circular approach to resource management, helping to "reduce dependency on primary raw materials while promoting circular economy principles"[2].
The circular economy model stands in contrast to the traditional linear "take-make-dispose" approach that has dominated industrial societies. Instead, it proposes a regenerative system where resource input, waste, emission, and energy leakage are minimized by slowing, closing, and narrowing material and energy loops (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Within this paradigm, urban mining serves as a crucial implementation strategy for the built environment.
Principles of Circular Economy in the Built Environment
The circular economy in construction is guided by several core principles that are particularly relevant to conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration practices:
  • Design out waste and pollution - Conceiving products, services, and business models that prevent waste production[3]
  • Keep products and materials in use - Maintaining products and materials at their highest utility and value for as long as possible[3]
  • Regenerate natural systems - Fostering the regeneration of resources and natural systems[3]
These principles align with the fundamental goals of architectural conservation and rehabilitation, which seek to extend the useful life of buildings and their components. As noted in Portugal's Circular Economy Action Plan, the transition to a circular economy offers significant benefits, including "€1.8 billion, 1-3 million jobs, and 2-4% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions"[3].
Urban Mining in Conservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
Conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration practices are inherently aligned with circular economy principles through their focus on preserving existing buildings and extending their useful lives. Urban mining complements these practices by providing methodologies for salvaging and reusing materials when complete preservation is not possible.
In the context of CRR, urban mining offers several specific benefits:
  • Preservation of embodied energy and carbon in existing building materials
  • Retention of cultural and historical value embedded in traditional materials
  • Reduction of waste sent to landfills during rehabilitation projects
  • Access to historical materials that may no longer be commercially available
  • Maintenance of authentic material character in heritage buildings
For architecture students, understanding this intersection between urban mining and CRR practices provides a framework for approaching conservation projects with both sustainability and cultural preservation in mind.
Urban Material Stocks
Urban material stocks represent the accumulated materials within the built environment that could potentially be harvested through urban mining processes. Understanding these stocks-their composition, quantity, quality, and accessibility-is a fundamental prerequisite for effective urban mining strategies.
The Built Environment as a Material Bank
The concept of buildings as material banks represents a paradigm shift in how we understand the built environment. Rather than viewing buildings merely as functional spaces or aesthetic objects, this perspective recognizes them as repositories of valuable resources that can be harvested at the end of their useful life.
The built environment contains vast quantities of materials that have been extracted, processed, and assembled over decades or centuries. These include:
  • Structural materials (concrete, steel, timber)
  • Exterior cladding and roofing (stone, brick, tiles, metal)
  • Interior finishes (wood, ceramic, plaster)
  • Building services components (pipes, cables, fixtures)
  • Architectural elements (doors, windows, decorative features)
In Portugal and other European countries with long architectural histories, urban material stocks include not only contemporary materials but also traditional materials and craftsmanship that represent significant cultural and historical value.
Quantifying and Mapping Urban Material Stocks
To effectively harvest urban material stocks, we must first quantify and map them. Material Stock Accounting (MSA) provides methodologies for this purpose. According to the Urban Circularity Assessment method, MSA "will enable to contextualise the accumulation of flows and the generation of CDW within cities (while exploring the potential of closing material loops through reusing, repurposing and recycling)"[4].
The MSA methodology typically focuses on the building stock, "as it represents the highest share of the total material stock and is, in most cases, the easiest to assess"[4]. The process involves three main steps:
  • Obtaining the location, land use, and floor area of buildings
  • Identifying building typologies
  • Determining building typologies' material composition (t/m²)
Once these data are gathered, it becomes possible to "calculate the material stock for each building of a city and spatialise it through a choropleth map"[4]. This spatial understanding of material stocks is crucial for strategic urban mining planning.
Material Stock Dynamics and Urban Mining Potential
Understanding material stock dynamics-how materials enter, remain in, and exit the built environment-is essential for assessing urban mining potential. Material flows and stocks are interconnected in what can be described as urban metabolism.
The Material Flow and Stock Accounting (MFSA) approach provides a framework for understanding these dynamics. According to search results, this method is "more than a compilation of data. When joined with indicators, it provides systemic and synthetic insights into cities' resource requirements and circularity"[4].
For architecture students analyzing urban mining potential, key considerations include:
  • Building age and expected service life
  • Construction typologies and material composition
  • Renovation and demolition rates
  • Historical and cultural value of buildings
  • Accessibility and recoverability of materials
  • Quality and reusability of embedded materials
Portuguese cities, with their mix of historical and modern building stock, present particularly interesting case studies for material stock analysis. Historical districts contain traditional materials like stone, tiles, and wood that have proven their durability over centuries and represent valuable resources for conservation and rehabilitation projects.
Harvesting Strategies
The process of extracting materials from existing buildings requires careful planning and execution to maximize resource recovery while minimizing environmental impact. Harvesting strategies for urban mining range from selective demolition to careful deconstruction, each with different implications for material recovery and reuse.
Deconstruction versus Demolition
Traditional demolition treats buildings as waste, using destructive methods that damage or destroy most embedded materials. In contrast, deconstruction involves the systematic disassembly of buildings to preserve materials for reuse.
Deconstruction offers several advantages over conventional demolition for urban mining:
  • Higher recovery rate of intact, reusable materials
  • Preservation of material value and quality
  • Reduced contamination between different material types
  • Lower environmental impact and reduced waste generation
  • Better working conditions with reduced dust and noise
However, deconstruction also presents challenges, including "the specific skillset required to recover materials efficiently." Interestingly, "feasibility studies in Singapore have found that mining skills develop quickly if workers repeatedly recover the same materials"[1].
For CRR projects, the choice between selective demolition and careful deconstruction is particularly important when dealing with heritage buildings or traditional construction techniques that may contain valuable historical materials.
Technical Approaches to Material Recovery
Material recovery techniques vary depending on the building type, construction method, and target materials. For architecture students and professionals, understanding these techniques is essential for planning effective urban mining operations.
Key technical approaches include:
  • Sequential disassembly - Reversing the construction sequence to systematically remove building components
  • Selective demolition - Targeting specific high-value or easily recoverable materials
  • On-site sorting - Separating materials by type at the point of recovery
  • Cleaning and processing - Removing contaminants and preparing materials for reuse
For traditional Portuguese construction, specific techniques have been developed for recovering materials such as:
  • Azulejos (ceramic tiles) - Careful removal to preserve decorative patterns
  • Stone masonry - Disassembly of dry-stacked or lime-mortared stone elements
  • Wooden structures - Systematic dismantling of joinery connections
  • Terra cotta roof tiles - Sequential removal to maintain integrity
These techniques require specialized knowledge that combines traditional craft skills with contemporary understanding of building physics and material properties.
Logistics and Processing Challenges
The logistics of urban mining present significant challenges, particularly in dense urban environments. These include:
  • Limited space for material processing and storage
  • Transportation constraints in historic urban centers
  • Coordination with other construction activities
  • Temporary storage and protection of recovered materials
  • Quality control and certification processes
Processing recovered materials often requires specialized facilities and techniques. For example, reclaimed wood may need:
  • Denailing and cleaning
  • Assessment for structural integrity
  • Resizing or refinishing
  • Treatment against biological agents
For architecture students planning urban mining operations, understanding these logistical and processing challenges is essential for developing feasible recovery strategies.
Mining Buildings for Materials
The practical application of urban mining involves identifying specific materials for recovery, assessing their quality and reusability, and developing appropriate harvesting techniques. For CRR projects, this requires a nuanced understanding of both historical and contemporary building materials.
Recovery of Structural Materials
Structural materials often represent the largest material stocks in buildings and include concrete, steel, masonry, and timber. The recovery approaches differ significantly depending on the material type:
Concrete:
  • Typically difficult to recover for direct reuse
  • Usually crushed for recycling as aggregate
  • Reinforcement steel can be separated and recycled
  • Precast elements offer better potential for reuse
Structural Steel:
  • High value and recyclability
  • Can often be dismantled at connections
  • Requires assessment for structural integrity
  • May need cleaning and recoating
Masonry:
  • Traditional lime-mortared masonry can often be disassembled
  • Cement-based mortars make separation more difficult
  • Stone elements particularly valuable for heritage rehabilitation
  • Bricks may be cleaned and reused if mortar allows
Timber:
  • Historical timber often has superior quality to contemporary materials
  • Joinery connections may allow non-destructive disassembly
  • Requires assessment for structural integrity and biological damage
  • May need resizing or refinishing for new applications
The recovery of structural materials contributes significantly to reducing the environmental footprint of construction, as "the built environment is estimated to contribute 25% of the UK's total greenhouse gas emissions"[1]. Urban mining can help reduce these emissions by avoiding the energy-intensive production of new materials.
Reclamation of Architectural Elements
Beyond structural materials, buildings contain numerous architectural elements that can be recovered for reuse in restoration projects. These include:
Windows and doors:
  • Historical woodwork often features higher quality timber than contemporary equivalents
  • Traditional craftsmanship details may be irreplaceable
  • May require refurbishment or adaptation for energy performance
Decorative elements:
  • Carved stone or woodwork
  • Ornamental metalwork
  • Ceramic elements
  • Plasterwork details
Flooring materials:
  • Wooden floorboards
  • Stone pavers
  • Traditional tiles
In Portugal, architectural elements with particular historical and cultural value include:
  • Azulejos (ceramic tiles) - Decorative glazed tiles that often feature intricate patterns and historical motifs
  • Portuguese limestone (Lioz) - Distinctive stone used in traditional construction
  • Carved woodwork - Including decorative elements and structural components
These elements not only represent material resources but also embody cultural heritage and traditional craftsmanship that contribute to the authentic character of historical buildings.
Quality Assessment and Certification
For reclaimed materials to be effectively reused in new construction or rehabilitation projects, their quality and performance characteristics must be assessed and certified. This presents challenges in the absence of standardized protocols specifically designed for reclaimed materials.
Key aspects of quality assessment include:
  • Structural integrity - Evaluation of load-bearing capacity for structural elements
  • Dimensional stability - Assessment of warping, shrinkage, or deformation
  • Durability - Resistance to weathering, biological agents, and mechanical wear
  • Contamination - Testing for hazardous substances (lead, asbestos, PCBs)
  • Aesthetic condition - Evaluation of surface quality and visual characteristics
While formal certification systems for reclaimed materials are still developing, several European initiatives are working to establish standardized protocols. For architecture students and professionals, understanding these emerging certification approaches is essential for integrating reclaimed materials into formal construction projects.
Portuguese Examples of Urban Mining
Portugal offers numerous examples of urban mining practices, both historical and contemporary. Understanding these local precedents provides architecture students with contextually relevant models for implementing urban mining strategies in conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration projects.
Historical Precedents of Material Reuse in Portugal
Material reuse has deep historical roots in Portuguese architecture. Long before the concept of urban mining was formalized, practical necessity and resource constraints led to systematic reuse of building materials:
  • Roman columns and building stones repurposed in medieval structures
  • Materials from religious buildings secularized after the 1755 Lisbon earthquake
  • Azulejos carefully salvaged and reapplied in new constructions
  • Traditional wooden structural elements reused across generations of buildings
These historical practices demonstrate the cultural precedent for material reuse and provide valuable lessons for contemporary urban mining approaches.
Portuguese Circular Economy Policy Framework
Portugal has established a comprehensive policy framework supporting circular economy principles, including urban mining practices. The "Plano de Ação para a Economia Circular em Portugal 2017-2020" (Action Plan for the Circular Economy in Portugal) established key priorities and actions to promote circularity across sectors[3].
The plan recognizes that "Portugal has already a long history in efficient resource use policies: in waste management and recovery of specific waste streams, in energy efficiency, in green growth"[3]. It emphasizes that circular economy approaches can contribute to making Portugal "more efficient and productive: doing 'more with less' and climbing up the value chain"[3].
For architecture students, understanding this policy framework is essential for navigating the regulatory context of urban mining projects and identifying potential support mechanisms and incentives.
Contemporary Urban Mining Projects in Portugal
Several innovative projects in Portugal demonstrate the practical application of urban mining principles in architectural conservation and rehabilitation:
Lisbon Historical District Rehabilitation:
  • Systematic recovery of traditional materials during renovation projects
  • Establishment of material banks for storing and redistributing reclaimed elements
  • Integration of reclaimed materials in new constructions within historical contexts
Porto Building Stock Transformation:
  • Mapping of material resources in buildings slated for rehabilitation
  • Development of deconstruction protocols for traditional building typologies
  • Networks for recirculating materials within local construction projects
These projects showcase the practical implementation of urban mining principles in the Portuguese context and provide valuable case studies for architecture students exploring circular economy applications in CRR.
Focus on Traditional Portuguese Materials
Portuguese architecture features distinctive traditional materials that represent valuable resources for urban mining:
Azulejos (Ceramic Tiles):
  • Historical significance as cultural heritage
  • Technical challenges in non-destructive removal
  • Cleaning and restoration techniques
  • Integration in contemporary design
Portuguese Stone:
  • Regional variations in limestone, granite, and marble
  • Traditional cutting and finishing techniques
  • Structural and decorative applications
  • Contemporary processing for reuse
Traditional Woodwork:
  • Indigenous species characteristics and properties
  • Historical joinery techniques
  • Assessment and treatment methods
  • Integration with contemporary structural systems
For architecture students focused on conservation and rehabilitation, understanding these traditional materials and their recovery potential is essential for developing appropriate urban mining strategies.
European Context and Examples
Urban mining practices in Portugal exist within the broader European context, which provides both policy frameworks and practical examples that can inform local approaches. Understanding this wider European landscape offers architecture students valuable comparative perspectives.
EU Policy Framework for Circular Economy
The European Union has established comprehensive policy frameworks supporting circular economy principles, including:
  • The EU Circular Economy Action Plan (2020)
  • The European Green Deal
  • The Construction and Demolition Waste Protocol
  • Level(s) - The European framework for sustainable buildings
These policies create a supportive environment for urban mining practices across Europe, establishing targets for waste reduction, material recovery, and resource efficiency. The framework recognizes that "urban mining of buildings can contribute to net-zero targets and climate mitigation efforts with greater multi-stakeholder involvement"[5].
For architecture students, understanding these EU-level policies provides insight into the regulatory context that increasingly shapes construction and rehabilitation practices across member states.
Pioneering European Urban Mining Projects
Several innovative urban mining projects across Europe demonstrate advanced approaches that can inform Portuguese practices:
Superlocal Project (Netherlands):
  • High-rise concrete buildings deconstructed for material recovery
  • On-site processing of concrete into new building elements
  • Community engagement in material recovery and reuse
Rotor Deconstruction (Belgium):
  • Specialized firm focused on selective dismantling
  • Development of material inventories and harvesting techniques
  • Creation of reclaimed material marketplaces
Madaster Platform (Netherlands):
  • Digital material passports documenting building components
  • Facilitation of material exchange and reuse
  • Valuation methods for embedded materials
These projects showcase the diversity of approaches to urban mining across Europe and provide valuable models for adaptation to the Portuguese context.
Comparative Analysis with Portuguese Context
Comparing European and Portuguese urban mining practices reveals both similarities and differences that can inform architectural education and practice:
Similarities:
  • Growing recognition of the value of embedded building materials
  • Integration of circular principles in heritage conservation
  • Challenges of quality certification and standardization
  • Need for skilled labor in deconstruction processes
Differences:
  • Varying building traditions and material stocks
  • Different regulatory frameworks and incentive structures
  • Diverse market conditions for reclaimed materials
  • Distinct cultural attitudes toward material reuse
For architecture students, understanding these comparative perspectives provides a broader context for developing appropriate urban mining strategies for Portuguese contexts.
Implementing Urban Mining in Architectural Practice
Translating urban mining principles into architectural practice requires systematic approaches that integrate material recovery considerations throughout the design, planning, and execution processes.
Integration in Design and Conservation Processes
Urban mining can be integrated into architectural design and conservation processes through several approaches:
Pre-design Material Audits:
  • Assessment of existing buildings for recoverable materials
  • Documentation of quantity, quality, and accessibility
  • Identification of high-value elements for targeted recovery
Design for Material Recovery:
  • Planning for selective dismantling
  • Prioritization of high-value or culturally significant materials
  • Integration of recovery logistics in project planning
Material Banking Systems:
  • Establishment of storage and processing facilities
  • Documentation and cataloging systems
  • Distribution networks for reclaimed materials
For conservation and rehabilitation projects, these approaches should be adapted to respect the heritage value of buildings while maximizing resource recovery.
Technical and Economic Considerations
Implementing urban mining in architectural practice requires addressing several technical and economic challenges:
Technical Considerations:
  • Developing appropriate dismantling techniques
  • Ensuring quality assessment and certification
  • Adapting reclaimed materials to contemporary performance requirements
  • Integrating traditional and modern materials
Economic Considerations:
  • Labor costs of deconstruction versus conventional demolition
  • Value assessment of recovered materials
  • Storage and processing costs
  • Market development for reclaimed materials
As noted in the search results, urban mining is "not yet a widespread practice in the construction industry" partly due to "the specific skillset required to recover materials efficiently"[1]. Addressing these technical and economic challenges is essential for mainstreaming urban mining practices.
Future Perspectives and Innovation
The future of urban mining in architectural practice will be shaped by several emerging trends and innovations:
Digital Tools:
  • Building Information Modeling (BIM) for material documentation
  • Material passports and databases
  • Digital marketplaces for reclaimed materials
  • AI-assisted material assessment
New Business Models:
  • Material-as-a-service approaches
  • Urban mining specialist contractors
  • Material banks and exchange platforms
  • Value chain integration
Policy Developments:
  • Mandatory material recovery targets
  • Standardized certification systems
  • Fiscal incentives for material reuse
  • Integration in green building standards
For architecture students, understanding these emerging trends provides insight into the future landscape of architectural practice in which urban mining will likely play an increasingly significant role.
Urban Mining as a Transformative Practice
Urban mining represents a transformative approach to architectural conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration that aligns resource efficiency goals with cultural heritage preservation. By reconceptualizing buildings as material banks rather than waste producers, we can develop more sustainable approaches to the built environment while preserving the cultural and historical values embedded in traditional materials and construction techniques.
Synthesis of Key Concepts
Urban mining in architecture encompasses:
  • Material Stock Assessment - Identifying, quantifying, and mapping the materials embedded in the built environment
  • Strategic Harvesting - Developing systematic approaches to material recovery that maximize value and minimize waste
  • Quality Assurance - Ensuring recovered materials meet performance requirements for reuse
  • Integration in Design Processes - Incorporating urban mining considerations throughout architectural practice
  • Cultural Preservation - Maintaining the historical and cultural values embedded in traditional materials
These interconnected elements form a comprehensive approach to resource efficiency in architectural conservation and rehabilitation that can significantly reduce environmental impacts while preserving cultural heritage.
Transformative Potential for Architecture
Urban mining offers transformative potential for architectural practice in several dimensions:
Environmental Dimension:
  • Reduction in primary resource extraction
  • Decreased waste to landfill
  • Lower embodied carbon in construction
  • Conservation of energy embedded in materials
Cultural Dimension:
  • Preservation of traditional craftsmanship
  • Maintenance of regional material identities
  • Continuity of architectural character
  • Transfer of material heritage across generations
Economic Dimension:
  • Creation of specialized jobs in material recovery
  • Development of new value chains
  • Reduced material costs through reuse
  • Valorization of embedded resources
For architecture students and professionals, urban mining represents not merely a technical approach but a fundamental reconceptualization of the relationship between architecture, resources, and cultural heritage.
Call to Action for Architectural Professionals
Architecture students and professionals have a crucial role to play in advancing urban mining practices:
  • Develop expertise in material assessment and recovery techniques
  • Integrate urban mining considerations in design and conservation approaches
  • Advocate for supportive policy frameworks and standards
  • Document and share successful urban mining practices
  • Collaborate with stakeholders across disciplinary boundaries
By embracing urban mining as a core element of architectural practice, particularly in conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration projects, architects can contribute significantly to both environmental sustainability and cultural preservation goals.
As noted in the search results, "the built environment is estimated to contribute 25% of the UK's total greenhouse gas emissions"[1]. Urban mining offers a powerful strategy for reducing this impact while preserving the cultural and historical values embedded in our built heritage. For architecture students at the Faculdade de Arquitetura da Universidade de Lisboa, developing competence in urban mining approaches represents an essential preparation for the future practice of architecture in an increasingly resource-constrained world.

Circular Economy in Architecture: Energy Efficiency, Renewables, and Circular Energy Systems for Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration

The built environment stands at a critical intersection of resource consumption, waste generation, and energy use. In the European Union alone, construction accounts for approximately 30% of raw material inputs, with significant environmental impacts occurring throughout a building's lifecycle[1]. As we navigate the challenges of climate change and resource depletion, the integration of circular economy principles into architectural practice-particularly in Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration (CRR) projects-represents a paradigm shift with tremendous potential for creating sustainable, resilient built environments.
Foundations of Circular Economy in the Built Environment
Conceptual Framework and Systems Thinking
The circular economy model offers a comprehensive framework for addressing the environmental challenges associated with the built environment. Unlike the traditional linear "take-make-waste" approach, the circular economy aims to eliminate waste and pollution by design, keep products and materials in use at their highest value, and regenerate natural systems. In architecture, this translates to designing buildings that facilitate material reuse, minimize resource consumption, and reduce environmental impact across the entire building lifecycle.
The principles of a circular economy include eliminating waste and pollution through thoughtful design. Prefabricated components encourage circular design and construction as building elements that can be disassembled and reused in future projects[2]. This approach fundamentally challenges conventional architectural thinking, requiring practitioners to consider not only immediate functional and aesthetic requirements but also long-term resource implications.
By shifting to a circular economy model, organizations can ensure growth over time while treating waste as a design flaw. In a circular economy, a specification for any design is that the materials reenter the economy at the end of their use, thereby increasing profits while ensuring sustainability, longevity, and societal wellbeing[3]. This transition is especially relevant for architectural conservation and rehabilitation projects, where existing buildings represent both embodied resources and cultural heritage.
From Linear to Circular Building Models
The transition from linear to circular models in architecture requires a fundamental rethinking of how buildings are designed, constructed, operated, and eventually decommissioned. In the traditional linear model, buildings are constructed with materials extracted from nature, used for a period, and then demolished, with most materials becoming waste. In contrast, the circular model envisions buildings as material banks where resources can be preserved, recovered, and regenerated.
This transition is particularly challenging yet crucial in the context of Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration (CRR), where existing structures must be adapted to meet modern energy efficiency standards while preserving their historical and cultural significance. The circular economy approach provides a framework for addressing these complex requirements by emphasizing adaptability, durability, and resource efficiency.
Regulatory Framework and Policy Landscape
The European Union has taken significant steps to promote the circular economy in the built environment through various directives and initiatives. The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) represents a cornerstone of this regulatory framework, mandating all new buildings in EU member states to achieve nearly zero-energy performance[4]. This directive, first issued in 2002 and subsequently revised, has been instrumental in driving improvements in energy efficiency across Europe.
The European Commission's Circular Economy Action Plan, updated in 2020, further strengthens this framework by promoting circular economy principles across various sectors, including construction. The plan emphasizes the need for sustainable product design, reducing waste, and empowering consumers and public buyers.
At the national level, member states have implemented these directives through various legislation and building codes. For example, Portugal has developed its own national circular economy roadmap, providing a framework for transitioning to a more sustainable economic model[4].
Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings (NZEB) in Conservation and Rehabilitation
Conceptual Foundations and Technical Requirements
Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings (NZEBs) represent a critical component of the European Union's strategy to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in the building sector. According to the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), a nearly zero-energy building is defined as "a building with a very high energy performance where the very low amount of energy should be covered to a very significant extent by energy from renewable sources"[5].
The regulatory framework for NZEBs is established by the EPBD, which binds EU member states to ensure that all newly constructed buildings must have a nearly zero-energy performance. The EPBD was first issued in 2002 (EPBD, 2002/91/EC) and then revised in 2010 (2010/31/EC) with subsequent amendments[4]. Article 9 of the EPBD mandates that all new buildings constructed within the EU must be nearly zero-energy buildings[6].
The technical requirements for NZEBs vary across EU member states, as the EPBD allows for flexibility in implementation to account for different climatic conditions, building traditions, and economic contexts. However, common performance indicators include primary energy demand, energy consumption for heating, cooling, ventilation, hot water, and lighting, as well as the contribution of renewable energy sources.
Transitioning Existing Buildings to NZEB Standards
Achieving NZEB standards in existing buildings presents unique challenges, particularly in the context of buildings with historical or cultural significance. The transformation of existing buildings into NZEBs requires careful consideration of the building envelope, HVAC systems, lighting, renewable energy sources, and control systems. This process often involves trade-offs between energy performance, preservation of architectural features, and economic feasibility.
Several strategies can be employed to improve the energy performance of existing buildings:
  • Enhancing the thermal performance of the building envelope through insulation, glazing upgrades, and air sealing
  • Upgrading heating, cooling, and ventilation systems with high-efficiency equipment
  • Implementing energy-efficient lighting systems and controls
  • Integrating renewable energy systems such as solar photovoltaics or solar thermal collectors
  • Installing energy monitoring and management systems to optimize performance
For buildings with historical or cultural significance, these interventions must be carefully balanced with preservation objectives, often requiring innovative and customized solutions.
Regulatory Compliance and Certification
The EPBD requires that the energy performance of buildings be calculated based on national methodologies in accordance with Annex I of the directive. Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) must contain information about the energy performance of a building, based on either calculated or actual energy use[5].
The EPBD proposal aims to further increase the quality and comparability of EPCs through an updated template with more indicators and a harmonized A to G scale. Additionally, EPCs will be mandatory for more building categories and trigger points, and there will be a compulsory database with EPC data and future implementing acts on access to data[5].
Compliance with NZEB requirements is typically verified through a combination of design reviews, construction inspections, and performance testing. For rehabilitation projects, this may include verification of building envelope performance through thermal imaging and air tightness testing, commissioning of HVAC systems and renewable energy installations, monitoring of actual energy consumption and renewable energy generation, and comparison of actual performance with design predictions.
Positive Energy Buildings (PEB) and Advanced Energy Concepts
From NZEB to PEB: Conceptual Evolution
Positive Energy Buildings (PEB) represent the next evolutionary step beyond NZEBs in the development of energy-efficient buildings. While NZEBs aim to achieve a very low energy consumption with significant renewable energy contribution, PEBs go further by producing more energy from renewable sources than they consume over a specific period, typically a year.
The concept of PEBs aligns with the European Commission's proposal for "zero emission buildings" (ZEBs), defined as "a building with a very high energy performance, as determined in accordance with Annex I, where the very low amount of energy still required is fully covered by energy from renewable sources generated on-site, from a renewable energy community [...] or from a district heating and cooling system, in accordance with the requirements set out in Annex III"[5].
This evolution from NZEB to PEB reflects the growing ambition to not only minimize the environmental impact of buildings but to transform them into active contributors to a more sustainable energy system. In the context of CRR projects, this evolution presents both challenges and opportunities, requiring innovative approaches to integrate advanced energy concepts with heritage preservation objectives.
Design Strategies and Technical Solutions
Designing Positive Energy Buildings requires a comprehensive approach that integrates multiple strategies and technologies. These include:
  • Maximizing energy efficiency through high-performance building envelopes, efficient HVAC systems, and intelligent energy management
  • Optimizing passive design elements such as orientation, shading, natural ventilation, and daylighting
  • Incorporating renewable energy generation systems such as photovoltaic panels, solar thermal collectors, and small-scale wind turbines
  • Implementing energy storage solutions to balance supply and demand
  • Utilizing smart building technologies for optimized energy use and user comfort
In the context of CRR projects, these strategies must be adapted to the specific characteristics and constraints of existing buildings, particularly those with historical or cultural significance. This may involve developing innovative solutions that respect the building's heritage value while incorporating modern energy systems.
Energy Storage and Grid Integration
Energy storage and grid integration represent critical components of advanced energy concepts, particularly for Positive Energy Buildings. Energy storage technologies enable the temporal decoupling of energy generation and consumption, allowing buildings to store excess energy produced during periods of high renewable energy generation for use during periods of low production or high demand.
Various energy storage technologies can be integrated into buildings, including:
  • Electrical storage systems such as batteries
  • Thermal storage systems such as phase change materials or water tanks
  • Mechanical storage systems such as compressed air or flywheels
  • Chemical storage systems such as hydrogen production and storage
Grid integration enables buildings to interact with the broader energy system, potentially providing services such as demand response, peak shaving, and frequency regulation. This bidirectional relationship between buildings and the grid represents a paradigm shift from the traditional model where buildings are passive consumers of energy.
In the context of CRR projects, the integration of energy storage and grid connectivity must be carefully balanced with preservation objectives, often requiring creative solutions to minimize physical interventions in historically significant buildings.
Integration of Renewable Energy Systems in Heritage Structures
Challenges and Opportunities in Heritage Contexts
The integration of renewable energy systems in heritage buildings presents unique challenges due to the need to preserve historical and architectural values while improving energy performance. These challenges include:
  • Restrictions on altering the building envelope and appearance
  • Limited space for technical systems and equipment
  • Structural constraints and load-bearing capacity
  • Compatibility with existing building materials and systems
  • Regulatory and heritage protection requirements
Despite these challenges, heritage buildings also offer opportunities for renewable energy integration. Many historical buildings were designed with passive features such as thermal mass, natural ventilation, and daylighting that can be leveraged and enhanced to improve energy performance. Additionally, the typically robust construction of heritage buildings provides a solid foundation for long-term sustainability.
Compatible Technologies and Implementation Strategies
Certain renewable energy technologies are more compatible with heritage buildings than others, depending on the specific characteristics and constraints of each building. These may include:
  • Solar thermal systems for water heating, which can be installed with minimal visual impact
  • Photovoltaic systems integrated into roof tiles or hidden from view
  • Ground-source heat pumps, which require minimal alterations to the building itself
  • Biomass heating systems, which can be adapted to existing chimneys and flues
  • Small-scale wind turbines in appropriate rural settings
Implementation strategies for integrating renewable energy systems in heritage buildings include:
  • Reversible interventions that can be removed without damaging the original fabric
  • Minimally invasive technologies that require limited physical alterations
  • Hybrid systems that combine traditional building elements with modern technologies
  • District-level solutions that serve multiple heritage buildings with centralized renewable energy systems
  • Digital monitoring and control systems that optimize energy use while preserving building integrity
Case Studies and Best Practices
Numerous case studies across Europe demonstrate successful integration of renewable energy systems in heritage buildings, providing valuable insights into design strategies, technical solutions, implementation challenges, and performance outcomes.
For example, the renovation of historical buildings in urban contexts has demonstrated the feasibility of integrating photovoltaic systems in a way that respects the building's aesthetic and cultural value while significantly improving energy performance. Similarly, the adaptation of traditional heating systems to incorporate modern biomass boilers has enabled heritage buildings to reduce their carbon footprint while maintaining their historical character.
These case studies highlight the importance of tailored approaches that respond to the specific characteristics and values of each heritage building, as well as the need for interdisciplinary collaboration among architects, engineers, heritage specialists, and energy experts.
Adaptive Comfort and Passive Design for Historic Buildings
Principles of Adaptive Comfort and ASHRAE Standard 55
The adaptive comfort method, as described in ASHRAE Standard 55, provides a framework for thermal comfort in naturally ventilated spaces that recognizes the human capacity to adapt to different thermal conditions. This approach is particularly relevant for heritage buildings and other structures where maintaining strict temperature controls may be challenging or inappropriate.
According to ASHRAE Standard 55, "Comfort is defined as the conditions under which eighty percent or more of the building occupants will find an area thermally acceptable in still air and shade conditions"[7]. The adaptive comfort standard allows for a wider range of acceptable indoor temperatures based on outdoor conditions, recognizing that occupants' expectations and preferences adapt to their environment.
To determine if a space is compliant with the adaptive comfort standard, designers must demonstrate that the indoor operative temperature conditions stay within the prescribed range during occupied hours. This typically requires dynamic thermal simulation software capable of modeling natural ventilation schemes to simulate the cooling effects of natural ventilation airflows and the radiant impacts of room surface temperatures[7].
Natural Ventilation Strategies for Heritage Buildings
Natural ventilation is a key passive design strategy that can significantly reduce energy consumption for cooling while improving indoor air quality. The ASHRAE Design Guide for Natural Ventilation provides guidance on designing and operating natural ventilation systems for buildings[7].
Natural ventilation strategies include:
  • Cross ventilation through openings on opposite sides of a space
  • Stack ventilation using temperature differences to drive airflow
  • Single-sided ventilation through openings on one side of a space
  • Night cooling to remove heat accumulated during the day
  • Hybrid systems that combine natural and mechanical ventilation
In heritage buildings, existing ventilation features such as operable windows, vents, chimneys, and atriums can often be restored and optimized to provide effective natural ventilation. This approach respects the original design intent of the building while improving comfort and reducing energy consumption.
Balancing Historic Preservation and Occupant Comfort
Maintaining thermal comfort in historically significant buildings presents unique challenges due to the need to preserve original features and materials while meeting modern comfort expectations. The adaptive comfort approach offers a valuable framework for addressing these challenges, as it recognizes that occupants' expectations may adapt to the specific conditions of historic spaces.
Strategies for improving thermal comfort in historically significant buildings while minimizing interventions include:
  • Careful restoration of original passive features such as thermal mass, natural ventilation, and shading devices
  • Strategic placement of modern systems to minimize impact on historic fabric
  • Use of radiant heating and cooling systems that require minimal alterations
  • Implementation of local comfort systems rather than whole-building HVAC
  • Separation of modern interventions from historic fabric through reversible installations
These strategies require a deep understanding of both building physics and heritage conservation principles, as well as a nuanced approach that considers the specific values and significance of each building.
Material Circularity and Embodied Energy in Rehabilitation
Life Cycle Assessment and Embodied Energy Considerations
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) provides a framework for evaluating the environmental impact of buildings across their entire lifecycle, from material extraction and manufacturing to construction, operation, maintenance, and end-of-life. In the context of CRR projects, LCA can help identify opportunities for reducing embodied energy and carbon emissions while improving overall sustainability.
Embodied energy refers to the energy consumed in the production, transportation, and installation of building materials, as well as the energy required for maintenance, replacement, and eventual disposal or recycling. For existing buildings, a significant portion of the embodied energy has already been invested, making preservation and rehabilitation generally more environmentally favorable than demolition and new construction.
When planning rehabilitation projects, it is important to consider both the embodied energy of existing materials and the additional embodied energy associated with new materials and interventions. This analysis can inform decisions about which elements to preserve, which to replace, and which materials to specify for new components.
Material Reuse and Recycling Strategies
Material reuse and recycling are key strategies for reducing waste and conserving resources in rehabilitation projects. These strategies include:
  • In-situ reuse of existing building elements and materials
  • Salvage and reuse of materials from other buildings or sources
  • Recycling of materials that cannot be directly reused
  • Specification of materials with recycled content for new components
  • Design for future disassembly and material recovery
The implementation of these strategies requires careful planning, material assessment, and collaboration among various stakeholders, including architects, engineers, contractors, and suppliers.
Innovative Materials and Construction Methods
Innovative materials and construction methods can contribute to both energy efficiency and material circularity in rehabilitation projects. These include:
  • Bio-based insulation materials that offer low embodied carbon and recyclability
  • Phase-change materials for thermal energy storage and temperature regulation
  • High-performance glazing systems with improved thermal and optical properties
  • Prefabricated components that facilitate disassembly and reuse
  • 3D printing technologies that minimize material waste and enable complex geometries
The principles of a circular economy include eliminating waste and pollution, with prefabricated components encouraging circular design and construction as building elements that can be more easily disassembled and reused in future projects[2]. These innovative approaches require careful evaluation of compatibility with existing building systems and preservation requirements, particularly in heritage contexts.
Digital Technologies and Smart Systems for Energy Management
Building Information Modeling (BIM) for Rehabilitation Projects
Building Information Modeling (BIM) represents a powerful tool for planning, designing, and managing rehabilitation projects. BIM enables the creation of detailed digital models that integrate architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, and other building systems, providing a comprehensive platform for collaboration and analysis.
In the context of energy-efficient rehabilitation, BIM offers several advantages:
  • Documentation of existing conditions through 3D scanning and modeling
  • Integration of energy analysis tools for performance prediction
  • Coordination of interventions to minimize conflicts and disruptions
  • Simulation of construction sequences and logistics
  • Creation of a digital twin for ongoing monitoring and management
The implementation of BIM in heritage rehabilitation projects requires careful consideration of the level of detail and accuracy required, as well as the integration of qualitative information about cultural and historical values that may not be easily quantified or modeled.
Energy Monitoring and Management Systems
Energy monitoring and management systems play a crucial role in optimizing the performance of rehabilitated buildings. These systems collect data on energy consumption, indoor environmental conditions, and system operation, enabling real-time analysis and control to improve efficiency and comfort.
Key components of energy monitoring and management systems include:
  • Sensors for measuring temperature, humidity, occupancy, and energy use
  • Data acquisition and storage systems
  • Analytics software for performance evaluation and optimization
  • Control interfaces for system adjustment and operation
  • Visualization tools for occupant feedback and engagement
In heritage buildings, these systems must be designed and installed in a way that minimizes physical interventions and visual impact while providing the necessary functionality for efficient operation.
Predictive Analytics and Optimization Algorithms
Predictive analytics and optimization algorithms represent advanced applications of digital technologies for energy management in buildings. These approaches use historical data, weather forecasts, occupancy patterns, and other inputs to predict future energy demand and optimize system operation accordingly.
Applications of predictive analytics and optimization in rehabilitated buildings include:
  • Predictive maintenance to prevent system failures and performance degradation
  • Demand response strategies to reduce energy costs and grid impacts
  • Optimization of thermal comfort while minimizing energy consumption
  • Integration of renewable energy generation and storage systems
  • Automated fault detection and diagnosis for rapid response to issues
These advanced technologies can contribute significantly to the energy performance and sustainability of rehabilitated buildings, but their implementation must be balanced with preservation objectives and occupant needs.
Case Studies in Energy-Efficient Conservation and Rehabilitation
European Best Practices and Exemplary Projects
Numerous case studies across Europe demonstrate successful implementation of circular economy principles, energy efficiency measures, and renewable energy systems in CRR projects. These examples provide valuable insights into design strategies, technical solutions, implementation challenges, and performance outcomes.
Case studies from different climatic regions, building types, and heritage contexts illustrate the diversity of approaches and solutions that can be applied to improve energy performance while preserving architectural and cultural values. For example, TU Delft's initiatives on circular economy in the built environment showcase how principles of circularity can be applied to existing building stock with significant environmental benefits[1].
Performance Monitoring and Post-Occupancy Evaluation
Performance monitoring and post-occupancy evaluation are essential for validating the effectiveness of energy efficiency interventions and identifying opportunities for improvement. These processes involve collecting data on energy consumption, indoor environmental conditions, occupant satisfaction, and system operation over an extended period after rehabilitation.
Key aspects of performance monitoring and post-occupancy evaluation include:
  • Continuous measurement of energy consumption and generation
  • Assessment of indoor environmental quality parameters
  • Surveys and interviews to evaluate occupant satisfaction
  • Comparison of actual performance with design predictions
  • Identification of operational issues and optimization opportunities
The findings from these evaluations provide valuable feedback for both the specific project and future rehabilitation initiatives, contributing to a growing body of knowledge about effective strategies for energy-efficient CRR.
Lessons Learned and Knowledge Transfer
Key lessons learned from case studies and research in energy-efficient CRR include:
  • The importance of comprehensive assessment and understanding of existing buildings before intervention
  • The value of interdisciplinary collaboration among architects, engineers, heritage specialists, and energy experts
  • The need for tailored solutions that respect the specific characteristics and constraints of each building
  • The benefits of monitoring and evaluation to validate performance and inform future projects
  • The importance of occupant engagement and education to ensure optimal operation and satisfaction
These lessons can guide architects and other professionals in developing effective strategies for integrating circular economy principles and energy systems in CRR projects, facilitating knowledge transfer and continuous improvement in the field.
Future Trends and Emerging Directions
Research Frontiers in Circular Energy Systems
Current research in circular energy systems focuses on several key areas, including:
  • Life cycle assessment of energy systems to quantify environmental impacts and identify opportunities for improvement
  • Integration of circular economy principles in energy infrastructure planning and design
  • Development of business models that support circular energy systems
  • Exploration of the nexus between energy, water, and material cycles in the built environment
  • Investigation of social and behavioral aspects of circular energy transitions
These research directions are shaping the future of energy systems in the built environment, with significant implications for CRR projects. As noted in MIT's course on Circular Economy, one of the key learning objectives is to "dissect successful and unsuccessful case studies in sustainability and circular economies"[3], highlighting the importance of empirical research and knowledge development in this evolving field.
Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategies
Climate resilience and adaptation represent increasingly important considerations in energy-efficient CRR, as buildings must not only reduce their environmental impact but also withstand and adapt to changing climate conditions. Strategies for enhancing climate resilience in rehabilitated buildings include:
  • Passive cooling systems to address increasing temperatures
  • Water management systems to mitigate flooding risks
  • Enhanced structural resilience to withstand extreme weather events
  • Redundant energy systems to ensure continuity during disruptions
  • Flexible and adaptable spaces to accommodate changing needs and conditions
These strategies must be integrated with energy efficiency and heritage preservation objectives, requiring a holistic approach to building rehabilitation that addresses multiple dimensions of sustainability and resilience.
Policy Development and Incentive Mechanisms
Policy development and incentive mechanisms play a crucial role in promoting energy-efficient CRR by creating favorable conditions for investment, innovation, and implementation. Key policy areas include:
  • Building codes and standards that recognize the specific challenges and opportunities of existing buildings
  • Financial incentives such as tax credits, grants, and low-interest loans for energy retrofits
  • Technical assistance programs to support owners and practitioners
  • Recognition and certification systems to validate and reward performance
  • Research and development funding to advance technologies and methodologies
The evolution of these policies and incentives will significantly influence the future trajectory of energy-efficient CRR, potentially accelerating the transition to more sustainable and circular building practices.
Implications for Architectural Practice
Integrated Approaches to Circular Design and Energy Systems
The integration of circular economy principles with energy efficiency strategies offers a promising pathway for improving the sustainability of Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration projects. This integration requires a holistic approach that considers buildings as complex systems with multiple interdependencies and interactions.
Key aspects of integrated approaches include:
  • Whole-building design that addresses energy, materials, water, and other resources simultaneously
  • Life cycle thinking that considers environmental impacts across all stages of a building's existence
  • Interdisciplinary collaboration that brings together diverse expertise and perspectives
  • Adaptive management that enables continuous learning and improvement over time
  • Cultural sensitivity that respects the values and significance of heritage buildings
By adopting these integrated approaches, architects and other building professionals can create rehabilitated buildings that are not only energy-efficient but also resource-efficient, resilient, and culturally meaningful.
Professional Development and Interdisciplinary Collaboration
The effective implementation of circular economy principles and energy systems in CRR projects requires new knowledge, skills, and collaborative approaches. Professional development opportunities for architects and other building professionals include:
  • Specialized education and training in energy-efficient heritage rehabilitation
  • Certification programs that validate expertise in sustainable CRR
  • Professional networks and communities of practice for knowledge sharing
  • Interdisciplinary workshops and charrettes to facilitate collaboration
  • Research partnerships between practice and academia to advance the field
MIT's Professional Programs exemplify this approach, offering courses on circular economy that focus on "analyzing circular economies at both corporate and social levels" and providing opportunities to "interact with MIT experts, instructors, and peers"[8]. Such educational initiatives are essential for building the capacity needed to address the complex challenges of energy-efficient CRR.
Ethical Dimensions and Social Responsibility
The pursuit of energy efficiency and circularity in CRR projects involves important ethical dimensions and social responsibilities. These include:
  • Balancing the needs of current and future generations
  • Respecting cultural diversity and heritage values
  • Ensuring accessibility and inclusivity in rehabilitated buildings
  • Addressing social equity and environmental justice concerns
  • Contributing to community wellbeing and sustainable development
By recognizing and addressing these ethical dimensions, architects and other building professionals can ensure that energy-efficient CRR projects contribute not only to environmental sustainability but also to social and cultural sustainability.
The transformation of our built environment toward greater circularity and energy efficiency represents both a technical challenge and an opportunity for creative innovation. Through thoughtful, informed, and collaborative approaches to Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration, architects can play a crucial role in creating buildings that honor the past while securing a sustainable future.

Circular Economy in Conservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration: Energy Efficiency, Renewables and Business Models

Europe's built environment is characterized by its significant historic fabric, with the UK alone having one of the oldest housing stocks in Europe. In England, 21% of all domestic buildings and 32% of all non-domestic buildings were constructed prior to 1919[1]. These historic structures represent not only cultural heritage but also embodied resources that, when viewed through a circular economy lens, offer tremendous opportunities for sustainable development. This chapter explores the application of circular economy principles to Conservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration (CRR) activities, with a particular focus on energy efficiency, renewable energy integration, and innovative business models that can support the preservation of cultural heritage while advancing sustainability goals.
Theoretical Foundations: Circular Economy and Heritage Conservation
The convergence of circular economy principles with heritage conservation creates a powerful framework for sustainable management of historic buildings. The circular economy model challenges the traditional linear "take-make-dispose" approach that has dominated modern construction and renovation practices, instead promoting resource circulation, value retention, and waste elimination (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). When applied to historic buildings, these principles reinforce the core tenets of heritage conservation.
Alignment of Conservation and Circularity Principles
Heritage conservation is defined as "the process of maintaining and managing change in a way that sustains and enhances the significance of the heritage asset"[1]. This definition inherently embraces circularity through its emphasis on maintenance, adaptive management, and longevity-concepts that stand in stark contrast to the disposable mentality of linear economic models. Historic assets, built largely from locally sourced natural materials that underwent minimal processing compared to their modern counterparts, embody significant amounts of carbon often expended centuries ago in pre-industrial, low-energy environments[1]. Their continued existence testifies to the quality and durability of their materials and construction methods.
Conservation practices have long embraced principles now recognized as fundamental to circular economy:
  • Extending product lifespans through regular maintenance and repair
  • Material reuse and recycling through careful salvage and restoration
  • Design for disassembly through traditional joinery and mechanical connections
  • Adaptive reuse through functional repurposing of spaces
As noted by the Circular Economy model proposed in the Horizon 2020 "CLIC" project, cultural heritage adaptive reuse contributes to maintaining and enhancing urban functions through three main levels:
  • Cultural values conservation/regeneration (extending the lifetime of heritage assets)
  • Circularity of conservation interventions (adopting circular building strategies)
  • Circularity of outcomes from reuse initiatives (economic, social, environmental, and cultural impacts)[2]
From Linear to Circular Approaches in the Built Environment
Our current economic approach to the built environment remains predominantly linear, characterized by extraction, construction, use, and eventual demolition. This model has resulted in significant resource depletion, waste generation, and carbon emissions. In contrast, a circular built environment prioritizes preservation, adaptation, and material recovery. Historic buildings, which have already demonstrated longevity measured in centuries rather than decades, provide compelling examples of how durable, repairable, and adaptable structures can remain useful across generations.
The circular economy in the context of CRR extends beyond mere material considerations to encompass energy systems, business models, and the social value of heritage. By viewing heritage not as a constraint but as a resource for sustainable development, architects and conservators can unlock new approaches to addressing contemporary challenges while honoring the cultural significance of historic places.
Energy Efficiency in Historic Buildings: Balancing Preservation and Performance
Improving energy efficiency in historic buildings represents one of the most significant challenges in heritage conservation today. The European policy framework, including the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) and the European Green Deal, has established ambitious targets for building energy performance that apply to existing buildings, including those with heritage value[3].
Regulatory Framework and Common Challenges
A review of European policies for energy efficiency in historic buildings across Sweden, Spain, Poland, and Scotland reveals both commonalities and differences in approaches[3]. Common elements include heritage protection systems and exemptions for listed buildings, while differences exist in levels of centralization and flexibility in implementation. Stakeholders consistently stress the need for clearer guidelines specific to historic buildings, which often cannot be treated using standardized approaches developed for modern construction.
The fundamental challenge lies in balancing energy efficiency improvements with preservation of heritage values. Typical energy retrofitting measures may compromise architectural features, traditional building physics, or historical authenticity. However, inaction risks deterioration through energy poverty, inadequate comfort levels, and vulnerability to climate change impacts.
Adaptation Strategies and Technical Solutions
Successful energy efficiency improvements in historic buildings typically employ a "whole building approach" that considers heritage significance, building physics, occupant behavior, and technical interventions holistically[1]. Such approaches prioritize:
  • Non-invasive measures first: Operational improvements, behavior change, and smart controls
  • Sympathetic fabric improvements: Carefully detailed insulation, draught-proofing, and window treatments that preserve character
  • Efficient services: Upgrading heating, cooling, and electrical systems without compromising historic fabric
  • Renewable integration: Carefully positioned renewable energy systems that complement rather than detract from historic character
Evidence from the IEA EBC Annex 76 project demonstrates that properly designed renovations can reduce energy demand in historic buildings by up to 75%, challenging the assumption that heritage constraints preclude significant performance improvements[4].
European Case Studies: Achieving Performance Within Constraints
Several European countries have developed exemplary approaches to energy efficiency in heritage buildings. Slovakia has earmarked €200 million to renovate at least 60,000 m² of historic and listed public buildings, with a target of achieving at least 30% primary energy savings. Romania has allocated part of €1.17 billion to renovate public historic buildings, including funding for training professionals, reusing historical building materials, and laboratory testing of new materials and solutions. Italy has planned several measures including more than €300 million for renovating and restoring cultural buildings like cinemas, theaters, museums, and buildings used for the Italian justice system[4].
A notable case study is the "Rehafutur Engineer's House project" in France, which demonstrates how circular principles can be applied to heritage renovation. This project carefully balanced energy performance improvements with preservation of cultural values through reversible interventions, use of bio-based materials, and adaptive systems that respond to the specific needs of a historic structure[2].
Renewable Energy Integration: Compatible Solutions for Heritage Contexts
The transition to renewable energy systems represents a critical component of circular economy approaches to historic buildings. However, heritage contexts present unique challenges for renewable integration, requiring innovative solutions that respect architectural integrity while delivering environmental benefits.
Challenges Specific to Heritage Buildings
Historic buildings face several distinct challenges when it comes to renewable energy integration:
  • Visual impact: Traditional renewable installations like rooftop solar panels may compromise the aesthetic integrity of historic roofscapes and facades
  • Physical compatibility: Modern systems may require structural modifications incompatible with heritage protection
  • Technical limitations: The orientation, shading, and configuration of historic buildings may not be optimal for standard renewable systems
  • Regulatory constraints: Heritage protection designations may restrict or prohibit certain visible interventions
Despite these challenges, the imperative to reduce operational carbon emissions and enhance building resilience makes renewable integration increasingly necessary, requiring creative approaches that balance preservation and performance.
Innovative Approaches and Technologies
Successful integration of renewables in heritage contexts typically relies on solutions that are minimally invasive, reversible, and contextually appropriate. These may include:
  • Concealed solar technologies: Solar slates, solar glass, and building-integrated photovoltaics that mimic traditional materials
  • Ground-source heat pumps: Utilizing adjacent land or courtyards for ground loops to avoid building fabric interventions
  • Micro-district heating networks: Linking historic complexes to renewable heating sources located in less sensitive areas
  • Adaptive energy storage: Using basements or auxiliary spaces for battery systems that enable more efficient use of renewable generation
  • Traditional passive strategies: Revitalizing historical ventilation systems, thermal mass utilization, and natural cooling approaches
These approaches acknowledge that heritage buildings often incorporated sophisticated passive design strategies that can be optimized through careful analysis and enhancement, rather than wholesale replacement with modern technologies.
Best Practices for Minimal Visual Impact
Successful integration of renewable energy in heritage contexts follows several key principles:
  • Reversibility: Ensuring installations can be removed without permanent damage to historic fabric
  • Concealment: Placing technologies out of sight from primary viewpoints and public areas
  • Complementary design: When visible, designing installations to complement rather than contrast with historic elements
  • Collective approaches: Developing community-scale renewable systems that serve multiple historic buildings while minimizing individual impacts
  • Adaptive reuse of historic infrastructure: Repurposing historic service areas, chimneys, or water features for new energy systems
By following these principles, architects and conservators can reconcile the seeming contradiction between renewable energy technologies and heritage preservation, advancing circular economy goals while respecting cultural significance.
Circular Business Models in CRR: Creating Sustainable Value Cycles
Traditional business models in conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration have often relied on grant funding, public subsidies, or premium pricing to account for the additional costs associated with heritage work. Circular business models offer alternative approaches that can enhance financial sustainability while advancing environmental and social goals.
Product-Service Systems (PSS) Applied to Heritage Contexts
Product-Service Systems represent a specific type of Circular Business Model that aims to provide customers with access to a function or service rather than selling a product outright. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation highlights PSS as signs of "good resource husbandry and smart management"[5]. When applied to heritage contexts, PSS models can transform how conservation services and heritage spaces are delivered and experienced.
PSS offer opportunities for nearly entirely circular business approaches aligned with sustainable development goals. The eight product archetypes identified in European PSS case studies-furniture, cars, chemicals, machines, tools, carpets, household appliances, and textiles-all have applications in heritage buildings[5]. For example:
  • Furniture-as-a-service: Historic furniture maintained and provided through subscription services rather than purchase
  • Lighting-as-a-service: Specialized heritage lighting provided with maintenance and upgrades included
  • Space-as-a-service: Flexible access to historic spaces without full ownership burdens
  • Conservation-as-a-service: Ongoing maintenance and monitoring rather than one-off restoration projects
These approaches shift revenue models from one-off to recurring streams, improve customer relationships, and create incentives for longevity and quality-all priorities well-aligned with heritage conservation goals.
Leasing Models for Heritage Components and Systems
Leasing models extend the PSS concept to building components, materials, and systems within heritage contexts. Unlike traditional ownership models, leasing keeps ownership with the supplier who maintains responsibility for maintenance, repair, and eventual recovery of materials, creating strong incentives for circularity.
Applications in heritage contexts include:
  • Technical building systems: HVAC, lighting, and other systems provided as services with full life-cycle responsibility
  • Specialized materials: Heritage-appropriate materials provided with maintenance guarantees and take-back commitments
  • Scaffold and temporary works: Shared access to specialized equipment through leasing rather than purchase
  • Digital monitoring systems: Leased sensor networks and monitoring equipment for condition-based maintenance
These models can significantly reduce capital costs while ensuring professional maintenance and creating pathways for technological upgrading that respects heritage values.
Cooperative Ownership and Community-Based Models
Heritage buildings frequently represent community assets with shared cultural value, making them particularly suited to cooperative ownership models that distribute costs, risks, and benefits among stakeholders. These models transform heritage from a preservation burden to a community resource.
Examples include:
  • Community land trusts: Collective ownership of land with long-term leases for heritage buildings
  • Heritage cooperatives: Shared ownership and management of historic properties for mixed commercial and community use
  • Cultural heritage crowdfunding: Distributed investment in conservation projects with shared returns
  • Neighborhood energy communities: Collective investment in renewable energy systems serving heritage districts
The "ReDock project" in Spain's Altiplano region demonstrates how circular adaptive reuse principles can be applied at the scale of an entire rural village through cooperative approaches that balance heritage conservation with economic revitalization[2].
European Best Practices: Learning from Success Stories
Across Europe, innovative approaches to circular economy in heritage contexts provide valuable lessons for architects, conservators, and policymakers. These cases demonstrate practical applications of the principles discussed throughout this chapter.
De Ceuvel, Amsterdam: Adaptive Reuse as Urban Laboratory
The De Ceuvel project in Amsterdam represents a comprehensive application of circular economy principles to a brownfield site with industrial heritage value. This temporary development on contaminated land features retrofitted houseboats placed on land as office spaces, connected by a winding wooden walkway. The project incorporates:
  • Phytoremediation: Plants clean soil contaminants over the project's lifespan
  • Adaptive reuse: Repurposing of decommissioned houseboats for new functions
  • Closed-loop systems: On-site blackwater treatment, composting, and energy production
  • Temporary use model: 10-year lease allowing experimentation with minimal permanent impact
This project demonstrates how temporary adaptive reuse can create economic and social value while rehabilitating degraded sites, offering lessons applicable to heritage contexts with contamination or transitional use challenges[2].
Rehafutur Engineer's House, France: Heritage-Sensitive Energy Renovation
The Rehafutur Engineer's House project in France showcases sensitive energy retrofitting of a heritage building using bio-based materials and reversible interventions. This demonstration project maintained the building's architectural integrity while dramatically improving energy performance through:
  • Breathable insulation: Hemp-lime and woodfiber insulation compatible with historic building physics
  • Reversible interventions: Additions designed for future removal without damage
  • Thermal mass activation: Optimization of existing thermal mass for passive temperature regulation
  • Integration of monitoring systems: Real-time performance tracking to optimize operations
This project serves as a valuable case study in balancing energy performance with heritage preservation, demonstrating practical techniques for achieving nearly zero-energy performance in historic buildings[2].
Central European Examples: Policy-Driven Transformation
Several Central European countries have developed robust policy frameworks to support circular approaches to heritage. Slovakia's earmarking of €200 million for historic public building renovation establishes clear energy performance targets (minimum 30% primary energy savings) while respecting heritage values. Romania's comprehensive program combines physical interventions with capacity building, allocating funds for professional training, material recovery, and testing facilities to support the heritage sector's transition to circularity[4].
These national approaches demonstrate how policy frameworks can create enabling conditions for circular economy implementation in the heritage sector, combining financial incentives with knowledge development and technical support.
Portuguese Applications: Local Context and Opportunities
Portugal's rich architectural heritage presents both challenges and opportunities for circular economy implementation. The country's National Circular Economy Action Plan (Plano de Ação para a Economia Circular) provides a framework for transitioning various sectors, including construction and cultural heritage, toward more circular models.
National Policy Framework and Initiatives
Portugal's circular economy roadmap identifies the built environment as a priority sector, with specific attention to extending building lifespans, improving energy and resource efficiency, and developing new business models. Within this framework, heritage buildings represent both challenging cases and potential exemplars of circularity principles in action.
Portuguese initiatives particularly relevant to heritage include:
  • BIP/ZIP program in Lisbon: Funding for community-led rehabilitation of historic neighborhoods
  • Vale do Ave Industrial Heritage: Adaptive reuse of textile factories for cultural and economic functions
  • Revive program: Concession of heritage buildings for tourism with circular economy requirements
  • Historic Center Recovery Programs: Urban rehabilitation with energy efficiency components
These programs demonstrate emerging Portuguese approaches to combining heritage conservation with circularity principles, though significant untapped potential remains.
Case Studies in Portuguese Context
Several Portuguese projects demonstrate successful application of circular economy principles to heritage contexts:
LX Factory, Lisbon: This industrial complex from 1846 has been adaptively reused as a creative hub without significant physical alterations, demonstrating the "lightest touch" approach to heritage activation. The temporary-turned-permanent use model allowed gradual investment aligned with economic returns.
Convento do Beato, Lisbon: This 16th-century convent complex has been adapted for mixed uses including events, offices, and startup incubation, preserving heritage values while creating new economic functions. The phased rehabilitation approach allowed gradual investment matched to evolving needs.
Coimbra University Alta and Sofia: The World Heritage Site has implemented energy efficiency improvements while respecting heritage values, focusing on operational efficiencies and careful integration of modern systems without compromise to historic fabric.
These Portuguese examples demonstrate contextually appropriate applications of circular economy principles that respect the specific characteristics of Portuguese heritage while advancing sustainability goals.
Emerging Approaches and Future Directions
The intersection of circular economy and heritage conservation continues to evolve, with several emerging approaches promising to further enhance the sustainability of CRR practices.
Digital Technologies Supporting Circular CRR
Digital technologies increasingly enable more precise, efficient, and circular approaches to heritage conservation:
  • Building Information Modeling (BIM) for Heritage: Creating detailed digital twins of historic buildings that support maintenance planning, energy analysis, and material passports
  • Non-destructive testing: Advanced scanning and monitoring techniques that minimize intrusive investigations
  • Digital fabrication: Custom production of replacement elements using digital templates derived from scans of original components
  • Blockchain material tracking: Creating secure records of heritage materials to ensure authentic recirculation
These technologies support the circularity of heritage by enhancing information flows, reducing material waste, and enabling more precise interventions that preserve maximum fabric.
Bio-based and Recycled Materials in Heritage Contexts
Traditional heritage buildings typically used natural, bio-based materials with inherent circularity potential. Contemporary conservation increasingly recognizes the value of:
  • Traditional materials revival: Rediscovering historic techniques for lime, earth, and timber that offer superior circularity
  • Bio-based alternatives: Developing new materials with similar properties to traditional ones but enhanced performance
  • Upcycled components: Creating new architectural elements from salvaged historic materials
  • Material banks: Systematically storing and cataloging salvaged heritage materials for future reuse
These approaches reconnect heritage conservation with the inherent circularity of traditional building cultures while incorporating contemporary innovations.
Climate Adaptation and Resilience
As climate change intensifies, heritage buildings face growing threats from extreme weather, changing humidity patterns, and other environmental stressors. Circular approaches to climate adaptation include:
  • Passive survivability enhancement: Improving buildings' ability to maintain habitable conditions during infrastructure disruptions
  • Water management systems: Reviving and enhancing traditional rainwater harvesting and management
  • Natural cooling strategies: Rediscovering traditional cooling techniques as alternatives to mechanical systems
  • Reversible flood protection: Developing temporary or demountable protection systems for heritage areas
These approaches enhance heritage resilience while minimizing resource-intensive interventions, aligning climate adaptation with circular economy principles.
Integrating Theory and Practice
The application of circular economy principles to Conservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration offers a promising framework for enhancing the sustainability of heritage management while preserving cultural values. The approaches discussed throughout this chapter-from energy efficiency improvements and renewable integration to innovative business models and best practices-demonstrate that circularity and heritage conservation share fundamental goals of longevity, value preservation, and resource stewardship.
For architecture students pursuing careers in heritage conservation or sustainable design, several key lessons emerge:
  • Heritage is inherently circular: Traditional buildings already embody many circular principles that can be enhanced rather than replaced
  • Integration requires contextual sensitivity: Circular solutions must be adapted to specific heritage contexts rather than applied as standardized formulas
  • Business model innovation is essential: Technical solutions alone cannot create sustainable heritage futures without supporting economic models
  • Collaboration across disciplines: Successful circular heritage projects require integration of conservation expertise with sustainability, business, and community engagement skills
The European examples highlighted throughout this chapter, including Portuguese applications, demonstrate that circular approaches to heritage are not merely theoretical but practically achievable when supported by appropriate policies, business models, and technical solutions. As climate imperatives intensify and resource constraints grow, the convergence of heritage conservation and circular economy principles will become increasingly essential to sustainable architectural practice.
By viewing heritage not as a constraint but as a resource and opportunity for circular innovation, architects can contribute to creating a built environment that honors the past while securing a sustainable future.

Social and Cultural Dimensions of Circularity in Heritage: Engaging Communities for Sustainable Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration

The intersection of circular economy principles with heritage conservation represents a transformative approach to addressing environmental challenges while preserving cultural value. This chapter explores how circular economy frameworks can revolutionize Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration (CRR) practices, with particular emphasis on the social and cultural dimensions that ensure heritage buildings serve not only as repositories of history but as living, adaptable assets within sustainable communities.
The Circular Economy Paradigm in Heritage Conservation
The circular economy represents a paradigm shift from the traditional linear "take-make-dispose" economic model to a regenerative approach that minimizes waste and maximizes resource efficiency. Unlike the linear model, which has dominated modern construction and development, circular economy principles align remarkably well with traditional conservation practices. When applied to heritage conservation, the circular economy reinforces core principles that have guided heritage professionals for generations.
Heritage conservation is defined as "the process of maintaining and managing change in a way that sustains and (where appropriate) enhances the significance of the heritage asset"[1]. This definition already encompasses key circular principles: maintaining value, extending usability, and preventing waste through thoughtful intervention. Historic buildings embody significant amounts of carbon, often expended centuries ago in pre-industrial environments, representing a form of stored carbon that deserves preservation from both cultural and environmental perspectives[1].
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, a leading organization in circular economy advocacy, identifies three core principles that define circular systems: eliminating waste and pollution, circulating products and materials, and regenerating natural systems[1]. Heritage conservation naturally delivers on each of these principles by:
  • Eliminating waste through the continued use of existing structures
  • Circulating materials through repair, restoration, and adaptive reuse
  • Working with natural systems and traditional building techniques that tend to be less resource-intensive
Theoretical Foundations of Circular Heritage
Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) define the circular economy as "a regenerative system in which resource input and waste, emission, and energy leakage are minimized by slowing, closing, and narrowing material and energy loops"[2]. Their research identifies eight different relationship types between circular economy and sustainability concepts, positioning circular economy as a necessary pathway toward broader sustainability goals rather than an end in itself[2].
Historical buildings were typically constructed using locally sourced natural materials that underwent minimal processing compared to their modern counterparts[1]. This inherent sustainability in traditional construction aligns with circular economy principles, particularly in terms of material sourcing and lifecycle impacts. The adaptive reuse of historic structures represents a concrete application of circularity by extending the useful life of buildings and their embodied resources.
Social Dimensions of Circular Heritage Management
Community Engagement as a Circular Strategy
The successful implementation of circular approaches to heritage depends critically on meaningful community engagement. The CLIC project (Circular models Leveraging Investments in Cultural heritage adaptive reuse) emphasizes "multi-stakeholder win-win business, financing and governance models, inclusive planning and decision-making" as essential components of circular heritage management[3].
Community engagement serves multiple functions within circular heritage projects:
  • It ensures that adapted heritage meets local needs and aspirations
  • It builds social capital around heritage assets, increasing their cultural value
  • It creates stakeholder investment in ongoing maintenance and preservation
  • It distributes benefits of heritage conservation more equitably within communities
Arup Group, a global design firm and leader in circular built environment practices, recognizes that "system-level change is at the heart" of circular economy transformation[4]. Their approach involves extensive stakeholder consultation, having conducted interviews with more than 100 stakeholders to identify barriers, opportunities, and enablers to circular economy adoption in the built environment[4].
True circularity extends beyond material considerations to encompass social and cultural cycles. As the CLIC project notes, "Adaptive reuse of cultural heritage is seen as a mean to circularize the flows of raw-materials, energy, cultural capital as well as social capital"[3]. This integrated view recognizes that heritage buildings serve as repositories not just of materials but of cultural knowledge, social memory, and community identity.
Cultural Sustainability Through Functional Reuse
Cultural sustainability represents a critical dimension of circular heritage management, ensuring that interventions preserve and enhance cultural values while adapting structures for contemporary use. The functional reuse of cultural heritage serves as "the entry point for triggering circular processes in the cities"[5], positioning heritage as a catalyst for broader circular economy initiatives.
The adaptive reuse of cultural heritage aims to achieve multiple objectives simultaneously:
  • Conservation of cultural value
  • Extension of building lifespan
  • Reduction of material consumption and waste
  • Revitalization of surrounding areas
  • Generation of social and economic benefits
The European Union recognizes cultural heritage and landscape as "a key economic resource in the global competition"[3], acknowledging that circular approaches open "innovative solutions attentive to conservation of cultural/natural resources, to local production loops, local circuits of value production"[3].
Social Value Creation in Circular Heritage Processes
Heritage conservation inherently involves "reconciling the protection of the historic environment with the economic and social needs and aspirations of the people who live in it"[1]. This balancing act becomes central to circular heritage approaches, which must deliver social value alongside environmental benefits.
The CLIC project aims to develop "innovative adaptive reuse models that are culturally, socially and economically inclusive"[3], directly connecting circular heritage practices to social inclusion goals. This approach recognizes that heritage buildings can address contemporary social challenges while preserving historical significance.
Circular heritage projects contribute to multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goals 1 (No Poverty), 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and 15 (Life on Land)[3]. By generating economic opportunities, enhancing community spaces, and reducing resource consumption, circular heritage initiatives deliver multiple forms of social value.
The Level(s) Framework: Measuring Circularity in Heritage Interventions
To effectively implement circular principles in heritage projects, appropriate measurement tools and frameworks are essential. The European Commission's Level(s) framework provides a standardized approach to assessing building sustainability that can be adapted to heritage contexts.
Structure and Application to Heritage
The Level(s) framework consists of 16 indicators across six macro-objectives, providing a comprehensive methodology for assessing buildings' environmental performance[6]. For heritage buildings, indicator 1.2 (Life-cycle global warming potential) is particularly significant, as it "aims to identify both the amount of GWP contributions of a building and the timings of these contributions during the LC from cradle to grave"[6].
When applied to heritage buildings, life-cycle assessment must account for both the embodied carbon already invested in the structure and the operational carbon associated with its continued use. From a technical perspective, these emissions come from two primary sources:
  • The initial production of building materials (referred to as A1-A3 in EN15978, or upfront embodied carbon)
  • The emissions involved in heating, cooling, and electricity used in the building (referred to as B6 in EN15978, operational carbon)[6]
The challenge for heritage professionals is adapting this framework to account for the unique characteristics of historic buildings, including their cultural value and the carbon already embedded in their structures centuries ago.
Integrating Social and Cultural Indicators
While the Level(s) framework primarily focuses on environmental performance, researchers have proposed extensions to incorporate social and cultural dimensions for heritage applications. These adaptations recognize that heritage buildings' value extends beyond mere material considerations.
A methodological proposal presented by researchers suggests "integrating Level(s) evaluation tool" for cultural heritage conservation in the circular economy perspective[5]. This integration would enable "assessing the multidimensional impacts of cultural heritage functional reuse projects"[5], ensuring that social and cultural values are properly accounted for alongside environmental impacts.
Challenges and Opportunities in Heritage-Rich Regions
Regulatory and Implementation Challenges
Heritage-rich regions face unique challenges in implementing circular economy principles due to protective regulations, technical limitations of historic structures, and cultural sensitivities. Key challenges include:
  • Balancing preservation requirements with adaptation needs
  • Addressing energy efficiency while maintaining heritage character
  • Navigating complex regulatory frameworks that may impede innovation
  • Sourcing appropriate traditional materials for repairs and restoration
  • Financing interventions that may have higher upfront costs but lower lifecycle impacts
The European Commission's Circular Economy Action Plan aims to "ensure that the regulatory framework is streamlined and made fit for a sustainable future, that the new opportunities from the transition are maximised, while minimising burdens on people and businesses"[7]. This streamlining is particularly important for heritage projects, which often face multiple regulatory hurdles.
Economic and Innovation Opportunities
Despite these challenges, heritage-rich regions also benefit from substantial opportunities within the circular economy transition. The CLIC project identifies several potential impacts of circular approaches to heritage:
  • "New investments and market opportunities in adaptive reuse of cultural heritage, also stimulating the creation of start-ups"
  • "An enabling context for the development and wide deployment of new technologies, techniques and expertise enhancing industrial competitiveness"
  • "Contributing to economic growth, new skills jobs"[3]
These opportunities suggest that far from being obstacles to circular transition, heritage buildings can serve as catalysts for innovative practices, new business models, and skilled employment in restoration trades.
Features of a Circular Built Heritage Environment
Implementing circular economy principles in heritage contexts requires understanding the key features that distinguish truly circular approaches. According to Arup Group, a circular built environment embeds circular economy principles "across all its functions, establishing an urban system that supports human well-being and natural systems"[4].
Continuous Material Cycles
A circular heritage environment maintains continuous material cycles by:
  • Tracking and returning construction materials to suppliers for reuse
  • Selecting "looping," non-toxic materials to reduce pollution and virgin material consumption
  • Prioritizing repair and maintenance over replacement
  • Developing supply chains for traditional building materials
Heritage buildings typically employ natural materials that are inherently more suited to circular processes than many modern alternatives. Stone, timber, lime mortars, and earth-based materials can often be repaired, reused, or safely returned to natural systems at end of life.
Design for Maintenance and Adaptability
Heritage buildings demonstrate remarkable adaptability, having often served multiple purposes over centuries. Circular approaches build upon this adaptability by:
  • Designing interventions to enable maintenance and future adaptation
  • Employing techniques such as modular construction for additions
  • Ensuring reversibility of contemporary interventions
  • Documenting changes to facilitate future understanding and adaptation
Arup emphasizes that in a circular built environment, "buildings are designed to enable maintenance, and reuse at all life cycle stages"[4], a principle that aligns perfectly with conservation best practices emphasizing minimum intervention and reversibility.
Integrated Systems Thinking
A circular approach to heritage requires integrated systems thinking that considers buildings within their broader urban and social contexts. This integration includes:
  • Understanding heritage as part of networked infrastructure systems
  • Recognizing cultural ecosystems that support heritage value
  • Prioritizing natural systems within technical solutions
  • Employing smart management systems to optimize resource use
Arup notes that circular built environments incorporate "integrated water, energy and waste networks prioritise natural systems"[4], positioning heritage buildings as components of larger sustainability systems rather than as isolated monuments.
Case Studies in Circular Heritage Management
European Exemplars of Circular Heritage Practices
While specific case studies are not detailed in the search results, the CLIC project has analyzed numerous examples of circular approaches to cultural heritage across Europe. These projects demonstrate how adaptive reuse of cultural heritage can create multiple forms of value:
  • Environmental value through carbon retention and waste reduction
  • Economic value through new business models and tourism
  • Social value through community spaces and services
  • Cultural value through preservation of historical narratives
The project has validated "integrated approaches and strategies for cultural heritage adaptive reuse, comprising innovative finance with high leverage capacity, business models and institutional and governance arrangements that foster multi-stakeholders involvement, citizens and communities' engagement and empowerment"[3].
Measuring Success: Multi-dimensional Value Creation
Successful circular heritage projects must deliver value across multiple dimensions. The Level(s) indicators provide data on three project stages: "(1) concept; (2) design and construction; and (3) monitoring"[6], enabling comprehensive assessment of environmental performance, health and comfort, values, and costs throughout the building lifecycle.
This multi-dimensional value creation is essential for demonstrating the full benefits of circular approaches to heritage conservation. By developing metrics that capture cultural and social value alongside more traditional environmental measures, practitioners can build stronger cases for investment in circular heritage projects.
Future Directions: Towards a Holistic Circular Heritage Framework
The 'Whole Building Approach' to Heritage
The most effective approach to implementing circular economy principles in heritage contexts is through a "whole building approach"[1] that considers all aspects of a building's lifecycle, from initial conservation through ongoing operation and eventual adaptation. This holistic perspective enables practitioners to identify intervention points where circular principles can deliver the greatest benefits.
The whole building approach recognizes that heritage conservation is not a one-time intervention but an ongoing process of management and adaptation. As Historic England notes, conservation involves "the careful consideration of the opportunities for renewal, repair, restoration, alteration, and reversibility"[1], all processes that can be optimized through circular thinking.
Integration with European Policy Frameworks
The European Commission's Circular Economy Action Plan provides a "future-oriented agenda for achieving a cleaner and more competitive Europe"[7] that has significant implications for heritage management. This plan establishes "a strong and coherent product policy framework that will make sustainable products, services and business models the norm and transform consumption patterns"[7].
For heritage professionals, alignment with these broader policy frameworks offers opportunities for funding, regulatory support, and integration with other sustainability initiatives. The European Green Deal positions circular economy as a key strategy for achieving climate neutrality, creating policy momentum that heritage projects can leverage.
Heritage as a Circular Economy Exemplar
Heritage buildings, with their durable materials, adaptable spaces, and embedded cultural value, offer perfect examples of circular economy principles in action. Rather than viewing historic preservation as a constraint on sustainability, this chapter has demonstrated how conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration align naturally with circular economy goals.
The social and cultural dimensions of circularity in heritage are not secondary considerations but core elements of successful circular approaches. By engaging communities, preserving cultural significance, and creating social value, circular heritage projects deliver benefits that extend far beyond mere resource efficiency.
As architecture students and future practitioners, you have a unique opportunity to bridge traditional conservation knowledge with emerging circular economy frameworks. By understanding both the technical and social dimensions of circular heritage management, you can develop interventions that honor the past while creating more sustainable futures.
The circular economy is not merely a new sustainability paradigm but a return to principles that traditional builders understood intuitively: that buildings should be durable, adaptable, repairable, and embedded in local material cycles and cultural contexts. By rediscovering these principles through the lens of contemporary challenges, we can ensure that our heritage buildings continue to serve and inspire for generations to come.

Metrics, Indicators, and Assessment Methods for Circular Economy in Conservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration

The transition toward circular economy practices in architectural conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration (CRR) represents a fundamental paradigm shift in how we conceptualize the built environment lifecycle. This chapter examines the critical metrics, indicators, and assessment methodologies that enable practitioners to quantify, evaluate, and implement circularity principles within architectural heritage contexts. As the European Union advances ambitious circular economy frameworks, architects and conservationists must develop fluency with these measurement systems to align heritage preservation goals with broader sustainability objectives. The following sections provide a comprehensive analysis of circularity assessment tools with particular relevance to Portuguese architectural contexts, demonstrating how these metrics can inform decision-making processes that balance cultural preservation with resource efficiency imperatives.
Theoretical Foundations of Circularity Measurement
Evolution of Circularity Assessment
The measurement of circularity has evolved significantly from rudimentary waste reduction metrics to sophisticated multi-dimensional assessment frameworks. This evolution parallels the conceptual shift from linear "take-make-dispose" models toward regenerative systems that maintain material and resource value across multiple lifecycles. Contemporary circularity metrics aim to quantify the extent to which economic systems decouple growth from finite resource consumption-a principle increasingly central to architectural conservation practice.
Traditional building assessment tools have predominantly focused on environmental impact categories like energy efficiency, carbon emissions, and waste generation. However, these frameworks often failed to capture the complex value retention mechanisms central to circular economy principles. Modern circularity metrics address this gap by measuring resource flows, utilization efficiency, and reintegration potential throughout building lifecycles.
The theoretical basis for circularity metrics draws heavily from industrial ecology, systems thinking, and resource efficiency paradigms. Significantly, these metrics have evolved to accommodate the unique challenges of the built environment, where material lifespans often extend decades or centuries, particularly in heritage contexts. This temporal dimension presents distinct challenges for circularity assessment in conservation and rehabilitation projects, where original materials may remain in use far beyond typical product lifecycles.
Systems Approach to Circularity
Effective circularity metrics must adopt a systems perspective that considers both immediate material flows and broader ecological and economic relationships. This systems approach recognizes buildings not as isolated artifacts but as dynamic material repositories existing within complex socio-technical networks. For CRR projects, this implies understanding buildings as components within urban material stocks with potential for future recirculation.
The systems perspective also acknowledges the hierarchical nature of circularity interventions. Rather than focusing exclusively on end-of-life recoverability, comprehensive metrics consider strategies across the entire value chain-from design choices and material selection to use patterns and adaptive reuse potential. This hierarchy closely aligns with conservation principles that prioritize preservation and minimal intervention over replacement and reconstruction.
Differentiating Indicators for the Built Environment
While circularity metrics developed for product manufacturing provide valuable frameworks, the built environment requires specialized indicators that account for its unique characteristics. These include extremely long service lifespans, complex material compositions, changing functional requirements, and cultural significance considerations. Additionally, CRR projects face particular challenges in applying circularity metrics due to existing material constraints, heritage preservation requirements, and technical compatibility issues between historical and contemporary construction methods.
Architecture-specific circularity indicators must therefore balance quantitative assessment with qualitative considerations of heritage value, authenticity, and cultural significance. This hybrid approach ensures that circularity objectives complement rather than compromise conservation principles, facilitating metrics that can meaningfully guide decision-making in sensitive historical contexts.
Material Circularity Indicator (MCI)
Conceptual Framework and Development
The Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) represents one of the most comprehensive frameworks for quantifying product and material circularity. Developed by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation in collaboration with design and engineering specialists, the MCI provides a standardized methodology for measuring how successfully a product minimizes linear material flows while maximizing circular utilization patterns[1].
The MCI conceptualizes circularity as the degree to which virgin material extraction and unrecoverable waste are minimized, while product utility is maximized. This framing aligns closely with conservation principles that prioritize material retention and functional adaptation over demolition and replacement. The indicator produces a numerical value between 0 and 1, where 0 represents a completely linear product (made from virgin materials and disposed of after use) and 1 represents a fully circular product (made entirely from recovered materials and fully recoverable after use)[1,2].
For CRR applications, the MCI offers particular value in assessing intervention strategies by quantifying the circularity implications of different material choices, construction methods, and design approaches. Its comprehensive consideration of both material inputs and outputs creates a nuanced picture of circularity beyond simplistic recycled content percentages.
MCI Formula and Components
The MCI calculation integrates multiple factors that collectively determine a product's circularity performance. The core equation can be expressed as:
MCI = 1 - LFI · F(X)
Where LFI represents the Linear Flow Index and F(X) is a function of the product's utility[2]. This formula creates a sophisticated assessment framework that considers both material flows and utilization efficiency.
The Linear Flow Index (LFI) quantifies the proportion of material flowing linearly through the product system using the equation:
LFI = (V + W) / 2M
Where:
  • V represents virgin feedstock quantity
  • W represents unrecoverable waste
  • M represents total material mass[2,3]
Virgin feedstock (V) is calculated as:
V = 1 - Fr - Fu - Fs
Where:
  • Fr represents the fraction of feedstock derived from recycled sources
  • Fu represents the fraction from reused sources
  • Fs represents the fraction of biological materials from sustainable production[2]
Unrecoverable waste (W) is determined through:
W = W₀ + Wf + Wc/2
Where:
  • W₀ represents material going to landfill or energy recovery
  • Wf represents waste generated in producing recycled content
  • Wc represents waste generated in the recycling process[2]
These calculations create a comprehensive assessment framework that considers material origins, processing inefficiencies, and end-of-life scenarios-all critical considerations for CRR projects evaluating intervention options.
Utility Factor in Conservation Contexts
The utility factor (X) introduces a crucial dimension for CRR applications by quantifying how efficiently a product delivers functionality. This factor recognizes that extending product lifespans and intensifying utilization represents a form of circularity by reducing material throughput per functional unit. The utility factor is calculated as:
X = (L/Lav) · (U/Uav)
Where:
  • L represents the product's lifetime
  • Lav represents the industry average lifetime
  • U represents functional units achieved during use
  • Uav represents industry average functional units[2]
For architectural conservation, this factor holds particular significance as heritage buildings frequently demonstrate remarkably extended lifespans compared to contemporary construction. A rehabilitated historic structure with adaptive reuse may achieve a utility factor substantially higher than industry averages, positively influencing its overall circularity performance despite potential limitations in material recoverability.
The utility assessment also aligns with the architectural principle that "the greenest building is the one already built," recognizing the embodied value in existing structures-particularly those with cultural significance. By incorporating utility considerations, the MCI acknowledges that conservation and rehabilitation strategies often represent superior circularity approaches compared to demolition and new construction, even when using advanced materials.
Adapting MCI for Architectural Applications
While the MCI framework provides a robust foundation for assessing material circularity, architectural applications-particularly in CRR contexts-require specific adaptations to address sector-unique challenges:
  • Temporal Scope: Architectural projects operate on timescales significantly exceeding most product applications. Adaptations must account for these extended lifecycles while maintaining meaningful comparability across timeframes.
  • Material Complexity: Buildings incorporate numerous materials with differing circularity potentials and lifespans. Composite assessments must accommodate this complexity while providing actionable insights.
  • Functional Evolution: CRR projects often involve buildings whose functions have changed over time or will change through current interventions. Circularity metrics must incorporate this functional fluidity rather than assuming static performance requirements.
  • Cultural Value: Standard circularity metrics may not adequately capture the cultural significance that often justifies conservation despite potential material inefficiencies. Adapted frameworks must integrate these non-material values.
Several research initiatives have proposed architectural adaptations to the MCI framework, including component-level assessments that allow different building systems to be evaluated independently. This approach acknowledges the varied replacement cycles within buildings, where envelope, structural, and interior systems operate on distinct temporal schedules-particularly relevant for rehabilitation projects where interventions may target specific building components while preserving others.
Material Flow Analysis (MFA)
Methodological Framework
Material Flow Analysis (MFA) provides a systematic approach for tracking material movements within defined system boundaries, offering valuable insights into resource utilization patterns in architectural contexts. MFA examines material flows through quantitative assessment of inputs, outputs, and internal transformations, applying conservation of mass principles to verify analysis accuracy[4,5].
The methodology connects material sources, pathways, and sinks to create comprehensive flow models that identify inefficiencies, accumulation points, and circularity opportunities. For CRR applications, MFA offers particular value in identifying historical material stocks that may represent valuable urban mines for future projects, while also detecting leakage points where resources exit circular flows.
MFA operates according to the fundamental equation:
∑ inputs = ∑ outputs + ∑ stock changes
This mass-balance principle ensures analytical consistency by confirming that all material quantities are accounted for throughout the system[5]. This methodological rigor makes MFA particularly valuable for quantifying the often complex and fragmented material flows characteristic of rehabilitation and conservation activities.
System Boundary Definition for CRR Contexts
Effective MFA requires clearly defined system boundaries in both spatial and temporal dimensions. For architectural applications, boundaries typically follow geographical divisions (buildings, neighborhoods, cities) or organizational parameters (project, portfolio, sector)[5]. The temporal dimension may encompass single years for snapshots of current performance or extended periods for evolutionary analysis of system changes.
For CRR applications, system boundary definition requires particular attention to:
  • Spatial Inclusion: Determining whether to include only the building envelope or extend to surrounding infrastructure and landscape elements that may contribute to overall material flows.
  • Temporal Scope: Deciding whether analysis should capture only the current intervention or incorporate historical flows that have shaped the existing condition.
  • Process Boundaries: Establishing which upstream and downstream processes (material extraction, processing, transport) should be included within assessment boundaries.
  • Material Categories: Determining material classification schemes and inclusion thresholds that balance analytical detail with practical feasibility.
Research from building sector applications demonstrates the value of regional boundary definitions that capture complete material lifecycles from extraction through use to disposal or recovery[5]. This approach allows practitioners to quantify leakage from local circular systems and identify opportunities for creating closed-loop material flows through policy interventions or market development.
Flow Quantification and Visualization
Once boundaries are established, MFA requires quantification of all material flows entering, exiting, and circulating within the system. Data collection typically combines direct measurement, modeling, and estimation techniques to create comprehensive flow inventories. For CRR projects, this often involves forensic investigation of existing structures to determine material compositions and quantities that may be poorly documented.
Flow quantification typically categorizes materials by:
  • Physical-chemical characteristics (concrete, wood, metals)
  • Functional categories (structural, envelope, finishes)
  • Circularity potential (reusable, recyclable, downcyclable)
  • Hazard classification (inert, hazardous, special handling)
This multidimensional classification enables nuanced analysis of flow patterns and circularity opportunities. For instance, a rehabilitation project might identify high-value hardwood components with excellent reuse potential alongside hazardous materials requiring specialized processing.
Research from the Lleida region provides an instructive example of MFA application to the building sector during a high-productivity period. The analysis tracked construction material flows using mass-balance principles to identify opportunities for creating a more sustainable regional construction economy[5]. Key findings highlighted the relationship between resource extraction, construction activity, and waste generation-demonstrating how MFA can reveal system-wide patterns invisible at individual project scales.
Indicators Derived from MFA
MFA generates various indicators that characterize system circularity performance and identify optimization opportunities. Key indicators relevant to CRR applications include:
  • Direct Material Input (DMI): Quantifies all materials directly entering a system, including both virgin and secondary sources. For CRR projects, lower DMI values typically indicate higher material efficiency or retention of existing materials.
  • Domestic Material Consumption (DMC): Measures materials remaining within system boundaries, reflecting accumulation in material stocks like buildings and infrastructure.
  • Total Domestic Output (TDO): Captures all material flows exiting the system, including emissions, waste, and exports. In conservation contexts, minimizing TDO often aligns with preservation objectives.
  • Recycling Rate: Expresses the percentage of outputs returned to productive use within the system, whether through direct reuse, remanufacturing, or recycling.
  • Self-Sufficiency Ratio: Indicates the proportion of material needs met through local resources rather than imports, reflecting regional circular economy development.
These indicators enable comparative assessment of intervention alternatives against circularity objectives. For example, a conservation approach that emphasizes in-situ repair might demonstrate superior performance in DMI and TDO metrics compared to replacement strategies, even when materials are nominally recyclable.
Resource Efficiency Metrics
Linear Flow Index (LFI)
The Linear Flow Index (LFI) provides a focused assessment of material linearity within product or building systems. Where the MCI offers a comprehensive circularity evaluation, the LFI isolates specifically how materials flow through the system, from sourcing through disposal. The index produces values between 0 and 1, where 1 represents completely linear flows (virgin material to disposal) and 0 represents fully circular flows (recycled/reused inputs and outputs)[3].
The LFI calculation follows the formula:
LFI = (V + W) / 2M
Where:
  • V represents virgin material input
  • W represents unrecoverable waste output
  • M represents total material mass[2,3]
For CRR applications, the LFI offers particular value in comparing intervention alternatives with similar functional characteristics but different material sourcing and recoverability profiles. For instance, when evaluating replacement options for deteriorated building components, the LFI can quantify the circularity implications of various material choices beyond simplistic recycled content percentages.
The indicator also provides value for projects with extremely long or indeterminate lifespans-common in heritage conservation-where utility factors become difficult to standardize[3]. In these cases, the LFI offers a more focused assessment of material circularity independent of lifespan considerations.
Input-Based Metrics
Input-based metrics evaluate material sourcing characteristics to determine alignment with circular economy principles. These metrics emphasize reducing virgin resource extraction through increased utilization of recycled, reused, and renewable materials. Key input metrics relevant to CRR applications include:
  • Recycled Content Percentage: Quantifies the proportion of materials derived from post-consumer or post-industrial recycled sources. While valuable as an initial indicator, this metric requires contextualization regarding material quality, durability, and compatibility with conservation requirements.
  • Reused Material Percentage: Measures components salvaged from previous applications and incorporated without substantial reprocessing. This metric holds particular relevance for conservation and rehabilitation projects where original building components may be retained, refurbished, and reintegrated.
  • Renewable Material Percentage: Assesses materials derived from resources that regenerate at rates equal to or exceeding harvesting rates. For architectural applications, this primarily encompasses bio-based materials like wood, bamboo, and agricultural byproducts.
  • Virgin Material Reduction: Quantifies decreased virgin material requirements compared to baseline scenarios, often expressed as a percentage reduction or absolute quantity. This metric effectively captures incremental improvements toward circularity even when complete elimination of virgin inputs remains unfeasible.
For CRR applications, input metrics must be evaluated against heritage preservation requirements and technical compatibility constraints. In some cases, conservation principles may necessitate specialized materials with limited recycled content availability. These tensions highlight the importance of balanced assessment frameworks that consider both circularity and preservation objectives.
Output-Based Metrics
Output metrics focus on material destinations after use, quantifying waste reduction and resource recovery. These metrics evaluate how effectively materials retain value rather than becoming waste, reflecting the circularity principle that "waste equals food" for subsequent material cycles. Key output metrics include:
  • Recyclability Rate: Expresses the percentage of materials technically recyclable at life-end based on current technologies and infrastructure. For buildings, this assessment typically occurs at the component or material level rather than for the entire structure.
  • Actual Recycling Rate: Measures materials actually recycled in practice rather than theoretical recyclability. This metric acknowledges implementation gaps between technical potential and practical achievement due to contamination, collection limitations, or economic barriers.
  • Landfill Diversion Rate: Quantifies materials diverted from landfill disposal through various recovery pathways including recycling, reuse, and energy recovery. While less specific than other circularity metrics, this indicator provides valuable baseline assessment for projects transitioning toward circularity.
  • Component Reusability: Evaluates the potential for direct component reuse without significant reprocessing. This metric holds particular relevance for CRR projects where component detachability and standardization facilitate future adaptive reuse.
Output metrics must acknowledge the temporal dimension particularly relevant to architectural applications. Unlike consumer products with relatively short lifespans, building components may not reach end-of-life for decades or centuries. Consequently, output metrics often require predictive assessment based on design characteristics rather than empirical measurement of actual outcomes.
Efficiency and Intensity Metrics
Efficiency metrics examine how effectively materials deliver functional value, recognizing that circularity encompasses not only material recirculation but also intensified utilization. These metrics hold particular relevance for CRR projects where functional adaptation often represents a primary circularity strategy. Key efficiency metrics include:
  • Material Intensity: Measures material quantity required per functional unit, typically expressed as mass per service unit (kg/m², kg/occupant, kg/year). Lower values indicate more efficient material utilization and generally correlate with reduced environmental impacts.
  • Space Utilization Efficiency: Quantifies how effectively built space delivers functional value, often expressed as occupants or activities per floor area. This metric holds particular relevance for adaptive reuse projects where spatial reconfiguration may significantly increase utilization efficiency without additional material inputs.
  • Adaptive Capacity: Assesses a building's ability to accommodate changing functions over time without major material-intensive renovations. While more qualitative than other metrics, adaptive capacity significantly influences long-term circularity by enabling continued utilization despite changing requirements.
  • Functional Unit Optimization: Evaluates material efficiency in delivering specific functions, such as thermal comfort or structural support. This approach enables detailed comparison of alternative design strategies against specific performance requirements.
Efficiency metrics emphasize the importance of design innovation in circularity achievement. By focusing on effectiveness rather than merely material characteristics, these metrics encourage systemic redesign rather than incremental material substitution-an approach particularly valuable for rehabilitation projects seeking to balance heritage preservation with contemporary performance requirements.
Integration with EU and Portuguese Standards
European Union Circular Economy Framework
The European Union has established comprehensive frameworks promoting circular economy transition through strategic directives, action plans, and standardization initiatives. These frameworks increasingly influence architectural practice, particularly in renovation and heritage contexts where material optimization opportunities align with broader sustainability objectives.
The EU Circular Economy Action Plan represents a cornerstone policy framework establishing strategic priorities and implementation pathways[6]. The plan identifies construction and buildings as priority intervention sectors due to their significant material footprint and substantial improvement potential. Key elements relevant to CRR applications include:
  • Sustainable Product Policy Framework: Establishes design requirements promoting durability, reusability, and recyclability-principles directly applicable to building renovation materials and techniques.
  • Value Chain Interventions: Targets construction and buildings specifically through initiatives promoting material efficiency, waste reduction, and lifecycle extension strategies.
  • Waste Reduction Goals: Sets ambitious waste reduction targets that influence demolition and renovation practices, encouraging material recovery and reintegration.
  • Monitoring Frameworks: Establishes standardized metrics and indicators for tracking circular economy progress across multiple sectors, including construction.
These EU frameworks create regulatory and incentive structures increasingly influencing Portuguese architectural practice, particularly for publicly-funded conservation and rehabilitation projects requiring compliance with evolving sustainability standards.
Portuguese Circular Economy Roadmap
Portugal has developed specific national frameworks adapting European circularity objectives to local contexts. The Portuguese Circular Economy Roadmap (Plano de Ação para a Economia Circular em Portugal) establishes strategic priorities and implementation pathways specifically addressing built environment challenges.
The roadmap identifies the construction sector as a priority intervention area due to its significant material consumption and waste generation. Key elements with particular relevance to CRR applications include:
  • Material Passport Requirements: Promotes documentation systems tracking material characteristics and recovery potential throughout building lifecycles, with specific provisions for heritage structures.
  • Rehabilitation Prioritization: Establishes policy preferences for rehabilitation over new construction, creating favorable regulatory and financing conditions for conservation projects.
  • Regional Material Loops: Encourages development of local material recovery infrastructure supporting decentralized circularity, particularly relevant for traditional building materials with regional specificity.
  • Traditional Knowledge Integration: Recognizes the circularity value embedded in traditional construction techniques often employed in conservation projects, promoting their continued application and development.
These Portuguese frameworks create implementation pathways for circularity metrics within architectural practice, establishing both requirements and incentives for enhanced performance measurement and optimization.
Level(s) Framework for Sustainable Buildings
The European Commission's Level(s) framework provides a comprehensive assessment methodology for building sustainability performance, including specific indicators for material circularity and resource efficiency[3]. The framework enables consistent evaluation across European contexts while accommodating regional variations in building practices and priorities.
Level(s) includes several indicators directly relevant to CRR applications:
  • Life Cycle Assessment: Provides standardized methodology for evaluating environmental impacts across complete building lifecycles, with specific provisions for renovation and rehabilitation interventions.
  • Construction and Demolition Waste: Measures waste generation and diversion rates during construction activities, with particular relevance for rehabilitation projects managing existing material removal.
  • Material Recovery Potential: Evaluates design characteristics facilitating future material recovery and reuse, applicable to both new interventions and modifications to existing structures.
  • Adaptability and Renovation: Assesses building capacity for functional adaptation with minimal material investment, directly aligning with rehabilitation objectives.
The Level(s) framework's multi-level assessment approach-progressing from simplified screening to detailed lifecycle analysis-provides flexible implementation pathways accommodating various project scales and complexity levels. This flexibility makes the framework particularly valuable for CRR applications ranging from minor conservation interventions to comprehensive adaptive reuse projects.
Building Certification Systems
Various building certification systems incorporate circularity metrics into their assessment frameworks, creating standardized evaluation methodologies with market recognition. Systems with particular relevance to Portuguese CRR applications include:
  • LiderA: This Portuguese certification system includes specific criteria for material efficiency, waste reduction, and resource optimization, with adaptations for rehabilitation projects acknowledging their unique constraints and opportunities.
  • BREEAM International Refurbishment: Provides specialized assessment methodology for renovation projects, including detailed material efficiency and waste management criteria applicable to conservation contexts.
  • DGNB System: The German sustainable building certification includes robust circularity indicators and specific provisions for existing buildings, with strong emphasis on lifecycle thinking aligned with conservation principles.
These certification systems translate theoretical circularity metrics into standardized assessment frameworks with established market recognition, facilitating consistent implementation and performance comparison across diverse project contexts.
Practical Implementation in CRR Projects
Assessment Workflow Integration
Effective implementation of circularity metrics requires seamless integration into established CRR project workflows. Rather than standalone assessments, metrics must inform decision-making across project phases from initial concept through detailed design to implementation and post-occupancy evaluation.
Key integration points include:
  • Pre-Design Assessment: Initial building audits should incorporate material characterization and circularity potential evaluation, identifying components suitable for retention, refurbishment, or replacement based on both technical condition and circularity implications.
  • Design Phase Analysis: Comparative assessment of intervention alternatives should include circularity metrics alongside traditional evaluation criteria like cost, aesthetic compatibility, and technical performance.
  • Specification Development: Material and method specifications should incorporate circularity requirements informed by metric-based performance targets, ensuring implementation follows theoretical assessment.
  • Construction Documentation: Project documentation should track material origins, compositions, and recovery potential, creating information resources supporting future circular management beyond current interventions.
  • Post-Completion Verification: Actual achieved performance should be measured against predicted metrics, identifying implementation gaps and creating feedback loops for continuous improvement.
This integrated approach ensures circularity metrics influence decision-making rather than merely documenting predetermined outcomes. For conservation projects balancing multiple objectives beyond sustainability, this integration is particularly crucial to avoid metric manipulation that might compromise heritage values.
Material Passport Implementation
Material passports provide structured documentation of material properties, locations, quantities, and recovery potential within buildings. These information resources support circular management by facilitating future recovery and reuse when components reach end-of-life or buildings undergo subsequent adaptation.
For CRR applications, material passport development involves:
  • Existing Material Documentation: Forensic investigation and documentation of materials already present in the building, including composition analysis, contamination assessment, and quantity verification.
  • Intervention Material Tracking: Detailed documentation of all materials introduced during rehabilitation, including compositions, sources, mounting methods, and recovery instructions.
  • Connection Detailing: Documentation of connection methods between new and existing elements, with particular attention to reversibility characteristics supporting future separability.
  • Maintenance Requirements: Specification of maintenance protocols supporting continued material functionality and value retention throughout extended service lives.
  • Digital Integration: Implementation within Building Information Modeling (BIM) environments enabling spatial location of materials and components for future recovery planning.
Material passports represent a practical implementation tool for tracking metrics discussed earlier in this chapter. By systematically documenting material characteristics, passports enable actual measurement rather than theoretical estimation of indicators like recycled content, recyclability, and adaptation potential.
Design for Disassembly in Heritage Contexts
Design for Disassembly (DfD) principles support circularity by enabling future component recovery without damage or contamination. While commonly applied in new construction, these principles require careful adaptation for heritage contexts where intervention reversibility often aligns with conservation ethics.
Key DfD strategies for CRR applications include:
  • Reversible Connections: Utilizing mechanical fastening rather than adhesive bonding where compatible with structural and conservation requirements, facilitating future separation without material damage.
  • Layer Separation: Maintaining independence between building systems with different functional lifespans (structure, envelope, services, space plan), preventing premature obsolescence of long-lifespan components due to short-lifespan element failure.
  • Standardization: Employing standardized dimensions and connection details where compatible with heritage character, facilitating future component reuse across multiple applications.
  • Material Homogeneity: Minimizing composite assemblies that prevent material separation at end-of-life, while respecting historical construction logics that may have employed composite approaches.
  • Accessibility: Ensuring physical access to connections and interfaces facilitating future disassembly without destructive intervention.
These strategies directly influence circularity metrics by improving output-focused indicators like reusability and recyclability. However, implementation requires careful balance with heritage preservation objectives that may sometimes conflict with optimal disassembly characteristics.
Case Study: Adaptive Reuse of Industrial Heritage
Practical implementation of circularity metrics can be illustrated through adaptive reuse of industrial heritage structures, where conservation objectives frequently align with circular economy principles. The renovation of historic warehouses, factories, and infrastructure for contemporary functions demonstrates circularity metrics application in complex rehabilitation contexts.
Key circularity assessment approaches in these projects typically include:
  • Material Stock Analysis: Comprehensive inventory and evaluation of existing materials, identifying retention and reuse opportunities based on both condition and circularity potential.
  • Intervention Strategy Comparison: Metric-based evaluation of alternative approaches ranging from minimal intervention to substantial reconfiguration, quantifying circularity implications alongside other performance criteria.
  • New Material Selection: Specification of additions and replacements based on circularity metrics including recycled content, local sourcing, and future recyclability.
  • Waste Management Planning: Development of precise waste reduction strategies targeting maximum diversion from landfill through selective deconstruction rather than demolition.
  • Performance Monitoring: Implementation of monitoring systems tracking actual resource efficiency against predicted performance, creating feedback loops for continuous optimization.
These practical applications demonstrate how theoretical metrics translate into implementable assessment frameworks supporting decision-making throughout complex conservation and rehabilitation processes.
Challenges and Future Directions
Methodological Limitations
Despite significant advances, current circularity metrics face methodological limitations requiring acknowledgment and ongoing refinement. Key challenges particularly relevant to CRR applications include:
  • Temporal Complexity: Most metrics struggle to adequately address the extremely long timeframes relevant to architectural materials, where functional lifespans may extend centuries and future recovery technologies remain unpredictable.
  • Quality Degradation: Current recycling metrics often inadequately capture qualitative degradation through successive material cycles, potentially overstating circularity benefits when downcycling rather than true recycling occurs.
  • System Boundary Inconsistency: Varying boundary definitions across different assessment methodologies create comparison challenges, particularly for renovation projects spanning multiple building systems with different intervention intensities.
  • Data Availability: Historical buildings often lack documentation regarding material compositions, manufacturing processes, and prior interventions, creating significant data gaps for accurate metric calculation.
  • Multi-dimensional Value: Existing metrics typically emphasize material and technical characteristics without adequately addressing cultural, historical, and aesthetic dimensions central to conservation decision-making.
These limitations highlight the importance of applying metrics as decision-support tools rather than absolute determinants, particularly in heritage contexts where qualitative considerations legitimately influence intervention approaches alongside quantitative assessment.
Research Directions
Addressing current limitations requires continued research development across multiple domains. Priority research directions for advancing circularity metrics in CRR applications include:
  • Heritage-Specific Frameworks: Development of assessment methodologies specifically designed for heritage contexts, integrating circularity principles with conservation ethics and authenticity considerations.
  • Long-term Performance Validation: Longitudinal studies tracking actual material performance against predicted circularity characteristics, creating empirical datasets supporting more accurate future assessments.
  • Digital Technology Integration: Exploration of emerging technologies including artificial intelligence, blockchain, and internet-of-things applications for improving material tracking, composition verification, and recovery planning.
  • Regional Calibration: Adaptation of global frameworks to specific regional contexts reflecting local material availability, construction traditions, and waste management infrastructure.
  • Multi-criteria Decision Support: Development of integrated assessment frameworks balancing circularity metrics with other sustainability dimensions and heritage preservation objectives, supporting nuanced decision-making in complex renovation contexts.
These research directions promise increasingly sophisticated assessment methodologies supporting enhanced circularity achievement while respecting the unique characteristics and constraints of architectural heritage.
Educational Implications
Effective implementation of circularity metrics in architectural practice requires significant educational development, both in university curricula and professional continuing education. Educational priorities for developing necessary competencies include:
  • Interdisciplinary Integration: Combining expertise from architecture, engineering, materials science, and preservation technology to develop comprehensive understanding of circularity principles across disciplinary boundaries.
  • Methodological Fluency: Building practitioner capacity to select appropriate assessment methodologies for specific project contexts and accurately interpret results within broader decision frameworks.
  • Digital Tool Proficiency: Developing skills with emerging digital platforms supporting material tracking, circularity assessment, and decision optimization across complex architectural interventions.
  • Critical Evaluation: Fostering critical engagement with metric limitations and appropriate application boundaries, preventing misapplication or over-reliance on quantitative assessment alone.
  • Communication Competence: Building capacity to effectively communicate technical assessment results to diverse stakeholders including clients, authorities, and community members, translating complex metrics into actionable insights.
These educational priorities highlight the importance of developing both technical assessment skills and critical judgment regarding appropriate application contexts and limitations-particularly crucial for CRR practitioners navigating complex value hierarchies beyond simple material efficiency.
Circularity metrics, indicators, and assessment methodologies provide essential tools for quantifying, evaluating, and improving resource efficiency within architectural conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration practices. These frameworks enable evidence-based decision-making aligning heritage preservation objectives with broader sustainability imperatives, facilitating interventions that respect both cultural significance and resource constraints.
The Material Circularity Indicator, Material Flow Analysis, and resource efficiency metrics examined in this chapter offer complementary assessment approaches addressing different aspects of circularity performance. Their integration into standardized frameworks like the EU Level(s) system and Portuguese building certification schemes creates implementation pathways connecting theoretical models to practical application.
However, effective implementation requires recognition of methodological limitations and appropriate contextualization within the complex value systems characterizing heritage contexts. Metrics must serve as decision-support tools rather than deterministic formulas, informing rather than dictating intervention approaches that balance multiple objectives beyond simple material efficiency.
As European and Portuguese regulatory frameworks increasingly emphasize circular economy principles, architectural education and practice must develop enhanced capacity for applying these assessment methodologies appropriately and effectively. This capacity building requires both technical skill development and critical judgment cultivation, enabling practitioners to navigate the complex interplay between quantitative measurement and qualitative evaluation central to architectural conservation.
The ongoing evolution of circularity metrics promises increasingly sophisticated assessment frameworks better addressing the unique characteristics of architectural heritage, supporting interventions that honor both past embodied value and future resource imperatives. This evolution represents not merely technological advancement but conceptual refinement integrating scientific measurement with cultural valuation-a synthesis essential for truly sustainable architectural conservation practice.

Barriers and Enablers for Circularity in Conservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration

The intersection of circular economy principles with heritage preservation represents a critical paradigm shift in architectural practice. This transformation redefines how we approach Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration (CRR) of our built environment, moving from linear extraction-consumption-disposal frameworks toward regenerative systems that minimize resource depletion and waste generation while preserving cultural value.
While circular economy implementation in CRR offers numerous advantages, significant barriers persist alongside promising enablers. This chapter explores the complex interplay of challenges and opportunities that shape the integration of circularity principles within heritage conservation practices, providing future architects with a comprehensive understanding of this evolving field.
Theoretical Framework: Circular Economy in Heritage Conservation
Circular Economy (CE) represents a regenerative system designed to minimize resource inputs, waste generation, emissions, and energy leakage through the creation of closed-loop material flows[1]. Unlike the traditional linear economy model of "take-make-dispose," CE emphasizes maintaining resources at their highest utility and value for as long as possible, fundamentally transforming how we approach resource management within the built environment.
When applied to architectural heritage, CE principles align remarkably well with traditional conservation values. Conservation has long emphasized repair, restoration, and adaptive reuse-practices that inherently embody circularity. As Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) note, CE functions as "a regenerative system in which resource input and waste, emission, and energy leakage are minimized by slowing, closing, and narrowing material and energy loops"[1]. This definition highlights the natural synergy between circular economy models and heritage conservation practices.
Heritage buildings represent significant embodied energy and cultural capital. Their preservation through adaptive reuse strategies aligns perfectly with circular economy objectives by extending building lifecycles, conserving embodied energy, reducing waste generation, and maintaining cultural significance[2,3]. The functional reuse of cultural heritage produces multidimensional benefits typical of circular economy models, including environmental benefits (reduced resource consumption), economic benefits (increased productivity and tourism), social benefits (employment and community connections), and cultural benefits (preservation of community symbols)[4].
The Triple Bottom Line of CE in Heritage Conservation
The application of circular economy principles to architectural heritage extends beyond merely environmental considerations. It embodies the triple bottom line approach by delivering:
  • Environmental sustainability: Adaptive reuse reduces demolition waste, preserves embodied energy, and minimizes new resource extraction[2].
  • Economic viability: Heritage preservation creates economic value through tourism, increased property values, and reduced resource costs compared to new construction[3,4].
  • Social and cultural benefits: Conservation maintains community identity, preserves cultural significance, and fosters social cohesion through maintained connections to collective heritage[3,4].
This holistic approach aligns with contemporary sustainability frameworks while addressing the unique challenges of heritage preservation. However, despite these synergies, numerous barriers impede full implementation of circular economy principles in Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration projects.
Barriers to Implementing Circularity in CRR
The integration of circular economy principles into heritage conservation faces multiple barriers spanning financial, technical, legal, and cultural domains. Understanding these challenges is essential for developing effective strategies to overcome them.
Financial Challenges
Financial barriers frequently represent the most significant impediment to implementing circular approaches in heritage projects. These include:
  • High upfront investment costs: Circular interventions in heritage buildings often require substantial initial investment, creating financial hurdles particularly challenging for small-scale projects[5,6]. The specialized skills, materials, and techniques necessary for heritage conservation compatible with circular principles typically exceed conventional renovation costs.
  • Uncertain return on investment: The long-term economic benefits of circular approaches may be difficult to quantify, especially when compared to traditional methods with established cost models[6]. This uncertainty creates hesitation among property owners and investors.
  • Limited access to funding: Despite growing interest in sustainable finance, funding mechanisms specifically designed for circular heritage projects remain underdeveloped[5]. Traditional financing models often fail to account for the broader societal benefits of heritage preservation.
  • Cost comparison disadvantages: When decision-making processes focus primarily on short-term financial metrics, circular approaches to heritage often appear more expensive than demolition and reconstruction[4]. This narrow economic view fails to account for the multidimensional benefits of preservation.
These financial barriers highlight the need for innovative funding mechanisms and valuation approaches that can better capture the full spectrum of benefits provided by circular heritage conservation projects.
Technical Challenges
Technical barriers present significant obstacles to implementing circular economy principles in heritage conservation:
  • Compatibility with heritage values: Interventions must balance modern circular economy techniques with preservation of authentic heritage values[3]. This balancing act requires specialized knowledge that crosses traditional disciplinary boundaries.
  • Knowledge and expertise gaps: Many professionals lack specific training in applying circular approaches to heritage buildings[6]. This expertise gap extends from architects and engineers to contractors and craftspeople who implement interventions.
  • Assessment methodologies: There is currently no standardized framework for evaluating heritage buildings from a circular economy perspective[4]. The absence of recognized indicator systems that simultaneously consider environmental, social, economic, and cultural dimensions complicates decision-making.
  • Material recovery limitations: Heritage buildings often contain materials that are difficult to recover, reuse, or recycle through conventional methods[6]. Historical construction techniques and materials may require specialized approaches for circular implementation.
  • Performance standards conflicts: Meeting contemporary performance requirements (energy efficiency, accessibility, safety) while maintaining heritage values and implementing circular principles creates complex technical challenges[3,5].
These technical barriers underscore the need for interdisciplinary approaches and specialized education that can bridge conservation science with circular economy principles.
Legal and Regulatory Challenges
Regulatory frameworks significantly influence the feasibility of circular approaches in heritage conservation:
  • Lack of specific CE regulations: Many jurisdictions have insufficient regulatory frameworks specifically addressing circular economy in the context of heritage conservation[5,6]. This regulatory gap creates uncertainty regarding compliance requirements for circular interventions.
  • Conflicting preservation requirements: Heritage protection regulations sometimes conflict with interventions that would enhance building circularity[3]. Strict preservation mandates may limit opportunities for material reuse or energy efficiency improvements.
  • Fragmented governance structures: Multiple authorities with overlapping jurisdictions often govern heritage buildings, creating complex approval processes for circular interventions[3,5]. This fragmentation increases administrative burdens and project timelines.
  • Outdated building codes: Building regulations frequently prioritize new construction standards that prove difficult to apply to heritage structures, particularly when implementing circular approaches[5]. These codes may inadvertently encourage demolition over adaptive reuse.
  • Certification limitations: Existing green building certification systems often inadequately address the specific challenges and opportunities of heritage buildings within circular economy frameworks[3,4].
These regulatory barriers highlight the need for more integrated policy approaches that can harmonize heritage preservation with circular economy objectives.
Cultural and Social Challenges
Cultural and behavioral factors represent significant but often overlooked barriers to circular approaches in heritage conservation:
  • Resistance to change: Both heritage conservation professionals and the general public may resist innovative approaches that deviate from traditional preservation practices[3,6]. This resistance stems from both professional inertia and concerns about potential impacts on heritage values.
  • Perception issues: Negative perceptions regarding reused materials or adaptive interventions may discourage property owners and users from embracing circular approaches[6]. These perceptions often stem from outdated assumptions about quality and durability.
  • Consumer behavior patterns: Current consumer preferences for novelty and rapidly changing trends conflict with the durability and longevity emphasized in both heritage conservation and circular economy[2]. This cultural preference for "new" over "preserved" influences market demand.
  • Mindset and business culture barriers: Many stakeholders remain "stuck in current business models" despite recognizing the theoretical benefits of circular approaches[2]. This cultural inertia impedes transformation even when technical solutions exist.
  • Stakeholder engagement challenges: The variety of stakeholders involved in heritage projects (owners, users, authorities, communities) presents coordination challenges for implementing circular approaches[3]. Different stakeholders may have conflicting priorities regarding heritage values and circular interventions.
These cultural and social barriers emphasize the importance of education, awareness-building, and stakeholder engagement in promoting circular approaches to heritage conservation.
Enablers for Circularity in CRR
Despite significant barriers, several enablers can facilitate the integration of circular economy principles into heritage conservation. These enablers span policy, institutional, technological, and cultural domains.
Policy Recommendations
Effective policy frameworks can significantly accelerate the adoption of circular approaches in heritage conservation:
  • Integrated regulatory frameworks: Developing regulations that simultaneously address heritage preservation and circular economy objectives can reduce conflicts and create regulatory certainty[3,5]. These frameworks should coordinate previously fragmented approaches.
  • Financial incentives: Tax benefits, grants, and subsidies specifically designed for circular interventions in heritage buildings can help overcome financial barriers[5,6]. These incentives should recognize both the heritage value and circular economy contributions of projects.
  • Public procurement policies: Government agencies can lead by example through procurement requirements that prioritize circular approaches in public heritage buildings[3]. These policies create market demand for circular services and materials.
  • Standardized assessment frameworks: Developing recognized systems of indicators for evaluating cultural heritage from a circular economy perspective would facilitate more informed decision-making[4]. These frameworks should include environmental, social, economic, and cultural dimensions.
  • Building code revisions: Adapting building codes to better accommodate heritage structures and circular interventions would remove significant regulatory barriers[5]. This might include performance-based rather than prescriptive requirements for heritage buildings.
These policy recommendations require coordination across government departments and levels to create coherent frameworks that enable rather than impede circular approaches to heritage.
Institutional Strategies
Institutional frameworks play a crucial role in enabling circular economy implementation in heritage conservation:
  • Knowledge sharing platforms: Developing mechanisms for sharing best practices, case studies, and technical solutions can accelerate learning across the sector[3,6]. These platforms should connect practitioners across disciplines relevant to circular heritage conservation.
  • Educational programs: Integrating circular economy principles into heritage conservation education and training programs can address knowledge gaps among professionals[3]. This integration should occur at both university level and in continuing professional development.
  • Research and innovation support: Funding research specifically focused on the intersection of circular economy and heritage conservation can develop new methods and technologies[5,6]. This research should address technical challenges specific to heritage buildings.
  • Multi-stakeholder partnerships: Fostering collaboration between heritage authorities, circular economy experts, property owners, and communities can create more integrated approaches[3]. These partnerships help overcome fragmentation in the sector.
  • Demonstration projects: Supporting pilot projects that showcase successful implementation of circular principles in heritage buildings provides tangible examples for others to follow[5]. These demonstration projects should document both processes and outcomes.
These institutional strategies emphasize the importance of collaboration, knowledge-sharing, and capacity-building in enabling the transition to more circular approaches in heritage conservation.
Technical and Innovation Enablers
Technical solutions and innovations can overcome many practical barriers to implementing circular approaches in heritage:
  • Non-destructive assessment technologies: Advanced technologies for building analysis (such as 3D scanning, non-destructive testing, and building information modeling) enable more precise interventions that preserve heritage values while implementing circular principles[3,5].
  • Material passports and databases: Developing documentation systems that track materials in heritage buildings facilitates future reuse and recycling[6]. These systems create a foundation for material circularity throughout building lifecycles.
  • Reversible intervention techniques: Developing methods that allow for future adaptation or removal without damaging heritage fabric enables both preservation and circularity[2,3]. These techniques align with conservation principles of minimal intervention.
  • Decision-support tools: Creating specialized tools for evaluating intervention options from both heritage and circular economy perspectives helps practitioners navigate complex decisions[3,4]. These tools should integrate multiple values and considerations.
  • Digital platforms for material exchange: Establishing marketplaces for heritage materials facilitates their reuse and recycling, creating circular material flows specific to the heritage sector[5,6].
These technical enablers highlight the importance of innovation in developing solutions that address the unique challenges of implementing circular economy in heritage contexts.
Cultural and Behavioral Enablers
Cultural factors can significantly influence the adoption of circular approaches in heritage conservation:
  • Awareness building: Increasing public awareness of the environmental benefits of heritage conservation can increase support for preservation over demolition[3,4]. This awareness building should emphasize the inherent sustainability of maintaining existing buildings.
  • Value redefinition: Expanding heritage value definitions to include environmental performance and resource efficiency can create stronger alignment between preservation and circular objectives[3,4]. This redefinition helps overcome perceived conflicts between heritage and sustainability.
  • Stakeholder engagement processes: Developing effective methods for involving diverse stakeholders in heritage decisions increases support for circular approaches[3]. These processes should recognize that "it is people, rather than technologies, who are the key to embracing circularity"[3].
  • Behavioral research: Accelerating research on behavior related to heritage and circularity can identify effective intervention points for changing practices[3]. This research should inform both policy and project implementation.
  • Showcasing success stories: Widely communicating successful examples of circular approaches in heritage buildings helps change perceptions and demonstrates feasibility[5]. These examples should highlight multiple benefits across environmental, economic, social, and cultural dimensions.
These cultural enablers emphasize that successful implementation of circular economy in heritage conservation requires addressing not just technical and policy issues, but also human factors that influence adoption and implementation.
Integration with Architectural Practice
For architecture students and practitioners, implementing circular economy principles in heritage projects requires specific approaches that integrate theoretical frameworks with practical interventions.
Design Strategies for Circularity in CRR
Several design strategies can effectively incorporate circular principles in heritage conservation:
  • Adaptive reuse planning: Designing interventions that accommodate new functions while preserving heritage significance represents a fundamental circular strategy[2,3]. These interventions should prioritize minimal material disturbance while enabling contemporary use.
  • Design for disassembly: Incorporating elements that can be easily removed, replaced, or reconfigured without damaging heritage fabric enables future adaptability[6]. This approach aligns with conservation principles of reversibility.
  • Material conservation hierarchies: Establishing clear hierarchies that prioritize retention, repair, reuse, and recycling over replacement guides material decisions in heritage projects[4]. These hierarchies should be explicit in project documentation.
  • Integration of performance improvements: Carefully designing interventions that improve energy and resource efficiency without compromising heritage values requires thoughtful detailing and material selection[3,5]. These interventions should be distinguished from original fabric while remaining compatible.
  • Documentation-driven design: Basing design decisions on comprehensive documentation of existing conditions and materials enables more informed circularity strategies[3]. This documentation should become part of the building's ongoing record.
These design strategies require architects to develop specialized skills that bridge conservation expertise with circular economy principles, creating interventions that respect heritage while enhancing circularity.
Implementation Frameworks
Successful implementation of circular approaches in heritage projects requires structured methodologies:
  • Multi-criteria assessment: Developing project-specific frameworks that evaluate interventions based on heritage impact, circular performance, and functional requirements enables more balanced decision-making[3,4]. These assessments should make trade-offs explicit.
  • Life cycle planning: Considering the full lifecycle implications of intervention decisions-including future adaptability, material recoverability, and maintenance requirements-enhances long-term circularity[5,6]. This planning should extend beyond immediate project timeframes.
  • Supply chain engagement: Working with suppliers to source appropriate reclaimed materials and specify products with circular characteristics requires proactive procurement approaches[5,6]. These efforts should begin in early project phases.
  • Monitoring frameworks: Establishing systems for monitoring building performance and material conditions after intervention enables ongoing optimization and learning[3]. These systems should inform future maintenance and adaptation.
  • Knowledge transfer protocols: Documenting decisions, materials, and techniques used in circular heritage interventions creates valuable knowledge for future projects[3,6]. This documentation should be accessible to other practitioners.
These implementation frameworks highlight the importance of systematic approaches to integrating circular principles in heritage projects, moving beyond ad hoc interventions toward more comprehensive strategies.
Case Studies and Practical Applications
Examining successful implementations of circular economy principles in heritage conservation provides valuable insights for practitioners:
  • Timber heritage buildings in Southern Chile: Research on 20 timber heritage buildings in Valdivia demonstrated how preventive conservation approaches based on circular economy principles could reduce resource consumption while preserving cultural significance[3]. The study developed a functional degradation index to prioritize interventions, illustrating how technical assessment tools can support decision-making in heritage conservation.
  • The role of stakeholder engagement: Multiple case studies highlight that successful circular approaches to heritage require engagement with users, owners, professional experts, public administrations, and the private sector[3]. These collaborative approaches help overcome the fragmentation that often impedes circular initiatives.
  • Multi-scale analysis approaches: Research demonstrates the value of considering circularity at different scales-from individual buildings to neighborhoods and regional contexts[3]. This multi-scale perspective connects building-level interventions to broader urban and cultural systems.
  • Preventive maintenance frameworks: Developing comprehensive preventive maintenance strategies based on circular principles can minimize damage from external hazards while reducing costs and resource consumption[3]. These frameworks represent a proactive rather than reactive approach to heritage management.
These case studies illustrate practical applications of circular economy principles in heritage contexts, demonstrating both the challenges and opportunities presented by this intersection.
Future Directions and Research Needs
The integration of circular economy and heritage conservation represents an evolving field with several important directions for future development:
  • Standardized assessment frameworks: There remains a critical need for standardized methods to evaluate heritage buildings from a circular economy perspective, including metrics that capture environmental, social, economic, and cultural dimensions[4]. These frameworks would facilitate more consistent decision-making across projects.
  • Policy integration: Further research is needed on how to effectively harmonize heritage protection policies with circular economy objectives to reduce regulatory conflicts[3,5]. This integration requires cross-sectoral collaboration among policymakers.
  • Financial models: Developing and testing innovative financial mechanisms specifically designed for circular heritage projects could help overcome significant economic barriers[5,6]. These models should capture multiple value streams beyond traditional financial returns.
  • Education and training: Expanding educational offerings that specifically address the intersection of heritage conservation and circular economy would address critical knowledge gaps[3]. This education should target both new professionals and those already in practice.
  • Technology applications: Further development of technologies tailored to heritage applications-including non-destructive assessment, material tracking, and adaptive systems-could overcome significant technical barriers[3,5].
These future directions highlight the ongoing need for research, innovation, and policy development to fully realize the potential of circular approaches in heritage conservation.
The integration of circular economy principles with Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration represents both a significant challenge and opportunity for the architectural profession. While barriers spanning financial, technical, legal, and cultural domains create obstacles to implementation, numerous enablers provide pathways toward more circular approaches to heritage.
For architecture students preparing to enter professional practice, understanding these barriers and enablers is essential for developing effective strategies that can transform heritage conservation from a resource-intensive endeavor to a model of circularity. By embracing this perspective, architects can play a crucial role in preserving cultural heritage while advancing sustainability objectives.
The successful implementation of circular economy principles in heritage conservation requires not just technical solutions but also shifts in policy, institutional frameworks, and cultural perspectives. By addressing these multiple dimensions simultaneously, architects can help create a future where heritage buildings serve not only as connections to our past but also as models for sustainable resource management.
As the field continues to evolve, ongoing research, innovation, and knowledge-sharing will be essential to overcome existing barriers and strengthen enablers. Through these efforts, the convergence of circular economy and heritage conservation can establish new paradigms for sustainable architectural practice that honor our cultural inheritance while protecting our environmental future.

Future Outlook: Circular Innovation for Conservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration

The integration of circular economy principles into architectural conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration (CRR) represents one of the most promising frontiers for sustainable development in the built environment. As resource scarcity intensifies and climate imperatives become more urgent, the need to reimagine how we preserve our architectural heritage using circular approaches has never been more critical.
This chapter explores emerging innovations at the intersection of circular economy and architectural conservation, examining how new technologies, materials, and design methodologies are transforming CRR practices. We will investigate current research trajectories and identify key gaps and opportunities in the European and Portuguese contexts, providing Master's architecture students with a comprehensive understanding of this rapidly evolving field.
Circular Economy: A New Paradigm for Architectural Conservation
The circular economy represents a paradigm shift from traditional linear economic models based on "take-make-dispose" approaches to those that emphasize resource regeneration, waste elimination, and value retention. While sustainability has long been part of the architectural discourse, the circular economy offers a more specific framework for operationalizing these principles in the built environment.
Circular economy differs from traditional sustainability frameworks in several critical ways. While sustainability broadly addresses environmental, social, and economic dimensions with a focus on intergenerational equity, circular economy provides more concrete strategies for resource flows and economic models[1]. As Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) have identified, there exist at least eight different relationship types between sustainability and circular economy concepts, ranging from viewing circular economy as a prerequisite for sustainability to seeing it as one of many approaches to achieve sustainability goals[2].
For the architectural conservation sector, this distinction is particularly relevant. Traditional conservation approaches have emphasized material authenticity and historical fidelity, sometimes at odds with sustainability objectives. The circular economy framework offers a middle ground where historical value can be preserved while simultaneously addressing environmental imperatives through strategic material reuse, adaptive design, and regenerative systems thinking.
Theoretical Foundations of Circularity in CRR
Architectural conservation has historically embodied many circular principles before the concept was formally articulated. The practice of salvaging architectural elements from historic buildings for reuse-spolia-has centuries of precedent, from the reuse of materials from Rome's Colosseum following the 1348 earthquake to build palaces, churches, and hospitals, to contemporary adaptive reuse projects[3]. However, modern circular approaches to CRR differ in their systematic, design-led methodology and technological enablement.
Current circular economy models relevant to CRR can be categorized into several key strategies:
  • Slowing resource loops through extending the lifespan of buildings and components via durable design, proper maintenance, and restoration
  • Closing resource loops through recycling and upcycling of construction materials
  • Narrowing resource flows by using fewer resources per product or service
  • Regenerating natural systems through bio-based materials and biophilic design
These strategies align with the fundamental objectives of architectural conservation while introducing new imperatives for resource efficiency and environmental stewardship. However, implementing these approaches requires innovations in technology, materials science, and design methodology that are only now coming to maturity.
Emerging Technologies for Circular Conservation
The technological revolution currently underway is transforming how architectural professionals approach conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration. Digital technologies, in particular, are enabling unprecedented precision, efficiency, and creativity in circular approaches to CRR. These technologies not only facilitate the preservation of architectural heritage but also enhance the circularity of the entire conservation process.
Digital Models and Platforms
Building Information Modeling (BIM) and material passports represent foundational technologies for circular CRR practices. By creating comprehensive digital twins of historic structures, conservation architects can catalog materials, monitor building performance, and plan interventions with minimal resource impact.
Material passports-digital records containing information about building materials, components, and products-are particularly valuable in conservation contexts. These passports document the relevant data about materials, including "geometry, properties, quantities, location and ownership status," creating a detailed inventory of the building's material components[3]. This information enables more effective planning for future reuse, recycling, or replacement.
Digital platforms that connect suppliers and users of salvaged architectural elements are also emerging as critical infrastructure for circular conservation. Platforms such as Excess Materials Exchange create markets for reclaimed architectural materials, facilitating communication between stakeholders in the conservation value chain[3]. These platforms are particularly valuable in addressing the fragmentation of the construction and conservation sectors, which has historically been a significant barrier to material reuse.
AI and Machine Learning Applications
Artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms are revolutionizing how conservation professionals analyze and plan interventions on historic structures. These technologies can analyze vast datasets to identify patterns of deterioration, predict maintenance needs, and optimize conservation strategies.
Machine learning algorithms developed by universities such as ETH Zurich and the Institute of Advanced Architecture of Catalonia can detect reusable architectural elements from Google Street View images, creating inventories of salvageable components in the existing building stock[3]. This capability transforms urban environments into searchable material banks, enabling conservation architects to source historically appropriate elements for restoration projects.
AI systems can also analyze historical building records and performance data to predict deterioration patterns and recommend preemptive conservation measures. This predictive approach aligns with circular principles by extending building lifespans and reducing the need for resource-intensive interventions later in the life cycle.
Blockchain and IoT for Material Traceability
The complex supply chains and liability structures in conservation projects present significant challenges for material tracking and quality assurance. Blockchain technology offers a secure, transparent framework for tracing materials throughout their lifecycle, ensuring authenticity and appropriate provenance for conservation applications.
Tagging technologies such as QR codes and RFID chips enable real-time tracking of architectural elements. In the "ETH Reuse Dome," QR codes were engraved onto every building component, linking directly to digital material passports[3]. These systems enable conservation professionals to verify material histories, properties, and compliance with preservation standards.
Internet of Things (IoT) sensors further enhance material traceability by constantly monitoring environmental conditions and structural performance. These systems can detect early signs of degradation, allowing for timely, minimally invasive interventions that preserve both material integrity and historical value.
Digital Manufacturing and Robotics
Advanced manufacturing technologies are transforming the restoration of complex architectural elements that would otherwise be impossible or prohibitively expensive to reproduce using traditional methods. These technologies enable high-precision reproduction of damaged components while minimizing material waste.
Robotic systems are increasingly employed for precision restoration work, conducting "intricate tasks such as cleaning fragile materials or placing small components, reducing the risk of human error"[1]. These systems can work with exceptional accuracy on delicate historical surfaces, ensuring minimal intervention and maximum preservation of original material.
Additive manufacturing (3D printing) and subtractive manufacturing (CNC milling) make it possible to produce complex connections needed for uniquely shaped salvaged components[3]. This capability is particularly valuable in restoration projects involving non-standardized historical elements, allowing for precise integration of new and existing materials.
Digital fabrication technologies also facilitate the disassembly of buildings at the end of their useful life, enabling more effective material recovery for future reuse. This capability addresses a significant gap in current conservation practice, where demolition often results in material degradation and loss of embedded value.
3D Scanning and Digital Documentation
High-resolution scanning technologies enable unprecedented documentation of historical structures, creating detailed digital records that preserve information even if physical structures are damaged. These digital archives ensure that "even if physical structures are damaged, their history and architectural details can be saved digitally"[1].
3D scanning technologies capture the exact geometry of historical elements, enabling precise reproduction when necessary while minimizing intervention on original materials. This approach aligns with conservation ethics while enabling more effective material reuse and resource efficiency.
The practice of design-led reuse is being enhanced through emerging digital technologies like 3D scanning, which allows for "more discrete, attentive and granular approaches to reuse of waste by design professionals"[4]. These technologies help address the limitations of recycling in managing the complexity and variety of materials in historic structures.
Innovative Materials for Circular Conservation
The materials used in conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration significantly impact both historical authenticity and environmental performance. Innovative materials designed according to circular principles are enabling conservation professionals to balance these sometimes competing objectives.
Bio-based and Regenerative Materials
Sustainable materials designed for circular use cycles are increasingly important in conservation contexts. These materials not only reduce environmental impact but can also be designed to complement historical materials in appearance and performance.
Green technologies in conservation promote "energy efficiency, reduce waste, and support the use of eco-friendly materials" that are "essential for adapting historical buildings to modern environmental standards"[1]. These technologies enable historic structures to meet contemporary performance requirements while preserving their character-defining features.
Bio-based materials such as mycelium composites, algae-derived products, and engineered timber offer potentially compatible alternatives to traditional materials in specific conservation contexts. These materials can be designed to biodegrade safely at end of life, supporting fully circular resource cycles.
Smart and Responsive Materials
Smart materials that respond to environmental conditions are opening new possibilities for preventive conservation. These materials can adapt to changing conditions, protecting historical structures from environmental stressors without continuous mechanical intervention.
Phase-change materials, self-healing concretes, and thermochromic surfaces can enhance the resilience of historic structures while minimizing energy consumption and maintenance requirements. These innovations support circular objectives by extending building lifespans and reducing resource inputs.
Responsive facade systems that adapt to environmental conditions can improve the energy performance of historic buildings without compromising their architectural character. These systems represent a promising middle ground between preservation and sustainability imperatives.
Structural Materials with Embedded Intelligence
Materials with embedded sensors and monitoring capabilities enable continuous assessment of structural performance and environmental conditions. These systems support predictive maintenance approaches that extend material lifespans and prevent catastrophic failures.
Fiber optic sensing systems integrated into historical structures can detect minute changes in load distribution and material strain, enabling early intervention before significant damage occurs. This capability supports both preservation objectives and circular resource management.
Smart mortars and grouts that provide real-time feedback on moisture content, pH levels, and structural integrity can alert conservation professionals to developing problems before visible damage occurs. These materials support the circular principle of extending product lifespans through enhanced maintenance capabilities.
Compatibility and Performance Considerations
The compatibility of new and historical materials remains a critical consideration in conservation applications. Innovative materials must not only meet circular criteria but also demonstrate long-term compatibility with existing historical materials.
Accelerated aging testing, non-destructive evaluation techniques, and digital material modeling are enhancing our understanding of material interactions in conservation contexts. These approaches help ensure that innovative materials will perform as expected throughout their service life without compromising historical integrity.
Performance criteria for circular materials in conservation applications must balance traditional preservation values with emerging sustainability imperatives. This balance requires a nuanced understanding of material properties, historical significance, and environmental impact throughout the entire life cycle.
Circular Design Innovations for CRR
Design methodologies that integrate circular principles with conservation objectives are transforming how architects approach CRR projects. These approaches emphasize adaptability, disassembly, and material optimization while respecting historical significance.
Design for Disassembly and Adaptability
Designing interventions that can be easily disassembled and adapted supports both conservation ethics and circular economy principles. This approach ensures that contemporary additions can be modified or removed without damaging historical fabric.
Reversible connection systems, modular components, and clearly differentiated interventions enable future adaptations with minimal waste. These strategies align with conservation principles of minimal intervention and reversibility while supporting circular resource flows.
Parametric design tools enable architects to optimize interventions for both performance and material efficiency, minimizing resource inputs while maximizing functional outcomes. These tools allow for precise tailoring of new elements to existing historical conditions.
Digital Twins for Lifecycle Management
Digital twin technologies enable comprehensive lifecycle management of historic structures, integrating information about material properties, historical significance, performance data, and intervention histories.
These virtual models serve as living documents that evolve alongside the physical structure, documenting changes, analyzing performance, and planning future interventions. This approach supports more effective resource management throughout the building lifecycle.
Simulation capabilities within digital twins enable virtual testing of conservation strategies before implementation, reducing material waste and minimizing risk to historical fabric. This capability is particularly valuable in complex conservation contexts with uncertain material conditions.
Circular Business Models for Heritage Conservation
Innovative business models that capture the value of material retention and reuse are essential for scaling circular approaches to conservation. These models transform the economic calculus of heritage projects by recognizing the embedded value in existing materials.
Product-service systems that maintain ownership of installed components can ensure proper maintenance, upgrading, and eventual recovery of materials. This approach aligns economic incentives with circular resource management in conservation contexts.
Performance-based contracting models that reward longevity and reduced environmental impact can drive innovation in conservation practices. These approaches create market pull for circular solutions that might otherwise struggle to compete with conventional alternatives.
Community Engagement and Knowledge Transfer
Participatory design approaches that engage communities in conservation decision-making can enhance project outcomes while building local capacity for circular practices. These approaches recognize that successful circular strategies require broad stakeholder support.
Knowledge transfer between generations of craft workers ensures that traditional skills valuable for circular approaches are preserved and developed. These skills often support resource-efficient, low-impact interventions that align with both conservation and circular principles.
Digital documentation and sharing platforms enable more effective knowledge dissemination among conservation professionals, accelerating the adoption of successful circular strategies across the sector. These platforms help address the fragmentation that has historically limited innovation in the field.
Research Gaps and Directions for Europe and Portugal
Despite significant progress in circular approaches to CRR, important research gaps remain. Addressing these gaps will require coordinated efforts across multiple disciplines and stakeholder groups, particularly in the European and Portuguese contexts.
Policy and Regulatory Frameworks
Current regulatory frameworks often present barriers to circular approaches in conservation. Research is needed to identify specific regulatory obstacles and develop policy recommendations that better align preservation and circularity objectives.
The European Commission's Circular Economy Action Plan establishes ambitious targets for reducing waste and resource consumption, but implementation pathways for the conservation sector remain underdeveloped. Research is needed to translate these high-level objectives into practical guidance for conservation professionals.
Portugal's National Circular Economy Roadmap identifies the construction sector as a priority area but provides limited specific guidance for heritage conservation. Research focusing on the unique challenges and opportunities of the Portuguese built heritage could inform more effective policy instruments.
Assessment Methodologies and Metrics
Standardized methodologies for assessing the circularity of conservation interventions are lacking. Research developing metrics and assessment tools specific to the conservation context would enable more effective comparison and optimization of alternative approaches.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) methodologies tailored to historic structures would provide valuable decision support for conservation professionals weighing different intervention strategies. These methodologies must account for the unique characteristics and extended lifespans of heritage buildings.
Indicators that capture both tangible and intangible heritage values alongside material circularity would provide a more holistic framework for conservation decision-making. These indicators should reflect the complex value systems that inform heritage conservation.
Material Recovery and Reuse Systems
Despite growing interest in material reuse, effective systems for recovering, processing, and redistributing architectural salvage remain underdeveloped. Research on logistics networks, quality assurance protocols, and market mechanisms could accelerate the growth of these systems.
The integration of digital tools with physical material flows represents a particularly promising research direction. Studies investigating how digital platforms can better connect supply and demand for salvaged materials could address a critical gap in current practice.
Research on decontamination and adaptation technologies for historical materials containing hazardous substances would expand the range of materials available for circular reuse. This research is particularly relevant for mid-20th century structures entering the conservation realm.
Portuguese Context-Specific Research Needs
Portugal's rich architectural heritage presents unique opportunities and challenges for circular conservation. Research specific to Portuguese building typologies, construction techniques, and material traditions would enhance the effectiveness of circular approaches in this context.
Studies examining the potential for regional material banks and reuse networks could address the specific geographical and logistical challenges of the Portuguese context. These networks could connect urban centers with rural areas where depopulation has led to building abandonment.
Research on adapting international best practices to the Portuguese regulatory, economic, and cultural context would accelerate the adoption of circular conservation approaches nationally. This research should consider Portugal's specific economic conditions and construction sector characteristics.
Educational and Training Needs
Significant gaps exist in educational programs preparing future architects and conservation professionals for circular practice. Research on effective educational models and curriculum development would enhance professional capacity in this emerging field.
Studies examining the integration of traditional craft knowledge with contemporary circular design principles could inform more effective training programs. This integration is particularly relevant in Portugal, where traditional building crafts retain significant cultural importance.
Research on knowledge transfer mechanisms between academic institutions, professional practice, and community stakeholders would enhance the diffusion of circular innovation throughout the conservation sector. These mechanisms are essential for translating research findings into practical applications.
The Future of Circular CRR: Integrating Physical and Digital Realms
As we look toward the future of circular approaches to conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration, the integration of physical and digital realms emerges as a defining characteristic. This integration promises to transform how we understand, value, and intervene in the built heritage.
Material Inventorying and Mining Urban Resources
Urban mining-the systematic recovery of resources from the built environment-represents a promising frontier for circular conservation. Research on methodologies for inventorying and assessing the reuse potential of the existing building stock could transform how we view our cities.
Current trends in material inventorying suggest that "the inability of recycling to manage the assortment and complexity of waste materials within Circular Economy demands more discrete, attentive and granular approaches to reuse of waste by design professionals"[4]. Digital technologies are essential enablers of these more granular approaches.
The concept of buildings as material banks-repositories of valuable resources for future use-is gaining traction in both new construction and conservation contexts. Research on design strategies that optimize buildings for eventual material recovery would enhance future conservation options.
Regenerative Conservation Approaches
Beyond merely reducing environmental impact, truly circular conservation approaches aim to regenerate natural and social systems. Research on conservation interventions that enhance ecosystem services, improve human wellbeing, and build community resilience represents an important frontier.
Bio-based conservation materials that sequester carbon throughout their lifecycle could transform conservation from a carbon-intensive activity to one that contributes positively to climate mitigation. Research on these materials and their application in historical contexts deserves greater attention.
Studies exploring the regenerative potential of vernacular building traditions could inform more sustainable approaches to contemporary conservation. Many traditional building methods embody circular principles that remain relevant today, particularly in the Portuguese context.
Integration with Broader Sustainability Transitions
Circular conservation cannot exist in isolation from broader sustainability transitions in energy systems, transportation networks, and urban planning. Research on the integration of heritage conservation with these parallel transitions would enhance overall system effectiveness.
Studies examining how historic districts can serve as test beds for circular innovation could generate valuable knowledge while addressing real community needs. These living laboratories could demonstrate the compatibility of preservation and circularity objectives.
Research on the role of heritage conservation in just sustainability transitions would help ensure that circular approaches deliver social benefits alongside environmental improvements. This research is particularly relevant in contexts where heritage resources are unevenly distributed.
The integration of circular economy principles into conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration represents a profound transformation in how we approach our built heritage. By leveraging emerging technologies, innovative materials, and circular design methodologies, conservation professionals can better balance preservation imperatives with environmental responsibility.
The research gaps identified in this chapter point toward a rich agenda for future investigation, particularly in the European and Portuguese contexts. Addressing these gaps will require interdisciplinary collaboration, policy innovation, and continued technological development.
For Master's students in architecture, this evolving field offers exciting opportunities to contribute to both heritage preservation and sustainable development. By developing expertise in circular approaches to CRR, emerging professionals can position themselves at the forefront of this important field while making meaningful contributions to our shared architectural heritage.
The future of architectural conservation lies not in choosing between preservation and sustainability but in finding innovative approaches that serve both objectives simultaneously. Circular economy principles, enabled by emerging technologies and materials, offer a promising path toward this integrated future.

Conclusions

The integration of circular economy principles into conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration practices represents a powerful approach to enhance the sustainability of the built environment while preserving its cultural and historical significance. This research has demonstrated that CRR activities inherently align with circular economy thinking through their focus on extending building lifespans, preserving embodied resources, and maintaining cultural value. However, to fully realize the potential of circular approaches in this sector, several key considerations must be addressed.
First, the application of circular economy to CRR requires a systems perspective that considers buildings not as static objects but as dynamic repositories of materials, energy, and cultural value within larger urban and environmental systems. This perspective enables practitioners to identify intervention points where circular strategies can be most effective, from material selection and design decisions to maintenance practices and end-of-life scenarios.
Second, the successful implementation of circular economy in CRR projects depends on balancing multiple dimensions-temporal, spatial, functional, and technical-while respecting the unique characteristics of heritage buildings. This balance requires innovative approaches that combine traditional knowledge with contemporary techniques, creating solutions that are both respectful of the past and responsive to present and future needs.
Third, the development of appropriate assessment tools and metrics is essential for evaluating the circular performance of CRR projects. Current life cycle assessment methodologies often fail to capture the full range of values associated with heritage buildings, particularly social and cultural dimensions. More holistic evaluation frameworks are needed that can account for these multiple value streams while providing practical guidance for decision-making.
The research also highlights the importance of policy frameworks and economic incentives in supporting circular approaches to CRR. The EU Circular Economy Action Plan provides a valuable starting point, but more targeted measures are needed to address the specific challenges of heritage buildings and historical urban areas. These could include specialized funding programs, technical guidance, and regulatory frameworks that recognize the unique requirements of CRR projects.
Adaptive reuse emerges as a particularly promising circular business model for the built environment, as it maintains resources in use while allowing buildings to adapt to changing needs and requirements[3]. When combined with shared spaces concepts, adaptive reuse can contribute positively to all three sustainability dimensions-environmental, economic, and social-particularly through the creation of vibrant communities and efficient use of space.
Looking forward, the integration of circular economy principles into CRR practices offers significant potential to enhance the sustainability of our built heritage while preserving its cultural significance for future generations. By slowing material flows, closing resource loops, and regenerating natural and cultural systems, circular approaches to CRR can transform our relationship with the built environment, moving from a model of consumption and disposal to one of stewardship and renewal.
The transition to circular practices in CRR will require ongoing collaboration between multiple stakeholders-architects, engineers, heritage specialists, policymakers, and communities-as well as continued research and innovation. However, the potential benefits-reduced resource consumption, decreased waste generation, lower carbon emissions, enhanced cultural value, and improved social cohesion-make this transition not only desirable but essential for creating a sustainable and resilient built environment.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express sincere acknowledgment to CIAUD — Research Centre for Architecture, Urbanism and Design — for their invaluable support in making this publication possible. Their institutional backing, as well as the intellectual environment they foster, provided critical assistance throughout the development of this work. I am deeply grateful for the resources, discussions, and collaborative spirit that contributed to shaping and refining the ideas presented in this book. Without CIAUD’s support, both logistical and academic, this publication would not have reached its full potential.

References

  1. Adams, K. T., Osmani, M., Thorpe, T., & Thornback, J. (2017). Circular economy in construction: Current awareness, challenges and enablers. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Waste and Resource Management, 170(1), 15-24. [CrossRef]
  2. Akanbi, L. A., Oyedele, L. O., Akinade, O. O., Ajayi, A. O., Delgado, M. D., Bilal, M., & Bello, S. A. (2018). Salvaging building materials in a circular economy: A BIM-based whole-life performance estimator. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 129, 175-186. [CrossRef]
  3. Benachio, G. L. F., Freitas, M. C. D., & Tavares, S. F. (2020). Circular economy in the construction industry: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 260, 121046. [CrossRef]
  4. Brilha, N. M., & Pérez-Andreu, V. (2019). Circular economy in the built environment: Supporting emerging concepts. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 297, 012012. [CrossRef]
  5. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2013). Towards the circular economy: Economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition. Ellen MacArthur Foundation Publishing.
  6. Eberhardt, L. C. M., Birgisdottir, H., & Birkved, M. (2019). Life cycle assessment of a Danish office building designed for disassembly. Building Research & Information, 47(6), 666-680. [CrossRef]
  7. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy–A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757-768. [CrossRef]
  8. Giorgi, S., Lavagna, M., & Campioli, A. (2022). Circular economy and regeneration of building stock: Policy improvements, stakeholder networking and life cycle tools. Journal of Cleaner Production, 362, 132121. [CrossRef]
  9. Hart, J., Adams, K., Giesekam, J., Tingley, D. D., & Pomponi, F. (2019). Barriers and drivers in a circular economy: The case of the built environment. Procedia CIRP, 80, 619-624. [CrossRef]
  10. Idahosa, P. O., Marwa, P., & Adeyeye, K. (2021). Development of guidance for the adoption of circular economy in construction and demolition waste management. Planning Malaysia, 19(1), 27-38. [CrossRef]
  11. Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127, 221-232. [CrossRef]
  12. Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018). Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecological Economics, 143, 37-46. [CrossRef]
  13. Kreiner, H., Passer, A., & Wallbaum, H. (2015). A new systemic approach to improve the sustainability performance of office buildings in the early design stage. Energy and Buildings, 109, 385-396. [CrossRef]
  14. López Ruiz, L. A., Roca Ramón, X., & Gassó Domingo, S. (2020). The circular economy in the construction and demolition waste sector–A review and an integrative model approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 248, 119238. [CrossRef]
  15. Lundgren, R. (2023). Adaptive reuse and shared spaces as circular business models. Lund University.
  16. Mahpour, A. (2018). Prioritizing barriers to adopt circular economy in construction and demolition waste management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 134, 216-227. [CrossRef]
  17. Mhatre, P., Panchal, R., Singh, A., & Bibyan, S. (2021). A systematic literature review on the circular economy initiatives in the European Union. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 26, 187-202. [CrossRef]
  18. Munaro, M. R., Tavares, S. F., & Bragança, L. (2020). Towards circular and more sustainable buildings: A systematic literature review on the circular economy in the built environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 260, 121134. [CrossRef]
  19. Pomponi, F., & Moncaster, A. (2017). Circular economy for the built environment: A research framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 710-718. [CrossRef]
  20. Rakhshan, K., Morel, J. C., Alaka, H., & Charef, R. (2021). Components reuse in the building sector – A systematic review. Waste Management & Research, 39(9), 1155-1169. [CrossRef]
  21. Torres Curado, M., Resende, R., & Moreira Rato, V. (2024). Circular economy: Current view from the construction industry based on published definitions. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy.
  22. Wen, C. H., Khalaf, W., & Mahmoud, A. H. A. (2019). Are we ready for circular economy? Towards zero waste in construction. Sustainable Buildings, 4, 2. [CrossRef]
  23. Williams, J. (2019). Circular cities: Challenges to implementing looping actions. Sustainability, 11(2), 423. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
bsky
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated