Background: The built environment is responsible for substantial material throughput, waste generation, and lifecycle environmental impacts. Scholarship across materials science, construction management, policy, and industrial ecology emphasizes reuse, recycling, and design-for-disassembly as central strategies for decoupling building-sector growth from resource depletion (Jawahir & Bradley, 2016; Jones & Comfort, 2018). Yet implementation remains fragmented by technical, economic, regulatory, and social barriers (Hart et al., 2019; Hjaltadóttir & Hild, 2021).
Objectives: This article constructs an integrative, publication-ready conceptual and methodological framework—grounded exclusively in the provided literature—that synthesizes material-level interventions (e.g., wood-plastic composites, recycled timber), component- and building-level reuse strategies (e.g., whole-house deconstruction, load-bearing component reuse), procurement and policy levers (e.g., circular procurement), and enabling digital-technological tools (e.g., BIM for demolition planning). It aims to reconcile disparate empirical findings into a coherent research agenda and actionable decision framework for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers.
Methods: A critical integrative review approach was used, combining thematic synthesis, cross-case comparative analysis, and systems-mapping. Source materials included experimental materials research, case studies of deconstruction and reuse, life-cycle and economic feasibility analyses, policy and procurement scholarship, and technological studies on digital tools for demolition and waste estimation (Keskisaari & Kärki, 2018; Bouslamti et al., 2012; Zaman et al., 2018; Cheng & Ma, 2013). Each source was interrogated for contribution to technical feasibility, economic viability, regulatory impediments, stakeholder dynamics, and design implications. Claims are triangulated across multiple sources, and where tensions exist, alternative interpretations are explored.
Results: The synthesis identifies four mutually reinforcing domains necessary for scalable circularity in the built environment: (1) material innovation and substitution pathways (e.g., wood-plastic composites employing industrial wastes); (2) building- and component-level recovery systems (e.g., systematic deconstruction and reuse of load-bearing elements); (3) institutional and market mechanisms (e.g., circular procurement and cost-competitive reuse supply chains); and (4) digital and process enablers (e.g., BIM-based waste estimation and mapping of material flows). Critical bottlenecks identified include uncertain cost attribution for secondary materials, quality and performance variability in reclaimed materials, regulatory ambiguity over reused structural elements, and information asymmetries inhibiting reuse markets (Yeung et al., 2017; Sigrid Nordby, 2019; Serwanja & Sheidaei, 2016).
Conclusions: Transitioning to circular built environments requires coordinated interventions across technical, institutional, and informational axes. Design for Reuse, integrated procurement strategies, and digital traceability constitute a combined pathway to reduce lifecycle impacts while maintaining safety and cost-effectiveness. Research priorities include standardized performance metrics for reclaimed materials, procurement models that internalize circularity benefits, and scalable logistics models for deconstruction and material redistribution. The article closes by proposing a detailed research and policy agenda that operationalizes the integrated framework introduced.