Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances 20 (2023) 200198

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/
Resources-Conservation-and-Recycling-Advances

Barriers to circular economy practices during construction and demolition

waste management in an emerging economy
Vandana Bhavsar a, *, Srividhya Raju Sridharan b, J.S. Sudarsan c
a
Associate Professor, NICMAR Business School NICMAR University, Pune 25/1, Balewadi, N.I.A. Post Office, Pune 411045, India
b
Assistant Professor, NICMAR Business School NICMAR University, Pune 25/1, Balewadi, N.I.A. Post Office, Pune 411045, India
c
Assistant Professor, School of Energy and Environment NICMAR University, Pune 25/1, Balewadi, N.I.A. Post Office, Pune 411045, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The construction industry requires significant quantities of material and energy resources, which are either
Circular economy recycled or disposed as waste after demolition. Circular Economy (CE) facilitates the benefits of reuse and
Construction industry recycling of Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) and promotes the industry in cradle-to-cradle or
Construction demolition and waste
“Resolve” paradigms. However, in emerging economies, the industry merely achieves to harness a negligible
Emerging economies
Reuse and recycle
amount of the CDW’s intrinsic monetary benefit and sustainability, due to multiple barriers to circular practices.
This study examines barriers that obstruct the incorporation of circular economy practices in the Indian con­
struction industry. The study uses Relative Importance Index (RII), Factor Analysis, and Regression analysis to
arrive at a list of macro-environmental barriers to the use of CE in CDW. The findings are presented using the
PESTEL framework, with Political, Social, and Economic factors being the dominant barriers to the use of CE in
CDW in emerging economies. Results from this study point towards the need for better guidelines by regulators
for recycling of CDW, incentive schemes, and overall capacity building in emerging economies.

1. Introduction concept of “Circular Economy” (CE), is thus gaining impetus in many

emerging economies.
The global market for construction materials is currently at around Many researchers have presented frameworks for the adoption of CE
US$ 1 trillion and is estimated to reach around US$ 1.5 trillion by 2027 in CDW such as 3R (Esa et al., 2017; Jiménez-Rivero and García-Na­
majorly accelerated by growing construction activities in emerging varro, 2017; Ghisellini et al., 2018), Resolve (Ellen Mc Authur Foun­
economies (World Bank Report, 2022). The construction industry is dation report, 2013), 3 layers (Yuan et al., 2006) and Life Cycle
highly intensive in terms of resource and energy use, emissions, and Assessment (LCA) (Cabeza et al., 2014; Islam et al., 2015; Ghisellini
waste generation (Singh et al., 2023). India generates around 150 et al., 2018). Over the past decade, CE has also become politically
million tonnes of Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) every year, relevant with applications across industries (Kazancoglu et al., 2021).
out of which merely less than 5 % is recycled in emerging economies While Linear Economy follows the cradle-to-grave approach, CE follows
(Ruiz et al., 2020; Fitch-Roy et al., 2021; Nadazdi et al., 2022). The most the cradle-to-cradle approach (Gedam et al., 2021a).
common form of disposal being landfills and illegal dumping into water The critics of these frameworks insist that without strong regulatory
bodies (Biswas et al., 2021). The current waste pathway that exists for initiatives for construction waste management in emerging economies,
the construction industry follows the linear economy – “take-­ the framework would not achieve its objective (Ferronato and Torretta,
make-dispose”, (Boulding, 1966; Low et al., 2020; Sudarsan and Gavali, 2019). Although there is no one way to assess the adoption of CE in
2023). Weaker environmental regulations combined with CDW being construction, researchers have used environmental LCA as a methodol­
generated throughout the construction life cycle during planning, ogy for assessing environmental impacts associated with all life-cycle
designing, procurement, site management, demolition, and disposal stages of products, processes, or services in the construction industry
pose a significant threat in emerging economies (Turner and Pearce, (International Organization for Standardization 2006a, 2006b; Mhatre
1990). Hence, this is now becoming a central aspect of government et al., 2021). LCA is not comparable to other frameworks like RESOLVE
policymaking and the transition of the Construction industry to the and R-strategies.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (V. Bhavsar), [email protected] (S.R. Sridharan), [email protected] (J.S. Sudarsan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200198

Available online 29 November 2023

2667-3789/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
V. Bhavsar et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances 20 (2023) 200198

The CE framework and the assessment methods only provide a basis A macro-environmental perspective is therefore expected to bring
for decision-making. While CE methodologies have largely focussed on more insights on all those external and internal factors that affect the
the manufacturing industry, a standardized approach for the construc­ adoption of CE in CDW in the construction sector. For instance, in
tion industry is yet to be adopted. In an ideal CE-based construction, the emerging economies, the extent of tax incentives, political stability, and
end of a building’s life would be considered and it would be designed for the cultural mindset of the client may also play a role in the adoption of
reuse and recycling, in such a way that the CDW can be mined for future CE. In order to get a holistic view of the barriers to the adoption of CE in
construction. Accordingly, the procurement strategy, material usage, CDW and also to quantify the impact of the barriers, it is important to
and onsite execution would follow. Completion of the desired waste view the research problem from a wider lens. There is thus an imperative
management loop is essential to create a truly circular economy in the need to holistically map the external as well as internal barriers that
Construction Industry (Low et al., 2020). impede the adoption of circular practices in construction and develop a
While CE concept can potentially assist through the recirculation of framework that successfully paves the way for a more sustainable con­
construction materials, an increased industry-focused approach towards struction industry in emerging economies.
CE is needed in an effort to realise its full potential (Lovrenčić Butković, Taking into consideration the above setting the intent of the present
et al. 2021). The European Union has led the way through setting of study is threefold: a) to explore barriers (attributes) to the imple­
mandatory green public procurement as part of the Circular Economy mentation of CE practices in CDW in the Indian construction sector; b) to
Action Plan 2020–25 (European Commission, 2020). Numerous factors identify the critical factors underpinning the barriers (attributes); and c)
including government legislation, technological advancements in recy­ to examine the impact these barriers (factors) have on the adoption of
cling (Böckel et al., 2021; Upadhyay et al., 2021), green public pro­ CE in CDW processes in India. The study, through these objectives, thus
curement, supply chain management (Gedam et al., 2021b), change in attempts to address the research gap and develop a more comprehensive
management outlook, and general stakeholders outlook have been framework influencing the use of CE in CDW in the construction
studied and found to have a positive impact on effective regeneration of industry.
CDW to enable a Circular Economy (Manavalan and Jayakrishna, 2019; Acknowledging the need for this study, statistical methods namely
Nadazdi et al., 2022; Purchase et al., 2022). Case studies from across the factor analysis and regression analysis are employed to determine the
world highlight the adoption of CE as an alternate growth model to take clustering effects of identical barriers and to establish a predictive model
advantage of a significant opportunity to increase productivity, quality, based on the best-fit factors (barriers) impending the CE practices in
employment, and reduce environmental impact (Lockrey et al., 2016; CDW in the construction industry.
Low et al., 2020). In spite of seemingly voluminous research promoting
the adoption of CE for the construction industry, implementation at 2. Materials and methods
ground level is near zero in emerging economies (Lockrey et al., 2016;
Mahpour, 2018). The methodology employed for the current study essentially includes
Studies on barriers to the adoption of circular practices in CDW a literature survey, expert interviews, a questionnaire survey, and data
discuss them under three major heads - behavioral, technical, and legal analysis (Fig. 1).
(Mahpour, 2018). Lack of experience, unawareness of waste manage­ The attributes identified have additionally been verified by struc­
ment methods, absence of intention from the contractor, lack of client tured experts’ interviews to have in-depth knowledge of the imple­
mandate to comply and absence of a personal norm to comply are some mentation of the CE barrier in CDW. Barriers pertaining to supply chain,
behavioral barriers (Wu et al., 2017; Li et al., 2018). Specific barriers to and green public procurement were dropped as interviewees’ felt that
the adoption of CE compliant technologies include higher costs in they did not bear sufficient significance in the context of emerging
building-integrated photovoltaics, high-efficiency windows, and pre­ economies. The profile of experts selected for the interviews is sum­
fabricated technology (Wang et al., 2021). On the legal front, the lack of marized in Table 1.
mandatory requirements for manufacturers and suppliers, deficient This further enhanced the understanding of the barriers in imple­
environment-friendly policies, and lack of attitude and awareness of menting CE as regards CDW and facilitated the framing of the ques­
government agencies are revealed as important barriers (Fitch-Roy tionnaire for further model development. A total of 25 attributes were
et al., 2021; Kazancoglu et al., 2021). After the adoption of CE, agency framed as listed in Table 2. The questionnaire thus developed comprises
and ownership issues in waste management, lack of integration and Part A: related to the respondent’s professional profile such as the name
uncertainty in the aftermath of transformation, inability to cope with of the organization, number of years of experience, etc., and Part B -
lower volumes along with the local and decentralized nature of waste attributes (barriers) to the adoption of CE in CDW and achieving
generation, pose significant challenges leading to relapse of Linear circularity in construction. A five-point Likert scale (1 strongly disagree,
Economy practices (Lockrey et al., 2016; De Angelis et al., 2018). While 2 disagree, 3 neutral, 4 agree, 5 strongly agree) was chosen wherein
many contractors in the CDW sector are small and medium-sized com­ respondents were directed to rate the significance and effect of a
panies, they have limited capacity for onsite waste segregation and particular barrier on the adoption of CE in CDW. The questionnaire was
centralized disposal. They are unable to take advantage of economies of floated using Google Forms to obtain the responses. Diversity in the
scale for better economic and environmental efficiency (Low et al., survey sample was established by selecting a cluster of respondents
2020). Further, the potential of technologies like blockchain to be an having critical roles across various construction project execution ac­
enabler for CE is yet to gain momentum due to challenges in the creation tivities and organizations in India. The present study uses a research
of trust and verification (Böckel et al., 2021). design based on the techniques employed by authors like Bhavsar et al.
From the above literature, it emerges that most of the studies have (2022) and others in their papers.
prioritized identifying the barriers impeding circular practices in con­
struction on the basis of the perceptions of various stakeholders in this 2.1. Profile of survey respondents
industry. Further, these studies lack an integrated approach that con­
siders barriers at multiple life cycle stages of the project alongside A survey of Indian construction professionals was undertaken to
macroeconomic factors. Nevertheless, the quantification of de­ collect the information from experts using methods such as email, on­
pendencies of one factor over others has also not been comprehensively line, and telephone discussions. For this study, the respondents selected
established in the extant literature. Much remains to be done in comprised a wide range of professionals viz. project managers, archi­
exploring the relationship between different barriers to circular prac­ tects, owners, design engineers, construction managers, planning heads,
tices and studying the impact of these barriers on the successful imple­ subject experts, etc. engaged in different construction project execution
mentation of CE in CDW. activities in India. A total of 195 questionnaires were distributed, among

2
V. Bhavsar et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances 20 (2023) 200198

Fig. 1. Research flow chart.

2.2. Methods
Table 1
Interviewees’ profile.
Data analysis was then carried out on the responses obtained by
Name Expert Experience Project using various statistical tools. Apart from using descriptive statistics,
designation (in years)
namely the relative importance index (RII) on the attributes collected in
Expert Assistant < 5 years Tuticorin Airport the sample survey, the study was designed to be used with two statistical
A Manager
techniques namely factor analysis and regression modeling.
Expert Operations < 5 years Project 1 - Mumbai – construction
B Consultant of an International School, Project The rationale for employing these tools is: first, RII helps in ranking
2 - Gurgaon - Wipro project the attributes (barriers) in understanding their imminence from re­
Expert Planning < 5 years Project 1 - IOCL Vallur Terminal, spondents’ perspectives. Second, in order to know the critical factors
C Engineer Project 2 - TNEB Ennore 660 mw underpinning the barriers, factor analysis which is the most effective
thermal power plant
Expert Manager 5 to 10 years Demolition of dilapidated
tool was employed. It gives insight into the clustering effect by reducing
D structures of a metro project - the attributes (barriers) and thereby describes a more meaningful as­
Mumbai sociation between various barriers. Lastly, to get insight into the barriers
Expert Planning 5 to 10 years Project 1 - Expressway project – (factors) impacting the reuse and recycling of demolition materials,
E Manager NCR
multiple regression modeling was employed. The analysis thus aids in
Project 2 – Residential project
-Pune providing an effective measure of the significant degree of relationship
Expert Sr. Manager 5 to 10 years Demolition of RCC Chimneys and among dependent and explanatory variables on the basis of best-fit at­
F Steel Structure - Maharashtra tributes. The multiple regression analysis combines a set of explanatory
Expert Construction 5 to 10 years Port Project, Paradip, Odhisa variables and enables us to develop a potential predictive framework for
G Manager
forecasting barriers in implementing circular construction practices in
Expert Manager- 5 to 10 years RMZ Ecoworld-Bangalore
H Planning emerging economies.
Expert Assistant 5 to 10 years Park Cubix Marketing office -
I Manager QC Bangalore 2.2.1. Relative importance index
Expert Consultant 5 to 10 years Stadium project - Kerala
As suggested by Bhavsar et al. (2022), the mean and standard devi­
J
ation of each attribute is not suitable measure to determine overall
rankings since these statistics do not consider the relationship between
which 138 effective data were received with a 70.77 % rate of response. attributes. Hence, the RII method was used to rank the attributes as
As depicted in Table 3 and Fig. 2, the combination of disciplines was perceived by the respondents. It is the most commonly used tool and can
balanced in the sample. Although the sample size was comparably small, be calculated using the following equation:
the quality of data appears to be extremely accurate for further evalu­ ΣW
ation as a result of relevant sector experiences, individual-level com­ RII = (1)
(A*N)
munications, and a thorough knowledge of the questionnaire among the
respondents. where W is the weight given to each attribute; A is the highest weight
(here, 5); N is the total number of responses.

3
V. Bhavsar et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances 20 (2023) 200198

Table 2 Table 2 (continued )

Evidence of barriers from literature. Code Barrier list Description Main references
Code Barrier list Description Main references
at the beginning of the
B1 Lack of political will Adoption of a suitable Lockrey et al., 2016; project. Absence of
to develop framework framework such as the Purchase et al., 2022 trust amongst
for CDW "Resolve", "three participants resulting
layered framework" in in inability to rely on
government policies block chain
and regulations for B12 Lack of uniformity For CDW, uniformly Wang et al., 2021;
enabling CE in CDW and co-ordination accepted material Nadazdi et al., 2022
B2 Cost of Reuse and Finitely recyclable Mahpour, 2018; amongst green rating quality standards,
Recycle exceeds construction material Kazancoglu et al., agencies waste disposal
benefit increases the cost of 2021; Expert G, Expert procedures, recycling
reuse and recycling J techniques amongst
thereby exceeding the accreditation bodies
resultant benefit B13 Lack of uniformity in Absence of local Kazancoglu et al., 2021
B3 Lack of onus on Absence of onus on the Esa et al., 2017, framework amongst geographical level
stakeholders towards contractors and clients Sparrevik et al., 2021; states uniformity in
reducing CDW to ensure recycling of Górecki et al., 2022; framework in spite of
CDW and poor Expert B; Expert F existence of overall
management style loose framework for CE
towards enabling CE in in CDW
CDW B14 Inability to recycle Low potential to reuse Ginga et al., 2020;
B4 Non-definition of Not existence of ISO Jiménez-Rivero and and reuse expensive CDW material Behera et al., 2021;
protocols and ISO code for waste García-Navarro, 2017; input material indicating presence of Expert G
codes acceptance criteria, Ruiz et al., 2020; non-reusable material
lack of standards in Wang et al., 2021; in projects
reuse and recycling of Expert I B15 Lack of awareness No integrated Mahpour, 2018; Wang
CDW about methods to approach for reuse and et al., 2021; Morseletto
B5 Lack of government Government permits, Wu et al., 2017; recycle and reuse recycle of CDW. et al., 2022; Expert C
mandates to reduce mandates and Kazancoglu et al., CDW in semi urban Solutions are
carbon footprint specifications for reuse 2021; Purchase et al., areas implemented in
and recycling of CDW 2022; Expert I isolation
so that overall carbon B16 Lack of uniformity in green material quality Pearlmutter et al.,
footprint of quality of CDW produced is not 2020; Ruiz et al., 2020
construction industry uniform. Needs to be
is reduced nature inspired. Lack of
B6 Unclear legislations Lack of rules requiring Jiménez-Rivero and standards affects
on reuse and onsite segregation, García-Navarro, 2017; quality
recycling of CDW thus considerably Purchase et al., 2022; B17 Non-monetisation of no value added to the Lockrey et al., 2016;
reducing the effort in Expert G environmental contractor or client by Expert D
recycling of waste benefits of recycling recyling of waste
B7 Lack of political will agency and ownership Mahpour, 2018; Expert by stakeholders
to implement rules issues in waste C; Expert D; B18 Meagre penal actions Low or NIL fines and Wu et al., 2017
for CDW reuse and management by for non-recycling of low reporting of non-
recycle government as well as CDW compliances at the
private players arises time of generating
out of lack of political CDW
will to implement rules B19 Low government Financial support Lockrey et al., 2016;
for CDW reuse and incentives to enable through incentives is Sparrevik et al., 2021;
recycling CE for CDW low. Subsidies low. Nadazdi et al., 2022;
B8 High initial Higher costs of Wu et al., 2017; Insufficient fund Ramakrishna et al.,
investment for reuse investment and Kazancoglu et al., allocation 2022;
and recycle of CDW implementation for 2021; Wang et al., B20 Inability to attract Low financial support Wu et al., 2017;
smaller players deters 2021; Purchase et al., low cost funds (FDI) and high interest rates Kazancoglu et al.,
from adoption of good 2022; Expert I for CDW processing on contractors who 2021; Expert A
CE practices process CDW. Foreign
B9 Negative perception Limited knowledge of Ruiz et al., 2020; funds at lower interest
of community users on recycled and Purchase et al., 2022; rate, sponsored
towards use of reused CDW material Expert E projects not
recycled products coupled with forthcoming for the
Consumers purpose
reservations about low B21 Lack of importance Poor Understanding of Mahpour, 2018;
quality of recycled attached by importance of CDW D’Amato, 2021, Expert
material stakeholders to be CE recycling and E
B10 Low technological Quality of material Ginga et al., 2020; compliant (low implementing the same
advancements to produced by recycling Behera et al., 2014; perceived returns) by stakeholders
assess uniformity in is questionable on Expert E; Expert I; B22 Lack of economic and classification is an Lockrey et al., 2016;
quality of recycled account of fragmented Expert J standardized quality issue, lack of methods Wang et al., 2021;
CDW application of assessment facility for to assess quality of Expert A
technology and best CDW recycled CDW
practices produced
B11 Inefficiencies in Non-usage of advanced Afshari and Górecki, B23 Prices of recycled Resource markets do Low et al., 2020;
recycling of CDW technology such as 2019; Böckel et al., CDW are not not give competitive Kazancoglu et al., 2021
leading to low block chain IoT 2021; Upadhyay et al., competitive prices for recycled
environmental effectively to trace 2021 waste, fragmented
benefits reusability of material resource markets, lack
of economies of scale
(continued on next page)

4
V. Bhavsar et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances 20 (2023) 200198

Table 2 (continued ) multiple regression for constructing a possible predictive framework not
Code Barrier list Description Main references only for the Indian construction sector but also for the construction
sector of emerging economies.
B24 Lack of affordable Employee training and Li et al., 2018;
training on handling behavior in recycling Schönborn and Junge,
The multiple regression method was utilized to analyze which bar­
of CDW CDW, bad engineering 2021; Wang et al., riers (attributes) play a major role in impacting the decision of ‘CDW
practices, low labor 2021; Expert H does not get reused or recycled in India’. Although factor analysis in­
quality dicates the presence of groups of substantially correlated coefficients
B25 Lack of availability of Challenges in material De Angelis et al., 2018;
with quantifiable underlying factors, such factors do not exhibit fore­
CDW recycled input procurement in a Low et al., 2020;
material at affordable centralized manner, Kacprzak and Kupich, casting ability of any order on the estimated phenomenon. These factors
rates decentralization is a 2021; Wang et al., are obtained using the highest number of common variances in a cor­
barrier 2021; Expert H relation matrix applying the least experimental designs and these factors
are believed to be of equal value. However, a forecasting model like
multiple regression combines a set of explanatory variables in the
Table 3 dataset and fits a predictive model without taking into consideration the
Respondent’s profile. common variance in the correlation matrix. Thus, in multiple regression,
Nature of work Total % of professional role the value of R square serves as an effective indicator of the substantial
Lower Management 49 35.5 size of the relationship between the predictor variable and explanatory
Middle Management 39 28.3 variables. Regression Eq. (2) was used to investigate the impact of
Senior Management 15 10.9 various barriers on the dependent variable (CDW does not get reused or
Subject Matter Expert 35 25.4
Total 138 100.0
recycled in India).
y = a + b1 x1 + b2 x2 + … + bn x1 ± e (2)

where, y is the dependent variable; a is constant and intercept at y-axis;

b1 to bn are estimated coefficients; x1 to xn are values of independent
variables; e is an error.

Table 4
Ranking of attributes.
Barrier list RII Rank

B1 Lack of political will to develop framework for CDW 0.810 10

B2 Cost of Reuse and Recycle exceeds benefit 0.778 19
B3 Lack of onus on stakeholders towards reducing CDW 0.859 1
B4 Non-definition of protocols and ISO codes 0.757 22
B5 Lack of government mandates to reduce carbon footprint 0.839 3
B6 Unclear legislations on reuse and recycling of CDW 0.825 7
B7 Lack of political will to implement rules for CDW reuse 0.835 4
and recycle
B8 High initial investment for reuse and recycle of CDW 0.767 21
B9 Negative perception of community towards use of 0.726 24
recycled products
Fig. 2. Respondents’ work experience. B10 Low technological advancements to produce good quality 0.801 14
recycled CDW
B11 Inefficiencies in recycling of CDW leading to low 0.742 23
2.2.2. Factor analysis environmental benefits
Although RII is a meaningful tool to rank attributes, it does not give B12 Lack of uniformity and co-ordination amongst green 0.787 16
any relevant findings in the context of interpreting the clustering effects rating agencies
of identical attributes and their predictive power. Further, in an effort to B13 Lack of uniformity in framework amongst states 0.829 6
B14 Inability to recycle and reuse expensive input material 0.806 13
overcome the problems of weak correlation, idiosyncrasy, and adequacy B15 Lack of awareness about methods to recycle and reuse 0.813 9
of the data, the correlation matrix, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test, and CDW in semi urban areas
Bartlett’s test of sphericity was used. These tests are conducted to B16 Lack of uniformity in quality of CDW 0.806 13
measure the amount of variation in the attributes that probably could be B17 Non-monetisation of environmental benefits of recycling 0.784 18
by stakeholders
caused by underlying factors. The value of KMO is between 0 – 1 and
B18 Meagre penal actions for non-recycling of CDW 0.786 17
according to Kaiser (1974), a KMO less than 0.5 value suggests that B19 Low government incentives to enable CE for CDW 0.835 4
factor analysis of the given sample is not appropriate. Also, principal B20 Inability to attract low cost funds (FDI) for CDW 0.807 11
component analysis (PCA) and Varimax rotation tests were employed to processing
cluster interrelated attributes into fewer principal factors and thereby B21 Lack of importance attached by stakeholders to be CE 0.807 11
compliant (low perceived returns)
improve the interpretation of these orthogonal factors. B22 Lack of economic and standardized quality assessment 0.817 8
facility for CDW
2.2.3. Regression analysis B23 Prices of recycled CDW not competitive 0.799 15
The barriers to the delay in adopting CDW reuse and recycling in B24 Lack of affordable training on handling of CDW 0.858 2
B25 Lack of availability of CDW recycled input material at 0.771 20
India from factor analysis are additionally examined using linear
affordable rates

5
V. Bhavsar et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances 20 (2023) 200198

3. Results and discussions Table 5

Factor analysis – components extracted.
3.1. Relative importance index Details of factors and attributes Factor Variance
loadings explained
Table 4 exhibits the ranking of attributes based on RII values. Lack of Factor 1: Low-profit margins (Economic)
awareness about the potential of CDW amongst stakeholders emerged as B17 Non-monetisation of environmental benefits 0.417 29.41 %
the major issue of concern for the respondents. According to Mahpour of recycling by stakeholders
(2018), Charef and Emmit (2020), and Haselsteiner et al. (2021), no B19 Low government incentives to enable CE for 0.637
CDW
guidance and limited awareness about the effective understanding of B20 Inability to attract low-cost funds (FDI) for 0.701
CDW sorting, reuse, and recycling has led to uncertainty in the adoption CDW processing
of circular practices amongst the stakeholders. Further, the absence of B21 Lack of importance attached by stakeholders 0.688
knowledge and awareness on CE and its guidelines aggravates the issue. to be CE compliant (low perceived returns)
B22 Lack of economic and standardized quality 0.529
Lack of training on handling of CDW was ranked as the second barrier
assessment facility for CDW
for the delay in the application of reuse and recycling of demolition B23 Prices of recycled CDW are not competitive 0.620
waste. In their study, Li et al. (2018) stressed that the absence of B24 Lack of affordable training on handling of 0.565
effective training both by the organisation as well as by the government CDW
leads to lesser intention for construction waste reduction. Lack of gov­ B25 Lack of availability of CDW recycled input 0.561
material at affordable rates
ernment mandates to reduce carbon footprint occupies third rank,
whereas lack of political will to implement rules for CDW reuse and Factor 2: Lapses in policy implementation (Political)
recycle and low government incentives to enable CE jointly occupies B1 Lack of political will to develop framework 0.693 18.04 %
fourth place. Studies by Webster and Costello (2005), Huang et al. for CDW
B5 Lack of government mandates to reduce 0.695
(2018), and Charef and Emmit (2020) highlighted that as a consequence
carbon footprint
of the paucity of incentives and thrust by the government for circular B6 Unclear legislations on reuse and recycling 0.571
constructions, inadequate uniform standards, and lack of implementa­ of CDW
tion of policies and regulations related to reuse and recycle of CDW B7 Lack of political will to implement rules for 0.751
materials by the government, have discouraged the stakeholders to CDW reuse and recycle
B18 Meagre penal actions for non-recycling of 0.580
adopt circular practices in construction.
CDW

Factor 3: Paucity of uniform Environmental Assessment

3.2. Factor analysis framework
B10 Low technological advancements to assess 0.715 7.91 %
uniformity in quality of recycled CDW
Table 5 displays an understanding of the observed correlated barriers B12 Lack of uniformity and co-ordination 0.622
(attributes) into fewer underlying factors using factor analysis. In the amongst green rating agencies
present study, the value of KMO for 25 attributes (barriers) is 0.834. A B13 Lack of uniformity in framework amongst 0.572
total of six factors with 23 attributes using PCA and Varimax rotation states
B16 Lack of uniformity in quality of CDW 0.712
tests were derived and these six factors explain 72.80 % of the total
variance. The two attributes namely the Negative perception of community Factor 4: Firm-level Barriers (social)
towards use of recycled products (B9) and Inefficiencies in recycling of CDW B2 Cost of Reuse and Recycle exceeds benefit 0.732 7.39 %
leading to low environmental benefits (B11) were dropped since their B8 High initial investment for reuse and recycle 0.739
factor loading was less than 0.4 (Iyer and Jha 2005). of CDW

The reliability of the observed barriers (attributes) and scale was Factor 5: Barriers in Technological Advancements
confirmed using Cronbach’s alpha test. The test value ranges between (technical)
0 and 1. The test was applied to the attributes in each factor as repre­ B14 Inability to recycle and reuse expensive 0.756 5.79 %
sented in Table 6. input material
B15 Lack of awareness about methods to recycle 0.601
The Cronbach’s alpha value might be anywhere between 0 and 1.
and reuse CDW in semi-urban areas
However, extracted factors are internally consistent if the alpha value is
closer to 1 and vice versa. Further as pointed out by Doloi et al. (2012) in Factor 6: Loopholes in legal framework
their study, as a rule of thumb alpha value greater than 0.7 is acceptable B3 Lack of onus on stakeholders towards 0.534 4.26 %
whereas an alpha value less than 0.7 is questionable. In the present reducing CDW
B4 Non-definition of protocols and ISO codes 0.797
study, the alpha value for all attributes is 0.897 which is deemed to be
good.

3.2.1. Discussion Table 6

After extracting the factors, the labelling of the factors to show the Cronbach’s alpha for all attributes.
interrelationships of all attributes in that factor was undertaken. Attributes Cronbach’s alpha
Explained below is a discussion of the factors in the descending order of Attributes in Factor 1 0.825
variance. Attributes in Factor 2 0.767
Attributes in Factor 3 0.767
Attributes in Factor 4 0.844
3.2.1.1. Low-profit margins (Economic). The first factor labeled ‘Low-
Attributes in Factor 5 0.755
profit margin or Economic factors’ consists of eight attributes and ex­ Attributes in Factor 6 0.726
plains 29.41 % of the variance. Since contractor or client do not perceive All attributes selected for factor analysis 0.897
the value addition of recycling of waste in context of generating envi­
ronmental benefits they are unable to monetise the same. Similarly,
major economic barrier is the inability to attract low cost funds for CDW
government and local bodies’ unwillingness to promote CE in CDW
processing since the working capital cycle of material recovery, reuse,
owing to their own lack of awareness leads to low or no incentive to
and recycling is too high, leading to a rise in operating costs. The
stakeholders (Webster and Costello, 2005; Huang et al., 2018). Another

6
V. Bhavsar et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances 20 (2023) 200198

investment in establishing the required infrastructure is also high 3.2.1.4. Firm-level barriers (Social). Fourth factor firm-level barriers
whereas, the return on investment is generally delayed leading to failure explaining 7.39 % of variance has two attributes linked to it. It explains
to attract foreign investments (Charef et al., 2021; Mahpour, 2018). the difficulties faced by construction organizations while implementing
There prevails inadequate understanding among stakeholders about circularity strategies in CDW. The first attribute under this factor is Cost
the comprehensive benefits of the adoption of CE and the advantages of Reuse and Recycle exceeds the benefit. The tendency among man­
(environmental and economic) of transition to CE. Apart from this, the agers to use finitely recyclable construction material increases the cost
stakeholders also lack a vision for circular business models leading to of reuse and recycling thereby exceeding the resultant benefit. The high
lack of importance attached by them to be CE compliant. In addition, initial investment for the reuse and recycle of CDW indicates a higher
there are issues of waste segregation, absence of waste acceptance cri­ cost of running a business by adopting CE. Higher capital investment is
terion, and unavailability of methods to assess the quality of recycled required for recycling technology, transportation of materials, training
CDW leads to a rise in the cost of recycling the CDW materials. Frag­ of labour, etc. However, since there is a lack of financial incentives from
mented resource markets and lack of economies of scale due to the the government organisations do not find it profitable to adopt CE in
absence of bulk demand and supply of CDW materials further result in CDW. Specifically, for the smaller players higher costs of investment and
non-competitive recycled CDW. implementation deter the adoption of good CE practices.
The process of material sorting, segregation, etc. requires highly
skilled and trained employers as compared to usual labourers thus 3.2.1.5. Barriers in technological advancements (Technical). Fifth factor
leading to higher operational costs. However, the top management is not named barriers in technological advancements explains 5.79 % of the
committed to recycling CDW which further results in bad engineering variance and consists of two attributes viz., Inability to recycle and reuse
and recycling practices and also adds to low labour quality. In summary, expensive input material and Lack of awareness about methods to recycle and
the procedure of material procurement fundamentally lacks supply reuse CDW in semi-urban areas. Lack of established and reliable recycling
chain integration, availability of materials in the required quantity and technology and innovation indicates more and more use of non-reusable
quality, and also individual-centric supply models. This leads to higher materials and less of reused or recycled materials in the projects by the
economic costs in implementing circular construction practices. stakeholders. On the one hand, there is an absence of any integrated
approach for the reuse and recycling of CDW materials, and on the other,
3.2.1.2. Lapses in policy implementation (Political). Factor two explains the solutions and technologies for reuse and recycling are implemented
18.04 % of variance and comprises of five attributes. Lack of adoption by in isolation. This further deters the adoption of CE by stakeholders.
government or local bodies of a suitable framework such as the
"Resolve", "three-layered framework" hinders enabling CE in CDW. 3.2.1.6. Loopholes in legal framework. The last factor other barriers
There is no coherence in government permits, mandates, and specifi­ explain 4.26 % of the variance and have two attributes in it. Lack of onus
cations for reuse and recycling of CDW so as to reduce overall carbon on stakeholders towards reducing CDW indicates the absence of onus on
footprint of the construction industry (Charef et al., 2021; Charef and the contractors and clients to ensure recycling of CDW and also poor
Emmitt, 2020; Mahpour, 2018). Lack of rules and legislations requiring management style towards enabling circular practices in CDW. Non-
onsite waste segregation considerably reduces the effort in recycling definition of protocols and ISO codes signifies the non-existence of ISO
waste. Agency and ownership issues in waste management both by the code for waste acceptance criteria and also the lack of standards in the
government as well as private players lead to the non-adoption of cir­ reuse and recycling of CDW.
cular practices. Overall, government inaction against construction or­ Overall the barriers to the implementation of CE in demolition waste
ganisations for not reporting non-compliances at the time of generating indicate political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and
CDW or levying low or no fines on such organisations further leads to the legal (PESTEL) factors as major influencers (Fig. 3). The PESTEL
derailing of the application of circular practices in the construction framework is a strategic analysis tool that inspects every aspect of an
sector (Mhatre et al., 2023).

3.2.1.3. Paucity of uniform environmental assessment framework. The

third factor, lack of regional standards, explains 7.91 % of the variance
and comprises four attributes. Accessibility and availability of appro­
priate technologies are instrumental in adopting CE. Therefore, low
technological advancements to assess uniformity in quality of recycled
CDW acts as a barrier to adopting circular practices. Also, the quality of
material produced by recycling is questionable on account of the frag­
mented application of technology and best practices (Webster and
Costello, 2005 and Huang et al., 2018). There exists a lack of synergy
among green rating agencies, i.e. Lack of uniformity and coordination
amongst green rating agencies. For CDW, there are no uniformly
accepted material quality standards, waste disposal procedures, recy­
cling techniques amongst accreditation bodies which further poses a
significant barrier in the re-circulation of CDW materials by different
stakeholders. Lack of uniformity in framework amongst states indicates
that although there exists an overall framework for the implementation
of CE, there needs to be a better framework developed at the regional
levels too. Often construction organisations in Metros and developed
cities seldom follow the CDW management framework appropriately
(Mhatre et al., 2023). Lastly, lack of uniformity in quality of CDW relates
to the inability to procure and produce uniform and green-natured
materials. Given that there is a lack of uniform standards and assess­
ment framework related to the production and procurement of recycled
material which further affects the quality of the CDW materials.
Fig. 3. PESTEL framework.

7
V. Bhavsar et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances 20 (2023) 200198

organization’s environment and identifies the barriers to the adoption of et al. (2022), who in their study highlighted economic, political, and
a course of action by it. It is mostly used in strategic studies and allows social factors affect the adoption of CE in a built environment in China.
flexibility and dynamism in the analytical process (Kumarasiri and
Dissanayake, 2019; Morris et al., 2021; De Sousa and Casta­ 4. Conclusion
ñeda-Ayarza., 2022). Thus, the current study offers an integrated
approach for CE adoption in CDW, that considers barriers at multiple life Globally the construction sector simultaneously consumes and
cycle stages of the project alongside macroeconomic factors. wastes a tremendous amount of raw materials and resources, imposing
substantial risks to the environment by way of continuous and excessive
3.3. Regression analysis extraction and disposal. Presently emerging economies are witnessing
rapid growth in construction activities resulting in a tremendous rise in
As mentioned previously, for the regression analysis, the dependent the consumption of materials, while simultaneously generating waste
variable is ‘CDW does not get reused or recycled in India’ and the leading to adverse effects on the economy as a result of inefficient
explanatory variables are the derived attributes from the factor analysis recycling. Lack of environmental legislation coupled with demolition
(Table 7). Next, a step-wise regression was employed with attributes waste being created during the construction project life cycle imposes
denoting as categorical independent variables against the dependent substantial risk in emerging economies. Hence, the transition of the
variable. Then the best model was chosen on the basis of goodness of fit construction industry from a linear economy to a circular economy in
for the model. many emerging economies is gaining impetus, since it facilitates the
Further, the forward stepwise regression process was undertaken to benefits of reuse and recycling of demolition waste and further reduces
have the best-fit model. The estimation was carried out with forward greenhouse gas emissions. However, in emerging economies, the in­
pass backward stepwise and forced entry. The model with the highest dustry merely reaps the monetary benefit and sustainability of this de­
correlation (R2) was chosen since R2 represents the best estimate of the molition waste, due to multiple barriers to circular construction
proportion of variance explained. Hence, on the basis of the goodness of practices.
the model fit and strength, the results of the regression method are In the extant literature, a gap exists in the identification of the bar­
displayed in Table 7. riers at multiple stages of the project lifecycle, analysis of the relation­
Out of the total 23 extracted barriers, the most significant barriers ship between these barriers, and assessment of the impact of these
impacting the implementation of CE in construction industries in India barriers on the successful implementation of CE in CDW in emerging
are: (a) unclear legislations on reuse and recycling of CDW with respect economies like India. This study therefore bridges the research gap by
to segregation of waste leads to non-segregation at the site in many exploring, and analysing the barriers and thereby identifying the critical
cases. Thus, after the transportation of waste, the recycling of CDW factors that obstruct the incorporation of circular economy practices in
becomes even more challenging and reduces its recycling value the Indian construction industry using statistical tools.
(Jiménez-Rivero and García-Navarro, 2017; Purchase et al., 2022); (b) The present study conducted an extant literature survey and vali­
Cost of Reuse and Recycle exceeds benefit because in many cases the dated it with expert interviews, to identify 25 barriers to the adoption of
waste is dumped in the low-lying areas and the quantum of waste CE in demolition waste in the Indian construction industry. The study
reaching the recycling site is very less. So, recycling plants mostly undertook a survey of these identified barriers and the responses were
function at sub-optimal capacity (Kazancoglu et al., 2021; Mahpour, then analyzed using RII, factor analysis, and regression analysis. Factor
2018). In addition, the initial investment and operations and mainte­ analysis extracted the barriers (attributes) into six different factors viz.,
nance costs of such plants are more in comparison with the resultant political, economic, social, technical, environmental, and legal. This
benefits; (c) Lack of availability of CDW recycled input material at finding is in line with the PESTEL framework, which hitherto has not
affordable rates is mainly due to paucity of timely availability of recy­ been explored in the previous studies on the use of CE in CDW, to the
cled CDW, inadequacy of secondary markets and absence of the accep­ best of our knowledge. The regression results further indicated that a
tance of recycled materials (De Angelis et al., 2018; Kacprzak and couple of barriers (attributes) from political, social, and economic fac­
Kupich, 2021; Low et al., 2020); (d) Lack of political will to implement tors act as major hindrances in the implementation of circular practices
rules for CDW reuse and recycle. It has been observed that a lack of in the Indian construction sector.
patronage by the local bodies (municipal corporations and village pan­ The findings imply that to achieve building circularity, policymakers
chayats) towards recycling of CDW causes low adoption of CE in should implement stringent rules and regulations at regional or local
semi-urban and rural areas (Wang et al., 2021; Mahpour, 2018). levels. Also, a single window digital platform such as the National Single
Unlike developed economies, for an emerging economy like India, Window System (NSWS), needs to be created for different levels of
the most important barriers relate to political, economic, and social stakeholders for prior approval before demolition rather than the cur­
factors rather than technical, legal, and environmental (indicated with rent system of approaching various government regulators for sign-off.
text outside the circle of Fig. 3). This corroborates with the study by Liu Capacity building at all levels needs to be improvised. The govern­
ment should also promote incentive schemes for the adoption of proper
Table 7 CDW. Lastly, guidelines for recycled CDW materials should be devel­
Regression model. oped and disseminated among stakeholders.
Dependent variable: CDW does not get reused or recycled in India. The present study focuses on responses from the Indian construction
Source Coefficient Std. Prob. VIF
industry. However, the results obtained have wide application across
error emerging economies. The study calls for further investigation into
finding practical solutions to the reuse of construction demolition ma­
Intercept 0.427 0.632 0.605
Unclear legislations on reuse and 0.523 0.122 0.071 1.236 terials. There is a need for subsequent studies to delve deeper into each
recycling of CDW challenge identified in the current study, explore potential strategies,
Cost of Reuse and Recycle exceeds 0.310 0.090 0.021 1.039 and propose effective measures for overcoming them. Findings from the
benefit study are expected to aid in the identification of the most critical barriers
Lack of availability of CDW recycled 0.296 0.090 0.031 1.067
input material at affordable rates
which need to be addressed on priority, so as to ensure the construction
Lack of political will to implement rules 0.299 0.098 0.044 1.137 sector’s transition toward greater material reuse and sustainability.
for CDW reuse and recycle
R-Square 0.714
Durbin–Watson 2.05

8
V. Bhavsar et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances 20 (2023) 200198

CRediT authorship contribution statement Ferronato, N., Torretta, V., 2019. Waste mismanagement in developing countries: a
review of global issues. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16 (6), 1060. https://doi.
org/10.3390/ijerph16061060.
Vandana Bhavsar: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – orig­ Fitch-Roy, O., Benson, D., Monciardini, D, 2021. All around the world: assessing
inal draft, Writing – review & editing. Srividhya Raju Sridharan: optimality in comparative circular economy policy packages. J. Clean. Prod. 286,
Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & 125493.
Gedam, V.V., Raut, R.D., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Agrawal, N., 2021a. Moving the
editing. J.S. Sudarsan: Conceptualization, Resources. circular economy forward in the mining industry: challenges to closed-loop in an
emerging economy. Resour. Policy 74, 102279.
Gedam, V.V., Raut, R.D., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Tanksale, A.N., Narkhede, B.E.,
Declaration of Competing Interest 2021b. Circular economy practices in a developing economy: barriers to be defeated.
J. Clean. Prod. 311, 127670.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Ghisellini, P., Ripa, M., Ulgiati, S., 2018. Exploring environmental and economic costs
and benefits of a circular economy approach to the construction and demolition
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
sector. A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 178, 618–643.
the work reported in this paper. Ginga, C.P., Ongpeng, J.M.C., Daly, M.K.M., 2020. Circular economy on construction and
demolition waste: a literature review on material recovery and production. Materials
Data availability (Basel) 13 (13), 2970.
Górecki, J., Núñez-Cacho, P., Rutkowska, M., 2022. Study on circular economy
implementation propensity of construction companies in context of prevailing
The authors do not have permission to share data. management styles. Appl. Sci. 12 (8), 3991.
Haselsteiner, E., Rizvanolli, B.V., Villoria Sáez, P., Kontovourkis, O., 2021. Drivers and
barriers leading to a successful paradigm shift toward regenerative neighborhoods.
Sustainability 13, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095179.
Acknowledgments Huang, B., Wang, X., Kua, H., Geng, Y., Bleischwitz, R., Ren, J., 2018. Construction and
demolition waste management in China through the 3R principle. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 129, 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.029.
The authors are grateful to Mr. Arshad Shaikh, NICMAR University Islam, S., Ahmed, K., Masunaga, S., 2015. Potential ecological risk of hazardous elements
for the support provided in the creation of graphic content. in different land-use urban soils of Bangladesh. Sci. Total Environ. 512, 94–102.
ISO, 2006a. ISO 14040 - Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles
and Framework. International Standard.
Supplementary materials ISO, 2006b. ISO 14044 - Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles
and Framework. International Standard.
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in Iyer, K.C., Jha, K.N., 2005. Factors affecting cost performance: evidence from the Indian
construction projects. Int. J. Project Manag. 23 (4), 283–295.
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200198. Jiménez-Rivero, A., García-Navarro, J., 2017. Best practices for the management of end-
of-life gypsum in a circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 167, 1335–1344.
References Kacprzak, M.J., Kupich, I., 2021. The specificities of the circular economy (CE) in the
municipal wastewater and sewage sludge sector—local circumstances in Poland.
Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 1–17.
Afshari, A., Górecki, J., 2019. Circular economy in construction sector. J. Curr. Constr.
Kaiser, H.F., 1974. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39 (1), 31–36.
Issues. Civil Eng. Present Probl. Innov. Solut. - Circular Econ. Constr. Sector 15–44.
Kazancoglu, I., Sagnak, M., Kumar Mangla, S., Kazancoglu, Y., 2021. Circular economy
Behera, M., Bhattacharyya, S.K., Minocha, A., Deoliya, R., Maiti, S., 2014. Recycled
and the policy: a framework for improving the corporate environmental
aggregate from C&D waste & its use in concrete – a breakthrough towards
management in supply chains. Bus. Strat. Environ. 30 (1), 590–608.
sustainability in construction sector: a review. Constr. Build. Mater. 68, 501–516.
Kumarasiri, D.M.G.B.T., Dissanayake, D.M.P.P., 2019. Stakeholders’ involvement in the
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.07.003.
successful implementation of waste-to-energy projects: case studies in Sri Lanka. In:
Bhavsar, V., Thomas, S.A., Vaishnav, P.K., Jose, Abraham, Koshy, Nevin George,
Sandanayake, Y.G., Gunatilake, S., Waidyasekara, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th
Atiwadkar, Shubham, 2022. Investigation of critical factors influencing construction
World Construction Symposium. Colombo, Sri Lanka, pp. 535–546. https://doi.org/
of airports: the case of India. Int. J. Constr. Manage. 22 (15), 2905–2913. https://
10.31705/WCS.2019.53, 8-10 November 2019.
doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1831220.
Li, J., Zuo, J., Cai, H., Zillante, G., 2018. Construction waste reduction behavior of
Biswas, A., Parida, S., et al., 2021. Waste-Wise Cities: Best practices in Municipal Solid
contractor employees: an extended theory of planned behavior model approach.
Waste Management. Centre for Science and Environment and NITI Aayog, New
J. Clean. Prod. 172, 1399–1408.
Delhi.
Liu, C., Hua, C., Chen, J, 2022. Efficient supervision strategy for illegal dumping of
Böckel, A., Nuzum, A.K., Weissbrod, I., 2021. Blockchain for the circular economy:
construction and demolition waste: a networked game theory decision-making
analysis of the research-practice gap. Sustain. Prod. Consump. 25, 525–539.
model. Waste Manage. Res. 40 (6), 754–764.
Boulding, K.E., 1966. The economics of knowledge and the knowledge of economics. Am.
Lockrey, S., Nguyen, H., Crossin, E., Verghese, K., 2016. Recycling the construction and
Econ. Rev. 56 (1/2), 1–13.
demolition waste in Vietnam: opportunities and challenges in practice. J. Clean.
Cabeza, L.F., Rincón, L., Vilariño, V., Pérez, G., Castell, A., 2014. Life cycle assessment
Prod. 133, 757–766.
(LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: a
Lovrenčić Butković, L., Mihić, M., Sigmund, Z, 2021. Assessment methods for evaluating
review. Renew. Sustain. Energy rev. 29, 394–416.
circular economy projects in construction: a review of available tools. Int. J. Constr.
Charef, R., Emmitt, S., 2020. Uses of building information modeling for overcoming
Manage. 1–10.
barriers to a circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 285, 124854 https://doi.org/
Low, J.K., Wallis, S.L., Hernandez, G., Cerqueira, I.S., Steinhorn, G., Berry, T.A., 2020.
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124854.
Encouraging circular waste economies for the New Zealand construction industry:
Charef, R., Ganjian, E., Emmitt, S., 2021. Socio-economic and environmental barriers for
opportunities and barriers. Front. Sustain. Cities 2, 35.
a holistic asset lifecycle approach to achieve circular economy: a pattern-matching
Mahpour, A., 2018. Prioritizing barriers to adopt circular economy in construction and
method. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 170, 120798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
demolition waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 134, 216–227. https://doi.
resconrec.2018.01.026.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.026.
D’Amato, D., 2021. Sustainability narratives as transformative solution pathways:
Manavalan, E., Jayakrishna, K., 2019. An analysis on sustainable supply chain for
zooming in on the circular economy. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 1 (1), 231–242.
circular economy. Procedia Manuf. 33, 477–484.
De Angelis, R., Howard, M., Miemczyk, J., 2018. Supply chain management and the
Mhatre, P., Gedam, V.V., Unnikrishnan, S., RD, Raut, 2023. Circular economy adoption
circular economy: towards the circular supply chain. Prod. Plann. Control 29 (6),
barriers in built environment- a case of emerging economy. J. Clean. Prod. https://
425–437.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136201.
De Sousa, G.C., Castañeda-Ayarza, J.A., 2022. PESTEL analysis and the macro-
Mhatre, P., Panchal, R., Singh, A., Bibyan, S., 2021. A systematic literature review on the
environmental factors that influence the development of the electric and hybrid
circular economy initiatives in the European Union. Sustain. Prod. Consump. 26,
vehicles industry in Brazil. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 10 (1), 686–699.
187–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.09.008.
Doloi, H., Sawhney, A., Iyer, K.C., Rentala, S., 2012. Analysing factors affecting delays in
Morris, J.C., Georgiou, I., Guenther, E., Caucci, S., 2021. Barriers in implementation of
Indian construction projects. Int. J. Project Manage. 30 (4), 479–489.
wastewater reuse: identifying the way forward in closing the loop. Circ. Econ.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013. Towards the circular economy. In: an Economic and
Sustain. 1 (1), 413–433.
Business Rationale For an Accelerated Transition, 1. Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
Morseletto, P., Mooren, C.E., Munaretto, S., 2022. Circular economy of water: definition,
https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/towards-the-circular-economy-vol-1-an-e
strategies and challenges. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 1–15.
conomic-and-business-rationale-for-an.
Nadazdi, A., Naunovic, Z., Ivanisevic, N., 2022. Circular economy in construction and
Esa, M.R., Halog, A., Rigamonti, L., 2017. Developing strategies for managing
demolition waste management in the Western Balkans: a sustainability assessment
construction and demolition wastes in Malaysia based on the concept of circular
framework. Sustainability, 14 (2), 871.
economy. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage. 19 (3), 1144–1154.
Pearlmutter, D., Theochari, D., Nehls, T., Pinho, P., Piro, P., Korolova, A., Pucher, B.,
European Commission 2020 European Commission, 2020. Circular economy action plan.
2020. Enhancing the Circular Economy With Nature-Based Solutions in the Built
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/new_circular_econ
omy_action_plan.pdf.

9
V. Bhavsar et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances 20 (2023) 200198

Urban environment: Green building materials, Systems and Sites, 2. Blue-Green Turner, R.K., Pearce, D.W, 1990. The Ethical Foundations of Sustainable Economic
Systems, pp. 46–72. Development. International Institute for Environment and Development, London,
Purchase, C.K., Al Zulayq, D.M., O’Brien, B.T., Kowalewski, M.J., Berenjian, A., UK.
Tarighaleslami, A.H., Seifan, M, 2022. Circular economy of construction and Upadhyay, A., Mukhuty, S., Kumar, V., Kazancoglu, Y., 2021. Blockchain technology and
demolition waste: a literature review on lessons, challenges, and benefits. Materials the circular economy: implications for sustainability and social responsibility.
(Basel) 15 (1), 76. J. Clean. Prod. 293, 126130.
Ramakrishna, S., Hu, W., Jose, R, 2022. Sustainability in numbers by data analytics. Circ. Wang, Y., Chong, D., Liu, X., 2021. Evaluating the critical barriers to green construction
Econ. Sustain. 1–13. technologies adoption in China. Sustainability 13 (12), 6510.
Ruiz, L.A.L., Ramón, X.R., Domingo, S.G., 2020. The circular economy in the Webster, M.D., Costello, D.T., 2005. Designing Structural Systems For Deconstruction:
construction and demolition waste sector–A review and an integrative model How to Extend a New Building’s Useful Life and Prevent It from Going to Waste
approach. J. Clean. Prod. 248, 119238. When the End Finally Comes. Greenbuild Conf, pp. 1–14.
Schönborn, A., Junge, R, 2021. Redefining ecological engineering in the context of World Bank, 2022. Policies from Europe’s circular economy transition available at: https
circular economy and sustainable development. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 1 (1), 375–394. ://www.worldbank.org/en/region/eca/publication/squaring-circle-europe-circular
Singh, A.K., Kumar, V.P., Dehdasht, G., Mohandes, S.R., Manu, P., Rahimian, F.P., 2023. -economy-transition (Accessed 15 March 2023).
Investigating the barriers to the adoption of blockchain technology in sustainable Wu, Z., Ann, T.W., Shen, L., 2017. Investigating the determinants of contractor’s
construction projects. J. Clean. Prod., 136840 construction and demolition waste management behavior in Mainland China. Waste
Sparrevik, M., De Boer, L., Michelsen, O., Skaar, C., Knudson, H., Fet, A.M., 2021. Manage. 60, 290–300.
Circular economy in the construction sector: advancing environmental performance Yuan, Z., Bi, J., Moriguichi, Y., 2006. The circular economy: a new development strategy
through systemic and holistic thinking. Environ. Syst. Decis. 41 (3), 392–400. in China. J. Ind. Ecol. 10 (1–2), 4–8.
Sudarsan, J.S., Gavali, H., 2023. Application of BIM in conjunction with circular
economy principles for sustainable construction. Environ. Dev. Sustain. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10668-023-03015-4.

10