Inconsistencies revealed: A critical analysis of circular economy assessment methods for buildings

IF 11.2 1区环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL

Resources Conservation and Recycling Pub Date : 2025-03-04 DOI:10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108203

Saba Mani , M.Reza Hosseini , Gayani Karunsena , Tuba Kocaturk

{"title":"Inconsistencies revealed: A critical analysis of circular economy assessment methods for buildings","authors":"Saba Mani , M.Reza Hosseini , Gayani Karunsena , Tuba Kocaturk","doi":"10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>A wide range of metrics and assessment methods have been proposed to quantify the performance of buildings concerning their alignment with CE principles. This study is one of the first to undertake a comprehensive review of noteworthy metrics through a quantitative analysis. It subsequently conducts a comparative assessment among three of the most prominent metrics, utilizing a defined scenario for a case project, with the aim of uncovering variations and inconsistencies, if any. The findings reveal a marked diversity and inconsistency among major assessment methods. That is, a simple scenario assessed by these methods — which are treated as the most reliable and widely used in the domain — can result in significantly disparate outcomes, leading to confusion among practitioners. This study makes a valuable contribution to the field by providing concrete data and tangible evidence that bring to light the existing incongruities among prevalent assessment methods.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":21153,"journal":{"name":"Resources Conservation and Recycling","volume":"218 ","pages":"Article 108203"},"PeriodicalIF":11.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resources Conservation and Recycling","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344925000825","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

A wide range of metrics and assessment methods have been proposed to quantify the performance of buildings concerning their alignment with CE principles. This study is one of the first to undertake a comprehensive review of noteworthy metrics through a quantitative analysis. It subsequently conducts a comparative assessment among three of the most prominent metrics, utilizing a defined scenario for a case project, with the aim of uncovering variations and inconsistencies, if any. The findings reveal a marked diversity and inconsistency among major assessment methods. That is, a simple scenario assessed by these methods — which are treated as the most reliable and widely used in the domain — can result in significantly disparate outcomes, leading to confusion among practitioners. This study makes a valuable contribution to the field by providing concrete data and tangible evidence that bring to light the existing incongruities among prevalent assessment methods.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

揭示不一致之处：对建筑物循环经济评估方法的批判性分析

我们提出了一系列的量度和评估方法，以量化建筑物的表现，以确保其符合CE原则。这项研究是第一个通过定量分析对值得注意的指标进行全面审查的研究之一。它随后在三个最突出的度量标准之间进行比较评估，利用一个案例项目的定义场景，目的是发现变化和不一致，如果有的话。研究结果表明，主要评估方法之间存在明显的多样性和不一致性。也就是说，通过这些方法评估的一个简单的场景——它们被视为领域中最可靠和广泛使用的方法——可能导致明显不同的结果，导致从业者之间的混淆。本研究通过提供具体的数据和有形的证据，揭示了目前流行的评估方法之间存在的不一致，对该领域做出了有价值的贡献。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Resources Conservation and Recycling 环境科学-工程：环境

CiteScore

22.90

自引率

6.10%

发文量

625

审稿时长

23 days

期刊介绍： The journal Resources, Conservation & Recycling welcomes contributions from research, which consider sustainable management and conservation of resources. The journal prioritizes understanding the transformation processes crucial for transitioning toward more sustainable production and consumption systems. It highlights technological, economic, institutional, and policy aspects related to specific resource management practices such as conservation, recycling, and resource substitution, as well as broader strategies like improving resource productivity and restructuring production and consumption patterns. Contributions may address regional, national, or international scales and can range from individual resources or technologies to entire sectors or systems. Authors are encouraged to explore scientific and methodological issues alongside practical, environmental, and economic implications. However, manuscripts focusing solely on laboratory experiments without discussing their broader implications will not be considered for publication in the journal.