Keywords

1 Introduction

Transitioning from a linear to a circular economy (CE) is one of the main goals set by the EU to tackle climate change and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. In 2020 the European Commission reviewed its Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) [1], following the European Green Deal principles and “making sure no one is left behind” [2]. The new CEAP [1], has four main goals: (i) Reduce pressure on natural resources, (ii) Create sustainable growth and jobs, (iii) achieve the EU’s 2050 climate neutrality target, and (iv) halt biodiversity loss. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) set by the United Nations (UN) in 2015 [3] have four aligned goals: (i) Responsible consumption and production (SDG12), (ii) Decent work and economic growth (SDG8), (iii) Climate action (SDG13), and (iv) Life on land (SDG15).

Following the CEAP, most country members have adopted National Circular Economy Action Plans. European and national action plans (also named roadmaps or strategic plans) for a circular economy (CE) identify people’s knowledge and engagement as the key element in the transition from a linear towards a CE. Sectorial plans focusing on the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) sector underline the need for workers’ reskilling, creating new professions and courses, and raising general awareness of CE principals as the main actions for the Construction sector transition.

Some barriers hinder this transition such as the current legal framework, lack of investment, and need for skilled labor, among many others. Some opportunities have been identified to overcome these barriers, such as including circularity in the regulatory framework and public procurement (through Green Public Procurement), financing the transition by supporting pilot case studies, and CE training courses, among many other opportunities.

Barriers and opportunities in CE adoption have been identified in the literature and described in current action plans in different EU countries. According to key players in Portugal what are the main barriers and opportunities in the transition to a circular construction sector? The Portuguese Construction sector is mainly composed of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises [4], most of which are in a fragile economic position. Moreover, the legal framework is complex and sometimes contradictory, making it difficult to change procedures into a CE. Key stakeholders in the Construction sector and respective value chains were consulted to characterize circularity. This work is based on the results achieved in 11 working sessions, with more than one-thousand actors. It is framed under the funded work to define and publish the Portuguese Action Plan for Circularity in the Construction Sector [5].

1.1 Literature Review

Barriers and opportunities in the transition from a linear to a CE model are presented in literature since 2018. Previous work based on systematic literature reviews and statistical analyses, allowed us to identify, and cluster, the most relevant barriers, and opportunities in the construction sector. One of the first and most cited studies about CE barriers and opportunities was conducted by Kirchherr et al. [5]. It presents the first large-N-study on generic CE barriers in the EU and identifies—with the help of 208 survey respondents and 47 expert interviews—15 main barriers, clustered into four categories: Cultural, Market, Regulatory, and Technological.

Later in 2022, the research published by Wuni [6] employed systematic literature review protocols to search, retrieve, evaluate, and extract relevant metadata from 53 studies. This allowed identifying several barriers, which when analyzed using a Pareto analysis, showed a prioritization of the most relevant barriers (57 barriers), with a similar number of opportunities, and distributed in clusters (11 clusters), directly related to the implementation of CE in the construction sector. At the same time, Oluleye et al. [7] conducted a systematic literature review with a special focus on building construction and demolition waste management. This study considered a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Approach) approach that identified 38 relevant papers, identifying 33 barriers, and a similar number of opportunities, divided into 7 clusters and by the actors involved. Focusing on the Australian context, Shooshtarian et al. [8] evaluated stakeholders’ perceptions about CE, identifying the main barriers and opportunities in CE adoption, and focusing on responders’ characterization. Ababio and Lu [9] found 45 barriers and 15 opportunities divided into five clusters: Social and cultural; Political and legislative; Financial and economic; Technological; Framework and theory related. More recently, Murano and Tavares [10] categorized barriers and opportunities by stakeholder level: internal, external, or mixed level. Table 17.1 presents clusters defined in the previously cited papers: [6, 7, 9, 10], and [11] The table shows that the four clusters first defined by Kirchherr [11] are similar to those proposed by the other three authors (in bold).

Table 17.1 Clusters defined in the literature (in bold similar clusters)
Full size table

Table 17.2 presents a top-ten list of barriers and opportunities identified in the literature (unranked) for implementing a CE model in the construction sector with a focus on the European market [12,13,14,15,16,17]. The main barriers are related to the lack of knowledge and awareness of society and all stakeholders along the supply chain, the lack of a CE legal framework, followed by high costs, lack of financial support and technologies, infrastructure, and technical constraints. Identified opportunities are successful pilot projects and businesses applying CE best practices, the empowerment of workers and labor reskilled, investment and financial support, new technologies, and increased data sharing.

Table 17.2 The top-ten barriers and opportunities in the most recent literature (unranked), based on [12,13,14,15,16,17]
Full size table

2 Materials and Methods

A five-step approach was developed to build an action plan for circular construction in Portugal: (i) map the regulatory framework; (ii) identify circular economy (CE) action plans in Europe; (iii) characterize the national Construction sector and related impacts; (iv) survey the key stakeholders to identify main barriers and drivers; and (v) plan, writing the action plan, measures, actions, and governance. This paper presents the fourth stage of that approach: a survey of the Portuguese key players in the sector to identify the main barriers and drivers in the transition of the Construction sector to a CE.

2.1 Research Approach

Key actors in the Portuguese Construction sector and construction value chain were consulted during eleven sessions, performed virtually due to pandemic restrictions (from January to March 2022) and using the Concept Board online platform and presential afterward (April to May 2022). The events first had an expository part that framed the subject under discussion, followed by an interactive part during which the various actors could participate in working groups using a methodology combining design thinking principles in a focus group environment. The analytical treatment of the interviews included the transcription of barriers and (after) opportunities, grouping, prioritization (through voting), and results interpretation, this last one including graphical representation and discussion. In addition to statistical data, the information collected from stakeholders’ interviews supported Construction sector characterization. The main obstacles that hinder the transition to circular construction were identified and prioritized, and potential opportunities were pointed out. Table 17.3 presents the list of sessions held during the consultation stage. These sessions are available on YouTube.

Table 17.3 List of events
Full size table

2.2 Participants Characterization

The online sessions were public, but the application form allowed to cluster participants in eight categories, following a similar distribution of the actors as defined by the European Commission [18]: Academia & research centers; Contractors & builders; Demolition & CDW management teams; Construction products manufacturers; Government & regulators; Investors, developers & insurance providers; Designers; and Users & owners. Figure 17.1 presents the total number of participants per actor category, showing that Contractors & builders were the highest shares of participants (~30%), followed by Users & owners (~20%) and Government & regulators (~5%).

Fig. 17.1
A horizontal bar graph plots the number of participants in categories such as demolition and C D W management, manufacturers, investors, developers and insurance, designers, users and owners, and contracts and builders. The number of participants is high for contractors and builders reaching 380.

Total number of participants per actor category

Full size image

Figure 17.2 presents the participants’ distribution per actor category in each one of the eleven sessions. From the online sessions, Session 3 (S03) “Construction and demolition waste management: What has changed? What is new?” had the highest number of participants (227), one-third of them being contractors and builders (88), followed by users and owners (47), and government and regulators (34). Both sessions, S02 “How to move from theory to action in the incorporation of recycled materials in the Construction sector” and S04 “Innovation for a more circular construction” had around 130 participants, being the second and third most attended online working sessions. The number of participants in the face-to-face events was high, with 128 participants at the “Construction and demolition waste management: What has changed? What is new?” session held in Oporto (S08) and 137 held in Lisbon (S11). In Lisbon, most of the participants were Contractors & builders (90), while in Oporto they were Government & regulators (32), and contractors & builders (28). Attenders in Leiria were fewer (29) in line with population density and reduced Construction sector activity.

Fig. 17.2
A vertical stacked bar chart plots the participant's distribution in various categories. The bar is high at S 03 in which the proportion of contractors and builders scores the most. Demolition and C D W management score the least in all.

Participants distribution per actor category in each one of the eleven sessions

Full size image

3 Results and Discussion

The results and discussion section presents the main barriers identified by key stakeholders and possible opportunities in the circular economy (CE) within the AEC Portuguese sector and value chain.

3.1 Barriers Identified

The main barriers identified by key stakeholders were distributed along the four pillars following Kirchherr et al. [10]: (i) Political & regulatory; (ii) Technology; (iii) Market; and (iv) Cultural. In the Political & regulatory pillar, stakeholders pointed out the complex and sometimes contradictory legislation as the main barrier, followed by a lack of incentives and sustainable procurement to leverage the transition. In the Technological pillar, it was acknowledged that some building technologies are not fully developed (for disassembly and adaptability, modularity, and offsite manufacturing) and a lack of alternative CE materials or limited knowledge about them. The Market pillar identified the urge to have some pilot projects following CE principles, no market for secondary materials (from CDW), the short life span of building materials and components, and difficulties in maintenance. Finally, the Cultural pillar indicated the lack of qualified professionals and training, acceptance of recycled or reused materials, and the society’s knowledge and awareness about the principles and benefits of circular construction. The main barriers identified by stakeholders are presented in Table 17.4, with the most important highlighted in bold. Barriers in the Political and regulatory pillar are further detailed in [19].

Table 17.4 Main barriers to CE adoption identified by key players and divided into pillars
Full size table

3.2 Opportunities Identified

The stakeholders also identified opportunities to overcome the main challenges presented by the barriers. Most of the opportunities are within the Political & regulatory pillar, including the incentives to support circular business models, simplification of processes, and adaptation of the regulatory framework to CE principles are the main opportunities identified. The Technology pillar has highlighted the support of training and research, and the development of new tools and technologies. In the Market pillar, the funding of circular products, the development of a marketplace with environmental data to support decisions, and public procurement, including environmental criteria. Finally, in the Cultural pillar, stakeholders identified the empowerment of workers and society with CE principles, based on demonstrators’ projects, workshops, and dissemination actions, and reinforcing circular partnerships along the value chain. The main opportunities identified by stakeholders are presented in Table 17.5, with the most important ones highlighted in bold. Opportunities in the Political and regulatory pillar are further detailed in [19]

Table 17.5 Main opportunities in CE adoption identified by key players
Full size table

3.3 Uncertainty and Limitations

The main limitations that may impact the validity, reliability, or robustness of the findings can be due to sampling selection bias as the eleven sessions had an audience composed of professionals with no general public attendees. The sampling was vast (over one thousand people) and presential sessions were held in three different locations trying to overcome the geographical lack of representativeness that may occur: one session in the north region in Oporto, another in the center in Leiria, and finally one in Lisbon. The online events allowed a vaster coverage of the territory, although being held in Portuguese excluded a non-Portuguese-speaking audience. However, as the scope of the study was to listen to the Portuguese key stakeholders is not a limitation but reflects this study’s boundaries.

4 Conclusions

Most of the barriers identified by Portuguese AEC stakeholders during workshops are similar to those stated in the literature, accentuated by the characteristics of the national construction sector: consisting of micro and SMEs, workers shortage, and low productivity. Stakeholders highlighted the need to redefine legislation to include CE principles, conciliate regulation, and simplify procedures. Moreover, the need to reskill labor and raise awareness of CE advantages is clear, as well as, to support enterprises and people in the transition, expressing the difficulties of the national Construction sector. Both barriers and opportunities should be considered by decision-makers, from regulators to business owners or designers, to better support decisions toward a more circular construction sector. To sum up, four opportunities (one per pillar) and underlying mottos are identified:

  1. (1)

    Redefine and simplify the legal framework: “better” legislation, not “more” legislation.

  2. (2)

    Digitalization will support the twin transition: digital and green.

  3. (3)

    Support research: new ways of doing (and living).

  4. (4)

    Empower workers, companies, and society: no one is left behind!