Building conservation and the circular economy: a theoretical consideration

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the relation between building conservation and circular economy (CE), which are often erroneously seen as inherently contradictory to one another. Design/methodology/approach The work draws from a comparative approach. The paper reviews a body of literature on architectural conservation and CE to establish an understanding on the state-of-the-art for both disciplines separately. Then, the relation between thereof is developed through a theoretical discourse. Findings Both architectural conservation and CE aim at safeguarding value, although they define “value” differently. Fabric-focused conservation and CE favor minimal intervention to material, albeit they arrive at this conclusion from different bases. Consequently, both approaches struggle with the low cost of virgin resource extraction and waste production and the high cost of human labor in contemporary Western societies. CE could be harnessed for building conservation by adopting its vocabulary and methodology, such as lifecycle assessment and material flow analysis. Transitioning toward CE can help increase the preservation of built heritage while redefining what is meant by “heritage” and “waste.” Originality/value Prior to this paper, there have been no articles addressing the relationship of the concepts explicitly and to this extent. The paper provides a theoretical basis for further discourse and outlines some implications of CE for the construction and built heritage disciplines.

Circularity in the New Gravity—Re-Thinking Vernacular Architecture and Circularity

“…Eberhardt et al [35] conducted life cycle assessment models that compared linear and circular building components, suggesting the potential benefits of the re-use and recycling of building components in the circular approach. Huuhka and Vestergaard [36] presented a comparison between building conservation and CE concepts, addressing the relationships among them, their commonalities, and their differences. However, there was a gap in studies that linked the CE with vernacular architecture.…”

“…Thus, it is argued that these fragmented initiatives prevent the universal adoption of CE in the building industry [33,35]. Studies indicate that there is also a lack of knowledge on the definition of CE, its fundamental principles, and its implementation in an innovative manner in the building sector's business model [27,36], while Kirchherr and Van Santen [39] indicate that most CE studies focus on developed countries, making many of the CE studies irrelevant to construction in less-developed countries. This is due to differences in policy environments, access to funding, and infrastructure [39].…”

Better Living Environment Today, More Adaptable Tomorrow?

“…The circular economy aims at keeping products in use and circulation for as long as possible (e.g. Huuhka & Vestergaard, 2019). In construction, this means increased attention should be paid to the use and demolition phase of a building, alongside the construction phase.…”

“…Jusan & Sulaiman, 2005) and the broader sustainability of the built environment (e.g. Huuhka & Vestergaard, 2019). Yet this adaptability potential is not reflected in recent Finnish housing production, despite principles of housing flexibility and adaptability being a development objective -although not well-characterised -for construction since the 1990s in Finland (Hakaste, 2015).…”

Stocks and flows of buildings: Analysis of existing, demolished, and constructed buildings in Tampere, Finland, 2000–2018

“…The relocation of buildings or the reuse of components is promoted as the second-best option. If none of the above are feasible, recycling or recovery of materials or substances should be prioritized over energy recovery or disposal (Huuhka & Vestergaard, 2019). This hierarchy underlies the research interests of the current paper.…”