Döngüsellik için Tasarımda Temel Kritik Başarı Faktörlerinin Belirlenmesi ve Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Döngüsel ekonomi (DE) prensiplerine uygun sürdürülebilir uygulamaları benimsemek için inşaat sektörü önemli bir dönüşüm yaşamaktadır. Bu çalışma, inşaat projelerinde döngüselliği artıran tasarım stratejilerini uygulamak için gerekli olan kritik başarı faktörlerini (KBF) belirlemeye ve değerlendirmeye odaklanmaktadır. Ayrıca çalışma içerisinde, belirlenen KBF’ler ile döngüsel ekonomi ilkelerine geçişte inşaat sektörü profesyonellerine önemli olan başarı faktörlerinin bir çerçeve ile sunulması da hedeflenmektedir. Çevre dostu yapı uygulamalarına olan talebin artmasıyla birlikte, kaynak verimliliğini artırmak, atıkları azaltmak ve malzemelerin yaşam döngüsünü en üst düzeye çıkarmak için bu unsurların kavranması çok önemlidir. Çalışma içerisinde, yöntem olarak, literatür taraması, uzman görüşleri ve toplanan verileri analiz etmek için bulanık TOPSIS yöntemine yer verilmiştir. Literatür taraması sonucunda, mevcut çalışmaların döngüsel tasarım ilkelerinin temel bir anlayışını sağlamakla birlikte bu ilkelerin inşaat sektöründe nasıl kullanıldığını gösterdiği tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca, Döngüsel tasarım uygulamalarının başarılı bir şekilde hayata geçirilmesi için kritik unsurların belirlenmesinde uzman görüşlerine başvurulmuştur. Araştırmada, inşaat projelerinde döngüselliği destekleyen önemli başarı faktörleri öne çıkmıştır. Bu faktörler arasında, döngüsel uygulamaları teşvik eden düzenleyici çerçevelere uyum, geri dönüştürülebilir ve sürdürülebilir malzemelerin tercih edilmesi, tasarımların gelecekteki değişimlere ve farklı kullanım senaryolarına uyum sağlayabilmesi, ve farklı paydaşlar arasında etkin bir iş birliği bulunması yer almaktadır. Döngüsel tasarım uygulamasının başarılı olmasını etkileyen önemli bileşenleri belirlemede daha fazla bilgi sağlanacağı için uzman görüşleri alınmıştır. İnşaat projelerinde döngüselliği teşvik eden bir dizi birbirine bağlı KSF, bulgularda gösterilmiştir. Döngüsel uygulamaları destekleyen düzenleyici çerçevelere uyum; geri dönüştürülebilir ve sürdürülebilir kaynaklı malzemelerin seçimi; tasarımların gelecekteki değişikliklere ve çoklu kullanıma uyum sağlama yeteneği; ve mimarlar, mühendisler, yükleniciler ve müşteriler arasında işbirliği. Çalışma sonucunda, tasarım süreçlerinde döngüselliği kolaylaştırmak için yenilik ve teknolojiyi entegre etmenin önemi ön plana çıkmaktadır. Ayrıca, sektör profesyonellerinin döngüsel tasarımdaki en iyi uygulamalardan haberdar olmalarını sağlamak için sürekli eğitimin önemini vurgulanmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, bu çalışmanın mevcut literatüre katkısı, inşaat sektöründe döngüsellik konusundaki devam eden tartışmalara katkıda bulunarak, karar vericileri döngüsel ekonominin ilkeleriyle uyumlu tasarım stratejilerini uygulamak için gerekli bilgiyi sağlar.

Keywords

• Bulanık TOPSIS
• Döngüsel Ekonomi
• İnşaat Projeleri
• Döngüsel Tasarım.

Thanks

Yazarlar, bu çalışmanın Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi'ndeki Yüksek Lisans programının bazı gerekliliklerini yerine getirmek için hazırlandığını belirtmek isterler.

Identification and Evaluation of Key Critical Success Factors in Design for Circularity

Abstract

The construction industry is experiencing a substantial shift to implement sustainable practices aligned with the concepts of the circular economy (CE). This research aims to identify and assess the critical success factors (CSFs) of design necessary for implementing design techniques that enhance circularity in building projects. The research seeks to provide a framework identifying the critical success criteria essential for construction industry experts in adopting CE ideas. As the need for sustainable building techniques rises, comprehending these factors is crucial for enhancing resource efficiency, minimizing waste, and optimizing the material life cycle. The research employs a literature review, expert insights, and the fuzzy TOPSIS methodology to evaluate the gathered data. The literature study indicates that current research provide a fundamental comprehension of circular design (CD) concepts and demonstrate their application within the building industry. Furthermore, professional views were sought to identify the essential components for the effective execution of CD methods. The research emphasized critical success criteria of design that facilitate circularity in building projects. These elements include adherence to legal frameworks that promote circular practices, preference for recyclable and sustainable materials, design flexibility for future modifications and varied use situations, and efficient coordination among diverse stakeholders. Expert perspectives were solicited to enhance the understanding of the critical factors that affect the successful implementation of CD. The data illustrate many interrelated key success factors of design that enhance circularity in building projects. Adherence to legislative frameworks that promote circular processes; use of recyclable and sustainably sourced materials; design flexibility for future modifications and diverse applications; and cooperation among architects, engineers, contractors, and clients. The research underscores the need of using innovation and technology to promote circularity in design methodologies. It underscores the need of ongoing education to ensure that industry personnel remain informed about best practices in CD. This research enhances the current literature on circularity in the building industry, equipping decision-makers with essential information to adopt design techniques aligned with CE economy concepts.

Keywords

• Fuzzy Topsis
• Circular Economy
• CE
• Construction Projects
• Circular Design
• CD

Thanks

The authors would like to state that this paper has been prepared to fulfill some of the requirements of the Master's program at Yıldız Technical University.

References

1. [1] Antwi-Afari, P., S.T. Ng, and M.U. Hossain, A review of the circularity gap in the construction industry through scientometric analysis. Journal of cleaner production, 2021. 298: p. 126870.
2. [2] Otasowie, O.K., et al., Mapping out focus for circular economy business models (CEBMs) research in construction sector studies–a bibliometric approach. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 2024.
3. [3] Chen, Q., H. Feng, and B.G. de Soto. Key approaches to construction circularity: a systematic review of the current state and future opportunities. in ISARC. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction. 2021. IAARC Publications.
4. [4] Osobajo, O.A., et al., A systematic review of circular economy research in the construction industry. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 2022. 11(1): p. 39-64.
5. [5] Yang, Y., et al., Attaining higher levels of circularity in construction: Scientometric review and cross-industry exploration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022. 375: p. 133934.
6. [6] Abadi, M., D.R. Moore, and M.A. Sammuneh, A framework of indicators to measure project circularity in construction circular economy. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Management, Procurement and Law, 2021. 175(2): p. 54-66.
7. [7] Ranasinghe, N., N. Domingo, and R. Kahandawa, Enhancing building material circularity: A systematic review on prerequisites, obstacles and the critical role of data traceability. Journal of Building Engineering, 2024: p. 111136.
8. [8] Osei-Tutu, S., et al., Stakeholders’ role towards circular economy implementation: a scientometric review. Construction Innovation, 2024.

9. [9] Jayawardana, J., et al., Evaluating the circular economy potential of modular construction in developing economies—A life cycle assessment. Sustainability, 2023. 15(23): p. 16336.
10. [10] Torgautov, B., et al., Circular economy: Challenges and opportunities in the construction sector of Kazakhstan. Buildings, 2021. 11(11): p. 501.
11. [11] Chen, Q., H. Feng, and B.G. de Soto, Revamping construction supply chain processes with circular economy strategies: A systematic literature review. Journal of cleaner production, 2022. 335: p. 130240.
12. [12] Salimi, R. and R. Taherkhani, The transition towards a sustainable circular economy through life cycle assessment in the building and construction sector: a review and bibliometric analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2024: p. 1-35.
13. [13] Talpur, B.D., et al., Life Cycle Assessment and Circular Building Design in South Asian Countries: A Review of the Current State of the Art and Research Potentials. Buildings, 2023. 13(12): p. 3045.
14. [14] Dakir, O., et al. Review Paper on Integrated Circular Economy in the Construction Sector. in International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Systems for Sustainable Development. 2023. Springer.
15. [15] Lee, P.-H., et al., An investigation on construction companies’ attitudes towards importance and adoption of circular economy strategies. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 2023. 14(12): p. 102219.
16. [16] Nie, P., K.C. Dahanayake, and N. Sumanarathna, Exploring UAE's transition towards circular economy through construction and demolition waste management in the pre-construction stage–A case study approach. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 2024. 13(2): p. 246-266.
17. [17] Gamage, I., et al., Implementing Circular Economy throughout the Construction Project Life Cycle: A Review on Potential Practices and Relationships. Buildings, 2024. 14(3): p. 653.
18. [18] Srećković, M., et al., Bridging theory and practice: Stakeholder insights on circular economy in the building life cycle. Energy Reports, 2024. 12: p. 3291-3301.
19. [19] Victar, H.C. and A.S. Waidyasekara, Optimising construction waste management in Sri Lanka through Circular economy strategies: a focus on construction and renovation and use and operate stages. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 2024.
20. [20] Van Nes, N. and J. Cramer, Influencing product lifetime through product design. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2005. 14(5): p. 286-299.
21. [21] Go, T.F., D.A. Wahab, and H. Hishamuddin, Multiple generation life-cycles for product sustainability: the way forward. Journal of cleaner production, 2015. 95: p. 16-29.
22. [22] Bocken, N.M., et al., Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of industrial and production engineering, 2016. 33(5): p. 308-320.
23. [23] Tukker, A., Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy–a review. Journal of cleaner production, 2015. 97: p. 76-91.
24. [24] McDonough, W. and M. Braungart, Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. 2010: North point press.
25. [25] Bakker, C., et al., Products that go round: exploring product life extension through design. Journal of cleaner Production, 2014. 69: p. 10-16.
26. [26] Pawar, P.R., P. Sadgir, and P. Paranjape. Application of Circular Economy Principles in Sustainable Building Construction Projects. in International Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction Management. 2024. Springer.
27. [27] Kozminska, U. Circular Economy in Nordic Architecture. Thoughts on the process, practices, and case studies. in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2020. IOP Publishing.
28. [28] Lovrenčić Butković, L., M. Mihić, and Z. Sigmund, Assessment methods for evaluating circular economy projects in construction: a review of available tools. International journal of construction management, 2021. 21: p. 1-10.
29. [29] Oliveira, J.d., D. Schreiber, and V.D. Jahno, Circular Economy and Buildings as Material Banks in Mitigation of Environmental Impacts from Construction and Demolition Waste. Sustainability, 2024. 16(12): p. 5022.
30. [30] Incelli, F., L. Cardellicchio, and M. Rossetti, Circularity indicators as a design tool for design and construction strategies in architecture. Buildings, 2023. 13(7): p. 1706.
31. [31] Garusinghe, G.D.A.U., B.A.K.S. Perera, and U.S. Weerapperuma, Integrating circular economy principles in modular construction to enhance sustainability. Sustainability, 2023. 15(15): p. 11730.
32. [32] Feng, H., et al. Using BIM and LCA to evaluate material circularity: Contributions to building design improvements. in ISARC. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction. 2022. IAARC Publications.
33. [33] Mandičák, T., M. Spišáková, and P. Mésároš, Sustainable design and building information modeling of construction project management towards a circular economy. Sustainability, 2024. 16(11): p. 4376.
34. [34] Guerra, B.C., et al., Circular economy applications in the construction industry: A global scan of trends and opportunities. Journal of cleaner production, 2021. 324: p. 129125.
35. [35] Adams, K.T., et al. Circular economy in construction: current awareness, challenges and enablers. in Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers-waste and resource management. 2017. Thomas Telford Ltd.
36. [36] Çimen, Ö., Construction and built environment in circular economy: A comprehensive literature review. Journal of cleaner production, 2021. 305: p. 127180.
37. [37] Hentges, T.I., et al., Circular economy in Brazilian construction industry: Current scenario, challenges and opportunities. Waste Management & Research, 2022. 40(6): p. 642-653.
38. [38] Medina, E.M. and F. Fu. A new circular economy framework for construction projects. in Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability. 2021. Thomas Telford Ltd.
39. [39] Koc, K., Ö. Ekmekcioglu, and Z. Işık, Developing a hybrid fuzzy decision-making model for sustainable circular contractor selection. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2023. 149(10): p. 04023095.
40. [40] Mahpour, A., Prioritizing barriers to adopt circular economy in construction and demolition waste management. Resources, conservation and recycling, 2018. 134: p. 216-227.
41. [41] Nofal, A. and A. Hammad. Application of fuzzy topsis for selecting most sustainable building wall material. in Proceedings of the 3rd European and Mediterranean Structural Engineering and Construction Conference. 2020.
42. [42] Koc, K., H. Kunkcu, and A.P. Gurgun, A life cycle risk management framework for green building project stakeholders. Journal of Management in Engineering, 2023. 39(4): p. 04023022.
43. [43] Toker, K. and A. Görener, Evaluation of circular economy business models for SMEs using spherical fuzzy TOPSIS: an application from a developing countries’ perspective. Environment, development and sustainability, 2023. 25(2): p. 1700-1741.
44. [44] Aghazadeh, E. and H. Yildirim, A decision support framework to evaluate the main factors affecting the selection of sustainable materials in construction projects. International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 2024. 47(4): p. 449-495.
45. [45] Koc, K., et al., Critical success factors for construction industry transition to circular economy: developing countries’ perspectives. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 2024. 31(12): p. 4955-4974.
46. [46] Taoudi, A., B. Bounabat, and B. Elmir. Quality based project control using interoperability degree as a quality factor. in 2013 3rd International Symposium ISKO-Maghreb. 2013. IEEE.
47. [47] Jaafar, K. and M. Watfa, A Multi-Objective Optimization Approach for the Cost-Time-Quality Trade-Off in Construction Projects. The Journal of Modern Project Management, 2021. 9(2).
48. [48] Bragadin, M.A., L. Pozzi, and K. Kähkönen. Multi-objective Genetic Algorithm for the Time, Cost, and Quality Trade-Off Analysis in Construction Projects. in Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organization. 2022. Springer.
49. [49] Banihashemi, S.A. and M. Mohammad, Time-cost-quality-risk trade-off project scheduling problem in oil and gas construction projects: fuzzy logic and genetic algorithm. Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, 2022. 16(2).
50. [50] Assadipour, G. and H. Iranmanesh, The discreet time, cost and quality trade-off problem in project scheduling: an efficient solution method based on CellDE algorithm: general articles. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 2010. 21(1): p. 93-101.
51. [51] Boonsong, N. and P. Jarumaneeroj. An Evaluation of Supplier Performance based on a Three-Dimensional Fuzzy TOPSIS Framework. in 2021 IEEE 8th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications (ICIEA). 2021. IEEE.
52. [52] Husin, S., et al., Implementing fuzzy TOPSIS on project risk variable ranking. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2019. 2019(1): p. 9283409.
53. [53] Karwal, R., et al. Suppliers Selection Using Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Method—A Case Study of a Bearing Manufacturing Company. in Communication and Intelligent Systems: Proceedings of ICCIS 2020. 2021. Springer.
54. [54] Razak, S.A., et al. Fuzzy Topsis with Ratings Based on Sub-Criteria for Selection of Supplier. in 2024 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Data Sciences (AiDAS). 2024. IEEE.
55. [55] Amiri, M. and F. Golozari, Application of fuzzy multi-attribute decision making in determining the critical path by using time, cost, risk, and quality criteria. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2011. 54: p. 393-401.
56. [56] Chu, T.-C. and Y.-C. Lin, An interval arithmetic based fuzzy TOPSIS model. Expert Systems with Applications, 2009. 36(8): p. 10870-10876.
57. [57] Kaewfak, K., et al. A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach for selecting the multimodal freight transportation routes. in International Symposium on Knowledge and Systems Sciences. 2019. Springer.
58. [58] Campioli, A., et al., Designing the life cycle of materials: new trends in environmental perspective. Techne-Journal of Technology for Architecture and Environment, 2018: p. 86-95.
59. [59] De Wolf, C., E. Hoxha, and C. Fivet, Comparison of environmental assessment methods when reusing building components: A case study. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2020. 61: p. 102322.
60. [60] Eberhardt, L.C.M., et al., Circular Economy potential within the building stock-Mapping the embodied greenhouse gas emissions of four Danish examples. Journal of building engineering, 2021. 33: p. 101845.
61. [61] Mirzaie, S., M. Thuring, and K. Allacker, End-of-life modelling of buildings to support more informed decisions towards achieving circular economy targets. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2020. 25: p. 2122-2139.
62. [62] Oh, B.K., et al., Design model for analysis of relationships among CO2 emissions, cost, and structural parameters in green building construction with composite columns. Energy and Buildings, 2016. 118: p. 301-315.
63. [63] Bertolini, M. and L. Guardigli, Upcycling shipping containers as building components: an environmental impact assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2020. 25: p. 947-963.
64. [64] Brütting, J., et al. Design of truss structures through reuse. in Structures. 2019. Elsevier.
65. [65] Kim, S. and S.-A. Kim, Design optimization of noise barrier tunnels through component reuse: Minimization of costs and CO2 emissions using multi-objective genetic algorithm. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021. 298: p. 126697.
66. [66] Nijgh, M.M. and M.M. Veljkovic. Requirements for oversized holes for reusable steel-concrete composite floor systems. in Structures. 2020. Elsevier.
67. [67] Rojat, F., et al., Towards an easy decision tool to assess soil suitability for earth building. Construction and Building materials, 2020. 257: p. 119544.
68. [68] Berger, F., F. Gauvin, and H. Brouwers, The recycling potential of wood waste into wood-wool/cement composite. Construction and Building Materials, 2020. 260: p. 119786.
69. [69] Borg, R.P., et al., Performance assessment of ultra-high durability concrete produced from recycled ultra-high durability concrete. Frontiers in Built Environment, 2021. 7: p. 648220.
70. [70] Chen, H.-M., R. Zhou, and C. Ulianov, Numerical prediction and corresponding circular economy approaches for resource optimisation and recovery of underground structures. Urban Rail Transit, 2020. 6(1): p. 71-83.
71. [71] Clemon, L. and T. Zohdi, On the tolerable limits of granulated recycled material additives to maintain structural integrity. Construction and Building Materials, 2018. 167: p. 846-852.
72. [72] Cuenca-Moyano, G.M., et al., Environmental assessment of masonry mortars made with natural and recycled aggregates. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2019. 24: p. 191-210.
73. [73] Fořt, J. and R. Černý, Transition to circular economy in the construction industry: Environmental aspects of waste brick recycling scenarios. Waste Management, 2020. 118: p. 510-520.
74. [74] Jesus, S., et al., Reduction of the cement content by incorporation of fine recycled aggregates from construction and demolition waste in rendering mortars. Infrastructures, 2021. 6(1): p. 11.
75. [75] Kiss, P., et al., In-house recycling of carbon-and glass fibre-reinforced thermoplastic composite laminate waste into high-performance sheet materials. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 2020. 139: p. 106110.
76. [76] Meek, A.H., et al., Alternative stabilised rammed earth materials incorporating recycled waste and industrial by-products: a study of mechanical properties, flexure and bond strength. Construction and Building Materials, 2021. 277: p. 122303.
77. [77] Moreno-Juez, J., et al., Laboratory-scale study and semi-industrial validation of viability of inorganic CDW fine fractions as SCMs in blended cements. Construction and Building Materials, 2021. 271: p. 121823.
78. [78] Silva, V.U., et al., Circular vs. linear economy of building materials: A case study for particleboards made of recycled wood and biopolymer vs. conventional particleboards. Construction and Building Materials, 2021. 285: p. 122906.
79. [79] Simón, D., et al., Disposal of wooden wastes used as heavy metal adsorbents as components of building bricks. Journal of Building Engineering, 2021. 40: p. 102371.
80. [80] Villoria Sáez, P., et al., Viability of gypsum composites with addition of glass waste for applications in construction. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2019. 31(3): p. 04018403.
81. [81] Aguerre, J.A., A. den Heijer, and T. Klein, Integrated Facades as a Product-Service System: Business process innovation to accelerate integral product implementation. Journal of Facade Design and Engineering, 2017. 6(1): p. 41-56.
82. [82] Akanbi, L.A., et al., Salvaging building materials in a circular economy: A BIM-based whole-life performance estimator. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2018. 129: p. 175-186.
83. [83] Chau, C.K., et al., Evaluation of the impacts of end-of-life management strategies for deconstruction of a high-rise concrete framed office building. Applied Energy, 2017. 185: p. 1595-1603.
84. [84] Cheshire, D., Building revolutions: Applying the circular economy to the built environment. 2019: RIBA publishing.
85. [85] Fregonara, E., et al., Economic-environmental indicators to support investment decisions: A focus on the buildings’ end-of-life stage. Buildings, 2017. 7(3): p. 65.
86. [86] Gálvez-Martos, J.-L., et al., Construction and demolition waste best management practice in Europe. Resources, conservation and recycling, 2018. 136: p. 166-178.
87. [87] Geldermans, R., Design for change and circularity–accommodating circular material & product flows in construction. Energy Procedia, 2016. 96: p. 301-311.
88. [88] Hopkinson, P., et al. Recovery and reuse of structural products from end-of-life buildings. in Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers-engineering sustainability. 2018. Thomas Telford Ltd.
89. [89] Kurdve, M. and H. De Goey, Can social sustainability values be incorporated in a product service system for temporary public building modules? Procedia Cirp, 2017. 64: p. 193-198.
90. [90] Nussholz, J. and L. Milios, Applying circular economy principles to building materials: Front-running companies’ business model innovation in the value chain for buildings. 2017.
91. [91] Rios, F.C., W.K. Chong, and D. Grau, Design for disassembly and deconstruction-challenges and opportunities. Procedia engineering, 2015. 118: p. 1296-1304.
92. [92] Esa, M.R., A. Halog, and L. Rigamonti, Developing strategies for managing construction and demolition wastes in Malaysia based on the concept of circular economy. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 2017. 19: p. 1144-1154.
93. [93] Kyrö, R., T. Jylhä, and A. Peltokorpi, Embodying circularity through usable relocatable modular buildings. Facilities, 2019. 37(1/2): p. 75-90.
94. [94] Minunno, R., et al., Strategies for applying the circular economy to prefabricated buildings. Buildings, 2018. 8(9): p. 125.
95. [95] Ghisellini, P., et al., Evaluating the transition towards cleaner production in the construction and demolition sector of China: A review. Journal of cleaner production, 2018. 195: p. 418-434.
96. [96] Nasir, M.H.A., et al., Comparing linear and circular supply chains: A case study from the construction industry. International Journal of Production Economics, 2017. 183: p. 443-457.
97. [97] Leising, E., J. Quist, and N. Bocken, Circular Economy in the building sector: Three cases and a collaboration tool. Journal of Cleaner production, 2018. 176: p. 976-989.
98. [98] Sanchez, B., C. Rausch, and C. Haas, Deconstruction programming for adaptive reuse of buildings. Automation in Construction, 2019. 107: p. 102921.
99. [99] Sanchez, B., et al., A selective disassembly multi-objective optimization approach for adaptive reuse of building components. Resources, conservation and recycling, 2020. 154: p. 104605.
100. [100] Baiani, S. and P. Altamura, Waste materials superuse and upcycling in architecture: Design and experimentation. TECHNE-Journal of Technology for Architecture and Environment, 2018: p. 142-151.
101. [101] Eray, E., B. Sanchez, and C. Haas, Usage of interface management system in adaptive reuse of buildings. Buildings, 2019. 9(5): p. 105.
102. [102] Mamì, A., Circular processes for a new urban metabolysm: the role of municipal solid waste in the sustainable requalification. TECHNE-Journal of Technology for Architecture and Environment, 2014: p. 171-180.
103. [103] Tirado, R., et al., Component-based model for building material stock and waste-flow characterization: A case in the Île-de-France region. Sustainability, 2021. 13(23): p. 13159.
104. [104] van den Berg, M., H. Voordijk, and A. Adriaanse, Information processing for end-of-life coordination: a multiple-case study. Construction innovation, 2020. 20(4): p. 647-671.
105. [105] Chyung, S.Y., et al., Evidence‐based survey design: The use of a midpoint on the Likert scale. Performance improvement, 2017. 56(10): p. 15-23.
106. [106] Nemoto, T. and D. Beglar. Likert-scale questionnaires. in JALT 2013 conference proceedings. 2014.
107. [107] Dikmen, I., M.T. Birgonul, and C. Budayan, Strategic group analysis in the construction industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2009. 135(4): p. 288-297.
108. [108] Liu, Y., C.M. Eckert, and C. Earl, A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements. Expert systems with applications, 2020. 161: p. 113738.
109. [109] Ahmed, F. and K. Kilic, Does fuzzification of pairwise comparisons in analytic hierarchy process add any value? Soft Computing, 2024. 28(5): p. 4267-4284.
110. [110] Aktas, A. and S. Aydın, q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy AHP: Ranking Model for Shanghai Cooperation Organization Member Countries in Terms of Innovation, in Analytic Hierarchy Process with Fuzzy Sets Extensions: Applications and Discussions. 2023, Springer. p. 307-326.
111. [111] Mulubrhan, F., A.A. Mokhtar, and M. Muhammad. Comparative analysis between fuzzy and traditional analytical hierarchy process. in MATEC web of conferences. 2014. EDP Sciences.
112. [112] Lei, S., Evaluation method for students’ grade statistics system based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Advanced Materials Research, 2012. 433: p. 5339-5343.
113. [113] Ishizaka, A., Comparison of fuzzy logic, AHP, FAHP and hybrid fuzzy AHP for new supplier selection and its performance analysis. International Journal of Integrated Supply Management, 2014. 9(1-2): p. 1-22.
114. [114] Gul, M., A. Guneri, and S.M. Nasirli, A fuzzy-based model for risk assessment of routes in oil transportation. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2019. 16: p. 4671-4686.
115. [115] Chen, T.-Y., An interval type-2 fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solutions using a likelihood-based comparison approach for multiple criteria decision analysis. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2015. 85: p. 57-72.
116. [116] Ilangkumaran, M. and S. Kumanan, Selection of maintenance policy for textile industry using hybrid multi‐criteria decision making approach. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 2009. 20(7): p. 1009-1022.
117. [117] Parveen, N. and P. Kamble. Decision-making problem using fuzzy TOPSIS Method with hexagonal fuzzy number. in Computing in engineering and technology: Proceedings of ICCET 2019. 2020. Springer.
118. [118] Chamodrakas, I., I. Leftheriotis, and D. Martakos, In-depth analysis and simulation study of an innovative fuzzy approach for ranking alternatives in multiple attribute decision making problems based on TOPSIS. Applied soft computing, 2011. 11(1): p. 900-907.
119. [119] Pei, Z., A note on the TOPSIS method in MADM problems with linguistic evaluations. Applied Soft Computing, 2015. 36: p. 24-35.
120. [120] Santi, É., L. Ferreira, and D. Borenstein, Enhancing the discrimination of alternatives in Fuzzy-TOPSIS. INFOR: Information Systems and Operational Research, 2015. 53(4): p. 155-169.
121. [121] Izadikhah, M., A. Saeidifar, and R. Roostaee, Extending TOPSIS in fuzzy environment by using the nearest weighted interval approximation of fuzzy numbers. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 2014. 27(6): p. 2725-2736.
122. [122] Wang, Y.-J., A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model by associating technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution with relative preference relation. Information Sciences, 2014. 268: p. 169-184.
123. [123] Ahmad, S.A.S. and D. Mohamad. A comparative analysis between fuzzy topsis and simplified fuzzy topsis. in AIP Conference Proceedings. 2017. AIP Publishing.
124. [124] Madi, E.N., J.M. Garibaldi, and C. Wagner. A comparison between two types of Fuzzy TOPSIS Method. in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 2015. IEEE.
125. [125] Supraja, S. and P. Kousalya. A comparative study by AHP and TOPSIS for the selection of all round excellence award. in 2016 International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, and Optimization Techniques (ICEEOT). 2016. IEEE.
126. [126] Zyoud, S.H., et al., A framework for water loss management in developing countries under fuzzy environment: Integration of Fuzzy AHP with Fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 2016. 61: p. 86-105.
127. [127] Topraklı, A.Y., Enabling circularity in Turkish construction: a case of BIM-based material management utilizing material passports. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 2024.
128. [128] Xue, K., et al., BIM integrated LCA for promoting circular economy towards sustainable construction: an analytical review. Sustainability, 2021. 13(3): p. 1310.
129. [129] AlJaber, A., et al., Life cycle cost in circular economy of buildings by applying building information modeling (BIM): A state of the art. Buildings, 2023. 13(7): p. 1858.
130. [130] Chang, Y.-T. and S.-H. Hsieh. A preliminary case study on circular economy in Taiwan’s construction. in IOP conference series: earth and environmental science. 2019. IOP Publishing.
131. [131] Göswein, V., et al. Bridging the gap–A database tool for BIM-based circularity assessment. in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2022. IOP Publishing.
132. [132] Berardi, U., et al. Building circular economy: a case study designed and built following a BIM-based life cycle assessment approach. in Current Topics and Trends on Durability of Building Materials and Components: proceedings of the XV edition of the International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components (DBMC 2020), Barcelona, Spain, 20-23 October 2020. 2020. International Centre for Numerical Methods in Engineering (CIMNE).
133. [133] Garcia Ahumada, F.L., et al. CONTRIBUTION OF MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING TO THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY DURING THE LIFE CYCLE OF PHYSICAL ASSETS. in Proceedings from the International Congress on Project Management and Engineering. 2024.
134. [134] Omrani, S. and I. Iordanova. A conceptual framework for design for adaptability based on modularity, DfMA, digital design, and fabrication. in Canadian Society of Civil Engineering Annual Conference. 2023. Springer.
135. [135] Cruz Rios, F., D. Grau, and M. Bilec, Barriers and enablers to circular building design in the US: An empirical study. Journal of construction engineering and management, 2021. 147(10): p. 04021117.
136. [136] Kręt-Grześkowiak, A. and M. Baborska-Narożny, Guidelines for disassembly and adaptation in architectural design compared to circular economy goals-a literature review. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 2023. 39: p. 1-12.
137. [137] Sanchez, B. and C. Haas, Capital project planning for a circular economy. Construction management and economics, 2018. 36(6): p. 303-312.
138. [138] Minunno, R., et al., Exploring environmental benefits of reuse and recycle practices: A circular economy case study of a modular building. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2020. 160: p. 104855.
139. [139] Qin, X. and S. Kaewunruen. Circular Economy in Construction: Harnessing Secondary Materials from End-of-Life Tires for Sustainable Building. in International Conference" Coordinating Engineering for Sustainability and Resilience". 2024. Springer.
140. [140] Ramos, M. and G. Martinho, Relation between construction company size and the use of recycled materials. Journal of Building Engineering, 2022. 45: p. 103523.
141. [141] Zhao, Y., D. Goulias, and D. Peterson, Recycled Asphalt Pavement materials in transport pavement infrastructure: Sustainability analysis & metrics. Sustainability, 2021. 13(14): p. 8071.
142. [142] Dejene, F.B., et al., Luminescent materials for building and construction, in " Waste-to-Profit"(WtP): Circular Economy in the Construction Industry for a Sustainable Future. 2019, Nova Science Publishers, Inc. p. 215-227.
143. [143] Kayaçetin, N.C., et al., Evaluation of circular construction works during design phase: An overview of valuation tools. Sustainability in Energy and Buildings 2021, 2021: p. 89-100.
144. [144] Costantino, C., A.C. Benedetti, and R. Gulli, The Role of Circular Design Principles in the Language of Residential Architecture. A Reflection on the Implications that Technical Aspects Bring to the Contemporary Way of Building, in Contemporary Heritage Lexicon: Volume 2. 2024, Springer. p. 1-23.
145. [145] Pradhananga, P. and M. Elzomor. Improving Students’ Communication Skills and Systems Thinking Ability in Circular Economy through Combination Learning Module. in 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. 2023.
146. [146] Gorgolewski, M. The architecture of reuse. in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2019. IOP Publishing.
147. [147] Sandin, Y., M. Cramer, and K. Sandberg. How timber buildings can be designed for deconstruction and reuse in accordance with ISO 20887. in WCTE 2023-World Conference on Timber Engineering 19.-22. June, 2023, Oslo, Norway. 2023.
148. [148] Anastasiades, K., et al., Standardisation: An essential enabler for the circular reuse of construction components? A trajectory for a cleaner European construction industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021. 298: p. 126864.
149. [149] LIMA, R., et al., Experience in the field of sustainability enhanced construction classification system. Building Information Modelling (BIM) in Design, Construction and Operations IV, 2021. 1: p. 15-24.