A review of circular industrialised construction for sustainable and affordable housing: Towards a process-driven framework
Circular Industrialised Housing, underpinned by the systematic design of building components for future disassembly and reuse, offers valuable opportunities to deliver sustainable and affordable homes at scale. However, research interlinking these approaches remains thin, and critical socio-economic...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2025 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Ramon Llull (URL) |
| Repositorio: | DAU Arxiu Digital de la Universitat Ramon Llull |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:dnet:dau_________::2b04defb62de65fba230a7d899b78084 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14342/6226 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2025.106837 |
| Access Level: | acceso embargado |
| Palabra clave: | Modern methods of construction Design for for disassembly Reuse Circular economy Social housing Building lifecycle 502 69 72 |
| Sumario: | Circular Industrialised Housing, underpinned by the systematic design of building components for future disassembly and reuse, offers valuable opportunities to deliver sustainable and affordable homes at scale. However, research interlinking these approaches remains thin, and critical socio-economic dimensions are often overlooked. This paper addresses these gaps through a systematic review of 65 publications spanning Europe, Asia, the Americas, Africa, and Oceania. Six key factors inductively emerged: cultural, governance, financial, site and logistics, construction system, and building information. Building on these findings, a four-step circular process framework is proposed—(re)planning, (re)designing, (re)manufacturing, and (dis)assembly—capturing the full housing lifecycle. Fifteen themes and 36 sub-themes were identified. Mapping barriers and enablers reveals a disproportionate emphasis on the (re)designing process (55%), with significantly less attention to (re)manufacturing (20%), (re)planning (13%), and (dis)assembly (12%). The strongest relationship identified was between the construction system and (re)designing, with sub-theme ‘theoretical design’ dominating the literature. Most literature gaps pertained to governance, particularly in relation to (dis)assembly. Few studies investigated social and affordable housing. Only six studies included interviews or surveys with practitioners. Overall, this review contributes a holistic perspective on Circular Industrialised Housing, offering a structured, process-driven lens to inform interdisciplinary research, policy design, and industry adoption. By illuminating how and where key factors intersect across the housing lifecycle, the framework serves as a roadmap for systematically advancing the field towards resource-efficient, regenerative and equitable housing outcomes. Future research can apply the framework to specific case studies to develop and refine its practical relevance. |
|---|