Context and source
This resource is a peerâreviewed research paper published by Sustainable Cities and Society (Elsevier) and authored by Annette Davis, NĂșria MartĂ AudĂ, and Daniel M. Hall. It synthesises academic evidence on how circular economy principles can be integrated with industrialised construction methods to support sustainableâand potentially more affordableâhousing delivery, with insights drawn from international housing and construction contexts.
What the review covers (scope and method)
The paper conducts a systematic literature review using PRISMA methods and searches in Scopus and Web of Science. The final evidence base includes 65 publications (39 journal articles, 21 conference proceedings, five book chapters) published from 2007 to April 2025. The authors combine qualitative thematic synthesis with quantitative coding to map âbarriers and enablersâ across the housing lifecycle.
Core concept: Circular Industrialised Housing (CIH)
The review frames Circular Industrialised Housing (CIH) as the combination of Industrialised Construction (IC)âsystematic, controlled production of building elements often offâsiteâwith Design for Disassembly (DfD) and reuse principles. The goal is to move away from linear âtakeâmakeâwasteâ construction and enable disassembly, component reuse, and longer building lifecycles, while also responding to affordability and resource constraints.
Key factors shaping circular, industrialised housing
Across the literature, six recurring socioâeconomic and technical factors are identified: cultural, governance, financial, site and logistics, construction system, and building information. These factors organise 15 themes and 36 subâthemes that influence how circularity can be implemented across housing planning, design, manufacturing, and endâofâlife scenarios.
A process-driven framework for the full housing lifecycle
A central contribution is a fourâstage circular process framework: (re)planning, (re)designing, (re)manufacturing, and (dis)assembly. This is proposed as an alternative to linear lifecycle frameworks (e.g., EN 15978 or standard design-stage frameworks) that struggle to represent reuse cycles and endâofâlife pathways consistently.
Evidence patterns and quantitative findings
The coding shows a strong imbalance in where research attention sits across lifecycle processes: (re)designing accounts for 55% of identified barrier/enabler mentions, while (re)manufacturing accounts for 20%, (re)planning 13%, and (dis)assembly 12%. The strongest relationship observed is between the construction system and (re)designing, while governance considerations are weakly connected to (dis)assemblyâhighlighting major gaps in regulation, policy, and implementation for endâofâlife reuse.
Relevance for Europe and sustainable housing delivery
More than half of the reviewed studies are set in Europe (55%), although the authors note a euroâcentric bias and limited representation from Africa, South America, and parts of Asia. Within Europe, the paper links CIH to policy directions such as the European Green Deal, circular economy initiatives, and construction and demolition waste recovery targets, while emphasising that regulatory and permitting systems often still favour demolition over planned deconstruction and reuse.
Affordability and social housing: highlighted, but under-researched
While the paper positions CIH as relevant to improving affordability (through lifecycle cost thinking, reduced waste, and scalable production), it finds that most research focuses on general or private-market housing rather than social and affordable housing. Few studies investigate real-world CIH applications in social housing, and the review flags risks such as gentrification, ownership-model misalignment, and insufficient financial strategies that explicitly combine environmental goals with housing justice and inclusion.
Implications and priorities for practice and research
The authors argue that achieving circular, industrialised housing is not only a design/technology challenge. It requires aligned governance (codes, product standards, permitting, procurement), viable business and ownership models, improved auditing and data (e.g., BIM, material passports), and more empirical evidence on disassembly, remanufacturing, and secondâhand material markets. They recommend future research and pilot projects that test the framework through built case studies, especially focusing on (re)planning and (dis)assembly where evidence gaps are largest.