Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic review reveals circular concrete reuse potential in decarbonization, highlighting performance evaluation and barriers.
The reuse of concrete components is increasingly recognized as a circular strategy to reduce embodied carbon, minimize concrete waste, and conserve resources; yet, evidence on circular concrete reuse (CCR) remains fragmented and is often discussed alongside recycling pathways, which obscures reuse-specific insights. This study aimed to synthesize CCR research, map development trends and identify knowledge gaps and future research directions to support scalable implementation. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided systematic review of 61 peer-reviewed studies was conducted, with evidence analysed using descriptive mapping and qualitative coding across five themes: CCR design and applications, pre-deconstruction and reusability assessment, digital technologies, life cycle assessment, and CCR benefits and barriers. Findings indicate that CCR research is geographically concentrated in high-income contexts, particularly Europe, with limited studies from low- and middle-income regions. Performance evaluation primarily focused on embodied carbon, with some studies reporting reductions of up to 90% compared with conventional construction. Beyond CCR's benefits, adoption is hindered by challenges in quality assurance, costs, logistics, and stakeholder acceptance. Given the carbon-centric emphasis of existing performance studies and implementation-related barriers reported across the literature, this study proposes a conceptual framework for CCR performance assessment integrating environmental, economic, and social dimensions, providing a structured basis for future empirical assessment and decision-making by industry stakeholders. This study also highlights key gaps for future research directions, including limited implementation‑focused evidence, insufficient durability evaluation, fragmented digital frameworks and a lack of integrated performance assessment beyond carbon metrics. Collectively, these findings provide a robust reference for researchers and practitioners in advancing CCR implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oyewole et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: