Qualitative research explores barriers and opportunities for circular economy adoption in Australian architectural practices, suggesting actionable strategies.
This qualitative research investigates the adoption of Circular Economy (CE) principles in contemporary Australian architectural practice, referred to as circularity, to address climate change, resource scarcity, and increasing demands for built-environment resilience. The Australian government’s 2035 national circularity target, which aims to double 2024 levels, will have profound implications for architectural practice. This research examines the current and future ability of practices to adopt circularity. It addresses two specific knowledge gaps: (i) how circularity is currently being adopted by architectural practices in Australia, and (ii) what factors restrict or undermine this adoption. To address these gaps, the research draws on insights developed from focus groups and interviews (n = 33 participants) with professional Australian architectural service providers and closely related design and engineering practitioners. Qualitative data collection captured empirical evidence on the barriers, challenges, and opportunities for circularity, followed by NVivo-based Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA) that iteratively and inductively identified emerging themes. The findings indicate that architects’ and associated practitioners’ adoption of circularity in Australia is evident but constrained by short-term project horizons, fragmented responsibilities, limited procurement infrastructure, and uncertainty about material supply and skilled labour. The paper concludes that, despite some conceptual ambiguity and structural limitations in current practice models, adoption remains fragmented and selective and offers actions for architects and other stakeholders to address logistical infrastructure, regulatory frameworks, legal contracts, and barriers stemming from a short-term economic value mindset.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bamborough et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: