Circular economy (CE) in the building sector has been largely constrained to recycling, despite reuse offering significantly greater resource benefits. Building materials differ in their reuse potential, with steel and plasterboard representing opposite ends of the reusability spectrum. However, the criteria for assessing reusability are yet to be fully investigated. This study aims to develop a reusability assessment framework for building materials. A series of semistructured interviews and a survey involving 30 supply-chain stakeholders were conducted to identify reusability assessment criteria through a comparative analysis of barriers across the two material cases. The proposed framework comprises 24 criteria classed under two dimensions: material attributes and building lifecycle stages. The plasterboard case identified economic value and ease of deconstruction as gating criteria, positioning plasterboard at the low end of the reusability spectrum that requires a “start-up” strategy. Potential pathways were proposed to unlock plasterboard reuse, including adaptive reuse, modular construction, standardization, reversible fixings, servitization, and community-based business models. At the high end, barriers to the “scale-up” of steel reuse highlighted additional criteria, such as pricing, stockholding, and market demand. The study proposes a practical reuse guidance aligned with the Royal Institute of British Architects stages and informs policymakers by distinguishing “scale-up” and “start-up” strategies for materials with differing reuse potential, while recognizing material substitution where reuse is not feasible. It supports a phased policy approach in which interventions are aligned with market maturity and combine both “carrots” (incentives) and “sticks” (mandates). Future research should validate the framework across additional materials and develop a weighting system to improve its applicability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abadi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: