8. Quantitative results

The previous chapter mapped the barriers and opportunities for Circular construction experienced by actors throughout the value chain in the Nordic countries. The barriers serve to reinforce each other, and the opportunities identified could each help overcome one or more of these barriers.

This chapter presents a broader quantitative analysis of the survey results in order to prioritise the barriers and opportunities presented above.

8.1. Quantitative results from the survey

Actors throughout the value chain were consulted through an online survey based on the above findings. This provides a broader understanding of the barriers, their direct and indirect impacts, and their power to prevent circular construction from becoming a reality. Similarly, the survey indicated which opportunities had the most potential to significantly overcome the barriers.

The barriers and opportunities used in the survey were formulated based on a detailed analysis of the results from the interview process and literature review. As such, the barriers and opportunities formulated for the survey differ somewhat to and expand on the overarching barrier and opportunity groups listed above. In particular, the survey did not specifically address the overarching challenge of integrating circular construction into strategy and planning routines; rather, it focused on specific challenges faced throughout the value chain—twelve in all. Similarly, the survey formulated a raft of specific opportunities based on the inputs from the literature review and interviews.

The survey was taken by 237 respondents spread across the Nordic countries and beyond. Table 4 indicates where they come from and what actor groups they represent.

Table 4 – Survey respondents by country and actor group

	DK	FI	IS	NO	SE	Other	Total
Developers / building owners	5	2	4	3	5	2	21
Architects, engineers, consultants	26	5	7	10	17	2	67
Contractors and builders	7	5	5	3	5	-	25
Construction product manufacturers	5	10	4	-	4	2	25
Demolition experts	4	1	-	-	1	-	6
National and local authorities	1	4	9	1	5	3	23
Research and innovation	1	2	3	-	3	5	14
Nongovernmental Orgs	5	2	4	3	1	2	17
Other	11	5	5	7	10	1	39
	65	36	41	27	51	17	237

This provides a reliable base for prioritising the barriers and the opportunities uncovered in the literature survey and the interviews.

8.1.1. Barriers

The survey asked participants to select five of the twelve formulated barriers as the most pressing. Figure 6 show what percentage of the respondents included the respective barrier in their top five.

Figure 7 – Survey results - Barriers to circular construction

According to the survey respondents, a lack of knowledge and experience across the Nordic countries is seen as the primary barrier hindering the development of circular construction, with over half of the respondents indicating that it is one of the top five barriers. However, laws and building regulations were also seen as a significant barrier along with the challenges surrounding product documentation. These often go hand in hand, as many of the regulatory challenges are related to building with products without sufficient documentation or certification. Similarly, defining responsibility for risk in circular construction projects is also seen as a significant problem, again linked to the above challenge of regulation and documentation. Finally, the economics of circular construction were also seen as challenging.

At the other end of the scale, few stakeholders felt that hazardous substances in materials presented a serious barrier to circular construction, and few felt that cooperation throughout the value chain and logistical challenges were among the most pressing.

Table 5 – Survey results: barriers by country

Barriers	DK	FI	IS	NO	SE	Other	Total
Risk and responsibility (difficulty in defining, assigning, and accepting the risks and responsibilities of CC)	64%	31%	16%	52%	30%	44%	41%
Product documentation/certification (uncertainty about technical capabilities and lack of certification)	64%	25%	30%	68%	30%	69%	46%
Market (lack of visibility, security of supply and market size)	16%	38%	38%	44%	15%	25%	27%
Cooperation within the value chain (difficulty in creating effective communication and cooperation throughout value chain)	13%	25%	35%	20%	15%	6%	19%
Laws and building regulations (existing regulations hinder reuse and circular construction)	46%	50%	49%	36%	50%	44%	47%
Culture within the sector (difficult to change existing approaches, methods, expectations, and structures)	34%	34%	41%	28%	45%	38%	37%
Logistics (expensive and cumbersome storage and transport of materials and elements for reuse)	16%	13%	27%	44%	33%	6%	23%
Economic (circular building practices and products are often more expensive)	39%	44%	22%	52%	43%	56%	40%
Insufficient demand for circular products and circular buildings (from all parts of the value chain, but especially developers and commissioning authorities)	23%	47%	32%	12%	18%	38%	27%
Insufficient supply of reused/recycled materials and products (due to Logistics, strategy, technical knowledge & experience, material mapping)	29%	16%	46%	32%	30%	6%	29%
Lack of knowledge and experience (In disassembly for reuse and construction with reused components)	46%	50%	68%	56%	55%	44%	53%
Hazardous substances (makes reuse more challenging and introduces risk)	16%	16%	8%	4%	15%	13%	13%

Note: Dark is more important

There also seems to be broad agreement between countries about what themes are the most important to tackle (Table 5). Knowledge and experience are widely appreciated as a key challenge in most countries, as are the issues surrounding certification, documentation, responsibility, and building regulations. Actors from Denmark were particularly concerned about product documentation and allocating responsibility for risk.

Table 6 - Survey results: barriers by actor group

Barriers	Building owner/investor/advisor	Design team (engineer, architect)	Contractor and builder	Construction product manufacturer	Demolition expert	Government/regulator/local authority	NGO (nonprofit entities independent of governmental influence)	Academia	Other:	Total
Risk and responsibility (difficulty in defining, assigning, and accepting the risks and responsibilities of CC)	50%	47%	45%	8%	67%	22%	65%	25%	44%	41%
Product documentation/certification (uncertainty about technical capabilities and lack of certification)	56%	60%	35%	25%	50%	11%	47%	58%	53%	46%
Market (lack of visibility, security of supply, and market size)	44%	24%	5%	21%	50%	33%	47%	0%	33%	27%
Cooperation within the value chain (difficulty in creating effective communication and cooperation throughout the value chain)	17%	16%	20%	25%	17%	11%	24%	33%	19%	19%
Laws and building regulations (existing regulations hinder reuse and circular construction)	56%	45%	35%	42%	83%	39%	41%	67%	47%	47%
Culture within the sector (difficult to change existing approaches, methods, expectations, and structures)	28%	38%	40%	38%	0%	39%	29%	33%	47%	37%
Logistics (expensive and cumbersome storage and transport of materials and elements for reuse)	33%	15%	30%	13%	33%	33%	35%	8%	28%	23%
Economic (circular building practices and products are often more expensive)	44%	42%	35%	50%	50%	33%	29%	50%	36%	40%
Insufficient demand for circular product and circular buildings (from all parts of the value chain, but especially developers and commissioning authorities)	17%	22%	25%	38%	17%	28%	29%	42%	31%	27%
Insufficient supply of reused/recycled materials and products (due to Logistics, strategy, technical knowledge & experience, material mapping)	22%	33%	20%	38%	17%	28%	35%	25%	25%	29%
Lack of knowledge and experience (In disassembly for reuse and construction with reused components)	56%	60%	45%	46%	0%	^78%	41%	58%	53%	53%
Hazardous substances (makes reuse more challenging and introduces risk)	11%	13%	10%	4%	17%	22%	18%	8%	14%	13%

Note: Dark is more important

The different actor groups active throughout the construction value chain also largely agree on the main challenges facing circular construction (Table 6). Knowledge and experience are seen as a key barrier by most stakeholders, and public authorities place it as by far the most pressing challenge. Risk and responsibility are seen as important by building owners, the design team, and contractors and builders—those directly affected by the implications of allocating risk. Construction product manufacturers are not so concerned by this issue, rather, they are more concerned by meeting building regulations, the economic consequences, and a broad lack of knowledge.

8.1.2. Opportunities & enablers

The opportunities identified in the interviews and the literature were also prioritised in the survey. Respondents were asked to identify the seven most important opportunities for enabling circular construction.

Figure 8 - Survey results – most important enablers for circular construction

Two opportunities clearly stand out (Figure 8):

the development of standards for circular construction both for specific products and, even more importantly, for the processes, methods, and routines for implementing circular construction actions in practice. This reflects the uncertainty in the construction industry around these issues.
national programmes for circular construction were also felt to be hugely important. They would provide visibility for circular construction across the industry, help create the demanded standards, and function as a meeting point for developing roadmaps for future work.

Lower VAT on reuse products was seen as a quick fix for making reused products more economically competitive with new products, while a common methodology for material mapping was also a popular request.

As indicated in Table 7, the actors within the value chains in the five Nordic countries are largely in agreement as to the most important enablers: developing standards and national programmes for circular construction. Norwegian respondents were particularly interested in the potential of reduced VAT on reuse and recycling products and activities.

Table 7 - Survey results: favoured enablers by country

Enablers	DK	FI	IS	NO	SE	Other	Total
Develop national programmes for circular construction	52%	48%	67%	50%	41%	42%	51%
Lower VAT on recycled and reused products	23%	37%	47%	64%	34%	50%	39%
Institute a Carbon Tax	31%	30%	33%	18%	31%	25%	29%
Increase the costs associated with waste management	25%	22%	50%	50%	16%	33%	31%
Develop national networks and knowledge centres for Circular Construction	21%	26%	30%	18%	13%	58%	24%
Develop standards for circular construction	46%	70%	37%	77%	47%	50%	53%
Develop and promote reuse platforms at scale	27%	26%	30%	27%	28%	33%	28%
Develop a common methodology for material and product mapping	31%	26%	47%	45%	34%	50%	37%
Require authorisation for demolition, and demand material and product mapping	19%	19%	30%	18%	16%	17%	20%
Develop standardised documentation and data for reuse products /components (EU-wide).	27%	33%	23%	45%	28%	42%	31%
Develop standardised recertification procedures for reuse products/components.	29%	41%	30%	36%	38%	25%	33%
Integrate reuse guidance and criteria into standards for new products.	15%	37%	27%	14%	28%	8%	22%

Note: Dark is more important

Looking along the value chain (Table 8), building owners in the Nordic countries would most like to see a standardised recertification process for reused products and lower VAT on reuse, while designers and contractors/construction companies, demolition companies, and government and NGOs would really like to see national programmes for circular construction to help steer the industry as a whole in a sustainable direction.

Table 8 - Survey Results – favoured enablers by group

Enablers & opportunities	Building owner/investor/advisor	Design team (engineer, architect)	Contractor and builder	Construction product manufacturer	Demolition expert	Government/regulator/local authority	NGO	Academia	Other:	Total
Develop national programmes for circular construction	43%	60%	53%	48%	75%	46%	50%	40%	45%	51%
Lower VAT on recycled and reused products	57%	40%	33%	26%	50%	38%	25%	40%	45%	39%
Institute a Carbon Tax	21%	36%	33%	17%	0%	23%	38%	40%	29%	29%
Increase the costs associated with waste management	36%	27%	20%	30%	50%	46%	38%	20%	32%	31%
Develop national networks and knowledge centres for Circular Construction	36%	16%	27%	26%	25%	15%	25%	50%	23%	24%
Develop standards for circular construction	43%	42%	40%	70%	50%	38%	50%	60%	71%	53%
Develop and promote reuse platforms at scale	36%	29%	13%	22%	75%	38%	38%	0%	29%	28%
Develop a common methodology for material and product mapping	29%	27%	27%	48%	75%	38%	50%	20%	45%	37%
Require authorisation for demolition and demand material and product mapping.	0%	27%	20%	13%	0%	15%	31%	40%	16%	20%
Develop standardised documentation and data for reuse products /components (EU-wide).	29%	24%	33%	48%	50%	15%	38%	50%	23%	31%
Develop standardised recertification procedures for reuse products/components.	71%	27%	27%	39%	50%	15%	56%	20%	23%	33%
Integrate reuse guidance and criteria into standards for new products.	7%	22%	27%	22%	50%	38%	13%	30%	19%	22%
Develop clear guidelines on how to use circular building practices within current and future building regulations and codes.	36%	29%	33%	39%	50%	38%	31%	20%	29%	32%
Obligatory circular construction criteria in Public Procurement of buildings and infrastructure.	7%	18%	33%	39%	75%	15%	50%	30%	45%	31%
Promote increased focus on maintenance throughout building life cycles.	43%	36%	27%	30%	0%	23%	25%	30%	32%	31%

Note: Dark is more important