PRIORITISED INDICATORS FOR CIRCULAR CONSTRUCTION

The project identified 243 indicators for circular construction, some well-established and others considered experimental/theoretical. The indicators were categorised using the project taxonomy and evaluated using the RACER criteria (Working Group on Performance Measurement of the Performance Development Network of the EU Agencies, 2017). The longlist was also supported with an intelligent filtering system, allowing the working group to combine search criteria easily. This structured approach provided inspiration and an initial overview of current approaches to monitoring circularity. Considering Nordic policy targets, the longlist was a starting point for shortlisting the key indicators that provided new enabling insights to the Nordic construction sector.

Eleven indicators have been shortlisted based on the collective findings of the project activities. The following two tables present the shortlisted voluntary indicators with respective suggested metrics. Based on their news value and potential impact, they are presented in a prioritised order.

TABLE 4. Shortlisted indicators and suggested metrics for circular construction

Shortlisted indicator	Potential metrics
1. Utilisation rate of existing building stock.	Total number of empty offices, commercial and rental housing.
	Total number of free-time buildings/summer houses.
	m² floor area per resident/staff in rental dwellings and offices.
2. Total renovations vs demolition and new buildings.	Total m² of building permissions per year. Total m² of demolitions projects per year. Total m² of renovation/rehabilitation projects per year.
3. Circularity properties of buildings and rehabilitation projects.	LCA calculation of: Abiotic depletion potential (ADP) for minerals and metals (non-fossil resources)
	Abiotic depletion potential (ADP) for minerals and metals (non-fossil resources) Share of the original building intact (exclusively for rehabilitation sites). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Digital twins and traceability initiatives (e.g. buildings as material banks, BIM, material passport). Minimisation of problematic substances. Good renovation potential. Robustness/durability (endurance, reliability, extended guarantee, use and maintenance information). Design for disassembly and deconstruction (incl. ease of access to modules with lower lifespans. Adaptability of technical systems. Adaptability of interior walls. Reused building materials. Recycled materials. Bill of quantities, materials and lifespans. Minimisation of waste on construction site. Handling of construction site waste. Deconstruction and demolition waste management plans.
4. Land use change	Index of % built land cover related to total land area.
5. Number of EPDs with “circular” properties	No. of EPDs (environmental product declarations) with more than 12% recycled/reused content, divided into product groups.
5. Number of EPDs with “circular” properties	No. of EPDs with recycled content above product group specific benchmarks
6. Share of certified building projects	No. or share of certified new building projects.
7. Number of EU Taxonomy-aligned buildings	No. or share of building projects aligned with the circularity criteria specified in the EU taxonomy.
8. Resource productivity in construction	Domestic material consumption.
8. Resource productivity in construction	Domestic material consumption isolated to materials used mainly in the construction sector, e.g., timber, sand and gravel, clays and kaolin, limestone and gypsum.
9. Construction and demolition waste	Total amount of construction and demolition waste
9. Construction and demolition waste	Construction and demolition waste per capita, in relation to turnover for the sector, or per new m² built.
10. Recycling rates	Circular material use rate (CMUR: recycling in relation to total material consumption).
	Recycling in relation to total construction and demolition waste
	% waste directed to landfill, backfill, and energy recovery in relation to total construction and demolition waste.
11. Carbon footprint in the construction sector	Whole-life carbon equivalents from the construction and building sector.

The utilisation rate of the existing building stock

Different metrics related to the utilisation data are relevant at different levels of decision-making. Utilisation rates based on occupancy and vacancy can be monitored to inform high-level policies. This includes the number of empty offices and dwellings and the number of building types with generally low utilisation rates over time, such as free-time buildings. A more detailed categorisation of building types, such as residential, public, and commercial, is helpful for municipal zoning plans. Usage rate in terms of floor area per resident or staff is relatively accessible data that informs about the general efficiency of material consumption in the building sector.

Over time, more detailed Nordic indicators can be developed to monitor multifunctional usage, such as off-peak rental of public spaces. However, initially, three alternative new Nordic metrics are suggested, in prioritised order:

Total number of empty offices, commercial and rental housing.
Total number of free-time buildings/summer houses.
m² floor area per resident/staff in rental dwellings and offices.

Added value to the Nordics

The utilisation rate indicator is politically intricate as it may conflict with some lifestyle ideals of spacious living and reasonable aspirations to maintain some privacy regarding the usage of privately owned buildings. Simultaneously, oversized and underutilised buildings can never be considered sustainable, as their material and energy consumption cannot justify their value to society.

Interviewees suggest that municipal zoning authorities consider the utilisation rate of existing building stock before allocating areas for new construction in municipal zoning plans. Zoning planners use metrics to determine when and where urban development is needed and whether there are conversion possibilities, for example, from underused offices to apartments. Advanced metrics on utilisation rate may further inform planning officials about the types of spaces and buildings that are abundant or lacking. Utilisation rate metrics could even be used to refuse building permits to new buildings in areas where the utilisation rate is too low. Taxation on empty buildings could be applied as a market-based policy instrument to incentivise higher utilisation and prevent speculative investment. However,h such a policy may be difficult to enforce.

The utilisation rate is relevant to the non-growth and degrowth pathways regarding land use change and the number of new building permits. In these pathways, there will still be a need to change the functions within the existing building stock. The metric can help to identify building types available for conversion between functions.

Expert interviews suggest that metrics should not be limited to information about whether a building or space is being used overall but also about the utilisation rate on a weekly or even daily level. This level of monitoring is most beneficial on the organisation and company level for spaces shared between different user groups and for intensifying the use of certain types of spaces in public buildings, like school gyms, workshops, or town hall meeting spaces. Many real estate owners already use such insights on utilisation rates in their asset management and investment decisions.

Existing data points

The bodies responsible for national statistics were unfamiliar with utilisation statistics at the municipal or national levels. It was pointed out that the data sources that could be combined to form some statistics on utilisation rate would be too uncertain to build reliable statistics upon. However, several organisations have collected such statistics about housing or office space utilisation or rental rates on a smaller scale. These can be used as a proxy even if they may not reflect the utilisation rates in detail. The experiences from these projects also serve to develop further data collection on a Nordic scale with considerations for uncertainties.

For instance, on a municipal level, the metric has been covered as part of recent projects by the Finnish Ministry of the Environment, one called “To demolish or to repair?” and another project on office building conversions into housing (Valtioneuvosto, 2023). The Greater Helsinki area also produces statistics on vacant commercial spaces divided into office, retail, and industrial/warehouse categories (City of Helsinki, 2024). Finnish KTI Kiinteistötieto produces market analyses, including usage rates, on office, commercial and rental housing buildings in collaboration with the association of professional property owners, RAKLI (KTI, 2023). The ARA organisation (The Housing Finance and Development Center of Finland) keeps specific statistics on rental housing, and their overview reports include data on the overall number of empty rental flats within the ARA system and data on rental flat usage percentage by municipality. This data already informs critical financial decisions. Companies such as Swedish Vakansa use utilisation rate information to rent our multi-purpose facilities during off-peak hours/periods (Vakansa, 2024). There are also interesting examples of community-driven data collection projects that crowdsource the identification of empty buildings (Leerstandsmelder, 2021. Finally, several data points calculate the average dwelling per person across Europe (e.g., ENTRANZE, 2008).

Total renovations vs. demolition and new buildings

The second suggested Nordic indicator is the share of total renovations and rehabilitation projects versus demolition and new building constructions. The indicator is a combination of three metrics:

Total m² of building permissions per year.
Total m² of demolition projects per year.
Total m² of renovation/rehabilitation projects per year.

Monitoring is proposed only to include primary buildings (heated buildings) to limit the scope to material-intensive buildings. An alternative metric is the number of demolitions in relation to existing building stock, illustrating the annual discharge rate.

Added value to the Nordics

The amount of waste from demolition is about twice as high as from renovations. One of the focal points of the different national strategies regarding sustainability and waste reduction is to preserve existing building mass. The number of buildings renovated versus buildings demolished to make room for another building (including possible conversion to another use category) may serve as an exciting indicator for the sector.

This metric relates to the utilisation rate of buildings, as underutilised buildings could be converted to a more attractive use, thereby reducing the need for new construction.

Existing data points

The metric can be monitored by calculating the number of building permits for renovation up against the number of demolition permits for the same building plot. This data can be fetched and aggregated from Nordic Municipalities, as demonstrated with the CIRCUIT project for Vantaa (ReLondon, 2023).

In Eurostat databases and national statistics, aggregated data on building permissions is available, including new construction and renovation statistics. Eurostat [STS_COBP_A] provides valuable information about the number of new building permits; however, it is only for Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. The database, in practice, only provides values in m² and not as a number. The database differentiates between different building types, e.g., residential and non-residential buildings. However, no European dataset where refurbishment and new buildings are separated has been identified, even if such data exists nationally. Furthermore, it is not always necessary to apply for building permission when refurbishing a building unless the function of the building changes.

Differentiating between these two in existing monitoring systems requires effort from municipalities and national statistical offices. As with the previous indicator, a non-growth and a degrowth strategy scenario is possible.

Circularity properties of buildings and rehabilitation projects

A building or rehabilitation project can be assessed over multiple circularity criteria. Some examples of criteria that may be pulled and aggregated using data collected by certification schemes are:

LCA calculation of Abiotic depletion potential (ADP) for minerals and metals (non-fossil resources)
Share of the original building intact (exclusively for rehabilitation sites).
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) available.
Digital twins and traceability initiatives (e.g. buildings as material banks, BIM, material passport).
Minimisation of problematic substances.
Good renovation potential.
Robustness/durability (endurance, reliability, extended guarantee, use and maintenance information).
Design for disassembly and deconstruction (incl. ease of access to modules with lower lifespans.
Adaptability of technical systems.
Adaptability of interior walls.
Reused building materials.
Recycled materials.
Bill of quantities, materials and lifespans.
Minimisation of waste on construction site.
Handling of construction site waste.
Deconstruction and demolition waste management plans.

As a starting point and minimum requirement across the Nordics, it is suggested to prioritise the lifecycle assessment category Abiotic depletion potential (ADP) for minerals and metals (non-fossil resources)

Added value to the Nordics

The circularity properties of buildings reflect, among other things, the material usage, longevity, adaptability, repairability, and disassembly and demolition properties of buildings. The expert interviews suggest also evaluating the ability to relocate a building. Experts also suggest that this indicator could include the acquisition value of non-virgin materials and components compared to the overall acquisition value (%). The indicator should reflect the hierarchy of various material groups’ impact on a building level, whether from resource scarcity, economic, or carbon footprint perspective.

A micro-level indicator of the circularity properties of building products, buildings, and rehabilitation projects would not be new. As elaborated in the following chapters, it is also not the authors' opinion that a new single-score circularity indicator should be introduced. However, the standpoint to be conveyed is that there is a need to harmonise the definition of circularity properties across upcoming standards, certification schemes, and monitoring frameworks in the Nordics. This includes introducing minimum requirements to the list of criteria and their weighting in relation to the overall score. It is suggested that a starting point be taken in the average weighting of the Nordic schemes, as it has been mapped in previous studies, e.g., by GXN and SBI (2018). Inspiration for requirements can also be found in Norwegian FutureBuilt’s requirements for circular buildings and other certification schemes, which have recently been updated with a circularity index.

Certification schemes for products and buildings differ from policies by being voluntary and market-driven. The building sector is unique due to the market-driven certification industry. Data from this industry may provide unique information about the Nordic progress towards circularity.

The holistic nature of the existing certification schemes means that they generally include a selected set of indicators related to circular economic strategies. No certification systems focus entirely on circularity. Usually, green building certifications evaluate the sustainability of the building in a holistic approach, including circular economy measures. The schemes recognise and reward buildings designed, constructed, and operated in an environmentally responsible and resource-efficient manner. The single score approach may have some potential to address conflicting indicators: While low-carbon construction and circular construction have many synergies, they may also have inevitable trade-offs, for example, the potential initial carbon emissions of some solutions that have a very long lifespan and are suitable for disassembly in comparison to solutions that have a low initial carbon impact but also a short lifespan (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2022).

Circularity properties are likely to become a requirement within the reform of the Finnish Construction Act, which will oblige contractors to produce an account regarding the chosen life cycle strategy and measures for realising said strategy within the project in question to obtain a building permit. Currently, the account will not be scored, but the voluntary Nordic metrics could suggest ways of creating a scoring criterion for this requirement.

Existing data points

The interviewed stakeholder groups consider certification schemes the most feasible approach to monitoring circular construction while pointing to the need to harmonise the schemes within the Nordics.

Table 5. Overview of circularity requirements and data availability

	Nordic Swan Ecolabel	EU Ecolabel	Cradle to Cradle	DGNB	BREEAM	Miljöbyggnad	LEED
Can you see which certified buildings have points for circularity?	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
Can you see how many buildings in a given year have received the certification, have points for circularity?	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	TBA
Are there must-have requirements for the certification that are circular?	Yes.	Yes.	Yes	Yes	TBA, but unlikely	Yes	No

Certification schemes monitor a building's circularity in several ways. The following table provides an overview of the circularity criteria in the Nordic schemes (based on Jensen et al., 2018; VCØB, 2021; BREEAM, 2023; Sweden Green Building Council, 2023; Nordic Ecolabelling, 2018; RTS, 2022a and RTS, 2022b). It must be noted that schemes are adopting circularity criteria more extensively over time, and certification schemes are expected to align increasingly with the EU Taxonomy for sustainable activities.

Table 6. Overview of circularity criteria in nordic certification schemes

	Material passport	Waste management	Reuse/refurbish instead of demolishing. Use of reused and recycled materials	Design for disassembly and adaptability	LCA of buildings
Nordic Swan	A material log- book that ensures traceability of the building materials and chemical products that are included in the construction.			Design for disassembly and adaptability	LCA analysis of building
BREEAM	Requirements for reuse, recycling, and other material recovery (sorting requirements)	Requirements for reuse, recycling, and other material recovery (sorting requirements) A plan for reuse	Requirements for the use of reused/recycled materials. Pre-demolition audit Demolition strategies Demounting and reuse instead of demolition Minimal intervention Refurbishment over demolition	Concept for design with focus on circularity and durability	LCA analysis of building elements
DGNB		Minimising and sorting of waste	Pre-demolition audit Resource coordinator	Flexibility and adaptability. Design for disassembly.	LCA and design optimization on the basis of reduction of environmental impact. Use of materials with EPDs.
LEED		Minimising and sorting of waste	Restoring existing buildings or structures Use of reused or recycled building materials	Circular design – Focus om material durability	LCA of building to evaluate and reduce resource use
Miljöbyggnad	Document with all products and materials in the building				LCA for building in order to reduce the impact on global warming from the production. Use EPDs for specific products.
RST		Sorting of waste	Reuse of materials	Designer after “open building” concept to enable maintenance and repair	LCA for building materials to choose materials with low environmental impact

Land use change

This indicator monitors the development of land cover, specifically targeting buildings and other construction.

The minimum criteria suggested aim for a non-growth pathway is =< 100% index (e.g., with 2009 as baseline). However, a more ambitious degrowth pathway is available to re-establish nature. Under such a pathway, minimum criteria will need to define what is considered positive development of land cover to determine whether less built-up land cover results in rebound effects (e.g., more intense agriculture) instead of actual environmental benefits.

Added value to the Nordics

This indicator provides an overall proxy of the pressure from construction on the local environment. Seen as a static metric, the indicator provides little information about circularity since several factors, including population density, agricultural productivity, etc, influence land cover. However, assessing land cover over several years and relating this indicator with other indicators, such as m² new construction, can provide information about the political ability to increase the utilisation rate within existing buildings and land cover.

Existing data points

Eurostat provides statistical information about land area coverage, including the percentage of built-up areas. However, this information is only available on Eurostat (LAN_LCV_OVW) for some Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland and Sweden). Similar statistical information for the remaining regions must be fetched from national databases. Alternative units are km² and coefficient of variation for absolute value. The dataset also includes additional information about land cover, e.g., artificial, non-built-up areas.

Number of EPDs for “circular” materials

The Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) is a standardised document informing about a product’s potential environmental and human health impact. An EPD is used when calculating the life cycle assessments (LCA) for buildings (if there is no EPD, generic data is used).

The minimum criteria for recycling must be classified within product groups, as recycling is more or less feasible within certain building product groups. Furthermore, the indicator must include a benchmark for circular building products using the information available within an EPD.

The suggestion is to measure how much content by weight is recycled and count verified EPDs that can be classified as “best practice.” Specifically, we suggest using the best practice benchmarks presented by WRAP (2004). These benchmarks consider technical possibilities and trade-offs.

For further development of the indicator, it may be possible to develop benchmarks related to the input by value (%). As the reporting requirements adapt to future specifications, it may also be possible to extract further information from the EPDs to evaluate the following criteria:

Minimisation of problematic and Hazardous substances.
Robustness/durability (Reference Service Life).
Complexity in material compositions.
Lightweight design.
Standardised dimensioning.
Minimisation of waste on the production site.

Added value to the Nordics

The indicator does not provide information about whether the products in question are being used or where they may be used. Instead, it is a proxy that informs about the national market maturity and level of innovation in circular products. The indicator suggests a high commitment to reused and recycled products, as achieving the necessary documentation is time-consuming and resource-consuming.

In Denmark, an LCA for new buildings and a limit value for all new buildings per m², together with a limit value of 12 kg/m² CO₂eq/m²/year, will be required from 2023. The number of EPDs and reused building materials are expected to increase.

Existing data points

Verified EPDs are publicly available via national EPD databases and deemed robust against manipulation when the minimum criterion is incorporated. EPDs are based on a standardised reporting approach based on life cycle assessments and are subject to third-party validation. Furthermore, it requires significant resources to produce and publish an EPD, meaning that the products can be expected to represent some market value. While there are some 30.000 verified EPDs in Europe, there are just as many unverified EPDs delivered directly to clients by manufacturers on demand. It is suggested that the NCM focus on the verified EPDs initially since the proxy only informs about the commitment to recycled content if it requires some investment from the companies.

Share of certified building projects

This indicator suggests monitoring the development of each Nordic scheme's adaptation and relating it to each scheme's unique properties. As a baseline, it is suggested that the development of each scheme within each country be monitored and not compared between countries or mixed schemes.

Added value to the Nordics

Compared with the macro indicators established through EU policies and monitoring frameworks, the micro and meso indicators in certification schemes have the potential to cover a broader range of CE strategies. Most certification schemes accredit CE strategies directly when assessing the environmental performance of buildings, and they often include qualitative indicators with third-party validation, thus providing more in-depth information about circularity through single-score units. However, they may be less comparable across the Nordics since the weighting and selection of criteria vary. Some certificates are relatively easy to achieve, while others require significant resources. Further, the overall credit of each building project is affected by many additional indicators. As such, there is no guaranteed correlation between circularity practices and building certificates.

If qualitative information from each building’s certifications cannot be pulled, aggregated, and compared on a Nordic scale, then monitoring the expansion of certified buildings may serve as an alternative proxy.

Certification schemes are increasing in popularity. Focusing on DGNB in Denmark, there has been a 600% increase in certified buildings from 2018 to 2023. Overall, there has been a 200% increase in certified buildings in the Nordics from 2019 to 2021. This significant increase suggests that the scheme operators may be perceived as crucial sources of information on the circularity properties of the future building stock.

Existing data points

Information about the number of certified buildings within each scheme is typically available on the program operators’ websites. The following table provides a snapshot of some of the Nordic schemes for 2021 (based on STARK Group, 2022).

Country	Certificate	Total no. of certified buildings in 2021
DK	DGNB	34
FI	BREAM	343
FI	LEED	265
FI	Nordic Swan	15
NO	BREEAM-NOR	59
SE	BREEAM	33
SE	GreenBuilding	327
SE	LEED	9
SE	Miljöbygnad	611

Table 7. OVERVIEW OF CERTIFIED BUILDINGS IN 2021 (NOT EXHAUSTIVE LIST)

Number of EU Taxonomy-aligned buildings

The suggested indicator monitors building companies' compliance with selected conditions in the EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities (2024), specifically the first condition (a), “Transition to a circular economy.”

The 5.1 criteria, “Construction of new buildings and major renovations of buildings for the transition to a circular economy”, covers the construction sector. To comply with condition A, the following criteria must be met:

At least 90 % (by weight) of the non-hazardous construction waste generated on the construction site is prepared for reuse or recycling.
A life cycle assessment of the entire building or the renovation works has been calculated according to Level(s)
Design for adaptability/design for disassembly
The asset contains at least 30% (by weight) of recycled, re-used, re-manufactured, and by-products.
The design promotes material and resource efficiency by following relevant standards or best practice design guidance on material efficiency.
Components and materials used in the construction do not contain asbestos or substances of high concern.
Digital tools that support preserving and extending service life and future adaptation and reuse:
- Detailed material specification records as part of a building information model/digital twin or in a separate schedule or material passport.
- A maintenance schedule, including a technical description of the building and its systems and a schedule for future maintenance.

Added value to the Nordics

The proposed indicator utilises that an emerging data stream will provide open-source building information about circularity. The taxonomy only applies to companies with over 500 employees, targeting less than 50 Nordic construction companies. Furthermore, the indicator does not go back in time. Despite these limitations, the indicator is a valuable proxy for the circularity tendencies within the most significant national companies. This obligation is also expected to cover even smaller companies in the future10. The wording of the EU taxonomy is not final. Therefore, the wording and ambition regarding “Construction of new buildings and major renovations of buildings for the transition to a circular economy” can change.

Existing data points

The EU Taxonomy is the upcoming classification system that categorises investments as environmentally sustainable in EU countries. This taxonomy is set to be a driving force for increased sustainable economic activity (green loans, etc.) in the EU.

This standard set of criteria is set to be a driving force for increased sustainable economic activity (green loans, etc.) in the EU. At the same time, the increased transparency created by the classification system is expected to decrease greenwashing. The taxonomy is expected to be implemented in 2023, and it sets four conditions (a - d) that must be complied with and documented to meet the standards of being environmentally sustainable in the EU. Under these conditions, several requirements describe how to live up to the taxonomy.

Resource productivity in construction

Resource productivity covers the ratio of domestic material consumption (DMC) compared to gross domestic product (GDP).

Instead of relating to GDP, we suggest annual turnover within the construction sector as the denominator. The challenge is that annual turnover can be isolated to the sector, but DMC cannot. We can assume that the non-metallic minerals are mainly from the construction sector. The Eurostat dataset (Env_AC_MFA) allows for isolating data to certain material groups and has data available for Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland.

Because we use economic variables, the indicator would need to be adjusted to adjust to fluctuations from economic factors such as inflation and economic crisis since these changes will impact the indicator's performance. It is not possible to isolate the turnover to the selected material groups. The datasets can also be used to visualise DMC per capita; however, DMC is still on a national basis and is not yet isolated to construction. Using the built area measured in m² as the denominator is also possible.

Added value in the Nordics

This is a macro indicator that monitors resource productivity and extraction of virgin materials. Indirectly, it indicates higher rates of secondary material used in products and strategies, increasing the lifespan of already existing products. The outcome will be a lower extraction of virgin mineral materials.

Existing data points

DMC is already covered in various national Strategic Programmes for CE. Resource productivity is also one of the indicators used to measure Sustainable Development Goals within the EU. As stated in various national white papers and approved by the Parliament, an overarching goal is decoupling economic growth from waste generation and resource use.

Some regions have mapped the flow of raw material extraction to their destinations and are thus able to provide statistics about the amount of raw material destined for construction. The indicator would be much improved if such data could be collected for all Nordic regions.

Construction and demolition waste

Several indicators and tools measure the amount of waste produced during construction projects. We suggest three parallel indicators:

Construction and demolition waste per capita,
Construction and demolition waste per square meter built
Construction and demolition waste related to turnover from the sector.

We suggest using monitoring against the following benchmarks for indicator no. 1-3: ≤ 40 kg waste/new m² built, 15 kg waste per 1000 EUR generated, and 800 kg total per capita.

Added value in the Nordics

Reduced waste per GDP, in combination with a higher share of rehabilitation projects, will show a positive trend towards a circular economy with higher rates of reuse at one end and higher recycling rates of old construction elements as the technology develops.

Measuring and reporting both construction waste and operational waste is ideal, and it is already implemented in BEEAM NOR, which covers both aspects (Wst 01 – covers both the total amount of waste from construction and what percentage is being sorted for reuse or recycling), and Wst 03 which covers operational waste). One credit is awarded if the total waste from the construction site is ≤ 40 kg/m². Building projects must meet the ≤ 19 kg/m² benchmark to achieve the maximum number of points on this indicator.

Existing data points

Waste statistics have been used for a long time in the construction sector and are relatively easily accessible. CC Build and CIX can measure this indicator on a building project scale. Eurostat also has all the necessary macro statistics for Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Iceland. Some datasets, e.g., [ENV_WASGEN], even allow for isolating specific waste fractions.

Recycling rates

Three parallel indicators are suggested. While the first two indicators already have somewhat robust data, the third indicator may need further development of national monitoring systems to isolate material consumption in the construction sector.

Recycling in relation to total construction and demolition waste
% waste directed to landfill, backfill, and energy recovery in relation to total construction and demolition waste.
Circular material use rate (CMUR: recycling in relation to total material consumption) for the construction sector.

Added value to the Nordics

Recycling rate indicators are relevant because, while they align with the lower parts of the waste hierarchy, recycling is still a much-preferred circular strategy over backfilling, incineration, and landfilling. It is a widely accepted indicator as reporting under the Waste Directive is mandatory. To enable comparison across the Nordics, total waste and material consumption are suggested to be used as denominators.

Further, it is recommended to ensure harmonised definitions that exclude backfilling operations from the definition of recycling. In Denmark, this has recently been done in recognition that backfilling is an irreversible and low-grade preservation strategy (downcycling) that only maintains a little of the value of looped materials.

Existing data points

It is mandatory to report the amount of waste received at the different treatment plants and shipped further in the waste treatment system. The waste-data system often only tracks waste materials for recycling (closed loop) and recycling (open loop), while materials for reuse are not tracked and documented. Monitoring this indicator compares the annual percentage of recycling in relation to total waste treatment.

The EUROSTAT dataset [ENV_WASTRT] is an important data source; however, this dataset has some significant limitations, and much effort is needed to ensure that the reporting methodologies are harmonised across the Nordics. To give an example of a reporting challenge, Denmark recently changed the definition of recycling to exclude backfilling operations.

Carbon footprint in the construction sector

Monitoring the kilograms of CO₂e per square meter built may inform the overall development of reuse, recycling, and the introduction of renewable/bio-based strategies in new production and maintenance.

Added value to the Nordics

Construction's carbon footprint is a robust, widely accepted metric with a strong synergy with circular construction. However, when defining the target for this metric, it is also essential to carefully consider not only synergies but also possible trade-offs, which have been covered in the WP3 phase 2, as well as in other recent Nordic studies, for example, in a recent study conducted by SYKE, NTNU and TALTECH resulting in a publication with the title Synergies and Trade-offs between carbon footprint and other environmental impacts of buildings

Nordic Council of Ministers (2022). Trade-offs between carbon footprint and other environmental impacts of buildings. Available at: https://pub.norden.org/temanord2022-551/temanord2022-551.pdf

. Recent and current reforms of Nordic building acts introduce new carbon limits for the carbon footprint

See overview of the recent development regarding carbon limit values at table 1 in Kaarsberg, S.; Kress, L. (2023) Policies Enabling the Reuse of Construction Products in the Nordics. https://pub.norden.org/us2023-441/#130356

. A national-wide implementation of circular economic strategies is unavoidable if the Nordic countries are to meet their current national goals and targets for carbon reductions, especially towards 2025 and 2030. Some expert interviewees pointed out that in Finland, circular construction is generally seen mainly as a tool for minimising the carbon footprint of buildings, whereas in other Nordic countries where natural resources may be even more scarce, minimising the use of virgin resources may weigh higher. In Denmark, carbon limits are the primary policy that incentivises circular strategies.

The interconnectedness of circularity and carbon reductions in both the physical and political domains highlights the importance of this indicator in the context of NNCC.

Existing data sources

Unfortunately, the Eurostat dataset is quite limited, as it only shows the carbon emissions from the construction sector at an aggregated European level. Further investigation is needed to collect national sector-specific data. Only a few national reports inform about the overall emissions from the construction sector nationally.

However, it is expected that the new limit values and their dependency on LCA tools will improve data collection through increased use of bills of materials and draw attention to the need for resource use reduction.