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).