English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

A growing interest has been expressed in the issue of building adaptability over the past decade, perceiving it as an intrinsic criterion for sustainability. In light of the circular economy (CE) and its application in the construction sector, more attention has been paid to buildings’ design for adaptability (DfA) towards the realization of circular buildings. DfA is considered a key enabler for other circular design strategies such as design for disassembly (DfD), multi-functionality, spatial transformability, and design reversibility. However, implementation and assessment frameworks, and design-support tools for the circular building, are still in development as the characterization of circular buildings continues with endeavors to draw a defined shape by identifying the prerequisites for circularity where the design takes an important place. For the sake of objectifying the role of DfA in circularity frameworks in buildings, this paper carries out an analytical review and discussion on two types of assessment and design-support frameworks; the first addresses adaptability criteria and considerations in assessment frameworks that handle the concept individually while the second classifies existing circularity assessment endeavors into four main categories under which multiple tools are reviewed. A reflection on the scope and objectives for both types is later performed, illustrating the state of adaptability evaluation and criteria as well as its role in circularity frameworks. Results show that the concept of building adaptability lacks quantitative methods that quantify a building’s capacity to adapt as well as empirical data that prioritize the most valuable criteria facilitating adaptations. Moreover, many circularity assessment frameworks fail to consider adaptability criteria at all hierarchal levels of a building composition. To address this shortcoming, a series of conceptual considerations and requirements is proposed towards a potential establishment of an inclusive framework of a circularity design-support tool in buildings. The study is concluded by identifying gaps and recommendations for further developments in the field.

Design for Adaptability (DfA)—Frameworks and Assessment Models for Enhanced Circularity in Buildings