1. INTRODUCTION
The construction industry is one of world’s largest consumers of raw materials (Hertwich et al. 2019) and it is responsible for roughly one-quarter of global carbon emissions (IEA 2024). In addition, the sector generates vast amounts of construction and demolition waste. In the European Union (EU) alone, such waste accounts for more than one-third of all waste generated (Cristobal et al. 2024). This places considerable pressure on landfills, ecosystems and material supply chains (IEA 2024). It is evident that the built environment is a pivotal factor in the mitigation of climate change. Due to its high material consumption, waste generation and carbon footprint, the construction sector has become a central focus of sustainability transitions and circular economy strategies (Yang et al. 2023).
The circular economy aims to retain the value of products, materials and resources for as long as possible, and is widely presented as a response to climate change and other environmental issues (Yang et al. 2023). Design for disassembly (DfD) is a method employed to facilitate the implementation of a circular economy within the construction sector (ISO 2020). Its objective is to design components so that they can be deconstructed and reused at the end of the building’s life. DfD, therefore, involves planning for the deconstruction of a building at the design stage, and the consideration of which components can be reused in a new building upon the conclusion of its life-cycle (ISO 2020). This entails the consideration of factors such as connection types, material compatibility and modularity. In this sense, DfD is relevant not only for improving material recovery but also for extending component lifespans, reducing the volume of waste generated during the demolition phase, lowering demand for virgin materials and thereby contributing to climate change mitigation goals (ISO 2020; Yang et al. 2023). The most suitable components of buildings for reuse are considered to be the intermediate floors and internal load-bearing vertical structures (ISO 2020).
Although DfD is technically feasible in many contexts, major barriers still limit its uptake, including inadequate legislation, a paucity of financial incentives, minimal interest and demand, and adverse attitudes toward novel practices (Andersson & Buser 2022; Tleuken et al. 2022). At the same time, the existing literature has already identified a range of technical approaches that can support DfD implementation, such as modular design strategies, reversible connection systems, standardised components and improved material documentation (Cai et al. 2019; ISO 2020; Xiao et al. 2017). However, the existence of such technical solutions does not in itself ensure their widespread adoption in practice. Their implementation depends on a broader enabling environment consisting of supportive policies, economic incentives, regulatory frameworks, market conditions and public-sector guidance. The construction sector has historically been characterised by a relative sluggishness in terms of embracing innovation, in comparison with numerous other sectors (Terzis 2022). Consequently, the process of instigating change will necessitate a concerted effort involving international, national, and local levels of decision-making and policy implementation, with the overarching objective being the promotion of DfD (Nußholz et al. 2019).
Research on DfD has so far concentrated primarily on technical solutions (Cai et al. 2019; Xiao et al. 2017), the reuse of materials (Di Ruocco & Biondino 2025) and the demountability of building components (Harsunen et al. 2025). Moreover, research has been conducted on the challenges of DfD (Akinade et al. 2020; Roxas et al. 2023) and the suggested solutions to these challenges (Akinade et al. 2020; Pittri et al. 2024b). By contrast, the role of public authorities and the policy instruments needed to support DfD adoption have received far less systematic attention. Regulations, incentives, guidelines and public-sector practices related to DfD remain underdeveloped and are still evolving. As a result, the existing policy landscape appears fragmented, and a comprehensive synthesis of the public measures proposed to promote DfD construction is still lacking.
While technical design knowledge has advanced considerably, it remains unclear how existing policy frameworks can enable the practical uptake and scaling of DfD in the construction sector. The key gap is therefore not only how buildings can be technically designed for disassembly but also how public governance can create the conditions in which such design approaches become viable, attractive and more widely adopted. For this reason, the focus of this study is on public policies rather than on further technical design development. Although public policy measures are evidently needed to enable the wider diffusion of DfD construction, the existing literature has not yet presented these measures in a sufficiently concrete, systematic or practice-oriented manner. In particular, no systematic review consolidates existing recommendations, evaluates their feasibility and identifies incentives with proven or potential effectiveness. Hence, the objective of this study is to address the identified research gap by investigating the measures that can be employed by public authorities to promote the adoption of DfD construction. Accordingly, the study is guided by the following research question: What public policy measures have been proposed in the literature to promote the broader adoption of DfD construction? Based on the findings, the study also formulates an action plan outlining concrete policy measures through which public authorities can facilitate the broader uptake of DfD construction.
2. MATERIAL AND METHODS
This study employs an overview review. An overview can provide a broad and often comprehensive summation of a topic area and therefore have particular value for readers approaching the subject for the first time (Grant & Booth 2009). In this study, the overview approach was used to synthesise and categorise the published literature related to policy measures that may support the broader adoption of DfD construction. DfD construction has been the subject of study for decades: its utilisation in practice remains infrequent and limited to a small number of projects. Given this limited uptake, the study reviews the existing literature in order to identify the measures proposed to promote its wider application.
The data for the study were collected by conducting literature searches in electronic databases (Web of Science database), which was selected because of its broad interdisciplinary coverage and quality control of indexed peer-reviewed journals. The search terms used were (‘design for disassembly’ OR ‘DfD’ OR ‘design for deconstruction’) AND (building OR construction) AND (policies OR policy OR regulation*). The selection of search terms was based on the extant literature and the conceptual framework of the research topic. The terms ‘design for disassembly’ and ‘design for deconstruction’ are frequently employed in this field, while ‘policies’, ‘policy’ and ‘regulation’ ensured a focus on the public authority aspects relevant to the study. The inclusion of the terms ‘building’ and ‘construction’ was deemed necessary in order to provide adequate context. No publication year restriction was applied, as the literature on DfD remains relatively limited and does not yet cover such a long time span that temporal delimitation would have been necessary. No further restrictions were imposed on the search process, apart from limiting the review to the English-language literature. The search yielded a total of 51 results for the specified keywords. The searches were conducted up to 2024. This broad scope was consistent with the exploratory aim of the review, which was to provide an overview of the policy measures discussed in relation to DfD construction.
A systematic screening of the search results was carried out to assess the relevance of each article to the research question. The screening process was conducted in two stages. In the initial phase, the titles and abstracts of the articles were reviewed to identify studies related to the construction sector, while studies focusing on other sectors were excluded. This resulted in the selection of 25 articles from the initial 51 search results for further analysis. In the second stage, a full-text review of these 25 articles was undertaken. Following this more detailed assessment, four additional articles were excluded because they were not sufficiently closely related to the construction sector. The analysis focused on the manner in which the articles addressed the suggestions of measures by public authorities in promoting DfD. The material was selected on the basis of clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria encompassed articles that addressed DfD in the construction sector, while the exclusion criteria encompassed articles that focused on non-construction sectors. Whilst it is acknowledged that the selection of criteria may result in the exclusion of some potentially relevant studies, the purpose of the cut-off criteria was to ensure that the study focused on clearly defined topics. The process of the literature search is presented in Figure 1. To reduce the risk of omission, the database search was complemented by backward snowballing from the references of the included papers and as well as targeted supplementary searches to identify original sources, including legislation.
Figure 1
Flow diagram of the review.
The analysis of the selected articles was conducted through the implementation of content analysis. The content was summarised around themes relevant to the research questions. Themes were identified iteratively from the text through repeated reading of the selected articles, supported by the use of keywords to guide the identification and grouping of relevant content. A basic level of coding was applied to organise the material and support theme development. The analysis phase was supported by an artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool, Copilot. The AI was tasked with generating preliminary summaries of each article, with a particular emphasis on authority-related content. These AI-generated outputs were used only as an aid in the early stage of data organisation. Subsequently, the analysis was completed manually in order to ensure the accuracy and depth of the summaries. While AI-assisted analysis proved to be a beneficial instrument, it was not capable of entirely supplanting the necessity for critical human analysis. The review process, thematic coding and initial theme construction were carried out by one researcher. To enhance the robustness of the analysis, the interpretation and refinement of the themes were discussed within the four-member research team. Nevertheless, formal procedures such as intercoder reliability testing or triangulation were not employed, which should be considered a limitation of the study.
3. RESULTS
This section presents the results of the review. The results are divided into seven themes (discussed in detail below): legislative developments; awareness-raising; development of building certifications; extended producer responsibility (EPR); actions of local authorities; economic incentives; and stakeholder cooperation. It should be noted, however, that these themes are not equally well supported. Table 1 summarises the measures identified in the reviewed literature.
Table 1
Suggested policy measures to promote the development of design for disassembly (DfD) construction.
| MEASURE | POTENTIAL EFFECT | REFERENCES |
|---|---|---|
| Developing and strengthening legislation on the end-of-life management of buildings | Enables the integration of material reuse into the building process | Akbarieh et al. (2020); Jayawardana et al. (2023); Kanters (2018); Lausselet et al. (2023); Pittri et al. (2025); Rios et al. (2021); Sassi (2008) |
| Updating building codes to support DfD principles | Mandates that buildings be designed to be easily demountable and their components reusable | Lausselet et al. (2023); Pittri et al. (2025); Rios et al. (2021) |
| Establishing clear guidelines and standards for the reuse of DfD building components | Clarifies for building operators how to safely reuse DfD components. Removes uncertainty about the use of reusable materials and may increase demand for them | Akbarieh et al. (2020); Banihashemi et al. (2024); Cai & Waldmann (2019); Torgautov et al. (2021) |
| Raising awareness of the benefits of DfD construction | Improves the understanding of the importance of DfD | Pittri et al.(2024b) |
| Providing education on DfD construction | Increases awareness of DfD construction among stakeholders | Zhan et al. (2025) |
| Turning public construction projects into DfD construction pilot projects | Serves as an example for other construction actors and demonstrates the feasibility of DfD construction | Fernandes & Ferrão (2023); Pittri et al.(2024b) |
| Using public procurement criteria to promote DfD construction | Encourages construction companies and designers to use DfD principles through procurement requirements | Zhan et al. (2025) |
| Modifying sustainability rating systems to emphasise DfD construction | Encourages construction projects to use DfD practices, materials and components that support demountability | Akinade et al. (2017, 2020); Joensuu et al. (2022); Ostapska et al. (2024) |
| Developing local resource recovery parks | Enables efficient reuse of deconstructed building components | Rios et al. (2015); Sassi (2008) |
| Extended producer responsibility (EPR) | Holds manufacturers responsible for the life-cycle management and recycling of building materials | Charef et al. (2022); Rios et al. (2015) |
| Expedited permitting processes for sustainable construction projects | Speeds up the implementation of DfD buildings and makes them more attractive to developers | Fernandes & Ferrão (2023) |
| Certificates and awards | Encourages companies and building owners to adopt DfD principles | Zhan et al. (2025) |
| Developing business models | Enables the use of DfD principles | Lausselet et al. (2023) |
| Financial incentives and tax increases for conventional construction | Encourages actors to adopt DfD principles | Guerra & Leite (2021); Rios et al. (2015, 2021); Zhan et al. (2025) |
3.1 LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS
The reviewed literature consistently suggests that the uptake of DfD requires active intervention by public authorities and other regulatory actors. Legislative developments related to the end-of-life management of buildings represent a significant factor in the promotion of DfD. Several authors (Akbarieh et al. 2020; Jayawardana et al. 2023; Kanters 2018; Pittri et al. 2024a; Rios et al. 2021; Sassi 2008) emphasise the necessity for more stringent regulation and more precise guidelines. Akbarieh et al. (2020) propose the tightening of legislation to enhance reuse and deconstruction, thus better integrating the end-of-life design of buildings into the construction process. Kanters (2018) also posits that the implementation of more stringent legislation and policies could emerge as a pivotal catalyst for the adoption of DfD. For instance, regulations requiring recycling and take-back programmes for building materials, compelling product manufacturers and suppliers to assume responsibility for the recycling of materials, has been posited as a means of enhancing the current regulatory framework (Zhan et al. 2025). Furthermore, Akinade et al. (2017) suggest that the implementation of more stringent legislation could obligate designers and developers to incorporate DfD principles into construction projects.
The literature has a recurring theme of proposals for the reform of building codes (Pittri et al. 2024a; Rios et al. 2021). Rios et al. (2021) argue that building codes should include a mandatory plan for building deconstruction, thus making the reuse of materials part of the design already at the construction stage. They suggest that building codes supporting material reuse have the potential to remove many current barriers, such as uncertainties about certification, insurance and technical requirements for building materials (Rios et al. 2021). Pittri et al. (2025) also emphasise the necessity of considering the requirements and methodologies of various stakeholders, including developers, designers and deconstruction practitioners, in the formulation of building codes.
Multiple authors state that clear guidelines and standards play a significant role in facilitating the adoption of DfD (Akbarieh et al. 2020; Banihashemi et al. 2024; Cai & Waldmann 2019; Rios et al. 2015; Torgautov et al. 2021). Cai & Waldmann (2019) propose that the proliferation of DfD requires the development of comprehensive standards and methodologies that support the safe and easy dismantling of components. According to Torgautov et al. (2021), there is an imperative to update existing standards and develop new ones to align with evolving requirements and technological advancements. Kręt-Grześkowiak & Baborska-Narożny (2023) state that standardised building materials and elements would allow for more efficient deconstruction and reuse. The current absence of generally accepted standards for the sizing of building elements represents a significant impediment to progress in this area. Anastasiades et al. (2021) and Ostapska et al. (2024) propose that standardisation of the lengths, heights and joints of building elements would facilitate their reuse and thus allow the generalisation of DfD principles. Kręt-Grześkowiak & Baborska-Narożny (2023) note that the development of standardisation has the potential to significantly contribute to the interchangeability of materials and reduction of construction waste. In the absence of clear and precise rules and standards, architects and builders may encounter a paucity of transparency, as asserted by Pittri et al. (2025).
Overall, the literature places a greater emphasis on standardisation and legislative change as enabling conditions for the wider uptake of DfD than on many other policy instruments. While the literature strongly supports standardisation, there is limited discussion on trade-offs such as reduced design flexibility or increased upfront costs.
3.2 AWARENESS-RAISING
According to Pittri et al. (2024b), the wider adoption of DfD construction could be promoted by raising awareness of the benefits of DfD and the reuse of materials. Zhan et al. (2025) state that awareness-raising should target not only designers and engineers but also construction companies, public authorities and end-users of materials. Training for building professionals is of particular importance as it can provide practical tools and methods to design and construct buildings for maximum efficiency in the deconstruction and reuse of materials (Zhan et al. 2025). Fernandes & Ferrão (2023) and Pittri et al. (2024b) suggest that public building projects are ideally placed to serve as exemplars and guides for DfD construction. Zhan et al. (2025) note that public projects could serve as demonstration sites to test and develop new design solutions, reuse of materials and recyclability of building components. These pilots and demonstration projects have the potential to offer valuable insights into the practical implementation of DfD construction, thereby contributing to its increased acceptance and utilisation within the private sector. Furthermore, the public sector could utilise procurement criteria in public projects to encourage construction companies and designers to implement DfD-compliant solutions. For instance, public procurement requirements could stipulate that building components be designed for ease of removal and reuse, thereby fostering the adoption of DfD methods (Zhan et al. 2025).
3.3 DEVELOPMENT OF BUILDING CERTIFICATIONS
Several authors state that a significant public policy measure with the potential to accelerate DfD construction is the development of building certification schemes such as the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE), with the necessary modifications to incorporate DfD considerations (Akinade et al. 2017, 2020; Joensuu et al. 2022). The deconstruction and reuse of materials should be incorporated into these schemes, and these activities should be allocated high scores as part of the environmental assessment (Akinade et al. 2017, 2020; Joensuu et al. 2022). However, Joensuu et al. (2022) and Ostapska et al. (2024) note that environmental certification predominantly utilises the life-cycle assessment (LCA) method, which does not adequately consider the reuse and recycling of materials, with a primary focus on the environmental impacts during construction and operation. Ostapska et al. (2024) posit that such systems should be developed, for example, by extending the definition of ‘life-cycle’ or by considering multiple life-cycles in the analysis. The development of such assessment systems has the potential to encourage the responsible design of construction projects and to ensure that construction projects meet the highest standards of sustainability. Such systematic assessment could make DfD buildings more attractive to developers and designers (Akinade et al. 2017, 2020).
3.4 EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY (EPR)
Rios et al. (2015) and Charef et al. (2022) have identified EPR as a pivotal policy measure with the potential to enhance the circular economy of building materials. Under EPR, manufacturers assume responsibility for the entire life-cycle of their products, encompassing the collection and management of products following the conclusion of their useful life. This may encompass maintenance, reuse or recycling. This approach has already been adopted in several industrial sectors, particularly in the electronics industry, and there is considerable potential for its extension to the construction industry and its components (Charef et al. 2022). In building design, the integration of EPR with product-service systems facilitates the effective management of building materials and components, thereby enabling the implementation of circular economy principles. In a product-service system, products remain the property of the manufacturer throughout their life-cycle, and the customer purchases a service for their use. Public authorities can introduce regulation and support companies in implementing EPR schemes, e.g. through financial incentives or sanctions (Charef et al. 2022). This approach is expected to incentivise manufacturers to design long-life and reusable building materials and to develop return systems that ensure efficient recycling (Charef et al. 2022).
3.5 ACTIONS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES
Fernandes & Ferrão (2023) posit that public authorities can offer fast-track permitting processes for construction projects that demonstrate compliance with circular economy principles. A reduced building permit process has been shown to encourage developers and investors to invest in circular economy solutions. Furthermore, as delays and protracted processing times for construction projects can impose a substantial economic burden, the implementation of accelerated permitting processes can mitigate this risk.
Public authorities can also promote circular economy practices by supporting building design principles that facilitate deconstruction and improve the quality of materials used (Charef et al. 2022). The public sector could support this development by providing certificates and rewards to encourage companies to adopt circular economy principles in practice. Such incentives could recognise companies committed to circular economy principles, including the use of sustainable materials and designs that facilitate dismantling and component reuse (Zhan et al. 2025).
3.6 ECONOMIC INCENTIVES
Multiple financial incentives that have the potential to promote the uptake of DfD construction are presented in the literature. These incentives include:
carbon taxes
landfill bans and increased landfill taxes
elimination of deconstruction permit fees
adopting a fee based on the generation of waste
fiscal incentives
increase in taxes on the construction of new buildings
provision of grants.
Zhan et al. (2025) present carbon taxes as a potential mechanism for incentivising the reduction of carbon emissions from construction and demolition activities, while also supporting DfD construction. Rios et al. (2015) and Guerra & Leite (2021) state that landfill bans and landfill tax increases have been shown to encourage the recycling of construction waste and the reuse of materials, thereby rendering the benefits of the circular economy more attractive. For instance, the Netherlands has had a landfill ban on reusable materials since 1995 (Ostapska et al. 2024). Increased landfill fees could encourage operators to consider the deconstruction of a building already at the design stage and thus influence the long-term plans of property owners. Concurrently, the elimination of deconstruction permit fees or the implementation of a fee based on the generation of waste could reduce the financial burden associated with the management of construction waste, thereby providing economic support to DfD construction (Rios et al. 2015).
Rios et al. (2021) posit that fiscal incentives can function as a significant instrument to promote DfD construction. For instance, the provision of tax deductions for the deconstruction and reuse of buildings has been demonstrated to encourage companies to invest in the use of reusable materials and modular building solutions (Cruz Rios et al. 2021). Furthermore, higher taxes on new buildings could make used and recycled materials more economically attractive (Cruz Rios et al. 2021), thereby shifting the market toward a more efficient use of materials and making the implementation of DfD construction economically viable.
Rios et al. (2015) identify the provision of grants as a means of incentivising DfD construction. Public authorities could offer grants to companies that want to use DfD principles in their own operations. Moreover, financial support may facilitate market-based incentives that promote increased dismantling and component reuse (Rios et al. 2021; Jayawardana et al. 2023).
Cai & Waldmann (2019) observe that the development of material banks represents a pivotal domain in which economic incentives can exert a significant influence: governments can certify and monitor material banks that collect and store building materials and components for recycling. Financial support for such initiatives may encourage the use of recycled building materials, thereby reducing construction waste and promoting DfD.
A combination of sanctions and financial support can also be an effective way to promote the adoption of circular economy principles in the construction sector. According to Osei-Tutu et al. (2025), financial sanctions, such as fines and penalties, for violating waste legislation or mismanagement of construction waste can create pressure for firms to comply with environmental regulations. Conversely, tax incentives and direct financial support can motivate firms to adopt circular economy practices, such as the utilisation of materials for dismantling and reuse. Hence, economic sanctions and incentives reinforce each other, helping make DfD construction an economically attractive and practical option (Osei-Tutu et al. 2025). Even though the literature presents a wide range of economic instruments, there is limited comparative evaluation of their relative effectiveness or cost-efficiency across contexts.
3.7 STAKEHOLDER COOPERATION
According to Rios et al. (2021), achieving the objectives of DfD requires close cooperation between different stakeholders. Guerra & Leite (2021) state that partnerships between the public and private sectors are essential to define realistic requirements and targets for extending the life-cycle of buildings and for the efficient reuse of materials. According to Prendeville et al. (2018), promoting DfD construction requires both policy guidance (top-down) and market-driven innovation (bottom-up). In a top-down approach, guidance and regulations are issued from higher levels, such as government and public authorities, whereas in a bottom-up approach, measures come from civic organisations, communities and businesses. In order to implement circular economy-led governance, it is essential to find the right balance between these two approaches (Prendeville et al. 2018). According to Joensuu et al. (2020), both approaches have their advantages, e.g. latecomers benefit from top-down strategies, while new innovations emerge spontaneously through self-organised processes, making the market-based approach a key issue.
Rios et al. (2015) point out that the private sector may be more willing to engage with regulations if their views are taken into account when drafting legislation and rules. When companies feel that their views matter, they may be more motivated to comply with and act on the rules. This underlines the need to develop transparent and interactive mechanisms that allow businesses to participate in the decision-making process. According to Rios et al., collaboration between governments, the private sector and other organisations is an optimal way to ensure the cost-effectiveness and overall success of decommissioning.
Rios et al. (2021) state that it is imperative to acknowledge the significance of collaboration between researchers and manufacturers in the context of developing a circular economy in the construction industry. The development of new materials and technologies, including material passports and digital tracking systems, necessitates research and development that can be applied on a large scale in the construction sector. Furthermore, researchers have the capacity to develop LCA methods and integrate them into design tools such as building information modelling (BIM) systems, with a view to assessing the environmental impact of different building materials and solutions (Rios et al. 2021).
While cooperation between stakeholders is important, it also poses challenges. Zhan et al. (2025) argue that the construction sector is traditionally competitive and fragmented, which can prevent effective collaboration between different stakeholders. Construction stakeholders often operate as separate entities, which makes it difficult to successfully implement DfD. Traditional project delivery models divide the construction project into different phases such as design, construction, operation and demolition, which reduces communication and collaboration between stakeholders (Zhan et al. 2025). Rios et al. (2021) note that contractors, designers and developers may focus primarily on their own objectives instead of considering the whole life-cycle of a building and its circular economy potential. In addition, project schedule pressures and cost constraints can lead to circular economy solutions not being implemented if they do not deliver immediate economic benefits. Zhan et al. (2025) identify poor collaboration between stakeholders as one of the major barriers to DfD adoption.
Rios et al. (2021) and Zhan et al. (2025) suggest the integrated project delivery system (IPD), in which different stakeholders are involved in the planning process from the very beginning of the project, as a solution to this challenge. This would reduce competition and allow for better coordination in the implementation of circular economy solutions. In addition, cooperation between stakeholders could be improved through education and awareness-raising, e.g. by promoting circular economy education programmes in universities and vocational schools (Rios et al. 2021).
Effective communication and collaboration are crucial for successful implementation. Charef et al. (2022) suggest that public authorities contribute by providing forums and platforms that reduce uncertainties associated with projects and promote practices in line with circular economy principles. Furthermore, Jayawardana et al. (2023) note that involving customers early in the design phase enables the awareness and acceptance of circular economy benefits, which is essential for the success of DfD construction.
4. SYNTHESIS, ACTION PLAN AND LIMITATIONS
The thematic results presented above show that the wider adoption of DfD depends on a combination of regulatory, informational, financial and collaborative measures rather than on a single policy instrument. Building on the research question, this section synthesises the review findings into an action plan for public authorities and discusses how the identified measures could be combined into a more coherent enabling environment for DfD construction. The action plan is intended to describe a set of measures that can also be understood as progressing in a broadly chronological manner, from early-stage knowledge-building and experimentation towards more formalised standards, incentives and regulatory frameworks. As illustrated in Figure 2, the proposed action plan consists of five mutually reinforcing areas: (1) research and pilot projects; (2) development of standards, operational models and assessment systems; (3) increasing awareness and education; (4) economic incentives; and (5) legal framework development.
Figure 2
Action plan for promoting design for disassembly (DfD) construction.
4.1 RESEARCH AND PILOT PROJECTS
The first step of the action plan focuses on research and pilot projects. As practical experience and experimentation with the new construction method remain limited, research and pilots are essential for evaluating the feasibility and sustainability of DfD. Successful pilot projects can serve as examples and encourage wider adoption of DfD principles in construction. Public authorities can significantly support this phase by providing funding, resources and infrastructure for research and development. Moreover, the public sector can implement its own pilot projects, applying DfD principles in practice. In taking such actions, authorities can set an example for the industry to follow and promote increased engagement from across the sector. The execution of pilot projects and the conduction of research also contribute to the development of practical standards and operational models, thus helping to identify effective solutions and paving the way for wider implementation of DfD.
4.2 DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS, OPERATIONAL MODELS AND ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS
The second phase of the action plan focuses on the development of standards, operational models and assessment systems. Political decision-makers have a central role in this phase because they can advance and institutionalise the standards and guidance needed to support DfD construction. Researchers are also important actors in this process because they have contributed to identifying the broader systemic conditions of DfD construction and to examining which standards, assessment criteria and other related obligations are best suited to its implementation. The establishment of clear guidelines is imperative for the broader adoption of DfD, as construction stakeholders require practical tools to apply its principles effectively. In order to ensure that the disassembly process is both safe and efficient, and also that the disassembled components can be reused, it is necessary to establish comprehensive standards and procedures. Existing standards should be updated and new ones developed to better support DfD construction. Research findings indicate that the utilisation of standardised building materials and components has the potential to substantially augment the feasibility of reuse. At the same time, these developments may also involve trade-offs. Greater standardisation can improve compatibility and reuse potential, but it may also reduce design flexibility and limit the ability to respond to project-specific needs. Similarly, the introduction of new standards, assessment systems, and requirements may increase administrative complexity, require additional expertise, and generate higher upfront costs for designers, developers and public authorities. These potential drawbacks do not diminish the importance of standards and assessment systems, but they do suggest that their development should be accompanied by careful consideration of feasibility, proportionality and implementation capacity. Furthermore, the utilisation of assessment systems is imperative for the validation of the benefits of DfD. For instance, the enhancement of LCA methodologies was identified as a pivotal developmental domain, given that contemporary LCA methodologies do not yet adequately account for the specific characteristics and benefits inherent to DfD. In order to fully capture the potential of DfD, it is essential that LCA methods evolve to better assess the reuse of building components as part of overall product life-cycle evaluations (Ostapska et al. 2024).
4.3 INCREASING AWARENESS AND EDUCATION
The third phase of the action plan focuses on raising awareness and providing education. Adequate knowledge and skills are essential for the practical implementation of DfD principles. Training programmes support construction professionals and public authorities in adopting new practices and applying DfD in their work. Key actors in this phase include universities and vocational institutions, which provide formal education, as well as public authorities, professional associations and industry organisations, which can promote awareness and support the practical dissemination of DfD-related knowledge. Education not only builds competence but also increases motivation to apply this expertise in future projects.
4.4 ECONOMIC INCENTIVES
DfD construction can incur greater expenses than conventional construction due to the less frequently used joint types and structures, the greater amount of work involved, and the higher cost of deconstruction in comparison with crushing demolition (Harsunen et al. 2025). Thus, it might not be economically viable. It is evident that economic incentives, such as tax reductions (Cruz Rios et al. 2021) and escalations in fees and taxes for conventional construction (Cruz Rios et al. 2021; Guerra & Leite 2021; Zhan et al. 2025), have the capacity to exert a significant influence on the adoption of DfD. Economic incentives for DfD can be interpreted as already existing in Belgium, where a material traceability system, known as Tracimat, has been implemented to guide pre-dismantling inspection and construction waste tracking (Giorgi et al. 2022). Currently, the Tracimat system is mandatory for a select number of buildings, and legislation in Belgium stipulates that materials whose origin and treatment are not monitored by Tracimat incur higher costs for recycling (Giorgi et al. 2022). The introduction of such systems at the national or international level necessitates a robust commitment to a more sustainable construction policy because it engenders an increase in the costs of construction projects, at least in the initial stages of implementation. This has the potential to result in a contraction of the construction sector, which in turn may exert an influence on the national economy. On the other hand, the introduction of new systems can also create new business opportunities. However, economic incentives may also involve unintended consequences. If poorly targeted, they may create market distortions, increase administrative burdens, or favour actors with greater financial and organisational capacity over smaller firms. In addition, higher costs imposed on conventional construction may face political resistance and could slow implementation if viable alternatives are not yet sufficiently available.
4.5 LEGAL FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT
The final step of the action plan is the implementation of mandatory measures, such as updating building codes and standards to guide DfD construction. As these measures have the potential to be an effective strategy to increase DfD construction, they may also mitigate uncertainty surrounding the reuse of components, as evidenced by Kanters (2018) and Roxas et al. (2023). These studies underscore the uncertainty stemming from the absence of regulatory frameworks and the ambiguity of legislation concerning the utilisation of recycled materials. Moreover, Torgautov et al. (2021) highlight the inflexibility of prevailing standards in terms of their capacity to incorporate novel construction methodologies or sustainable solutions. In a slowly changing construction sector, coercive measures may also be necessary, as established practices may otherwise be unwilling to change. Legislation could support the introduction of DfD principles, while leaving room for manoeuvre to ensure that new approaches do not create undue challenges for industry. An example of a voluntary transition supported by legislation is the EU’s classification system for sustainable finance: EU Taxonomy. If a company wants to market its activities as sustainable or access finance for sustainable solutions, it must comply with the criteria of EU Taxonomy (European Union 2020). However, not all companies need to comply with the taxonomy if they do not intend to market their activities as sustainable or apply for green financing.
Despite the necessity for more stringent legislative measures to facilitate the advancement of DfD construction, several countries and regions have already implemented legal frameworks to promote the circular economy and the reuse of materials and components. For instance, the Norwegian Building Regulations (TEK17) set requirements that buildings must be designed with deconstruction at the end of their life-cycle in mind.1 The regulations stipulate that deconstruction should be feasible in a practical and economically viable manner (Lausselet et al. 2023). However, according to Lausselet et al. (2023) the regulations offer ambiguous guidance and fail to provide explicit criteria for the incorporation of deconstruction into life-cycle greenhouse gas calculations. Moreover, in Italy, the CAM for Buildings legislation (Criteri Ambientali Minimi, Minimum Environmental Criteria) legislation stipulates that a minimum of 50% of building components must be designed to be reusable and recyclable (Jayawardana et al. 2023), thereby strongly supporting DfD construction. In the US State of California, the government has enacted legislation mandating that a minimum of 70% of all construction waste arising from construction projects must be recycled (Rios et al. 2015). Although this legislation does not directly address DfD construction, it has the potential to incentivise the utilisation of reusable building components.
Legislative changes are often a protracted process, and further clarification of technical solutions will certainly be needed before this level can be reached. At the local level, several approaches are identified as conducive to the promotion of DfD construction. The most viable option is the initiation of individual pilot projects, which can be supported or implemented by public authorities. Furthermore, DfD buildings may be eligible for accelerated approval processes. While measures at the local level are, in practice, more rapid than, for example, changes in legislation, these changes require a deep understanding of DfD construction, including technical and economic viewpoints. The absence of such knowledge at the local level poses challenges for the implementation of these measures. The literature has suggested that training and awareness-raising on DfD are necessary. In order to facilitate the implementation of measures to increase DfD construction at a local level, it is imperative that training is targeted at local actors, such as municipal employees and decision-makers, to increasing their understanding of DfD construction.
4.6 STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION
Collaboration between various stakeholders is a key factor across all phases of the action plan. In particular, close cooperation between public authorities and other industry actors is essential in research and development, as well as in the creation of standards and guidelines. Such collaboration is instrumental for ensuring that the resulting practices are feasible for all stakeholders and helps to avoid unnecessary barriers. Furthermore, collaboration has been demonstrated to engender innovation. The advancement of DfD construction necessitates a multifaceted approach that integrates legal, economic and technical perspectives. Legislation ought to facilitate innovative business models and enable flexible methods for disassembly and reuse. The ultimate success of DfD construction is contingent upon the collaboration and shared commitment of all stakeholders involved.
5. CONCLUSIONS
This literature review provides a thorough overview of the suggested measures that public authorities can utilise for the purpose of promoting design for disassembly (DfD) in the construction sector. Based on these findings, the study also develops an action plan that compiles concrete measures and recommendations, particularly for public authorities, to support the implementation and wider adoption of DfD construction.
The review indicates that clearer standards, more usable guidance, targeted incentives and stronger coordination mechanisms are all potentially important for mainstreaming DfD. However, the literature does not support treating any one of these as a stand-alone solution. Nor does it yet provide a strong empirical basis for ranking policy instruments by effectiveness. What it does show, more convincingly, is that the current policy environment remains too fragmented to support wider uptake without deliberate public invention.
The implementation of DfD may necessitate higher initial investments and more costly decommissioning solutions in comparison with conventional methods, which may render it less economically viable in the absence of adequate financial incentives. Public authorities can encourage the uptake of DfD by developing tax incentives and investment subsidies, especially for smaller and less resourced projects. For instance, the implementation of DfD can be rendered more economically attractive through the provision of tax deductions for the utilisation of recycled materials, or investment subsidies to facilitate dismantling solutions and material reuse.
Public authorities may establish networks of cooperation with a range of relevant stakeholders, including construction companies, designers, recyclers, universities and civil society organisations. The promotion of the exchange of information and the creation of more favourable conditions for the uptake of DfD will facilitate the sector’s transition toward a circular economy. In particular, regional and national building authorities can invest in DfD-related education and dissemination by targeting training programmes at professionals and citizens. This would enhance the comprehension of DfD and encourage its extensive acceptance within the construction sector. The study concludes that whilst DfD is a pivotal instrument in the promotion of a circular economy and the mitigation of the environmental impact of the construction sector, its comprehensive implementation necessitates the active involvement of public authorities in the formulation of regulatory and economic inducements, in conjunction with collaboration between stakeholders.
From a theoretical perspective, the study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by structuring and synthesising dispersed literature on governance mechanisms supporting DfD, thereby clarifying the role of public policy in advancing circular construction practices. It also highlights the need for further conceptual development linking design strategies, policy instruments and life-cycle-based environmental assessment, and identifies the need for further empirical and conceptual research on the effectiveness and implementation of policy measures. From a practical perspective, the findings provide actionable insights for policymakers, designers and industry stakeholders by translating literature-based recommendations into a structured action plan that supports the implementation of DfD in real-world construction projects, thereby providing tools and methods for public authorities, politics and civil society organisations to promote the adoption of DfD.
5.1 LIMITATIONS
This study reviewed public policy measures discussed in the literature to support the implementation of DfD construction. Limitations relate to the scope of the search strategy, which primarily relied on the term ‘policy’. This may have constrained the identification of relevant literature, as other governance-related terms such as ‘incentives’, ‘standards’, ‘circular economy policy’ and ‘waste policy’ were not explicitly included and could have captured additional studies. Furthermore, the review was limited to a single database, which, despite its strong coverage of high-quality, peer-reviewed publications, may have excluded relevant studies indexed in other databases. In addition, the grey literature, such as policy reports, governmental documents and industry guidelines, was not included, which may limit the representation of practice-oriented and policy-relevant insights. As a result, the dataset may not fully represent the breadth of existing research on governance mechanisms supporting DfD.
Future research should assess the impact of measures that have already been implemented, particularly in countries where legislation governs the reuse of materials and components. A cost–benefit analysis of alternative incentives and policy measures would help to ascertain the most cost-effective ways to promote DfD construction.
Notes
AI DECLARATION
Microsoft Copilot was used to support the preliminary summarisation and organisation of selected articles. The content analysis, thematic coding, interpretation and conclusions were conducted by the authors. AI-based tools were also used for language-checking and editing. The authors reviewed the content and take full responsibility for the final manuscript.
DATA ACCESSIBILITY
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.