Barriers To Circular Economy Implementation

Environment, Development and Sustainability
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04061-8
Barriers to circular economy implementation

in the construction industry: causal assessment model
Serdar Durdyev1 · Kerim Koc2 · Aidana Tleuken3 · Cenk Budayan4 ·

Ömer Ekmekcioğlu5 · Ferhat Karaca3
Received: 14 March 2023 / Accepted: 14 October 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2023
Abstract
Circular economy (CE) offers a systems solution framework to create a closed-loop
system that minimizes waste and maximizes resource efficiency. The construction industry
has significant potential to adopt CE practices but faces several barriers that hinder its
progress. This study investigates the causal relationship between the barriers to the wider
adoption of CE in the construction sector in Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Turkey, as part
of a developing country perspective. To achieve this aim, a fuzzy decision-making trial
and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) was used to analyze the barriers initially identified
through a comprehensive literature review. Although Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Turkey
differ in many aspects, they share a common and vital factor in addressing the challenges
associated with the adoption of CE: “governmental support through policy development
and enforcement.” Another causal barrier they face is the inadequacy of their current
infrastructure, which hampers the effective implementation of the CE concept. The
results reveal that governments should lead the implementation process by encouraging
and supporting the sector to overcome the resistance toward new business models or
innovations. The fragmented nature of the sector, with its many stakeholders and complex
supply chains, makes the implementation of CE practices challenging. This highlights
the need for a coordinated effort (e.g., utilizing advanced construction technologies)
by the stakeholders and decision-makers to overcome the challenges and promote the
adoption of CE practices. As a pioneering research of its kind, this study holds immense
significance for the forefront of the sector in three developing countries where the adoption
of CE practices is still in its infancy. The research findings are expected to greatly assist
practitioners and policymakers in developing countries in addressing the challenges toward
an efficient and effective transition to circularity.
Keywords Circular economy · Construction sector · Fuzzy DEMATEL · Developing

economies, waste
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
S. Durdyev et al.
1 Introduction
Construction industry has been known for its enormous resource consumption and waste
generation, which consequently causes negative externalities. The increased amount of
waste that goes into landfill (Martek et al., 2019), polluted ecosystems (Durdyev et al.,
2018), unsustainable use of water (Zhalmurziyeva et al., 2021), and carbon emission
(Tokbolat et al., 2019) are some of the impacts the industry is responsible for. All these
externalities can be attributed to various reasons; however, the most important is the
approach (linear or traditional) that the industry has adopted throughout its project lifecycle
(Tokazhanov et al., 2022). This model adopts the “take-make-use-dispose” approach
(Mhatre et al., 2023), in which construction materials are used and finally end up in the
landfill as waste (Bao & Lu, 2020). Reportedly, it has been recognized that there is an
urgent need for transformative changes in the construction industry practices and systems
to avert waste generation and increase resource efficiency (Ababio & Lu 2023; Wuni &
Shen, 2022).
In fact, there have been several attempts to realize the opportunities across the
construction supply chain to address the limitations of the current approach and make a
fundamental change to combat the negative externalities caused by the industry. As its
transition to a circular economy (CE), the European Commission has introduced several
measures (both legislative and non-legislative) for wider adoption of CE practices across
the European continent (European Commission, 2020). While construction and demolition
(C&D) have been identified as an industry with a high potential for circularity, the measures
aim to reduce waste, enforce sustainable products to be the norm, and make CE create
value for people. Likewise, the USA and Australia have introduced several policies for the
wider promotion of CE practices in the built environment (Parliament of Australia, 2020;
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2022). Additionally, various initiatives
have been in place for the wider adoption of CE practices within the construction industry
context (Adams et al., 2017; Azcárate-Aguerre et al., 2023; Coenen et al., 2023; Ghaffar
et al., 2020; Ghisellini et al., 2018; Huang et al., 2018; Mhatre et al., 2023). Considering
the potential cost benefits of CE, a new term has appeared—“circular premium”—which
represents the financial benefit from switching from linear economy to circular economy
model product (Appolloni et al., 2022). Nevertheless, it is important to avoid a “circular
economy rebound,” which describes a phenomenon of CE supporting businesses resulting
in an overall rise of resource consumption, thus leading to minimal environmental benefit
(Zerbino, 2022).
CE, in which the value of resources is predominant over economic profit, seeks to
sustain the environment by closing the consumption loop and using principles of “reuse,
reduce, and recycle” (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Adoption of CE practices is claimed to
benefit the environment in several ways, which can be summarized through the ReSOLVE
framework: Regenerate, Share, Optimize, Loop, Virtualize, and Exchange (Gower &
Schröder, 2016). “Regenerate” is about the effort to revive the environment, “Share”
aims to extend the useful life of a product or material by collective use, “Optimize”
intends to enhance productivity and augment efficiency, “Loop” purposes of enabling
recycling and remanufacturing, “Virtualize” goals to surge the extent of digitization
and dematerialization, while “Exchange” has an objective to adopt innovations through
replacing outdated technologies and materials (Gower & Schröder, 2016). Recycling
construction waste material (which is one of the CE practices) and their further use in
new construction can save more than 50% of embodied energy (Ghisellini et al., 2018).
13
Barriers to circular economy implementation in the construction…
Different kinds of wastes can be recycled, which include bricks, concrete, metal, glass,
masonry, and even solid waste (Soni et al., 2022). Reuse of waste in new construction can
decrease greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption (Alsheyab, 2022).
To ensure a sustainable and resource-efficient built environment with reduced waste,
particularly in the C&D industry, it is imperative to acquire CE practices in several ways
such as design for deconstruction (Roxas et al., 2023), zero waste approach (Oluleye
et al., 2023), governance innovations (Azcárate-Aguerre et al., 2023), or other systematic
approaches to minimizing the ineffective use of resources (Coenen et al., 2023). Despite
the reported benefits of the CE model (Tokazhanov et al., 2022; Torgautov et al., 2021),
in practice, CE transitioning within the built environment, particularly in developing
nations, has yet to produce substantial results. The adoption has been slow-paced, which
can be attributed to knowledge/awareness, regulatory, political, and financial realities
(Wuni, 2022b). Furthermore, the current structure of the construction sector needs to be
more conducive to the adoption of innovative practices. The integration of CE practices
needs to be improved by timely addressing numerous barriers that impede progress. Thus,
this study aims to identify the most causal barriers to the adoption of CE practices in
the construction sector. Although there exist many recent studies on barriers to circular
economy applications (Coenen et al., 2023; Mhatre et al., 2023; Munaro & Tavares, 2023;
Osei-Tutu et al., 2023; Véliz et al., 2023), several points differentiate this study from
existing research. Primary objectives of the current research and novelties compared to the
existing literature can be summarized as follows:
• This study develops a cause–effect relationship between barriers to the adoption of CE

practices in the construction industry using fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation
laboratory (DEMATEL) method. Despite past research examining CE barriers, the
root causes of the problems have been overlooked in the literature, which represent
the major novelty of this study. Therefore, this study proposes the most effective
means to realize CE practices in the sector for each barrier category, captured through
an in-depth literature review. Past research mainly utilized a scientometric/review
approach (Ababio & Lu, 2023; Munaro & Tavares, 2023), qualitative framework
development (Coenen et al., 2023), or statistical analyses tools (Oluleye et al., 2023).
Only Mhatre et al. (2023) used a similar approach (i.e., DEMATEL); however, the
authors did not incorporate fuzzy set theory to handle inherent uncertainty in human
decision-making logic.
• Another point that differs this study from its counterparts is the scope of the research in
terms of economic conditions in the examined setting. This study distinctively compares
the perceptions of respondents in three developing countries, i.e., Kazakhstan, Malaysia,
and Turkey. Although many studies have investigated the issues in the implementation
of CE practices in the sector, none of the existing studies have performed a country-
based comparison in a developing economy setting. On the one hand, Mhatre et al.
(2023) brought the issue into forefront by addressing the case of “emerging economy.”
However, they investigated the barriers based on the perception of Indian experts
solely rather than country-based comparison. On the other hand, Oluleye et al. (2023)
conducted a developing-developed country comparison for transition to CE. Other
researchers (Azcárate-Aguerre et al., 2023; Coenen et al., 2023; Osei-Tutu et al., 2023),
however, did not highlight the developing countries’ perspective.
Overall, this paper serves as a valuable resource for stakeholders in the construction
industry, as it sheds light on the various challenges that must be overcome in order to
13
S. Durdyev et al.
achieve a sustainable and resource-efficient built environment. With a better understanding

of these obstacles, stakeholders can work toward implementing effective solutions to
promote the adoption of CE practices and facilitate a more sustainable future.
2 Literature review
Based on a literature review, the barriers to CE adoption in the construction sector can be
classified into six categories: awareness, perception, and knowledge; financial and costs;
legislative; operational; procurement; and project and design.
Awareness, perception, and knowledge category barriers arise from sociological
obstacles, which construction industry stakeholders and management might be
susceptible to. Thus, the prime organization impediment is hesitant company culture and
poor commitment to CE which lead to such factors as unwillingness to change, and the
stakeholders having limited CE expertise (Charef et al., 2021; Häkkinen & Belloni, 2011;
Tleuken et al., 2022). Therefore, workers do not fully understand the concept of CE and its
application in construction and are not aware of CE methods (Wuni, 2022b). Moreover, the
reuse of products is generally perceived as a lower-quality alternative in comparison with
virgin materials, which makes the quality of recovered materials doubtful by the public
(Wuni, 2022b). Thus, stakeholders prefer new materials rather than reused or recovered
ones.
Financial and cost barriers to CE widespread adoption contain financial barriers and
market obstacles. As the construction industry is strongly directed to profit reception, the
main economic barrier is that a linear economy is associated with less cost, particularly
for the initial stages, in comparison with CE. Thus, higher initial investments (e.g. staff
training, new equipment, expensive sustainable design) are needed during all stages
of building construction (Charef et al., 2021; Tleuken et al., 2022). CE requires high
operational cost; for example, larger financing of team CE expertise growth by training and
certification systems, and costs associated with purchasing recycled materials (Häkkinen
& Belloni, 2011; Wuni, 2022b), while waste processing is less affordable than C&D waste
disposal (Nisbet et al., 2012). In addition, at present, circular building design techniques
are not automated and do not have a certain framework, which is why it requires large
resources consumption for each unique project (Charef et al., 2021). In addition, virgin
material prices are cheaper than secondary (Campbell-Johnston et al., 2019). Thus, there
are insufficient and immature markets with bare competition and minimal supply and
demand of reused and recycled materials (Kanters, 2020).
Legislative barriers to CE development are primarily imposed by legislation based
on a traditional linear economy. Thus, minimal governmental support in funding,
enabling political mechanisms, and incentives impede CE (Charef et al., 2021).
Therefore, businesses are not incentivized to promote, research, and develop circularity
practices. Moreover, national environmental strategies in different countries vary, so CE,
sustainability, and/or green economy might be present to some extent while being absent
in others (Wuni, 2022b). There is also lack of standardization as well as quality assurance
procedures for reused products (Charef et al., 2021; Häkkinen & Belloni, 2011). There is
no specific legislation and regulations (ambiguous and inconsistent existing regulations) to
support CE adoption (Bilal et al., 2020; Torgautov et al., 2021).
Operational obstructions, which are related to construction methods and equipment,
play a considerable role in the adoption of CE practices. The main technological barrier
13
is that equipment and infrastructure are not yet ready for CE. Existing buildings are built
without CE considerations, which complicates their deconstruction potential (Carvalho
Machado et al., 2018). Lack of suitable equipment for the process of deconstruction and
material reclamation leads to low-quality recovered materials (Nisbet et al., 2012) and
the absence of building data (e.g. materials to be used in a loop design) (Charef et al.,
2021). For example, CE requires each structural element to have its own digital passport
to track its original material, maintenance, and lifetime. Whereas even though the
original technical documents might be available, the maintenance procedures are usually
not tracked. As the construction industry is barely versatile to innovations, there is poor
development of suitable technology for designers and contractors to develop CE practices
(Campbell-Johnston et al., 2019); thus, technically it is difficult to implement CE (e.g.
complexity, long life cycle, tracing materials, etc.). Existing buildings are built without CE
considerations, which complicates their deconstruction potential (Carvalho Machado et al.,
2018). For example, in the traditional linear way of construction, concrete is poured on-site
for some structural elements, and other elements can be connected using wet methods;
also, finishing materials are usually utilized, which makes underlying materials not being
available for further reuse. Additionally, a lack of collaboration and poor communication
between construction parties worsen CE implementation (Charef et al., 2021; Häkkinen
& Belloni, 2011). This might be happening partly owing to data security policies in
each stakeholder organization. Creating a circular supply chain management is another
important barrier in the organizational framework of CE practices adoption—there is no
smooth reverse logistic network yet (Wuni, 2022b).
The procurement category contains several important impediments to CE adoption.
One of them is lacking the ability to deliver high-quality remanufactured products (Oluleye
et al., 2022). Another barrier is the limited number of circular procurement procedures,
design guides and standards (Häkkinen & Belloni, 2011). In addition, poor collaboration
and communication between construction parties worsen CE implementation (Charef
et al., 2021).
In the project and design category, there are several barriers to circularity which are
related to the construction design stage. To start with, there is a lack of consideration in
design, construction, operation, and evaluation of construction projects to support future
adoption of CE (Kirchherr et al., 2018). Another barrier is the limited number of successful
demonstration projects where CE was adopted (Wuni, 2022b). Frequently, project
uniqueness does not allow sharing materials (Oluleye et al., 2022). For example, lead and
asbestos in old building materials might worsen the waste quality and increase reverse
logistics costs (Charef et al., 2021). Tight project schedule results in lack of consideration
of CE during design and construction (Gorgolewski, 2008). Overall, the barriers to the CE
adoption identified through comprehensive literature review are shown in Table 1.
3 Research methodology
The present research followed four consecutive steps to evaluate the barriers to CE
applications in the construction sector in developing countries. In the first step, three
case developing countries (i.e., Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Turkey) were identified as
representative examples since they have dynamic construction industries, have different
characteristics regarding sustainability experience as well as economic conditions, and
recently initiated a significant number of sustainable construction activities (Durdyev
13
Table 1 Barriers to the CE adoption in the construction sector
Barrier categories Barriers References
13
Awareness/perception/knowledge Hesitant company culture (A1) Häkkinen and Belloni (2011), Wuni (2022b)
Lack of awareness of CE (A2) Guerra and Leite (2021), Mhatre et al. (2023) and Çetin et al. (2021)
Lack of knowledge, training, and experts in CE (A3) Charef et al. (2021) and Mhatre et al. (2023)
Lacking consumer awareness and interest (A4) Çetin et al. (2021) and Oluleye et al. (2023)
Use of virgin materials required by clients (A5) Çetin et al. (2021) and Mhatre et al. (2023)
Finance/cost CE adoption requires high upfront investment (e.g., staff training, Torgautov et al. (2021), Çetin et al. (2021), Guerra and Leite (2021)
new equipment, expensive sustainable design) (F1)
CE requires high operational cost (e.g., hiring CE professionals, Nisbet et al. (2012) and Mhatre et al. (2023)
purchasing recycled materials, processing waste) (F2)
Low virgin material prices (F3) Campbell-Johnston et al. (2019) and Oluleye et al. (2023)
Legislation/standards Lack of incentives and support for CE projects from governments Mhatre et al. (2023) and Oluleye et al. (2023)
and public institutions (L1)
Lacking standardization (L2) Häkkinen and Belloni (2011) and Çetin et al. (2021)
There is no specific legislation and regulations (ambiguous / Bilal et al. (2020) and Oluleye et al. (2023)
inconsistent existing regulations) to support CE adoption (L3)
Operation Lack of data (e.g. materials to be used in a loop design) (O1) Nisbet et al. (2012) and Oluleye et al. (2023)
Lack of infrastructure for recycling (O2) Charef et al. (2021) and Mhatre et al. (2023)
Limited willingness to collaborate in the value chain (O3) Charef et al. (2021)
Operating in a linear system (O4) Carvalho Machado et al. (2018) and Çetin et al. (2021)
Technically it is difficult to implement CE (e.g., complexity, long Campbell-Johnston et al. (2019) and Çetin et al. (2021)
life cycle, tracing materials, etc.) (O5)
Procurement Lacking ability to deliver high-quality remanufactured products (P1) Oluleye et al. (2023)
Limited circular procurement (P2) Çetin et al. (2021)
Poor collaboration across the supply chain hinders information flow Çetin et al. (2021) and Oluleye et al. (2023)
(P3)
S. Durdyev et al.
Table 1 (continued)
Barrier categories Barriers References
Project/design Lack of consideration in design, construction, operation, and Kirchherr et al. (2018) and Hossain et al. (2020)
evaluation of construction projects to support future adoption of
CE (D1)
Lack of successful demonstration projects where CE was adopted Wuni (2022b)
(D2)
Project uniqueness does not allow to share materials (D3) Oluleye et al. (2023)
Tight project schedule results in lack of consideration of CE during Gorgolewski (2008) and Guerra and Leite (2021)
design and construction (D4)
13
S. Durdyev et al.
et al., 2022). Then, an extensive literature survey was conducted to identify the bar-
riers to CE transition in the construction sector (refer to Table 1). Here, six different
facets (i.e., awareness/perception/knowledge, finance/cost, legislation/standards, opera-
tion, procurement, and project/design) were taken into account under the umbrella of
the circularity context. In the third step, focus group discussion (FGD) was employed
with industry representatives to refine the list of barriers (Sect. 3.1). The qualitative
data gathering FGD strategy was embraced as it enables deeper understanding of the
topic of interest with divergent viewpoints and backgrounds of the participants. Engage-
ment of the experts is further leveraged through the FGD rationale to generate a holistic
feedback sharing mechanism regarding the barrier list refinement. Finally, fuzzy deci-
sion-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) analysis was subjected to 23
barriers (on the basis of 6 barrier categories) to address the underlying and cause barri-
ers. In this sense, causal links among the examined barriers are extracted and grasping
the intricate web of interactions within the constructed framework is ensured. The flow
of the research progress is shown in Fig. 1. Following subsections clarify the procedures
applied during FGD and fuzzy DEMATEL applications.
PURPOSE TOOL / ATTEMPT OUTCOME
Step 1 Turkey
Country-
Kazakhstan
Step 2
P: Procurement
Step 3
Step 4
Fuzzy-DEMATEL
Fig. 1 Flowchart of the study
13
3.1 Framework refinement
After identifying the initial list of CE barriers, the following three major steps were
adopted to refine the barriers:
• Qualitative method selection In this study, FGD method was selected to evaluate
the adequacy of the identified CE barriers. FGD is described as a methodology to
gather purposively selected experts pertaining to a topic of interest for discussing it,
thereby collecting the required qualitative data (Abdollahzadeh et al., 2016; Hall
et al., 2022). The reason to consider the FGD method is that it inherently ensures
active communication among participants without strict agreement on the opinion
but allowing to share all views respectfully (Nyumba et al., 2018). Hence, the specific
knowledge/opinion is conveyed to the table through a participatory approach, and
overall assessments are transformed into a scientific conclusion (Cornwall & Jewkes,
1995). In addition, compared to other qualitative data collection techniques (such
as pilot studies), non-verbal communication allowing the sharing platform for the
demonstration of gestures and stimulated activities is one of the insightful benefits
of the FGD rationale (Koc et al., 2021). In this sense, providing engaged participants
through a hands-on approach is satisfied to facilitate creating broad-minded societal
outcomes.
• Expert selection Experts were requested to be among contractors, consultants, or
academic staff that have at least 5 years of sustainable construction experience. During
the expert selection process, the distribution of the experts in terms of country was
also sought. The number of participants in a FGD should diligently be determined in
a way that the heterogeneity of the expert group could limit the evaluation of topic
comprehensively, especially once a few participants included, while the inclusion of
many experts leads to becloud the manageability of the sessions (Hennink et al., 2019).
As a result, eight experts from each country were selected according to a purposive
sampling method. The reason for including purposive selection rather than utilizing
statistically representative samples in determining the attended participants is to attain
an in-depth knowledge from those who have similar backgrounds.
• Discussion sessions In order to evaluate the adequacy and suitability of CE barriers
(as well as main barrier categories) to the study objective, three discussion sessions
(each with the participation of eight experts from each of the examined countries) were
employed. The FGD is one of the cost-effective methods as the participants are gathered
for a specific purpose a few times under an experienced moderator’s control, and the
experts’ collective ideas are obtained (Durdyev et al., 2021). Therefore, experts were
gathered together only three times, for each country group separately. In each section,
experts were asked to judge the adequacy of the barriers, suggest additional barriers if
they think that the framework is incomplete, and group barriers based on categories.
3.2 Fuzzy DEMATEL
In order to identify cause and effect factors, this study applied a fuzzy DEMATEL method.
The DEMATEL method was first proposed by the “Battelle Memorial Institute of Geneva”
during the 1970s to reveal which factors influence other factors and which factors are
influenced by others at most (Gabus & Fontela, 1973). The method explores the direct and
13
S. Durdyev et al.
indirect relationships among factors having complex dependence on each other through
its matrix operations (Zarbakhshnia et al., 2023). The DEMATEL further recognizes the
cause–effect relationship and reflects the overall influence of various factors (Lin et al.,
2018). One of the most important features of the approach is that it is based on the graph
theory, which divides the focalized criteria group into two sub-groups, called causes and
effects, aiding to provide insightful evaluation scheme to the decision-makers (Turan &
Ozturkoglu, 2022).
It is also worth mentioning that there are some other multi-criteria decision-analysis
(MCDA) techniques, such as analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and analytic network
process (ANP). However, the DEMATEL algorithm offers certain superiorities making
it opted choice among the MCDA methodologies. For instance, the DEMATEL excels
in identifying the causal relationships among attributes in a complex system, whereas
the AHP primarily focuses on structuring and prioritizing criteria and alternatives (Chou
et al., 2012). Although the ANP recognizes that complex decision problems often involve
non-hierarchical relationships and the components (e.g., criteria, alternatives, etc.) of the
system can somehow be interconnected, it does neither provide the same level of causal
relationship exploration nor emphasize visual representations of them (Ekmekcioğlu et al.,
2022). In addition, while AHP does not explicitly focus on feedback analysis or dynamic
systems modeling and ANP performs to some extent, DEMATEL considers both direct
and indirect relationships allowing to analyze feedback loops within the system that has
dynamic or cyclic characteristics.
Despite several strengths of the DEMATEL, its efficiency can be limited once it
considers the uncertain nature and the vagueness of humans’ judgments. Crisp numbers
may remain incapable of discovering the complicated relationships among the criteria with
certain numbers (Lin et al., 2018). Hence, an extended version of the DEMATEL method
(called fuzzy-DEMATEL), which contains the synthesis of the fuzzy set theory that was
pioneered by Zadeh (1965) and the fuzzy DEMATEL, is introduced in the literature. The
existing literature comprises many types of membership functions, such as trapezoidal
fuzzy numbers (Luthra et al., 2016), Gaussian fuzzy numbers (Yang et al., 2021), and
triangular fuzzy numbers (Jin et al., 2022) in incorporating the fuzzification into the
DEMATEL. The current research employed the triangular fuzzy numbers considering its
wide utilization and practicality (Chai et al., 2022). In this study, the fuzzy DEMATEL
approach introduced by Chang et al. (2011) was adopted. The procedures regarding the
implementation of fuzzy-DEMATEL can be summarized as follows (Chang et al., 2011).
1. Data collection using linguistic variables After finalizing the barriers, n by n pairwise
comparison matrix of each category is formed. Then, each expert was requested to fill a
total of six pairwise comparison matrices (i.e., six categories). Here, the influence of each
barrier on other barriers was evaluated by using 0–4 DEMATEL scale (0: no influence,
4: Very high influence). At the end, n by n pairwise comparison matrix is formed by each
expert for each barrier category. It is important to note that each matrix is composed
of linguistic judgments (no influence–very high influence) of the experts rather than
numerical values (0–4).
2. Designing triangular direct relation matrix In order to transform the pairwise
comparison matrix attained through the pairwise comparisons conducted by experts into
triangular fuzzy numbers (lij , mij , rij ), linguistic variables and their triangular equivalences
(Table 2) were used. At the end, n by n triangular direct relation matrix is formed by each
expert for each barrier category.
3. Converting triangular matrices into initial direct relation matrix (Z) In this step, the aim
is to calculate direct relation matrix by combining the judgments of each expert. However,
13
Table 2 Fuzzy linguistic scales Linguistic variables Influence crisp Triangular fuzzy
used in fuzzy DEMATEL score equivalences
analysis (lij , mij , rij)
No influence 0 0, 0, 0.25
Very low influence 1 0, 0.25, 0.5
Low influence 2 0.25, 0.5, 0.75
High influence 3 0.5, 0.75, 1
Very high influence 4 0.75, 1, 1
before taking the average of all experts’ evaluations, triangular relation matrix should be con-
verted to its crisp equivalence. Hence, first, the normalization is conducted according to the
procedures introduced by Chang et al. (2011):
( ) ( ) ( )
rijn − lijn mnij − lijn lijn − lijn
xrijn = ; xmnij = ; xlijn = (1)
Δmaxmin
Δ max
min
Δmaxmin
where Δmax
min
= rijn − lijn ; n = 1, 2, 3, … , h is the number of judgments of respondents. Then,
right (xrs) and left (xls) normalized values are computed:
xrijn xmnij
xrsnij = ( ); xlsnij = ( ) (2)
1 + xrijn − xmnij 1 + xmnij − xlijn
Aggregated crisp values are computed by Eqs. (3) and (4) and (5):
( )
xlsnij 1 − xlsnij + xrsnij × xrsnij
xijn = ( ) (3)
1 − xlsnij + xrsnij
Zijn = lijn + xijn × Δmax

min (4)
in which xijn and Zijn are the total normalized crisp values and the computed crisp value for
questionnaire n, respectively. Based on the judgments of h number of experts, elements of
initial direct relation matrix (i.e., Zij ) are calculated by taking the average of them:
( )
Zij1 + Zij2 + ⋯ + Zijh
Zij = (5)
h
In this step, (1) judgments of experts from Malaysia, (2) judgments of experts from
Kazakhstan, (3) judgments of experts from Turkey, and (4) judgments of experts from all the
countries (overall) were considered and comparatively analyzed.
4. Setting up generalized direct relation matrix (S) Generalized direct relation matrix is
calculated according to the steps of traditional DEMATEL analysis (Costa et al., 2019):
1
S= ∑n ×Z (6)
max1≤i≤n j=1 Zij
13
S. Durdyev et al.
5. Formation of the total relation matrix (M) Generalized direct relation matrix only
considers direct effects of barriers on each other. In order to consider the indirect effects of
barriers, S + S2 + S3 + ⋯, + Sq should be calculated. According to Markov chain matrix, this
sum can be computed through Eq. (7) (Li & Tzeng, 2009):
∞
∑ S(I − Sq ) S(I − S∞ ) S
M= Si = S + S2 + ⋯ + Sq = = = = S(I − S)−1 (7)
q=1
(I − S) (I − S) I−S
where I denotes the identity matrix. In the total relation matrix ( M ), rows indicate the
effects of barriers on others, while columns indicate the extent to which barriers are
influenced by others. The sum of rows ( D ̃ ) and the sum of columns ( R̃ ) can therefore
indicate whether the barriers are cause or effect factors. Here, D ̃ + R̃ and D̃ − R̃ represent
the prominence ( Pi ) and net effect ( Ei ), respectively.
6. Determining the threshold and generation of the cause–effect diagram Total relation
matrix indicates influences of barriers on others. However, a robust threshold value should
be identified to focus on the most critical effects. The current study adopted one of the most
commonly used approaches, i.e., mean plus standard deviation (MPSD) (Costa et al., 2019)
to identify threshold value. To determine the threshold for pointing out causal relationships
in the MPSD technique, the average and standard deviation of all enablers in M are simply
computed. Thus, the summation of the corresponding values is set as a threshold. Then,
significant relationships identified by the MPSD algorithm were demonstrated with arrows
to generate a cause–effect diagram.
4 Results
This study evaluated the barriers to circular economy applications in the construction
industry in three developing countries (i.e., Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Turkey) using the
fuzzy DEMATEL technique. In the fuzzy DEMATEL method, generalized direct relation
matrices were formed based on the evaluations taken from 8 experts in each country, lead-
ing to three fuzzy DEMATEL analyses in each barrier category. The fourth fuzzy DEMA-
TEL analysis was also employed to achieve an overall evaluation result by aggregating the
assessments of experts from Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and Turkey. The corresponding four
total relation matrices were generated with four generalized direct relation matrices based
on the inverse and identity matrix operations. Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 demonstrate the
total relation matrices of (1) awareness/perception/knowledge (A), (2) financial/cost (F),
(3) legislation/standards (L), (4) operation (O), (5) procurement (P), (6) project/design (D)
barriers, respectively. In other words, 24 fuzzy DEMATEL analyses were conducted (6 cat-
egories × 4 evaluations). In these tables, bold and underlined values represent a significant
impact of a barrier on the others regarding MPSD threshold value. Prominence (D + R) and
net effect (D − R) of barriers are also illustrated in Tables 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, respec-
tively. If D − R of a barrier is positive, then this barrier is a cause factor (i.e., underlying
factor), while the barriers with a negative of D − R are the effect (i.e., affected) factors. At
the end of the fuzzy DEMATEL analysis, causal relationship diagrams were developed by
combining the significant relationships (bolded and underlined values in Tables 3, 4, 5, 6,
7 and 8) and prominence/net effect values (Tables 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14), as shown in
Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
The findings show that the A1 (hesitant company culture), F3 (low virgin material
prices), L1 (lack of incentives and support for CE projects from governments and public
13
Table 3 Influences of awareness/perception/knowledge (A) barriers on each other based on country

Countries Barriers Impact on A1 Impact on A2 Impact on A3 Impact on A4 Impact on A5
Kazakhstan A1 0.607 0.933 1.027 0.677 0.786

A2 0.877 0.874 1.198 0.792 0.947
A3 0.815 1.020 0.878 0.721 0.893
A4 0.844 1.055 1.109 0.644 0.985
A5 0.651 0.831 0.910 0.679 0.620
Malaysia A1 2.426 2.588 2.731 2.607 1.917
A2 2.666 2.461 2.745 2.700 1.971
A3 2.782 2.743 2.624 2.762 2.012
A4 2.703 2.711 2.784 2.497 1.959
A5 1.969 1.948 1.988 1.942 1.325
Turkey A1 0.658 1.215 1.106 0.976 1.232
A2 0.775 0.957 1.093 0.901 1.185
A3 0.726 1.159 0.823 0.846 1.151
A4 0.645 0.945 0.862 0.614 1.019
A5 0.501 0.789 0.665 0.604 0.641
Overall A1 1.509 2.008 2.047 1.718 1.771
A2 1.742 1.875 2.122 1.785 1.854
A3 1.703 2.053 1.833 1.722 1.808
A4 1.646 1.975 1.972 1.512 1.770
A5 1.256 1.520 1.507 1.308 1.213
Bold and underlined values are equal to or higher than the MPSD threshold
Table 4 Influences of financial/ Countries Barriers Impact on F1 Impact on F2 Impact on F3

cost (F) barriers on each other
based on country
Kazakhstan F1 1.668 2.017 1.425
F2 2.224 1.913 1.629
F3 2.309 2.391 1.465
Malaysia F1 2.387 2.799 3.019
F2 2.973 2.788 3.350
F3 2.600 2.779 2.649
Turkey F1 1.313 1.927 0.936
F2 1.518 1.300 0.824
F3 0.651 0.718 0.299
Overall F1 3.184 3.702 3.114
F2 3.679 3.492 3.264
F3 3.161 3.353 2.589
Bold and underlined values are equal to or higher than the MPSD
threshold
institutions), O3 (limited willingness to collaborate in the value chain), P3 (poor collabo-

ration across the supply chain hinders information flow), and D4 (tight project schedule
results in lack of consideration of CE during design and construction) were the most causal
13
S. Durdyev et al.
Table 5 Influences of legislation/ Countries Barriers Impact on L1 Impact on L2 Impact on L3

standards (L) barriers on each
other based on country
Kazakhstan L1 2.107 2.792 2.683
L2 2.023 2.048 2.244
L3 2.191 2.537 2.121
Malaysia L1 8.048 9.048 9.048
L2 8.148 8.498 8.823
L3 8.248 8.948 8.598
Turkey L1 0.816 1.162 1.089
L2 0.854 0.739 0.897
L3 1.335 1.450 0.993
Overall L1 3.292 3.994 3.829
L2 3.175 3.246 3.390
L3 3.708 4.126 3.599
threshold
Table 6 Influences of operation (O) barriers on each other based on country

Countries Barriers Impact on O1 Impact on O2 Impact on O3 Impact on O4 Impact on O5
Kazakhstan O1 1.382 1.849 1.687 1.932 1.932

O2 1.710 1.922 1.899 2.269 2.170
O3 1.657 2.019 1.634 2.097 2.032
O4 1.535 1.898 1.683 1.783 1.908
O5 1.693 2.073 1.877 2.167 1.905
Malaysia O1 3.424 3.519 3.736 3.595 3.399
O2 3.533 3.222 3.625 3.501 3.266
O3 3.608 3.504 3.535 3.599 3.417
O4 3.639 3.540 3.784 3.431 3.427
O5 3.452 3.334 3.559 3.419 3.059
Turkey O1 0.647 0.851 0.591 0.982 0.944
O2 1.016 0.953 0.739 1.308 1.232
O3 0.728 0.840 0.460 0.954 0.863
O4 0.931 1.031 0.660 0.937 1.047
O5 1.000 1.168 0.774 1.280 0.985
Overall O1 1.523 1.817 1.641 1.939 1.867
O2 1.872 1.839 1.807 2.194 2.061
O3 1.703 1.856 1.499 1.977 1.871
O4 1.768 1.927 1.711 1.843 1.928
O5 1.844 2.014 1.803 2.136 1.830
factors regarding the overall assessments with corresponding and highest D − R values of
1.197, 0.136, 0.939, 0.446, 0.517, and 0.504, respectively (Tables 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and
14). On the other hand, A2 (lack of awareness of CE), F2 (CE requires high operational
13
Table 7 Influences of Countries Barriers Impact on P1 Impact on P2 Impact on P3

procurement (P) barriers on each
other based on country
Kazakhstan P1 3.128 3.778 3.466
P2 3.685 3.742 3.792
P3 3.732 4.140 3.504
Malaysia P1 2.570 2.399 3.077
P2 2.465 1.831 2.619
P3 2.870 2.342 2.647
Turkey P1 3.312 3.579 2.952
P2 3.681 3.227 2.945
P3 3.327 3.236 2.450
Overall P1 11.821 11.823 11.818
P2 11.864 11.218 11.535
P3 12.112 11.759 11.441
threshold
Table 8 Influences of project/design (D) barriers on each other based on country

Countries Barriers Impact on D1 Impact on D2 Impact on D3 Impact on D4
Kazakhstan D1 1.214 1.287 1.110 1.239

D2 1.211 0.854 0.922 0.991
D3 1.275 1.087 0.797 1.035
D4 1.597 1.308 1.201 1.060
Malaysia D1 2.214 2.279 2.216 2.301
D2 2.271 1.908 2.059 2.101
D3 2.070 1.956 1.644 1.835
D4 2.298 2.110 1.954 1.853
Turkey D1 1.090 1.249 0.907 1.178
D2 1.024 0.726 0.676 0.831
D3 0.932 0.822 0.477 0.705
D4 1.251 1.077 0.760 0.798
Overall D1 1.620 1.699 1.483 1.663
D2 1.576 1.214 1.250 1.358
D3 1.492 1.344 0.993 1.234
D4 1.816 1.584 1.359 1.310
cost, e.g., hiring circular economy professionals, purchasing recycled materials, process-
ing waste), L3 (there is no specific legislation and regulations to support CE adoption), O4
(operating in a linear system), P1 (lacking ability to deliver high-quality remanufactured
products), and D1 (lack of consideration in design, construction, operation, and evaluation
of construction projects to support future adoption of CE) were found as the most promi-
nent factors (i.e., highest D + R values in Tables 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14).
13
S. Durdyev et al.
Table 9 Prominence and the net effect of awareness/perception/knowledge (A) barriers

Countries Barriers Degree of influ- Degree of being Net effects ( Ei) Prominence ( Pi)
ence on others ( D)
̃ influenced by ( R)
̃
Kazakhstan A1 4.031 3.795 0.236 7.826

A2 4.688 4.712 − 0.024 9.400
A3 4.327 5.122 − 0.794 9.449
A4 4.637 3.514 1.123 8.150
A5 3.691 4.231 − 0.540 7.922
Malaysia A1 12.269 12.547 − 0.278 24.816
A2 12.543 12.451 0.092 24.994
A3 12.923 12.873 0.051 25.796
A4 12.654 12.508 0.146 25.162
A5 9.172 9.184 − 0.012 18.356
Turkey A1 5.187 3.305 1.882 8.492
A2 4.910 5.064 − 0.154 9.974
A3 4.705 4.548 0.157 9.254
A4 4.085 3.941 0.144 8.026
A5 3.200 5.229 − 2.029 8.428
Overall A1 9.053 7.856 1.197 16.909
A2 9.378 9.431 − 0.053 18.809
A3 9.119 9.481 − 0.361 18.600
A4 8.874 8.045 0.830 16.919
A5 6.804 8.415 − 1.612 15.219
Table 10 Prominence and the net effect of financial/cost (F) barriers

ence on others ( D)
̃
Kazakhstan F1 5.111 6.201 − 1.091 11.312

F2 5.766 6.321 − 0.555 12.086
F3 6.165 4.519 1.645 10.684
Malaysia F1 8.205 7.960 0.245 16.165
F2 9.112 8.366 0.745 17.478
F3 8.028 9.018 − 0.990 17.045
Turkey F1 4.176 3.481 0.695 7.657
F2 3.642 3.944 − 0.302 7.586
F3 1.667 2.060 − 0.393 3.727
Overall F1 10.000 10.024 − 0.024 20.024
F2 10.436 10.548 − 0.112 20.984
F3 9.103 8.967 0.136 18.070
13
Table 11 Prominence and the net effect of legislation/standards (L) barriers

ence on others ( D)
̃
Kazakhstan L1 7.582 6.321 1.261 13.903

L2 6.316 7.377 − 1.061 13.692
L3 6.848 7.048 − 0.200 13.896
Malaysia L1 26.143 24.443 1.700 50.586
L2 25.468 26.493 − 1.025 51.961
L3 25.793 26.468 − 0.675 52.261
Turkey L1 3.067 3.005 0.061 6.072
L2 2.490 3.351 − 0.861 5.841
L3 3.778 2.978 0.800 6.756
Overall L1 11.115 10.175 0.939 21.290
L2 9.811 11.366 − 1.555 21.177
L3 11.433 10.818 0.615 22.251
Table 12 Prominence and net effect of operation (O) barriers

ence on others ( D)
̃
Kazakhstan O1 8.783 7.976 0.807 16.759

O2 9.970 9.761 0.209 19.732
O3 9.439 8.781 0.658 18.219
O4 8.808 10.248 − 1.440 19.055
O5 9.714 9.947 − 0.233 19.660
Malaysia O1 17.674 17.655 0.018 35.329
O2 17.147 17.121 0.026 34.267
O3 17.663 18.239 − 0.575 35.902
O4 17.820 17.545 0.275 35.366
O5 16.824 16.568 0.256 33.392
Turkey O1 4.015 4.323 − 0.308 8.338
O2 5.248 4.843 0.405 10.091
O3 3.845 3.223 0.622 7.069
O4 4.606 5.462 − 0.856 10.068
O5 5.208 5.071 0.137 10.278
Overall O1 8.787 8.711 0.076 17.498
O2 9.772 9.453 0.319 19.225
O3 8.906 8.460 0.446 17.366
O4 9.176 10.089 − 0.913 19.265
O5 9.628 9.556 0.072 19.184
13
S. Durdyev et al.
Table 13 Prominence and the net effect of procurement (P) barriers

ence on others ( D)
̃
Kazakhstan P1 10.371 10.544 − 0.173 20.916

P2 11.218 11.660 − 0.441 22.878
P3 11.376 10.762 0.614 22.138
Malaysia P1 8.046 7.904 0.142 15.951
P2 6.914 6.572 0.343 13.486
P3 7.859 8.343 − 0.484 16.201
Turkey P1 9.842 10.320 − 0.478 20.162
P2 9.854 10.042 − 0.189 19.896
P3 9.013 8.346 0.666 17.359
Overall P1 35.462 35.797 − 0.335 71.259
P2 34.617 34.799 − 0.182 69.416
P3 35.311 34.794 0.517 70.106
Table 14 Prominence and the net effect of project/design (D) barriers

ence on others ( D)
̃
Kazakhstan D1 4.850 5.297 − 0.447 10.147

D2 3.978 4.536 − 0.557 8.514
D3 4.193 4.030 0.163 8.223
D4 5.166 4.325 0.841 9.492
Malaysia D1 9.010 8.853 0.156 17.863
D2 8.339 8.253 0.086 16.592
D3 7.505 7.873 − 0.368 15.378
D4 8.215 8.089 0.126 16.304
Turkey D1 4.423 4.296 0.127 8.720
D2 3.257 3.875 − 0.618 7.132
D3 2.936 2.819 0.116 5.755
D4 3.886 3.511 0.374 7.397
Overall D1 6.465 6.503 − 0.038 12.968
D2 5.397 5.841 − 0.444 11.238
D3 5.063 5.086 − 0.023 10.149
D4 6.069 5.565 0.504 11.634
Country-based evaluation results also present some similarities and differences

regarding the causal degree of the barriers. For instance, A4 (lacking consumer aware-
ness and interest) was the most causal factor based on Kazakh and Malay experts’
assessments; however, Turkish experts claimed that the most causal factor was A1 (hesi-
tant company culture) (Fig. 2). Findings for individual relationships among factors in
13
Kazakhstan Malaysia
1.5 1
A4 0.8
1
0.6
0.4
0.5 A4
0.2 A3
A2 A5 A2
D-R
D-R
0 A1 0
7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
-0.2
-0.5
A5 -0.4 A1
A3 -0.6
-1
-0.8
-1.5 -1
D+R D+R
Turkey Overall
2.5 2
A1
2
1.5
1.5 A1
1
1 A4
0.5
0.5
A4 A2
D-R
D-R
0 0
7 7.5 8 8.5 9 A3 9.5 10 10.5 15 16 17 18 19
-0.5 A2 -0.5 A3
-1
-1
-1.5
-1.5
-2
A5 A5
-2.5 -2
D+R D+R
Fig. 2 Causal relationship diagram of awareness/perception/knowledge (A) barriers
terms of overall assessment show that A1 influences A2 and A3, which are also affected
by each other (Fig. 2).
Concerning the financial/cost category, the experts showed contrasting views. Namely,
F1 (CE adoption requires a high upfront investment, e.g., staff training, new equipment,
expensive sustainable design) in Turkey, F2 in Malaysia, and F3 in Kazakhstan were
determined as the most causal barriers. Due to this contradiction, the overall estimation
results draw quite a horizontal line from F3 to F1 and then F2, i.e., from the least to the
most prominent barriers (Fig. 3). Therefore, a dyadic relationship between F1 and F2 was
observed in this category.
The legislation/standards barrier category also posed variations in the causal degrees
and relationships. Results illustrate that L1 affect L2 (lacking standardization) and L3
significantly, according to the evaluations of experts from both Kazakhstan and Malaysia,
whereas L3 had a significant impact on L1 and L2 in Turkey, which eventually made
L1 and L3 influencing L2 in the overall evaluations (Fig. 4). It is also worth mentioning
that all the expert groups clearly addressed that L2 was the most affected factor by other
legislation/standards barriers.
Similarly, the causal relationships in the operation category range significantly as per
the examined countries. Still, O2 (lack of infrastructure for recycling) was a causal factor
regarding the evaluations performed by experts in all country groups, and a triangular
13
S. Durdyev et al.
Malaysia
Kazakhstan
1.5
2
F3
1.5 1 F2
1
0.5
0.5
D-R
F1
D-R
0
0 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18
10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5
-0.5 -0.5
F2
-1
-1 F3
F1
-1.5
-1.5
-2 D+R
D+R
Turkey Overall
1.5 1.5
1 1
F1
0.5 0.5
F3
F1 F2
D-R
D-R
0 0
3 4 5 6 7 8 17 18 19 20 21 22
F3
F2 -0.5
-0.5
-1 -1
-1.5
-1.5 D+R
D+R
Fig. 3 Causal relationship diagram of financial/cost (F) barriers
relationship was observed as a result of the overall assessments. Accordingly, O2 and

O5 (technically, it is difficult to implement CE, e.g., complexity, long life cycle, tracing
materials, etc.) affected each other significantly, and both of them influenced O4 (Fig. 5).
Besides, despite O4 being the most affected factor for Kazakh and Turkish experts, it was
one of the cause factors according to the opinions of Malay experts.
In the procurement category, an interesting finding was observed. According to the
analysis results, significant associations were not found to be the same across the four
different assessment conditions (i.e., Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Turkey, and Overall). The
impact from P3 to P2 (limited circular procurement), P2 to P1, P1 to P3, and P3 to P1 was
found significant based on the MPSD threshold value provided by experts in Kazakhstan,
Turkey, Malaysia, and overall, respectively (Fig. 6). In addition, P1, P2, and P3 were found
to be the most affected barriers according to the judgments of Turkish, Kazakh, and Malay
experts, highlighting a lack of consensus in this respect.
Finally, in the project/design category, D3 (project uniqueness does not allow to share
materials) was found as an independent factor in all the evaluations while there was a
strong association between D1 and D4 and D4 was eventually more causal factor (Fig. 7).
Besides, there was a significant impact from D4 to D1 according to the country groups.
However, while experts from Kazakhstan and Turkey considered D2 as the most affected
factor, it was that of D3 for Malay experts.
13
Kazakhstan Malaysia
1.5 L1 2
1.5 L1
1
1
0.5
0.5
D-R
D-R
0 0
13 13.5 14 14.5 15 50 50.5 51 51.5 52 52.5
L3 -0.5
-0.5
L3
-1
L2
-1
L2 -1.5
-1.5 -2
D+R D+R
Turkey Overall
1.5 2
1.5
1
L1
1
L3
0.5
0.5 L3
L1
D-R
D-R
0 0
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 20 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5
-0.5
-0.5
-1
-1 L2
-1.5
L2
-1.5 -2
D+R D+R
Fig. 4 Causal relationship diagram of legislation/standards (L) barriers
5 Discussion
5.1 Most casual barriers
The importance of the company culture is emphasized in the literature related to

innovative solutions (Lijauco et al., 2020). In other words, the company culture should
be ready to apply innovative methods effectively since any innovative solution can lead
to radical changes in all company processes. Therefore, all workers in an organization
must change their routines and gain new knowledge and skills to perform their
operations which can lead to anxiety among the workers because they must show extra
efforts to adopt the new routines. Besides, companies must spend extra money to install
such innovative technologies/methods in the organization and train their employees in
this regard. However, if the company culture is not ready for innovative solutions, the
top management may not tend to allocate extra budget to these systems and training
of their staff. The staff can resist these changes due to the status quo bias (Grafström
& Aasma, 2021). Therefore, company culture has a causal effect on the other barriers,
and even in some of the studies, company culture is considered an important driver of
innovation (Meng & Brown, 2018; Yitmen, 2007). Consequently, the companies may
13
S. Durdyev et al.
Kazakhstan Malaysia
1.5 1
0.8
1 O1
0.6
O3
0.4 O5 O4
0.5
O2 0.2
O2
O1
D-R
D-R
0 0
16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 32 33 34 35 36 37
-0.2
O5
-0.5 -0.4
-0.6 O3
-1
-0.8
O4 -1
-1.5 D+R
D+R
Overall
Turkey
1
1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6 O3
O2 O3 O2
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2 O1
O5 O5
D-R
D-R
0
0 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5
6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5
-0.2
-0.2 O1
-0.4
-0.4
-0.6
-0.6
-0.8
-0.8
O4
O4
-1
-1 D+R
D+R
Fig. 5 Causal relationship diagram of operation (O) barriers
not be willing to utilize these innovative solutions completely, as bad memories can
even lead to additional hesitation against new methods and technologies.
CE is a new paradigm for many construction companies, and a new paradigm means
many uncertainties; in other words, the construction companies should deal with new
risks to integrate CE into their operations. However, the construction industry is having
a low-risk culture. Also, Adetunji et al. (2008) mentioned the low-risk culture of the
construction industry and identified the low-risk culture as one of the important barriers
to a sustainable building supply chain. Besides, construction companies are criticized due
to their low environmental awareness and limited sense of corporate social responsibility
(Wuni, 2022b). Construction companies have concerns about consumer interest, and Singh
and Giacosa (2019) showed that consumers have cognitive biases against CE. Therefore,
the top management has doubts to gain economic benefits from CE in the short term due
to the low consumer interest (Grafström & Aasma, 2021). Kirchherr et al. (2018) also
identified “hesitant company culture” as one of the core cultural barriers since influential
departments do not support CE as much as mid-level managers. Similarly, Wuni (2022b)
identified that the most frequently stated barrier among cultural barriers is hesitant
company culture. Contrarily, Hartley et al. (2022) determined hesitant company culture as
the least critical barrier among the cultural barriers in the study conducted for the textile
industry. Therefore, construction companies can face more resistance to applying CE
13
Kazakhstan Malaysia
1 1
0.8 0.8
P3
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
P2 P1
0.2 0.2
D-R
D-R
0 0
20 20.5 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5
-0.2 -0.2
P1
-0.4 -0.4
P2
P3
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
D+R D+R
Turkey Overall
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 P3
0.6 P3
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
D-R
D-R
0 0
17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 68 68.5 69 69.5 70 70.5 71 71.5
-0.2 -0.2 P2
P2
-0.4 -0.4
P1
-0.6 P1 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
D+R D+R
Fig. 6 Causal relationship diagram of procurement (P) barriers
due to their hesitant culture. As a result, the construction industry becomes its own worst
enemy in terms of CE (Hart et al., 2019). Besides, the hesitant company culture can lead to
additional barriers. For instance, companies can overcome many barriers through training
and education; however, the top management must be willing to allocate extra budget for
training and education. However, due to hesitant company culture, they do not allocate
such funding to increase awareness, skills, and knowledge. Consequently, the company
culture can be considered an important barrier to CE, as emphasized in the literature (Gue
et al., 2020).
The other critical causal barrier is identified as low virgin material prices. Since the cost
of virgin materials is low due to the expensive recycling and collection process of recycled
materials, the companies prefer virgin materials over CE products (Mont et al., 2017).
Besides, due to the high cost of recycled material, they cannot offer their customers more
affordable final products, which in turn may lead to a lack of interest in CE, especially
among cost-conscious customers (Grafström & Aasma, 2021). The primary driving force
for companies might be to earn additional cost benefits by using CE products to compensate
for the costs that emerged due to upfront investment and operational costs. However, since
the alternatives to recycled products are still cheap, the companies cannot obtain the
expected cost benefits, causing a need for extra money to finance the costs of CE, leading
to cash flow problems (Rakhshan et al., 2021). However, since there are uncertainties
13
S. Durdyev et al.
Kazakhstan Malaysia
1 1
D4
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
D4
0.2 0.2
D3
D-R
D2
D-R
0 D1
0
8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5
-0.2 -0.2
-0.4 -0.4 D3
-0.6 D1 -0.6
D2
-0.8 -0.8
-1
-1
D+R D+R
Turkey Overall
1
1
0.8
0.8
D4
0.6 0.6
D4
0.4 0.4
D1 0.2
0.2 D3 D1
D-R
D-R
D3 0
0
5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9 10 11 12 13 14
-0.2 -0.2
-0.4 -0.4
D2
-0.6 -0.6
D2
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
D+R D+R
Fig. 7 Causal relationship diagram of project/design (D) barriers
about the value of CE in the distant future in the construction industry, construction
companies are even more reluctant to apply CE (Hart et al., 2019). Similar to the present
study’s findings, the low virgin material cost has also been identified as a core barrier in
different studies (Badhotiya et al., 2022; Hossain & Khatun, 2021). Even, Salmenperä et al.
(2021) determined that virgin material pricing is one of the few economic barriers which
are perceived as critical economic barriers by developers and intermediaries. However,
according to Hartley et al. (2022), the low virgin material price barrier is not placed among
the most important CE barriers. Also, this shows that the characteristics of the industries
play critical roles in the implementation of CE.
Due to the high cost of CE products and high investment costs, many companies can
be reluctant to consider CE in their operations due to short-term benefit-seeking behaviors
and the low-risk §culture. In this context, governments should consider the long-term
benefits of CE implementation to society and provide incentives and support to private
companies in applying CE. In this way, companies can confidently apply CE practices
without considering their financial ramifications. Besides, the governments can internalize
the externalities that emerged due to the usage of virgin materials through taxes to finance
the incentives and support of CE. This may incur an increase in the cost of virgin materials
resulting in eliminating another important barrier. Many researchers also identified the
government as an essential actor in overcoming the barriers of CE and making CE the
13
central point of the market (Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018). For instance, Guerra and
Leite (2021) identified the policies and financial incentives as important enablers for CE
implementation in the US construction market. According to Mahpour (2018) the CE
barriers in C&D waste management, the lack of incentives for sorting is identified among
the most important barriers from all perspectives, namely behavioral, technical, and legal
perspectives. Similarly, Wuni (2022a) determined this barrier among the top 10 most cited
barriers. Conversely, Kazancoglu et al. (2021) revealed that inadequate incentives are the
most influenced barrier based on the fuzzy DEMATEL analysis conducted for corporate
environmental management in supply chains. In other words, they proposed that the
causal effect of incentives is limited. Similarly, Mhatre et al. (2023) identified this barrier
as an effective barrier instead of a casual barrier for the Indian construction industry.
These studies proposed that due to low demand and lack of awareness of the companies,
government agencies and customers, the governments do not take steps to support
CE adoption. Although the governments should support the CE adoption financially,
Kirchherr et al. (2018) criticized the intervention strategies of governments that focus on
technological barriers to increase the usage of CE. They proposed that the governments
should take action to increase the cost of virgin materials by eliminating the subsidies
of virgin materials and providing incentives to lessen the financial burden of the private
companies.
The other casual barrier was identified as a lack of collaboration. Collaboration between
the parties is considered as one of the important enablers (Mishra et al., 2021), therefore all
stakeholders should collaborate to create closed-loop supply chains (Leising et al., 2018),
share and reuse the resources, and perform a different approach to the building’s design
(Pomponi & Moncaster, 2017). In other words, to transfer toward CE, the construction
companies should collaborate with their partners throughout the project (Hart et al., 2019;
Mont et al., 2017). However, many construction companies struggle to collaborate due
to the cluttered nature of the construction industry. Especially the widely used project
delivery system (design-bid-build) promotes the segregation of parties since construction
companies may prefer acting independently. Besides, the trust level between stakeholders
in the construction sector is low; as a result, companies that want to apply CE cannot find
collaborative partners. In the literature, this barrier has a moderate rank. For instance,
Kirchherr et al. (2018) determined this barrier at the sixth rank, and in Hartley et al.
(2022)’s study, this barrier is placed at the seventh rank. However, this study is performed
for the textile industry, and the collaboration level in this industry can be expected to be
higher than in the construction industry due to the long-term relationship between the
parties participating in the value chain.
Another critical causal factor is related to poor collaboration in the supply chain,
causing companies not to share their information with their suppliers. Such interventions
usually hinder the collection of consistent and precise information about the resources,
products, and processes. Information, such as condition, location, and/or availability
of resources, is critical for developing new opportunities, as they help stakeholders use
resources efficiently, eliminate waste, and gain a competitive advantage (Bianchini et al.,
2019). As Tura et al. (2019) suggested, companies can overcome the problems of CE
implementation by collaborating with their supply chain partners. Lack of coordination in
the supply chain is also considered an important causal barrier in the literature because it
affects the number of available resources and the establishment of supply chains supporting
the CE environment (Rizos et al., 2016). This barrier is also cited widely in the literature;
according to Wuni (2022a)’s systematic literature survey, this barrier is placed among the
top ten most cited barriers.
13
S. Durdyev et al.
Construction projects are performed with a tight schedule, and delay is one of the
most critical problems. In other words, construction companies have limited time to get
used to new technologies and methods. At the same time, implementing CE requires a
learning process (Leising et al., 2018) as they need to change their mindsets by abandoning
traditional practices. For instance, designers should change their design approaches
drastically in terms of structure, space design, building orientation, and use of finishing
work materials (Charef & Lu, 2021). This learning process needs time and slows down
operations. This study shows that the companies cannot find time to promote successful CE
adoption due to the tight schedule. In contrast, time is required to convince construction
companies to apply CE practices in their projects due to their conservative behavior. The
tight schedule also hinders the cooperation between the included parties (Salmenperä et al.,
2021). Harala et al. (2023) also mentioned the challenges in the implementation of CE in
construction projects due to the tight schedule; however, they proposed that the personnel
can overcome these challenges by creating a collaborative business environment. Similarly,
Hao et al. (2022) mentioned the negative effects of tight schedules on the pro-environment
behavior of the workers due to fatigue and physical stress, which in turn may lead to poor
implementation of CE. Finally, Guerra and Leite (2021) identified tight schedule as one of
the critical barriers of CE for the construction industry and mentioned about the causality
of this barrier and proposed that this can cause negative effects on the owner’s willingness
to implement some CE barriers.
5.2 Most prominent barriers
Other prominent factors hamper the wide adoption of CE in the studied countries. Among
the awareness/perception/knowledge barriers, the lack of awareness of CE is the most
prominent factor. In many studies, the awareness level of consumers of CE is determined
to be low (Kirchherr et al., 2018). Even, Rizos et al. (2015) reported that consumers have
limited information about the CE concepts and the circularity of the goods. Also, Bilal
et al. (2020) revealed that the level of awareness of CE in the building sector is very low,
whereas the main reason for the adoption of CE for many construction companies is to
achieve higher profits by addressing the sustainable development community (Kirchherr
et al., 2018). However, due to the low awareness of the customers, the companies cannot
achieve their expectations. Besides, a lack of awareness is identified as an important
barrier by researchers. For instance, Masi et al. (2018) identified this as the main barrier
to all CE practices: resource and energy utilization, investment recovery, eco-design, green
purchasing, customer cooperation, and internal environmental management practices.
Also, according to Xue et al. (2010)’s study, Chinese officials working at the municipal and
county level consider the lack of awareness of CE the most important barrier to CE. Bilal
et al. (2020) even mentioned the causal power of this barrier and identified that this barrier
has the second strong driving power for the construction sector in developing countries.
Another prominent barrier identified in this study is the high operational costs,
such as hiring CE professionals, purchasing recycled materials, and processing waste.
Implementation of CE is challenging for construction companies. Firstly, CE is a new
concept for most construction companies; therefore, the companies do not have required
expertise in house and need to hire external consultants, which lead to additional
operational costs (Guerra & Leite, 2021). Secondly, labor costs for CE are higher
compared to traditional construction, since the labor should be more skilled to segregate
wastes appropriately (Mhatre et al., 2023). Thirdly, the secondary material market is
13
undeveloped due to the uncertainties of the profitability of the market and high investment
cost (Salmenperä et al., 2021). As a result, the availability of secondary raw materials is
limited. In addition, the quality of recycled materials can be at an undesired level due to
the lack of standardization. Therefore, the construction companies must accept the high
transportation costs of high-quality secondary materials. The other critical problem for
operating CE is the insufficient infrastructure for waste management (Grafström & Aasma,
2021). Mhatre et al. (2023) also considered this barrier in their study conducted for CE
barriers in the Indian construction industry using DEMATEL, and their analysis shows that
this barrier is the second significant barrier.
Among legislation/standards barriers, the most prominent barrier is no specific
legislation and regulations. Governments should regulate the construction industry to
decrease the negative externalities of society. Otherwise, the companies may not desire to
apply CE principles due to their short-term benefits. Therefore, governments are crucial
to the successful implementation of the CE since they establish new rules for the use of
materials, the disclosure of their composition requirements, and certification programs for
circular construction, among others (Charef & Lu, 2021). Additionally, strict policies and
legislation should be enacted to achieve the goals of CE (Mahpour, 2018). Still, too strict
regulations can also cause a decrease in the awareness of politicians and society as critical
stakeholders for sustainable CE adoption. There are also studies which identified the lack
of regulations as one of the major barriers for the construction industry (Bilal et al., 2020;
Guerra & Leite, 2021). Mhatre et al. (2023) also considered the prominence of this barrier,
and based on their analysis, they determined this barrier as one of the significant barriers;
however, this study showed that this barrier is an effect instead of a cause.
Due to low virgin material, lack of taxes, and internalization of externalities, the
economy depends on a linear system (Masi et al., 2018). It means that all the laws and
regulations are organized based on the linear system. Therefore, construction companies
have already established their institutional infrastructure based on the linear economy
model, making the industry an important environmental impactor (Benachio et al., 2020).
Especially as stated above, the construction industry is conservative and willing to stick
with its traditional methods and processes. Even the companies trying to adopt CE cannot
find partners sharing the same ideologies. In comparison, collaboration is one of the
essential success factors of CE adoption. Therefore, without leaving the current linear
economic system, the chance of successful CE adoption seems to be very low (Kirchherr
et al., 2018). The existence of a linear economy is also identified as one of the prominent
barriers in the pertinent literature. For instance, Kirchherr et al. (2018) determined that
operating within a linear business model is the fourth most prominent barrier. Çetin et al.
(2021) also considered the criticality of this barrier for social housing, and they determined
that this barrier is the second high priority barrier based on the Delphi analysis.
Among the procurement barriers, the most prominent barrier is identified as lacking the
ability to deliver high-quality remanufactured products. Since the construction market is not
ready for CE and the infrastructure of the secondary raw material industry is inadequate,
the companies struggle to find high-quality remanufactured products at a required quantity.
Most of the remanufactured products are not at the desired quality level, and the designers
have negative experiences with the usage of these products (Singh & Ordoñez, 2016).
Moreover, the available products are expensive due to the scarcity of products and low
competition among the suppliers (Singh & Ordoñez, 2016). The other critical problem
related to existing remanufactured products is achieving uniform quality due to the
nonuniformity of secondary materials obtained from different structures (Mhatre et al.,
2023). This barrier is also considered by Mhatre et al. (2023) for the Indian construction
13
S. Durdyev et al.
industry, and they determined similar results. Contrarily, Kirchherr et al. (2018) determined
it as the least pressing barrier among others. This can be a result of the conditions of the
countries considered in these studies. Therefore, contractors from developed countries can
find high-quality remanufactured products compared to contractors from less developed
countries. Similarly, Oluleye et al. (2023) compared the criticality of this barrier between
the developed and developing countries; they identified that this barrier is more critical for
developing countries compared to the developed countries.
The last prominent barrier is the lack of consideration in the design, construction,
operation, and evaluation of construction projects to support the future adoption of CE.
Most construction companies do not even consider the methods used in CE as alternatives
to methods used in a linear economy in design, construction, and operation. Additionally,
they do not evaluate their projects in aspects of CE, since due to various factors, including
design, material choice, and end-of-life for additional recovery and reuse, CE evaluation
is complicated (Hossain et al., 2020). In addition, in the construction industry, there is no
framework which can be used for CE evaluation (Hossain et al., 2020). Therefore, they
may not realize the benefits achieved by using the CE and not consider CE in any stage of
a construction project. The most reasonable explanation is that they may not believe they
can perform their businesses more effectively with the adoption of CE. The reason for this
could be the lack of CE culture in these companies. This also shows that the companies
should be ready for CE applications; otherwise, they cannot internalize CE and show
reactions against the application of CE.
5.3 Comparison of the findings among the countries
A critical difference is observed between Turkey and other countries in terms of barriers
to legislation/standards. Turkish respondents asserted that the countries should have
specific legislation and regulations to overcome barriers related to standardization and
incentives and support CE applications. They stated that the uncertainties of CE are the
main concerns for the Turkish construction companies, and the laws and regulations
(that are based on a linear system) are inappropriate to eliminate the uncertainties in CE
implementation. This finding aligns with the observations by Kazancoglu et al. (2021) for
Turkey. They identified the most important barrier for Turkey as a lack of legislation for
efficient CE and emphasized that the Turkish government is still hesitant to implement CE.
Therefore, firstly, the governmental authorities in the country should prepare legislations
and standards to eliminate the questions of the Turkish construction companies to make
them more enthusiastic in this regard. On the one hand, Turkish construction companies
believe that the prepared legislation and regulations can also show the standards and
available incentives and support. On the other hand, respondents from Kazakhstan and
Malaysia stated that construction companies are more concerned with financial issues
and need support and incentives from governments and public institutions. They believe
they can overcome the uncertainties in CE implementation with support and incentives.
Besides, although there is no direct legislation on CE, regulations and laws promote
resource circulation in Malaysia. The government agencies in Malaysia are more interested
in CE and aware of the need for CE (Agamuthu & Mehran, 2020). Similarly, the Kazak
government is supporting CE, and Kazakhstan is even the first country in Central Asia to
develop a sound circularity in Almaty city (Tleuken et al., 2022). This shows that the first
step in the implementation of CE is the support of the governments, as the capabilities of
the companies are not enough to conduct CE applications.
13
Significant differences are observed among the countries regarding the awareness/
perception/knowledge barriers. The findings show that Turkish companies have more
hesitancy against the CE. The main reason for such hesitancy is the limited support of the
Turkish government. Also, the search for increased earnings as a result of the sustainable
development community is critical in the adoption of CE (Kirchherr et al., 2018). However,
the impact of the products on the environment is not an important factor for Turkish
customers, even if they choose the products based on subjective norms (Jan, 2022).
Conversely, the support of the Kazak and Malaysian governments is stated in the literature.
Therefore, the construction companies in these countries are more willing to adopt CE.
Still, they have more concerns about the customers and their willingness. On the contrary,
Jan (2022) proposed that there is a negative relationship between the environmental impact
and customer’s purchase intention of Malaysian customers. However, in this study, the
respondents from Kazakhstan and Malaysia stated that the most causal barrier is the lack
of consumer awareness and interest. Similarly, according to a questionnaire conducted
in Kazakhstan, the awareness level of CE concepts in Kazakhstan, even among the
construction stakeholders, is identified as low (Torgautov et al., 2021). Therefore, although
the environmental impact is critical for consumers, CE is not recognized in Kazakhstan.
In particular, significant differences between these three countries are observed in terms
of finance/cost barriers. Turkish contractors have concerns about the high investment
cost. Based on this study, the maturity level of Turkish construction companies on CE is
identified as low compared to other investigated countries. They have limited implications
in CE, and the Turkish government does not support CE at the desired level and impose
enough environmental tax (Ayçin & Kayapinar Kaya, 2021). Therefore, construction
companies must invest in preparing for CE using their financial capabilities. On the
other hand, because of governmental support and existing legislation, the construction
companies from Malaysia and Kazakhstan made progress in CE adoption. However, high
operational cost is the most important casual barrier for Malaysian construction companies.
Finally, low virgin material prices are the main casual barrier for Kazak construction
companies. The secondary raw material industry is underdeveloped in Kazakhstan; also,
the entrepreneur recycling companies are struggling to develop the market due to financial
issues, their poor waste sorting capabilities, and lack of know-how. Although the Kazak
government legislated supporting laws for CE, due to low virgin material cost, the cost of
the CE is still higher than the cost of the linear economy, which can also affect the demand
for CE in the construction market.
The significant difference between these three countries can also be observed in terms of
procurement. In Kazakhstan, the experts stated that poor collaboration is the most important
casual barrier in procurement. This finding aligns with the study of Torgautov et al. (2021).
They also proposed that the collaboration between the stakeholders and supply chain levels
is critical to overcoming the CE adoption barriers. On the other hand, Malaysian experts
complained about the lack of high-quality remanufactured products. They also stated
that this barrier also affects the collaboration between the supply chain. In Malaysia, the
remanufacturing industry is conducted by small- and medium-sized companies. Typically,
these companies do not have financial resources and cannot allocate enough resources
to research and development (Ghazilla et al., 2015). Ngu et al. (2020) proposed that the
remanufactured products are not at the quality level of newly manufactured products since
these companies cannot afford the high production costs required to produce high-quality
remanufacturing products. Finally, Turkish experts stated that the most important barrier
in the procurement category is limited circular procurement. As stated above, in Turkey,
the maturity level of CE is very low compared to other countries. Therefore, the demand
13
S. Durdyev et al.
for remanufactured products is low in Turkey. This further affects the investments in the
remanufacturing industry and the availability of high-quality remanufactured products.
Although there are differences between these countries in terms of operation, the lack
of infrastructure for recycling is identified as one of the important casual barriers in all
countries. Since all these countries are developing countries, the industry is not at the level
of the developed countries. Therefore, all these countries must import all the machines
required for recycling which requires a high amount of investment cost.
6 Conclusion
In this study, utilizing fuzzy DEMATEL analysis, we have identified the key causal and
prominent barriers hindering the widespread adoption of the transformative CE model in
three countries, namely Turkey, Kazakhstan, and Malaysia. The results of our research
reveal startling differences between these countries, with profound implications for the
future of the CE movement. Specifically, we observed a striking correlation between
government policies and the adoption of CE practices in these countries. While the Turkish
government offers minimal support for CE adoption and lacks comprehensive legislation
in this domain, the Kazakh and Malaysian governments exhibit a more supportive stance,
incentivizing CE adoption. Therefore, Turkish construction companies are more reluctant
to apply CE. This shows that the government’s support is critical to encouraging the
construction companies to adopt CE. Therefore, governments should be pioneers in CE
adoption, and they should support them and should regulate the construction industry to
encourage construction companies in the adoption journey to overcome the other barriers.
Although the governments are more supportive of CE in Kazakhstan and Malaysia
compared to the Turkish government, the construction companies in these countries
complain about the low demand for CE in the market. Especially, low virgin material prices
are presenting a causal barrier that leads to comparative high costs in CE construction,
which in turn may lead to a decrease in CE demand. Therefore, low demand barrier can be
overcome by increasing the cost of virgin materials or decreasing the cost of CE materials.
The cost of virgin materials can be increased by enacting new taxes and repealing the
existing incentives for these materials. Secondly, for decreasing the cost of CE materials,
the infrastructure of recycling, which is still in its nascent stages, can be improved to
increase the amount of available CE material in the market. Thus, the governments should
provide incentives not only to the construction companies but also to the CE materials
manufacturers.
The other critical barrier is the existing construction industry conditions. All the
processes and regulations are developed according to the linear economy. Therefore, even
though construction companies are eager to adopt CE, these companies are struggling to
perform their CE activities due to lack of business models and appropriate partners. For the
development of business models, more research for different countries should be performed
due to the differences between the countries, as shown in this research. The governments
can support these studies, even, they can prepare frameworks specific to their countries.
The other important barrier, which leads to a lack of appropriate partners, is the lack of
collaboration between the parties. This problem is not specific to CE adoption. According
to the literature, many new technologies and innovative managerial methods require high
collaboration. Therefore, construction companies should change their traditional methods
and models to adopt the new paradigm. Companies can especially apply the integrated
13
project delivery system as an auxiliary to this change. Similarly, companies should apply
new technologies which can facilitate collaboration. For instance, building information
modeling allowing knowledge sharing between the parties can be used as an important
facilitator for CE adoption and enhanced collaboration. Moreover, blockchain and the
Internet of things can also be used in the supply chain processes to increase knowledge
transparency about secondary raw materials. In this way, the parties can see all data related
to the product chronologically throughout the product’s lifecycle.
In conclusion, our research findings clearly demonstrate the pressing need for decisive
action to promote the adoption of CE practices in diverse cultural and economic contexts
and to address the multifaceted barriers that impede its realization. As a pioneering study
in the field of circular economy, our research is poised to yield tremendous value for
practitioners and governmental authorities alike, particularly in developing countries where
the adoption of CE remains a significant challenge. By delving deeply into the causal and
prominent barriers to CE adoption, we have shed light on myriad factors that contribute
to the circularity gap in these countries, such as limited government support, inadequate
infrastructure, and low demand for recycled materials. Therefore, this study shows
that CE adoption requires the acknowledgment of all stakeholders in the construction
industry. The governments should support the construction companies economically and
intellectually. Also, they should increase the awareness of the market by enacting new laws
and propagating the benefits of CE. Construction firms should focus on long-term benefits
rather than short-term benefits and overcome CE problems at the expense of short-term
losses. The market should demand more eco-friendly products by considering the benefits
to society. Consequently, without the contributions of all these parties, these barriers
cannot be overcome, and CE construction always shows limited progress in the market.
The other important finding of this study is that different barriers prevail in different
countries. The reason for this finding can be different conditions of the countries, such
as the attitude of the government, the welfare level of the society, and existing laws
and regulations. Therefore, the CE adoption business models and frameworks should
be customized by considering these parameters. Otherwise, existing models proposed
for other countries have limited applicability, even the companies can fail to apply CE
successfully using these models.
The comprehensive insights gleaned from our research can help empower practitioners
to make informed decisions regarding the adoption of CE practices, providing a blueprint
for more sustainable, resource-efficient business models. Furthermore, governmental
authorities can leverage the insights generated by our study to develop evidence-based
policies that promote the widespread adoption of CE and mitigate the systemic barriers
that impede its realization.
Despite presenting useful information for theory and practice, there are some limitations
of the current research that should be considered in future attempts. First, although experts
from three countries contributed to this study, the number of respondents can serve a
limitation. Therefore, increasing the number of respondents can enhance the generalization
of the research findings. Similarly, extending the scope of the study horizontally (adding
more developing economies into the analysis) and/or vertically (adding developed
economies into the analysis) can contribute a lot to the comparative analysis of countries
in terms of CE barriers. Additionally, adding a neoteric step to validate the findings of this
study with case studies in each country can also enhance the reliability of the research.
Finally, in a methodological manner, comparing the results of fuzzy DEMATEL with other
causal analysis methods (e.g., systems modelling) would contribute to the development
of more reliable setting for CE barrier investigation. In sum, the knowledge generated by
13
S. Durdyev et al.
our study has the potential to catalyze a paradigm shift towards more sustainable, circular
economies, empowering practitioners and governmental authorities to build a more
prosperous, resilient future for all.
Data availability The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from
the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal
relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
Ababio, B. K., & Lu, W. (2023). Barriers and enablers of circular economy in construction: A multi-system
perspective towards the development of a practical framework. Construction Management and Eco-
nomics, 41(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2022.2135750
Abdollahzadeh, G., Damalas, C. A., Sharifzadeh, M. S., & Ahmadi-Gorgi, H. (2016). Selecting strategies
for rice stem borer management using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Crop Protection, 84,
27–36.
Adams, K. T., Osmani, M., Thorpe, T., & Thornback, J. (2017). Circular economy in construction: cur-
rent awareness, challenges and enablers. In Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers-waste and
resource management.
Adetunji, I., Price, A. D. F., & Fleming, P. (2008). Achieving sustainability in the construction supply chain.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers—Engineering Sustainability, 161(3), 161–172.
https://doi.org/10.1680/ensu.2008.161.3.161
Agamuthu, P., & Mehran, S. (2020). Circular economy in Malaysia. In S. Ghosh (Ed.), Circular economy:
Global perspective (pp. 241–268). Springer.
Alsheyab, M. (2022). Recycling of construction and demolition waste and its impact on climate change
and sustainable development. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 19(3),
2129–2138.
Appolloni, A., Jabbour, C. J. C., D’Adamo, I., Gastaldi, M., & Settembre-Blundo, D. (2022). Green recovery
in the mature manufacturing industry: The role of the green-circular premium and sustainability certi-
fication in innovative efforts. Ecological Economics, 193, 107311.
Ayçin, E., & Kayapinar Kaya, S. (2021). Towards the circular economy: Analysis of barriers to implemen-
tation of Turkey’s zero waste management using the fuzzy DEMATEL method. Waste Management
and Research, 39(8), 1078–1089.
Azcárate-Aguerre, J. F., den Heijer, A. C., Arkesteijn, M. H., & Vergara d’Alençon, L. M. (2023). Facades-
as-a-Service: Systemic managerial, financial, and governance innovation to enable a circular econ-
omy for buildings. Lessons learnt from a full-scale pilot project in the Netherlands. Frontiers in Built
Environment, 9, 1084078. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2023.1084078
Badhotiya, G. K., Avikal, S., Soni, G., & Sengar, N. (2022). Analyzing barriers for the adoption of circular
economy in the manufacturing sector. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Man-
agement, 71(3), 912–931. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2021-0021
Bao, Z., & Lu, W. (2020). Developing efficient circularity for construction and demolition waste manage-
ment in fast emerging economies: Lessons learned from Shenzhen, China. Science of the Total Envi-
ronment, 724, 138264.
Benachio, G. L. F., Freitas, M. C. D., & Tavares, S. F. (2020). Circular economy in the construction indus-
try: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 260, 121046.
Bianchini, A., Rossi, J., & Pellegrini, M. (2019). Overcoming the main barriers of circular economy imple-
mentation through a new visualization tool for circular business models. Sustainability, 11(23), 6614.
Bilal, M., Khan, K. I. A., Thaheem, M. J., & Nasir, A. R. (2020). Current state and barriers to the circular
economy in the building sector: Towards a mitigation framework. Journal of Cleaner Production,
276, 123250.
13
Campbell-Johnston, K., ten Cate, J., Elfering-Petrovic, M., & Gupta, J. (2019). City level circular transi-
tions: Barriers and limits in Amsterdam, Utrecht and The Hague. Journal of Cleaner Production,
235, 1232–1239.
Carvalho Machado, R., Artur de Souza, H., & de Souza Veríssimo, G. (2018). Analysis of guidelines
and identification of characteristics influencing the deconstruction potential of buildings. Sustain-
ability, 10(8), 2604.
Çetin, S., Gruis, V., & Straub, A. (2021). Towards circular social housing: An exploration of practices,
barriers, and enablers. Sustainability, 13(4), 2100.
Chai, Q., Li, H., Tian, W., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Critical success factors for safety program implemen-
tation of regeneration of abandoned industrial building projects in China: A fuzzy DEMATEL
approach. Sustainability, 14(3), 1550.
Chang, B., Chang, C.-W., & Wu, C.-H. (2011). Fuzzy DEMATEL method for developing supplier selec-
tion criteria. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 1850–1858.
Charef, R., & Lu, W. (2021). Factor dynamics to facilitate circular economy adoption in construction.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 319, 128639.
Charef, R., Morel, J.-C., & Rakhshan, K. (2021). Barriers to implementing the circular economy in the
construction industry: A critical review. Sustainability, 13(23), 12989.
Chou, Y.-C., Sun, C.-C., & Yen, H.-Y. (2012). Evaluating the criteria for human resource for science and
technology (HRST) based on an integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy DEMATEL approach. Applied
Soft Computing, 12(1), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2011.08.058
Coenen, T. B. J., Visscher, K., & Volker, L. (2023). A systemic perspective on transition barriers to a
circular infrastructure sector. Construction Management and Economics, 41(1), 22–43. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01446193.2022.2151024
Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science and Medicine, 41(12),
1667–1676.
Costa, F., Denis Granja, A., Fregola, A., Picchi, F., & Portioli Staudacher, A. (2019). Understanding
relative importance of barriers to improving the customer–supplier relationship within construc-
tion supply chains using DEMATEL technique. Journal of Management in Engineering, 35(3),
04019002.
Durdyev, S., Koc, K., Karaca, F., & Gurgun, A. P. (2022). Strategies for implementation of green roofs in
developing countries. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30, 2481–2502.
Durdyev, S., Mohandes, S. R., Mahdiyar, A., & Ismail, S. (2021). What drives clients to purchase green
building?: The cybernetic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach. Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management, 29, 4015–4039.
Durdyev, S., Zavadskas, E. K., Thurnell, D., Banaitis, A., & Ihtiyar, A. (2018). Sustainable construction
industry in Cambodia: Awareness, drivers and barriers. Sustainability, 10(2), 392.
Ekmekcioğlu, Ö., Koc, K., & Özger, M. (2022). Towards flood risk mapping based on multi-tiered deci-
sion making in a densely urbanized metropolitan city of Istanbul. Sustainable Cities and Society,
80, 103759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103759
European Commission. (2020). Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions. A new
circular economy action plan for a cleaner and more competitive Europe, Issue. E. Commission.
https://e ur-l ex.e uropa.e u/r esour ce.h tml?u ri=c ellar:9 903b3 25-6 388-1 1ea-b 735-0 1aa75 ed71a 1.
0017.02/DOC_1&format=PDF
Gabus, A., & Fontela, E. (1973). Perceptions of the world problematique: Communication procedure,
communicating with those bearing collective responsibility. Battelle Geneva Research Centre.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy–A new sus-
tainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757–768.
Ghaffar, S. H., Burman, M., & Braimah, N. (2020). Pathways to circular construction: An integrated
management of construction and demolition waste for resource recovery. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction, 244, 118710.
Ghazilla, R. A. R., Sakundarini, N., Abdul-Rashid, S. H., Ayub, N. S., Olugu, E. U., & Musa, S. N.
(2015). Drivers and barriers analysis for green manufacturing practices in Malaysian SMEs: A
preliminary findings. Procedia CIRP, 26, 658–663.
Ghisellini, P., Ripa, M., & Ulgiati, S. (2018). Exploring environmental and economic costs and benefits
of a circular economy approach to the construction and demolition sector. A literature review.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 178, 618–643.
Gorgolewski, M. (2008). Designing with reused building components: Some challenges. Building
Research and Information, 36(2), 175–188.
13
S. Durdyev et al.
Govindan, K., & Hasanagic, M. (2018). A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards cir-
cular economy: A supply chain perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 56(1–2),
278–311.
Gower, R., & Schröder, P. (2016). Virtuous circle: How the circular economy can create jobs and save lives
in low and middle-income countries. Institute of Development Studies and Tearfund.
Grafström, J., & Aasma, S. (2021). Breaking circular economy barriers. Journal of Cleaner Production,
292, 126002.
Gue, I. H. V., Promentilla, M. A. B., Tan, R. R., & Ubando, A. T. (2020). Sector perception of circular
economy driver interrelationships. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, 123204.
Guerra, B. C., & Leite, F. (2021). Circular economy in the construction industry: An overview of United
States stakeholders’ awareness, major challenges, and enablers. Resources, Conservation and Recy-
cling, 170, 105617–105617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105617
Häkkinen, T., & Belloni, K. (2011). Barriers and drivers for sustainable building. Building Research and
Information, 39(3), 239–255.
Hall, A. T., Durdyev, S., Koc, K., Ekmekcioglu, O., & Tupenaite, L. (2022). Multi-criteria analysis of
barriers to building information modeling (BIM) adoption for SMEs in New Zealand construc-
tion industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/
ECAM-03-2022-0215
Hao, J. L., Yu, S., Tang, X., & Wu, W. (2022). Determinants of workers’ pro-environmental behaviour
towards enhancing construction waste management: Contributing to China’s circular economy. Jour-
nal of Cleaner Production, 369, 133265–133265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133265
Harala, L., Alkki, L., Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Al-Najjar, A., & Malmqvist, T. (2023). Industrial ecosystem
renewal towards circularity to achieve the benefits of reuse—Learning from circular construction.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 389, 135885–135885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.135885
Hart, J., Adams, K., Giesekam, J., Tingley, D. D., & Pomponi, F. (2019). Barriers and drivers in a circular
economy: The case of the built environment. Procedia CIRP, 80, 619–624.
Hartley, K., Roosendaal, J., & Kirchherr, J. (2022). Barriers to the circular economy: The case of the Dutch
technical and interior textiles industries. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 26(2), 477–490. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jiec.13196
Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Weber, M. B. (2019). What influences saturation? Estimating sample
sizes in focus group research. Qualitative Health Research, 29(10), 1483–1496.
Hossain, M. S., & Khatun, M. (2021). A qualitative-based study on barriers to change from linear busi-
ness model to circular economy model in built environment—Evidence from Bangladesh. Circular
Economy and Sustainability, 1(3), 799–813.
Hossain, M. U., Ng, S. T., Antwi-Afari, P., & Amor, B. (2020). Circular economy and the construction
industry: Existing trends, challenges and prospective framework for sustainable construction. Renew-
able and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 130, 109948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109948
Huang, B., Wang, X., Kua, H., Geng, Y., Bleischwitz, R., & Ren, J. (2018). Construction and demolition
waste management in China through the 3R principle. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 129,
36–44.
Jan, M. T. (2022). Factors influencing the purchase of circular economy products: A comparative analysis of
Malaysia and Turkey. International Journal of Business and Society, 23(2), 802–819.
Jin, G., Jin, G., & Huo, H. (2022). Selection of business process modeling tool with the application of fuzzy
DEMATEL and TOPSIS method. Axioms, 11(11), 601.
Kanters, J. (2020). Circular building design: An analysis of barriers and drivers for a circular building sec-
tor. Buildings, 10(4), 77.
Kazancoglu, I., Sagnak, M., Kumar Mangla, S., & Kazancoglu, Y. (2021). Circular economy and the pol-
icy: A framework for improving the corporate environmental management in supply chains. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 30(1), 590–608.
Kirchherr, J., Piscicelli, L., Bour, R., Kostense-Smit, E., Muller, J., Huibrechtse-Truijens, A., & Hekkert,
M. (2018). Barriers to the circular economy: Evidence from the European Union (EU). Ecological
Economics, 150, 264–272.
Koc, K., Ekmekcioğlu, Ö., & Özger, M. (2021). An integrated framework for the comprehensive evaluation
of low impact development strategies. Journal of Environmental Management, 294, 113023.
Leising, E., Quist, J., & Bocken, N. (2018). Circular Economy in the building sector: Three cases and a col-
laboration tool. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 976–989.
Li, C.-W., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2009). Identification of a threshold value for the DEMATEL method using the
maximum mean de-entropy algorithm to find critical services provided by a semiconductor intellec-
tual property mall. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(6), 9891–9898.
13
Lijauco, F., Gajendran, T., Brewer, G., & Rasoolimanesh, S. M. (2020). Impacts of culture on innovation
propensity in small to medium enterprises in construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 146(3), 04019116.
Lin, K.-P., Tseng, M.-L., & Pai, P.-F. (2018). Sustainable supply chain management using approximate
fuzzy DEMATEL method. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 128, 134–142.
Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kharb, R. K., & Mangla, S. K. (2016). Evaluating the enablers in solar power
developments in the current scenario using fuzzy DEMATEL: An Indian perspective. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 63, 379–397.
Mahpour, A. (2018). Prioritizing barriers to adopt circular economy in construction and demolition waste
management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 134, 216–227.
Martek, I., Hosseini, M. R., Shrestha, A., Edwards, D. J., & Durdyev, S. (2019). Barriers inhibiting the tran-
sition to sustainability within the Australian construction industry: An investigation of technical and
social interactions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 211, 281–292.
Masi, D., Kumar, V., Garza-Reyes, J. A., & Godsell, J. (2018). Towards a more circular economy: Exploring
the awareness, practices, and barriers from a focal firm perspective. Production Planning and Con-
trol, 29(6), 539–550.
Meng, X., & Brown, A. (2018). Innovation in construction firms of different sizes: Drivers and strategies.
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 25(9), 1210–1225.
Mhatre, P., Gedam, V. V., Unnikrishnan, S., & Raut, R. D. (2023). Circular economy adoption barriers in
built environment—A case of emerging economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 392, 136201–
136201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136201
Mishra, J. L., Chiwenga, K. D., & Ali, K. (2021). Collaboration as an enabler for circular economy: A case
study of a developing country. Management Decision, 59(8), 1784–1800. https://doi.org/10.1108/
MD-10-2018-1111
Mont, O., Plepys, A., Whalen, K., & Nußholz, J. L. (2017). Business model innovation for a Circular Econ-
omy: Drivers and barriers for the Swedish industry–the voice of REES companies.
Munaro, M. R., & Tavares, S. F. (2023). A review on barriers, drivers, and stakeholders towards the circular
economy: The construction sector perspective. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption, 8, 100107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100107
Ngu, H. J., Lee, M. D., & Osman, M. S. B. (2020). Review on current challenges and future opportunities
in Malaysia sustainable manufacturing: Remanufacturing industries. Journal of Cleaner Production,
273, 123071.
Nisbet, M., Venta, G., & Foo, S. (2012). Demolition and deconstruction: review of the current status of
reuse and recycling of building materials. Air and Waste Management Association, pp. 1–14.
Nyumba, T. O., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group discussion
methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evo-
lution, 9(1), 20–32.
Oluleye, B. I., Chan, D. W., Saka, A. B., & Olawumi, T. O. (2022). Circular economy research on building
construction and demolition waste: A global review of current trends and future research directions.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 357, 131927.
Oluleye, B. I., Chan, D. W. M., Olawumi, T. O., & Saka, A. B. (2023). Assessment of symmetries and
asymmetries on barriers to circular economy adoption in the construction industry towards zero
waste: A survey of international experts. Building and Environment, 228, 109885. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.buildenv.2022.109885
Osei-Tutu, S., Ayarkwa, J., Osei-Asibey, D., Nani, G., & Afful, A. E. (2023). Barriers impeding circular
economy (CE) uptake in the construction industry. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 12(4),
892–918. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-03-2022-0049
Parliament of Australia. (2020). Budget review 2020–21. Research paper series, 2020–21. https://parlinfo.
aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/7622081/upload_binary/7622081.pdf
Pomponi, F., & Moncaster, A. (2017). Circular economy for the built environment: A research framework.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 710–718.
Rakhshan, K., Morel, J.-C., & Daneshkhah, A. (2021). A probabilistic predictive model for assessing the
economic reusability of load-bearing building components: Developing a circular economy frame-
work. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 630–642.
Rizos, V., Behrens, A., Van der Gaast, W., Hofman, E., Ioannou, A., Kafyeke, T., Flamos, A., Rinaldi, R.,
Papadelis, S., & Hirschnitz-Garbers, M. (2016). Implementation of circular economy business models
by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): Barriers and enablers. Sustainability, 8(11), 1212.
Rizos, V., Behrens, A., Kafyeke, T., Hirschnitz-Garbers, M., & Ioannou, A. (2015). The circular economy:
Barriers and opportunities for SMEs. CEPS Working Documents.
13
S. Durdyev et al.
Roxas, C. L. C., Bautista, C. R., Dela Cruz, O. G., Dela Cruz, R. L. C., De Pedro, J. P. Q., Dungca, J.
R., Lejano, B. A., et al. (2023). Design for manufacturing and assembly (DfMA) and design for
deconstruction (DfD) in the construction industry: Challenges, trends and developments. Build-
ings, 13(5), 1164. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13051164
Salmenperä, H., Pitkänen, K., Kautto, P., & Saikku, L. (2021). Critical factors for enhancing the circular
economy in waste management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 280, 124339.
Singh, J., & Ordoñez, I. (2016). Resource recovery from post-consumer waste: Important lessons for the
upcoming circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, 342–353.
Singh, P., & Giacosa, E. (2019). Cognitive biases of consumers as barriers in transition towards circular
economy. Management Decision, 57(4), 921–936. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-08-2018-0951
Soni, A., Das, P. K., Hashmi, A. W., Yusuf, M., Kamyab, H., & Chelliapan, S. (2022). Challenges and
opportunities of utilizing municipal solid waste as alternative building materials for sustainable
development goals: A review. Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy, 27, 100706.
Tleuken, A., Tokazhanov, G., Jemal, K. M., Shaimakhanov, R., Sovetbek, M., & Karaca, F. (2022). Leg-
islative, institutional, industrial and governmental involvement in circular economy in Central
Asia: A systematic review. Sustainability, 14(13), 8064.
Tokazhanov, G., Galiyev, O., Lukyanenko, A., Nauyryzbay, A., Ismagulov, R., Durdyev, S., Turkyilmaz,
A., & Karaca, F. (2022). Circularity assessment tool development for construction projects in
emerging economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 362, 132293.
Tokbolat, S., Karaca, F., Durdyev, S., & Calay, R. K. (2019). Construction professionals’ perspectives
on drivers and barriers of sustainable construction. Environment, Development and Sustainability,
22, 1–18.
Torgautov, B., Zhanabayev, A., Tleuken, A., Turkyilmaz, A., Mustafa, M., & Karaca, F. (2021). Circu-
lar economy: Challenges and opportunities in the construction sector of Kazakhstan. Buildings,
11(11), 501.
Tura, N., Hanski, J., Ahola, T., Ståhle, M., Piiparinen, S., & Valkokari, P. (2019). Unlocking circular
business: A framework of barriers and drivers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 90–98.
Turan, C., & Ozturkoglu, Y. (2022). A conceptual framework model for an effective cold food chain man-
agement in sustainability environment. Journal of Modelling in Management, 17(4), 1262–1279.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2022). Strategies on building a circular economy for
all. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 8 August from https://www.epa.
gov/r ecycl ingst rateg y/strate gies-b uildi ng-c ircul ar-e conomy-a ll#:~ :t ext=A%2 0cir c ular%2 0eco
nomy%20reduces%20material,government%20has%20pursued%20since%202009
Véliz, K. D., Walters, J. P., Busco, C., & Vargas, M. (2023). Modeling barriers to a circular economy for
construction demolition waste in the Aysén region of Chile. Resources, Conservation and Recy-
cling Advances, 18, 200145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200145
Wuni, I. Y. (2022a). Mapping the barriers to circular economy adoption in the construction industry: A
systematic review, Pareto analysis, and mitigation strategy map. Building and Environment, 223,
109453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109453
Wuni, I. Y. (2022b). Mapping the barriers to circular economy adoption in the construction industry: A
systematic review, Pareto analysis, and mitigation strategy map. Building and Environment, 223,
109453.
Wuni, I. Y., & Shen, G. Q. (2022). Developing critical success factors for integrating circular economy
into modular construction projects in Hong Kong. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 29,
574–587.
Xue, B., Chen, X. P., Geng, Y., Guo, X. J., Lu, C. P., Zhang, Z. L., & Lu, C. Y. (2010). Survey of offi-
cials’ awareness on circular economy development in China: Based on municipal and county level.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(12), 1296–1302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.
2010.05.010
Yang, F., Kalkavan, H., Dinçer, H., Yüksel, S., & Eti, S. (2021). Gaussian-based soft computing
approach to alternative banking system for sustainable financial sector. Complexity, 2021, 1–27.
Yitmen, I. (2007). The challenge of change for innovation in construction: A North Cyprus perspective.
Building and Environment, 42(3), 1319–1328.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.
Zarbakhshnia, N., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., & Goh, M. (2023). Outsourcing logistics operations in cir-
cular economy towards to sustainable development goals. Business Strategy and the Environment,
32(1), 134–162.
Zerbino, P. (2022). How to manage the Circular Economy Rebound effect: A proposal for contingency-
based guidelines. Journal of Cleaner Production, 378, 134584.
13
Zhalmurziyeva, K., Tokbolat, S., Durdyev, S., Mustafa, M. Y., & Karaca, F. (2021). Assessment of sus-
tainability indicators for urban water infrastructure in a developing country. International Journal of
Building Pathology and Adaptation. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-09-2021-0121
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable
law.
Authors and Affiliations
Serdar Durdyev1 · Kerim Koc2 · Aidana Tleuken3 · Cenk Budayan4 ·

Ömer Ekmekcioğlu5 · Ferhat Karaca3
* Serdar Durdyev
Serdar.Durdyev@ara.ac.nz
1
Department of Engineering and Architectural Studies, Ara Institute of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
3
School of Engineering and Digital Sciences, Nazarbayev University, 53 Kabanbay Batyr Av.,
010000 Nur‑Sultan, Kazakhstan
4
Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University Northern Cyprus Campus,
Mersin, Turkey
5
Disaster and Emergency Management Department, Disaster Management Institute, Istanbul
Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
13

Barriers To Circular Economy Implementation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barriers To Circular Economy Implementation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environment, Development and Sustainability

Barriers to circular economy implementation

Serdar Durdyev1 · Kerim Koc2 · Aidana Tleuken3 · Cenk Budayan4 ·

Received: 14 March 2023 / Accepted: 14 October 2023

Keywords Circular economy · Construction sector · Fuzzy DEMATEL · Developing

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

• This study develops a cause–effect relationship between barriers to the adoption of CE

achieve a sustainable and resource-efficient built environment. With a better understanding

PURPOSE TOOL / ATTEMPT OUTCOME

Fig. 1 Flowchart of the study

Zijn = lijn + xijn × Δmax

Table 3 Influences of awareness/perception/knowledge (A) barriers on each other based on country

Kazakhstan A1 0.607 0.933 1.027 0.677 0.786

Table 4 Influences of financial/ Countries Barriers Impact on F1 Impact on F2 Impact on F3

institutions), O3 (limited willingness to collaborate in the value chain), P3 (poor collabo-

Table 5 Influences of legislation/ Countries Barriers Impact on L1 Impact on L2 Impact on L3

Table 6 Influences of operation (O) barriers on each other based on country

Kazakhstan O1 1.382 1.849 1.687 1.932 1.932

Table 7 Influences of Countries Barriers Impact on P1 Impact on P2 Impact on P3

Table 8 Influences of project/design (D) barriers on each other based on country

Kazakhstan D1 1.214 1.287 1.110 1.239

Table 9 Prominence and the net effect of awareness/perception/knowledge (A) barriers

Kazakhstan A1 4.031 3.795 0.236 7.826

Table 10 Prominence and the net effect of financial/cost (F) barriers

Kazakhstan F1 5.111 6.201 − 1.091 11.312

Table 11 Prominence and the net effect of legislation/standards (L) barriers

Kazakhstan L1 7.582 6.321 1.261 13.903

Table 12 Prominence and net effect of operation (O) barriers

Kazakhstan O1 8.783 7.976 0.807 16.759

Table 13 Prominence and the net effect of procurement (P) barriers

Kazakhstan P1 10.371 10.544 − 0.173 20.916

Table 14 Prominence and the net effect of project/design (D) barriers

Kazakhstan D1 4.850 5.297 − 0.447 10.147

Country-based evaluation results also present some similarities and differences

Fig. 2 Causal relationship diagram of awareness/perception/knowledge (A) barriers

Fig. 3 Causal relationship diagram of financial/cost (F) barriers

relationship was observed as a result of the overall assessments. Accordingly, O2 and

Fig. 4 Causal relationship diagram of legislation/standards (L) barriers

5.1 Most casual barriers

The importance of the company culture is emphasized in the literature related to

Fig. 5 Causal relationship diagram of operation (O) barriers

Fig. 6 Causal relationship diagram of procurement (P) barriers

Fig. 7 Causal relationship diagram of project/design (D) barriers

5.2 Most prominent barriers

5.3 Comparison of the findings among the countries

Authors and Affiliations

Serdar Durdyev1 · Kerim Koc2 · Aidana Tleuken3 · Cenk Budayan4 ·

You might also like

5.1 Most casual barriers

5.2 Most prominent barriers

5.3 Comparison of the findings among the countries