Stakeholders’ perceptions of and willingness to pay for circular economy in the construction sector
Name
s42949-024-00182-9.pdf
Description
Published version
Size
1.33 MB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
45eed3c4fffa751e4ae3456802d06ff8
Author(s)
Berglund-Brown, Juliana
Pandey, Akrisht
Duarte, Fabio
Ganitsky, Raquel
Kirchain, Randy
Zheng, Siqi
Journal
npj Urban Sustainability
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Citation
Berglund-Brown, J., Pandey, A., Duarte, F. et al. Stakeholders’ perceptions of and willingness to pay for circular economy in the construction sector. npj Urban Sustain 4, 46 (2024).
Version
Final published version
Abstract
Adopting Circular Economy practices in the construction industry can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, many barriers exist to adoption, and current perceptions of and willingness to pay for circularity have yet to be quantified. This study seeks to understand the various perceptions of circularity in the construction industry, characterize uncertainties and risks, and identify economic incentives and opportunities that could accelerate circular adoption via an industry survey of three stakeholder groups. 58 stakeholders filled out part of the survey, and 42 stakeholders completed the majority of questions. Real estate developers are willing to pay an average premium of 10% for construction costs if there’s a minimum embodied carbon reduction of 53%. Design and construction professionals and material suppliers were also surveyed. Reasons for adopting circular practices were primarily driven by client, design team, and net zero goals. The results of this survey begin to characterize the economic landscape of what is needed for a circular transition in the built environment.
MIT Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. School of Architecture and Planning
Senseable City Laboratory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Urban Studies and Planning
Terms of Use
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
Persistent DSpace Link
DOI of Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-024-00182-9
