Design with reuse in the architectural design process: practice-based review of changes, challenges, and work routines

Abstract

Introduction:

The reuse of building components, despite its ecological importance, remains uncommon. A key reason is the misalignment between reuse requirements and conventional design processes, which rely on standardized materials. Architectural design engages with complex “wicked” problems, and reuse introduces uncertainties in availability, quality, and dimensions, complicating established workflows. Addressing the current research gap in systematic comparisons between reuse-oriented and standard processes, this article examines how component reuse affects material constraints, design modifications, and collaboration across design phases, highlighting design workflow changes and challenges architects encounter in real-world projects.

Methods:

Employing a six-stage, qualitative mixed-methods approach, the study combines semi-structured interviews with pioneering architects, graphic process mapping, and thematic analysis. (1) A review of standard processes and reuse challenges (2) refines research gaps. (3) Twelve interviews with architecture reuse practitioners guided by structured protocols and mental maps capture and (4) analyze workflow logic thematically. (5) Comparing these workflows with standard processes leads to (6) the formalization of three types of reuse integration: early, midway, and late integration, each with distinct work routines (proactive, iterative, and reactive) necessitating shifts in task sequencing, collaboration, and design logic.

Results:

Integrating reuse necessitates rescheduling planning tasks, adapting design approaches to material availability, establishing roles such as demolition coordinators, and coordinating building- and component-level processes. These changes are synthesized into comparative diagrams and a reuse-practice matrix, revealing how reuse workflows vary by phase and building layer, for example, structure (early), façade (midway), and interior (late).

Discussion:

The study proposes a conceptual framework that distinguishes approaches to reuse integration and supports practitioners in navigating reuse-driven design constraints.

Highlights

1 Introduction

Reusing components in architecture is essential for a circular economy. The construction sector has a particularly large environmental footprint: it accounts for over 35% of the EU’s total waste generation, consumes approximately 50% of all raw materials, and is responsible for 5%–12% of total EU greenhouse gas emissions, solely from material extraction, product manufacturing, and construction processes (EEA, 2024). The building sector alone uses approximately 1.6 billion tonnes of materials annually, and life cycle assessments show that 20%–35% of a building’s total environmental impact occurs in the product stage, before the building is even in use (EPRS, 2024).

These figures highlight the urgent need to reduce upfront material impacts and underscore the importance of strategies that extend material and component lifespans. The circular economy moves away from the old “take-make-waste” model. Instead, it focuses on reusing, recycling, and repurposing parts (Kirchherr et al., 2017). Among these strategies, the reuse of building components holds significant potential to extend component lifespans and substantially reduce resource consumption and CO₂ emissions (Addis, 2006; Gorgolewski, 2017; Hu and Milner, 2020; Zhou et al., 2020; Riuttala et al., 2024).

Though reusing building components is not a new concept and has been practiced in various forms throughout history (Ghyoot et al., 2018; Pronk et al., 2022), it remains underutilized in practice. Despite growing attention, few architectural firms have adopted this practice. Its implementation is mostly limited to a niche market with only a few committed stakeholders (Knoth et al., 2022).

A main reason for this is the architectural design process itself: Existing design models predominantly assume the availability of new, standardized components. This creates barriers to the use of reused components.

The following sections outline the state of the art in these areas to provide different perspectives on the issue, which this study aims to unite into a holistic understanding.

1.1 Misalignment with established architectural design processes

Conventional architectural design processes, such as the RIBA Plan of Work (UK) (Sinclair and RIBA, 2014), the SIA phases (CH) (SIA, 2014), or the BNA guidelines (NL) (BNA, 2014), emphasize standardized, readily available new components. These frameworks offer a systematic, linear approach to project management, detailing the main phases of architectural design and linking to contracts and payment terms (Best, 2015; Emmitt, 2016). The RIBA process (See Figure 1) outlines phases, including Strategic Definition, Preparation and Brief, Concept Design, Developed Design, Technical Design, Construction, Handover, and In Use (Sinclair and RIBA, 2014).

FIGURE 1

Although these frameworks are primarily linear, they permit some iteration, mainly during the concept design phase (Sinclair and RIBA, 2014). However, these models provide limited guidance for adapting design processes to the uncertainties of reused components. Their dependence on predefined resources limits their suitability for scenarios that require high adaptability with reused materials. In the case of reuse, design may need to navigate variable material conditions, conflicting stakeholder expectations, and unpredictable temporalities. The architectural design processes described in these models fail to capture the complexities of actual practice. Creative design is influenced by dynamic factors, such as changing market conditions and customer preferences, which a standardized framework cannot adequately address (Best, 2015). Furthermore, design evolves through interactions where social, cultural, material, and technical elements influence one another across various scales and phases (Yaneva, 2005).

This theoretical perspective underscores the need to reconceptualize the architectural design process when incorporating reused components, highlighting changes in design reasoning and its adaptability. However, a comparative study on how this process shifts with reused materials remains absent.

1.2 Lack of comparative studies on design processes with component reuse

Designing with reused components demands more flexibility and adaptability. These components often come in unpredictable quantities and sizes and may not meet standard specifications (Gorgolewski and Morettin, 2009; Stricker et al., 2021). This introduces uncertainties throughout the architectural workflow, from concept to technical design and construction (Lambec et al., 2024). Architects should adapt their practices to accommodate fluctuating material availability, assess component quality, and align design intentions with existing resources.

Key adjustments in the architectural design process for reused components include (1) stronger coordination among stakeholders, (2) searching for components, (3) adapting the design to available components, (4) the necessity for component assessment, and (5) changes in cost and time management (Chileshe et al., 2016; Brütting et al., 2019a; Niu et al., 2021; De Gregorio, 2022; Browne and Larsen, 2024). Similar adjustments have been formalized in engineering practices for reused concrete elements (Devènes et al., 2024). These adjustments extend standard frameworks and require feedback loops, flexible approaches, and redefined roles (Gurtner and Starovicova, 2023).

Although reuse-oriented process models (see Figure 2) exist (Kozminska, 2019; Kawa et al., 2022), they remain generic and lack a systematic comparison with standard architectural design processes. While technical solutions and material cycles have been studied, structural and procedural changes in architectural design remain underexplored.

FIGURE 2

Existing research often focuses on case studies (Pongiglione and Calderini, 2014; De Wolf et al., 2020; Kawa et al., 2022; Grüter et al., 2023; Stricker et al., 2023; Riuttala et al., 2024) or interviews with suppliers and technical experts (Ali et al., 2013; Chileshe et al., 2016; Ghaffar et al., 2020; De Gregorio, 2022), often overlooking the architect’s perspective. Previous studies identified best practices and barriers to component reuse (Huuhka and Hakanen, 2011; Chileshe et al., 2015; Densley Tingley et al., 2017; Dunant et al., 2017; Saldaña and Omasta, 2016; Rakhshan et al., 2020). However, few have systematically analyzed the interplay between component constraints, design adaptations, and stakeholder collaboration in the architectural design process. As a result, the specific changes and adaptations from integrating reused components remain underexplored, creating gaps that may hinder adoption. This lack of clarity can create reluctance among practitioners and highlights the need for a deeper understanding of how component reuse reshapes architectural design.

1.3 Knowledge gap of procedural challenges

Reusing building components in architecture presents challenges across economic, technical, regulatory, social, and organizational dimensions.

Economically, component reuse often increases costs due to extended planning phases, which may outweigh savings from reduced material costs (Gorgolewski et al., 2008; Kozminska, 2019; Pronk et al., 2022). Technically, components are frequently non-standard, of uncertain quality, or lacking documentation, requiring adaptive design and innovative structural solutions (Brütting et al., 2019b; Tomczak et al., 2023). Regulatory hurdles include fragmented legal frameworks and ambiguous standards, which complicate approval processes and delay implementation (Huuhka and Hakanen, 2011; Condotta and Zatta, 2021). Socially, reused components are sometimes seen as substandard and require additional communication to ensure customer acceptance (Kozminska, 2019; Pronk et al., 2022). Organizationally, architects often lack established workflows or reliable partners for sourcing, logistics, and integration of reused elements (Gorgolewski et al., 2008; Dunant et al., 2017; Rose and Stegemann, 2018).

While these challenges are well documented, the procedural dimension of how integrating reused components reshapes architectural design processes remains underexplored (Kröll et al., 2025). The existing literature predominantly focuses on contextual and structural barriers. In contrast, little is known about how architects adjust their workflows, manage time and budget constraints, or coordinate with stakeholders when working with reused materials. As Benachio et al. (2020) note, the lack of standardized practices and supporting infrastructure further complicates process integration.

This study addresses these gaps by analyzing how reuse alters architectural design routines, identifying the specific procedural adaptations and process innovations needed to enable broader adoption.

1.4 Problem statement and research questions

These identified gaps expose fundamental blind spots in current research on component reuse in architecture. They emphasize that successfully integrating reused components into architectural design involves not only ensuring material availability and obtaining regulatory approval but also determining how to operationalize reuse within existing design workflows. This involves not only aligning reuse with functional and aesthetic requirements but also overcoming practical obstacles related to procurement, material processing, and workflow adaptation. This raises the central question of this study:

How can reused components be successfully integrated into architectural work processes, and what are the key characteristics and challenges of these ways of working?

To address these sub-questions, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 expert architects with strong experience in component reuse. By examining how reuse challenges standard processes, new work routines can be identified. The research adopts an inductive approach: it begins with practical reuse observations and then analyzes patterns and challenges to develop improved solutions for incorporating reuse into standard workflows.

First, this study addresses how the integration of component reuse in the design process can be conceptualized by identifying key themes, patterns, and process shifts observed in architectural practice.

Second, the study analyzes adaptations in the architectural design process when incorporating reused components. The thematic analysis uncovers various process types, offering insights into the impact of reuse on architectural workflows.

Third, the research examines architects' workflows to address reuse complexity while ensuring functional and aesthetic quality. Identifying these routines highlights existing solutions and potential areas for optimization.

Finally, the study addresses process-related challenges that impede the integration of reuse throughout architectural design phases.

Following the introduction, the research methodology is presented in Section 2. The results are structured across several sections: Section 3 addresses the conceptualization of reused components integration, Section 4 discusses process changes, and Sections 5, 6 examine work routines and their combinations. Section 7 focuses on processual challenges. The findings are analyzed in Discussion (Section 8). Finally, Conclusion (Section 9) summarizes key insights and implications for future practice.

2 Methods

2.1 Overall study design

This study adopts a qualitative mixed-method approach (see Figure 3). It includes semi-structured interviews (Flick et al., 2004; Kruse and Schmieder, 2014; Hennink et al., 2020), graphical mapping, and thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) to explore how architectural design processes are evolving, especially concerning the reuse of building components. The research process begins by analyzing three key areas: the standard architectural design process, design with reuse, and challenges with reuse (see Section 1). This analysis identifies the research gap and leads to the formulation of research questions. Semi-structured interviews with expert architects serve as the primary data-collection research method to explore these aspects in depth. A guideline for the semi-structured format is developed in preparation for the interviews (see Supplementary Appendix A). Architects with practical experience in reusing building components, whether in completed projects or ongoing planning, are chosen as participants to provide valuable insights into design and process challenges. A mental map was used to visualize the design process and capture the changes that the architects experienced.

FIGURE 3

Following data collection, two analytical approaches are applied: thematic analysis of interview transcripts and an examination of the architects' process drawings. Recurring themes and patterns are identified in the collected data. These findings are compared to existing literature on challenges and the standard architectural design process. The final step classifies process types, defines work routines, and links challenges to routine patterns. The outcomes are synthesized into detailed process diagrams illustrating key insights from the study.

2.2 Study population and recruitment

The study involves architects who are pioneers in the use of reused building components. Participant experience levels range from 1 to 30 years and include roles like senior architects, design architects, and drafters. Supplementary Table A1B presents an overview of the participating architects, their offices, projects, and years of experience in reuse practices.

The participant group is primarily based in Europe: six people from the Netherlands, five from Switzerland, and one from India. These professionals are selected based on their involvement in realized or planned projects, ensuring that insights come from real-world experience. The regional diversity aims to capture different perspectives on architectural design practices, particularly regarding component reuse and regional building regulations.

Architects are selected primarily for the breadth of their reuse experience across multiple projects, rather than for a single emblematic case. To ensure that the interviews capture what is most relevant in their current practice, participants are invited to choose freely which project to discuss in depth. This open approach allows them to focus on whichever project they feel best illustrates the challenges and potentials of reuse at the time of the interview. In doing so, they often refer to experiences from other projects, enriching the data with cross-cutting insights. Rather than assigning predefined cases, the study thus relied on self-selected case narratives, an established approach in architectural design research that provides rich access to the internal logic of design reasoning and problem framing (Darke, 1979; Roy, 1993).

To understand the scope and variety of reuse projects discussed during the interviews, Supplementary Table A1C maps the projects (P1–P12) to their typologies and architectural offices. These projects were realized in diverse urban contexts and under varying local conditions, offering a broad spectrum of insights into the practical application of material reuse strategies.

Beyond the diversity of project types and regional conditions, the architecture offices involved also vary significantly in size and orientation. This variation is crucial to understanding how reuse strategies are operationalized in both small experimental teams and large interdisciplinary firms. Supplementary Table A1D presents an overview of the architecture offices. It includes team size estimates and outlines each practice’s focus, covering high-tech modular construction, low-tech transformations of existing buildings, and experimental reuse at the urban level.

2.3 Data collection

Data are collected through semi-structured interviews lasting between 60 min and 75 min, primarily in-person at architects' offices. This setting facilitates direct observation of projects, tools, and workflows. Three interviews are conducted online using Miroboard as a graphical interface to integrate the mental process map. The interview guideline (see Supplementary Appendix A) (Helfferich, 2011) covers five key topics: Experienced Changes in the Architectural Design Process, Challenges, Work Routines, Collaboration, and Potential of Working with Reuse.

2.4 Data analysis

The interview data are analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke’s six-phase model (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Saldaña and Omasta, 2016) and utilizing ATLAS.ti to identify recurring patterns related to the research questions (Bryman, 2016). The study employs Big Q thematic analysis (Trainor and Bundon, 2021), viewing knowledge as socially and contextually constructed, particularly in professional design practices.

The analytical process proceeds in two interacting stages. First, initial coding and theme generation are performed inductively, allowing themes to emerge from participant accounts without imposing pre-existing categories. This open phase ensures sensitivity to unanticipated issues or perspectives.

After the first stable set of themes emerges, the five architectural process dimensions (based on RIBA, SIA, and BNA) are introduced as sensitizing and comparative concepts rather than as fixed coding categories. These dimensions are process tasks (D1), collaboration (D2), design approach (D3), procurement strategy (D4), and stage outcomes (D5). They provided a disciplinary lens for interpreting and contrasting the emergent themes, highlighting where practitioner accounts converged with or diverged from established process models. The frameworks thus shaped the interpretation of themes rather than their construction.

This procedure constitutes a hybrid semi-deductive approach: inductive in its openness to participants’ meaning making, while deductively informed by professional structures that contextualize design practice. The integration of these interpretive frames did not override participant perspectives; rather, it enabled critical reflection on how institutional process logics mediate reuse practices. To counter potential confirmation bias, analytical memos systematically recorded moments where the frameworks were challenged or contradicted by the data, and these instances were used to refine both the coding and thematic interpretation. Coding concentrates on three transversal thematic groups: design changes, work routines, and challenges.

Reflexive thematic analysis is selected because it accommodates such iterative movement between data and concept. Its conceptual flexibility allowed the analysis to shift between emergent insights and disciplinary comparison without being bound to a single procedural orthodoxy. In contrast, grounded theory was considered less appropriate, as its methodological focus on developing a unified explanatory theory and achieving theoretical saturation diverged from the study’s comparative and interpretive objectives. The present study sought to reveal process-specific differences and professional reasoning rather than to construct a formal grounded theory of design practice.

Coding is performed by a single researcher, ensuring analytical continuity and depth of engagement with the material. However, the evolving codebook, thematic structure, and interpretive decisions are regularly discussed with the supervisors during weekly meetings over a 2-month period. These meetings provide a form of interpretive triangulation, allowing external perspectives to challenge preliminary interpretations and refine thematic boundaries. The discussions serve to critically test the researcher’s reasoning and expose alternative readings of the data.

To enhance transparency, coding decisions are documented through analytical memos, and iterative coding cycles are used to revisit earlier assumptions. While such reflexive engagement and supervisory dialogue strengthen the interpretive robustness of the analysis, the reliance on a single primary coder remains a methodological limitation. Complete removal of researcher bias is not possible; instead, the study adopts Braun and Clarke (2006) reflexive stance, recognizing that meaning arises through interpretive engagement rather than objective replication.

A notable aspect of this study involves the analysis of participant-generated process maps that illustrate their reuse workflows. The research identifies recurring temporal patterns rather than creating new diagrams. Critical insights emerge regarding the timing of material integration, categorized into three scenarios: early integration during pre-design phases, mid-phase integration during concept development, and late integration during planning or execution. These scenarios facilitate mapping and comparing coded elements across D1–D5 process dimensions, suggesting that temporal misalignments between material knowledge and formal structures significantly influence reuse workflows.

All findings are interpreted through a reflexive lens, recognizing that themes emerge from interpretive engagement with the material. Researcher positionality, particularly familiarity with architectural design practice, is utilized to identify recurrent design logics while remaining aware of potential biases. This analysis connects material-specific uncertainties with broader design governance structures, providing a process-sensitive conceptual approach for understanding reuse dynamics.

3 Conceptualizing the integration of reused components in design

The interviews shed light on evolving workflows in architectural design, particularly when integrating reused components. Key challenges and adaptations faced by professionals are highlighted.

A recurring topic is the necessity for new frameworks for incorporating reused materials. As Interviewee A1 stated, “It is still a matter of clarifying and defining the framework conditions and establishing the processes.” This emphasizes ongoing efforts to systematize the integration of reused elements. A1 also remarked, “There are always different approaches and also different […] degrees of implementation of reuse. Depending on how strongly this is implemented in a project, it naturally brings about fundamental changes.” This highlights that the extent of reuse significantly impacts the design process and project outcomes.

Another critical aspect discussed is the concurrent handling of multiple levels of designing. Interviewee A12 stated, “You also have to go through the traditional process of moving from the big picture to the detail. But while you are doing that, all these smaller processes are going on in parallel.” This highlights the multi-layered and iterative nature of design, requiring simultaneous attention to multiple levels of detail.

Flexibility is vital for adapting projects to real-life conditions. Interviewee A10 explains: “Perhaps the biggest challenge […] is to be flexible in adapting the project to what you have in the plan and what you realize when you get the parts.” This reflects the dynamic nature of working with reused components, necessitating adjustments to already defined plans based on the availability of components.

In addition, the drawn process maps (see Figure 4) are analyzed to understand the changes within the workflows. Initial observations indicate different workflows, prompting a deeper analysis to identify the most significant aspects characterizing these workflows.

FIGURE 4

The interview analysis identifies nine themes reflecting patterns of change in architectural workflows. The identification of nine themes reflects a stage of thematic saturation in which further analysis yielded few new insights, even though the themes remain open to refinement. This selection offers a coherent and sufficiently differentiated structure for further analysis, enabling a systematic description of observed shifts in practice. These themes include changes in the distribution of tasks across the phases of the design process, the adoption of new approaches to tackle specific requirements, changes in collaboration and team dynamics, iterative ways of thinking and working, loops in specific workflows, dealing with increasing uncertainty, working simultaneously at different levels of precision, agile decision-making under time pressure, and the coordination of parallel processes within a project.

Defining these themes necessitates considering the timing of material integration. Attempts to categorize patterns indicate that their relevance is closely tied to when components are recognized. This temporal factor is essential for understanding shifts in task distribution, emerging uncertainties, and workflow structuring.

3.1 Parallel processes: architectural vs. component-level workflows

The comparison between the standard architectural design process and the reuse design process reveals that the former remains a valid framework at the building level. Concurrently, important parallel processes occur at the component level, especially when utilizing reused components. These two levels, the higher-level design at the building stage and the iterative processes at the component stage, interact closely, influencing integration workflows (see Figure 5).

FIGURE 5

3.2 Interplay of parallel processes: timing of material integration

The distinction between building and component levels highlights the interplay between macro- and micro-level design decisions. While the building process sets the overall direction, component workflows enable necessary iterative adjustments for precise integration. Analysis reveals that the timing of component processes significantly influences the entire design process, with the nine themes that vary accordingly.

The authors propose synthesizing observed patterns into three phases of component processes: early, midway, and late integration. These phases correspond to different moments in the design timeline, shaping how changes are managed and integrated. Understanding these phases enhances perspectives on design dynamics and decision-making. Therefore, this study aims to explore the different nuances of changes, work routines, and challenges across the different process types.

4 Changes in the architectural design process through reuse

These phases overlap; many architects utilize reused components across multiple phases, influenced by project-specific conditions. Consequently, their workflows diverge from the conventional design process.

As mentioned in Sections 2, 3, both the nine themes from the thematic analysis and the five structural dimensions of the architectural design process serve as the basis for the following comparison. The themes are mapped onto the predefined dimensions—process tasks, collaboration, design approach and procurement strategy, and stage outcomes—to situate reuse-related adaptations within a structured analytical framework.

4.1 Early component integration process

When components are tendered during the Strategic Definition or Preparation and Brief phases (see Figure 6), four interviewees (A1, A2, A10, and A12) reported significant shifts in the architectural design process. Tasks typically reserved for later phases, such as Concept Design, Developed Design, or Technical Design, were advanced, necessitating early decisions and iterative planning.

FIGURE 6

This temporal shift is reflected in Interviewee A12’s observation: “We had to do more work in an earlier stage of the design process. So we had to sort of bring stuff that normally you would do in a technical design and bring it forward.” Interviewee A1 emphasized that early procurement alters financial and organizational structures: “Normally, no one buys anything that early in the process. The client does not release any money. But when reusing structural components, you sometimes need to have them purchased upfront to affect the cost structure.” Such early commitments, while strategic, can constrain design. A1 remarked on how integrating a reused steel structure defined spatial parameters early: “We simply took a steel structure as it was, which defined the floor heights and even the form of the extension.”

The following process representation emerged from coding and theme development, as shown in Supplementary Appendix E. Key changes include:

Process tasks (D1): Shifting process tasks can include clarification of the main form and arrangement, the architectural appearance, and the load-bearing structure (usually part of the Concept Design phase); integration of the architectural, structural, and installation designs (usually part of the Developed Design phase); building physics and acoustics, structural design, structural calculations, and technical specifications (usually part of the Technical Design phase); and tender review and negotiation, procurement, consultancy, and tendering (usually part of the Construction Design phase). Interviewed architects report having to decide whether to purchase certain components without a conceptual design and based only on design assumptions without finalized plans. Therefore, three interviewees (A1, A2, and A12) found themselves going through different design options to decide whether to purchase certain components. It appears that iterative creative processes traditionally associated with concept design are now undertaken during the Strategic Definition and Preparation and Brief phases.

Additional tasks may include organizing storage, planning logistics, and performing demolition work. Interviewees differ in timing; A1 and A2 reported initiating these tasks before concept design, while A10 and A12 indicated they occur during concept design and are refined later.

Collaboration (D2): In this adapted process, stakeholders, including structural engineers, project managers, building physicists, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) planners, fire protection experts, and contractors, engage in early phases of Strategic Definition and Preparation and Brief. Four interviewees (A1, A2, A10, and A12) noted direct collaboration with subcontractors and manufacturers, contrasting with the standard process where communication typically occurs through the main contractor. Clients also need to invest early and actively participate in decision-making to facilitate the successful integration of reused components.

A complementary role is fulfilled by specialized roles such as the material hunter, who is responsible for sourcing and identifying reusable materials, and the demolition contractor, who can play an important role in sourcing suitable materials from existing structures.

Design approach (D3): In this type of process, initial designs are often driven by rapid sketching based on component properties, and the creative design process becomes highly iterative during the Preparation and Brief phase. Once the decision is made that the component is to be used for the design, the further design (carried out in the Concept Design, Technical Design, and Developed Design phases) should adapt very significantly to the properties of these components. This can limit the design and reduce the variability of the creative design process to be carried out in a certain framework set by the component properties.

Decisions should be made quickly, based on assumptions and without the benefit of a fully developed design.

4.2 Midway component integration process

During the Concept Design or Developed Design phases (see Figure 7), newly discovered components necessitate balancing established designs with these components. Nine interviewees (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A9, A11, and A12) indicated that midway integration requires flexibility, as architects incorporate new components into designs whose key features have already been determined through prior decisions made jointly with clients, prompting iterative modifications.

FIGURE 7

Midway integration disrupts traditional design linearity. Interviewee A6 noted, “Once you’re in the developed design, suddenly you run into something. You draw it in the design, test it, and find out it's not usable. So, you go back to the concept phase.” Such feedback loops challenge conventional decision-making flows. The midway integration process demands ongoing adaptation. As A6 remarked, “You have to keep your eyes and ears open for new input. A contractor might call and say, ‘We found nice inner walls or doors,’ and then you have to quickly study whether they fit.”

The following process representation, developed through coding and thematic analysis outlined in Supplementary Appendix F, highlights key changes:

Process tasks (D1): Some technical tasks are listed for inclusion in the Concept Design phase to evaluate component suitability and fit within the emerging design. These technical tasks can include building physics and acoustics, structural design, structural calculations, and technical specifications (usually part of the Technical Design phase). The tender review, procurement negotiations, consulting, and tendering are also conducted in advance and are usually carried out during the Construction phase.

Additional tasks may include component selection, storage organization, logistics planning, and demolition. Nine interviewees (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A9, A11, and A12) indicated that these tasks commence upon material tendering, often during the concept and developed design phases.

Collaboration (D2): Effective coordination between design teams and component specialists is crucial to prevent delays from testing and rework. Design teams should collaborate closely with specialists to ensure reused components meet requirements, identify potential issues early, and develop timely solutions. Working with contractors, subcontractors, and manufacturers is essential from concept through the developed design phases. Additionally, material hunters and demolition companies are vital partners for efficiently integrating reused components.

Design approach (D3): This process type necessitates continuous iteration at both component and building levels. Architects should consistently reassess designs to ensure selected components fulfill performance requirements, such as acoustics or structural integrity. This frequent review fosters a close integration of design and component selection, compelling architects to adapt designs to material properties. These iterations are critical for optimizing the design to meet functional and aesthetic objectives. While the standard architectural design process incorporates iterative elements, the timing of iterations during midway integration aligns closely with conventional practices. However, evaluating reused components can prolong iterations into the Developed Design phase. Integration of reused components necessitates simultaneous adaptation and review throughout the design process.

Decision-making in midway integration is characterized as agile and collaborative, involving various stakeholders, including architects, engineers, and component specialists. Unlike early integration processes, decisions are based on building-level design concepts and ongoing evaluations of component integration. This agile decision-making enables flexible adaptations to achieve functional and aesthetic goals while considering technical specifications and material availability.

4.3 Late component integration process

Late-stage integration, occurring during the Technical Design or Construction phases (see Figure 8), poses unique challenges due to established project frameworks. Integration at this stage, depending on the building layer, such as structural frame or façade system, requires substantial retrofitting and adaptation to align new components with pre-established configurations. Interviewee A2 emphasized the need for flexibility: “You have to be ready for a lot of variations and also ready for the variation you didn’t really expect.” To manage this uncertainty, “You have to leave some room between elements that you will fill with something else that is more adaptable.”

FIGURE 8

Interviewee A8 noted that some design aspects remain intentionally open until materials are identified: “Some of the design comes a bit later and is left open until you find the material. If you want to use reclaimed cladding, you wouldn't know what the building would look like until you found the cladding that you would reuse.”

This approach, mentioned by five interviewees (A1, A2, A7, A8, and A11), leads to overlapping phases and necessitates real-time design modifications. Interviewee A8 stated, “It’s a back and forth in a way. Some aspects of the design cannot be fully finalized until you know what materials will be available.”

Interviewee A8 also highlighted the logistical challenge of late-stage procurement: “In French, we call it ‘flux tendu': when things happen just when they need to be used, and that’s quite complicated to organize.” Interviewee A7 echoed this sentiment: “Sometimes you have to start making drawings for the permit, but it’s highly likely that you have to do it over again or change it a lot even during the construction. So that’s, of course, not efficient and a little bit frustrating. It makes it more uncertain and difficult to make the definitive drawings for it.”

The following process representation, developed through the coding and thematic analysis outlined in Supplementary Appendix G, elucidates key changes:

Process tasks (D1): Although many design decisions are finalized, five architects (A1, A2, A7, A8, and A11) reported making unforeseen adjustments, such as redesigning blueprints to accommodate component dimensions. Tasks requiring reconsideration during later phases may include revising forms, layouts, and architectural aesthetics, typically associated with the Concept Design phase, as well as integrating design elements from the Developed Design phase, alongside building physics and acoustics.

Demolition planning and on-site creation of demolition plans may also be added as tasks. While storage organization and logistics planning may arise, these are typically less significant during late integration due to advanced planning.

Collaboration (D2): On-site collaboration with engineers and contractors is essential in the late integration process for effectively adapting designs and ensuring proper integration of reused components. During construction, MEP designers and fire safety experts may re-engage for final component reviews to ensure compliance with technical and safety standards. Additionally, specialized roles, such as material hunters, who source reusable materials, and deconstruction contractors, are integral to providing and managing components on site.

Design approach (D3): Late adjustments are often necessary for integrating components into designs at advanced phases. These considerations are typically addressed during the Concept Design phase. Four architects (A2, A7, A8, and A11) described employing systems that accommodate tolerances in this context, coining the term “Design for Adaptation.” Architects anticipate that certain materials may only be accessible later in the process, necessitating adjustments during construction. This adaptive approach facilitates efficient integration of reused components.

Rapid decision-making becomes crucial for late discoveries, requiring immediate, on-site assessments to avoid project delays. When materials or components are identified later, real-time problem-solving is essential for evaluating feasibility and adapting designs quickly. Effective communication and collaboration among design teams, contractors, and other stakeholders are vital for successful planning and execution.

Across all three component integration processes, interviews revealed no uniform methodology but rather a spectrum of workflows shaped by organizational structures, reuse experiences, and project-specific conditions. The following process diagrams show a detailed comparison of the reuse process types (early, midway, late) with the standard process in terms of process tasks (see Figure 9), collaboration (see Figure 10), design approach and procurement strategy (see Figure 11), and stage outcomes (see Figure 12).

FIGURE 9

FIGURE 10

FIGURE 11

FIGURE 12

5 Work routines with reused components

Section 4 detailed how timing influences component integration and architectural design. This section examines how architects adapt to these changes through recurring work patterns. Three distinct routines were identified through cross-case comparisons: the proactive, iterative, and reactive approaches. Each routine reflects how architects navigate reuse amid varying material availability. These workflows are adaptable strategies rather than fixed phases, developed in response to challenges identified in Section 1.3 and can also be understood as processes of knowledge formation.

To analyze these routines systematically, each was examined along the five structural dimensions of the design process (see Section 3.2).

5.1 Proactive approach

Architects pursued a proactive approach in four cases (A1, A2, A10, and A12), securing reused components at or near the project outset and aligning the design around confirmed material stocks. Early procurement, often enabled by upfront client investment (A1, A2, and A12), stabilized scheduling and reduced downstream delays (D4→D5). Because component information preceded detailed design, architects reported making front-loaded selection decisions under uncertainty, allowing available elements to shape form, dimensioning, and detailing (D3). Long-range logistics planning, including sequencing of dismantling, storage capacity, and lift/crane access, was built into early project tasks (D1/D4). As A10 explained, “We need to know in which order we will be building these buildings since the beginning. So, we, to be able like to say that okay, here we will safely store the elements when we are not using them. And in the moment that we will come after two years of the elements stored here, we will come with this crane.” To preserve adaptability, only the reused elements were fixed while surrounding assemblies remained flexible for later adjustment (D3). The approach required early, continuous stakeholder coordination across clients, deconstruction partners, and engineers (D2); gaining client commitment to early material purchases was frequently cited as a precondition (A1, A2, and A12). Collectively, the proactive routine embeds material availability upstream, aiming to avoid late-stage surprises and integrate reuse seamlessly into the unfolding design process (implications for D5).

5.2 Iterative approach

Reuse was negotiated across nine cases (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A9, A11, and A12) through an iterative approach in which design development and component integration progressed in parallel cycles. Teams worked across overlapping phases—concept, development, and technical planning—revisiting earlier decisions as new components surfaced (D1/D3). Agile review loops were supported by maintaining linked drawing or model files for the building and for specific reused elements (reported in A2 and A12), allowing updates to propagate through the scheme (D1). Architects described a dual-scale practice: zooming into 1:1 or detail scales to evaluate a component’s fit, then reintegrating it into 1:50–1:100 building models (D3/D4). As Interviewee A12 explains, “You do a little design process on the wall itself. That once you decide this is usable, you push it back into the building design,” illustrating how individual components actively shape and inform the evolving building concept.

Rapid digital modeling enabled quick feasibility checks as components became available (D1). This way of working trades stability for responsiveness; it depends on sustained coordination and tolerance for rework but supports higher reuse integration when supply is staggered (D2, effects visible in shifting stage deliverables, D5).

5.3 Reactive approach

Reuse occurred reactively in a third set of cases (A1, A2, A7, A8, and A11), triggered by late or uncertain component availability. Because material specifics were unknown during early phases, architects designed tolerance systems and buffer zones to absorb variability (D3/D1). As Interviewee A2 puts it, one should “leave some room between elements that you will fill with something else that is more adaptable,” highlighting the importance of designing with adaptability and improvisation in mind. Decisions frequently shifted on site, with drawings revised in real time as components arrived (D2/D1). Late technical adjustments required intensified collaboration with engineers, contractors, and suppliers to resolve fit, performance, and regulatory questions under compressed timelines (D2/D3). The reactive routine privileges adaptability over predefinition; its success hinges on contingency planning and flexible procurement substitutions (D4) and often reshapes expected stage outputs late in the process (D5).

6 Combination of work routines

The study indicates that component reuse in architectural projects does not follow a standardized linear process. It varies according to the timing of procurement, which is categorized as early, midway, or late.

A matrix was developed to compare integration processes and assess their impact on best practices (see Figure 13). This matrix organizes projects identified by interviewees, placing them according to their integration phases and the building layer (from Brand, 1995), where components were reused (stuff, space plan, skin, and structure). The layers “services” and “site” are excluded, not for conceptual reasons, but because none of the 12 interviewees reports reuse activities in these domains. When probed, participants emphasize that they have not yet been involved in projects where services or site-related elements are reused. It should be emphasized that this absence of data may reflect the composition of the study sample, which consisted exclusively of architects. Other stakeholder groups, such as engineers, contractors, or building services specialists, might encounter or engage in reuse activities within these excluded layers. Accordingly, the matrix represents tentative patterns derived from a limited evidential base rather than a prescriptive or exhaustive framework.

FIGURE 13

Below the matrix, a legend clarifies project references and their comparative scale. An in-depth examination reveals critical insights into these factors in the following subsections.

6.1 Impact of project scale on the timing of component integration

Matrix analysis shows that large-scale projects use mid- and early-integration processes, while smaller projects often incorporate late integration. This suggests that project scale influences the timing and integration of reused components in architectural design.

6.2 Interdependence of working routines and building layers

The study investigated whether architectural firms follow a specific reuse process based solely on one work routine. Results indicate a more complex reality: firms often integrate multiple routines based on the focused building layer. For example, project P4 spans all three acquisition phases (early, midway, and late), depending on the component layer involved, illustrating that reuse timing varies by building layer.

6.3 Patterns of timing and building layers

These patterns should be read as indicative rather than generalizable rules; they highlight possible relationships between project scale, building layer, and timing of reuse that warrant further investigation with larger and more diverse samples.

6.4 Contextual influences on the work routines

Contextual factors, such as client decisions, also impact procurement timing. For instance, in project P9, early reuse processes commenced as the client had already acquired necessary components prior to the design phase. This early procurement significantly influences project workflows and facilitates the integration of reused components.

The findings highlight that component reuse in architecture is a dynamic, contextual process influenced by procurement timing and specific building layers. External factors, such as client purchases, notably affect reuse timing. These insights underscore the necessity for adaptable workflows that support reuse strategies tailored to each project’s unique requirements.

7 Challenges across different phases of the design process

The question of what challenges arise when designing with reuse is often addressed in the literature with a focus on systemic barriers: economic, social, regulatory, and organizational.

However, this study shifts the focus to process-specific challenges that persist even when workflows are adapted to accommodate reuse. This perspective offers a deeper understanding of how timing-related procurement uncertainties affect the design and construction process (see Figure 14). Interviews revealed that these challenges vary across different procurement phases.

FIGURE 14

7.1 Early component integration process

When reused components are identified early in the project, architects face distinct process-specific challenges that unfold across several structural dimensions. From a procurement perspective (D4), early commitment to specific components places high demands on resources, often before key design parameters are defined. This pressure can create friction between procurement urgency and conceptual freedom. In terms of design approach (D3), architects may need to make critical decisions based on incomplete information because the overall design vision is not yet fully formed. The available components may not have been fully assessed for compatibility, increasing the risk of misalignment between material constraints and intended outcomes. Additionally, the need for early logistical planning (D1), including storage, transport, and documentation, requires foresight under considerable uncertainty. These early-phase decisions influence both collaboration (D2), as stakeholders should coordinate intensively from the outset, and eventual stage outcomes (D5), which may be skewed toward component-driven solutions.

7.2 Midway component integration process

When components become available during the concept or developed design phases, the design process becomes increasingly non-linear and iterative. Architects may need to continuously revise plans (D1) to incorporate new materials, which challenges workflow predictability and disrupts standard scheduling. The design approach (D3) should remain agile, as decisions are made under time pressure and often with incomplete or evolving data. This increases the risk of premature choices that require later revisions. Collaboration (D2) becomes critical in this context, as rapid design changes demand real-time coordination between teams, consultants, and suppliers. Miscommunication or delays in information exchange can lead to costly errors or inefficiencies. Moreover, balancing technical detail with conceptual flexibility presents a constant tension: design teams may need to simultaneously develop detailed solutions while maintaining openness to late-stage material integration (affecting both D3 and D5).

7.3 Late component integration

If components are discovered during technical design or construction, architects may need to respond reactively, often improvising under tight constraints. In terms of collaboration (D2), shifting client expectations should be managed carefully, as late changes may challenge previously agreed-upon outcomes. Design tasks (D1) become unstable, as permit drawings may sometimes need to be finalized without knowing which materials will ultimately be used. This requires maintaining a high level of design adaptability (D3), ensuring that performance and aesthetic targets are met despite changing inputs. Procurement and approval pathways (D4/D5) also become vulnerable: reused materials introduced after permitting risk non-compliance, especially when structural elements are involved. Added delays due to testing and certification of reused components further complicate construction timelines. Finally, when demolition is externally managed, architects often lose control over the quality and availability of components and should make on-site adjustments with little room for precision, resulting in increased pressure on execution and project coherence across all dimensions.

In contrast to the general systemic obstacles, these time-specific challenges illustrate the procedural vulnerability of architectural design under reuse conditions. They range from early planning pressure to iterative complexity to on-site improvisation, and each entails different risks. The interviews show that even highly motivated architects are confronted with a fragmented and unpredictable workflow. While the literature describes macro-level obstacles, this study highlights the micro-level disruptions that affect planning reliability, design quality, and construction efficiency.

8 Discussion

In addition to identifying different process types and workflows, this study also highlights a broader problem reported in the literature: the uncertainty associated with integrating reused components. While many studies emphasize a fundamental change in the architectural design process, the exact changes are often not specified. Furthermore, these changes are often generalized, and existing reuse process diagrams (Kozminska, 2019; Kawa et al., 2022) tend to remain at a high level of abstraction, that is, without capturing the nuanced influencing factors or relating them directly to the established architectural design process. This lack of clarity has caused practitioners to hesitate when deciding whether and how to apply reuse strategies. By structuring these changes into clear process phases and decision patterns, this research provides architects with a more tangible concept for understanding and implementing reuse in practice.

These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of how reuse practices require adaptive and flexible methodologies. They align with existing research emphasizing the iterative nature of reuse workflows (Addis, 2006; Gorgolewski, 2017). However, identifying time-dependent process types adds further nuance by categorizing design changes within specific project phases and material-finding periods. This study complements previous research that has predominantly focused on the perspectives of engineers and deconstruction teams and fills a gap by examining the experiences of architects. It further relates to insights from adaptive reuse research, which addresses comparable procedural challenges such as uncertainty, iterative design, and stakeholder coordination at the scale of whole buildings. While our scope is deliberately limited to component reuse, acknowledging these parallels clarifies that our findings are complementary.

The results reflect broader debates in the field, particularly around integrating circular economy principles into architectural design. The proactive, iterative, and reactive work routines identified reflect calls in the literature for non-linear, collaborative design approaches (Gorgolewski et al., 2008; Kawa et al., 2022). Challenges such as logistical complexity and material uncertainty highlight the ongoing tension between the ideals of reuse and the realities of practice, as noted in prior studies (Huuhka and Hakanen, 2011; Huuhka, 2018).

While this study provides valuable insights into the integration of reused components in architectural design, several limitations remain. With only 12 interviews, the findings, though rich in detail, are not broadly generalizable. Expanding the dataset could help validate and refine the identified work routines and process types. Additionally, the study does not thoroughly explore the perspectives of other key stakeholders, such as engineers and contractors, who might provide a more comprehensive understanding of interdisciplinary challenges.

A further methodological consideration concerns the role of project examples referenced during the interviews. Instead of working with a predefined case, participants were encouraged to draw on whichever project they considered most relevant to illustrate specific aspects such as process adaptations or challenges. This practitioner-defined relevance foregrounded cases that participants regarded as meaningful entry points into their reuse practice and enabled them to situate these within a broader portfolio of experiences. Rather than leading to idealized best-practice narratives, this openness allowed participants to draw contrasts across different projects, including ambivalent or challenging situations, which ultimately broadened and enriched the analysis.

A further constraint relates to the geographic distribution of participants. The sample is concentrated in the Netherlands and Switzerland, with only one case from India. This uneven distribution constrains the generalizability of the findings beyond the European context and highlights the need for further research in diverse socio-economic and regulatory environments, including North and South America and wider Asia.

Moreover, the study does not systematically address the different urban, cultural, and economic contexts of the practices and projects examined. A further investigation could start here and, based on the patterns and process types identified, analyze the extent to which such contexts help to determine the characteristics and impact of specific transformation processes.

Overall, these limitations have likely influenced the results in several ways. Due to the small sample size, the identified workflows and process types should be considered indicative rather than exhaustive. The focus on Europe and the limited consideration of the Global South may have brought to the fore the regulatory and procedural aspects characteristic of Northern European practice, while contexts in which resource scarcity, informal construction, or different governance structures shape reuse differently are underrepresented. Similarly, by highlighting the voices of architects rather than engineers or contractors, there is a risk that the analysis prioritizes design-oriented perspectives and overlooks logistical and technical constraints that could alter the interpretation of reuse processes. Recognizing these blind spots is crucial to classifying the contribution of this study as context-specific rather than universally representative.

One key uncertainty is how different work routines—proactive, iterative, and reactive—ultimately affect the built outcome. Does the choice of approach influence design coherence, environmental performance, or user satisfaction? Similarly, while the study identifies early, midway, and late material integration as distinct process types, their efficiency in terms of cost, logistics, and sustainability remains unclear. Further research could assess which strategies lead to the most effective reuse practices. Contextual factors, such as regulatory constraints, market structures, and client expectations, also play a crucial role but were only touched upon in this study. How do different regional conditions shape reuse processes?

Finally, a tension emerges between reuse as a pragmatic, efficiency-driven process and reuse as a design opportunity. Should tools and frameworks prioritize workflow optimization, or should they actively support creative and aesthetic ambitions? Future studies could explore how architects can balance these competing demands while embedding reuse more seamlessly into their practice.

9 Conclusion

To address the initial question of how reused building components can be successfully integrated into architectural work processes and what the main characteristics and challenges of these working processes are, the study has undertaken a clear characterization of different process types. In this sense, the study identifies three basic process types for working with reused components, namely, early, midway, and late material integration, each requiring a specific work routine: proactive, iterative, and reactive. While these processes are different, they are not mutually exclusive and can be combined in certain cases. The study emphasizes the importance of flexibility, collaboration, and quick decision-making in all approaches. It highlights that architectural teams often combine different work streams within the same project, reflecting the complexity of reuse. By developing detailed process maps, the study provides a systematic overview of how to deal with reused components and gives insights into operational approaches and their potential for successful implementation. However, each approach presents several challenges that must be carefully considered during decision-making and implementation.

In a broader sense, this study emphasizes the potential of an inductive approach that strengthens the link between practice and research. By closely examining how architects adapt their workflows and decision-making processes in real projects, this approach generates insights that might otherwise be overlooked. Rather than imposing predefined frameworks, it enables the development of customized solutions and design tools that respond directly to practitioners’ needs. Strengthening this practice-based perspective could be essential to advancing circular design and embedding reuse as a viable and scalable architectural strategy.

References

• 1

  AddisB. (2006). Building with reclaimed components and materials: a design handbook for reuse and recycling. 1st edn. London: Routledge.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  AliA. K.BadinelliR.JonesJ. R. (2013). Re-Defining the architectural design process through building a decision-support framework for design with reuse. Int. J. Sustain. Policy Pract.8 (1), 1–18. 10.18848/2325-1166/cgp/v08i01/55385

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  BenachioG. L. F.FreitasM. do C. D.TavaresS. F. (2020). Circular economy in the construction industry: a systematic literature review. J. Cleaner Prod.260. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121046

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  BestK. (2015). Design management: managing design strategy, process and implementation. 2nd edn. London: Fairchild Books.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  BNA Royal Society for the Advancement of Architecture (2014). “NLingenieurs, T. Association of consultancy, management and engineering firms,” in Standard job description DNR-STB 2014.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  BrandS. (1995). How buildings learn: what happens after they’re built. English edition. Penguin Books.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Research Psychology3, 77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  BrowneX.LarsenO. P. (2024). “Prototyping new scenarios for fabricating structural components from reclaimed timber,” in Fabricate 2024: creating resourceful futures (London: UCL Press), 114–121. 10.2307/jj.11374766.18

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  BrüttingJ.De WolfC.FivetC. (2019a). The reuse of load-bearing components. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.225 (1), 012025. 10.1088/1755-1315/225/1/012025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  BrüttingJ.DesruelleJ.SenatoreG.FivetC. (2019b). Design of truss structures through reuse. Structures18, 128–137. 10.1016/j.istruc.2018.11.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  BrymanA. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  ChilesheN.RameezdeenR.HosseiniM. R.LehmannS. (2015). Barriers to implementing reverse logistics in South Australian construction organisations. Supply Chain Manag.20 (2), 179–204. 10.1108/SCM-10-2014-0325

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  ChilesheN.RameezdeenR.HosseiniM. R.LehmannS.UdeajaC. (2016). Analysis of reverse logistics implementation practices by South Australian construction organisations. Int. J. Operations Prod. Manag.36 (3), 332–356. 10.1108/IJOPM-01-2014-0024

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  CondottaM.ZattaE. (2021). Reuse of building elements in the architectural practice and the European regulatory context: inconsistencies and possible improvements. J. Clean. Prod.318, 128413. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128413

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  DarkeJ. (1979). The primary generator and the design process. Des. Stud.1 (1), 36–44. 10.1016/0142-694X(79)90027-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  De GregorioS. (2022). Reuse process for timber elements to optimise residual performances in subsequent life cycles. VITRUVIO - Int. J. Archit. Technol. Sustain.7 (2), 88–99. 10.4995/vitruvioijats.2022.18809

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  De WolfC.HoxhaE.FivetC. (2020). Comparison of environmental assessment methods when reusing building components: a case study. Sustain. Cities Soc.61, 102322. 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102322

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  Densley TingleyD.CooperS.CullenJ. (2017). Understanding and overcoming the barriers to structural steel reuse, a UK perspective. J. Clean. Prod.148, 642–652. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  DevènesJ.Bastien-MasseM.FivetC. (2024). Reusability assessment of reinforced concrete components prior to deconstruction from obsolete buildings. J. Build. Eng.84, 108584. 10.1016/j.jobe.2024.108584

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  DunantC. F.DrewniokM. P.SansomM.CorbeyS.AllwoodJ. M.CullenJ. M. (2017). Real and perceived barriers to steel reuse across the UK construction value chain. Resour. Conservation Recycl.126, 118–131. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.036

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  EEA (European Environment Agency) (2024). Addressing the environmental and climate footprint of buildings, EEA Report 09/2024. 10.2800/1800539

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  EmmittS. (2016). Design management. New York: Routledge.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  EPRS European Parliamentary Research Service (2024). Revision of the construction products regulation.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  FlickU.Von KardoffE.SteinkeI. (2004). A companion to qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  GhaffarS. H.BurmanM.BraimahN. (2020). Pathways to circular construction: an integrated management of construction and demolition waste for resource recovery. J. Clean. Prod.244, 118710. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118710

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  GhyootM.DevliegerL.BillietL.WarnierA. (2018). Déconstruction et réemploi: comment faire circuler les éléments de construction. Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  GorgolewskiM. (2017). Resource salvation: the architecture of reuse. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 10.1002/9781118928806

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  GorgolewskiM.MorettinL. (2009). The process of designing with reused building components. Lifecycle Des. Build. Syst. Mater.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  GorgolewskiM.StrakaV.EdmondsJ.Sergio-DzoutzidisC. (2008). Designing buildings using reclaimed steel components. J. Green Build.3 (3), 97–107. 10.3992/jgb.3.3.97

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  GrüterC.GordonM.MusterM.KastnerF.GrönquistP.FrangiA.et al (2023). Design for and from disassembly with timber elements: strategies based on two case studies from Switzerland. Front. Built Environ.9, 1307632. 10.3389/fbuil.2023.1307632

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  GurtnerN.StarovicovaB. (2023). Wiederverwendung in der schweizerischen Bauindustrie - Potentiale, Herausforderungen und Ansatzpunkte.

  • Google Scholar

• 32

  HelfferichC. (2011). Die Qualität qualitativer Daten, 4. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

  • Google Scholar

• 33

  HenninkM.HutterI.BaileyA. (2020). Qualitative research methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

  • Google Scholar

• 34

  HuM.MilnerD. (2020). Visualizing the research of embodied energy and environmental impact research in the building and construction field: a bibliometric analysis. Dev. Built Environ.3, 100010. 10.1016/J.DIBE.2020.100010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  HuuhkaS. (2018). Tectonic use of reclaimed timber design principles for turning scrap into architecture. Archit. Res. Finl.2 (1).

  • Google Scholar

• 36

  HuuhkaS.HakanenJ. H. (2011). Potential and barriers for reusing load-bearing Building Components in Finland. Available online at: www.tut.fi/ark.

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  KawaG.GalleW.De TemmermanN. (2022). Developing a ‘Design with Reuse’ guide. Case study analysis from a design procedural perspective for the integration of reclaimed wood in façade architecture. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.1122 (1), 012032. 10.1088/1755-1315/1122/1/012032

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  KirchherrJ.ReikeD.HekkertM. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. SSRN Electron. J.10.2139/ssrn.3037579

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  KnothK.FufaS. M.SeilskjærE. (2022). Barriers, success factors, and perspectives for the reuse of construction products in Norway. J. Clean. Prod.337, 130494. 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2022.130494

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  KozminskaU. (2019). Circular design: reused materials and the future reuse of building elements in architecture. Process, challenges and case studies. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.225 (1), 012033. 10.1088/1755-1315/225/1/012033

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  KröllK.SchröderT.BekkeringJ.FivetC. (2025). “Unraveling the architectural design process: a comprehensive study of challenges in designing with reused components,” in Structures and Architecture (London: CRC Press), 807–815. 10.1201/9781003658641-97

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  KruseJ.SchmiederC. (2014). Qualitative Interviewforschung: ein integrativer Ansatz. Weinheim Basel: Beltz Verlag.

  • Google Scholar

• 43

  LambecB.Bastien-MasseM.FivetC. (2024). How gained experience influences perceived levers and barriers of reuse practices: learning from north Americans. Sustainability16 (24), 10999. 10.3390/su162410999

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  NiuY.RasiK.HughesM.HalmeM.FinkG. (2021). Prolonging life cycles of construction materials and combating climate change by cascading: the case of reusing timber in Finland. Resour. Conservation Recycl.170, 105555. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105555

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  PongiglioneM.CalderiniC. (2014). Material savings through structural steel reuse: a case study in Genoa. Resour. Conservation Recycl.86, 87–92. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.02.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  PronkA.BrancartS.SandersF. (2022). Reusing Timber formwork in building construction: testing, redesign, and socio‐economic reflection. Urban Plan.7 (2), 81–96. 10.17645/up.v7i2.5117

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  RakhshanK.MorelJ. C.AlakaH.CharefR. (2020). Components reuse in the building sector – a systematic review. Waste Manage. Res.38 (4), 347–370. 10.1177/0734242X20910463

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  RiuttalaM.HaralaL.Aarikka-StenroosL.HuuhkaS. (2024). How building component reuse creates economic value – identifying value capture determinants from a case study. J. Clean. Prod.443, 141112. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141112

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  RoseC. M.StegemannJ. A. (2018). From waste management to component management in the construction industry. Sustain. Switz.10 (1), 229. 10.3390/su10010229

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  RoyR. (1993). Case studies of creativity in innovative product development. Des. Stud.14 (4), 423–443. 10.1016/0142-694X(93)80016-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  SaldañaJ.OmastaM. (2016). Qualitative research: analyzing life. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

  • Google Scholar

• 52

  SIA (Schweizerischer Ingenieur- und Architektenverein) (2014). SIA 112 Modell Bauplanung.

  • Google Scholar

• 53

  SinclairD.RIBA (Royal Institute for British Architects) (2014). Design management. London: RIBA Publishing.

  • Google Scholar

• 54

  StrickerE.BrandiG.SondereggerA.AngstM.BuserB.MassmünsterM. (2021). Bauteile wiederverwenden - ein Kompendium zum zirkulären Bauen.

  • Google Scholar

• 55

  StrickerE.AngstM.BrandiG.BuserB.SondereggerA. (2023). Case Study K.118 - the reuse of building components in winterthur, Switzerland. J. Phys. Conf. Ser.2600 (19), 192008. 10.1088/1742-6596/2600/19/192008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  TomczakA.HaakonsenS. M.ŁuczkowskiM. (2023). Matching algorithms to assist in designing with reclaimed building elements. Environ. Res. Infrastructure Sustain.3 (3), 035005. 10.1088/2634-4505/acf341

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  TrainorL. R.BundonA. (2021). Developing the craft: reflexive accounts of doing reflexive thematic analysis. Qual. Res. Sport, Exerc. Health13 (5), 705–726. 10.1080/2159676X.2020.1840423

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  YanevaA. (2005). Scaling up and Down: extraction trials in architectural design. Soc. Stud. Sci.35 (6), 867–894. 10.1177/0306312705053053

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  ZhouK.ChenH. M.WangY.LamD.AjayebiA.HopkinsonP. (2020). Developing advanced techniques to reclaim existing end of service life (EoSL) bricks – an assessment of reuse technical viability. Dev. Built Environ.2, 100006. 10.1016/J.DIBE.2020.100006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar