Section 1: The Circular Imperative: Redefining Value in Singapore’s Built Environment

In a nation defined by its meticulous planning and resourcefulness, the traditional economic model of ‘take-make-consume-dispose’ presents a fundamental contradiction to Singapore’s long-term vision.1 The construction sector, a cornerstone of the nation’s development, is globally the largest consumer of raw materials and a primary generator of waste and emissions.3 

In Singapore, construction and demolition waste constitutes one of the largest waste streams, even with high recycling rates for certain materials.5 This linear trajectory, where finite resources are extracted, used once, and then discarded, is unsustainable for a land- and resource-constrained city-state.

The necessary paradigm shift is towards a Circular Economy (CE), a restorative and regenerative framework that aims to decouple economic growth from the consumption of finite resources.3 

Within the built environment, this means transforming buildings from disposable products into long-term, high-value assets. Instead of demolishing structures and relegating their components to landfill, the circular model seeks to close material loops through systematic reuse, repair, refurbishment, and high-value recycling.1 

This approach not only mitigates environmental impact but also unlocks significant economic opportunities and enhances resource security.6

At the heart of this transformation lie two complementary, yet distinct, design philosophies: Design for Adaptability (DfA) and Design for Demountability (DfD).

 

Defining DfD and DfA

 

Design for Adaptability (DfA) is an approach that prioritizes flexibility and evolution throughout a building’s operational life.7 It is the practice of designing and constructing a building so it can be easily maintained, modified, and repurposed for different uses without requiring extensive, costly, and wasteful renovations.1 

DfA addresses the reality that a building’s function often becomes obsolete long before its structure fails.10 By incorporating principles like modular layouts, open-plan spaces, and multi-functional areas, DfA future-proofs the building

in-situ, allowing it to evolve with changing market demands, technological advancements, and societal needs.7

Design for Demountability (DfD), also known as Design for Deconstruction or Disassembly, is the intentional design of a building to facilitate its future dismantlement, in part or in whole.10 The primary goal of DfD is the systematic recovery of systems, components, and materials at their highest possible value for reuse, remanufacturing, or recycling.1 

This philosophy reconceptualizes a building not as a final product destined for demolition, but as a temporary assembly of valuable components—a “material bank” or a future “resource pool” that can be drawn upon for subsequent construction projects.10

 

The Synergy and Tension between DfA and DfD

 

DfA and DfD are deeply interconnected. DfA is considered a critical enabler for a suite of circular strategies, including DfD.13 A building designed for adaptability is inherently less likely to face premature demolition due to functional or stylistic obsolescence, which is a common fate for many structures.10 

However, a subtle tension exists between the two concepts. DfA can prioritize extreme durability and robust systems to ensure longevity, which might involve permanent, monolithic construction. Conversely, DfD prioritizes the ease of separation, favoring mechanical, reversible connections.10

The optimal approach lies in achieving “building flexibility”—a strategic balance between durability and adaptability.10 This involves a hierarchical understanding of circularity in the built environment. The most sustainable and economically sound action is to prolong a building’s useful life through adaptability, thus avoiding the end-of-life scenario altogether.11 

The reasons for building demolition are multifaceted, spanning economic, functional, social, and regulatory pressures far more often than simple structural decay.10 DfA directly confronts these drivers of obsolescence by embedding the capacity for change into the building’s DNA.7 Therefore, DfA acts as the first and most crucial line of defense against the wrecking ball.

DfD serves as the essential safety net. It ensures that when a building’s life inevitably concludes, or when major reconfigurations are necessary, the immense embodied energy, carbon, and material value invested in its components are not lost to landfill but are instead captured and reintroduced into the economic cycle.10 

This reframes the design challenge: the primary goal is to design for longevity and relevance first, and for valuable, efficient disassembly second. This hierarchy is paramount for prioritizing design efforts and investments to achieve the greatest circular impact.

 

Section 2: The Structural Engineer’s Toolkit: Core Principles of DfD and DfA

 

Transitioning from linear to circular building design requires a fundamental shift in how structural systems are conceived and detailed. The principles of DfD and DfA, while rooted in sustainability, are also deeply intertwined with efficiency, quality, and safety. 

Many of these concepts are borrowed and adapted from advanced manufacturing methodologies, offering a proven roadmap for implementation.3

A critical realization for Singapore’s built environment sector is that the government-led push for Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) to boost productivity is simultaneously laying the groundwork for circularity. DfMA’s core tenets—modularity, standardization, off-site production, and simplified connections—are the very same principles that enable a building to be easily disassembled and its components reused.12 

The primary driver for DfMA is upfront efficiency and cost savings 14, while for DfD it is end-of-life value recovery.10 As Singapore advances towards its goal of 70% DfMA adoption 19, it is inadvertently creating a building stock that is structurally “demountable-ready.” The challenge, therefore, is not to introduce a foreign construction methodology, but to leverage this existing transformation by adding the crucial layers of information management and end-of-life planning.

 

Layering (The Shearing Layers Principle)

 

This principle is foundational to adaptability. It recognizes that a building is not a monolithic entity but a composite of layers, each with a different lifespan.11 A typical building can be deconstructed into:

• Structure: The load-bearing frame and foundations (50+ year lifespan).
• Skin: The exterior cladding and envelope (20-year lifespan).
• Services: Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) systems (7-15 year lifespan).
• Space Plan: Interior partitions, ceilings, and finishes (3-10 year lifespan).

By designing these layers to be physically independent and accessible, shorter-lifespan components like MEP systems or interior walls can be upgraded, repaired, or reconfigured with minimal disruption to the long-lifespan structure. This “disentanglement” is critical for reducing the cost, time, and waste associated with renovations, thereby extending the building’s overall functional life.15

 

Modularity and Standardization

 

Modularity involves designing a system using smaller, independent, and often interchangeable parts or modules.7 From a structural perspective, this translates to using prefabricated components that can be created, replaced, or altered without jeopardizing the integrity of the entire structure.12 

This approach fosters scalability and flexibility, drastically reducing assembly time and future modification costs.12

Standardization is the essential partner to modularity. Using standardized dimensions for components, standardized connection points, and Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) parts simplifies the entire building lifecycle.10 

It streamlines procurement, accelerates assembly, and makes future repairs or replacements straightforward, as replacement parts are readily available and do not require custom fabrication.14

 

Connection Design: The Reversible Joint

 

The design of connections is arguably the most critical element for a structural engineer in achieving demountability.20 The governing principle is to create joints that are strong and robust in service but can be easily and non-destructively “undone” at the end of their service life.11

• Prioritize Mechanical Fasteners: The use of bolts, screws, and other mechanical connectors is paramount. These fasteners are inherently reversible.20
• Avoid Irreversible Bonding: Adhesives, grouts, welds, and chemical anchors create permanent bonds that damage components upon removal, making reuse impossible and recycling difficult.10
• Simplify and Standardize: A design should aim to use a minimum number of connections and a minimum number of different types of connections. This simplifies both the initial assembly and the future disassembly process, reducing complexity and the potential for error.10
• Incorporate Mistake-Proofing (Poka-Yoke): Borrowing from manufacturing, connections can be designed to be self-aligning and self-locating, making them impossible to install incorrectly. This can be achieved through the use of asymmetrical features, guide pins, or unique geometries that ensure components fit together in only one orientation.12 This not only improves on-site assembly speed and safety but also provides clear clues for the disassembly sequence in the future.

 

Material Selection for Circularity

 

The choice of materials directly impacts a building’s potential for circularity. The focus should be on materials that are not only structurally efficient but also easy to identify, separate, and recover at high value.4

• Avoid Composite Materials: Materials that permanently bond dissimilar substances (e.g., certain insulated panels or fiber-reinforced polymers) should be used with caution. Their composite nature makes it difficult, energy-intensive, or impossible to separate the constituent materials for recycling.10
• Prioritize Purity and Health: Selecting pure, homogenous, and non-toxic materials is crucial. This simplifies the recycling process, as there are no contaminants to remove. It also avoids future liabilities associated with hazardous materials, which can render components unusable and require costly abatement procedures during renovation or demolition.15

 

Information Management: The Building as a Living Document

 

A building designed for demountability is incomplete without a comprehensive record of its construction. Accessible and detailed information is the key that unlocks the value of its components in the future.15 This goes beyond traditional as-built drawings and must include:

• A detailed inventory of all materials and components.
• Specifications, including material grades, strengths, and manufacturer details.
• A clear deconstruction plan outlining the sequence of disassembly and the tools required.17

This information transforms the building from a black box into a transparent asset. When a future team approaches the building for renovation or deconstruction, they are equipped with a roadmap that makes the process faster, safer, and more economically viable.15 

This principle forms the basis for digital tools like Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Material Passports, which are essential for implementing DfD at scale.

 

Section 3: Materialising the Vision: A Structural Analysis of DfD/DfA Applications

 

Applying the core principles of DfD and DfA requires a material-specific approach, as the inherent properties and common construction practices for steel, timber, and concrete present unique challenges and opportunities. 

For structural engineers in Singapore, mastering these applications is key to translating circular theory into built reality.

 

3.1 Steel Structures: The Inherently Circular Material

 

Structural steel is exceptionally well-suited for DfD and the circular economy. Its primary advantages are its high durability, flexibility in design, and the fact that it is 100% recyclable, capable of being melted down and reformed into new high-quality products without any degradation of its properties.17

 

Connection Design: The Critical Detail

 

The key to unlocking steel’s demountability lies in its connections.20

• Bolted Connections: These are the cornerstone of demountable steel design. Using bolts to connect beams, columns, and bracing elements allows for straightforward disassembly by simply unfastening the connection.21 This preserves the structural members in their entirety, making them available for direct reuse in new structures. The design of these connections must be deliberate, using standardized bolt sizes and grades where possible to simplify procurement and avoid on-site errors.23 Careful consideration of bolt spacing, edge distances, and access for tightening and future loosening is essential for both structural integrity and reversibility.24
• Welded Connections: On-site welding should be minimized or avoided entirely in a DfD approach. Welds create permanent, monolithic joints that require members to be cut during demolition, destroying the potential for component reuse and relegating the steel to recycling.20 While factory-welded sub-assemblies are common and efficient, they should be designed to connect to the main frame on-site using bolted connections.21

 

Demountable Composite Floors

 

One of the most significant challenges in steel-framed buildings is the composite floor system, where a concrete slab is bonded to steel beams via welded shear studs to achieve greater strength and stiffness. This permanent bond makes separation nearly impossible. Solutions to this challenge are critical for circularity:

• Demountable Shear Connectors: Innovations include replacing welded studs with mechanical alternatives, such as high-strength bolts that pass through the beam’s top flange and are secured from below, or proprietary couplers that can be disconnected.22 These systems allow the concrete slab to be lifted off the beams after the connectors are released.
• Alternative Floor Systems: A simpler approach is to design non-composite systems where the floor deck rests on the steel beams rather than being bonded to them. This can be achieved with precast concrete hollow-core slabs or, increasingly, mass timber panels like Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT).22 These panels can be mechanically fixed to the beams and easily removed, completely separating the lifecycles of the floor and the steel frame.

 

Efficient Design Practices

 

Beyond connections, efficient material use is a core principle of sustainable design. Structural engineers should challenge briefs to avoid over-specification, such as designing for undefined future uses that may never materialize.22 

Using higher-strength steel grades (e.g., S460) for columns can reduce the total tonnage of steel required. Furthermore, designing members with structural utilisation factors as close to 1.0 as safely possible ensures that material is not wasted through excessive over-design.22

 

3.2 Mass Timber Structures: The Renewable and Prefab-Friendly Option

 

Mass timber construction, particularly with engineered wood products like CLT and glulam, has a natural synergy with DfMA and, by extension, DfD.18 Components are precision-manufactured in a factory to tight tolerances and transported to site for rapid, clean, and quiet assembly. This process is inherently reversible.

 

Reversible Connection Systems

 

The field of timber connections is a hotbed of innovation, with a focus on systems that are both strong and demountable.

• Proprietary Mechanical Fasteners: A growing market of specialized connectors, often made from steel or aluminum, is designed specifically for mass timber. These systems, combined with high-performance self-tapping screws, provide robust, high-capacity connections that can be easily unscrewed and disassembled.27
• Advanced Carpentry Joints: The precision of modern Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machining has revived and reinvented traditional carpentry. Complex, interlocking joints like dovetails or castellated joints can be fabricated with extreme accuracy. These joints can transfer significant loads through their geometry alone, requiring only a few mechanical fasteners to secure them in place, which greatly simplifies disassembly.27
• Design Considerations and Challenges: A key challenge identified in research is the impact of moisture. Timber naturally swells and shrinks with changes in humidity. Tight-fitting connections can become jammed over time, making disassembly difficult or damaging.27 Therefore, connection design must allow for these tolerances. Additionally, the fire performance of connections is critical to ensure the structural integrity of the members is not compromised, preserving their viability for reuse.28

 

Lifecycle and Cascading Use

 

Timber offers a unique lifecycle advantage as a renewable resource that sequesters carbon during its growth. At the end of a building’s life, timber components can be directly reused in new structures. If they cannot be reused whole, they can be “cascaded”—re-milled into smaller components, chipped for board products, or ultimately used as biomass for energy recovery, ensuring the material remains in a useful cycle for as long as possible.29

 

3.3 Precast Concrete Structures: From Monolithic to Modular

 

Traditionally, precast concrete has been viewed as a method for rapid construction, but not necessarily for deconstruction. The common practice of using cast-in-situ concrete or high-strength grout to form “wet” joints creates a monolithic structure that is functionally identical to cast-in-place concrete and just as difficult to disassemble without destructive demolition.31

 

The Shift to Demountable Systems

 

The key to unlocking the circular potential of precast concrete is to shift from wet joints to dry, mechanical connections.32 This transforms the building from a single, solid mass into an assembly of discrete, reusable components.

• Bolted Connections: Systems using bolted connections are becoming more prevalent. For example, proprietary column shoes can be cast into the base of a precast column and then bolted to anchor bolts cast into the foundation or slab below. Beams can be connected to columns using steel corbels and bolted plates. These connections are fully reversible.33
• Innovative Joint Design: Research is ongoing into novel disassembly methods. One approach involves using very weak, sacrificial mortar in joints that can be easily broken or removed with hydro-demolition systems without damaging the precast elements themselves.31 Another method explores using systems of flat jacks inserted into joints to carefully push elements apart.31

 

Proven Viability and Benefits

 

The concept of reusable precast concrete is not merely theoretical. Pilot projects and real-world examples have demonstrated its feasibility and benefits. A pilot project in Finland involving the assembly, disassembly, and reassembly of a precast concrete frame found the process to be realistic and economical, yielding approximately 35% cost savings and 50% lower emissions compared to building with new components.33 

In a notable case, four high school football stadiums were created by disassembling a large stadium originally built for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, a feat only possible because it was constructed from precast concrete components.34 Studies have shown that reusing an entire precast building can reduce its associated CO2 emissions by as much as 80% compared to demolition and new construction.31

 

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of DfD/DfA Suitability for Structural Materials

 

Feature	Steel Structures	Mass Timber Structures	Precast Concrete Structures
Reusability Potential	Component & Material: High potential for direct reuse of members. 100% recyclable into new steel without quality loss.17	Component & Material: High potential for direct reuse. Can be “cascaded” into lower-value products. Renewable resource.29	Component: High potential for direct reuse of elements (slabs, columns). Material can be downcycled into aggregate.31
Connection Reversibility	High: Standard practice uses bolted connections, which are inherently reversible. Site welding is the main inhibitor.20	High: Relies on mechanical fasteners and innovative carpentry joints designed for disassembly. A key area of R&D.27	Low to High: Traditionally low due to “wet” grouted joints. High potential with “dry” mechanical connections and innovative joint design.32
Embodied Carbon (Initial)	High: Energy-intensive production process, though this is reduced by high recycled content in EAF production.22	Low to Negative: Sequesters carbon during growth. Lower manufacturing energy than steel or concrete.18	High: Cement production is a major source of global CO2 emissions. Can be reduced with cement-replacement materials.4
Key Enablers	Established supply chain. High strength-to-weight ratio. Standardized profiles and connections.23	Synergy with DfMA/prefabrication. Lightweight, enabling faster assembly and smaller foundations.18	Strong alignment with Singapore’s existing prefabrication ecosystem and DfMA push. High durability and fire resistance.35
Primary Hurdles	Demountable composite floor systems. Fire protection coatings can complicate reuse. Potential for corrosion if not protected.22	Moisture sensitivity (swelling/shrinking) affecting connections. Durability and fire performance of connections for reuse.27	Legacy of monolithic “wet” joint design. Weight of components impacts logistics. Lack of market for salvaged elements.31

 

Section 4: The Singapore Context: Policy, Incentives, and Industry Transformation

 

The successful adoption of DfD and DfA in Singapore is not contingent on a single new regulation but rather on the strategic alignment of existing, powerful policy drivers. The nation’s regulatory bodies and industry transformation initiatives have created a unique ecosystem that, while not always explicitly targeting circularity, provides a fertile ground for these principles to flourish. 

The government’s approach can be characterized as creating a strong “pull” for DfD and DfA by aligning goals for productivity, digitalization, and sustainability, rather than a direct “push” through mandates.

This convergence of policy is a significant advantage. The Built Environment Industry Transformation Map (ITM) drives the adoption of DfMA for productivity, which builds the industry’s technical capacity for modular construction. Simultaneously, the ITM’s push for Integrated Digital Delivery (IDD) establishes the digital infrastructure necessary for robust information management, a cornerstone of DfD. 

Layered on top, the BCA Green Mark scheme’s focus on Whole Life Carbon creates a clear business case for reducing embodied carbon through reuse, while the URA’s master planning encourages the adaptive reuse of land and buildings. When these powerful forces are combined, DfD and DfA emerge as the most logical and effective strategy to satisfy all objectives simultaneously. 

A building designed for demountability and adaptability inherently uses DfMA and IDD, boasts a lower whole-life carbon footprint, and is intrinsically adaptable to future needs. The opportunity for Singapore lies in making this connection explicit for the industry.

 

4.1 Navigating the Regulatory Framework

 

BCA Green Mark 2021

 

Singapore’s primary green building rating tool, the BCA Green Mark scheme, has evolved significantly since its inception in 2005.37 The latest iteration, Green Mark 2021 (GM: 2021), places a much stronger emphasis on holistic sustainability outcomes that indirectly but powerfully support DfD and DfA.38

• Whole Life Carbon (WLC): A key feature of GM: 2021 is the introduction of criteria for reducing embodied carbon across a building’s entire lifecycle.38 Embodied carbon, the emissions associated with material extraction, manufacturing, and construction, is a significant part of a building’s total carbon footprint.41 The most effective strategies to reduce embodied carbon are to extend the life of existing buildings (adaptive reuse) and to reuse salvaged components (demountability), thereby avoiding the carbon-intensive production of new materials.41 This creates a direct incentive under the Green Mark scheme for developers and designers to consider DfA and DfD.
• Design for Maintainability (DfM): GM: 2021 includes a dedicated section on Design for Maintainability, which is now a core focus of the Built Environment ITM.19 The principles outlined in the DfM technical guide—such as ensuring access for maintenance and enabling simple maintenance through standardization and prefabricated components—have a direct and significant overlap with the principles of DfA and DfD.43 An accessible and easily maintained building is also one that is easier to adapt and eventually disassemble.

 

URA Master Plan

 

The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) guides Singapore’s physical development through its long-term strategic plans. The latest plans signal a clear direction towards a more sustainable and adaptable built environment.

• Sustainable and Green Design: The URA Master Plan emphasizes sustainable growth, the revitalization of brownfield sites (such as the former Sembawang Shipyard), and the promotion of green, sustainable urban design.45 This planning philosophy inherently creates demand for adaptive reuse projects over demolition and new builds, aligning with DfA principles.
• Circular Economy Focus: The government’s broader push for a circular economy, as outlined in Singapore’s Zero Waste Masterplan, provides the overarching policy context.5 This national agenda signals to the industry that resource efficiency and waste reduction are long-term priorities, encouraging the adoption of circular practices like DfD. The URA Master Plan 2025 further reinforces this by highlighting the need for workers to upskill in circular economy principles.45

 

4.2 The Built Environment Industry Transformation Map (ITM)

 

The BE ITM is the government’s core strategy to transform the construction and facilities management sectors. Its key thrusts are creating a virtuous cycle where DfD and DfA become logical outcomes of pursuing industry-wide goals.19

• Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA): The ITM sets an ambitious target of 70% DfMA adoption for all new developments by GFA by 2025.19 As previously discussed, the principles of DfMA—prefabrication, modularity, and simplified assembly—are the technical prerequisites for DfD. By driving DfMA for productivity gains, the ITM is building the industry’s capacity and supply chain for component-based construction that is inherently more demountable.
• Integrated Digital Delivery (IDD): The ITM’s second key thrust is IDD, which champions the use of collaborative digital platforms like Building Information Modeling (BIM) throughout the project lifecycle.47 The target is 70% IDD adoption for new developments by 2025.19 IDD provides the essential information management backbone required for effective DfD, enabling the creation of digital twins and material passports that store critical data for future disassembly and reuse.

 

4.3 Lessons from Local Projects: A Foundation of Prefabrication

 

Singapore’s journey with prefabrication provides a unique and powerful foundation for advancing DfD and DfA. Unlike many other countries, the local industry has decades of experience in off-site manufacturing and on-site assembly, largely driven by the Housing & Development Board (HDB) since the 1980s.36

• HDB’s Pioneering Role: The HDB has systematically industrialized public housing construction, with precast components now making up about 70% of the structural concrete in its projects.36 This long history has built deep local expertise in the logistics, handling, and connection of prefabricated elements.
• Modular Construction Success: More recent pioneering projects using Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction (PPVC), such as the Crowne Plaza Hotel Extension and the NTU North Hill Residence Hall, have demonstrated significant time and manpower savings.48 While these projects were primarily driven by productivity goals, they have provided invaluable real-world lessons on the challenges of modular assembly, such as connection tolerances and lifting logistics, which are directly relevant to designing for disassembly.48 The industry can now evolve its focus from simply “assembling” to “assembling for future
  dis-assembling.”
• Modular Thinking in Design: Architectural landmarks like The Interlace, with its innovative stacking of apartment blocks, showcase a departure from monolithic thinking towards a more modular and component-based design philosophy, even if not strictly demountable.49 These projects expand the industry’s imagination and comfort level with non-traditional structural forms.

 

Section 5: Quantifying the Gains: The Economic and Environmental Business Case

 

For widespread adoption, Design for Demountability and Adaptability must move beyond environmental ideals and present a compelling business case. While there can be higher upfront investment, a comprehensive analysis of an asset’s entire life reveals significant long-term economic and environmental returns.7 

Shifting the financial evaluation from a narrow focus on initial capital expenditure to a holistic Lifecycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) is the first critical step.50

 

5.1 The Economic Equation: Lifecycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)

 

LCCA is an economic evaluation method that accounts for the total cost of owning an asset over its entire service life. This includes initial construction costs, ongoing operational and maintenance costs, costs of renovation or “churn,” and end-of-life costs, which can either be a liability (demolition and disposal fees) or an asset (salvage value).51

• Overcoming the Upfront Cost Hurdle: DfD/A may require a higher initial investment due to more sophisticated connection systems, the use of higher-grade materials to ensure reusability, or more detailed design work.7 However, this initial premium is often offset by substantial savings later in the building’s life.
• Reduced Renovation and Maintenance Costs: Because DfA principles like layering and accessibility make it easier to access and replace building systems, the cost of renovations and major maintenance is significantly reduced.15 If utilities are not entangled with the structure, they can be upgraded without costly structural interventions.
• Positive End-of-Life Value: A conventional building represents a significant financial liability at its end-of-life, incurring costs for demolition, transport, and landfill tipping fees.17 A demountable building, in contrast, becomes a source of revenue. Its components can be sold into a growing market for salvaged materials, and the avoided disposal fees represent a direct cost saving.17 Demountable buildings are designed to retain their value, as the components are non-corrosive and easily dismantled.53
• Demonstrated Return on Investment (ROI): Pilot projects and case studies are beginning to provide hard data on this long-term value. A study for the city of Copenhagen analyzing an adaptable housing concept calculated a monetary ROI of 38.83% over two building lifecycles compared to a business-as-usual approach.50 A Finnish pilot project on a demountable precast concrete frame demonstrated a 35% cost saving upon reuse.33 These figures illustrate that designing for the long term yields tangible financial rewards.

 

5.2 The Carbon Equation: Lifecycle Assessment (LCA)

 

A Lifecycle Assessment provides the environmental parallel to an LCCA, quantifying the total environmental impact of a building from cradle to grave, with a particular focus on greenhouse gas emissions (carbon footprint).54

• The Embodied Carbon Challenge: The building sector is responsible for approximately 38% of global energy-related CO2 emissions.55 A significant portion of this is “embodied carbon”—the emissions generated from manufacturing materials like cement and steel, transporting them to site, and constructing the building.56
• The Power of Reuse: The single most effective strategy to combat embodied carbon is to maximize the use of existing assets. Adaptive reuse of an existing building, which avoids demolition and new construction, can reduce embodied carbon emissions by 40% to 68% compared to an equivalent new build.41
• DfD’s Compounding Carbon Savings: DfD provides the next best alternative. When a building is disassembled and its components are reused, the embodied carbon invested in those components is preserved and carried into the next building’s life, avoiding the emissions of manufacturing new ones. The savings are substantial and compound over time.

• An LCA study on a demountable steel floor system found that reusing the components just twice (representing a 66% reuse rate across the building stock) reduces the system’s carbon footprint by 63% compared to a conventional, disposable design.54
• Analysis from the European CIRCuIT project showed that while a DfD/A building might have a similar initial embodied carbon footprint to a conventional one, it realizes a 37% carbon saving after its first redevelopment cycle and a 50% saving after its second, because it avoids the massive carbon expenditure of manufacturing new structural components.50

 

Table 2: Lifecycle Economic & Carbon Impact: DfD/A vs. Business-as-Usual (BAU)

 

This table provides a simplified model to illustrate the long-term value proposition of DfD/A over a 60-year building life, incorporating one major renovation cycle. The BAU building assumes demolition at end-of-life, while the DfD/A building assumes disassembly and component reuse/resale.

 

Metric	BAU Building (Illustrative)	DfD/A Building (Illustrative)	Rationale & Sources
Initial Construction Cost	S$100.0 M	S$105.0 M (+5%)	Higher initial cost for DfD/A due to advanced connections and design.7
Initial Embodied Carbon	10,000 tCO2e	10,200 tCO2e (+2%)	Slightly higher initial carbon due to potentially more material in connections.50
Operating Costs (Years 1-30)	S$30.0 M	S$28.5 M (-5%)	DfA can lead to better performance and easier maintenance, reducing operational costs.52
Renovation Cost (Year 30)	S$25.0 M	S$15.0 M (-40%)	Major savings from accessible systems and non-destructive modifications.15
Renovation Embodied Carbon	5,000 tCO2e	1,500 tCO2e (-70%)	BAU requires new materials. DfD/A reconfigures existing components, minimizing new material carbon.50
Operating Costs (Years 31-60)	S$30.0 M	S$28.5 M (-5%)	Continued operational efficiency benefits.
End-of-Life Value (Year 60)	-S$5.0 M (Demolition Cost)	+S$10.0 M (Salvage Value)	BAU incurs disposal costs. DfD/A generates revenue from salvaged materials.17
Total Lifecycle Cost	S$190.0 M	S$177.0 M	7% Lower Lifecycle Cost
Total Lifecycle Carbon	15,000 tCO2e	11,700 tCO2e	22% Lower Lifecycle Carbon

Note: Figures are illustrative to demonstrate the principles of LCCA and LCA. Actual percentages will vary based on project specifics.

This quantitative model makes the abstract benefits of DfD/A tangible. It clearly shows the “J-curve” of circular investment: a modest upfront premium is paid back multiple times over through significantly lower renovation costs and the transformation of end-of-life liability into a financial asset. For carbon, it demonstrates how DfD/A avoids the massive “second wave” of embodied carbon emissions associated with a mid-life renovation, leading to a dramatically lower overall carbon footprint. This provides a powerful, data-driven argument for developers, investors, and policymakers.

 

Section 6: Overcoming Hurdles: Challenges and Opportunities on the Ground

 

Despite the compelling long-term benefits, the widespread adoption of DfD and DfA faces significant real-world barriers. These challenges are not insurmountable; rather, they represent clear opportunities for innovation, new business creation, and policy leadership that can accelerate the transition to a circular built environment in Singapore and beyond.

 

Primary Barriers

 

• Economic and Market Hurdles: The most frequently cited barrier is the perception of higher upfront costs.7 In a highly speculative property market, where assets are often developed for quick sale rather than long-term ownership, the initial capital expenditure often outweighs the promise of future lifecycle savings. The original developer may not be the one to bear the costs of renovation or demolition, and therefore has little financial incentive to invest in long-term adaptability or demountability.11
• Technical and Logistical Gaps: The ecosystem for circular construction is still maturing. There is a lack of readily available, standardized demountable components and systems, which can make specification and procurement challenging.58 The industry also faces a skills gap in the techniques of careful deconstruction, material sorting, quality assurance, and the complex “reverse logistics” required to get salvaged materials from a deconstruction site to a new construction site.58 Furthermore, processes for re-certifying the structural integrity and performance of used components are not yet well-established.59
• Regulatory and Legislative Inertia: Existing building codes and regulations were developed for a linear model of construction. They may not adequately support or, in some cases, may even inadvertently hinder the use of innovative demountable systems or salvaged materials.7 For example, compliance with stringent regulations for factors like fire class and structural loads can be more complex to demonstrate with reused components, posing a challenge that must be addressed in the early design stages.50
• Cultural and Educational Deficits: The construction industry is traditionally conservative and resistant to change.59 There is a significant lack of awareness and education about DfD and DfA principles across the entire value chain—from clients and developers who may be skeptical of the need for adaptability, to designers unfamiliar with the detailing, to contractors who lack the training for disassembly.3

 

Framing Challenges as Opportunities

 

Each of these barriers presents a corresponding opportunity for growth and innovation.

• New Circular Business Models: The need for a functioning market for secondary materials creates fertile ground for new enterprises. This includes the establishment of material banks or warehouses for salvaged components, component leasing services where manufacturers retain ownership and offer their products-as-a-service (e.g., facade or lighting systems), and the growth of specialized deconstruction firms that can offer their expertise as a value-added service.2 The economic benefits of deconstruction, such as revenue from salvaged materials and avoided disposal fees, can stimulate the creation of this entirely new market segment.58
• Innovation in Manufacturing: The demand for demountable systems will spur manufacturers to innovate. This will lead to the development of new, more efficient reversible connection technologies, smarter modular systems, and products designed explicitly for easy maintenance, upgrade, and disassembly.26 This creates a competitive advantage for forward-thinking product manufacturers.
• Green Job Creation: Deconstruction is inherently more labor-intensive than mechanical demolition, which relies heavily on machinery.58 This creates a significant opportunity for job creation, particularly for skilled and semi-skilled workers trained in careful dismantling, material identification, and repair. This can also provide pathways for training and upskilling the workforce, enhancing social value.58
• Policy and Leadership: The current gaps in the regulatory framework offer a chance for Singapore’s authorities, such as the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) and the URA, to demonstrate regional leadership. By developing performance-based codes that can accommodate salvaged materials, creating clear pathways for the certification of reused components, and introducing explicit incentives for circular design, Singapore can create a best-in-class regulatory environment that fosters innovation while ensuring safety and quality.

 

Section 7: The Digital Future: Accelerating DfD and DfA with Technology

 

Implementing DfD and DfA at scale is a complex undertaking that requires meticulous planning, precise execution, and, most importantly, flawless information management. Digital technologies are no longer just helpful tools; they are essential enablers for making the circular economy in construction a practical reality.

 

7.1 Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Material Passports

 

BIM has already been identified as a key pillar of Singapore’s Built Environment Industry Transformation Map (ITM) for its ability to improve design coordination and productivity.47 Its true potential, however, lies in its capacity to serve as the information backbone for a circular economy.

• BIM for Deconstruction (BIMfD): This is the practice of using BIM not just for design and construction, but for embedding deconstruction intelligence into the model from the very beginning.60 A BIMfD model acts as a comprehensive information repository, containing data on all materials and components.60 It can be used to:

• Simulate Disassembly: Teams can visualize and simulate the entire deconstruction sequence, identifying potential challenges and optimizing the process for safety and efficiency before ever setting foot on site.60
• Analyze Deconstructability: Different design options can be assessed for their ease of disassembly, allowing designers to make informed choices that improve the building’s end-of-life performance.60
• Integrate Lifecycle Data: Information on cost, time, and sustainability can be linked to components, enabling a holistic analysis of the most viable end-of-life strategy.60

• Material Passports: A material passport is a digital record, or “digital tag,” linked to each component within the BIM model.62 This passport contains a wealth of data crucial for circularity, including 64:

• Material Composition: What the component is made of (e.g., steel grade S355, concrete strength C40/50).
• Origin and Manufacturer: Who made it and where it came from.
• Embodied Carbon: The carbon footprint associated with its production.
• Maintenance and Repair Information: Instructions for upkeep during its service life.
• Deconstruction Strategy: Specific instructions on how to safely and non-destructively remove the component.
• Reuse/Recycling Potential: Information on its suitability for reuse, remanufacturing, or recycling.

The material passport transforms a building from an opaque structure into a legible library of assets. It is the “digital key” that unlocks the value of the building’s material bank for future generations.62 While the concept is powerful, its implementation is still in its infancy, highlighting a critical gap between potential and current practice that needs to be bridged.60

 

7.2 Digital Twins: From Static Model to Living Asset

 

If BIM is the building’s birth certificate and construction manual, a digital twin is its lifelong, real-time health record. A digital twin is a dynamic virtual representation of the physical building, continuously updated with live data from a network of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors embedded within the structure.66

• The Ultimate Tool for Adaptability: Digital twins are perfectly suited to support DfA. By monitoring real-time performance, they can:

• Optimize Operations: Continuously adjust systems like HVAC and lighting based on actual occupancy and usage patterns to maximize energy efficiency.66
• Enable Predictive Maintenance: Identify potential issues with equipment or structural components before they fail, allowing for proactive, cost-effective repairs that extend the life of building systems.66
• Simulate Future Scenarios: Before undertaking a physical renovation, owners can use the digital twin to simulate the impact of changes. For example, they can test how reconfiguring a floor plan would affect energy consumption, thermal comfort, or even structural loads, allowing for data-driven decisions that optimize the building’s adaptability.66

By creating a continuous feedback loop between the physical asset and its virtual counterpart, digital twin technology enables the performance of a building to be optimized throughout its entire lifecycle. This extends its usability, enhances its value, and ensures it remains a high-performing, resilient asset for decades.66

 

Section 8: A Blueprint for Action: Recommendations for Singapore’s Stakeholders

 

Transitioning to a built environment founded on the principles of DfD and DfA requires a concerted effort from all stakeholders across the value chain. The following recommendations provide a targeted blueprint for action to accelerate this transformation in Singapore.

 

For Developers & Building Owners

 

• Adopt a Lifecycle Investment Perspective: Shift decision-making criteria from a singular focus on initial capital cost to a holistic evaluation based on Lifecycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) and Lifecycle Assessment (LCA).50 This will reveal the long-term financial and environmental ROI of investing in adaptability and demountability.
• Specify Circularity in Project Briefs: Clearly articulate DfD and DfA requirements in procurement documents and project briefs. This sends a clear signal to the market and directs design and construction teams to prioritize circular outcomes from day one.
• Champion Material Passports: For new developments, commission the creation of comprehensive BIM-based material passports. This not only facilitates future maintenance and adaptation but also significantly enhances the long-term asset value of the building by making its material stock transparent and accessible.64

 

For Architects & Structural Engineers

 

• Integrate DfD/DfA from Conceptual Design: Circularity cannot be an afterthought. Embed core principles—such as layering, modularity, reversible connections, and material selection for reuse—at the earliest stages of design, where they have the most impact.4
• Leverage Integrated Digital Delivery (IDD): Utilize BIM to its full potential by embedding deconstruction information directly into the model. Design and detail connections with disassembly in mind and create a digital record that will serve as a future deconstruction manual.63
• Foster Deep Collaboration: Work closely with manufacturers, suppliers, and contractors to understand the practicalities of demountable systems. This collaboration is essential to develop and specify solutions that are not only theoretically sound but also buildable, cost-effective, and safe.22

 

For Contractors & Demolition Firms

 

• Develop New Capabilities: Invest in upskilling the workforce with the new skills required for a circular economy. This includes training in careful, selective deconstruction, material identification and grading, on-site sorting, and reverse logistics management.
• Shift from Demolition to “De-Construction”: Rebrand and retool business models to offer deconstruction as a specialized, value-added service. This involves investing in different types of equipment and adopting methodologies that prioritize material preservation over speed of destruction.

 

For Policymakers (BCA, URA, JTC, HDB)

 

• Explicitly Link Existing Policies to Circularity: In policy documents, industry guidance, and outreach programs, make the explicit connection between the ITM’s DfMA and IDD thrusts and the circular outcomes of DfD and DfA. Frame circularity not as a separate initiative, but as the logical, value-adding extension of the current transformation agenda.
• Enhance the BCA Green Mark Scheme: Refine the Green Mark criteria to include specific, high-value points for quantifiable DfD strategies. This could include credits for using a high percentage of reversible mechanical connections, designing separable building layers, or creating a comprehensive, standards-compliant material passport for the building.
• Modernize Building Codes and Standards: Initiate a review of existing building codes to identify and remove barriers to the use of salvaged structural components. Develop clear, performance-based standards and certification pathways for the quality assurance and reuse of materials like structural steel, mass timber, and precast concrete elements.
• Stimulate the Market for Secondary Materials: Use public-sector leverage to create demand for salvaged materials. This can be achieved through grants for pilot projects, preferential evaluation criteria in public tenders for projects that use secondary materials, and supporting the establishment of a national material bank or digital marketplace for salvaged components.58

 

Section 9: Conclusion: Building a Resilient and Resourceful Singapore

 

The principles of Design for Demountability and Design for Adaptability represent more than just a sustainable trend; they are a strategic imperative for the future of Singapore’s built environment. In a nation that has always thrived on foresight and resource optimization, the shift from a linear model of construction to a circular one is not a matter of if, but when and how. 

This report has demonstrated that DfD and DfA are not distant, idealistic concepts but practical, achievable strategies with a compelling business case rooted in long-term economic value and environmental stewardship.

From a structural engineering perspective, the pathway is clear. It involves a deliberate move towards modular systems, standardized components, and, most critically, reversible connections. It requires a material-agnostic understanding of how to detail steel, mass timber, and precast concrete not for permanence, but for longevity and eventual disassembly. 

The technologies to achieve this—from advanced mechanical fasteners to precision-fabricated components—already exist.

Crucially, Singapore’s policy landscape has created a powerful and unique convergence of drivers. The push for productivity via DfMA, for efficiency via IDD, for environmental performance via the Green Mark scheme, and for urban renewal via the URA Master Plan all point towards a future where buildings are adaptable, component-based, and digitally documented.

DfD and DfA are the threads that tie these disparate policy goals together into a single, coherent vision for a transformed sector.

The challenges of upfront cost, regulatory inertia, and industry mindset are significant but not insurmountable. They are the catalysts for innovation—driving new business models, fostering new skills, and demanding new levels of collaboration across the value chain. 

By embracing these challenges, Singapore can lead the region in creating a built environment that is truly future-proof.

The building of the future is not a disposable product, but a valuable, adaptable, and enduring asset—a material bank for generations to come. By embedding the principles of demountability and adaptability into its architectural DNA, Singapore can construct a cityscape that is not only economically resilient and environmentally sustainable but also a profound testament to the nation’s enduring spirit of innovation and resourcefulness.

Works cited

1. CIRCULAR CONSTRUCTION IN REGENERATIVE CITIES: Insights …, accessed July 20, 2025, https://report.circuit-project.eu/
2. Circular Economy Singapore | Sustainability Consultants – Conquest Creatives, accessed July 20, 2025, https://conquestcreatives.com/circular-economy-framework/
3. DESIGN FOR ADAPTABILITY AND DISASSEMBLY: A REVIEW TO ACHIEVE BUILDINGS’ DECONSTRUCTION – Antac Eventos, accessed July 20, 2025, https://eventos.antac.org.br/index.php/euroelecs/article/download/2549/2356/7524
4. Sustainability and Structural Engineering – AWS, accessed July 20, 2025, https://content-calpoly-edu.s3.amazonaws.com/arce/1/documents/engineersin-sustainability.pdf
5. Circular Economy in Singapore – EEAS, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/_circular_economy_in_singapore_-_september_2020_v13.01.21.pdf
6. 1 MTI COS 2020: Circular Economy [循环经济] 1. Unlike a linear economy, where resources are typically disposed as waste aft, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.mti.gov.sg/-/media/MTI/COS-2020/Microsite/Factsheets/MTI-COS-Media-Fact-Sheet-on-Circular-Economy.pdf
7. Understanding Adaptable Architecture: A Complete Tutorial for Designers, accessed July 20, 2025, https://jscottsmith.com/understanding-adaptable-architecture-a-complete-tutorial-for-designers/
8. Flexibility in Construction: A Modern Approach to Building Adaptability, accessed July 20, 2025, https://raarya.com/article/flexibility-in-construction-a-modern-approach-to-building-adaptability/
9. A Criteria- and Case Study-Based Approach to Evaluate Adaptability in Buildings, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387924550_A_Criteria-_and_Case_Study-Based_Approach_to_Evaluate_Adaptability_in_Buildings
10. Building Deconstruction CIB/CSIR 2001 23 – 5. Design for …, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB1456.pdf
11. Design for Disassembly (DfD) – Construction Recycling – King County Solid Waste Division, accessed July 20, 2025, https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/solid-waste/programs/green-building/design-for-disassembly-guide.pdf
12. Design for Assembly: How to Optimize the Functionality and Visual Appeal of Your Product, accessed July 20, 2025, https://pti.tech/2024/02/22/design-for-assembly-how-to-optimize-the-functionality-and-visual-appeal-of-your-product/
13. Design for Adaptability (DfA)—Frameworks and Assessment Models for Enhanced Circularity in Buildings | Estudo Geral, accessed July 20, 2025, https://estudogeral.uc.pt/handle/10316/100546?mode=full
14. design for assembly (DFA) software – Autodesk, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.autodesk.com/solutions/design-for-assembly
15. DESIGN FOR DECONSTRUCTION – Lifecycle Building Challenge, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.lifecyclebuilding.org/docs/DFD.pdf
16. Design for Adaptability Identifying Potential for Improvement on an Architecture Basis, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.designsociety.org/publication/38557/Design+for+Adaptability+Identifying+Potential+for+Improvement+on+an+Architecture+Basis
17. Design for Deconstruction in Steel Structures – Number Analytics, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/design-for-deconstruction-in-steel-structures
18. DfMA and mass timber: Transforming the construction industry with XLAM, accessed July 20, 2025, https://xlam.co/insights/dfma-and-mass-timber-transforming-the-construction-industry-with-xlam/
19. Annex A: Update on the Built Environment Industry Transformation Map (BE ITM) – Building and Construction Authority (BCA), accessed July 20, 2025, https://www1.bca.gov.sg/docs/default-source/docs-corp-news-and-publications/media-releases/annexes-for-media-factsheets-on-initiatives-to-support-transformation-in-the-built-environment-sector.pdf
20. Applying “Design for Disassembly” to connection design in steel structures – DSpace@MIT, accessed July 20, 2025, https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/53071
21. Bolts vs Welding Joints – Pros, Cons & Best Uses – YouTube, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEX76VhU4Fo
22. BEST PRACTICE FOR DESIGNING LOW EMBODIED CARBON …, accessed July 20, 2025, https://steelconstruction.info/images/0/0d/SCI_P449.pdf
23. Steel connections : r/StructuralEngineering – Reddit, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/StructuralEngineering/comments/1hggxba/steel_connections/
24. Designing Steel Structures: Bolted Connections – Number Analytics, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/bolted-connections-in-steel-structures
25. There are different types of bolted connections. They can be categori, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.egr.msu.edu/~harichan/classes/ce405/chap5.pdf
26. An Introduction to Design for Disassembly (DfD) – YouTube, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lHPZ-Y6brI
27. (PDF) Design and performance evaluation of reversible connections …, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384886268_Design_and_performance_evaluation_of_reversible_connections_for_modular_adaptable_timber_buildings
28. Adaptation of Connection Systems for Integration with Engineered Wood Products in Buildings: A Systematic Review – MDPI, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/15/7/1131
29. Design for adaptability, disassembly and reuse – A review of reversible timber connection systems – Graz University of Technology, accessed July 20, 2025, https://graz.elsevierpure.com/en/publications/design-for-adaptability-disassembly-and-reuse-a-review-of-reversi
30. (PDF) Design for adaptation – Adopting adaption for timber construction at three scale, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393194790_Design_for_adaptation_-_Adopting_adaption_for_timber_construction_at_three_scale
31. Design for Disassembly of Concrete Slabs with Mortar Joints – MDPI, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/13/8/1957
32. Design of concrete buildings for disassembly: An explorative review – ResearchGate, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316357774_Design_of_concrete_buildings_for_disassembly_An_explorative_review
33. Pilot project proves that the dismount and reuse of concrete …, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.peikko.com/blog/pilot-project-proves-that-the-dismount-and-reuse-of-concrete-elements-is-realistic-and-economical/
34. ADAPTIVE REUSE OF PRECAST CONCRETE BUILDINGS, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.pci.org/PCIMidwest/News__Events/Precast-Focus-Issues/2023/ADAPTIVE-REUSE-OF-PRECAST-CONCRETE-BUILDINGS.aspx
35. Scaling up the sustainability and circular economy transition: Precast Concrete Advantages – BIBM, accessed July 20, 2025, https://bibm.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/241219-BIBM-Precast-Advantages.pdf
36. Prefabricated and Modular Construction for Affordable Housing in …, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/1015321/adbi-prefabricated-and-modular-construction-affordable-housing-singapore.pdf
37. SINGAPORE: BCA Green Mark Scheme – ESCAP Policy Documents Managment, accessed July 20, 2025, https://policy.asiapacificenergy.org/node/2600
38. Green Mark 2021 | Building and Construction Authority (BCA), accessed July 20, 2025, https://www1.bca.gov.sg/buildsg/sustainability/green-mark-certification-scheme/green-mark-2021
39. BCA Green Mark 2021 is Refreshed – SLEB Smart Hub, accessed July 20, 2025, https://sleb.sg/News/NewsDetails/1236
40. Green Building Masterplans | Building and Construction Authority …, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www1.bca.gov.sg/buildsg/sustainability/green-building-masterplans
41. The Adaptive Reuse Revolution | Gensler, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.gensler.com/climate-action-2021-the-adaptive-reuse-revolution
42. Sustainability Benefits of Adaptive Re-use Architecture | Ideas – Bryden Wood, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.brydenwood.com/ideas/adaptive-reuse-retrofit-architecture-and-the-climate-emergency/s126383/
43. Green Mark 2021 RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TECHNICAL GUIDE, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www1.bca.gov.sg/docs/default-source/docs-corp-buildsg/sustainability/20240101_mt_rb_technical_guide_r2.pdf?sfvrsn=af5e014e_0
44. Green Mark 2021 Maintainability Technical Guide For Existing …, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/565208504/Green-Mark-2021-Maintainability-Technical-Guide-for-Existing-Building
45. Singapore’s URA Master Plan 2025: How It Will Reshape Jobs …, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.reeracoen.sg/en/articles/singapores-ura-master-plan-2025-how-it-will-reshape-jobs-businesses-and-work-life-for-all
46. Singapore’s URA Master Plan 2025: How It Will Reshape Jobs, Businesses, and Work-Life for All, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.reeracoen.sg/articles/singapores-ura-master-plan-2025-how-it-will-reshape-jobs-businesses-and-work-life-for-all
47. Construction – Singapore – Ministry of National Development (MND), accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.mnd.gov.sg/our-work/creating-future-ready-industries/construction
48. Pioneer modular construction projects in Singapore (a) Crowne …, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Pioneer-modular-construction-projects-in-Singapore-a-Crowne-Plaza-Hotel-Ext-Changi_fig1_331306591
49. Iconic Modular Buildings: Pioneering Designs | Ausco Modular, accessed July 20, 2025, https://ausco.com.au/blog/iconic-modular-buildings
50. Futureproofing cities: designing for disassembly and adaptability, accessed July 20, 2025, https://report.circuit-project.eu/chapter/futureproofing-cities-designing-for-disassembly-and-adaptability
51. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) | WBDG – Whole Building Design Guide, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.wbdg.org/resources/life-cycle-cost-analysis-lcca
52. The Economic Benefits of Sustainable Design, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/buscase_section2.pdf
53. What Are Demountable Buildings? | Lauralu – Temporary Buildings, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.lauraluindustry.co.uk/blog/what-are-demountable-buildings/
54. Life Cycle Assessment of Design for Deconstruction Buildings, accessed July 20, 2025, https://coe.northeastern.edu/research/dfd/Brown,%20Wang,%20Webster,%20Eckelman,%20Hajjar%20%20-%20Design%20for%20Deconstruction%20LCA%20-%202015%20SEI%20SC%20Presentation.pdf
55. The Future of Sustainable Design: Adaptability – Number Analytics, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/future-of-sustainable-design-adaptability
56. Adaptable Design in Sustainable Architecture – Number Analytics, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/adaptable-design-sustainable-architecture
57. www.newstudioarchitecture.com, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.newstudioarchitecture.com/newstudio-insights/2023/1/12/adaptive-reuse-sustainable-architecture#:~:text=One%20study%20compared%20the%20embodied,68%25%20reduction%20in%20embodied%20CO2.
58. Design for Disassembly and Deconstruction – Challenges and Opportunities – ResearchGate, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283172137_Design_for_Disassembly_and_Deconstruction_-_Challenges_and_Opportunities
59. Circular building adaptability in multi-residential buildings – the status quo and a conceptual design framework – Chalmers Research, accessed July 20, 2025, https://research.chalmers.se/publication/540339/file/540339_Fulltext.pdf
60. BIM for Deconstruction: An Interpretive Structural Model of Factors …, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/11/6/227
61. Full article: BIM uses for deconstruction: an activity-theoretical perspective on reorganising end-of-life practices, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01446193.2021.1876894
62. AI-Driven Material Passports for Building Deconstruction – Prism → Sustainability Directory, accessed July 20, 2025, https://prism.sustainability-directory.com/scenario/ai-driven-material-passports-for-building-deconstruction/
63. BIM material passport to support building deconstruction and a circular economy, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354533772_BIM_material_passport_to_support_building_deconstruction_and_a_circular_economy
64. Material passports: the key to carbon reduction, greater component reuse and more sustainable construction – Building Design, accessed July 20, 2025, https://www.bdonline.co.uk/briefing/material-passports-the-key-to-carbon-reduction-greater-component-reuse-and-more-sustainable-construction/5133861.article
65. Building Material Passport, BIM-based – NetZeroCities, accessed July 20, 2025, https://netzerocities.app/resource-1833

How Digital Twins Empower Sustainable Design? Explained. – Parametric Architecture, accessed July 20, 2025, https://parametric-architecture.com/digital-twins-and-sustainability/