Part I: The Imperative for Change – Redefining Construction

 

1. Introduction: Beyond Bricks and Mortar – The End of the Linear Era

 

The Global Footprint of Construction

 

The global construction industry, a formidable engine of economic growth and urban development, stands at a critical juncture. For centuries, its progress has been measured in tonnes of concrete poured, steel beams erected, and skylines transformed. Yet, this progress has come at a significant environmental cost. The sector is one of the planet’s most resource-intensive industries, responsible for an estimated 30% of all natural resource extraction and up to 40% of solid waste generation worldwide.1 This immense consumption and subsequent waste generation place an unsustainable burden on natural ecosystems, contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, and challenge the very notion of long-term prosperity. As cities continue to expand and the demand for infrastructure grows, the industry’s environmental footprint becomes an increasingly urgent global issue that demands a fundamental rethinking of how we design, build, and deconstruct our built environment.2Shorten with AI

 

The Linear Model: ‘Take-Make-Dispose’

 

The prevailing paradigm in construction has long been a linear one: a ‘take-make-dispose’ model where resources are extracted, manufactured into products, used for a finite period, and then discarded as waste upon a building’s demolition.2 In this model, buildings are conceived as static, single-life assets. At the end of their functional or economic life, they are typically brought down through destructive demolition, a process that commingles materials and renders most of them unusable, destined for landfills.5 This approach not only generates enormous volumes of waste but also results in a catastrophic loss of value. The energy, water, and labor invested in producing high-quality materials like steel, concrete, and timber are permanently lost, necessitating the extraction and processing of new virgin resources for every new project. For a resource-constrained and land-scarce nation like Singapore, the limitations and unsustainability of this linear model are particularly acute.6Shorten with AI

 

Introducing the Twin Pillars of a Sustainable Future

 

In response to this global challenge, two interconnected concepts have emerged as the pillars of a new, sustainable paradigm for the built environment: the Circular Economy (CE) and Design for Disassembly (DfD). The Circular Economy offers a comprehensive framework for decoupling economic activity from the consumption of finite resources by designing waste out of the system entirely.8 It envisions a closed-loop system where materials and components are kept in use at their highest possible value for as long as possible through strategies like reuse, repair, remanufacturing, and recycling.2

Design for Disassembly, in turn, serves as a critical enabling strategy to realize this vision in the construction sector. DfD is a design philosophy that considers a building’s entire lifecycle from the outset, planning for its eventual deconstruction in a way that allows for the systematic and non-destructive recovery of its components.5 It is the practical key that unlocks the potential of buildings to become “material banks” for the future, transforming end-of-life structures from liabilities into valuable assets.11 The following table provides a clear contrast between the traditional linear model and the transformative circular model.

Table 1: The Linear vs. Circular Model in Construction

 

Stage	Linear Model (‘Take-Make-Dispose’)	Circular Model (Enabled by DfD)
Resource Phase	Extraction of virgin raw materials (e.g., quarrying stone, mining iron ore).	Prioritizes use of recovered components and recycled materials from existing “material banks.” Virgin material use is minimized.
Design & Manufacturing	Design for assembly and permanence. Components are often composites or permanently bonded.	Design for Disassembly, Adaptability, and Reuse. Prioritizes modularity, standardized components, and reversible connections.
Construction	On-site construction often generates significant waste. Focus on speed and low initial cost.	Prefabrication and modular construction (DfMA) reduce on-site waste. Focus on quality and lifecycle value.
Use Phase	Building is static. Major renovations are disruptive and wasteful. Maintenance can be difficult.	Building is adaptable and flexible. Components can be easily swapped, repaired, or upgraded to meet changing needs.
End-of-Life	Destructive demolition.	Systematic deconstruction.
Outcome	Massive generation of mixed C&D waste sent to landfill. Total loss of material value and embodied energy.	High-value recovery of components for reuse. Materials are channeled into recycling streams. Minimal waste to landfill. Value is retained.

Source: Synthesized from.2

 

2. The Circular Economy in Construction: Buildings as Material Banks

 

Core Principles of a Circular Economy

 

The transition to a circular economy in construction is guided by three core principles that fundamentally reshape the industry’s relationship with resources and waste.

1. Designing Out Waste and Pollution: The most profound shift in the circular model is the recognition that waste is not an inevitable outcome but a consequence of flawed design.8 In a linear system, demolition debris is a foregone conclusion. In a circular system, the concept of waste is eliminated at the design stage. Architects and engineers who embrace this principle proactively design buildings that can be easily deconstructed, ensuring that components can be recovered intact and unadulterated.9 This involves a meticulous selection of materials and connections that facilitate separation and reuse, effectively designing the “end” at the “beginning”.5
2. Keeping Products and Materials in Use: This principle emphasizes maximizing the value and lifespan of every component and material within the built environment.8 A circular economy prioritizes strategies that sit higher on the value hierarchy than conventional recycling. These “inner loops” of the circular model include:

• Reuse: Taking a component, such as a steel beam or a facade panel, from a deconstructed building and using it again in a new building with minimal reprocessing. This preserves the most value and embodied energy.11
• Repair and Maintenance: Designing components to be easily accessible for repair extends their functional life and prevents premature replacement.10
• Remanufacturing and Refurbishment: Taking a product, like an HVAC unit, and restoring it to its original performance specifications, often by replacing worn parts.
  Recycling, which involves breaking down a material into its constituent elements to create a new product, is considered a strategy of last resort, as it often involves significant energy input and results in “downcycling,” where the new material is of lower quality than the original.14

1. Regenerating Natural Systems: A true circular economy moves beyond simply minimizing negative impacts; it actively seeks to improve the environment.8 In construction, this can manifest through the use of renewable, bio-based materials like mass-engineered timber, which sequesters carbon during its growth. It also involves designing buildings that integrate with and support natural ecosystems, for example, through green roofs and walls that enhance biodiversity and manage stormwater.15 By reducing the demand for virgin resource extraction, the circular model alleviates pressure on natural habitats and ecosystems.3

 

From Demolition to Urban Mining

 

A powerful metaphor for the circular economy in the built environment is the concept of “buildings as material banks”.12 This reframes our cities not as collections of disposable structures, but as vast, distributed repositories of valuable materials. Every building constructed today with circular principles becomes a future source of high-quality steel, timber, copper, and glass. When a building’s useful life in its current form ends, it is not demolished; it is carefully “deconstructed” or “mined” for its assets.5

Design for Disassembly is the essential key that unlocks these material banks. Without DfD, components are fused together with concrete, welds, and adhesives, making their extraction impossible without destruction. With DfD, these components are assembled with reversible connections, documented in detail, and designed for easy removal. This process transforms a demolition site, a source of waste and cost, into a deconstruction site—a source of revenue and resources.1 The steel beams and timber columns salvaged from a deconstructed office building can become the primary structure for a new residential block, creating a sustainable, closed-loop cycle of material use.5

 

The Economic, Environmental, and Social Case for Circularity

 

The transition to a circular construction model offers a compelling triple-bottom-line value proposition.

• Economic Benefits: The financial case for circularity is multi-faceted. In the short term, it can reduce costs associated with waste disposal fees, which are steadily rising.1 In the long term, it creates significant value by reducing the need to purchase new, often volatilely priced, virgin materials.16 Deconstructed components can be resold, creating new revenue streams for building owners and a market for secondary materials.1 Furthermore, buildings designed for adaptability and disassembly are inherently more valuable. Their flexibility allows them to be easily reconfigured to meet changing market demands, extending their economic life and reducing the cost of future renovations.1 This future-proofing can command higher property values and lower investment risk.4
• Environmental Benefits: The environmental advantages are profound. By prioritizing reuse and recycling, the circular economy drastically reduces the amount of construction and demolition waste sent to landfills, which are a critical concern in land-scarce Singapore.2 It conserves finite natural resources by lessening the demand for extraction.3 Crucially, it significantly lowers a building’s
  embodied carbon—the greenhouse gas emissions associated with manufacturing and transporting materials. Reusing a steel beam avoids the immense energy consumption and emissions required to mine iron ore, produce new steel, and transport it to the site.5
• Social Benefits: The shift to a circular model can foster a more resilient and equitable society. It stimulates the creation of new local jobs and skills in emerging sectors like deconstruction, material refurbishment, component remanufacturing, and digital tracking.8 This creates a more diverse and skilled workforce. By promoting a more ethical and sustainable approach to building, DfD and circularity contribute to healthier communities and a more responsible construction culture.13

 

3. Deconstructing ‘Design for Disassembly’ (DfD)

 

Defining DfD: Building with an Exit Strategy

 

 

 

Design for Disassembly (DfD), also known as Design for Deconstruction, is an architectural and engineering philosophy that embeds a building’s end-of-life plan into its initial design.9 It is the practice of creating buildings with a clear and graceful “exit strategy”.5 Instead of being monolithic structures destined for the wrecking ball, DfD buildings are conceived as assemblies of individual components and systems that can be easily and systematically taken apart.5 This approach facilitates the future change, adaptation, and eventual dismantlement of the building—in part or in whole—for the recovery of its systems, components, and materials, maximizing their economic and environmental value.9 It is a proactive response to the wastefulness of traditional demolition, ensuring that the value invested in materials is preserved for future generations.11Shorten with AI

 

The Core Principles of DfD in Practice

 

Implementing DfD requires a deliberate and systematic approach that influences decisions from material selection to connection detailing. The following table outlines the core principles that guide this process.

Table 3: Core Principles of Design for Disassembly (DfD)

 

Principle	Strategy	Rationale	Relevant Materials
Material Selection	Prioritize durable, non-toxic, and pure materials. Use materials with high reuse and recycling potential.	Ensures components remain valuable and safe for future use. Avoids contamination of material streams.	Steel, Mass-Engineered Timber (MET), Aluminum, Glass, Precast Concrete.
Reversible Connections	Use mechanical fasteners (e.g., bolts, screws, clips) instead of chemical bonds (e.g., adhesives, welds, mortars).	Allows for non-destructive separation of components, preserving their integrity for reuse. Reduces labor and energy for disassembly.	Steel structures, Timber frames, Modular systems.
Accessible Connections	Ensure connection points are visible and physically accessible with standard tools.	Simplifies the disassembly process, reduces the need for specialized equipment, and enhances worker safety.	All systems, particularly structural and facade connections.
Standardization & Modularity	Design with standard dimensional grids and use prefabricated, modular components.	Facilitates interchangeability of components between different buildings, creating a more liquid market for reused parts.	Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction (PPVC), Precast Concrete, Modular partitions and facades.
Simplicity of Structure	Favor simple, open-span structural systems over complex, integrated forms.	Simplifies the deconstruction sequence and increases the adaptability of the structural frame for future uses.	Steel frames, Glulam beams and columns.
Hierarchical Design	Design in layers with different lifespans (e.g., structure, skin, services, space plan). Separate systems like MEP from the structure.	Allows for replacement of short-life components (e.g., MEP) without disturbing long-life components (e.g., structure).	All building types.
Information & Documentation	Create comprehensive “as-built” digital records, including material specifications, connection details, and disassembly instructions.	Provides a crucial roadmap for future deconstruction crews, ensuring safety and efficiency. Forms the basis for Material Passports.	All projects, managed through Building Information Modelling (BIM).

Source: Synthesized from.1

A deeper look at these principles reveals a holistic design methodology:

• Material Selection: The choice of materials is fundamental. A hierarchy of reusability exists, with materials like steel and timber being highly favored for DfD due to their high strength-to-weight ratio, standardization, and amenability to mechanical connections.16 Concrete, particularly when cast-in-place, presents significant challenges due to its weight and composite nature.9 However, the use of precast concrete elements joined with mechanical connectors can greatly enhance its disassembly potential.9 The precautionary principle should guide selection, favoring materials with a proven track record of durability and reusability over novel composites with uncertain long-term effects.1
• Reversible Connections: The design of connections is arguably the most critical element of DfD. The choice between a bolted steel connection and a welded one, or between screws and glue, determines whether a component can be salvaged or becomes waste.10 Connections must not only be reversible but also accessible. A bolted connection hidden within a concrete pour is no more useful than a welded one.1
• Standardization and Modularity: By designing to a standard grid and using modular or prefabricated components, the industry can create a “kit of parts” that is interchangeable not just within a single building, but across multiple projects.1 This creates economies of scale and is the foundation for a robust market for second-hand building components.
• Information and Documentation: A building designed for disassembly is incomplete without a user manual for its deconstruction. This is where digital tools become indispensable. Detailed “as-built” drawings, specifications, and material data must be meticulously documented and preserved for the building’s entire lifespan.1 This information ensures that future generations know what a building is made of and how to take it apart safely, forming the core of a Material Passport.

 

DfD vs. Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA)

 

A crucial distinction must be made to align Singapore’s current policies with a truly circular future. The nation’s Building and Construction Authority (BCA) has strongly promoted Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA), a methodology that uses manufacturing principles to improve the productivity, speed, and quality of construction, often through off-site prefabrication.22 While DfMA is a powerful and beneficial strategy, it is

not synonymous with DfD.

The primary goal of DfMA is to optimize the assembly process. This can sometimes lead to design choices that are directly opposed to DfD. For example, a manufacturer might develop a highly efficient prefabricated panel system that snaps together quickly on-site using permanent, high-strength adhesives. This system would be a DfMA success, as it speeds up construction and reduces on-site labor. However, it would be a DfD failure, as the panels cannot be separated non-destructively at the end of their life.

For DfMA to become a true engine of the circular economy, its principles must be integrated with those of DfD. The industry must move towards DfMA+D: Design for Manufacturing, Assembly, and Disassembly. This means that the efficiency of assembly cannot come at the expense of future disassembly. Connections must be designed to be both quick to install and easy to reverse. This integrated approach ensures that the productivity gains of DfMA do not create a new generation of un-recyclable, disposable buildings. It aligns the short-term goal of construction efficiency with the long-term goal of resource circularity, a vital step for Singapore’s sustainable development.

 

Part II: The Singapore Context – A Nation Primed for Circularity

 

4. The Lion City’s Built Environment: A Statistical Snapshot

 

To understand the urgency and opportunity for implementing Design for Disassembly in Singapore, it is essential to first grasp the scale and resource intensity of its construction sector. The city-state’s continuous growth and urban renewal drive a vibrant construction industry, but this dynamism also creates significant environmental pressure.

 

A Booming Sector

 

Singapore’s built environment sector is a major economic driver. For 2024, total construction demand is projected to be robust, falling between S32.0billionandS38.0 billion, with a strong pipeline of both public and private sector projects.24 This follows a strong performance in 2023, where total construction output—the value of certified progress payments—reached a substantial S$34.9 billion.24 This growth is expected to continue, with forecasts predicting an average annual growth rate of 4.1% between 2026 and 2029, supported by major infrastructure projects like the Changi Airport Terminal 5 expansion and investments in renewable energy infrastructure.26

This high level of activity translates directly into massive resource consumption. In 2023 alone, the sector consumed 1.5 million tonnes of steel rebars and 12.3 million cubic metres of ready-mixed concrete.24 As a nation with virtually no natural resources, Singapore is almost entirely dependent on imports for these fundamental building materials, making resource efficiency and security a matter of strategic national importance.7

 

The Waste Conundrum: Beyond Recycling Rates

 

At the other end of the lifecycle, this resource consumption generates a significant waste stream. According to the National Environment Agency (NEA), Singapore’s overall recycling rate fell from 57% in 2022 to 52% in 2023.28 The NEA officially attributed this decline to a “significant decrease” in the amount of Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste generated in 2023, which fell by over 40% compared to 2022 due to fewer demolition projects.28

This official explanation reveals a critical nuance in Singapore’s waste statistics. The nation’s high C&D recycling rate, which has historically been reported at around 99% 31, is a cornerstone of its non-domestic recycling performance. However, this impressive figure is primarily achieved by crushing concrete and other inert materials from

destructive demolition into lower-grade recycled aggregates for use as backfill and in road construction.24 This is a form of

downcycling, where the material’s value and structural potential are significantly degraded.

This situation creates a potential perverse incentive. The current metrics for success are heavily weighted by the sheer tonnage of C&D waste being processed. A successful, widespread adoption of DfD would lead to a paradigm shift from demolition to deconstruction. Buildings would be carefully dismantled, and high-value components like steel beams, facade panels, and timber elements would be recovered for direct reuse—a much higher-value circular strategy than downcycling. This would inherently mean less demolition and therefore a smaller volume of C&D waste being generated for recycling into aggregates.

Consequently, a successful DfD transition could, paradoxically, cause the overall recycling rate, as currently measured, to fall. This highlights a critical need for Singapore to evolve its sustainability metrics. The focus must shift from a simple, tonnage-based recycling rate to more sophisticated indicators that capture true circularity, such as value retention, component reuse rates, and material circularity indicators (MCI). Measuring the percentage of components that are successfully salvaged for high-value reuse would provide a far more accurate picture of a circular construction economy than measuring the tonnes of concrete being crushed.

Table 2: Singapore’s Built Environment – Key Metrics (2023-2025F)

Metric	Value / Forecast	Year	Source
Total Construction Demand	S32.0B−S38.0B	2024 (f)	24
Total Construction Output	S$34.9 Billion	2023 (p)	24
Steel Rebars Consumption	1.5 Million Tonnes	2023	24
Ready-Mixed Concrete Consumption	12.3 Million m³	2023	24
Total Solid Waste Generated	6.86 Million Tonnes	2023	29
Overall Recycling Rate	52%	2023	28
Non-Domestic Recycling Rate	67%	2023	29
C&D Waste Recycling Rate	~99% (historically)	–	31
Construction Industry Growth	4.1%	2025 (f)	26

p: Preliminary, f: Forecast. Sources: Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), Building and Construction Authority (BCA), National Environment Agency (NEA).

 

5. Forging a Green Future: Singapore’s Policy and Regulatory Ecosystem

 

Singapore’s journey towards a sustainable built environment is not incidental; it is driven by a robust and evolving policy framework. Design for Disassembly and circular construction principles align perfectly with the nation’s highest-level strategic goals for sustainability, resource resilience, and climate action.

 

The National Vision: Singapore Green Plan 2030

 

The Singapore Green Plan 2030 is a comprehensive, “whole-of-nation movement” that charts ambitious targets to advance sustainable development and positions the country to achieve its long-term net-zero emissions aspiration by 2050.35 Spearheaded by five key ministries, the Green Plan’s pillars create a fertile policy ground for circular construction. The “Sustainable Living” pillar, with its target to

reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill per capita per day by 30% by 2030, directly necessitates a move away from the linear ‘demolish-and-dispose’ model.36 Similarly, the “Energy Reset” pillar, which focuses on green energy and energy efficiency, drives innovation in building design and materials that are synergistic with DfD principles.37

 

The Singapore Green Building Masterplan (SGBMP): The “80-80-80” Targets

 

The primary policy instrument for the built environment is the Singapore Green Building Masterplan (SGBMP), developed by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) and the Singapore Green Building Council (SGBC).38 The SGBMP aims to deliver three key targets known as “80-80-80 in 2030,” which collectively push the industry towards higher standards of sustainability:

1. Green 80% of buildings by Gross Floor Area (GFA) by 2030: This overarching goal has successfully driven the widespread adoption of the BCA Green Mark certification scheme, creating a broad-based demand for sustainable building practices. As of the end of 2023, about 58% of Singapore’s buildings by GFA have been greened.22
2. 80% of new developments by GFA to be Super Low Energy (SLE) buildings from 2030: While primarily targeting operational carbon emissions, the push for SLE buildings encourages advanced design practices, high-performance materials, and integrated systems.38 Projects like the BCA Academy’s Zero Energy Building (ZEB) and Super Low Energy Building (SLEB) serve as living laboratories for these technologies, demonstrating what is achievable.40 The pursuit of SLE standards fosters an environment of innovation that is essential for developing and mainstreaming circular solutions.
3. Achieve 80% improvement in energy efficiency for best-in-class green buildings by 2030 (over 2005 levels): This ambitious target pushes the boundaries of building performance, driving research and development into new technologies and materials through initiatives like the Green Buildings Innovation Cluster (GBIC) programme.38 This R&D ecosystem is vital for creating and validating new DfD-compliant systems and components.

 

The BCA’s Role: From Regulation to Transformation

 

The BCA is the central agency driving this transformation, using a combination of regulation, incentives, and industry development initiatives.

• The BCA Green Mark Scheme: Launched in 2005, the Green Mark scheme has evolved from a voluntary rating system to a cornerstone of Singapore’s green building policy.39 It is now mandatory for new buildings and existing ones undergoing major retrofitting to meet minimum Green Mark standards.43 The latest iteration,
  Green Mark: 2021, is particularly relevant to the circular economy. It has shifted towards being more performance-based and places greater emphasis on critical sustainability outcomes beyond just energy efficiency, including reducing embodied carbon across a building’s lifecycle and promoting Design for Maintainability (DfM).42 DfM, which requires designers to consider ease of access and replacement for maintenance, shares a conceptual foundation with DfD, as both require thinking about the building as a system of accessible, separable components.22
• The Built Environment Industry Transformation Map (BE ITM): Launched in 2022, the refreshed BE ITM is a pivotal strategy that integrates the transformation plans for the construction and Facilities Management (FM) industries under a single, holistic, value-chain approach.47 The BE ITM’s three key transformation areas are creating the essential foundation for DfD to take root in Singapore:

• Integrated Planning and Design (IPD): This thrust promotes upstream collaboration among developers, designers, and contractors, which is a prerequisite for effective DfD implementation.22
• Advanced Manufacturing and Assembly (AMA): This is the main driver for Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA), which includes technologies like Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction (PPVC). The target is to achieve 70% DfMA adoption for all new developments by 2025.22
• Sustainable Urban Systems (SUS): This focuses on greening buildings and advancing Smart FM, aligning with the SGBMP targets.22

The BE ITM’s strong emphasis on DfMA and Integrated Digital Delivery (IDD) is building the industry’s capacity in the very areas that make DfD feasible. DfMA shifts the industry’s mindset from on-site, wet construction to off-site, component-based assembly. IDD, powered by BIM, creates the digital infrastructure needed to manage the complex information required for a building’s entire lifecycle. While the BE ITM does not yet explicitly mandate DfD, it is methodically constructing the foundational pillars upon which a DfD framework can be built. The current policies are preparing the industry for the next logical step: evolving the requirements for DfMA and IDD to explicitly include considerations for disassembly, reuse, and end-of-life value retention.

 

Part III: Implementing DfD in Singapore – From Blueprint to Reality

 

Translating the principles of Design for Disassembly from theory into the tangible reality of Singapore’s high-density urban landscape requires a concerted focus on practical strategies, enabling technologies, and learning from pioneering examples. The foundation laid by Singapore’s policy landscape provides a unique opportunity to accelerate this transition.

 

6. Key Strategies for DfD Implementation

 

Material Selection for Circularity

 

The choice of materials is a fundamental decision that dictates a building’s potential for future disassembly and reuse. A circular approach demands a shift in priorities from low initial cost to high lifecycle value.

• Prioritizing Reusability: Materials best suited for DfD are typically those that are durable, standardized, and can be joined with non-destructive methods.

• Steel: As a highly standardized, strong, and recyclable material, steel is an excellent candidate for DfD. Structural steel frames assembled with bolts and clips can be easily dismantled, transported, and re-erected in new configurations.16
• Mass-Engineered Timber (MET): Products like Glued-Laminated Timber (Glulam) and Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) are gaining traction. Like steel, MET components are manufactured to precise specifications and can be connected with screws and bolts, making them highly suitable for disassembly and reuse.20 Reusing timber also keeps the carbon sequestered within the wood locked away, preventing its release into the atmosphere.51
• Precast Concrete: While traditional cast-in-place concrete is the antithesis of DfD, precast concrete components offer significant potential.9 When designed as discrete elements (e.g., columns, beams, slabs) and joined with mechanical connectors rather than wet joints, they can be disassembled and reused in new structures.53

• Avoiding Problematic Materials: A key DfD strategy is the conscious avoidance of materials and assemblies that create irreversible composites. Chemical adhesives, spray foams, and permanent sealants bond different materials together in a way that makes clean separation impossible.1 This not only prevents the reuse of the components but also contaminates the material streams, hindering even low-value recycling.

 

Connection Design: The Heart of Disassembly

 

The success of DfD hinges on the design of its connections. A building is only as demountable as its weakest link—or, more accurately, its strongest, most permanent bond.

• Mechanical vs. Chemical: The core principle is to prioritize mechanical fasteners over chemical bonds.10 Bolts, screws, clips, and nails are all examples of reversible connections that allow components to be taken apart without damage.21 This contrasts sharply with irreversible methods like welding, gluing, and the use of cementitious mortar, which require destructive force to separate elements.10
• Accessibility and Simplicity: For a connection to be truly reversible, it must be both visible and accessible.1 A bolted connection encased in concrete is practically useless for disassembly. Designers must ensure that connection points can be reached with common tools, which simplifies the deconstruction process, enhances worker safety, and reduces the need for costly, specialized equipment.1

 

Modular & Prefabricated Construction as DfD Enablers

 

Singapore’s strong governmental push for Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) and Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction (PPVC) provides a powerful platform for implementing DfD.22 These modern methods of construction are natural allies of circular principles.

• Synergies with DfD: DfMA and PPVC inherently involve constructing buildings from discrete, factory-made modules or components.56 This process reduces on-site waste, improves quality control through a controlled manufacturing environment, and results in a building that is already a “kit of parts”.2 This modular nature is a fundamental prerequisite for disassembly. A building assembled from volumetric modules can, in theory, be disassembled module by module for relocation or reconfiguration.57
• International Precedent: The Stow-Away Hotel in Waterloo, London, serves as an excellent international case study. Designed by Ryder Architecture, this five-storey hotel was constructed from 25 repurposed shipping containers.21 Each container functions as an individual room module. The connections were specifically designed for disassembly; for instance, a specialized connection plate was developed to transfer loads without requiring permanent fixings, and services for each unit were designed to be disconnected at a single point.21 This allows for the entire building to be dismantled and reconstructed elsewhere, showcasing a high level of circularity and resource conservation.54 This model demonstrates the tangible potential for similar modular DfD applications in Singapore’s commercial and hospitality sectors.

 

7. Enabling Technologies for a Circular Future

 

The transition to a circular construction economy is underpinned by digital technologies that enable the tracking, management, and verification of materials throughout their lifecycle. These tools are not just supplementary; they are essential for making DfD practical and scalable.

 

Building Information Modelling (BIM): The Digital Foundation

 

Building Information Modelling (BIM) is the digital cornerstone of DfD. Far more than just a 3D visualization tool, a BIM model is a rich, object-oriented database that can store a vast array of information about every component in a building.59 For DfD, its function is critical:

• It serves as the central repository for all data relevant to a building’s lifecycle, including material composition, manufacturer details, installation dates, maintenance schedules, connection types, and, crucially, disassembly sequences.60
• By embedding this information directly into the digital model, it ensures that the “user manual” for deconstruction is preserved for decades, long after the original project team has dispersed.

For Singapore, where the adoption of Integrated Digital Delivery (IDD) and BIM is already a key strategic thrust under the BE ITM 62, the next step is to evolve policy to mandate the inclusion of this end-of-life data. A “data-rich BIM” must become the standard deliverable, containing not just information on how to build, but also on how to un-build.

 

Digital Twins and Lifecycle Assessment (LCA)

 

• Digital Twins: A digital twin is a dynamic, virtual replica of a physical building that is continuously updated with real-world data from sensors.59 In the context of DfD, a digital twin can track the performance and condition of building components over time, predicting when maintenance is needed and assessing the viability of components for reuse at the end of the building’s life. It can also be used to simulate deconstruction scenarios, optimizing the process for safety and efficiency before any physical work begins.59
• Lifecycle Assessment (LCA): LCA is a methodology for quantifying the environmental impacts of a product or building over its entire lifecycle, from raw material extraction to end-of-life disposal.63 LCA tools can be used to provide hard data on the benefits of DfD. By comparing the embodied carbon and resource depletion impacts of a DfD building against a conventional one, designers and developers can make a powerful, data-driven business case for circular strategies.59

 

Material Passports: The Key to a Secondary Market

 

The single greatest barrier to creating a thriving market for reused building components is uncertainty about their quality, history, and performance.9

Material Passports are the technological solution to this problem.

• Concept and Function: A Material Passport is a digital identity or “logbook” for a building component.10 It contains a standardized set of data, including:

• Material composition and properties.
• Manufacturer and date of production.
• Performance characteristics (e.g., structural capacity, fire rating).
• Maintenance and repair history.
• Instructions for disassembly and handling.
• Potential for reuse and recycling.61

• Creating Trust and Value: By providing a transparent, verifiable record, Material Passports eliminate the guesswork and risk associated with using salvaged materials.66 This creates the trust and confidence needed to establish a viable and liquid market for secondary components. A developer looking for steel beams can consult a digital “material bank” and procure certified, passport-equipped beams with full knowledge of their history and performance, just as they would with new materials.66
• Implementation: Material Passports are most effective when integrated with BIM and potentially secured with technologies like Blockchain to ensure data integrity and traceability.59 International bodies like the UK Green Building Council (UKGBC) and initiatives under the European Commission are already developing frameworks and pilot projects for their implementation.67 For Singapore, a game-changing policy move would be to integrate Material Passport requirements into the BCA Green Mark scheme or mandate them as a key deliverable for all new projects, especially those on Government Land Sales (GLS) sites. This would rapidly accelerate the creation of a local circular construction market.

 

8. Pioneering Projects: Lessons from Case Studies

 

While the full implementation of DfD is still emerging, numerous international and local projects offer valuable lessons and demonstrate the feasibility of circular principles in construction.

 

International Inspiration

 

• Arup’s Circular Building (London): This prototype, built for the London Design Festival, was a landmark project designed explicitly with circular economy principles in mind. It featured a recycled steel frame, clamp connections for easy disassembly, sustainably sourced timber cladding, and a self-supporting, demountable wall system. The project proved that a functional and aesthetically pleasing building could be constructed entirely for future reuse and repurposing.5
• NASA Sustainability Base (USA): As an early and high-profile example, this building was designed from the ground up with disassembly as a core objective. The intent was to allow for the future recovery and reuse of its high-value components, demonstrating a long-term vision of resource stewardship.1
• The ICEhouse (Davos): Constructed for the World Economic Forum, this temporary structure utilized McDonough’s WonderFrame™, a customizable and reusable structural system. Its ability to be assembled and dismantled within days highlighted the potential for DfD in creating adaptable, mobile, and resource-efficient structures.13

 

Local Potential and Relevant Projects in Singapore

 

While Singapore has yet to unveil a landmark project explicitly marketed under the “Design for Disassembly” banner, a closer look at its leading-edge developments reveals that many of the foundational elements and technologies are already in place. The crucial next step is to consciously integrate these disparate elements into a unified DfD framework.

• BCA Academy’s ZEB and SLEB: These buildings are primarily celebrated for their outstanding energy performance, serving as “living laboratories” for green technologies.40 However, their construction holds immense relevance for DfD. The project is unique for being the first to integrate three key DfMA technologies on a single site:
  Mass-Engineered Timber (MET), Advanced Precast Concrete System (APCS), and Prefabricated Prefinished Volumetric Construction (PPVC).41 This provides an unparalleled opportunity to study and compare the deconstruction potential of these different systems. The project demonstrates that Singapore has the technical capability to build with the very systems that are most conducive to DfD.
• NUS School of Design and Environment (SDE4): As Singapore’s first new-build net-zero energy building, SDE4 is another beacon of sustainability.71 Its design incorporates a flexible light-steel framing system, which allows interior spaces to be resized and reshaped.72 This inherent adaptability is a core tenet of DfD, as it allows the building to evolve over its life to meet new needs, delaying or preventing the need for demolition.
• Kampung Admiralty: This award-winning integrated development by WOHA Architects is a masterclass in high-density, mixed-use design on a compact urban site.73 While not designed for disassembly, its extensive use of
  precast concrete components for construction efficiency demonstrates the industry’s familiarity with modular systems. Applying DfD principles to such a project in the future would involve specifying reversible mechanical connections between these precast elements, transforming it from a permanent structure into a demountable one.

These projects show that Singapore’s construction industry is already mastering the tools of DfD—modular systems, prefabrication, digital design, and high-performance materials. The challenge is no longer one of capability but of intent. The industry must now connect these dots, moving from using these technologies solely for productivity and quality to leveraging them for long-term circularity and value retention.

 

Part IV: Overcoming Hurdles and Charting the Path Forward

 

Despite the compelling logic and clear alignment with Singapore’s national goals, the widespread adoption of Design for Disassembly faces a series of significant barriers. Overcoming these hurdles requires a nuanced understanding of the challenges from economic, technical, and cultural perspectives, and a coordinated strategy involving all industry stakeholders.

 

9. Barriers to DfD Adoption in Singapore: A Stakeholder Analysis

 

Research conducted specifically on Singapore’s construction industry, corroborated by international studies, has identified a consistent set of barriers that inhibit the transition to a circular model.6

 

Economic & Financial Barriers

 

• High Upfront Costs: Designing for disassembly can incur higher initial costs compared to conventional construction. This may be due to the need for more detailed design work, the use of higher-quality (and often more expensive) materials intended for longevity, and the specification of mechanical fasteners over cheaper adhesives or welds.5 In a market often driven by minimizing initial capital expenditure (CAPEX), this presents a significant hurdle.
• Lack of a Mature Secondary Market: The economic model for DfD relies on the ability to sell salvaged components at the end of a building’s life. Currently, Singapore lacks a well-established, liquid market for second-hand building materials.56 Without clear demand and transparent pricing for these assets, developers and investors struggle to factor their residual value into financial calculations, weakening the business case for deconstruction.65
• Profitability of Demolition: Existing business models and supply chains are optimized for the speed and low cost of destructive demolition.65 Demolition contractors are proficient at rapid site clearance, and the current system of downcycling C&D waste provides a simple, albeit low-value, disposal route. Shifting to the more meticulous, labor-intensive process of deconstruction requires a significant change in business practices and financial incentives.

 

Technical & Knowledge-Based Barriers

 

• Lack of Practical Tools & Guidelines: This has been identified as a top barrier by professionals in Singapore.6 While the principles of DfD are understood conceptually, there is a lack of standardized, practical guidelines, codes of practice, and digital tools that architects and engineers can readily apply to their projects.
• Skills Gap and Training: Deconstruction is a specialized skill that differs from demolition. It requires workers trained in carefully dismantling structures to preserve the integrity of components.6 Singapore currently has a shortage of professionals and tradespeople with the necessary expertise in circular design and deconstruction techniques.
• Uncertainty Over Material Quality: A major concern for designers and developers is the quality, durability, and certification of reused components.9 Without standardized testing and verification processes for salvaged materials, there is a perceived risk associated with their structural performance and compliance with building codes.

 

Regulatory & Cultural Barriers

 

• “Lukewarm” Industry Attitude and Resistance to Change: A 2010 study noted that the attitude of Singapore’s construction industry towards DfD was “lukewarm and largely ignored”.75 This cultural inertia, characterized by a preference for established, low-risk methods and a reluctance to innovate, remains a significant challenge.23
• Negative Public Perception: Research specific to Singapore has highlighted the negative public perception of reused building components as being “second-hand” or inferior.6 Overcoming this mindset is crucial for creating market acceptance for buildings constructed with salvaged materials.
• Fragmented Supply Chains: The construction industry is notoriously fragmented, with poor coordination between designers, contractors, suppliers, and waste managers.18 This lack of integration makes it difficult to establish the closed-loop systems necessary for materials to flow from a deconstruction site to a new construction project.
• Lack of Standardization and Regulation: The absence of clear, standardized regulations and guidelines for DfD creates uncertainty for the industry.5 Without a formal framework, DfD remains a niche practice rather than a mainstream requirement.

The following table synthesizes these barriers and maps them to strategic enablers, identifying the key stakeholders responsible for driving change.

Table 4: Barriers vs. Strategic Enablers for DfD Implementation in Singapore

 

Barrier Category	Specific Barrier	Key Enabler / Strategy	Lead Stakeholder(s)
Economic & Financial	High Upfront Costs	Financial incentives, grants (e.g., DfD Incentive Scheme), and green financing models that recognize lifecycle value.	Policymakers (BCA), Financial Institutions
	Lack of a Mature Secondary Market	Creation of digital platforms for trading secondary materials; establishing physical storage and certification hubs.	Industry Associations (SCAL, REDAS), Private Sector
	Profitability of Demolition	Introduce differential landfill taxes that make demolition more expensive than deconstruction; create clear economic value for salvaged materials.	Policymakers (NEA, BCA)
Technical & Knowledge	Lack of Practical Tools & Guidelines	Develop a national DfD Code of Practice; integrate DfD modules into professional education and certification.	Policymakers (BCA), Academia, Industry Associations
	Skills Gap and Training	Develop specialized training and accreditation programs for deconstruction professionals and circular design experts.	Academia (Universities, Polytechnics), BCA Academy
	Uncertainty Over Material Quality	Mandate the use of Digital Material Passports; establish standardized testing and certification protocols for reused components.	Policymakers (BCA), Standards Bodies
Regulatory & Cultural	Industry Resistance to Change	Lead by example with public sector projects mandating DfD; showcase successful pilot projects and their ROI.	Government, Developers
	Negative Public Perception	Public awareness campaigns highlighting the quality, safety, and environmental benefits of circular buildings.	Government, Industry Associations (SGBC)
	Fragmented Supply Chains	Promote collaborative project delivery methods (e.g., IPD); integrate supply chain partners early in the design process.	All Stakeholders
	Lack of Standardization	Integrate explicit DfD criteria into the BCA Green Mark scheme and the Built Environment Industry Transformation Map (BE ITM).	Policymakers (BCA)

Source: Synthesized from 5, and others.

 

10. Strategic Recommendations for a Circular Construction Sector in Singapore

 

To accelerate the transition to a circular built environment, a multi-pronged approach with targeted, actionable recommendations for each key stakeholder group is essential.

 

For Policymakers (BCA, MND, NEA)

 

1. Evolve the Green Mark Scheme to Drive DfD: The Green Mark scheme is Singapore’s most powerful policy lever for green buildings. It should be enhanced to explicitly reward and incentivize DfD. This includes moving beyond simply rewarding DfMA and introducing specific credits for verifiable disassembly potential, use of reversible connections, and the creation of comprehensive building material logbooks.
2. Develop a National DfD Code of Practice: To address the critical barrier of lacking practical guidelines 6, the BCA should lead the development of a national standard or Code of Practice for Design for Disassembly. This code, potentially based on international standards like ISO 20887 76, would provide architects, engineers, and contractors with a clear, actionable framework for implementation, covering aspects from connection design to material documentation.
3. Launch Targeted Financial Incentives: High upfront cost is a major deterrent.16 The government should introduce a dedicated
   DfD Incentive Scheme, similar in structure to the successful Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings 2.0 (GMIS-EB 2.0).39 This scheme would co-fund the premium associated with DfD, such as the cost of more detailed design, higher-grade materials, and advanced connection systems, thereby de-risking early adoption for the private sector.
4. Mandate Digital Material Passports: To create the data infrastructure for a secondary materials market, policymakers should phase in the mandatory requirement for digital material passports on all new building projects. This could begin with public sector developments and sites under the Government Land Sales (GLS) programme before being rolled out to the entire industry. This would create an invaluable national database of building materials, unlocking future urban mining potential.

 

For Developers and Investors (e.g., REDAS members)

 

1. Adopt a Whole-Lifecycle Value Perspective: The investment calculus must shift from focusing solely on initial CAPEX to evaluating the total economic value of an asset across its entire life. DfD transforms a building’s end-of-life from a costly liability (demolition and disposal) into a valuable asset (a bank of recoverable materials), which should be factored into investment models.5
2. Champion Pilot Projects: Leadership from the private sector is crucial. Developers should champion flagship projects that explicitly incorporate DfD principles. These high-profile case studies will be vital for demonstrating the business case, building market confidence, and overcoming the industry’s cultural inertia.75
3. Drive Innovation in Green Finance: Collaborate with financial institutions to develop new green finance products that recognize and reward the benefits of DfD. This could include lower interest rates or preferential terms for projects that can demonstrate high material recovery potential and lower lifecycle risk.

 

For Design Professionals (Architects and Engineers)

 

1. Integrate DfD from Day One: Circularity cannot be an afterthought. DfD principles must be integrated at the earliest stages of conceptual design, influencing decisions on building form, structural systems, and material palettes.
2. Master Digital Tools for Circularity: Proficiency in BIM, LCA, and the creation of Material Passports must become core competencies.59 These digital tools are essential for designing, documenting, and verifying circular buildings effectively.
3. Become Client Educators: Designers are in a prime position to educate their clients on the long-term benefits of DfD. Proactively communicating the economic advantages (future asset value, lower renovation costs) and environmental performance can help overcome client hesitancy and negative perceptions about reused materials.6

 

For Contractors and the Supply Chain (e.g., SCAL members)

 

1. Develop Deconstruction Expertise: There is a first-mover advantage in developing specialized skills for non-destructive deconstruction. Contractors should invest in training and equipment to become certified experts in this emerging field.
2. Build the Secondary Materials Market: The industry needs to collaboratively build the infrastructure for a circular supply chain. This includes creating platforms for trading salvaged components, and developing facilities for the storage, testing, and certification of reused materials to address quality concerns.56
3. Embrace Collaborative Contracting: Traditional, adversarial contracting models are a poor fit for the high degree of collaboration required by DfD. The industry should move towards Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and other collaborative models that bring designers, contractors, and key suppliers together from the project’s inception. This was identified as a key strategy for success in the Singapore context.6

 

11. Conclusion: Building a Legacy, Not a Liability

 

The paradigm of construction is shifting. In a world of finite resources and a changing climate, the linear model of ‘take-make-dispose’ is no longer tenable. For Singapore, a nation defined by its ingenuity in overcoming resource constraints, the transition to a circular economy is not merely an environmental aspiration but a strategic imperative. Design for Disassembly stands as the most critical and practical pathway to achieving this circularity in the built environment.

By embedding an exit strategy into every new building, Singapore can transform its urban landscape into a dynamic and resilient ecosystem. Buildings cease to be static monuments destined for landfill; they become adaptable structures for the living and valuable material banks for the future. The implementation of DfD addresses the nation’s most pressing challenges simultaneously: it enhances resource security by creating a domestic supply of high-value materials, supports the Zero Waste Masterplan by designing out demolition waste, and contributes to climate goals by drastically reducing embodied carbon.

The path forward, however, is not without its challenges. It demands a fundamental shift in mindset, from a focus on short-term costs to long-term value. It requires new skills, new technologies, and new forms of collaboration across a traditionally fragmented industry. Yet, the foundations for this transformation are already being laid. Singapore’s robust policy framework, its commitment to digitalization and DfMA under the BE ITM, and its world-class ecosystem of developers, designers, and innovators position it perfectly to lead this change.

The journey to a fully circular construction sector will be a marathon, not a sprint. It will be built upon a series of deliberate, coordinated steps: evolving policy to incentivize DfD, investing in the digital infrastructure of Material Passports, championing pioneering projects, and fostering a culture of collaboration. By embracing this challenge, Singapore’s construction industry has the opportunity not just to build structures, but to build a lasting legacy—a built environment that is regenerative, resilient, and ready for the future. A legacy of assets, not liabilities.

Works cited

1. Design for Disassembly: A guiding principle in the built world? – Under the Hard Hat, accessed June 25, 2025, https://underthehardhat.org/design-for-disassembly-a-guiding-principle-in-the-built-world/
2. What is Circular Construction? 2024 Guide – Neuroject, accessed June 25, 2025, https://neuroject.com/circular-construction/
3. Implementing circular economy principles in construction – Institute of Sustainability Studies, accessed June 25, 2025, https://instituteofsustainabilitystudies.com/insights/guides/implementing-circular-economy-principles-in-construction/
4. The circular economy in construction: Building a sustainable future, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.reconomy.com/2025/01/06/the-circular-economy-in-construction/
5. Designing for Disassembly Means Building with an Exit Strategy – REVOLVE, accessed June 25, 2025, https://revolve.media/opinions/designing-for-disassembly-turns-waste-into-worth
6. Barriers and Strategies in Implementing Design for Disassembly and Adaptability Principles in Singapore: A Pathway to Circular Economy in the Construction Industry | Request PDF – ResearchGate, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387435530_Barriers_and_Strategies_in_Implementing_Design_for_Disassembly_and_Adaptability_Principles_in_Singapore_A_Pathway_to_Circular_Economy_in_the_Construction_Industry
7. Sustainable Construction Strategies: A Singapore Perspective, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB14269.pdf
8. Circular Economy Explained: Principles, Benefits, Challenges – Greener Insights, accessed June 25, 2025, https://greenerinsights.com/circular-economy-explained-principles-benefits-challenges/
9. Design for Disassembly : GCCA, accessed June 25, 2025, https://gccassociation.org/essential-concrete/design-for-disassembly/
10. Design for Disassembly in the Age of Circularity – Dassault Systemes, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.3ds.com/sustainability/circular-economy/design-for-disassembly
11. UNVEILING THE POTENTIAL OF DESIGN FOR DECONSTRUCTION IN THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY – LJMU Research Online, accessed June 25, 2025, https://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/24133/1/Circular%20Economy%20paper.pdf
12. Circular Economy in Construction; 2024 Guide – Neuroject, accessed June 25, 2025, https://neuroject.com/circular-economy-in-construction/
13. Design for Disassembly – RTF – Rethinking The Future, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/architectural-community/a12178-design-for-disassembly/
14. 11 Advantages and Disadvantages of Circular Economy – Henley Naturals, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.henleynaturals.com/blog/11-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-circular-economy
15. Our Vision – Singapore Green Plan 2030, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.greenplan.gov.sg/vision/
16. Design for Deconstruction: A Structural Analysis Guide – Number Analytics, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/design-for-deconstruction-structural-analysis-guide
17. Key Benefits and Challenges of Implementing Circular Economy for EHS Professionals, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.cority.com/blog/key-benefits-and-challenges-of-implementing-circular-economy-for-ehs-professionals/
18. Circular Economy in the Construction Industry – ConWize, accessed June 25, 2025, https://conwize.io/articles/circular-economy-in-the-construction-industry/
19. Design for Disassembly in the Built Environment – Lifecycle Building Challenge, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.lifecyclebuilding.org/docs/DfDseattle.pdf
20. An Introduction to Design for Disassembly (DfD) – YouTube, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lHPZ-Y6brI
21. Introducing Design for Disassembly – Construction Management Magazine, accessed June 25, 2025, https://constructionmanagement.co.uk/introducing-design-for-disassembly/
22. Annex A: Update on the Built Environment Industry Transformation …, accessed June 25, 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
23. Developing the DfMA ecosystem in Singapore’s construction industry – InK@SMU.edu.sg, accessed June 25, 2025, https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cases_coll_all/381/
24. CONSTRUCTION – Singapore – MTI, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.mti.gov.sg/-/media/MTI/Resources/Economic-Survey-of-Singapore/2023/Economic-Survey-of-Singapore-2023/Ch6_2_AES2023.pdf
25. Steady Demand for the Construction Sector Projected for 2024, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www1.bca.gov.sg/about-us/news-and-publications/media-releases/2024/01/15/steady-demand-for-the-construction-sector-projected-for-2024
26. Singapore Construction Industry Report 2025: Output to Grow by 4.1% this Year, Driven by Rising Investments in Commercial, Housing, and Transport Projects – Forecast to 2029 – ResearchAndMarkets.com – Business Wire, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250523430470/en/Singapore-Construction-Industry-Report-2025-Output-to-Grow-by-4.1-this-Year-Driven-by-Rising-Investments-in-Commercial-Housing-and-Transport-Projects—Forecast-to-2029—ResearchAndMarkets.com
27. Singapore’s strategies towards sustainable construction – ResearchGate, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233255419_Singapore’s_strategies_towards_sustainable_construction
28. Singapore’s recycling rate falls to 52% in 2023, decline from 10 years ago – CNA, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/recycling-rate-domestic-waste-statistics-2023-nea-4418776
29. media-release-on-the-2023-waste-and-recycling-rate.pdf, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.cleanenvirosummit.gov.sg/docs/default-source/2024-media-releases/media-release-on-the-2023-waste-and-recycling-rate.pdf?sfvrsn=7a3c29d1_1
30. Singapore’s domestic recycling rate stalls at 12%, the lowest in over a decade, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/domestic-recycling-rate-stalls-at-12-despite-decline-in-household-waste
31. Starting a Circular Economy in Singapore From Zero Waste, accessed June 25, 2025, https://knowledgehub.clc.gov.sg/publications-library/circular-economy-in-singapore-from-zero-waste
32. Circular Economy in Singapore – EEAS, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/_circular_economy_in_singapore_-_september_2020_v13.01.21.pdf
33. Sustainable construction: Singapore’s journey towards zero landfill, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB_DC28326.pdf
34. Singapore Construction Industry Report 2024: Output to Grow by 3.3% in Real Terms in 2024 and 4.1% in 2025 – Forecast to 2028 – ResearchAndMarkets.com – Business Wire, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250206783771/en/Singapore-Construction-Industry-Report-2024-Output-to-Grow-by-3.3-in-Real-Terms-in-2024-and-4.1-in-2025—Forecast-to-2028—ResearchAndMarkets.com
35. Singapore Green Plan 2030 – Wikipedia, accessed June 25, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Green_Plan_2030
36. Singapore Green Plan 2030, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.greenplan.gov.sg/
37. Our Targets – Singapore Green Plan 2030, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.greenplan.gov.sg/targets/
38. Singapore Green Building Masterplan, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.sgbc.sg/sgbmp/
39. Buildings – National Climate Change Secretariat, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.nccs.gov.sg/singapores-climate-action/mitigation-efforts/buildings/
40. BCA Case Study – NZEB, accessed June 25, 2025, https://nzeb.in/case-studies/other-regions-case-studies/other-case-studies-list/bca-case-study/
41. ZEB and SLEB Building – BCA Academy, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.bcaa.edu.sg/who-we-are/learning-journeys/zeb-sleb-building
42. Green Certification | Singapore | Global Sustainable Buildings Guide, accessed June 25, 2025, https://resourcehub.bakermckenzie.com/en/resources/global-sustainable-buildings/asia-pacific/singapore/topics/green-certification
43. Sustainable Building and Construction in Singapore – ESCI KSP, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.esci-ksp.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/CIB21705.pdf
44. Building Control (Environmental Sustainability) Regulations 2008 – Singapore Statutes Online, accessed June 25, 2025, https://sso.agc.gov.sg/SL/BCA1989-S199-2008
45. GM: 2021 FAQs – Building and Construction Authority (BCA), accessed June 25, 2025, https://www1.bca.gov.sg/docs/default-source/docs-corp-buildsg/sustainability/20250411_gm2021-faqs.pdf?sfvrsn=62aa39a4_0
46. Design for Maintainability Guide (Non-residential) – Building and Construction Authority (BCA), accessed June 25, 2025, https://www1.bca.gov.sg/docs/default-source/docs-corp-buildsg/sustainability/dfm-guide-non-residential.pdf
47. Built Environment Industry Transformation Map (ITM) | Building and Construction Authority (BCA), accessed June 25, 2025, https://www1.bca.gov.sg/buildsg/built-environment-industry-transformation-map
48. 7 Sep 2022 [for support, pls] Launch of Built Environment Industry Transformation Map (BE ITM) ACES is pleased to support the re – Association of Consulting Engineers Singapore, accessed June 25, 2025, http://aces.org.sg/wp-content/pdf/2022/312_2022-BCA_BE%20ITM%20for%20Member%20Support.pdf
49. Sustainable Construction | Building and Construction Authority (BCA), accessed June 25, 2025, https://www1.bca.gov.sg/buildsg/sustainability/additional-programmes/sustainable-construction
50. Exploring Mass Timber’s Potential for Reuse in Building Construction | Jensen Hughes, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.jensenhughes.com/insights/exploring-mass-timbers-potential-for-reuse-in-building-construction
51. The Opportunity for Mass Timber Construction by Designing for …, accessed June 25, 2025, https://cadc.auburn.edu/current-state-of-construction-field-related-software-ecosystems/
52. Design for and from disassembly with timber elements: strategies based on two case studies from Switzerland – Frontiers, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/built-environment/articles/10.3389/fbuil.2023.1307632/full
53. (PDF) Design for disassembly and cultural sites. The use of modular architecture and prefabrication in exhibition venues – ResearchGate, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381806429_Design_for_disassembly_and_cultural_sites_The_use_of_modular_architecture_and_prefabrication_in_exhibition_venues
54. Design for Disassembly Minimising Value Loss at End of Life – Ryder Architecture, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.ryderarchitecture.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Design-for-Disassembly.pdf
55. Designing for Disassembly: Strategies for Reversible Building Systems – Jarvis Contracting, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.jarvisbuild.co.uk/designing-for-disassembly-strategies-for-reversible-building-systems/
56. DESIGN FOR DECONSTRUCTION AND MODULARITY IN A SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT – Composite Materials & Engineering Center, accessed June 25, 2025, https://cmec.wsu.edu/documents/2016/04/design-for-deconstruction-and-modularity-in-a-sustainable-built-environment.pdf/
57. Disassembly and Reuse of Demountable Modular Building Systems | Journal of Management in Engineering | Vol 41, No 1 – ASCE Library, accessed June 25, 2025, https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/JMENEA.MEENG-6243
58. Disassembly and Reuse of Demountable Modular Building Systems | Journal of Management in Engineering | Vol 41, No 1 – ASCE Library, accessed June 25, 2025, https://ascelibrary.com/doi/10.1061/JMENEA.MEENG-6243
59. Digital Technologies and Circular Economy in the Construction Sector: A Review of Lifecycle Applications, Integrations, Potential, and Limitations – MDPI, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/15/4/553
60. Circular economy in construction: The digital transformation perspective – ResearchGate, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376908246_Circular_economy_in_construction_The_digital_transformation_perspective
61. Material and building passports for construction – Circularise, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.circularise.com/industry/construction
62. Build Smarter and Grow Faster with the Refreshed Built Environment Industry Digital Plan | CTO-as-a-Service – IMDA, accessed June 25, 2025, https://services2.imda.gov.sg/ctoaas/highlight/76/build-smarter-and-grow-faster-with-the-refreshed-built-environment-industry-digital-plan
63. Life cycle assessment and buildings | GSA, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.gsa.gov/governmentwide-initiatives/federal-highperformance-buildings/highperformance-building-clearinghouse/integrative-design-strategies/life-cycle-perspective/life-cycle-assessment-and-buildings
64. Commercial Building Example Life Cycle Assessment: Step-by-Step Case Study – Cerclos, accessed June 25, 2025, https://cerclos.com/commercial-building-example-life-cycle-assessment-step-by-step-case-study/
65. Design for Deconstruction and Disassembly: Barriers, Opportunities, and Practices in Developing Economies of Central Asia – Munin, accessed June 25, 2025, https://munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/27290/article.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
66. What are material passports (and how do they work)? – University of the Built Environment, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.ube.ac.uk/whats-happening/articles/material-passports/
67. Materials Passports | UKGBC, accessed June 25, 2025, https://ukgbc.org/resources/materials-passports-guides/
68. Circular economy action plan – European Commission, accessed June 25, 2025, https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy-action-plan_en
69. The Circular Building | Arup – Archinect, accessed June 25, 2025, https://archinect.com/aruparchitects/project/the-circular-building
70. Circular options for building services: Case Studies; 22 Gordon Street, Arup Circular Building – University College London, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/circular-economy-lab/sites/circular_economy_lab/files/bif_circular_economy_options_for_hvac_final_report.pdf
71. NUS launches Singapore’s first new-build net-zero energy building, accessed June 25, 2025, https://cde.nus.edu.sg/news-detail/nus-launches-singapores-first-new-build-net-zero-energy-building/
72. Singapore University’s net zero-energy building operating at 30% energy surplus, accessed June 25, 2025, https://constructsteel.org/projects/singapore-university-net-zero-energy-building-30-energy-surplus/
73. ULI Case Studies – ULI Knowledge Finder – Urban Land Institute, accessed June 25, 2025, https://knowledge.uli.org/-/media/files/case-studies/2023/kampung-admiralty-case-study.pdf
74. WOHA Architects, accessed June 25, 2025, https://woha.net/
75. THE IMPETUSES AND IMPEDIMENTS FOR DESIGN FOR DISASSEMBLY IN SINGAPORE, accessed June 25, 2025, https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/entities/publication/2e314aba-d706-47e9-9ece-c576ff44ed28
76. Integrating Design for Adaptability, Disassembly, and Reuse into Architectural Design Practice – MDPI, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/17/7771
77. Methods to Account for Design for Disassembly: Status of the Building Sector – MDPI, accessed June 25, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/13/4/1012

dynamic material passports for sustainable material management: a conceptual framework – European Council on Computing in Construction, accessed June 25, 2025, https://ec-3.org/publications/conferences/EC32024/papers/EC32024_192.pdf