Circular economy strategies for high-rise buildings in developing countries: a review

Developing countries continue to progress toward more sustainable modes of operation in various sectors, particularly in the built environment. This emphasis is also prominent in high-rise buildings (HRBs), as these structures, although helpful for spatial optimisation, can be a major source of waste and environmental harm. Therefore, circular economy strategies (CESs) are becoming a primary focal point, both for researchers and professionals in practice. However, studies show that the emphasis remains on theory, as such strategies have yet to be seen in practice due to a number of factors. In response, this study conducts a semi-systematic literature review (SSLR) on this broad concept to synthesize insights from relevant papers on circular economy strategies in high-rise buildings in developing countries, highlighting its applicability, level of implementation, drivers and hindrances. After a filtering process, 67 papers met all eligibility criteria. 77.6% were published between 2022 and 2025, reflecting an increasing research interest. Only one paper out of the 67 included studies offered direct evidence on HRB-specific construction; all other included studies offered transferable evidence from the general construction sector. This suggests an under-exploration of HRB-specific CE research within built environment discourse. From the included studies, five key themes were identified: construction and demolition waste (CDW) recycling and management, the most discussed strategy; modular construction and prefabrication; Design for Disassembly (DfD) and circular design; material reuse systems; and integrated management and regenerative policy frameworks. HRB-specific empirical evidence showed an increase in waste of 29.3% in sites with weaker on-site supervision and routine discipline than in those with more controlled supervision. This points to a systemic hindrance rather than knowledge-based obstacles. Regulatory support, limited funding, and lack of technical skills were listed as one of the major contributors to this phenomenon. Transport of recycled CDW materials was stated to account for up to 50% of recycling costs in certain countries. Studies also revealed that implementation varied by location and sector; China and India demonstrated further CE adoption than sub-Saharan Africa, and public infrastructure is prioritized over private and commercial buildings. Theoretical and practical future directions were recommended, such as longitudinal studies, user perception analysis, comparative regional analysis, and the development of frameworks tailored to the unique conditions of HRBs in developing contexts. The study’s findings can help professionals in planning and execution and lawmakers in strategy and enforcement.

High-rise construction is regarded as a well-established strategy to address the housing problems faced in countries experiencing rapid urbanization (Sutantio et al., 2022). High-rise buildings (HRBs) spanning residential, commercial and public-use typologies, from condominiums to office towers and civic infrastructure, are gaining popularity because they can accommodate a higher density of residents and functions than low-rise developments (Dimuna et al., 2025). Africa, Asia and Latin America are continually experiencing a surge in their number of residents. The United Nations predict that these continents will be the home to 90% of new city dwellers by the year 2050. As a result, stakeholders in the built environment have consistently prioritized high-rise construction as a sustainable approach to resultant spatial issues (Agyemang et al., 2018). Despite its numerous benefits in addressing housing problems, this process typically requires substantial resources and energy, generates significant waste, and can be quite complex (Hasan et al., 2021; Kalu Arachchi et al., 2024; Aduwo et al., 2024). This has created what scholars call a “take-make-dispose” attitude to the environment, responsible for up to 30 and 40% of carbon emissions and solid waste, respectively, further depleting the environment’s valuable resources and leading to greenhouse gas emissions (Moral et al., 2026; Rathnasinghe et al., 2026).

To solve this issue, research was conducted, and the “Circular Economy” paradigm was developed. This philosophy was devised to support regenerative practices in the built environment (Oudjehane, 2026). It was designed to consider the entire lifecycle of a building project, ensuring adaptability and resilience while mitigating negative environmental impacts (Ekhaese and Olukayode, 2026). Studies argue that this approach to construction, coupled with an eco-friendly framework, can yield significant benefits for a project’s lifespan and the environment (Asante et al., 2022; Timm et al., 2023). As a result of resource optimisation and the creation of new value chains, some of these benefits also extend to economic factors (Sharma et al., 2023).

While circular economy research in the construction industry has gained more attention in recent years, it is predominantly studied as a whole. How CE strategies interact with the diverse categories and typologies of buildings remains underexplored. This nuance is critical, especially for high-rise buildings, which present a unique set of challenges and opportunities to CE implementation. The very characteristics that make high-rise buildings effective also limit and constrain CE adoption. Verticality constrains construction sites and material handling; standardized floor plates create both opportunities and challenges for modular design; its large scale also amplifies construction and demolition waste; and the heaviness of structural components makes them harder to transport. Some theorists have underscored this pattern. Kazmi and Chakraborty (2024, 2025) systematically map CE research in the Indian construction space. The analysis identified a persistent tendency to view the construction sector broadly, without zooming in on how CE strategies work for specific building typologies. Hence, three major gaps remain evident: (i) evidence that CE strategies apply to HRBs outside the general construction data, (ii) how the awareness-implementation gap typical in developing countries affects CEs in HRBs, and (iii) how verticality-specific constraints affect the drivers and barriers already documented at the broader construction level.

Developing countries have also begun to join this national conversation, seeking new ways to promote circularity, resource management, and sustainability in construction projects. This is primarily as a response to persistent socio-environmental issues such as inadequate housing and environmental degradation (Sholanke et al., 2026). This is not limited to construction alone; evidence exists that various sectors have begun to put in efforts toward the actualisation of circular economy operational models (Moral et al., 2026). Despite this growing attention, there is still a lot of progress to be made. Supportive policies face obstacles that continue to hinder the effective adoption of CE strategies, particularly in the built environment. Scholars have identified a few factors, including inadequate funding, limited technical skills and expertise, and unsupportive policy frameworks, among others (De Silva et al., 2023). Therefore, it is important to examine how these barriers can be overcome to enable the effective application of CESs in building construction. There is a need to delve into research on this topic, drawing insights into how CESs can be used in the construction of HRBs within the unique socio-economic contexts of developing countries. This study aims to fill this research gap. By systematically analyzing what studies have currently covered on these strategies and what research gaps need to be further studied, this research aims to provide situationally relevant insights and chart future courses of action for relevant stakeholders in these settings. Hence, this review aims to examine circular economy strategies (CESs) for high-rise buildings (HRBs) while investigating their applicability within the scope of developing countries to promote sustainable building practices in these contexts. The specific research objectives are:

To identify the key CESs applicable to HRBs based on CE principles

To analyze the current implementation of CESs in HRBs in developing countries

To analyze the drivers and barriers of the effective transition to CE in HRBs construction in developing countries

To propose future research directions for the implementation of CESs in HRBs in developing countries

Developing countries around the world, as previously stated, are faced with similar issues regarding sustainable construction in high-rise developments. Given the breadth of this scope, this review draws on evidence from multiple developing-country contexts across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, while emphasizing Sub-Saharan Africa in light of the authors’ contextual scope. This locational scope allows the review to identify patterns that recur across developing contexts and uncover context-specific dynamics. The insights derived can then be used as a reference for analyzing locations with similar socio-economic conditions. By synthesizing current research, this study offers meaningful insights into circularity in developing countries and knowledge on how these contexts can optimally progress toward a more sustainable, resilient urban environment. To achieve the stated objectives, this study conducted a semi-systematic literature review (SSLR) drawing on a selection of articles published between 2016 and 2026. Further details are outlined in the research methodology section. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows:

Background and Theoretical Foundations outlining the foundational CE principles on which this study is built

Methodology section explaining the systematic procedure of this research, as well as the scope of the study

Results and Findings section outlines the research findings in response to each research objective

Conclusions and Discussions section highlights the major points of this research’s findings, its implications, as well as the limitations of the study

A research agenda section is also provided to offer insights on further research direction

Background and theoretical foundations

Regarding circular economy strategies in literature, several studies have devised various frameworks: the 3R framework, 6R framework, 9R framework and the ReSOLVE framework (Yuan et al., 2006; Jawahir and Bradley, 2016; Potting et al., 2017; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015; Chou et al., 2026). This study, however, adopts the 3R, 9R, and ReSOLVE frameworks as its theoretical foundation and excludes the 6R framework. Of these three, the 9R and ReSOLVE frameworks serve as the primary analytical lens, while the 3R framework serves only as the foundational explanation upon which the more detailed frameworks were built. The 6R framework (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recover, Remanufacture, and Redesign), developed by Jawahir and Bradley (2016), was excluded for three reasons. First, 9R comprises 10 strategies offering a more precise and detailed breakdown of CE actions than the six strategies of the 6R framework. Second, the 9R is arranged in order of circularity value, ranking the strongest CE strategies from the weakest. This structure supports relevance mapping between frameworks and derived themes, highlighting primary and secondary associations, as presented in section 3.2. Lastly, because several of the 6R framework’s actions are already embedded within the 9R framework, using both together would not necessarily offer additional insight, just extra weight. On the other hand, pairing the individual-strategy focus of the 9R framework with the systems-level focus of the ReSOLVE framework contributes two distinct perspectives that complement each other and serve the study’s objectives.

i 3R - Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle

Introduced by the Japanese government in 2004, the 3R initiative emphasizes waste management. It arranges three steps in hierarchy: reduce consumption first, reuse what is available and recycle only what cannot be reduced or reused. This framework became the foundation upon which subsequent frameworks were built (Yuan et al., 2006; Popović and Radivojević, 2022)

ii 9R – Refuse, Rethink, Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Refurbish, Remanufacture, Repurpose, Recycle and Recover

Conventionally named for its highest-numbered strategy, this framework is structured as a value-retention hierarchy, rather than a regular itemized list. R0-R2 (Refuse, Rethink and Reduce) are positioned at the top because they prevent the need for resource use in the first place; R3-R7 (Reuse, Repair, Refurbish, Remanufacture, Repurpose) represent the middle tier, to extend the life span of a product while maintaining its original form; R8-R9 (Recycle and Recover) are located at the bottom of the hierarchy, ensuring that in case the original form is destroyed, the raw materials and energy value of the product can still be useful. This hierarchy is important because it reflects the circularity value: refuse and rethink are regarded as more circular than recycle or recover (Potting et al., 2017).

iii EMF’s ReSOLVE - Regenerate, Share, Optimise, Loop, Virtualise, and Exchange

Developed by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015), the ReSOLVE framework targets different aspects of CE rather than the waste hierarchy. Re generate prioritizes the use of renewable materials and energy; S hare advocates for optimisation through collaborative use of assets; O ptimise improves performance and reduces waste; L oop keeps materials in a closed cycle through remanufacturing; V irtualise opts for a digital delivery model over physical; and E xchange replaces old materials with eco-friendly alternatives (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015).

High-rise building definition

Considering the definition of high-rise buildings in research, there are disparities. No universal definition of high-rise buildings currently exists, as thresholds vary across jurisdictions and are shaped by fire-safety, structural, and planning considerations (CTBUH, 2024). Table 1 itemizes definitions from different jurisdictions, comparing how they are operationalized in both developed and developing contexts.

Given this variability, this study respects each context’s definition, instead of forcing a rigid rule across the board. In the case where an explicit definition is not provided, the study adopts a universal baseline: any building that is at least 6 floors tall or 18 meters high. The six-floor component corresponds to the lowest floor-count criterion identified across the codes reviewed (the threshold of more than five floors applied in the Lagos planning law, which admits buildings of six floors and above), while the 18 m component follows the height threshold applied in general building-safety classification (UK Government, 2022). Where a jurisdiction applies a lower standalone height trigger, such as the 12 m criterion in the Lagos planning law, that local definition takes precedence, since this baseline applies only where no explicit jurisdictional definition exists. This working definition avoids the limitation associated with using a single floor-count threshold, as floor-to-floor heights vary substantially across different countries (CTBUH, 2024).

After defining the study’s objectives, the authors agreed on a semi-systematic literature review (SSLR) as the most appropriate method in addressing the interdisciplinary and broad-field nature of the research questions. Unlike a systematic literature review (SLR), which is best for answering a narrowly defined question, the SSLR accommodates themes or topics that have been conceptualized differently across a variety of disciplines. Although less prescriptive than a systematic review, it still retains a structured and reproducible process with transparent methodology and explicit eligibility criteria (Wong, 2013; Snyder, 2019). It was considered suitable for this study for a number of reasons. First, CE research in the built environment is not exclusive to a single field alone; it draws on architecture, civil engineering, environmental science and policy (Edike et al., 2021; Pan and Zhang, 2023; Vandamme et al., 2026), making it an interdisciplinary topic well-suited for an SSLR. Second, while SLR’s strength lies in answering a specific question, an SSLR maps and synthesizes insights on a topic across a broad field of study. Hence, it is useful in identifying recurring patterns, themes and trends across studies; a characteristic that benefits all four objectives listed in the section above (Barona et al., 2023). Depending on the functionality of the database, it also allows for the refinement of search strategies during the review process, as long as all refinements are reported transparently. To achieve the stated objectives, this study conducted a semi-systematic literature review (SSLR). However, the capacity of an SSLR to bring together similar themes and issues regarding the circular economy and its relationship to high-rise construction in developing contexts demonstrates what makes it an innovative review approach (Portus et al., 2024). Moreover, it also uncovers the prominence or absence of interdisciplinary work on a particular subject.

The review framework consisted of search strategies, criteria for inclusion and exclusion, retrieval of relevant data and an overall synthesis in order to present reliable, precise information. Scholars argue that when effectively carried out, an SSLR can benefit research by deriving themes that can be used to form theories that promote knowledge from the identified seminal literature (Tushar and Sooraksa, 2023; Barona et al., 2023).

Search strategy and data synthesis

To ensure relevance, this study restricted its review to research published in the last 11 years, i.e., from 2016, as the concept of CE in developing countries is somewhat of a new phenomenon. The search strings were made up of a combination of terms related to circular economy, high-rise buildings, construction and developing countries. Relevant studies were retrieved from academic databases, including Scopus, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect. Scopus and Google Scholar were used as primary search databases to ensure a broad coverage of literature. To improve comprehensiveness, three complementary search strings were used in Google Scholar. Only the first 200 results from each search were screened due to the relevance ranking of the database. Insights from Haddaway et al. (2015) support this approach, as they state that screening the highest-ranked results is a practical and acceptable strategy for evidence synthesis. A supplemental search using a refined search string was conducted in ScienceDirect to ensure that relevant papers were not omitted.

The keyword strings and Boolean operators were run across the three databases. While efforts were made to maintain consistency in search parameters, differences in database features made it difficult to apply identical search parameters across all three platforms. The search strings used in each database are presented below.

Scopus: (“circular economy” OR “circularity” OR “circular construction”) AND (“high-rise” OR “high rise” OR “tall building” OR “skyscraper” OR “multi-storey” OR “multistorey”) AND (“construction” OR “building*”).

Google Scholar: A = “circular economy” “high-rise building” construction; B = “circular construction” “high-rise building”; C = “circular design” “high-rise building.”

Sciencedirect: (“circular economy”) AND (“high-rise building”) AND (“construction” OR “built environment”) AND (“developing countries” OR “Sub-Saharan Africa”). To improve search precision and align the search with the study’s scope, filters were applied to subject areas in Sciencedirect. Studies related to Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Decision Science, Earth and Planetary Science, Chemical Engineering and Business, Management and Accounting were excluded. The term “Sub-Saharan Africa” was included only in the supplementary string to improve the retrieval of regional studies; it was not applied as an eligibility filter. Studies conducted in any developing-country context were eligible for inclusion, and the emphasis placed on Sub-Saharan Africa in Sections 3 and 4 is analytical rather than a restriction of the review’s locational scope.

The initial search included language restrictions and included studies written in English or with English translations. The initial database search returned a total of 756 records. To limit the scope and ensure quality and relevance, a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria was applied.

Studies were included if they met the following criteria:

Studies that focused on circular economy in building and construction, including but not limited to design for disassembly, material recovery, resource efficiency, lifecycle assessment, and sustainable architecture

Studies carried out with a locational scope of developing countries

Studies that investigate high-rise buildings or tall structures as defined in Section 1.2, or general building and construction CE studies not restricted to low-rise typologies whose findings were judged applicable to HRB contexts; all included studies were subsequently classified as direct HRB evidence or transferable evidence (Section 2.1.2)

Studies conducted in the last 11 years, i.e., between 2016 and 2026

Studies were excluded if they met the following criteria:

Studies focused solely on developed nations

Studies on sustainability concepts without a clear focus on the circular economy

Research that focuses explicitly on low-rise structures only

Papers without full-text publications

Duplicate studies

Screening outcome

After all the 756 records were assessed for duplication, the number of studies was reduced to 440. The 440 studies were then assessed based on the stated eligibility criteria. The exclusion process is as outlined below:

21 papers were excluded because they did not meet the timeline criteria

43 papers lacked sufficient circular economy focus

37 studies were carried out in developed countries only

41 papers did not study the circular economy within the context of construction

This process excluded 142 studies, with 298 advancing to the full-text assessment stage. The next stage of exclusion is listed as follows:

106 papers lacked explicit circular economy strategies

106 studies did not focus on developing countries as a locational scope

2 papers were opinion pieces

1 paper was a pre-print article

16 papers lacked sufficient information and a DOI.

This further excluded 231 studies, resulting in 67 papers included in the final review. Figure 1 provides an overview and visual representation of this screening process.

Two-tier HRB eligibility classification

To distinguish evidence directly investigating HRBs from broader construction-sector CE research, each included study was further classified into two tiers during data extraction: direct HRB evidence and transferable evidence. Studies were categorized as direct HRB evidence if their focus, case selection, or framing explicitly addressed high-rise or tall buildings, as outlined in Section 1.2; that is, if the central contribution would change if the HRB focus were removed. Transferable evidence was used for studies that address broad CE research but whose findings were judged applicable to HRB contexts. Of the 67 studies retained, only one study, Roy and Beulah (2026), which examines the effectiveness of waste minimization techniques in high-rise residential buildings in Bengaluru, India, met the Direct HRB threshold. The remaining 66 studies were classified as Transferable. This uneven distribution is itself one of the major findings of this review rather than a limitation of its search strategy. It reveals that CE in developing contexts engages with construction as an undifferentiated sector and is yet to develop rich evidence specific to high-rise typologies. Accordingly, the synthesis in Sections 3 and 4 draws mainly on Transferable evidence and is framed as an inference applicable to HRB contexts, rather than as findings from HRB-specific research.

Data extraction and synthesis

This section outlines the data extraction and synthesis process used in this review. To comprehensively analyse the study’s insights, a thematic, framework-based method was adopted. This approach is consistent with established guidelines for reviewing research fields that are diverse in nature (Snyder, 2019). Each of the 67 papers was carefully reviewed to identify recurring patterns and similar strategies, which were then organized into themes using the ReSOLVE and 9R frameworks as a guide.

Each study in the final corpus was examined, and CE strategies were identified. These candidate strategies were then compared across all the papers and grouped into provisional themes. The authors mapped the themes against the ReSOLVE and 9R frameworks (Table 2) to check how they relate to recognized CE action. Iterative refinement was then conducted to sharpen the boundaries between the themes and to ensure that no distinct CE action was collapsed into another, while recognizing that the themes remain conceptually interrelated. The five resulting themes: CDW Recycling and Management, Modular Construction and Prefabrication, Design for Disassembly (DfD) and Circular Design, Material Reuse Systems, and Integrated Management and Regenerative Policy Frameworks are analytically distinct but interrelated. For instance, CDW Recycling and Management, Modular Construction, Design for Disassembly, and Material Reuse all engage with material recovery at some stage of the building’s lifecycle and can co-occur within the same project. Section 4 provides further insights into this conceptual interrelation.

For each included study, six categories were extracted and charted: (i) bibliographic details; (ii) geographical context; (iii) study design; (iv) the CE strategies discussed, mapped against the 9R and ReSOLVE frameworks; (v) outlined drivers and barriers to CE adoption; and (vi) any insights specific/relevant to high-rise typologies. This charting was done by the second author and cross-checked and verified by the lead author. Any disagreements were resolved until a consensus was reached. This process was repeated across each objective. Geographical context was charted for every included study (Table 3), and the regional patterns reported in sections 3 and 4 were identified from this charted data. The comparative attention given to Sub-Saharan Africa in these sections reflects the authors’ contextual focus rather than any difference in how studies were coded. In instances where verticality-specific factors are discussed directly, derived themes were reported under the relevant category during extraction.

Given the heterogeneity of the corpus, as shown in Table 4, no formal appraisal instrument, such as Mixed Methods Appraisal or CASP checklists, was used. Each included study was assessed qualitatively for relevance during data extraction rather than using a numerical scoring system. The literature search and screening were undertaken by the second author between May and July 2026. Although the screening was conducted by a single reviewer, the search strategy, eligibility criteria, and synthesis approach were developed jointly by both authors, and the lead author reviewed the final manuscript to ensure methodological consistency.

Descriptive analysis

The 67 identified articles included in this review were published between 2016 and 2026. Majority of the papers, i.e., 52 out of 67 (77.6%) were published from 2022–2025, indicating a growing interest in CE strategies within developing contexts. The 67 articles were also conducted with a focus on various geographical locations, as shown in Table 3.

Regarding study design, Table 4 provides a breakdown of the diverse research designs used in this review. Survey (questionnaire-based) studies were the most prevalent (n = 24), followed by framework development (n = 15), then literature reviews (n = 9), mixed methods (n = 8), case studies/observational guides (n = 6), and empirical studies (n = 5). This underscores the emphasis placed on user or stakeholder perceptions, challenges and drivers of CESs in developing countries.

Synthesis of findings

This section highlights the research findings based on each objective addressed, synthesising how current literature has discussed these key issues. Before we delve into the results derived from the analysis, the authors want to state that except where Roy and Beulah (2026) is cited, the findings are drawn from Transferable evidence and should be interpreted as applicable to HRB contexts rather than as findings drawn from HRB-specific research.

Obj 1: to identify the key CESs applicable to HRBs based on CE principles

The included studies provided insightful information on key CESs applicable to HRBs. This outlined strategies and their paper source were then grouped under the five previously stated main themes.

Construction and demolition waste (CDW) recycling and management: From the review of the studies, CDW recycling emerged as the most discussed CES. Research conducted in India, China, Nigeria, and Sri Lanka has shown potential in recycling CDW materials, such as concrete, bricks, and aggregates (Hammadhu and Anjali, 2024; Roslim et al., 2025; Abidin et al., 2025; Mohammad et al., 2024). Strategic recommendations on how this can be executed were also listed, some of which include:

Separating waste materials on-site (Mohammad et al., 2024).

Establishing a functional CDW recycling plant, preferably centralized (Kanagaraj et al., 2022)

Creating shops and market areas that sell recycled CDW for new construction (Wu et al., 2024)

Intentionally utilizing recycled waste for major sections of new projects (Quashie et al., 2024)

In the only Direct HRB study, Roy and Beulah (2026) demonstrated, in eight high-rise residential projects in Bengaluru, that structured on-site sorting, providing bins dedicated to different materials, and controlling waste early in the project lead to reductions in CDW. Sites with controlled waste had a Relative Reduction (RR) value of about 7–13%, while uncontrolled sites had negative RR values of −4.48 to −9.15%, indicating worsened waste management performance. Hammadhu and Anjali (2024) further stated that one of the major causes of CDW is the improper disposal of site waste and that it points to inadequate knowledge and weak legislative policies. This study emphasized the importance of policy support in CDW recycling because it was found that transporting CDW requires up to 50% of the recycled materials costs.

Modular construction and prefabrication: Modular construction was also highlighted as a CE strategy that helps to reduce construction waste, maximize resources as well as foster ease of disassembly (Bello et al., 2023a; Bello and Idris, 2023; Unegbu et al., 2024; Ali A. H. et al., 2024a). Numerous studies explored modular construction in developing countries, outlining a number of potential benefits such as 50% reduction of construction waste, faster construction, better quality control, facilitating the reuse of materials as disassembly, and reduced impact on the environment from minimal on-site activities (Bello et al., 2023c; Jayawardana et al., 2023a; Asante et al., 2022). Much of this modular benefit is realized through Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA), a design methodology discussed in detail alongside DfD below, given the close conceptual overlap between the two.

Design for disassembly (DfD) and circular design: DfD is an innovative CES that allows structures to be carefully taken apart rather than destroyed during demolition. This strategic process usually enables reuse of the various parts of the building, minimizing waste and demand on new materials (Ezema et al., 2023; Alotaibi et al., 2024a). Research argues that DfD transforms the closed material loop agenda of circular design (Roslim et al., 2025; Alotaibi et al., 2024b; Ofori et al., 2025). Some of the key DfD strategies outlined include:

Designing buildings with mechanical rather than chemical connections (Mhatre et al., 2024)

Coming up with modular designs that make use of standardized parts (Ali et al., 2023a)

Planning for the entire lifecycle of a structure from the initial design stage (Talpur et al., 2023; Ali H. S. M. et al., 2024b; Victar and Waidyasekara, 2024a)

Together, these strategies align DfD closely with the Reuse, Refurbish and Remanufacture actions of the 9R framework and the Optimise and Loop actions of the ReSOLVE framework. Since a building with strong disassembly features retains its constituent materials at the highest possible value at end-of-life, numerous studies regard it as a preferable choice to recycling, which recovers only raw material value. Likewise, Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) offers a model similar to DfD, but it differs in some respects. While DfD is mainly concerned with how a building comes apart at the end of life, DfMA focuses on how a building is assembled during construction. It incorporates reducing on-site labor, factory production and standardization to improve quality and minimize waste (Montazeri et al., 2024). The difference between these two strategies makes them complementary rather than contrasting. Components manufactured off-site, in line with DfMA principles, meet the standardized and mechanical connections that make DfD easier. This suggests that when HRBs implement DfMA strategies from the initial design state, they are better positioned to achieve disassembly and material recovery at the end of their lifecycle (Montazeri et al., 2024). DfMA offers additional benefits in developing contexts due to faster construction and reduced dependence on skilled labor; however, its adoption is constrained by the same infrastructural and financial challenges that impede the widespread adoption of modular construction.

Material reuse systems: Material reuse is also a key aspect of circular design, as it centers on reintroducing used materials into the production loop (Ababio et al., 2023; Koc et al., 2023). Various studies, therefore, reveal that a strategic way to execute this approach is to establish places where secondary materials can be sold. In cases where these reclaimed materials are optimized, the projects should be duly recognized and certified (Victar and Waidyasekara, 2024c). Legislative personnel also need to include reused materials when updating building codes and standards (Hendrianto et al., 2024). Facilitating awareness of the benefits of this building practice should also be a priority for stakeholders (Jayawardana et al., 2023b).

Roy and Beulah (2026) offer direct evidence for the operational feasibility of this approach. The study reported that reusing shuttering wood, steel offcuts, brick bats, and mortar waste can be successfully implemented in HRB projects when supported with dedicated storage areas and adequate worker training.

Integrated management and regenerative policy frameworks

Multiple studies emphasized the importance of management and policies in executing any of the aforementioned CE strategies (Karaca and Tleuken, 2023; Mangoro et al., 2025; Sharma et al., 2025). Research demonstrated that all CE strategies are supported and maintained by a comprehensive, enforceable policy framework, such as submission of a mandatory waste management agenda, incentives for optimal CE adherence, capacity building and enlightenment programs, and establishing waste recycling infrastructure, managed by both public and private bodies (Walters et al., 2024; Choudhary et al., 2023; Ibrahim and Zayed, 2025; Mukali et al., 2025; Hendrianto et al., 2024; Torgautov et al., 2021). However, research shows that this CE strategy is significantly lacking in developing countries (Weerakoon et al., 2025; Yaduvanshi et al., 2016; Bello et al., 2024).

Relevance relationship between CE frameworks and the study’s themes

While the 3R and 9R frameworks are typically used for products and projects, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) conceptualized the ReSOLVE framework to emphasize change and regenerative cycles (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015; Chou et al., 2026). To develop a robust and comprehensive theoretical framework for this review, the authors synthesized the sub-actions from the ReSOLVE and 9R CE frameworks. As previously stated, the 9R framework lists the actions based on their circularity value, with R0 - Refuse being the most circular intervention and R9 - Recover being the least circular. Using similar review studies as a guide (Barona et al., 2023; Chou et al., 2026), the authors identified five major themes applicable to high-rise construction in the context of developing countries.

Table 2 shows the synthesis mapping of the two frameworks; however, there is also an interrelationship between the five main themes and the two frameworks used in this study. Figure 2 illustrates this identified connection. This figure also shows the extent to which each framework is relevant to each theme. This relevance is depicted graphically; solid lines indicate primary/strong relevance while dashed lines indicate secondary/partial relevance.

To demonstrate the relationship between the five themes (which we call emergent actions) and the ReSOLVE and 9Rs frameworks (which we refer to as base actions), solid and dashed connections were adopted as shown in Figure 2. Strong/primary classifications are depicted using solid lines, and partial/secondary classifications are depicted using dashed lines. The frequency and explicitness of the base actions across the corpus influenced the classification and connection type shown in the figure. A solid line indicates that the base action was frequently discussed as a primary aspect of the emergent action, while a dashed line denotes an incidental or secondary-effect relationship. Consistent with the qualitative nature of this review, this classification reflects the authors’ interpretive judgment rather than a statistically derived threshold (Braun and Clarke, 2006).

Obj 2: to analyze the current implementation of CESs in HRBs in developing countries

This synthesis also analyzed the implementation of CE strategies in developing countries, revealing that while awareness is increasing, implementation remains limited. As in Section 3.2.1, all findings below are drawn from Transferable evidence except where Roy and Beulah (2026) is cited. The direct evidence attribution to Roy and Beulah (2026) and transferable evidence insights apply to this section as well. Major findings are listed as follows:

Awareness vs implementation: The direct-evidence study (Roy and Beulah, 2026) tracked material wastage across seven two-month phases in eight high-rise residential buildings. Four of the buildings implemented a structured, controlled intervention by combining extensive supervision with controlled material issuing, strict storage and on-site waste segregation. The other four continued conventional practice without any controlled intervention. The cases with controlled intervention showed measurable waste-management improvements, whereas the uncontrolled sites deteriorated over the same period. The uncontrolled projects also experienced a 29.3% increase in waste and incurred an additional ₹1.32–1.90 lakh ($1,380–1,988) per project.

As HRB-specific empirical evidence shows, the awareness-implementation gap is not insurmountable in HRB projects; rather, it can be bridged through proper, continuous on-site management.

Another study by Abidin et al. (2025) examined the current state of CE practice in Malaysia’s construction industry, surveying 250 contractors. The study found that ‘insufficient comprehension and insight’ regarding circular economy emerged as the most critical barrier in transitioning to CE practice. Suleman et al. (2024) reported a comparable pattern in a critical review of circular design adoption across Sub-Saharan Africa, associating an implementation level of approximately 58% with barriers such as low awareness and resistance to change. As this figure is synthesized from secondary sources rather than measured against a defined sample frame or instrument, it is not directly comparable with the contractor survey reported by Abidin et al. (2025): the two are presented here as convergent but methodologically distinct findings. As prompted by Abdulai et al. (2024) and supported by Roy and Beulah (2026), this underscores systemic obstacles as the primary issue, not lack of knowledge. Awareness can translate to measurable material savings only when implementation is supplemented through strict supervision and adequate discipline.

Implementation disparities based on location: It was also found that, although developing countries are often regarded as having similar socio-economic environments, the adoption levels of CE strategies vary geographically. Countries such as China and India are more advanced in CE strategies, with CDW recycling plants and numerous modular construction projects (Ma et al., 2023; Sharma et al., 2024). Sub-Saharan Africa, on the other hand, is still in the early stages of CE implementation, as limited infrastructure and support impede smooth transition (Suleman et al., 2024; Oluwatayo and Ojo, 2024). Southeast Asia was observed to have moderate adoption due to an increase in policy support, and Latin America also has emerging CE projects but requires scaling and replication (Victar and Waidyasekara, 2024c; Cohen et al., 2022; Véliz et al., 2025; Piñones et al., 2023).

Implementation disparities based on sector: The review also revealed that different attention is given to certain sectors over others. Building stakeholders tend to prioritise public infrastructure when considering CE strategies, often driven by sustainability goals and government mandates. Conversely, private residences and high-rise commercial buildings tend to experience low-to-moderate CE implementation due to cost constraints, lack of incentives, and limited policy support (Tieru et al., 2026; De Silva et al., 2023; Victar and Waidyasekara, 2024b).

Obj 3: to analyse the drivers and barriers of the effective transition to CE in HRBs construction in developing countries

As in preceding subsections, evidence in this section is drawn from Transferable evidence, except where Roy and Beulah (2026) is cited. The included studies identified several drivers of CE implementation in HRBs applicable to developing countries. These drivers are grouped into four major themes: regulatory, economic, environmental, and social.

Regulatory drivers: Building codes that mandate submission of waste management plans, certification systems for CE adoption (e.g., LEED, BREEAM), and extended producer responsibility (Soto-Paz et al., 2023; Ishan et al., 2023; Zairul, 2023).

Economic drivers: Increased market demand for reclaimed materials, creation of jobs tailored to CDW recycling and reuse, cost savings from waste management (Rahigude et al., 2022; Esa et al., 2017).

Environmental drivers: Increased priority on mitigating negative environmental impact, climate change goals, scarcity and increased cost of new materials (Al Kaabi et al., 2025; Su et al., 2025; Bello et al., 2023c).

Social drivers: Corporate sustainability goals, demand for CE adherence from certain investors and clients, curriculum designed to educate on CE strategies and benefits (Babalola and Amoko, 2026; Mohammad et al., 2024; Quashie et al., 2024).

Some barriers were also identified under the following themes:

Regulatory barriers: Inadequate CE regulations coupled with weak enforcement of existing policies, limited standardization for reclaimed building materials, disparities in existing policies (Kanagaraj et al., 2022; Unegbu et al., 2024; Hammadhu and Anjali, 2024; Bello and Idris, 2023; Asante et al., 2022; Alotaibi et al., 2024a; Koc et al., 2023; Kalu Arachchi et al., 2024).

Economic barriers: CE adoption usually requires a high initial investment for technological components and systems, inadequate funding for CE projects, familiarity with prices of new materials (Ali et al., 2023a; Ali et al., 2023b; Bello et al., 2023b; Alotaibi et al., 2024b; Ofori et al., 2025; Mhatre et al., 2024; Talpur et al., 2023; Kalu Arachchi et al., 2024).

Technical and infrastructure barriers: High transportation costs, limited expertise on how to use these materials, lack of waste recycling facilities (Ababio et al., 2023; Victar and Waidyasekara, 2024c; Hendrianto et al., 2024; Jayawardana et al., 2023b; Asiedu et al., 2024; Karaca and Tleuken, 2023; Mangoro et al., 2025; Hammadhu and Anjali, 2024; Sharma et al., 2025).

Verticality limitations: Drawing across the Transferable studies, CE adoption is stated to be harder on constrained urban HRB sites; inadequate facilities hinder modular construction in developing contexts; and high-rise reclaimed structural components can be heavier to transport (Hammadhu and Anjali, 2024; Bello et al., 2023a; Bello et al., 2023d; Abu-Ghaida et al., 2024).

Social and organisational barriers: Resistance to change, false perception of reclaimed materials due to limited knowledge, organizations with misaligned operational structures to CE strategies (Kalu Arachchi et al., 2024; Walters et al., 2024; Choudhary et al., 2023; Ibrahim and Zayed, 2025; Mohammad et al., 2024; Bello et al., 2024). Roy and Beulah (2026) revealed a similar pattern, showing that even when sites received similar intervention packages, weaker performance was associated with periodic low compliance. This was particularly evident during phases when the project was behind schedule and the site managers prioritized speed over everything else. Hence, success in CE implementation depends on more than a good plan; it requires sustained commitment even in high-pressure and stressful moments.

While highlighting growing attention to CE strategies, this review has identified meaningful insights to foster their adoption in the construction of HRBs in developing countries. Five major CE strategies were developed from current literature, revealing collective efforts toward sustainability in construction. The identified themes include Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) Recycling and Management, Modular Construction and prefabrication, Design for Disassembly (DfD) and Circular Design, Material Reuse Systems, and Integrated Management and Regenerative Policy Frameworks.

It is important to state that CDW Recycling was the most frequently discussed strategy. This phenomenon aligns with existing studies that regard waste minimisation as the core principle of circular design in construction (Esa et al., 2017; Salleh et al., 2022). However, it was also observed that the theoretical review of this strategy does not translate to its practical implementation, specifically in countries with limited resources and policy support. Modular construction also exhibited a similar trend, with various studies outlining numerous benefits of prefabrication compared with traditional construction (Pan and Zhang, 2023; Jayawardana et al., 2023b; Zhou et al., 2024). The “Optimise” and “Loop” principles of the ReSOLVE framework, as well as the Rethink, Recycle, Reuse, and Reduce of the 9Rs, emphasize this strategy. Studies show that it promotes resource optimisation, lean construction, and innovative design thinking (Grigoriadis et al., 2019). Interestingly, modularity is strongly connected to Design for Disassembly (DfD), a strategy that considers the entire lifecycle of a building. Research argues for the necessity of this strategy in circular design because it accounts for a structure’s end-of-life and plans to maximize the reuse of its components (Abu-Ghaida et al., 2024; Mhatre et al., 2024; Tleuken et al., 2022). These reclaimed parts can then be processed in a material reuse system that keeps the building process in a cyclic loop. Studies, however, reveal that while there are a number of systemic obstacles to DfD and material reuse in developing countries, lack of policy support is a major contributor (Tleuken et al., 2022). Reclaimed materials require recycling plants and secondary sales points, and DfD requires financial and technical support, usually on a scale that cannot be managed by an individual (Abu-Ghaida et al., 2024). Therefore, Integrated Management and Regenerative Policy Frameworks are critical in the adoption of CESs in HRBs in developing countries. Similar to previous studies, this review highlights that legislative support, enforceable standards, and capacity development are necessary for a smooth transition to CE in low- and middle-income countries (Quashie et al., 2024; Tleuken et al., 2022). It is for that reason that this strategy is supported by all the principles of the ReSOLVE and 9Rs frameworks.

HRB-specific circular economy framework

Toward HRB-specific discourse, this synthesis argues that high-rise buildings are not simply larger low-rise buildings, meaning that general CE strategies do not automatically translate to them. While certain strategies, barriers, and drivers are generally applicable across various building typologies, HRB-specific characteristics significantly determine how and whether CE themes can be effectively implemented, particularly in developing countries, where barriers to CE adoption are prevalent. This is important because high-rise construction inherently concentrates the primary challenges that CE strategies aim to address. Their large scale and volume produce more construction and demolition waste, and their vertical form complicates several CE strategies outlined in this review (Viswalekshmi and Bendi, 2024).

For instance, Hammadhu and Anjali (2024) reveal that CDW recycling is more difficult to implement in HRB located in constrained urban sites due to limited space for waste sorting. Another example is in modular construction and DfMA. In principle, these strategies are suited to HRBs due to the standardization of repeated floor plates; however, in developing countries, this advantage is hindered by underdeveloped prefabrication facilities, unreliable logistics for transporting large components, and a lack of adequate equipment to handle modular units at height (Bello et al., 2023a; Bello et al., 2023d). In a similar way, DfD and material reuse are constrained by verticality. Reclaimed structural components from a demolished HRB are typically heavier and harder to transport than those from low-rise buildings. An attempt to address this requires a high level of technical skill and adequate financial resources, both of which are limited in the resource-constrained contexts this review addresses (Abu-Ghaida et al., 2024). Even though CE has positive impacts on construction and the built environment, general strategies cannot be applied to HRBs without strategic adaptation, particularly in a developing context. It is therefore suggested that future frameworks consider the relationship between building height and the constraints of local contexts, rather than treating CE in HRBs as a scaled-up version of CE in low-rise buildings. Figure 3 below supports these findings with an illustrative framework that maps intrinsic HRB characteristics to verticality-related conditions and, in turn, to implications for the five CE themes identified in Section 3.2.1. This framework is not intended to be a prescriptive checklist but an analytical lens that helps shift the conversation from ‘CE in construction’ to ‘CE in HRB construction’ in developing contexts. Structured to be read top-down, the top layer outlines the physical and organisational realities that are foundational to HRBs, which give rise to the distinct structural and logistical dimensions identified in the middle layer. Finally, the bottom layer highlights how these dimensions directly influence the adoption of the five CE themes in high-rise development.

Beyond HRBs specifically, the findings of this review also contribute to a broader conversation on sustainable design emerging from developing and tropical-climate contexts. For example, in the transportation infrastructure sector, Tetiranont et al. (2024) performed an analysis of design visions of Thailand’s railway station. Besides looking to imported design practices as the standard, this study suggests that sustainable design is best achieved when local climatic and cultural conditions are treated as the starting point of the design process. HRB construction in similar contexts offers alternative contexts where such insights are applicable.

In a similar vein, Maqsoom et al. (2025) conducted a bibliometric analysis to provide an overview of the application of CE concepts in sustainable construction. This study found that while literature has expanded rapidly, certain gaps remain. Resource optimisation and waste reduction have attracted the most emphasis, but technological integration in developing contexts is slow. In parallel, disparities in research support, academia-to-industry implementation, and limited cross-disciplinary knowledge transfer also affect CE in emerging contexts. This gap mirrors the awareness-implementation disparity underscored in this review (Section 3.2.2) and suggests it is not exclusive to HRBs but a characteristic of CE research in construction generally. Prasittisopin (2025) reveal that emerging technologies can serve as a way out of this issue. The study reviewed machine learning and deep learning applications for sustainable concrete technology. Centered on the role such innovative solutions play in sustainable construction, such as increased accuracy, prediction, design optimization, and life cycle assessment, all of which improve circularity, the study illuminates a critical research gap. HRB-specific CE research has yet to extensively investigate how such technological tools can facilitate circularity in tall structures. Lastly, Maqsoom and Prasittisopin (2025) offer a different argument. They emphasize the importance of human agency in bridging the gap between CE awareness and implementation. Adopting a quantitative study approach, they found that green management and responsible leadership techniques have a significant impact on green behavior. Roslim et al. (2025) also support this, stating that relatively high awareness of waste management on construction sites did not translate to adoption, due to inadequate guidance. Such insights reinforce this review’s findings. Besides being influenced by government regulatory systems, Integrated Management and Regenerative Policy Frameworks for CE HRBs also rely heavily on behavior within private individual sectors.

Implications and limitations

These findings underscore crucial implications for practice and research. Professionals in practice need to prioritise a more integrated construction approach, planning for waste and end-of-life from the project’s initial stages. It is also recommended that legislative bodies convene to draft frameworks, strategies, and building standards that foster CE. On the other hand, scholars need to explore how CESs can progress from a theoretical concept to a practical one by investigating affordable solutions applicable to the socio-economic landscape of these contexts.

Despite the comprehensive insights this study provided, it had a few limitations. Firstly, the majority of the papers reviewed were cross-sectional and survey papers. This limits the inclusion of perspectives on post-intervention evaluation and longitudinal studies. Also, although this paper was centered on developing countries, regions such as Central Asia, Central America and some parts of Southeast Asia and Africa were underrepresented in this review. As a result, the generalizability of the results is limited. English language peer-reviewed papers or published papers with English transcripts were also prioritized in this study, thereby excluding relevant literature that may be found in grey literature, government reports, and research papers written in other languages. This review is also subject to publication bias, since papers with successful findings are more likely to be considered for publication than those with null or unsuccessful reports. As a result, the current adoption state as portrayed by research may reflect a higher level of optimism than exists in practice. In addition, this review is limited to Scopus, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect. While these databases provide robust and complementary coverage of sustainability and construction literature, relevant studies indexed exclusively in other databases may not have been captured. This is partly due to institutional access constraints. Finally, while only one study directly addressed HRB-specific CE evidence (as outlined in Section 2.1.2), detailed information on vertical transportation and structural integrity in high-rise structures remains limited in the broader research literature. Therefore, the next step would be for future studies to focus in depth and breadth on the challenges and opportunities specific to HRBs and how they may influence successful CE adoption.

This SSLR synthesized research findings from 67 papers published in the last 11 years (i.e., between 2016 and 2026) that explore CESs in HRBs in developing countries. This study develops key CESs applicable to HRBs based on the identified papers in the review and current CE frameworks in the literature, such as EMF’s ReSOLVE and the 9Rs of circular design. From the analysis, five key CE themes were identified: Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) Recycling and Management, Modular Construction and prefabrication, Design for Disassembly (DfD) and Circular design, Material Reuse Systems, and Integrated Management and Regenerative Policy Frameworks. These strategies are highly relevant to achieving broad sustainability goals in developing countries because they address core issues such as reducing on-site waste, designing for end-of-life, recycling building components, and securing external regulatory support.

The review also analyzed the extent to which these CESs have been applied in HRBs in developing countries. It was generally discovered that the practical implementation of these strategies is limited in these contexts. However, upon further examination, it was revealed that various studies provide more information on execution disparities, such as location- and sector-based ones. In an attempt to get to the root cause of these variations, this review also identified the multi-dimensional factors that foster and inhibit CE adoption in HRBs. These factors were noted to span various sectors, such as regulation, the economy, the environment, organization, and infrastructure. A crucial part of this study involved the recommendations of future research to aid CE implementation in HRBs. These future research directions were outlined to offer insights into critical areas that remain underexplored in the literature. In addition to these insights, this review makes a theoretical contribution by reinforcing the role of building height as a distinguishing contextual factor in CE adoption. Also, by synthesizing the ReSOLVE and 9Rs frameworks against five HRB-specific themes, a framework that can be applied and tested in future HRB-based studies was produced. As a result, greater attention could be given to CE in HRB-focused research, thereby facilitating theoretical and practical advancement in this emerging subfield.