Tampere University

December 15, 2025

Matias Pajarre, Tampere University

In the ReCreate project, groundbreaking work has been done in researching the technical, societal and economic feasibility of concrete element reuse. But still, it is also good to remember that we are not alone on this mission and there is a lot we can learn and have learned from others, both unconsciously and through intentional imitation. This topic might not seem attractive at first as imitation as a concept is often frowned upon and we tend to have a strong preference towards novelty, but this is exactly the reason why it might be good to stop to think about its importance.

How often is something entirely new in the first place? Innovation and imitation can be seen as two ends of a continuous spectrum where almost everything we do has an innovative element and an imitative element. For example, airfryers are a relatively novel product category that takes an existing technology such as convection ovens but brings novelty with a new form factor. In almost everything “new” we do we can see that we are just adding a varying degree of novelty to an existing product, process, technology or even capabilities.

Because of this, it is interesting to highlight the learnings we have received from others. In the interviews conducted for the WP7 research, many ways can be seen how existing knowledge from other fields and situations has helped us towards our circularity goals in ReCreate and also in a wider context. Here are some of them:

People transferring their previously learned skills to new situations

Even though the demolition workers deconstructing the Finnish pilot building were faced with a new challenge, they had already gained valuable experience from a different situation: disassembling paper machines. Because of this, they had developed important skills needed for the careful disassembly process without breaking the elements and the right attitude for the task.

While this is a relatively simple example, it highlights the way some fundamental skills can be transferred to surprising new contexts also for the benefit of sustainability. Especially in an era where the industry borders are expected to vanish when circular value chains start flowing more and more across companies of different industrial fields, there could also be much wider potential for widely applicable circular economy skills than just deconstruction work.

People carrying ideas across industries

While having widely applicable circular work skills might make work easier in diverse situations, it is also ideas and knowledge that can be useful across various fields. We have talked about how some companies and entire industries have been renewed by people arriving from different fields, sometimes with lots of experience on how things could be done in the ways commonly used in their previous work areas. This, in a way, echoes the long-known facts that more creative outputs are more likely from work teams with diverse backgrounds and individuals with knowledge from multiple fields.

Developing novel technologies and ways to use them

When new technologies arrive to the market, different trajectories and cases of exaptation can be seen where new use cases are found, both close and from the existing ones as the technological development advances. For example, drones are a technology originally developed for military purposes, but they are being adapted for many new tasks in different fields. In ReCreate, their potential for scanning tasks has been discussed.

We have also had talks about the prospects of using robotics and automation for various tasks in deconstruction work. The technology is already being developed for a similar task. Recovering elements from steel buildings has been noted to be much easier due to the connection types and indeed, robots are being developed elsewhere for that purpose. For concrete elements, however, the consensus in our interviews has been mixed so far with a fair amount of skepticism.

Despite the evident challenges in the automation of deconstruction, it is interesting to see what the future holds. A major technological change has already happened globally after these interviews with the way AI technologies have exploded in performance and popularity. I cannot tell if the development of AI will bridge the technological gap here, but we can certainly hope and keep our eyes open in case someone will come up with an innovation that could become a solution to some of our problems.

by ReCreate project

November 26, 2025

In this interview, we are speaking to Jukka Lahdensivu from Tampere University, whose work lies in WP4 in the ReCreate project. WP4 is focusing on new safety standards for reusing precast concrete components to promote sustainable construction practices. It captures the technical challenges and the practical goals of balancing safety, regulatory standards, and sustainability in the reuse of materials.

Can you explain the primary motivation behind creating a new quality management process for deconstructed precast concrete components?

Jukka: The primary motivation, in my view, is to demonstrate to customers and authorities that reclaimed components can be safely repurposed. It’s essential to ensure these elements meet safety standards when reused, and that’s why we’ve developed this process to verify their viability. We’re actively studying various aspects of these materials to ensure reliability.

How does this process differ from existing practices for virgin materials?

Jukka: There are quite a few similarities. In a factory setting, you test the raw materials, like cement and aggregates, before creating concrete and verifying it meets quality standards. However, for deconstructed materials, we’re testing the structure itself, often on-site, which is a big departure from standard practice with new materials. New components are generally tested during manufacturing, but here, the focus is on validating reclaimed components in their current state.

How challenging was it to integrate the investigation of harmful substances into the pre-deconstruction audit? What obstacles did you encounter in developing a standardized procedure for this?

Jukka: It wasn’t particularly difficult, especially since building renovations often require these studies before demolition. Finland, in particular, has a heightened awareness of harmful substances, likely because of extensive media coverage and prior issues with building materials. We’ve taken a thorough approach here, often exceeding regulatory requirements to ensure safety.

So, you would say people in Finland are more aware of these substances?

Jukka: Probably. It’s discussed frequently in the media, and we’ve faced issues in some newer buildings due to materials being enclosed prematurely. These problems have led to a deeper understanding and greater caution regarding harmful substances.

Work Package 4 focuses on ensuring reusable elements meet material and structural standards. Can you describe the testing process for these elements and their role in maintaining safety?

Jukka: We conduct tests on material properties before deconstruction to confirm the elements can be reused safely in new projects. This includes taking core samples for compression strength testing, measuring concrete cover depth over reinforcement, and conducting full-scale tests on beams and hollow-core slabs in the lab. These tests align with existing standards, ensuring consistency.

What are the key differences between assessing deconstructed versus newly manufactured components?

Jukka: With new concrete structures, we know the exact composition of materials. We need to analyse the concrete strength, reinforcement type, and other specifics for existing buildings. This lack of prior knowledge is the main difference when evaluating reused materials.

In this work package, you mention variability in material properties due to inhomogeneity. How do you manage these variations during testing?

Jukka: We conduct multiple parallel tests to gather a distribution of results. This approach is similar to testing new materials, but in a factory setting, components are consistently produced. With reclaimed materials, we often have only a few components to test, which means sample sizes differ from typical factory conditions.

Could you elaborate on potential challenges, such as deterioration, during deconstruction, transportation, or storage?

Jukka: We detected most deterioration, like cracking, in hollow-core slabs after deconstruction. These cracks weren’t visible in the building but appeared after detachment, likely due to the removal process. In Finland, we’ve also had cases where water entered hollow-core slabs, froze, and caused cracking. We had about six slabs damaged this way. When we removed the levelling on top of these slabs, accidental holes were created in the slab decks, though this was rare. In storage, however, we didn’t encounter any issues.

How do you decide on the reuse of these cracked components?

Jukka: It depends on the severity of the cracks. Small cracks with a width of 0.1-0.2 mm are often acceptable for reuse. Larger cracks, 0.3-0.5 mm or wider, need further assessment. We’ve created guidelines for visual assessment in the factory, and if significant cracking is found, a construction designer reviews it to decide on further action.

What are the most significant technical or regulatory hurdles in obtaining approval from authorities for reused components, and how might these be addressed in the future?

Jukka: The main hurdle is that authorities aren’t yet familiar with the requirements for approving reused components. We’re the first to bring this approach forward, so they’re unsure what documentation and standards to ask for. We’ve been holding meetings with local authorities in Tampere to explain our processes and the documentation we provide. This helps reassure them that we’re following a rigorous process to ensure the safety and usability of these reused components.

Best of luck with your upcoming meetings. Now, as we wrap up, what impact do you hope this work package will have on the construction industry’s approach to reuse and sustainability?

Jukka: Our goal is to develop a process that’s robust but not overly burdensome. Striking this balance is crucial to encourage widespread adoption of reused materials in construction.

Lastly, what inspired you personally to focus on sustainable construction and the reuse of materials?

Jukka: My research career has centered on the durability of structures—how they degrade and what measures can prevent damage. At our university, we’re also focused on adapting construction practices to climate change. While some researchers study climate change directly, we’re more interested in its impact on the built environment. Reusing materials is an important part of this, as it allows us to avoid new resource extraction and reduce environmental impacts, contributing to a more sustainable future.

by ReCreate project

July 9, 2025

Eetu Lehmusvaara,
Project researcher, Multimedia Creative Specialist
Tampere University

I worked as a videographer for the Finnish deconstruction pilot during autumn 2023 and spring 2024. I filmed the pilot project—a seven-storey office building located in Tampere—on multiple occasions during the autumn, which helped me realize the importance of documenting the stories of construction sites.

Consumers and users play an important role in the transition from a linear economy to a circular one. It challenges us to rethink what we value and what we don’t. And to value something, we need to understand it. Understanding requires experiences, and this is where videography can come into play.

The role of a documentary videographer is not only to show how things are but also to help people experience them. This is why seeing is not enough, emotions play a critical role in how we understand the world.

The Craft of Deconstruction

The craftsmanship behind deconstruction is something easily overlooked. To a passerby, a deconstruction site might look like any other building project. Cranes lift slabs, pillars, and beams, and workers move among various tasks.

But with a closer look, something different becomes apparent: Rather than building something new, the structure is being taken apart. The slabs, pillars, and columns are carefully removed and stacked like valuable resources, to be reused rather than discarded like waste.

When I first walked past the site, the loud but shallow clinks of hammers mixed with the high-pitched screeching of saws echoed through the building. These sounds were familiar from my previous visits to construction sites— but something about them felt different this time. I wasn’t sure what to expect. How would the workers perceive me? Would they be willing to be filmed? Were they proud of their work, or indifferent to it?

A moment of realization came a few weeks later. The workers were detaching an element from the building, as they had many times before. After about 30 minutes of effort, it became obvious that something wasn’t going smoothly. Seven men were gathered at one point on the building, all secured to the floor for safety, as they worked on the fourth story. One worker used a machine for extra leverage, others used circular saws and iron bars to free the element. The element was already attached to the crane, and the team was in constant communication with the crane operator. You could read the frustration on their faces, but their work remained precise and cooperative, as always.

Then it started to rain. I had to step away for cover, as did the managers who were observing the process. I waited under the stairwell for another 20 minutes, hoping to film the moment the element was finally lifted into the sky.

Sadly I missed the lift. My need to stay dry meant I missed the key moment of the lift. The construction workers, who didn’t have the luxury of stepping away, pushed through the difficulties and successfully removed the element—again.

Later, I realized the highlight wasn’t the lift itself. It was the story of skill and craftsmanship the workers demonstrated in making it happen.

Understanding Through Stories

To drive the shift toward circular construction, people need to see the work behind in it. We value historic buildings because they were hand-crafted, with all the imperfections that came with that. These structures tell stories, and their age gives them meaning.

The same goes for deconstruction. The knowledge and craftsmanship required to take buildings apart—carefully, responsibly, and with reuse in mind—is something people can value, once they understand it. This slow, demanding, yet environmentally positive work deserves recognition.

And for that, we need stories—compelling visuals and narratives that help us make sense of the world.

Hopefully, this short documentary can be one small contribution to a much larger shift.

by ReCreate project

July 4, 2025

Introduction to the report: Actor ecosystems and critical actors in precast concrete reuse of the ReCreate project. The full report is available here.

Authors: Lauri Alkki & Leena Aarikka-Stenroos; Tampere University

The reuse of precast concrete elements is gaining momentum as a sustainable practice in the construction sector. But what does it take to make this happen? Harnessing reuse changes the process of construction as well involved companies’ and other stakeholders, and therefore it is crucial to understand who the relevant actors are and what roles in a circular construction project are putting reuse to use. A construction project reusing precast concrete elements requires collaborative contributions from multiple complementary actors that can be considered as an “actor ecosystem” of concrete element reuse. Based on our case study examining several concrete element reuse projects from the organization and management perspective, we can share some insights on this. Let’s dive into the tasks and key actors forming the actor setting and actor ecosystem enabling reuse, driving this innovative approach.

Key tasks, actors and their roles in concrete element reuse process

To successfully reuse precast concrete elements, a variety of tasks along the full reuse process must be conducted by the construction actors with learning and problem solving-oriented and collaborative mindset. Each individual task is crucial in ensuring that the process runs smoothly from deconstruction to the final construction of new building(s) from harvested elements. Next, we explain the key tasks of concrete element reuse and the main actors contributing to them:

Planning the Deconstruction: This task focuses on planning the deconstruction (i.e., so-called reverse construction) implementation process and related logistical aspects, ensuring that it can be carried out safely and efficiently. In this task it is also essential to plan the necessary quality assurance actions that can be implemented already at the demolition site prior to deconstruction. In addition, when planning the deconstruction, it is valuable to take inventory of elements that can be detached to begin exploring their reuse potential. Key actors in this task are typically demolition companies and structural engineering companies planning the deconstruction, its implementation, and needed initial quality assurance actions as well as architect and structural engineering companies sketching the future usage of the potential detached elements.
Deconstruction: The actual process of dismantling buildings and extracting reusable concrete elements falls under this task. It requires specialized skills and equipment to ensure that the elements are not damaged during removal. Demolition companies with dismantling capabilities, knowledge and tools are the primary actors here.
Logistics: Managing the transportation and storage of deconstructed elements is essential to keep the process efficient. This task includes planning the logistics of moving elements from the deconstruction site to storage and then to the new construction site(s). Logistics companies and the actors operating at the deconstruction site (e.g., deconstruction companies) as well as the actors who are responsible for the intermediate storage (e.g., concrete element manufacturing companies) and the new site where the dismantled elements are going (e.g., construction companies) often handle this task.
Refurbishment, Quality Assurance, and Redesign: Once the elements are deconstructed, they need to be refurbished, quality checked and redesigned to fit into new architectural and structural plans in line with the client’s requirements and to ensure that the reused concrete elements meet all safety and structural standards. These tasks involve both creative and technical expertise to ensure that the elements are both functional and aesthetically safety to use such as building condition surveys already before deconstruction and after deconstruction testing the elements as well as refurbishing them to be ready to use. These tasks are closely related to the new building (partly) made from the detached and reused elements, since designers need to ensure that detached elements fit into new building designs and that necessary modifications and refurbishments can be carried out according to these designs. Manufacturing companies and structural engineering companies are most often responsible for the refurbishment and quality assurance processes, and architect and structural engineering companies are key actors in the redesigning processes with strong support from the construction company (and client(s)).
Reuse of the elements: Finally, the actual reuse of the deconstructed elements in new construction project(s). This implementation phase involves integrating the refurbished elements into new building designs at the construction site. At this task, it is essential to coordinate logistics and schedules regarding the factory refurbishment of reusable elements and the progress of the construction site so that the elements arrive at the site at the right time, ready for installation. Overall, however, installation is mostly carried out in the same way (possible minor differences in preparatory and finishing work depending on the details of the reusable elements), regardless of whether the element is new or reused. Construction companies play a key role in this task, as they are responsible for the operation and progress of the construction site.
Permitting and Regulation: Navigating the regulatory landscape shaping how easy or difficult it is to use the reuse principle is crucial for the success of concrete reuse projects. This task involves obtaining the necessary permits (e.g., demolition and construction permits) and ensuring compliance with local regulations (e.g., whether dismantled elements are considered waste or not, and what procedures can or cannot be used to utilize them), in collaboration with the relevant public authority and department responsible in the current situation, as well as the actors applying for the required permits. Local authorities, such as cities and their various departments (e.g. the department responsible for granting permits, developing zoning or promoting circularity through plot donation and acquisition), play a pivotal role in enabling reuse. This is achieved in collaboration with the owners of the donor and new buildings, who are responsible for applying for permits.

Depending on the reuse project phase, the division of tasks and the actors involved can vary (see Figure 1 for an example). The capabilities of each actor, their ability to collaborate, and the overall industry setting in their respective countries influence how the tasks are distributed and how the actor ecosystem organizes along the project. Furthermore, data collection, analysis, modelling, usage and sharing is a critical factor affecting positively the preservation of element value: therefore, actors should collaborate and ensure jointly that data is monitored and harnessed throughout the reuse process to support planning and implementation of each phase and reach optimized projects. In this regard, it is essential to gather relevant data to enable reuse, store the data in a way that allows for easy transfer, and ensure that all relevant actors have access to it. It is also important that these actors have the capability to analyze the data to ensure the safe usage of reused elements. Thus, open data transfer and communication ensures that actors understand what each considers valuable in the reuse process, avoiding the destruction of another actor’s value.

Figure 1. Example of an actor ecosystem enabling precast concrete element reuse: key actors per each process phase, their tasks and collaboration. The example is from the Finnish reuse pilot project in Tampere region.

Conclusion: the power of collaboration

The successful reuse of precast concrete elements hinges on a well-coordinated actor ecosystem with complementary skilled and collaborative minded companies and experts. Each actor brings unique expertise and competences to the table, which is why actor settings cany vary a lot depending on the case. Collaboration and knowledge sharing are essential to enable and optimize all tasks and process phases, and thus to ensure that concrete elements can be reused effectively and sustainably. All in all, as we move towards more circular construction practices, the insights from these pilot projects provide examples to think about how you should organize when planning to reuse concrete elements and repurpose existing materials to create a more sustainable world, in collaboration with skilled, future-looking expert partners.

The published deliverable and more detailed pilot projects findings can be found on the ReCreate and the studies behind this blog are also openly available here and here.

by ReCreate project

June 6, 2025

ReCreate blog post series on mapping in WP1

Post 4

Author: Niko Kotkavuo, researcher, Tampere University

To gain a broader perspective on the possibilities of reuse and ease knowledge and technology transfer across borders, one of the goals in the ReCreate project is to gather data on precast systems from various European countries. The work is not limited to the four pilot countries of the project (Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany), but also includes a selection of eastern EU member states known to have large stocks of precast concrete buildings. Besides residential building systems, the ones used in non-residential construction are of interest as well. This blog post series describes that experience. Please find here Part 1 of the series, which explains the nature of this work and describes the Polish experience, here Part 2, which discusses the Estonian experience, and here Part 3, which depicts the Romanian experience. The current post by researcher Niko Kotkavuo from Tampere University describes the Finnish experience and concludes the series, at least for now.

The Finnish experience

In Finland, post-war structural change, rural flight and resulting urban housing shortage led to high-volume industrialised housing construction beginning in the 1950s and culminating in the so-called ‘crazy years’ of the early 1970s. By the mid-1960s, most large construction companies had developed their own closed (company-specific) large-panel construction systems based on examples from abroad. In the late 1960s, to further cut construction time and costs, the concrete industry joined forces to develop an open system that any factory could produce.

The developed system, BES (short for betonielementtisysteemi, or concrete element system in English), was free to use by all operators in Finland. It soon became the new, widely adopted industry standard. In the early 1980s, it was followed by another open system Runko-BES (Frame-BES) for non-residential construction. While the systems have been updated throughout the years and their use has certainly became more versatile, they are still the basis for precast concrete construction in Finland today.

The wide adoption of BES and Runko-BES present a problem for reviewing the systems used in post-war Finland. Material on the BES systems is widely available and easy to access, and it covers a large portion of the precast concrete building stock in Finland. It is notable, however, that based on Mäkiö et al. (1994) and house construction statistics of central statistical office of Finland, the adoption of BES just missed the so-called ‘crazy years’ of housing construction. From the beginning of 1960s to the peak construction year of 1974, a large stock of buildings was constructed using the previous, closed large-panel systems, that are far less well understood.

Material on the previously used systems is significantly harder to come by, and details on the systems are seemingly forgotten in the existing literature. Thus, a more time-consuming approach of identification of specific housing projects, via literature review and by locating relevant construction drawings in municipal archives, has been used in studying the early systems.

Conclusions

Based on the very different experiences in the countries examined here, it is clear that there is no single approach for the review, which would work regardless of country. The work is, as is typical for archival work, quite reactive. In Poland, a large existing body of literature on the building stock made with large-panel systems could be capitalised on. In Estonia and to a lesser extent in Finland, there is a research gap regarding the composition of the housing stock in terms of precast concrete and system usage. In Romania, a lot of archival material has gone missing in the aftermath of the 1989 revolution which presented challenges, but university libraries provided useful catalogues and design manuals, which offer valuable insight into the country’s prefabricated building systems. A common factor for all four countries is that compared to housing, non-residential precast concrete systems and building stocks are a neglected area of study.

With the mapping of Finnish, Polish, Estonian and Romanian systems now complete we have a better picture of the systems used in each country as well as loads of archival material for later analysis, classification and digitisations of the building systems. This kind of work acts as a basis of future knowledge and technology transfer of the ReCreate learnings to new countries and regions.

References:

Mäkiö, E., Malinen, M., Neuvonen, P., Vikström, K., Mäenpää, R., Saarenpää, J. and Tähti, E. (1994). Kerrostalot 1960-1975 [Blocks of Flats 1960–1975]. Helsinki: Rakennustieto.

Tilastokeskus [Central Statistical Office of Finland]. (1974). Talonrakennustilasto 1971 [House Construction Statistics 1971]. Retrieved from https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:951-46-0905-0

Tilastokeskus [Central Statistical Office of Finland]. (1975). Talonrakennustilasto 1972 [House Construction Statistics 1972]. Retrieved from http://www.urn.fi/URN:ISBN:951-46-1563-8

Tilastokeskus [Central Statistical Office of Finland]. (1975). Talonrakennustilasto 1973 [House Construction Statistics 1973]. Retrieved from http://www.urn.fi/URN:ISBN:951-46-1811-4

Tilastokeskus [Central Statistical Office of Finland]. (1976). Talonrakennustilasto 1974 [House Construction Statistics 1974]. Retrieved from www.urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2023013118667

by ReCreate project

May 27, 2025

Introduction to the report: Legal and technical requirements in reusing precast concrete of the ReCreate project. The full report is available here.

Paul Jonker-Hoffrén, Tampere University

The ReCreate report, Legal and technical requirements in reusing precast concrete, provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal and technical requirements for reusing precast concrete elements in four European countries: Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Germany. It examines regulations at the EU, national, and local levels, focusing on deconstruction and reuse processes, and identifies common challenges and country-specific issues. It represents the understanding of the state of the art until the beginning of 2023. This report is based on general knowledge rather than the experiences of the industrial partners, which will be reported in a forthcoming report. Therefore, some aspects discussed in the current report will be out of date already due to developments in policy.

Deconstruction Norms

Deconstruction and demolition permits are nationally regulated. In Finland and Sweden, the legislation acknowledges reuse and requires demolition permits to consider reusable components. In the Netherlands, a demolition notification is generally sufficient unless environmental laws apply, which can require more comprehensive permits. Germany follows federal and state building codes with more structured requirements. Waste management is governed by the EU Waste Framework Directive, which sets recycling targets but lacks explicit reuse goals, resulting in ambiguity. Finland and Sweden faced uncertainties about whether deconstructed components are classified as waste (until recently), complicating reuse due to administrative burdens. The Netherlands does not consider deconstructed concrete elements as waste if free from hazardous substances, facilitating reuse. This will be tested in the real-life pilot project in the Netherlands, nonetheless. Germany has legal provisions to avoid waste status, but debates continue on their efficacy. Local environmental protection laws generally do not impose special restrictions on deconstruction for reuse in Finland and the Netherlands. Sweden and Germany have raised concerns regarding specific hazardous substances and water protection laws, with Germany expecting clarification through upcoming ordinances. Occupational safety regulations in all countries align with EU directives, ensuring minimum safety standards. Finland and Sweden emphasize public sector and social partner involvement in occupational safety regulations and workplace rules; Germany relies on sector-based organization; the Netherlands supplements national laws with private certification schemes. Detailed work safety plans and checklists guide safe deconstruction practices in all countries at the project level, which are based on national law or decrees.

Norms on Reuse

Technical requirements for reused concrete elements follow the same standards as new materials, primarily based on Eurocodes and national annexes. However, challenges arise in assessing the material properties of reused components due to lack of original documentation and potential degradation, necessitating improved testing standards. Finland and Sweden apply existing standards designed for new products, which may not adequately address reuse-specific concerns. The Netherlands and Germany have developed additional guidelines and standards to better assess existing structures for reuse.

Product approval is nationally controlled, as the EU Construction Products Regulation currently exempts existing products like reused elements. Finland and Sweden lack clear, consensus-based approval processes, leading to ad hoc practices and uncertainty. Germany and the Netherlands have more institutionalized procedures, including certifications and assessment guidelines, though complexities remain. Designer qualifications for reuse projects are regulated nationally; Finland has specific legal requirements and guidelines, while Sweden and the Netherlands have no special legislation, and Germany regulates via state building codes. Building permits for reuse projects generally require case-by-case collaboration with authorities in all countries, reflecting the novelty and evolving nature of reuse practices. Sustainability policies at international, EU, and national levels provide overarching goals supporting reuse but often lack direct enforceability. Recent initiatives in Finland (e.g., circular construction competitions) and municipal programmes in Sweden demonstrate emerging practical incentives for reuse. The Netherlands and Germany integrate sustainability into building codes and climate laws but tend to focus more on operational energy than embodied emissions, indicating room for policy development.

Discussion

Four key cross-cutting barriers hinder large-scale deployment of reuse: (1) ambiguity in waste status and end-of-waste criteria complicates administrative processes; (2) lack of tailored technical requirements for reused materials leads to conservative and cumbersome testing; (3) product approval pathways are unclear or inconsistent, especially in Nordic countries; and (4) sustainability policies are often too general to drive immediate change. The Netherlands stands out positively in waste classification and product approval, while Finland and Sweden are in earlier stages of regulatory adaptation. Germany offers legal options for reuse but faces challenges in standardizing practices. The report emphasizes the need for clearer interpretations, harmonized technical guidelines, streamlined approval processes, and concrete sustainability incentives to accelerate the adoption of reuse.

Conclusion

While the normative frameworks across the four countries share common elements derived from EU directives, their maturity and practical implementation regarding reuse vary significantly. The primary challenge lies not in creating new regulations but in adapting existing ones to explicitly support reuse of building components. Finland and Sweden are developing foundational practices, particularly in product approval, whereas the Netherlands and Germany have more progressive, institutionalized systems. Cross-country knowledge exchange and stakeholder collaboration are vital for overcoming barriers. The report lays the groundwork for further empirical research and policy development to foster circular economy transitions in construction.

The report, as a general overview of legal and technical requirements in the ReCreate project countries, highlights comparative insights across countries, facilitating understanding of shared challenges and unique national circumstances in promoting the reuse of precast concrete elements.

by ReCreate project

May 23, 2025

Introduction to the report: Guide to Coalition Building for Circular Construction of the ReCreate project. The full report is available here.

Paul Jonker-Hoffrén, Tampere University

Circular construction projects involve many actors, similarly to linear construction projects. At present, when construction consortiums are still finding optimal solutions to organizing a circular project, significant effort is needed to coordinate and structure information flows. This derives from differing information requirements between actors internal or external to these projects, because circular projects are not as standardized as linear construction projects. This means that actors in the project, but also authorities, may have a need for very specific information that is produced by some other actor.

The ReCreate report Guide to Coalition Building for Circular Construction is aimed to be a tool to structure information flows for a circular project, to raise awareness for the efforts needed and the role actors play in producing information for other actors. Furthermore, the Guide to Coalition Building also provides a lens to observe what policy aspects may be relevant in a particular project. Current policy is mostly built for the linear construction, so in circular economy projects there is a special need to assess how certain policies apply. These are discussed more fully in another ReCreate report. However, the policies that are relevant include environmental policies, certification and quality assurance policies or norms and environmental impact assessments. In addition, there are local building permit policies. After the publication of the Guide to Coalition Building, it emerged that in many cases waste regulation (with its base in EU law) is also highly relevant. Compliance with all these norms means the partners in a construction partnership need to be aware of what kind of information regulatory actors can or will require.

A core recommendation of the Guide to Coalition Building is that project actors should be in timely, active contact with local authorities about potentially complicated issues. These issues may relate to clarifications to local zoning provisions, but also to the required quality assurance information when applying for permits. As local authorities are usually the issuers of permits, it can be of value to explicitly connect a construction plan to local climate or circular strategies. In some cases, the local authorities may need to request interpretation of provision of norms from other authorities, which will take time. Therefore, it is advised to engage with local authorities pro-actively.

Figure 1. Two coalitions in circular construction.

In the Guide to Coalition Building, it is argued that in an abstract sense, there are two coalitions which have to interact to get to a result: a building permit, and ultimately a circular construction (Figure 1). The first coalition is the construction project coalition, which consists of the actors involved in all phases from (planning) deconstruction to new construction, such as structural engineering firms, architects and the deconstruction firm. The function of this coalition is to produce the information necessary for a construction permit. The phases in the circular value chain (Figure 1, left side) will provide this information, but some actors will have to produce information for other actors, at a cost to them. This information feeds into the processes of the second coalition, the policy coalition, which usually is represented at the practical level by local authorities. The information requirements of this coalition are shaped by EU-level-, national and local policymaking and norms (Figure 1, right side).

Beyond the technical aspects of circular construction processes, actors in the construction sector should be prepared to interact with the policy coalition to find pragmatic solutions and policy innovations to the challenges that arise from policy designed to the linear construction economy. In various stages of the project there are potential challenges, which involve other actors and information requirements. A goal of ReCreate Work Package 8 is to understand and solve these challenges in the real-life pilot projects.

by ReCreate project

May 16, 2025

Introduction to the report Business model canvases for precast concrete element reuse of the ReCreate project. Full report is available here.

Mikko Sairanen, Tampere University

For companies to adopt the novel practice of reusing precast concrete elements, it is essential that they understand what this entails regarding the value that their customers perceive, dynamics of creating and delivering such value, and, of course, turning a profit in the process. In other words, they need to form an understanding of what is the business model for precast concrete element reuse.

To aid the industry in this challenging task, in ReCreate project, WP7 has examined the issue and put together business model canvases (BMCs) for the different types of companies and processes that are needed to realize precast concrete element reuse. The BMC is a popular tool that can quickly communicate the essential elements of a business model, such as the required key activities and resources, customer-related information, and cost and revenue streams.

Three key insights from the BMC analysis are discussed here. First, precast concrete element reuse holds significant business potential, but issues of economic feasibility remain. We found that labour costs are the biggest barrier to address in order to build competitive business cases out of concrete element reuse. While savings can be attained in material and waste management costs, time-consuming deconstruction and element refurbishment processes challenge profitability. This issue can, however, be greatly alleviated through learning and gradual scaling of reuse processes. In addition, appropriate policy mixes are needed to economically incentivize reuse compared to virgin concrete element production.

Second, the business models of the value chain are heavily affected by value chain organization, particularly regarding vertical integration. Within the ReCreate pilot projects, we have observed both so-called decentralized and centralized organization models. A decentralized model means that the companies of the value chain adopt rather well-defined tasks such as deconstruction or element refurbishment and that the value chain is built on collaborations rather than coordination from a single company. In a centralized model, however, one company vertically integrates various value chain functions and thus designs a new overarching business model for concrete element reuse. The optimal way to organize the value chain depends on the regional business environment and markets, but we found that the focal company in the centralized model can often execute several reuse subprocesses very efficiently, ensure smooth data management, and, crucially, match emerging demand with specific deconstruction projects early on. These attributes of vertical integration can support building attractive business models in the emerging markets of reclaimed concrete elements.

Lastly, we highlight that the business models need to not only work at the level of identified company types within the ReCreate pilot projects, but also at the level of any subprocess that could be considered a standalone business process in the future, as well as at the level of the whole value chain. Therefore, we also analysed BMCs for the key supporting processes of quality management, storage, and logistics, as well as for the system level (picture below).

All the BMCs are published in the ReCreate project as Business model canvases for precast concrete element reuse and can be found through the project webpage.

by ReCreate project

March 5, 2025

ReCreate blog post series on mapping in WP1

Post 3

Author: Filip-Lucian Neagu, researcher, Tampere University

To gain a broader perspective on the possibilities of reuse and ease knowledge and technology transfer across borders, one of the goals in the ReCreate project is to gather data on precast systems from various European countries. The work is not limited to the four pilot countries of the project (Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany), but also includes a selection of eastern EU member states known to have large stocks of precast concrete buildings. Beside residential building systems, the ones used in non-residential construction are of interest as well. This blog post series describes that experience. Please find here Part 1 of the series, which explains the nature of this work and describes the Polish experience, and here Part 2, which discusses the Estonian experience. The current blog will depict the Romanian experience, and the series will continue one more post on Finland.

The Romanian experience

Graduate of master’s in architecture Filip Neagu joined the ReCreate research team at Tampere University as a research assistant for a ten-week sprint in the autumn of 2024, with guidance provided by project researcher Niko Kotkavuo, to collect material on the precast building systems of Romania. This blog gives the personal account of his involvement and the challenges he encountered while studying the systems:

Similarly to other former Soviet dominated nations in Eastern Europe, the ‘large panels’ (ro. ‘panouri mari’) apartment buildings in Romania have been wearing a heavy cloak sown with the dark thread of a traumatic past communist regime.

However, several contextual differences ensured an especially unique path for the prefabricated panels’ development within the Romanian bubble. On one hand, their sudden appearance was backed by an unforgiving totalitarian urbanism that had previously wiped up entire settlements to force new space for the ‘large panels’ residential neighborhoods, as well as other representative megalomaniac structures. On the other hand, the high seismic activity in the south-eastern area of the country has imposed, at a structural level, certain reinforcement and binding particularities exclusive to the Romanian ‘large panels’ model. The latter aspect would turn up being shook by the devastating 1977 earthquake that measured 7.4 on the Richter scale, an event that hurried the introduction of even stricter building limitations and regulations.

The national revolution in 1989 against the communist party and the execution of its leader Nicolae Ceaușescu marked a clear ending to the dictatorial chapter and everything it entailed. Eventually, this liberation would also induce a massive drop of any interest in communist-related matters. Unfortunately, this phenomenon highly affected any regard in the handling and caring for the archives of the former institutions, including design institutions like e.g. The Design Institute for Standardized Buildings (IPCT) or The Project-Bucharest Institute (IPB). As a result, tracking the traces left by the archives proved as difficult as expected.

For example, for the last few years, a private operator for archival services in the city of Braila has been meaning to sell the former archives of IPB to Bucharest’s City Hall (PMB), a resource of valuable knowledge that should have normally been sought and reprised long ago by the municipal institution. An equally good source of materials from the IPCT era proved to be the university libraries at UAUIM in Bucharest, as well as UTCN in Cluj-Napoca. Dr. arch. Maria Alexandra Sas, a fellow Romanian researcher, has kindly offered to help with consulting some materials found at the library in Cluj-Napoca.

Some catalogs and dossiers, as well as instructive guides for assembling ‘large panel’ buildings published under the tutelage of the standardized buildings design institutions, have been successfully preserved in the university libraries. Even though the materials found at the libraries were in generally good condition, the IPB archives did not experience the same fate. Before recently settling in Braila, they have been dragged around during the last 34 years, some even developing mold overtime or disintegrating into solitary pages.

‘Large panels’ buildings might presently be one of the most valuable and widespread construction resources in Romania. While researching, I found mine and many of my close friend’s childhood homes’ floor plans, listed as sections or series of IPCT type projects. Since such a large portion of the built environment was constructed in a vigorously short period, more than half a century ago, a new era for intervention is right around the corner. Without a plan B of renovating or reusing this resource, or several back-up plans, millions of people could face a sudden housing crisis. The ‘large panels’ construction had almost unintentionally foretold a future in which reuse can be a sustainable option for architectural longevity.

by ReCreate project

February 13, 2025

The Finnish cluster has completed its first mini pilot in the autumn of 2024. The first batch of reclaimed elements – 25 hollow-core slabs – were reused in a block of flats in Tampere.

The building was built by Skanska for the client, affordable rental housing company A-Kruunu. The elements originate from the Finnish cluster’s deconstruction pilot, in which an office building from the 1980s was deconstructed in Tampere city center during the autumn of 2023. The new building with the reused elements stands in Härmälänranta district, Potkurinkatu street, about 6 km to the South-West from the donor building’s location.

Finnish mini pilot building

’It’s great to take part in a pilot that develops circular construction. The project corresponds to our aim to develop housing construction in Finland. The location in Härmälänranta is also attractive’, explains A-Kruunu’s development manager, Ms. Leena Oiva.

The reclaimed hollow-core slabs were reused as floors above an air-raid shelter, which was most suitable for the elements in this building considering the dimensions of the elements.

’Assembly of the reused elements was easy. It did not differ from using virgin elements. The frame of the building is fully precast, so there is further potential for reuse at the end of life.’ says Mr. Toni Tuomola, regional manager for Skanska, and continues:

’Skanska is committed to a green deal for circular economy. We will focus on reusing construction products by exploiting the learnings from ReCreate. The practical experience acquired from the pilot is therefore highly valuable.’

Reused elements were meticulously quality controlled and factory refurbished

Mini pilot installation

The elements reused in the pilot were quality controlled and factory refurbished in Consolis Parma’s factory in Kangasala, a municipality neighbouring Tampere. The first pilot produced invaluable learnings about the need for environmental permits when refurbishing and reusing elements, as well as quality control and product approval of reclaimed elements.

‘Climate change mitigation is at the heart of our strategy. Our aim is to halve our emissions by 2035. In ReCreate, we are looking into the business possibilities of reused elements and how it could contribute to our portfolio of low-carbon products’, shares Mr. Juha Rämö, technology director for Consolis Parma.

‘In addition to the factory refurbishment, we can contribute such core competencies to reuse projects as product design, storage, inspection, testing, and traceability’, Rämö continues.

Business development manager (refurbishment), Ms. Inari Weijo explains the role of Ramboll Finland:

‘In this mini pilot, we at Ramboll developed designing the refurbishment of the reclaimed elements in collaboration with the factory. We also took care of the site-specific product approval of reused elements towards the authorities.’

She elaborates:

‘We acquired useful learnings how to manage the process. This will come in handy in the next pilots and in expanding Ramboll’s service offerings in the field of reuse.’

Mini pilot floor

New pilots are being negotiated

The Finnish cluster aims to pilot reuse of reclaimed precast concrete in more than one building project. Different kinds of buildings and projects will contribute versatile understanding about the requirements for reuse in different contexts. Real-life pilots help to identify barriers to reuse that must be removed in order for reuse to become mainstream.

‘This mini pilot was a valuable first step towards more widespread reuse’, says ReCreate’s coordinator and the Finnish cluster’s leader, Prof. Satu Huuhka from Tampere University.

ReCreate’s Finnish cluster is formed by Tampere University, Skanska, Consolis Parma, Ramboll Finland, Umacon, LIIKE architects, and the City of Tampere.

Older Posts