## 3 Results
### Circularity Assessment Frameworks
#### 3.2.2 Design-Support Tools for Whole Buildings
The plug-in also provides alternative design specifications that support better end-of-life performance of buildings. The interface provides the means for architects and design engineers to try various combinations of materials on different building components and select a combination that is optimized for end-of-life performance. The plug-insupports the decision-making regarding the most valuable materials for recoverability DfD by calculating the score of deconstructability. D-DAS was tested and validated through a case study building design. However, the scenarios considered for the validation process were based on three types of materials: steel, timber, and concrete, which are material choice alternatives. All other aspects and design specifications were kept the same for the three scenarios. For example, the same amount and volume of the three materials were considered to be required to build the same structure. The case study results show that steel structure is the best material choice. The non-realistic specifications of the alternatives considered for testing question the adequacy of the case study and, consequently, the tool's validity. Design criteria for circular buildings, 2021  
[PERSON] et al. [40] recognize functional adaptability as one of four primary design criteria for increased circularity, including 1. carbon footprint, 2. reused content, 3. disassembly potential, and 4. design for flexibility and adaptability. They concluded their criteria based on a systematic literature review, deconstruction audits, and structured interviews with waste management contractors. Each criterion is evaluated on a 0 to 100 scale. Each of the four criteria is weighted equally. The final circularity score is calculated by adding up the individual scores of each criterion. This methodology does not define the influence of each criterion on the overall circularity of a building. In addition, the authors did not provide clear guidelines on evaluating each criterion which affects the scores' objectivity. However, the model is still useful to assess and compare different design alternatives. Circular Construction Evaluation Framework (CCEF), 2021  
The Circular Construction Evaluation Framework (CCEF) introduced by [PERSON] et al. [61] relies on the principles of Design for Disassembly (DfD) and Design for Adaptability (DfA) as keys to enhance the circularity of the building elements as well as the building itself as a whole. This happens by embracing a lifecycle perspective that allows future changes, e.g., disassembly, reuse, and reconfiguration. The framework can be utilized to perform two levels of assessment i.e., elemental and building levels, for which two sets of indicators are developed. For a whole building level, the CCEF suggests 14 criteria grouped under four groups, while for an element level of assessment, the CCEF suggests six groups of criteria encompassing 14 factors in total. However, the framework does not deliver an overall circularity score that combines both assessment levels. The CCEF is a comprehensive framework that takes into consideration that circularity is required for multiple aspects and processes throughout the lifecycle of a building and the products composing it, including material impact, construction techniques, manufacturing styles, and a combination of several circularity strategies such as simplicity, standardization, prefabrication, and connection reversibility with respect to design codes. Limitations of the CCEF include stakeholders' subjectivity in evaluating the different criteria according to their priorities. Circularity Integration in Sustainability Frameworks  
Breteam  
Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) is the world's leading sustainability rating scheme for building design, construction, and use, focusing mainly on the UK context where a national BREEAM scheme applies.