Circular economy and climate resilience: Learnings from Scotland in the built environment

Strong policy and organisational support

Scotland has some of the most advanced frameworks for circular economy action in the UK, making it a country that exemplifies leadership and commitment to achieving low-impact and future-proofed outcomes.

Glasgow, in particular, has positioned itself as a frontrunner. Through initiatives like Circular Glasgow, established by the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce in partnership with Zero Waste Scotland, Circle Economy, and Glasgow City Council, the city has been championing circular economy thinking since 2015.

Knowledge, maturity and infrastructure

One of the key takeaways from Tim was that while Scotland has made great strides in creating a statutory and strategic framework from which businesses can adopt circular practices, there are still gaps in definitive legislation, supporting infrastructure, fiscal incentivisation, and knowledge in the market. In this, the maturity of organisations and the capacity of their staff must be managed to drive change that can keep pace with policy commitment.

Scotland also faces a number of climatic challenges, with increasingly hotter summers and wetter winters becoming the new norm, alongside the presence of more frequent and intense storms, changing weather patterns pose an even more significant risks to buildings and infrastructure. Buildings and assets must be protected and designed to be resilient and adaptable to changing conditions, in a way that is sensitive to client budgets and future risk. Understanding local climate risks is therefore essential in making sure that the built environment is able to perform effectively in the medium to long term.

It is noteworthy that (no doubt, in part, following Scotland’s lead) recent announcements from UK Environment Secretary Steve Reed signal a broader shift to more circular practice across the UK. Plans are underway to develop circular economy roadmaps for key sectors, alongside a new Circular Economy Strategy set to be published in the autumn. These developments will give businesses greater certainty to invest in sustainable infrastructure and work towards ending a ‘throwaway society’.

Start small, then scale up

A common misconception about taking steps to achieve circular and climate-resilient outcomes is that it requires radical and/or wholesale transformations. Instead, Tim emphasised that establishing clear information from which to make decisions, starting small, capturing data, and then scaling up is often a practical approach. Businesses that adopt good and best practice principles incrementally (for example, by taking the opportunity to conduct Resource Recovery Audits on to-be-demolished buildings or analysing UKCP18 data for local future climate risks) can be a solid step forward in achieving practical and measurable outcomes.

Heat decarbonisation funding

Coinciding with our session, Phase 2 of Scotland’s Public Sector Heat Decarbonisation Fund was announced, offering grants to help transition Scotland's public sector buildings towards net zero.

The funding is designed to support local authorities, universities, and other eligible organisations in accelerating the installation of clean heating systems and introducing a host of energy efficiency measures to decarbonise heat in buildings.

From 29 April 2025, organisations will be able to submit their applications, securing financial backing and resources for heat decarbonisation, including commissioning connections that utilise low-carbon communal heating and cooling for local areas.

Heritage assets and misconceptions

Nicola highlighted the interplay between circular practice and climate adaptation when we consider heritage buildings. She also noted how traditionally constructed buildings make up a significant proportion of the UK’s heritage assets, and understanding their current performance is key to making them climate-resilient in the future.

One of the biggest misconceptions Nicola discussed in detail is that heritage buildings are inherently energy inefficient. This perception has been supported by the EPC ratings and the data sets that don’t fully account for the characteristics of traditional materials, construction methods and condition.

In response to this, Historic Environment Scotland and Historic England have undertaken extensive research to understand the performance of traditional buildings and the most appropriate energy efficiency measures for them. This work has determined that rather than making ad hoc modifications, a holistic approach that takes into account future climate scenarios is needed to ensure interventions are appropriate and do not cause unintended consequences.

Frameworks such as PAS 2030:2023 and PAS 2035:2023 provide particularly good guidance on how to approach retrofit works in a way that respects a building’s original design while improving performance and its resiliency to change.

Our approach

A prime example of this approach is our work on Queen Alexandra’s House, a Grade II listed building in London. The project was a collaboration between our heritage building surveying team, mechanical and electrical consultants, and cost consultants that involved a condition survey to assess the fabric of the building and its performance, reviewing the services, as well as understanding how the building is being used by its occupants. Through this work, we were able to identify opportunities to enhance the performance of the building while preserving its heritage value and ensuring that it is future-proofed for changing climate patterns.

By focusing on preventative maintenance and sensitive upgrades, the project demonstrated how a well-maintained historic property can remain functional, energy-efficient, and resilient to climate change. This particular methodology, which relies on data, quantification, and communication, is just as applicable to Glasgow’s wealth of historic properties to safeguard them for future generations.

Industry questions

During the presentation, Tim and Nicola had the opportunity to address some key questions from the audience:

How can we account for the embodied carbon impact of renewables?
The embodied carbon impact of renewables can be significant, and that’s why they're typically calculated separately in a WLCA – but this approach is taken to ensure we don’t preclude their use for longer-term benefits. However, it does raise the question of how to manage these assets over their lifetime. It also calls for industry support to encourage technological advances and new infrastructure that can close the loop on renewable waste to help reduce the associated end-of-life impacts.

What are the obstacles to good practice?
Commonly, there is a misconception about additional upfront costs for taking resource-efficient or climate resilience action. Instead, these concepts are specifically designed to reduce lifetime costs and add value, even if there is an initial capital outlay. Getting the right people, in the right room, at the right time (shifting our thinking to the left – a fundamental component of Pick Everard’s Leaving Positive & Lasting Legacies Strategy) allows us to deliver quick and effective decision making at a tiny fraction of a percentage the overall value of a programme of development, but with significant whole life cost benefit. Starting small, collecting data on successes and ‘opportunities for improvement’, sharing knowledge, and upscaling rapidly – are all key facets of this approach.

How do we drive this forward in the education sector, where constraints are significant?
Education is a critically important sector for many reasons – and not just because it offers environments in which our future sustainability engineers will start and finish their learning careers. Where these environments fail to perform and fail to inspire, we reduce the effectiveness of the buildings and infrastructure designed for that exact purpose.

Along with many other sectors, those in control of delivering educational built environments must consider their approach carefully: How many of our current and future buildings allow for maximum flexibility, adaptability, and – where needed – deconstruction and recovery? How many design solutions take into account future climate scenarios other than overheating? How many building operators collect information? Not many, I’d suggest.

Demolition vs rebuild costs and the benefits?
There is plenty of evidence that shows the retention of existing buildings has numerous sustainability benefits, not just in terms of cost. Additionally, many traditional buildings provide exciting opportunities for adaptive reuse.

In the few cases where demolition has to be undertaken, this must drive us to recover and reuse, to design solutions that are flexible, resilient, and adaptable, and to prepare our assets for multiple purposes without ever needing to consider demolition.