literature review in project

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

Published on 22 February 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 7 June 2022.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research.

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

• Search for relevant literature
• Evaluate sources
• Identify themes, debates and gaps
• Outline the structure
• Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Why write a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1: search for relevant literature, step 2: evaluate and select sources, step 3: identify themes, debates and gaps, step 4: outline your literature review’s structure, step 5: write your literature review, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a dissertation or thesis, you will have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

• Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.

The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

• Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
• Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
• Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
• Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research objectives and questions .

If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research topic. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list if you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

• Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
• Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
• Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some databases to search for journals and articles include:

• Your university’s library catalogue
• Google Scholar
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
• EconLit (economics)
• Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:

Read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

To identify the most important publications on your topic, take note of recurring citations. If the same authors, books or articles keep appearing in your reading, make sure to seek them out.

You probably won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on the topic – you’ll have to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your questions.

For each publication, ask yourself:

• What question or problem is the author addressing?
• What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
• What are the key theories, models and methods? Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
• What are the results and conclusions of the study?
• How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
• How does the publication contribute to your understanding of the topic? What are its key insights and arguments?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible, and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

The scope of your review will depend on your topic and discipline: in the sciences you usually only review recent literature, but in the humanities you might take a long historical perspective (for example, to trace how a concept has changed in meaning over time).

Remember that you can use our template to summarise and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using!

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It’s important to keep track of your sources with references to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography, where you compile full reference information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

You can use our free APA Reference Generator for quick, correct, consistent citations.

To begin organising your literature review’s argument and structure, you need to understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

• Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
• Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
• Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
• Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
• Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

• Most research has focused on young women.
• There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
• But there is still a lack of robust research on highly-visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat – this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarising sources in order.

Try to analyse patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organise your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

• Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
• Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text, your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

If you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasise the timeliness of the topic (“many recent studies have focused on the problem of x”) or highlight a gap in the literature (“while there has been much research on x, few researchers have taken y into consideration”).

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

• Summarise and synthesise: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole.
• Analyse and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole.
• Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources.
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transitions and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts.

In the conclusion, you should summarise the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasise their significance.

If the literature review is part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate how your research addresses gaps and contributes new knowledge, or discuss how you have drawn on existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research. This can lead directly into your methodology section.

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarise yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your  dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 14 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

• Biomedical Databases
• Global (Public Health) Databases
• Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
• Grey Literature
• Trials Registers
• Data and Statistics
• Public Policy
• Google Tips
• Recommended Books
• Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question.  That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment.  Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

• Explains the background of research on a topic.
• Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
• Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
• Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
• Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
• Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question.  The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover? 

• This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

• use the tabs on this guide
• Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
• More on the Medical Library web page
• ... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

• Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
• Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Ask your librarian for help at any time.
• Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
• Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Reference management. Clean and simple.

Literature review

How to write a literature review in 6 steps

How do you write a good literature review? This step-by-step guide on how to write an excellent literature review covers all aspects of planning and writing literature reviews for academic papers and theses.

How to write a systematic literature review [9 steps]

How do you write a systematic literature review? What types of systematic literature reviews exist and where do you use them? Learn everything you need to know about a systematic literature review in this guide

What is a literature review? [with examples]

Not sure what a literature review is? This guide covers the definition, purpose, and format of a literature review.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

By: Amy Rommelspacher (PhD) | Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | November 2020 (Updated May 2023)

Writing the literature review chapter can seem pretty daunting when you’re piecing together your dissertation or thesis. As  we’ve discussed before , a good literature review needs to achieve a few very important objectives – it should:

• Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic
• Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these
• Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one)
• Inform your own  methodology and research design

To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure . Get the structure of your literature review chapter wrong and you’ll struggle to achieve these objectives. Don’t worry though – in this post, we’ll look at how to structure your literature review for maximum impact (and marks!).

But wait – is this the right time?

Deciding on the structure of your literature review should come towards the end of the literature review process – after you have collected and digested the literature, but before you start writing the chapter. 

In other words, you need to first develop a rich understanding of the literature before you even attempt to map out a structure. There’s no use trying to develop a structure before you’ve fully wrapped your head around the existing research.

Equally importantly, you need to have a structure in place before you start writing , or your literature review will most likely end up a rambling, disjointed mess. 

Importantly, don’t feel that once you’ve defined a structure you can’t iterate on it. It’s perfectly natural to adjust as you engage in the writing process. As we’ve discussed before , writing is a way of developing your thinking, so it’s quite common for your thinking to change – and therefore, for your chapter structure to change – as you write. 

Need a helping hand?

Like any other chapter in your thesis or dissertation, your literature review needs to have a clear, logical structure. At a minimum, it should have three essential components – an  introduction , a  body   and a  conclusion . 

Let’s take a closer look at each of these.

1: The Introduction Section

Just like any good introduction, the introduction section of your literature review should introduce the purpose and layout (organisation) of the chapter. In other words, your introduction needs to give the reader a taste of what’s to come, and how you’re going to lay that out. Essentially, you should provide the reader with a high-level roadmap of your chapter to give them a taste of the journey that lies ahead.

Here’s an example of the layout visualised in a literature review introduction:

Your introduction should also outline your topic (including any tricky terminology or jargon) and provide an explanation of the scope of your literature review – in other words, what you  will   and  won’t   be covering (the delimitations ). This helps ringfence your review and achieve a clear focus . The clearer and narrower your focus, the deeper you can dive into the topic (which is typically where the magic lies). 

Depending on the nature of your project, you could also present your stance or point of view at this stage. In other words, after grappling with the literature you’ll have an opinion about what the trends and concerns are in the field as well as what’s lacking. The introduction section can then present these ideas so that it is clear to examiners that you’re aware of how your research connects with existing knowledge .

2: The Body Section

The body of your literature review is the centre of your work. This is where you’ll present, analyse, evaluate and synthesise the existing research. In other words, this is where you’re going to earn (or lose) the most marks. Therefore, it’s important to carefully think about how you will organise your discussion to present it in a clear way. 

The body of your literature review should do just as the description of this chapter suggests. It should “review” the literature – in other words, identify, analyse, and synthesise it. So, when thinking about structuring your literature review, you need to think about which structural approach will provide the best “review” for your specific type of research and objectives (we’ll get to this shortly).

There are (broadly speaking)  three options  for organising your literature review.

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

Organising the literature chronologically is one of the simplest ways to structure your literature review. You start with what was published first and work your way through the literature until you reach the work published most recently. Pretty straightforward.

The benefit of this option is that it makes it easy to discuss the developments and debates in the field as they emerged over time. Organising your literature chronologically also allows you to highlight how specific articles or pieces of work might have changed the course of the field – in other words, which research has had the most impact . Therefore, this approach is very useful when your research is aimed at understanding how the topic has unfolded over time and is often used by scholars in the field of history. That said, this approach can be utilised by anyone that wants to explore change over time .

For example , if a student of politics is investigating how the understanding of democracy has evolved over time, they could use the chronological approach to provide a narrative that demonstrates how this understanding has changed through the ages.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself to help you structure your literature review chronologically.

• What is the earliest literature published relating to this topic?
• How has the field changed over time? Why?
• What are the most recent discoveries/theories?

In some ways, chronology plays a part whichever way you decide to structure your literature review, because you will always, to a certain extent, be analysing how the literature has developed. However, with the chronological approach, the emphasis is very firmly on how the discussion has evolved over time , as opposed to how all the literature links together (which we’ll discuss next ).

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

The thematic approach to structuring a literature review means organising your literature by theme or category – for example, by independent variables (i.e. factors that have an impact on a specific outcome).

As you’ve been collecting and synthesising literature , you’ll likely have started seeing some themes or patterns emerging. You can then use these themes or patterns as a structure for your body discussion. The thematic approach is the most common approach and is useful for structuring literature reviews in most fields.

For example, if you were researching which factors contributed towards people trusting an organisation, you might find themes such as consumers’ perceptions of an organisation’s competence, benevolence and integrity. Structuring your literature review thematically would mean structuring your literature review’s body section to discuss each of these themes, one section at a time.

Here are some questions to ask yourself when structuring your literature review by themes:

• Are there any patterns that have come to light in the literature?
• What are the central themes and categories used by the researchers?
• Do I have enough evidence of these themes?

PS – you can see an example of a thematically structured literature review in our literature review sample walkthrough video here.

Option 3: Methodological

The methodological option is a way of structuring your literature review by the research methodologies used . In other words, organising your discussion based on the angle from which each piece of research was approached – for example, qualitative , quantitative or mixed  methodologies.

Structuring your literature review by methodology can be useful if you are drawing research from a variety of disciplines and are critiquing different methodologies. The point of this approach is to question  how  existing research has been conducted, as opposed to  what  the conclusions and/or findings the research were.

For example, a sociologist might centre their research around critiquing specific fieldwork practices. Their literature review will then be a summary of the fieldwork methodologies used by different studies.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself when structuring your literature review according to methodology:

• Which methodologies have been utilised in this field?
• Which methodology is the most popular (and why)?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various methodologies?
• How can the existing methodologies inform my own methodology?

3: The Conclusion Section

Once you’ve completed the body section of your literature review using one of the structural approaches we discussed above, you’ll need to “wrap up” your literature review and pull all the pieces together to set the direction for the rest of your dissertation or thesis.

The conclusion is where you’ll present the key findings of your literature review. In this section, you should emphasise the research that is especially important to your research questions and highlight the gaps that exist in the literature. Based on this, you need to make it clear what you will add to the literature – in other words, justify your own research by showing how it will help fill one or more of the gaps you just identified.

Last but not least, if it’s your intention to develop a conceptual framework for your dissertation or thesis, the conclusion section is a good place to present this.

Example: Thematically Structured Review

In the video below, we unpack a literature review chapter so that you can see an example of a thematically structure review in practice.

Let’s Recap

In this article, we’ve  discussed how to structure your literature review for maximum impact. Here’s a quick recap of what  you need to keep in mind when deciding on your literature review structure:

• Just like other chapters, your literature review needs a clear introduction , body and conclusion .
• The introduction section should provide an overview of what you will discuss in your literature review.
• The body section of your literature review can be organised by chronology , theme or methodology . The right structural approach depends on what you’re trying to achieve with your research.
• The conclusion section should draw together the key findings of your literature review and link them to your research questions.

If you’re ready to get started, be sure to download our free literature review template to fast-track your chapter outline.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

27 Comments

Great work. This is exactly what I was looking for and helps a lot together with your previous post on literature review. One last thing is missing: a link to a great literature chapter of an journal article (maybe with comments of the different sections in this review chapter). Do you know any great literature review chapters?

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

I agree with Marin. This would be quite helpful if you annotate a nicely structured literature from previously published research articles.

Awesome article for my research.

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

It is indeed thought and supportive work for the futurist researcher and students

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

Thanks for this wonderful presentation. My question is that do I put all the variables into a single conceptual framework or each hypothesis will have it own conceptual framework?

Thank you very much, very helpful

This is very educative and precise . Thank you very much for dropping this kind of write up .

Pheeww, so damn helpful, thank you for this informative piece.

I’m doing a research project topic ; stool analysis for parasitic worm (enteric) worm, how do I structure it, thanks.

comprehensive explanation. Help us by pasting the URL of some good “literature review” for better understanding.

great piece. thanks for the awesome explanation. it is really worth sharing. I have a little question, if anyone can help me out, which of the options in the body of literature can be best fit if you are writing an architectural thesis that deals with design?

I am doing a research on nanofluids how can l structure it?

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

I like how this was so clear with simple language 😊😊 thank you so much 😊 for these information 😊

Insightful. I was struggling to come up with a sensible literature review but this has been really helpful. Thank you!

You have given thought-provoking information about the review of the literature.

Thank you. It has made my own research better and to impart your work to students I teach

I learnt a lot from this teaching. It’s a great piece.

I am doing research on EFL teacher motivation for his/her job. How Can I structure it? Is there any detailed template, additional to this?

You are so cool! I do not think I’ve read through something like this before. So nice to find somebody with some genuine thoughts on this issue. Seriously.. thank you for starting this up. This site is one thing that is required on the internet, someone with a little originality!

I’m asked to do conceptual, theoretical and empirical literature, and i just don’t know how to structure it

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

• Getting Started
• How to Pick a Topic
• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

So, what is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries." Taylor, D.  The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?  A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews .  Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

• A research paper assigned in a course
• A thesis or dissertation
• A grant proposal
• An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

• Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework:  10.1177/08948453211037398  

Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

• Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review:  10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

• Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis:  10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts .  Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

• Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis:  10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

• UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
• Explain why this review has taken place;
• Articulate a position or hypothesis;
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

Carolyn Cunningham : Human Development & Family Sciences, Psychology, Sociology

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

Janelle Hedstrom : Special Education, Curriculum & Instruction, Ed Leadership & Policy ​

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

For help in other subject areas, please see the guide to library specialists by subject .

Periodically, UT Libraries runs a workshop covering the basics and library support for literature reviews. While we try to offer these once per academic year, we find providing the recording to be helpful to community members who have missed the session. Following is the most recent recording of the workshop, Conducting a Literature Review. To view the recording, a UT login is required.

• October 26, 2022 recording
• Last Updated: Oct 26, 2022 2:49 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

NOTE : Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: May 18, 2024 11:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

• interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
• an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
• a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

• keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
• keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
• use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
• define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
• do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

• discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
• trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
• incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

• be thorough,
• use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
• look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

• the major achievements in the reviewed field,
• the main areas of debate, and
• the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

Login | Register

• Editorial Team

An In-Depth Literature Review of E-Portfolio Implementation in Higher Education: Processes, Barriers, and Strategies

Authors: Hongyan Yang (The University of Tennessee, Knoxville) , Rachel Wong (The University of Tennessee, Knoxville)

Literature Review

• Harvard Citation Style
• Vancouver Citation Style
• APA Citation Style
• Download RIS
• Download BibTeX

This is an accepted article with a DOI pre-assigned that is not yet published.

This literature review examines the implementation of e-portfolios in higher education, with a focus on the implementation process, potential barriers, and strategies for overcoming challenges. This review seeks to provide instructional designers and higher education instructors with design strategies to effectively implement e-portfolios. Through an analysis of seventeen studies, we identified six common steps in the implementation process, including identifying a purpose, stakeholders, and platform, conducting workshops, creating e-portfolios, and evaluating the project. The implementation process also raised eight concerns, including concerns related to technology, policy, pedagogy, artifact quality, privacy, student motivation, academic integrity, and teacher workload. To address these concerns, existing strategies suggest that successful implementation requires training and policy support, student-centered pedagogy, criteria for assessing artifacts, privacy and data protection, feedback, anti-plagiarism measures, and shared successful models.

Keywords: literature review, e-Portfolio, implementation, higher education

Accepted on 20 Apr 2024

Peer reviewed, creative commons attribution-noncommercial-sharealike 4.0, harvard-style citation.

Yang, H & Wong, R. () 'An In-Depth Literature Review of E-Portfolio Implementation in Higher Education: Processes, Barriers, and Strategies', Issues and Trends in Learning Technologies . 12(1) doi: 10.2458/itlt.5809

Show: Vancouver Citation Style | APA Citation Style

Vancouver-Style Citation

Yang, H & Wong, R. An In-Depth Literature Review of E-Portfolio Implementation in Higher Education: Processes, Barriers, and Strategies. Issues and Trends in Learning Technologies. ; 12(1) doi: 10.2458/itlt.5809

Show: Harvard Citation Style | APA Citation Style

APA-Style Citation

Yang, H & Wong, R. (, ). An In-Depth Literature Review of E-Portfolio Implementation in Higher Education: Processes, Barriers, and Strategies. Issues and Trends in Learning Technologies 12(1) doi: 10.2458/itlt.5809

Show: Harvard Citation Style | {% trans 'Vancouver Citation Style' %}

Non Specialist Summary

This article has no summary

Urban nature-based solutions planning for biodiversity outcomes: human, ecological, and artificial intelligence perspectives

• Open access
• Published: 15 May 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Veljko Prodanovic 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Peter M. Bach 4 , 5 &
• Milan Stojkovic 1  

99 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Nature-based solutions (NBS) harness ecosystem services for urban enhancement, promoting biodiversity, habitat creation, and water management while improving human well-being. However, decision-making often favours specific NBS designs, leading to uneven benefits distribution. Whereas human-centric NBS design relies on convenience, financial sustainability, historical aspects, and amenity increase through NBS technical solutions, flora- and fauna-centric (or eco-centric) design targets spatial connectedness of blue-green spaces, increase in species richness, and habitat within urban centres. Both approaches can shape the urban biodiversity landscape, yet; they often clash around planning priorities. Recent advances in AI offer potential for AI-centric urban planning, though its role remains unclear. This study examines the interplay between biodiversity and NBS planning across human-, eco-, and AI-centric domains, aiming for balanced urban outcomes. We blended narrative, integrative, and systematic literature review and propose future steps for more balanced NBS development. The findings of this work suggest that AI presents an opportunity for a more balanced NBS design through its applications in climate change prediction, water management, and project visualisation. Incorporating AI into urban planning tools can expedite modelling process, improve stakeholder communication, and enhance project outcomes visualisation. By integrating human, eco, and AI-centric approaches, urban planners can foster resilience and sustainability in NBS implementation, ensuring equitable distribution of benefits across urban landscapes.

Similar content being viewed by others

Assessing the role of urban green spaces for human well-being: a systematic review

Biodiversity and Health in the Urban Environment

Nature-Based Solutions for Flood Mitigation and Resilience in Urban Areas

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Urban growth and densification in recent decades are putting major pressure on biodiversity and ecosystems in general, through the reduction and fragmentation of sustainable habitats and degradation of natural resources (Horváth et al., 2019 ). Plants and wildlife face more difficulties in surviving and moving through landscapes dominated by humans, as urbanization reduces the amount and quality of blue (i.e., water) and green (i.e., vegetated) areas that support life. This affects important biological functions such as reproduction, spreading, migration and resource use, and eventually lowers the genetic exchange between populations, which can affect their variation and adaptation (Donati et al., 2022 ).

Nature-based solutions (NBS) are defined as multi-benefit ecosystems, often engineered but always inspired and supported by nature, that cost-effectively “provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience” (Cohen-Shacham, 2016 ). Biodiversity is therefore inherent part of the NBS, which aim for more diverse natural features supporting pre-urbanisation-like levels of ecological services. However, NBS still predominantly target human-centric benefits and comforts, ranging from low to high levels of engineered elements, encompassing blue and green features, while connected to “grey” (man-made) infrastructure. NBS has been gaining popularity recently due to its multifaceted approach to address a number of local issues from climate, water and air pollution to green space promotion for biodiversity and inclusion. While biodiversity is often not considered in traditional urban planning, NBS gives us a chance to reconcile humans and nature to co-exist in urban spaces, which is also increasingly explored in architectural design thinking (e.g., Braidotti, 2020 ; Haraway, 2016 ). Solutions like tree pits, rain gardens, wetlands, and other NBS, provide a wealth of habitats and resources for biodiversity conservation in cities and rural areas, while at the same time increasing human health, decreasing urban heat, and managing urban water and pollution (European Commission et al., 2020 ). However, this exact multifaceted nature of NBS is challenging to urban planners, due to a large number of, sometimes conflicting, priorities (Kuller et al., 2019 ). Human economy, amenity, health, and well-being are usually at the core of new urban NBS practices. Urban planning is usually focused on serving the general public, but through the vision of a few individuals, without fully understanding community dynamics, the history of the place, or changing priorities (Coyne et al., 2020 ). More “liveable cities” (Pineda-Pinto et al., 2022 ) is something everybody is striving for. However, liveability has a varied meaning in different communities. Additionally, economic, and political circumstances often dictate NBS investments and urban planners need to adapt to them (Iftekhar et al., 2022 ). Hence, the planning and design of NBS have been ad-hoc, and opportunistic, with biodiversity often treated as a nice ‘benefit’ rather than an active goal (Kuller et al., 2021 ). Consequently, non-human, or ecologically-centric (eco-centric) urban design often poorly incorporates plant and animal benefits. While some urban planning rules dictate immediate actions towards biodiversity promotion, these are usually not sustained over the project life-time and often become neglected when human-centric issues surface, as witnessed in most major infrastructure projects in the cities (Hawken et al., 2021 ). Additionally, researchers are arguing that we are missing a more profound understanding of how to enhance biodiversity in urban spaces, and, furthermore, how to incorporate this in explicit planning approaches (Ignatieva et al., 2023 ). NBS could be the key, but how do we reconcile so many evolving priorities between human and non-human users of blue-green spaces?

A further opportunity and complexity is the advancements in computer science, which have made planning of multilayered NBS systems significantly easier over the years (Kuller et al., 2019 ). Many urban planning models include NBS integration in the urban fabric (e.g., Kuller et al., 2019 ; Bach et al., 2020 ; Prodanovic et al.,  2022b ), but models are still limited by their users’ initial boundary conditions, or model assumptions, and are often run for human-centric design. Even the most advanced models nowadays are not capable of incorporating all the human-centric considerations (e.g., history of the space, shifting community interests, etc., - Coyne et al., 2020 ; Naserisafavi et al., 2022 ), and ecological considerations are even less promoted. However, with the rapid and recent advancement in Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology, we are starting to incorporate AI techniques in decision-making where multicriteria decisions are not easily balanced by our own experiences (Koumetio Tekouabou et al., 2023 ). With the increased amount of data worldwide and the expense of AI capabilities, there is a question of how we can best leverage AI (particularly machine learning) to create integrated NBS solutions for co-existence between humans, animals, and plants.

In this paper, we cover recent efforts in urban NBS design across human-centric and eco-centric solutions, while also looking into AI-focused developments in urban planning, and discuss how do we integrate machine learning in creation of positive NBS biodiversity outcomes. We have intentionally separated human and ecological aspects in this discussion, which may appear non-sensical to some and obvious to others. This, however, reflects a long-standing dichotomy and state-of-mind in environmental engineering and urban planning in industrialized contexts, that is actively being questioned (e.g., Gray, 2002 ), also in light of climate change, which renders our ‘reactive’ approaches as no longer sustainable and requires us to revisit the natural cycles.

Methodology

This study employs a multi-faceted approach to comprehensively explore the planning and implementation of NBS in urban environments. Hence, we integrated narrative review, integrative review, and systematic review methodologies.

Central to our methodology is the narrative review, chosen for its capacity to construct a cohesive and comprehensive story elucidating the multifaceted dimensions of urban NBS planning. Drawing inspiration from the work of Greenhalgh et al. ( 2005 ) on narrative synthesis, our narrative approach allows us to weave together historical context, theoretical frameworks, and contemporary practices. Embracing a human-centric, eco-centric, and AI-centric lens, our narrative review illuminates the complex interplay between socio-cultural, ecological, and technological factors shaping NBS strategies in urban settings.

Complementing the narrative synthesis, an integrative review methodology is employed to synthesise a diverse range of studies across disciplinary boundaries. As advocated by Whittemore et al. ( 2005 ), our integrative review process involves systematically analysing and synthesising the findings from different sources to construct a comprehensive understanding of urban NBS. By bridging disciplinary differences and identifying connections between seemingly varied research strands, the integrative review facilitates a nuanced examination of NBS planning, fostering a holistic perspective.

Furthermore, a systematic review approach is utilized to delve into recent advancements in NBS research, focusing primarily on literature from the past five years. Our systematic review process ensures a thorough and unbiased examination of the latest scholarly contributions in humanitarian engineering, biological and ecological sciences, and computer sciences. By synthesising contemporary insights with foundational works, our systematic review enhances the robustness and relevance of our findings, providing valuable insights for researchers and practitioners alike.

To prevent geographical bias and promote inclusivity, our study adopts a global perspective, drawing upon literature and practices from diverse regions worldwide. This approach aligns with the call for global collaboration in addressing urban sustainability challenges (Colding et al., 2019 ). By synthesizing knowledge from varied contexts, we aspire to foster cross-cultural learning and facilitate the exchange of innovative NBS solutions on a global scale.

In summary, our methodological framework integrates narrative, integrative, and systematic review methodologies, underpinned by a commitment to inclusivity and methodological rigor. Through this multi-faceted approach, we aim to provide a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of urban NBS planning, contributing to both scholarly discourse and practical decision-making processes.

Human-centric urban NBS design

NBS practices, arguably, have the highest importance in the urban context, where rapid urbanization is chipping away at natural spaces and blue-green environments are at a premium. Urban NBS, at its core, is designed for the benefit of humans by providing re-naturalisation, hence it is no surprise that human-centric approaches towards NBS design are dominant. While nature alone can increase the resilience of urban spaces to diverse climate phenomena (e.g., temperature fluctuations, severe rainfall events, earthquakes, etc.), this type of resilience is not always optimal for human well-being (Nguyen et al., 2022 ). Through significant engineering efforts over the past three decades, urban NBS practices have been adapted to provide the most benefits to humans for city cooling (e.g., trees, parks, wetlands, etc.), flood protection (e.g., vegetation barriers, retention basins, rain gardens and wetlands, etc.), and pollution reduction (arguably all vegetated systems are involved in this) (Fletcher et al., 2015 ; Deletic et al., 2019 ; Probst et al., 2022 ). These are some of the most important engineering achievements for NBS design and implementation. However, the real selling point of urban NBS technologies are less-tangible benefits (harder, if not impossible to objectively evaluate and quantify) which are health benefits, amenity increase, and economic benefits. Green, natural environments are known to increase human happiness and comfort levels (Wai et al., 2022 ), while there are studies that show a significant increase in mental and physical well-being (e.g., Bowen et al., 2017 ). Due to this, NBS is desirable in urban environments and people are willing to spend more money on properties that have NBS features close-by. For example, a study in Sydney, Australia, showed a 6% percent property value increase within 50 m of rain gardens, equating to a total $1.5 million Australian dollars in value of a single rain garden (Polyakov et al., 2015 ). While researchers have tried to design frameworks that evaluate these non-tangible benefits (e.g., Hamann et al., 2020 ), these are always location-specific and have not been widely accepted in the research community. While non-tangible benefits are less represented in the typical NBS cost-benefit analyses frameworks, literature shows that these benefits (such as amenity, well-being, historical context, etc.) are often the most important for the communities. Researchers have seen only marginal interest of the communities for practical, tangible benefits such as pollution or flood control (Naserisafavi et al., 2022 ), and even less interest in biodiversity outcomes of NBS (Ignatieva et al., 2023 ). Hence, there is still a need for well-developed, inclusive framework to monetise all benefits provided by NBS in urban settings.

While engineers and scientists have been working hard on objectively optimising the performance of nature, application of such technologies has not been as widespread as we hoped. The economic sustainability of current NBS practices and technologies is still questionable (Langeveld et al., 2022 ). It heavily depends on complexity of NBS applied (e.g., whether it is a very technical solution requiring specific operation and care, or common natural feature), longevity of the solution (short-term or long-term management and care), and method used for economic evaluation (evaluation based only on direct costs and profits, or it also includes benefits of ecosystem services). While community members reap some of the economic benefits through increased property prices, this only marginally comes back to local governments (as a property tax), which also have a cost of maintaining these blue-green systems (i.e., mowing, pruning, fixing, cleaning, etc.). Being one of the most important requirements for the proper functioning of NBS, these maintenance requirements are especially challenging for local governments due to expenses and skills shortage (Oral et al., 2020 ). Concepts such as zero-additional maintenance NBS have been proposed to try to alleviate these costs (Prodanovic et al., 2022a ), however, these are only isolated cases, and not designed for all types of NBS assets. Nevertheless, while economically not sustainable, local governments are still implementing urban NBS to appease local communities, which further deepens human-centric NBS design. This, however, can create an issue of social inequality in the city or, in worse cases, gentrification (Pineda-Pinto et al., 2022 ), where only higher socio-economic areas (local municipalities) can afford NBS assets, creating a larger divide between social groups within the city (Kuller et al., 2019 ). While this is not always the case (e.g., Kuller et al., 2021 ), social inequality can be a major contributor to a negative perception of urban NBS, preventing its widespread application. Additionally, current convenience-based approaches for NBS design, where NBS is constructed alongside other major grey infrastructure projects (e.g., road upgrades, Kuller et al., 2021 ), do not systematically address urban challenges, but rather create patches of disconnected blue-green spaces reducing community and nature benefits (e.g., prohibiting large green or blue open spaces for recreation or migration of some biological species, etc.).

To truly design urban NBS for human benefit, several considerations need to be made, which are mostly overlooked in current designs (Coyne et al., 2020 ; Naserisafavi et al., 2022 ). There is a significant benefit to considering public co-design of urban NBS. It is shown that communities value their urban environment more if they are involved in decision-making and design (Dushkova et al., 2020 ), and such increased ownership could lead to lower maintenance requirements for local government (Naserisafavi et al., 2022 ). This process would increase the communication between professionals, landscape planners, local government and the public, which would benefit all parties and at the same time provide the necessary level of education about the potential benefits of NBS. Studies showing such communication and planning have proven positive results for NBS sustainability (Ignatieva et al., 2023 ). Additionally, human-centric design should consider the history and culture of the place when deciding on appropriate NBS design (Coyne et al., 2020 ). This is promoted by the concept of Culturally Inclusive Water Urban Design (CIWUD) (Coyne et al., 2020 ), and further supported in many regions of the world (e.g., China (Hawken et al., 2021 ), South Africa (Gxokwe et al., 2020 ), Australia (Frost et al., 2023 ), India (van der Meulen et al., 2023 ), etc.). Finally, in an attempt to re-naturalise the cities, sometimes we forget that increased biodiversity in urban areas can negatively affect humans (so-called ecosystem disservices – e.g. von Döhren et al., 2015 ). Recently, this was seen in the Chinese city of Chengdu, where green facades and vertical forests attracted mosquitoes, resulting in lower human habitation in adjacent buildings and the decline of facilities (Agence France-Presse, 2020 ).

Eco-centric urban NBS design

Various approaches for ecological management have devoted efforts to the protection of existing, valuable habitats (‘reservation ecology’), the repair and rehabilitation of degraded habitats (‘restoration ecology’) and, in recent decades, the design of habitats in co-existence with humans and the urban environment (‘reconciliation ecology’) (Rosenzweig, 2003 ). Reconciliation has, in particular, garnered significant attention in the architectural discourse, where post-human ecologies (Braidotti, 2020 ) and ‘cohabitation’ (Haraway, 2016 ) are emerging themes in design thinking. They actively place the worldview of human superiority over nature in question and seek to redefine human’s role as a steward of nature and the environment as one designed for all living organisms (Gray, 2002 ). Irrespective of the form of ecology adopted, urban NBS practices provide the enabling means to protect and restore natural capital.

Habitat degradation and landscape fragmentation, as a result of urbanisation, reduce not only species diversity, but also inhibit species movement (physical dispersal or pollination processes) and, hence, diverse genetic exchange within the adaptation to a changing environment (Donati et al., 2022 ). As an intrinsic element in the very definition of NBS (Cohen-Shacham, 2016 ), ‘biodiversity’ still faces challenges in practical implementation due to a lack of understanding of how to tailor certain solution to the variety of ecological design factors (e.g., Donati et al., 2022 ) and human needs. This is further complicated by the need to consider both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems as well as their potential linkage (e.g., amphibian species spend their life cycle in both – Cayuela et al., 2020 ), think about flora and fauna as well as symbiotic relationships or predatory-prey relationships, the presence of invasive species (e.g., invasive neophytes – Hejda et al., 2009 ) and how broader climatic impacts are likely to impact these ecological processes and dynamics in future.

Early efforts of incorporating ‘biodiversity’ into NBS planning and design relied on suitable proxy indicators that represent habitat quality or landscape connectivity (Nguyen et al., 2021 ). More explicit and recent insights can be loosely grouped around regional-scale efforts to understand landscape connectivity, and local-scale efforts to decide on design elements of NBS (e.g., plant selection) to improve local biodiversity and habitat quality (Prodanovic et al., 2019a , b ). These are often supported by the economic assessment to make a ‘business case’ around ecosystem improvement (Locatelli et al., 2020 ).

Studies have investigated ways to improve the spatial connectivity relationships between the urban and natural environment (Donati et al., 2022 ; Molné et al., 2023 ), highlighting that understanding the process requires broader regional considerations before local-scale approaches of ecological management practices and urban NBS options can be tailored. Methods for quantifying ecological connectivity are reasonably well-established and modelling approaches are based on either island biogeography, metapopulation dynamics, graph theoretical approaches such as least-cost path, or more recently established circuit theory (Dickson et al., 2019 ). Extensive reviews in the ecological scholarship have investigated a plethora of different approaches for predicting connectivity as well as their shortcomings (e.g., Tischendorf et al., 2000 ; Moilanen et al., 2002 ). Irrespective of method choice, this regional-scale approach enables us to understand how urbanisation leads to pinch points in ecological corridors and what can be done to protect or restore connectivity through local-scale NBS interventions (i.e., the active use of vegetation and water elements). They enable testing of how such interventions can act as ‘stepping stones’ to bridging fragmented landscapes (Donati et al., 2022 ) and in what order their implementation should be prioritised (Molné et al., 2023 ).

Urban NBS have the potential to enhance the variety and abundance of animal and plant species in a city, which define urban biodiversity (Guerry et al., 2021 ), often providing greater habitat quality compared to regular urban greening (Filazzola et al., 2019 ). In designing a specific urban NBS system (e.g., bioretention, green roof/facades), the plants play a role as an important element for assimilation of pollutants from stormwater runoff or in providing evaporative cooling for heat mitigation and as an entry point for improving local biodiversity (Dagenais et al., 2018 ). Nevertheless, floral species (native vs. non-native) planting strategies and other design elements and objectives require a careful balancing act that is an active area of research.

In parallel to local- and regional-scale efforts, we must also understand the economic consequences and benefits around biodiversity loss and improvement. Valuation studies have approached urban NBS in a number of ways as also detailed in the previous section, but some estimated broad monetary ranges for habitat provision and improvements to urban ecosystems include 15% of land value (Locatelli et al., 2020 ) or up to 55.24 €/m 2 (Johnson et al., 2019 ). Whilst this pales in comparison to the estimated financial impact of global biodiversity loss ranging in the trillions of dollars worldwide (Costanza et al., 1997 ) and the limitations of putting monetary units on species extinction, these economic studies (Johnson et al., 2019 ; Locatelli et al., 2020 ) at least provide an initial leverage to more deeply embed biodiversity considerations in active planning and design of urban NBS.

Actionable research on the design of urban NBS for biodiversity will continue to emerge in the coming years. Coupled with local-scale efforts to create local habitats, we will start see how our urban NBS can be improved for more local biodiversity benefits. Despite its critique (Suganuma et al., 2022 ) and seemingly loose guidance, the Field of dreams hypothesis , which states ‘build it and they will come’ appears to currently be the best modus operandi , particularly in the case of wetland restoration projects (Palmer et al., 1997 ) much like opportunistic approaches of urban NBS for other uses (Kuller et al., 2021 ) and a potential pathway towards consciously incorporating biodiversity in urban NBS planning. Much like the examples of ‘happy accidents’ in Rosenzweig ( 2003 ) reflection of successful reconciliation ecology examples, we must learn by doing at the local-scale and guide the implementation strategically with regional-level understanding, a clear economic ‘business case’ and, finally, good governance frameworks to support ongoing efforts (Xie et al., 2020 ).

Advancements in AI urban planning and biodiversity protection

Recent progress in data science, in conjunction with Internet-of-things (IoT) and remotely sensed data, are boosting the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in biodiversity monitoring and predictive modelling. It is attributed to the fact that AI offers substantial potential for optimal and, to some degree, autonomous biodiversity protection and utilization of ecosystem resources in a fast-changing and resource-limited world (Silvestro et al., 2022 ). For instance, the automated processing of satellite imagery can yield maps showing the distribution of individual species or groups of species within the large spatial extent, levels of species richness, and biodiversity list specific to each location analysed (Nunes et al., 2020 ). New technologies for documenting and monitoring species occurrences (e.g., Bolliger et al., 2020 ) as well as public engagement and open data repository platforms such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) are providing a plethora of available and location-specific data points for detailed modelling and assessment.

Biodiversity is also an important objective in urban planning broadly recognizing two schools of thought: the first advocates for planning support systems, whereas the second promotes generative design systems, which leverage computing to create innovative and efficient spatial designs (Koumetio Tekouabou et al., 2023 ). The perspective of generative design systems takes into account the advancements in computational capabilities and data accessibility. Consequently, it emphasises the use of AI-driven solutions in urban planning, particularly focusing on the application of AI-based optimization algorithms for enhancing urban water planning processes (e.g., Fig.  1 ). A novel approach in urban planning, known as the Smart Design Framework, is thus gaining prominence (Koumetio Tekouabou et al., 2023 ), where AI-based methodologies are used to support and advance (in most cases to speed up), the urban design process. AI is becoming a key approach for addressing real-world challenges in NBS planning. Within this field, NBS planning uses three main forms: black box, white box, and hybrid planning approaches. The black box approach is particularly valued in NBS urban planning for its efficiency in uncovering hidden patterns and accurately predicting complex nonlinear interactions (Stojković et al., 2017 ). In contrast, the white box approach, notably case-based reasoning, utilizes previous experience as a foundation for its intuitive methodology (Shiu et al., 2004 ). This approach seeks out patterns similar to past situations and applies these insights to new NBS projects. Meanwhile, the hybrid approach integrates case-based reasoning with other AI techniques, thereby facilitating NBS planning on larger urban scales. These models are effective for monitoring NBS performance through ground-based measurements and remote sensing (Kumar et al., 2021 ) as well as for real-time control of NBS by adjusting them to measured and forecasted data (Brasil et al., 2021 ).

Illustration on linking AI and NBS in urban flood prediction (Horizon EU 101,159,480 ARTIFACT project framework; authors archive)

Incorporating NBS is essential for long-term urban planning, especially under the evolving climate change conditions. Urban biodiversity within NBS is particularly effective in reducing flood risks by diminishing surface runoff and peak flow levels (Wübbelmann et al., 2023 ). AI offers valuable tools to assist decision-makers in responding to urban flooding and in strategizing for the long-term. While AI has commonly replaced theory-driven and physically-based models in certain areas, its deployment in rapid urban flood prediction (e.g., Fig.  1 ) is still emerging and developing (Leitao et al., 2018 ; Berkhahn et al., 2019 ). This integration of AI in urban planning signifies a pivotal advancement in tackling environmental challenges more effectively. The few existing AI flood models are based on a simple black-box approach and therefore lack generalization (Bentivoglio et al., 2021 ). However, recent advancements have been made with several AI methods being introduced for rapid urban flood prediction (Burrichter et al., 2023 ), including a site-based model using Long-Short Term Memory (LSTM), a 1-D model employing Graph-Neural Networks (GNN), and a 2-D model utilizing Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN). A significant challenge with these models is the lack of simulated data, often necessitating a comprehensive output from physically based hydrodynamic models for accurate 1-D and 2-D urban flood predictions. Additionally, integrating new AI techniques into flood models presents difficulties for both water resource engineers and AI experts, highlighting the need for a joint effort across these disciplines.

The variability associated with climate projections poses a significant challenge to the planning of NBS (Tian et al., 2023 ). The climate variability that is transmitted through regional climate models, statistical postprocessing tools, and the hydrological models amplify the overall uncertainty in the projected water movement over the landscape, which is crucial for the design of NBS (Stojkovic et al., 2020 ). Addressing these climate uncertainties necessitates an alternative methodology, which involves creating a deterministic-stochastic approach (Stojković et al., 2017 ; Stojkovic et al., 2020 ). This model should incorporate both long-term climate variability and climate change scenarios to accurately assess the impact of climate change on hydrological responses. Furthermore, this challenge is compounded by the necessity for accurate predictions regarding biological responses, which are crucial for the effective conservation of biodiversity in urban areas (Urban et al., 2016 ). The inherently complex and unpredictable nature of urban ecosystems necessitates the exploration and implementation of innovative methodologies to enhance current urban planning practices (Mannucci et al., 2023 ). Furthermore, the increasing disparity between the sophistication of predictive models and the available data required to forecast the most adverse effects of climate change on terrestrial life is a substantial concern (Urban et al., 2016 ). Employing a dynamic adaptation strategy that responds to real-time shifts in system variables and identifies the appropriate time for transitioning between planning strategies becomes crucial (Tian et al., 2023 ). Consequently, it is necessary to develop various decision-making strategies under deep uncertainty to assess the effectiveness of NBS to adapt to uncertainties arising from future climate variability (Babovic et al., 2018 ).

Discussion and the way forward

From the presented literature, it is clear that convenience-based or ‘opportunistic’ approach (Kuller et al., 2021 ) to the design of mostly human-centric NBS is currently dominant in the urban planning, where peoples’ benefits are considered over biodiversity outcomes (Ignatieva et al., 2023 ). Cases where we aim at larger biodiversity outcomes in our cities, and follow-ups to assess the success or failure of the project are sparse. Initial results on how regional connectivity can be assessed and created through targeted NBS strategies that leverage key environmental variables for habitat creation, stepping stones and promoting species movement across large extents, were demonstrated in Donati et al. ( 2022 ). However, achieving such outcomes may also require larger-scale and long-term transformations of the urban fabric, where gains may only be seen far into the future. While the economic justifications for such biodiversity projects exist (Johnson et al., 2019 ; Locatelli et al., 2020 ), and there are diverse approaches and methods for biodiversity assessment (Tischendorf et al., 2000 ; Moilanen et al., 2002 ), it seems that human-centric application is still the dominant form of NBS design in urban environments due to human-led project perspective, i.e., there is still some bias towards solving human issues first. To address the underrepresentation of ecological aspects in NBS we need an unbiased (or less biased) approach. This is where integration of machine learning or AI could be used to enhance the NBS urban planning process and balance the field between human and ecological benefits (see Fig.  2 ).

Design pathway for implementation of AI in balanced NBS design between human- and eco-centric priorities

Firstly, current modelling tools for urban planning are often too slow for real-time planning and adaptive changes, due to computationally and time restrictive process-based methods (Prodanovic et al., 2022b ). AI approaches have already been utilised to speed up flood extent predictions with Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) (Leitao et al., 2018 ) with new research showing promise in the application of predictive AI for fast water pollution modelling (Zhang et al., 2019 ). With more AI-based methods and tools for optimisation of specific NBS benefits (e.g., water management, climate management, economic evaluation, etc.), there is a potential for integration of all these AI-based models under a single framework or tool designed for urban NBS exploratory planning and allowing for co-creation approaches to gain dominance. Fast NBS planning would allow the broader public to be engaged in the decision-making process, which would bring together a critical mass of varied interests, cultures, and expertise, allowing for a more ‘fair’ design process (Naserisafavi et al., 2022 ).

Secondly, for balanced NBS design, AI can be utilised to enhance the communication between communities, professionals, urban planners, and decision-makers (Hawken et al., 2021 ). Due to the involvement of many stakeholders with differing objectives, communication breakdown (miscommunication or misunderstanding) could occur between any of above-mentioned levels, which can cause poor or unbalanced NBS design. On the most fundamental level, Natural Language Processing (NLP) models (e.g., Large Language Models (LLMs) can be utilised to create unified NBS project criteria, assignments and documentation which would prevent misunderstandings in the initial project setup phase. While general data and knowledge bases are used to ‘train’ AI models, having a dedicated LLM for technical NBS criteria would be a useful next step. LLMs could also be utilised as a part of NBS planning tools for unifying set criteria for balancing NBS benefits across different stakeholders (both human and non-human). It could potentially overcome not only language barriers of experts across the globe but also interdisciplinary nuances associated with the term NBS and often haphazardly related terms (e.g., Sponge City, Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD), Low Impact Development (LID) that share similarities and are found across different scientific disciplines such as green space planning, urban ecology and stormwater management (Matsler et al., 2021 ). With the rise of visualisation methods, LLMs present a unique opportunity to increase communication pathways through better NBS planning visualisation, and the generation of new ideas. The emerging field of ‘Generative AI’, encompassing LLMs, generative adversarial networks (GANs), variational autoencoders (VAEs) and diffusion models can also yield photo-realistic representations of the urban environment that can be changed through preselected prompts to the model (e.g., Wijnands et al., 2019 ; Seneviratne et al., 2022 ). This can enable smoother communication throughout the planning process (Wijnands et al., 2019 ), but also allow communication of results to the broader public, aiming at informing and educating. Hence, NLP as a broad AI category has the potential to become a multi-faceted approach for equalising knowledge, opportunity, and access to urban NBS design, benefiting lacking biodiversity aspects, and bridging a major challenge in current siloed NBS planning, i.e., lack of communication.

Finally, in addition to enhanced communication, Generative AI has the potential to inform about the results of NBS projects. Most NBS projects are very active in the planning and construction phases, still the monitoring and maintenance phase tends to be less pronounced (Hawken et al., 2021 ; Prodanovic et al., 2022a ). However, it is the post-construction phase that demonstrates the success or failure of the NBS project (Hawken et al., 2021 ) and that allows the communities to be directly involved in the use of the NBS asset. Currently, there has been a marginal success in maintaining NBS projects through a post-construction phase, usually through monitoring technical parameters (e.g., (Beryani et al., 2021 ), while biodiversity outcomes have been scarce. The biggest barrier to this has been consistent funding after the project implementation (Hawken et al., 2021 ). However, Generative AI could generate visual or text-based monitoring states of the project NBS through little or no guided inputs, and (almost) free of charge. This could further be enhanced with real-time, low-cost sensor technology, as well as community reporting or social media campaigns, which would feed the Generative AI models for more up-to-date (or real-time) generation. In this way, biodiversity, water quality, or air quality improvements, could be presented more easily to all stakeholders, providing a comprehensive understanding of what the NBS is achieving, and what negative effects it is preventing (e.g., urban flooding, drought, heat wave, etc.). This application of Generative AI in this context is in its infancy with some early work conducted by Wijnands et al. ( 2019 ). Seneviratne et al. ( 2022 ) already demonstrated how image generation models in their base-trained state can generate convincing and representative urban planning concepts. Nevertheless, more investigation is needed, not only into the technology but also its responsible use (Sætra, 2023 ). We see this potential being explored, both in countries with long-standing experience in designing with nature such as Australia and the United States of America, and in countries that are actively embracing the NBS practice such as Switzerland, where biodiversity, heat mitigation, and sustainable urban drainage management (BAFU/ARE, 2022 ) are central targets for broader NBS adoption and where anecdotal evidence already points to active experimentation in practice with AI image generation for visualizing potential future NBS design outcomes.

It is worth briefly discussing the limitation and scepticism around AI application. AI is often limited by the information provided for its learning. While AI can adapt and create some unique features (as seen in Generative AI models), this too is based on the styles of previous teachings. Nevertheless, databases used for training of these models are vast and ever-expanding. Even though AI is not expected to reach human-level of creativity in the near future, there is an ever-growing number of uses that the application of AI can contribute in NBS urban planning, and as discussed above, to the benefit of urban biodiversity. While AI could provide a balanced approach between human and eco-centric NBS design, the decision-making that is utilised in AI is largely context-independent and purely based on the statistical nature of its training data (Sætra, 2023 ). The latter can sometimes be considered a limitation as the human operator cannot uncover underlying logical explanations. Unsupervised learning of AI is the reason for its speed and accuracy, but physically-based phenomena are not always represented well, hence new directions in physics-informed AI are gaining popularity (Berkhahn et al., 2019 ). However, it is arguable if this approach is beneficial for biodiversity outcomes in NBS planning due to the randomness in the living patterns exhibited by most living organisms. While this randomness is challenging for traditional process-based models, and there are new connectivity models such as Circuit Theory (Dickson et al., 2019 ) that attempt to simulate it, the AI has the potential to better encapsulated the randomness of living things due to its deep neural network structure.

Conclusions

This work focused on current and future directions in urban NBS human-centric and biodiversity-centric design, highlighting the potential of rapidly advancing AI practices for more balanced outcomes. The work showed a current inkling towards human-centric design, with better technical aspects and economic justification for such an approach. This approach still struggles cultural and historical considerations in NBS design, it often doesn’t facilitate co-creation with multiple stakeholders (including decision-makers) and is often opportunistic rather than strategic. On the other hand, eco-centric design (non-human design) is less pronounced and highly segmented between different methods. With less pronounced economic justification and follow-up monitoring, it requires more promotion to become more competitive to human-centric design. With the AI rise in modern urban planning and engineering science, multiple machine learning models show promise in utilisation for more balanced (between human and non-human) NBS design. With current technical AI solutions for climate change, water quality and quantity prediction, rapid visualisation, and language processing, there are three distinct applications where AI could be utilised to enhance NBS urban planning: (1) embedded into urban planning tools for fast exploratory modelling, (2) as an effective tool for better communication between stakeholders and across different project phases, and (3) as a dissemination and project results presentation tool for better project outcomes visualisation. Further research is needed in all three of these areas, however, some preliminary studies show potential. The uncertainty about AI decision-making could present an obstacle, however, given the randomness of biodiversity phenomena (both human and non-human), AI-driven stochasticity could be able to provide even better estimate compared to traditional process-based models.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Agence France-Presse (2020) Plants, bugs seize China green apartments . Inquirer.net. Online: The Inquirer. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1335843/plants-bugs-seize-china-apartments

Babovic F, Mijic A, Madani K (2018) Decision making under deep uncertainty for adapting urban drainage systems to change. Urban Water J 15(6):552–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2018.1529803

Article   Google Scholar  

Bach PM, Kuller M, McCarthy DT, Deletic A (2020) A spatial planning-support system for generating decentralised urban stormwater management schemes. Sci Total Environ 726:138282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138282

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

BAFU/ARE (2022) Regenwasser Im Siedlungsraum. Umwelt-Wissen Nr. 2201: 115. Bundesamt für Umwelt (BAFU). Bundesamt für Raumentwicklung (ARE)

Bentivoglio R, Isufi E, Jonkman SN, Taormina R (2021) Deep learning methods for Flood Mapping: a review of existing applications and future research directions. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 2021:1–43. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-614

Berkhahn S, Fuchs L, Neuweiler I (2019) An ensemble neural network model for real-time prediction of urban floods. J Hydrol 575:743–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.05.066

Beryani A, Goldstein A, Al-Rubaei AM, Viklander M, Hunt WF, Blecken G-T (2021) Survey of the operational status of twenty-six urban stormwater biofilter facilities in Sweden. J Environ Manage 297:113375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113375

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bolliger J, Collet M, Hohl M, Obrist MK (2020) Automated flight-interception traps for interval sampling of insects. PLoS ONE 15(7):e0229476. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229476

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bowen KJ, Lynch Y (2017) The public health benefits of green infrastructure: the potential of economic framing for enhanced decision-making. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 25:90–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.08.003

Braidotti R (2020) Coexistence. In: Krogh M (ed) Connected-ness: an incomplete Encyclopaedia of the Anthropocene. Strandberg Publishing

Brasil J, Macedo M, Lago C, Oliveira T, Júnior M, Oliveira T, Mendiondo E (2021) Nature-based solutions and real-time control: challenges and opportunities. Water 13(5):651. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13050651

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Burrichter B, Hofmann J, Koltermann da Silva J, Niemann A, Quirmbach M (2023) A Spatiotemporal Deep Learning Approach for Urban Pluvial Flood forecasting with Multi-source Data. Water 15(9):1760. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15091760

Cayuela H, Valenzuela-Sánchez A, Teulier L, Martínez-Solano Í, Léna J-P, Merilä J, Muths E, Shine R, Quay L, Denoël M, Clobert J, Schmidt BR (2020) Determinants and consequences of dispersal in vertebrates with Complex Life cycles: a review of Pond-breeding amphibians. Q Rev Biol 95(1):1–36. https://doi.org/10.1086/707862

Cohen-Shacham E, Walters G, Janzen C, Maginnis S (2016) Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en

Book   Google Scholar  

Colding J, Barthel S (2019) Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years later. Ecol Soc 24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10598-240102

Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630):253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0

Coyne T, Melo Zurita MdL, Reid D, Prodanovic V (2020) Culturally inclusive water urban design: a critical history of hydrosocial infrastructures in Southern Sydney, Australia. Blue-Green Syst. https://doi.org/10.2166/bgs.2020.017

Dagenais D, Brisson J, Fletcher TD (2018) The role of plants in bioretention systems; does the science underpin current guidance? Ecol Eng 120:532–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.07.007

Deletic A, Zhang KF, Jamali B, Charette-Castonguay A, Kuller M, Prodanovic V, Bach PM (2019) Modelling to support the planning of sustainable Urban Water systems. New Trends Urban Drain Modelling Udm 2018 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99867-1_2

Dickson BG, Albano CM, Anantharaman R, Beier P, Fargione J, Graves TA, Gray ME, Hall KR, Lawler JJ, Leonard PB, Littlefield CE, McClure ML, Novembre J, Schloss CA, Schumaker NH, Shah VB, Theobald DM (2019) Circuit-theory applications to connectivity science and conservation. Conserv Biol 33(2):239–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13230

Donati GFA, Bolliger J, Psomas A, Maurer M, Bach PM (2022) Reconciling cities with nature: identifying local Blue-Green infrastructure interventions for regional biodiversity enhancement. J Environ Manage 316:115254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115254

Dushkova D, Haase D (2020) Not simply Green: Nature-based solutions as a Concept and practical Approach for Sustainability studies and Planning agendas in cities. Land 9(1):19. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9010019

European Commission D-G, for R, Innovation, Bulkeley H, Naumann S, Vojinovic Z, Calfapietra C, Whiteoak K, Freitas T, Vandewoestijne S, Wild T (2020) Nature-based solutions: state of the art in EU-funded projects. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2777/236007

Filazzola A, Shrestha N, MacIvor JS (2019) The contribution of constructed green infrastructure to urban biodiversity: a synthesis and meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 56(9):2131–2143. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13475

Fletcher TD, Shuster W, Hunt WF, Ashley R, Butler D, Arthur S, Trowsdale S, Barraud S, Semadeni-Davies A, Bertrand-Krajewski JL, Mikkelsen PS, Rivard G, Uhl M, Dagenais D, Viklander M (2015) SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more – the evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage. Urban Water J 12(7):525–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2014.916314

Frost E, Williams M, McLean J (2023) Community Engagement and Diverse River values: a case study of Dyarubbin. Urban Policy Res 41(3):279–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2022.2155131

Gray J (2002) Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals Granta. https://books.google.rs/books?id=Ik3XAAAAMAAJ

Greenhalgh T, Peacock R (2005) Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ 331(7524):1064–1065. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Guerry AD, Smith JR, Lonsdorf E, Daily GC, Wang X, Chun Y (2021) Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities. Policy briefing. Global Platform for Sustainable Cities, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Gxokwe S, Xu Y, Kanyerere T (2020) Scenarios analysis using water-sensitive urban design principles: a case study of the Cape Flats Aquifer in South Africa. Hydrogeol J 28(6):2009–2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-020-02188-w

Hamann F, Blecken G-T, Ashley RM, Viklander M (2020) Valuing the multiple benefits of Blue-Green infrastructure for a Swedish case study: contrasting the Economic Assessment Tools B£ST and TEEB. J Sustainable Water Built Environ 6(4):05020003. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSWBAY.0000919

Haraway DJ (2016) Staying with the trouble: making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press

Hawken S, Sepasgozar SME, Prodanovic V, Jing J, Bakelmun A, Avazpour B, Che S, Zhang K (2021) What makes a successful Sponge City project? Expert perceptions of critical factors in integrated urban water management in the Asia-Pacific. Sustainable Cities Soc 75:103317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103317

Hejda M, Pyšek P, Jarošík V (2009) Impact of invasive plants on the species richness, diversity and composition of invaded communities. J Ecol 97(3):393–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01480.x

Horváth Z, Ptacnik R, Vad CF, Chase JM (2019) Habitat loss over six decades accelerates regional and local biodiversity loss via changing landscape connectance. Ecol Lett 22(6):1019–1027. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13260

Iftekhar MS, Pannell DJ (2022) Developing an integrated investment decision-support framework for water-sensitive urban design projects. J Hydrol 127532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127532

Ignatieva M, Dushkova D, Martin DJ, Mofrad F, Stewart K, Hughes M (2023) From one to many natures: integrating Divergent Urban Nature visions to support Nature-based solutions in Australia and Europe. Sustainability 15(5):4640. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054640

Johnson D, Geisendorf S (2019) Are Neighborhood-level SUDS Worth it? An Assessment of the economic value of sustainable urban drainage system scenarios using cost-benefit analyses. Ecol Econ 158:194–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.12.024

Koumetio Tekouabou SC, Diop EB, Azmi R, Chenal J (2023) Artificial Intelligence Based methods for Smart and Sustainable Urban Planning: a systematic survey. Arch Comput Methods Eng 30(2):1421–1438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-022-09844-2

Kuller M, Bach PM, Roberts S, Browne D, Deletic A (2019) A planning-support tool for spatial suitability assessment of green urban stormwater infrastructure. Sci Total Environ 686:856–868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.051

Kuller M, Reid DJ, Prodanovic V (2021) ‘Are we planning blue-green infrastructure opportunistically or strategically? Insights from Sydney, Australia’, Blue-Green Systems , (2021) 3 (1), pp. 267–280. https://doi.org/10.2166/bgs.2021.023

Kumar P, Debele SE, Sahani J, Rawat N, Marti-Cardona B, Alfieri SM, Basu B, Basu AS, Bowyer P, Charizopoulos N, Jaakko J, Loupis M, Menenti M, Mickovski SB, Pfeiffer J, Pilla F, Pröll J, Pulvirenti B, Rutzinger M, Sannigrahi S, Spyrou C, Tuomenvirta H, Vojinovic Z, Zieher T (2021) An overview of monitoring methods for assessing the performance of nature-based solutions against natural hazards. Earth Sci Rev 217:103603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103603

Langeveld JG, Cherqui F, Tscheikner-Gratl F, Muthanna TM, Juarez MF-D, Leitão JP, Roghani B, Kerres K, do, Céu Almeida M, Werey C, Rulleau B (2022) ‘Asset management for blue-green infrastructures: a scoping review’, Blue-Green Systems , 4(2), pp. 272–290. https://doi.org/10.2166/bgs.2022.019

Leitao JP, Zaghloul M, Moosavi V (2018) Modeling overland flow from local inflows in almost no-time, using Self Organizing maps. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1810 02684. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1810.02684

Locatelli L, Guerrero M, Russo B, Martínez-Gomariz E, Sunyer D, Martínez M (2020) Socio-Economic Assessment of Green Infrastructure for Climate Change Adaptation in the Context of Urban Drainage Planning. Sustainability 12(9):3792. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093792

Mannucci S, Kwakkel JH, Morganti M, Ferrero M (2023) Exploring potential futures: evaluating the influence of deep uncertainties in urban planning through scenario planning: a case study in Rome, Italy. Futures 154:103265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103265

Matsler AM, Meerow S, Mell IC, Pavao-Zuckerman MA (2021) A ‘green’ chameleon: exploring the many disciplinary definitions, goals, and forms of green infrastructure. Landsc Urban Plann 214:104145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104145

Moilanen A, Nieminen M (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial Ecology. Ecology 83(4):1131–1145. https://doi.org/10.2307/3071919

Molné F, Donati GFA, Bolliger J, Fischer M, Maurer M, Bach PM (2023) Supporting the planning of urban blue-green infrastructure for biodiversity: a multi-scale prioritisation framework. J Environ Manage 342:118069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118069

Naserisafavi N, Coyne T, Melo Zurita MdL, Zhang K, Prodanovic V (2022) Community values on governing urban water nature-based solutions in Sydney, Australia. J Environ Manage 322:116063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116063

Nguyen TT, Meurk C, Benavidez R, Jackson B, Pahlow M (2021) The Effect of Blue-Green Infrastructure on Habitat Connectivity and Biodiversity: a Case Study in the Ōtākaro/Avon River Catchment in Christchurch, New Zealand. Sustainability 13(12):6732. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126732

Nguyen TT, Bach PM, Pahlow M (2022) Multi-scale stormwater harvesting to enhance urban resilience to climate change impacts and natural disasters. Blue-Green Syst 4(1):58–74. https://doi.org/10.2166/bgs.2022.008

Nunes JACC, Cruz ICS, Nunes A, Pinheiro HT (2020) Speeding up coral reef conservation with AI-aided automated image analysis. Nat Mach Intell 2(6):292–292. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-020-0192-3

Oral HV, Carvalho P, Gajewska M, Ursino N, Masi F, Hullebusch ED, v., Kazak JK, Exposito A, Cipolletta G, Andersen TR, Finger DC, Simperler L, Regelsberger M, Rous V, Radinja M, Buttiglieri G, Krzeminski P, Rizzo A, Dehghanian K, Nikolova M, Zimmermann M (2020) A review of nature-based solutions for urban water management in European circular cities: a critical assessment based on case studies and literature. Blue-Green Syst 2(1):112–136. https://doi.org/10.2166/bgs.2020.932

Palmer MA, Ambrose RF, Poff NL (1997) Ecological theory and Community Restoration Ecology. Restor Ecol 5(4):291–300. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100X.1997.00543.x

Pineda-Pinto M, Frantzeskaki N, Nygaard CA (2022) The potential of nature-based solutions to deliver ecologically just cities: lessons for research and urban planning from a systematic literature review. Ambio 51(1):167–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01553-7

Polyakov M, Iftekhar S, Zhang F, Fogarty J ‘The amenity value of water sensitive urban infrastructure: A case study of rain gardens’, 9th IWA Symposium on Systems Analysis and Integrated Assessment 14-­17 June 2015 , Gold Coast, Australia

Probst N, Bach PM, Cook LM, Maurer M, Leitão JP (2022) Blue Green Systems for urban heat mitigation: mechanisms, effectiveness and research directions. Blue-Green Syst 4(2):348–376. https://doi.org/10.2166/bgs.2022.028

Prodanovic V, McCarthy D, Hatt B, Deletic A (2019a) Designing green walls for greywater treatment: the role of plants and operational factors on nutrient removal. Ecol Eng 130:184–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2019.02.019

Prodanovic V, Wang AK, Deletic A (2019b) Assessing water retention and correlation to climate conditions of five plant species in greywater treating green walls. Water Res 167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.115092

Prodanovic V, Hatt B, Fowdar H, Al-Ameri M, Deletic A (2022a) Zero additional maintenance stormwater biofilters: from laboratory testing to field implementation. Blue-Green Syst 4(2):291–309. https://doi.org/10.2166/bgs.2022.030

Prodanovic V, Jamali B, Kuller M, Wang Y, Bach PM, Coleman RA, Metzeling L, McCarthy DT, Shi B, Deletic A (2022b) Calibration and sensitivity analysis of a novel water flow and pollution model for future city planning: Future Urban Stormwater Simulation (FUSS). Water Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2022.046

Rosenzweig ML (2003) Win-win Ecology: How the Earth’s Species Can Survive in the Midst of Human Enterprise Oxford University Press. https://books.google.rs/books?id=8mvnCwAAQBAJ

Sætra HS (2023) Generative AI: Here to stay, but for good? Technol Soc 75:102372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102372

Seneviratne S, Senanayake D, Rasnayaka S, Vidanaarachchi R, Thompson J (2022) DALLE-URBAN: capturing the urban design expertise of large text to image transformers. Int Conf Digit Image Computing: Techniques Appl (DICTA) IEEE:1–9

Google Scholar  

Shiu SCK, Pal SK (2004) Case-based reasoning: concepts, features and Soft Computing. Appl Intell 21(3):233–238. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:APIN.0000043556.29968.81

Silvestro D, Goria S, Sterner T, Antonelli A (2022) Improving biodiversity protection through artificial intelligence. Nat Sustain 5(5):415–424. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00851-6

Stojkovic M, Simonovic SP (2020) Understanding the uncertainty of the Lim River Basin response to changing climate. J Hydrol Eng 25(9):05020023. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001964

Stojković M, Kostić S, Plavšić J, Prohaska S (2017) A joint stochastic-deterministic approach for long-term and short-term modelling of monthly flow rates. J Hydrol 544:555–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.11.025

Suganuma MS, Durigan G (2022) Build it and they will come, but not all of them in fragmented Atlantic Forest landscapes. Restor Ecol 30(4):e13537. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13537

Tian Z, Ramsbottom D, Sun L, Huang Y, Zou H, Liu J (2023) Dynamic adaptive engineering pathways for mitigating flood risks in Shanghai with regret theory. Nat Water 1(2):198–208. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-022-00017-w

Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90(1):7–19. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900102.x

Urban MC, Bocedi G, Hendry AP, Mihoub J-B, Pe’er G, Singer A, Bridle JR, Crozier LG, De Meester L, Godsoe W, Gonzalez A, Hellmann JJ, Holt RD, Huth A, Johst K, Krug CB, Leadley PW, Palmer SCF, Pantel JH, Schmitz A, Zollner PA, Travis JMJ (2016) Improving the forecast for biodiversity under climate change. Science 353(6304):aad8466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad8466

van der Meulen GJM, Mishra G, van Dorst MJ, Iyer M, Bacchin TK (2023) ‘Reviewing Historic Urban Water Transitions to Advance Water-Sensitive Urban Design for Bhuj, India’, Land , 12(10), pp. 1938. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12101938

von Döhren P, Haase D (2015) Ecosystem disservices research: a review of the state of the art with a focus on cities. Ecol Ind 52:490–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.12.027

Wai CY, Tariq MAUR, Muttil N (2022) A systematic review on the existing research, practices, and prospects regarding Urban Green infrastructure for Thermal Comfort in a high-density Urban Context. Water (Switzerland) 14(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/w14162496

Whittemore R, Knafl K (2005) The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs 52(5) 546 – 53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x

Wijnands JS, Nice KA, Thompson J, Zhao H, Stevenson M (2019) Streetscape augmentation using generative adversarial networks: insights related to health and wellbeing. Sustainable Cities Soc 49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101602

Wübbelmann T, Förster K, Bouwer LM, Dworczyk C, Bender S, Burkhard B (2023) Urban flood regulating ecosystem services under climate change: how can Nature-based solutions contribute? Front Water 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2023.1081850

Xie L, Bulkeley H (2020) Nature-based solutions for urban biodiversity governance. Environ Sci Policy 110:77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.04.002

Zhang K, Deletic A, Bach PM, Shi B, Hathaway JM, McCarthy DT (2019) Testing of new stormwater pollution build-up algorithms informed by a genetic programming approach. J Environ Manage 241:12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.009

Download references

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute for Artificial Intelligence Research and Development of Serbia, Novi Sad, 21000, Serbia

Veljko Prodanovic & Milan Stojkovic

Institute for Multidisciplinary Research, University of Belgrade, Kneza Višeslava 1, Belgrade, 11000, Serbia

Veljko Prodanovic

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UNSW Sydney, Kensington Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia

Institute of Environmental and Process Engineering (UMTEC), Eastern Switzerland University of Applied Sciences (OST), Oberseestrasse 10, Rapperswil, SG, 8640, Switzerland

Peter M. Bach

Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, 23 College Walk, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by all authors. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Veljko Prodanovic, with specific section co-wrote by Peter Bach (Chapter 3 and 6) and Milan Stojkovic (Chapter 5). All authors commented and edited the previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Veljko Prodanovic .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Prodanovic, V., Bach, P.M. & Stojkovic, M. Urban nature-based solutions planning for biodiversity outcomes: human, ecological, and artificial intelligence perspectives. Urban Ecosyst (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-024-01558-6

Download citation

Accepted : 07 May 2024

Published : 15 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-024-01558-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Blue-green infrastructure
• Urban ecology
• Machine learning
• Spatial planning
• Ecosystem services
• Decision-making

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 14 May 2024

Protocol for a scoping review study on learning plan use in undergraduate medical education

• Anna Romanova   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1118-1604 1 ,
• Claire Touchie 1 ,
• Sydney Ruller 2 ,
• Victoria Cole 3 &
• Susan Humphrey-Murto 4  

Systematic Reviews volume  13 , Article number:  131 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

79 Accesses

Metrics details

The current paradigm of competency-based medical education and learner-centredness requires learners to take an active role in their training. However, deliberate and planned continual assessment and performance improvement is hindered by the fragmented nature of many medical training programs. Attempts to bridge this continuity gap between supervision and feedback through learner handover have been controversial. Learning plans are an alternate educational tool that helps trainees identify their learning needs and facilitate longitudinal assessment by providing supervisors with a roadmap of their goals. Informed by self-regulated learning theory, learning plans may be the answer to track trainees’ progress along their learning trajectory. The purpose of this study is to summarise the literature regarding learning plan use specifically in undergraduate medical education and explore the student’s role in all stages of learning plan development and implementation.

Following Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, a scoping review will be conducted to explore the use of learning plans in undergraduate medical education. Literature searches will be conducted using multiple databases by a librarian with expertise in scoping reviews. Through an iterative process, inclusion and exclusion criteria will be developed and a data extraction form refined. Data will be analysed using quantitative and qualitative content analyses.

By summarising the literature on learning plan use in undergraduate medical education, this study aims to better understand how to support self-regulated learning in undergraduate medical education. The results from this project will inform future scholarly work in competency-based medical education at the undergraduate level and have implications for improving feedback and supporting learners at all levels of competence.

Scoping review registration:

Open Science Framework osf.io/wvzbx.

Peer Review reports

Competency-based medical education (CBME) has transformed the approach to medical education to focus on demonstration of acquired competencies rather than time-based completion of rotations [ 1 ]. As a result, undergraduate and graduate medical training programs worldwide have adopted outcomes-based assessments in the form of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) comprised of competencies to be met [ 2 ]. These assessments are completed longitudinally by multiple different evaluators to generate an overall impression of a learner’s competency.

In CBME, trainees will progress along their learning trajectory at individual speeds and some may excel while others struggle to achieve the required knowledge, skills or attitudes. Therefore, deliberate and planned continual assessment and performance improvement is required. However, due to the fragmented nature of many medical training programs where learners rotate through different rotations and work with many supervisors, longitudinal observation is similarly fragmented. This makes it difficult to determine where trainees are on their learning trajectories and can affect the quality of feedback provided to them, which is a known major influencer of academic achievement [ 3 ]. As a result, struggling learners may not be identified until late in their training and the growth of high-performing learners may be stifled [ 4 , 5 , 6 ].

Bridging this continuity gap between supervision and feedback through some form of learner handover or forward feeding has been debated since the 1970s and continues to this day [ 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. The goal of learner handover is to improve trainee assessment and feedback by sharing their performance and learning needs between supervisors or across rotations. However, several concerns have been raised about this approach including that it could inappropriately bias subsequent assessments of the learner’s abilities [ 9 , 11 , 12 ]. A different approach to keeping track of trainees’ learning goals and progress along their learning trajectories is required. Learning plans (LPs) informed by self-regulated learning (SRL) theory may be the answer.

SRL has been defined as a cyclical process where learners actively control their thoughts, actions and motivation to achieve their goals [ 13 ]. Several models of SRL exist but all entail that the trainee is responsible for setting, planning, executing, monitoring and reflecting on their learning goals [ 13 ]. According to Zimmerman’s SRL model, this process occurs in three stages: forethought phase before an activity, performance phase during an activity and self-reflection phase after an activity [ 13 ]. Since each trainee leads their own learning process and has an individual trajectory towards competence, this theory relates well to the CBME paradigm which is grounded in learner-centredness [ 1 ]. However, we know that medical students and residents have difficulty identifying their own learning goals and therefore need guidance to effectively partake in SRL [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Motivation has also emerged as a key component of SRL, and numerous studies have explored factors that influence student engagement in learning [ 18 , 19 ]. In addition to meeting their basic psychological needs of autonomy, relatedness and competence, perceived learning relevance through meaningful learning activities has been shown to increase trainee engagement in their learning [ 19 ].

LPs are a well-known tool across many educational fields including CBME that can provide trainees with meaningful learning activities since they help them direct their own learning goals in a guided fashion [ 20 ]. Also known as personal learning plans, learning contracts, personal action plans, personal development plans, and learning goals, LPs are documents that outline the learner’s roadmap to achieve their learning goals. They require the learner to self-identify what they need to learn and why, how they are going to do it, how they will know when they are finished, define the timeframe for goal achievement and assess the impact of their learning [ 20 ]. In so doing, LPs give more autonomy to the learner and facilitate objective and targeted feedback from supervisors. This approach has been described as “most congruent with the assumptions we make about adults as learners” [ 21 ].

LP use has been explored across various clinical settings and at all levels of medical education; however, most of the experience lies in postgraduate medical education [ 22 ]. Medical students are a unique learner population with learning needs that appear to be very well suited for using LPs for two main reasons. First, their education is often divided between classroom and clinical settings. During clinical training, students need to be more independent in setting learning goals to meet desired competencies as their education is no longer outlined for them in a detailed fashion by the medical school curriculum [ 23 ]. SRL in the workplace is also different than in the classroom due to additional complexities of clinical care that can impact students’ ability to self-regulate their learning [ 24 ]. Second, although most medical trainees have difficulty with goal setting, medical students in particular need more guidance compared to residents due to their relative lack of experience upon which they can build within the SRL framework [ 25 ]. LPs can therefore provide much-needed structure to their learning but should be guided by an experienced tutor to be effective [ 15 , 24 ].

LPs fit well within the learner-centred educational framework of CBME by helping trainees identify their learning needs and facilitating longitudinal assessment by providing supervisors with a roadmap of their goals. In so doing, they can address current issues with learner handover and identification as well as remediation of struggling learners. Moreover, they have the potential to help trainees develop lifelong skills with respect to continuing professional development after graduation which is required by many medical licensing bodies.

An initial search of the JBI Database, Cochrane Database, MEDLINE (PubMed) and Google Scholar conducted in July–August 2022 revealed a paucity of research on LP use in undergraduate medical education (UGME). A related systematic review by van Houten–Schat et al. [ 24 ] on SRL in the clinical setting identified three interventions used by medical students and residents in SRL—coaching, LPs and supportive tools. However, only a couple of the included studies looked specifically at medical students’ use of LPs, so this remains an area in need of more exploration. A scoping review would provide an excellent starting point to map the body of literature on this topic.

The objective of this scoping review will therefore be to explore LP use in UGME. In doing so, it will address a gap in knowledge and help determine additional areas for research.

This study will follow Arksey and O’Malley’s [ 26 ] five-step framework for scoping review methodology. It will not include the optional sixth step which entails stakeholder consultation as relevant stakeholders will be intentionally included in the research team (a member of UGME leadership, a medical student and a first-year resident).

Step 1—Identifying the research question

The overarching purpose of this study is to “explore the use of LPs in UGME”. More specifically we seek to achieve the following:

Summarise the literature regarding the use of LPs in UGME (including context, students targeted, frameworks used)

Explore the role of the student in all stages of the LP development and implementation

Determine existing research gaps

Step 2—Identifying relevant studies

An experienced health sciences librarian (VC) will conduct all searches and develop the initial search strategy. The preliminary search strategy is shown in Appendix A (see Additional file 2). Articles will be included if they meet the following criteria [ 27 ]:

Participants

Medical students enrolled at a medical school at the undergraduate level.

Any use of LPs by medical students. LPs are defined as a document, usually presented in a table format, that outlines the learner’s roadmap to achieve their learning goals [ 20 ].

Any stage of UGME in any geographic setting.

Types of evidence sources

We will search existing published and unpublished (grey) literature. This may include research studies, reviews, or expert opinion pieces.

Search strategy

With the assistance of an experienced librarian (VC), a pilot search will be conducted to inform the final search strategy. A search will be conducted in the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Education Source, APA PsycInfo and Web of Science. The search terms will be developed in consultation with the research team and librarian. The search strategy will proceed according to the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis three-step search strategy for reviews [ 27 ]. First, we will conduct a limited search in two appropriate online databases and analyse text words from the title, abstracts and index terms of relevant papers. Next, we will conduct a second search using all identified key words in all databases. Third, we will review reference lists of all included studies to identify further relevant studies to include in the review. We will also contact the authors of relevant papers for further information if required. This will be an iterative process as the research team becomes more familiar with the literature and will be guided by the librarian. Any modifications to the search strategy as it evolves will be described in the scoping review report. As a measure of rigour, the search strategy will be peer-reviewed by another librarian using the PRESS checklist [ 28 ]. No language or date limits will be applied.

Step 3—Study selection

The screening process will consist of a two-step approach: screening titles/abstracts and, if they meet inclusion criteria, this will be followed by a full-text review. All screening will be done by two members of the research team and any disagreements will be resolved by an independent third member of the team. Based on preliminary inclusion criteria, the whole research team will first pilot the screening process by reviewing a random sample of 25 titles/abstracts. The search strategy, eligibility criteria and study objectives will be refined in an iterative process. We anticipate several meetings as the topic is not well described in the literature. A flowchart of the review process will be generated. Any modifications to the study selection process will be described in the scoping review report. The papers will be excluded if a full text is not available. The search results will be managed using Covidence software.

Step 4—Charting the data

A preliminary data extraction tool is shown in Appendix B (see Additional file 3 ). Data will be extracted into Excel and will include demographic information and specific details about the population, concept, context, study methods and outcomes as they relate to the scoping review objectives. The whole research team will pilot the data extraction tool on ten articles selected for full-text review. Through an iterative process, the final data extraction form will be refined. Subsequently, two members of the team will independently extract data from all articles included for full-text review using this tool. Charting disagreements will be resolved by the principal and senior investigators. Google Translate will be used for any included articles that are not in the English language.

Step 5—Collating, summarising and reporting the results

Quantitative and qualitative analyses will be used to summarise the results. Quantitative analysis will capture descriptive statistics with details about the population, concept, context, study methods and outcomes being examined in this scoping review. Qualitative content analysis will enable interpretation of text data through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes and patterns [ 29 ]. Several team meetings will be held to review potential themes to ensure an accurate representation of the data. The PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) will be used to guide the reporting of review findings [ 30 ]. Data will be presented in tables and/or diagrams as applicable. A descriptive summary will explain the presented results and how they relate to the scoping review objectives.

By summarising the literature on LP use in UGME, this study will contribute to a better understanding of how to support SRL amongst medical students. The results from this project will also inform future scholarly work in CBME at the undergraduate level and have implications for improving feedback as well as supporting learners at all levels of competence. In doing so, this study may have practical applications by informing learning plan incorporation into CBME-based curricula.

We do not anticipate any practical or operational issues at this time. We assembled a team with the necessary expertise and tools to complete this project.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study will be included in the published scoping review article.

Abbreviations

• Competency-based medical education

Entrustable professional activity

• Learning plan
• Self-regulated learning
• Undergraduate medical education

Frank JR, Snell LS, Cate OT, et al. Competency-based medical education: theory to practice. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):638–45.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Shorey S, Lau TC, Lau ST, Ang E. Entrustable professional activities in health care education: a scoping review. Med Educ. 2019;53(8):766–77.

Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77(1):81–112.

Article   Google Scholar  

Dudek NL, Marks MB, Regehr G. Failure to fail: the perspectives of clinical supervisors. Acad Med. 2005;80(10 Suppl):S84–7.

Warm EJ, Englander R, Pereira A, Barach P. Improving learner handovers in medical education. Acad Med. 2017;92(7):927–31.

Spooner M, Duane C, Uygur J, et al. Self-regulatory learning theory as a lens on how undergraduate and postgraduate learners respond to feedback: a BEME scoping review : BEME Guide No. 66. Med Teach. 2022;44(1):3–18.

Frellsen SL, Baker EA, Papp KK, Durning SJ. Medical school policies regarding struggling medical students during the internal medicine clerkships: results of a National Survey. Acad Med. 2008;83(9):876–81.

Humphrey-Murto S, LeBlanc A, Touchie C, et al. The influence of prior performance information on ratings of current performance and implications for learner handover: a scoping review. Acad Med. 2019;94(7):1050–7.

Morgan HK, Mejicano GC, Skochelak S, et al. A responsible educational handover: improving communication to improve learning. Acad Med. 2020;95(2):194–9.

Dory V, Danoff D, Plotnick LH, et al. Does educational handover influence subsequent assessment? Acad Med. 2021;96(1):118–25.

Humphrey-Murto S, Lingard L, Varpio L, et al. Learner handover: who is it really for? Acad Med. 2021;96(4):592–8.

Shaw T, Wood TJ, Touchie T, Pugh D, Humphrey-Murto S. How biased are you? The effect of prior performance information on attending physician ratings and implications for learner handover. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2021;26(1):199–214.

Artino AR, Brydges R, Gruppen LD. Chapter 14: Self-regulated learning in health professional education: theoretical perspectives and research methods. In: Cleland J, Duning SJ, editors. Researching Medical Education. 1st ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2015. p. 155–66.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cleland J, Arnold R, Chesser A. Failing finals is often a surprise for the student but not the teacher: identifying difficulties and supporting students with academic difficulties. Med Teach. 2005;27(6):504–8.

Reed S, Lockspeiser TM, Burke A, et al. Practical suggestions for the creation and use of meaningful learning goals in graduate medical education. Acad Pediatr. 2016;16(1):20–4.

Wolff M, Stojan J, Cranford J, et al. The impact of informed self-assessment on the development of medical students’ learning goals. Med Teach. 2018;40(3):296–301.

Sawatsky AP, Halvorsen AJ, Daniels PR, et al. Characteristics and quality of rotation-specific resident learning goals: a prospective study. Med Educ Online. 2020;25(1):1714198.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Pintrich PR. Chapter 14: The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In: Boekaerts M, Pintrich PR, Zeidner M, editors. Handbook of self-regulation. 1st ed. Academic Press; 2000. p. 451–502.

Kassab SE, El-Sayed W, Hamdy H. Student engagement in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review. Med Educ. 2022;56(7):703–15.

Challis M. AMEE medical education guide No. 19: Personal learning plans. Med Teach. 2000;22(3):225–36.

Knowles MS. Using learning contracts. 1 st ed. San Francisco: Jossey Bass; 1986.

Parsell G, Bligh J. Contract learning, clinical learning and clinicians. Postgrad Med J. 1996;72(847):284–9.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Teunissen PW, Scheele F, Scherpbier AJJA, et al. How residents learn: qualitative evidence for the pivotal role of clinical activities. Med Educ. 2007;41(8):763–70.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

van Houten-Schat MA, Berkhout JJ, van Dijk N, Endedijk MD, Jaarsma ADC, Diemers AD. Self-regulated learning in the clinical context: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2018;52(10):1008–15.

Taylor DCM, Hamdy H. Adult learning theories: Implications for learning and teaching in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 83. Med Teach. 2013;35(11):e1561–72.

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalol H. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, eds. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2020. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. . Accessed 30 Aug 2022.

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6.

Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Venables M, Larocque A, Sikora L, Archibald D, Grudniewicz A. Understanding indigenous health education and exploring indigenous anti-racism approaches in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review protocol. OSF; 2022. https://osf.io/umwgr/ . Accessed 26 Oct 2022.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This study will be supported through grants from the Department of Medicine at the Ottawa Hospital and the University of Ottawa. The funding bodies had no role in the study design and will not have any role in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data or writing of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Ottawa Hospital – General Campus, 501 Smyth Rd, PO Box 209, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada

Anna Romanova & Claire Touchie

The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada

Sydney Ruller

The University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

Victoria Cole

The Ottawa Hospital – Riverside Campus, Ottawa, Canada

Susan Humphrey-Murto

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AR designed and drafted the protocol. CT and SH contributed to the refinement of the research question, study methods and editing of the manuscript. VC designed the initial search strategy. All authors reviewed the manuscript for final approval. The review guarantors are CT and SH. The corresponding author is AR.

Authors’ information

AR is a clinician teacher and Assistant Professor with the Division of General Internal Medicine at the University of Ottawa. She is also the Associate Director for the internal medicine clerkship rotation at the General campus of the Ottawa Hospital.

CT is a Professor of Medicine with the Divisions of General Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases at the University of Ottawa. She is also a member of the UGME Competence Committee at the University of Ottawa and an advisor for the development of a new school of medicine at Toronto Metropolitan University.

SH is an Associate Professor with the Department of Medicine at the University of Ottawa and holds a Tier 2 Research Chair in Medical Education. She is also the Interim Director for the Research Support Unit within the Department of Innovation in Medical Education at the University of Ottawa.

CT and SH have extensive experience with medical education research and have numerous publications in this field.

SR is a Research Assistant with the Division of General Internal Medicine at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.

VC is a Health Sciences Research Librarian at the University of Ottawa.

SR and VC have extensive experience in systematic and scoping reviews.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Romanova .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. prisma-p 2015 checklist., 13643_2024_2553_moesm2_esm.docx.

Additional file 2: Appendix A. Preliminary search strategy [ 31 ].

Additional file 3: Appendix B. Preliminary data extraction tool.

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Romanova, A., Touchie, C., Ruller, S. et al. Protocol for a scoping review study on learning plan use in undergraduate medical education. Syst Rev 13 , 131 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02553-w

Download citation

Received : 29 November 2022

Accepted : 03 May 2024

Published : 14 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02553-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 14 May 2024

Comparisons of stakeholders' influences, inter-relationships, and obstacles for circular economy implementation on existing building sectors

• Sakdirat Kaewunruen 1 ,
• Patrick Teuffel 2 ,
• Ayfer Donmez Cavdar 3 ,
• Otso Valta 4 ,
• Tatjana Tambovceva 5 &
• Diana Bajare 6  

Scientific Reports volume  14 , Article number:  11046 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

215 Accesses

Metrics details

• Civil engineering
• Sustainability

Buildings are energy- and resource-hungry: their construction and use account for around 39% of global carbon dioxide emissions; they consume around 40% of all the energy produced; they are responsible for over 35% of the EU's total waste generation; and account for about 50% of all extracted (fossil) materials. Therefore, they present a significant challenge to meeting national and international Net Zero targets of reducing greenhouse emissions and fossil resource use. The CircularB Project, is at the heart of this issue, which will underpin synergies of multi-scale circular perspectives (from materials, to components, to assets and built environments), digital transformation solutions, data-driven and complexity science, stakeholder behavioral science, and interdisciplinary capabilities towards achievable, affordable and marketable circular solutions for both new and existing buildings, for sustainable urban design, and for circular built environments across Europe. This paper contributes to the project by deriving new insights into the stakeholders’ influences, inter-relationships, and obstacles in the implementation of circular economy concepts on existing building stocks in Europe, which represent over 90% of whole building assets. In order to identify and derive the insights, our study is rigorously based on (i) a robust critical literature review of key documentations such as articles, standards, policy reports, strategic roadmaps and white papers; and (ii) interviews with relevant stakeholders and decision makers. Uniquely, our work spans across all scales of CE implementation from materials, to products and components, to existing building stocks, and to living built environments. The findings point out the current challenges and obstacles required to be tackled. Inadequacies of financial incentives and governmental enforcement (via policy, legislation, or directive) are commonly found to be the most critical obstacles found throughout Europe. Circular economy is the global challenge and not just a single country can resolve the climate issue without the cooperation of other countries. The insights thus highlight the essential need for harmonized actions and tactical/pragmatic policies promoted and regulated by the European Commission, national and local governments who can dominate the influence, promote inter-relationship, and overcome the barriers towards circular economy much more effectively.

Similar content being viewed by others

Eco-building for eco-living, an essential step to face climate change

Digital technologies for construction sustainability: Status quo, challenges, and future prospects

Reducing carbon emissions through green renewal: insights from residential energy consumption in Chinese urban inventory districts from an evidence-based decision-making perspective

Introduction.

The European Commission has recently reported that, by 2050, the world will exploit tripple of today’s resource demand. In the next 40 years, the world consumption of key materials such as biomass, fossil fuels, metals and minerals is expected to double, while waste generation is estimated to increase by 70% 1 . The resource demand exoponentially induces the economic activities, products and infrastructures, resulting in emormous greenhouse gas emission that is the root cause of climate change. The European Green Deal has thus launched a concerted strategy for a climate-neutral, resource-efficient and competitive economy 1 . In order to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, we need to scale up circular economy (CE) guidelines to the mainstream industry practices and economic instruments. This action will decouple economic growth from raw resource consumption, while ensure the long-term competitiveness of the EU and leaving no one behind. To fulfill this ambition, the EU develops the EU Green Deal to accelerate the transition towards a regenerative growth model that strives to reduce its consumption footprint and double its circular material use rate in the coming decade.

The applications of CE principles in real estate and building sectors are mostly restricted to new building stocks. This is because the circularity can be embedded and facilitated at the early design stage aiming for adaptability, modularity, durability, waste reduction and high-quality management. The early design of new building stocks can improve the whole life cycle of a building and its components by prolonging service lives, improving maintainability, increasing the ability to reuse, repurpose, and recycle, and minimizing energy consumption and wastes of materials, components and building assets at different stages of life cycle. In contrast, circular economy practices within existing buildings are not well established nor adequately implemented. The definitions of circular economy, and more specifically circularity in the built environment, are currently diverse, incoherent and unsystematic. This is because the purposes and goals to redevelop, revamp or renovate existing buildings at different ages (or service lives) can be highly varied. CE needs to be considered as a business strategy, and should not be viewed merely a waste management or a design strategy. Improving existing buildings' services and added values (e.g. nearly zero energy consumption, prolonged building components, removal of toxicity and pollution, ability and potential to reuse and even upcycling, etc.) should be rather be emphasised instead of only viewing those as potential material banks for downcycling. In fact, recovered materials and components from existing buildings face a critical barrier. Their direct reuse is skeptical due to various uncertainties in their technical compatibility, valorisation potential, and quality appraisal. This causes further downcycling processes and exacerbating extra resources and energy losses.

A key goal that generates most actions and activities within existing building stocks is to minimize energy consumption within the existing buildings (i.e. towards zero energy consumption). It has also been reported that 40% of total energy consumption came from buildings, which resonates with the US buildings accounting for 41% of their energy consumption and buildings all together accounted for 1/3 of the world’s energy use 1 , 2 , 3 . The need to combat the extensive energy use in buildings has been paramount and the EU imposed Energy Performance of Buildings Directive targets: all new public buildings had to be nearly zero-energy by 2018 and all new buildings had to be nearly zero-energy by the end of 2020. In October 2020, the European Commission (EC) published its new Renovation Wave Strategy to further improve the energy performance of existing buildings. It aims to double renovation rates in the next 10 years while ensuring that renovations lead to higher energy, circular economy, and resource efficiency 1 , 2 , 3 . Although existing building blocks are the majority of whole building stocks, the rate of renovation of existing buildings in Europe is currently between 1.2 and 1.4% per year and therefore the largest part of the European building stock continues to rely on a large extent on fossil fuels for its energy needs. For example, the share of the annual building stock that undergoes a major renovation can be: (i) below 1% in Spain, Poland, Italy or Sweden; (ii) around 1% in the Netherlands or Lithuania; (iii) above 1.5% in other countries like Germany, France or Austria 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 . This implies that the transitions to net zero are at risk due to the fact that challenges and barriers to implement circular built environments exist.

According to the European Commission, 35 million existing buildings could be renovated and up to 160,000 additional green jobs created in the construction sector by 2030. Such energy-efficiency renovations are deemed crucial for making Europe climate-neutral by 2050 according to Ref. 8 and can accelerate the transition towards a regenerative growth model in accordance with the EU Circular Economy Action Plan. Embracing higher energy reduction innovations (through further circular design, retrofit and renovation strategies) is thus desperately needed to further address net zero energy, building lifecycle and climate change adaptation issues, and has the associated potential to timely benefit business and competitiveness for Europe in the digital era. To date, European and Member State sustainable targets have been pushed back due to the coronavirus pandemic and lack of variety of building energy reduction and affordable harvesting techniques suitable for particular stages of building lifecycle in European markets 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 . Reducing energy consumption is a top priority under the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) and the 2020 and 2050 objectives on energy efficiency. While the proposal places energy as one target, it is observed how European directives are the driver of designs and urban planning that neglects the climate change adaptation, digital transformation, and lifecycle design approaches 13 , 14 , 15 . Therefore, any new strategies to implement circular economy to existing building stocks will timely progress the transaction from the lack of any tailored design and optimal renovation methods to a new suite of adaptive and diverse circular re-design, retrofit, and renovation methods, which enrich co-values, regenerative circularity, lifecycle benefits, digital transformation, and relationships with the natural environment.

A range of global grand challenges have been identified at the core of the emerging global trends to 2050, including urbanization, population growth, inter/intra-national social disparities, demographic change, climate change, and ethics. The evidence of climate change, and its effects on legislative requirements, and market demands, has moved the circularity and energy independence agenda to an important and core position to act immediately in Europe 16 , 17 , 18 . The priority towards circularity, zero energy buildings, and beyond has been further amplified by low carbon targets which are high in the policy agenda after the ratification of the Paris Agreement. In contrast, a vast number of uncertainties, technology readiness, quality assurance, circularity and lifecycle issues have not been taken into account for in the past building performance and cost optimisation models, and these present a real market barrier and technology gap to be bridged. Within this broader context, a new EU Cost Action CircularB ( https://circularb.eu/ ) has a key role to play since it has been described as a game changer, which can introduce major economic and social impacts e.g. potentials to reuse and recycle, energy consumption reduction, cash savings, fuel efficiency, novel cost-effective and resilient renovation technologies, new energy harvesting apparatus, and new circular business capabilities. While quantifying these positive impacts, optimal benefits have been estimated between 100 and 170 kWm/m 2 annually per building over its life cycle (by the European Commission’s Building Directive) 19 , 20 , 21 .

Although every professional involved with the built environment sector attempts to embrace sustainability, circular economy and energy efficiency as the primary driver of their design, net zero has not been achieved at the European level 20 , 21 , 43 . This is evident by the annual deep energy renovation rate of merely 0.2% on average in the EU 20 . Efforts can be further encumbered by energy and environmental targets legislated under building design codes, which in their negotiation between ambitions and market readiness often default to the latter. Both EU Regulation and Voluntary Certification Systems focus on energy efficiency of the new buildings. However, the rate of new construction is only around 1% per year in Europe and therefore the highest potential for circular economy implementation and energy efficiency improvement lies in the existing building stocks (through deep renovation, retrofit, and repurpose). Social and economic growth, security and sustainability in Europe are therefore at risk of being compromised since existing building stocks have not been been sufficiently equipped with highly-efficent nearly zero energy building (NZEB) technologies. With increasing public demands for energy exposed to meta-operational uncertainties (under various extreme climate conditions), the building sector could fail to meet net zero target. In particular, the growing dependency of Europe on energy imports and expected high energy cost raise significant concerns on energy efficiency and the necessity for novel technologies to save and self-harvest energy within the built environment. Therefore, various actions for existing building stocks are commonly incentivised by the purpose towards energy efficiency. With this in mind, the implementation of circular economy practices in existing built environments can be further embeded to embrace on the detailed circular design upgrade for new, and retrofit and renovation of existing buildings and interconnected urban infrastructures for future cities, which are currently aging and inadequate. The existing building stocks will then reduce thier reliance on a large extent of energy and heat supply by fossil fuels, while having better capacity to enable regenerative growth through reusing, repurposing, recycling strategies. This study will thus review lessons learnt from the emerging sustainability and energy standards that are based on systems thinking approach and socio-technical systems. State-of-the-art reviews will therefore inform a new set of parameters and indicators that describe the higher levels of performance needed in both new and existing built environments of the future, and in so doing provide guidance, examples and an active and engaged community of experts and practitioners to deliver circular re-design, retrofit and renovation models and technology assemblies 22 .

The complexity of circular economy implementation for existing building stocks is much more pronounced in comparison to that for new buildings. This challenge is due to the fact that interventions into existing building stocks can occur at any stage of service lives (e.g. after 10 years; 20 years; or 50 years of usage), making it very difficult to attain an attractive value-based business case for circular intervention practices 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 . These aspects have raised not only the complexity but also the uncertainties in decision making and effective technical solutions that could seamlessly enable the transition to net zero. Figure  1 illustrates the difference between circular economy implementation to new and existing building stocks. It is clear that, when dealing with existing or aging building stocks, complex and refined scope of circular economy implementation is very evidential. The decision making mechanisms and influences among stakeholders become more delicate and personalized. This has raised a new challenge in developing pragmatic policies to promote and incentivize the adoption of circular economy perspective towards net zero.

Comparison of lifecycle and circular economy implementation between new and existing building stocks.

This study aims to determine new insights into the stakeholders’ influences, inter-relationships, and obstacles in the implementation of circular economy concepts targeted at existing building stocks in Europe. The existing building stocks represent over 90% of whole building assets combined. On this ground, the insights in this study will be very critical and instrumental to the CE implementation and transition to net zero. In this study, the research methodologies are rigorously based on (i) a robust critical literature review of key documentations such as articles, standards, policy reports, strategic roadmaps and white papers; and (ii) interviews with relevant stakeholders and decision makers. The information in the first part will help to identify suitable questions for different stakeholders (to be interviewed in the later part). It is very clear from previous studies 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 that existing building stocks yield more challenges than the new building stocks do. The methods into circular buildings at large may not be sufficient nor suitable to convince any circular economy adoption in existing building sector 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 . Since there are many types of buildings and concepts for circular economy, our work consider all scales of CE implementation from materials viewpoint, to products and components, to existing building stocks, and to living built environments. The contribution of the study will enhance the policies and incentives to co-create and promote the implementation of circular economy for existing building stocks maximising sustainable impacts, while still minimising burdens on people and businesses.

Review on current market barriers of building retrofit and renovation

Circular economy implementation actions in existing, aging built environments are mostly inspired by certain key outcomes including (i) minimised energy consumption (via deep renovation); (ii) prolonged service life of assets (through enhanced maintenance, reconstruction or retrofit); (iii) reduced wastes (by increasing recycling, reuse, repurpose, or rebrand); (iv) adaptation to climate change and external uncertainties (via retrofit or reconditioning); and (v) enriched structural condition and/or architectural aesthetics (through redevelopment or refurbishment). In fact, most actions through retrofit and renovation are incentivized to minimise energy usage (e.g. the annual deep energy renovation rate is 0.2% on average in the EU 20 ), enabling either energy independence, or near zero energy buildings (NZEB), or zero energy buildings (ZEB), and even or energy positive buildings (EPB). The market for NZEB, ZEB and EPB is still emerging (especially for existing building segment) and therefore the existing collaboration structures are not yet able to demonstrate “successful” long-term collaboration apart from their contribution to exemplary NZEB new buildings and some extent of renovation projects. IEA EBC Annex 56 identified the current barriers in the renovation process (shining examples brochure available in 28 ). Over the past decades, there have been many researchers across EU working on a number of projects related to building retrofit and renovation. In particular for existing building stocks, there are some key projects that could be instrumental to our study to define barriers to overcome the circular economy implementation to existing building markets. These projects include COHERENO, REFURB, RENERGY, and LOCARBO, which are closely related to the scope of this study.

In Europe, the COHERENO project (2013–2016) aimed to better understand the emergence of collaboration structures for NZEB renovation of owner-occupied single-family housing (SFH). IEE projects AIDA and PassREg both found organised study tours of best practice NZEBs to be an effective method of convincing municipal employees and decision makers the importance of including NZEB performance in design and tendering criteria for their building projects. AIDA project evaluated the major reasons for the municipalities against collaboration. The evaluation showed that two main reasons that hindered the municipalities to cooperate are: the tensed financial situation, where available budget is often needed for other investments and no budget seems to be left for investments in energy efficient buildings, and; the unwillingness of the municipalities to take action towards NZEB and RES. The experience has shown that energy efficient buildings have been considered as low or no importance issues for the communities. A further point, which was more often mentioned, was the circumstance that the municipalities did not have building projects, which were in line with the AIDA timeframe. Even when collaboration with a municipality was accomplished, many obstacles had to be overcome. Missing funds and unresolved financial questions represented the main obstacles to a successful collaboration. But also the missing personal awareness of the Mayor, insufficient/inadequate public policy instruments and other high-level officials as well as not established NZEB standards in the municipalities were bigger barriers. Very important for a successful collaboration was the on-going communication and active interaction, as well as the motivation of the municipalities, a flexible Integrated Energy Design (IED) work plan and an existing contact person at the right technical level in the municipality.

An important barrier that requires further work is the fact that the renovation market is principally supply driven rather than demand (consumer) driven 36 , 37 , 38 . In this sequence, the European’s REFURB project aimed to bridge the gap between supply and demand side. One outcome of this project is that despite the many experimental programmes and the informed work of certain design teams over the past decades, efficient buildings are still relatively rare and suffer from a lack of popularity, often because of a lack of publicity. Another outcome is a tool to tackle the complex interplay of these barriers through coordinated process organisation, innovation and optimization. European’s RENERGY project aim was to improve, by means of interregional cooperation, the effectiveness of regional development policies in the area of energy as well as to contribute to economic modernisation and increased competitiveness of Europe by turning urban spaces from energy consumers into energy producers. This project brings therefore to the community added value by developing a new and innovative approach and solutions in the field of energy at local and regional levels. The project faced the following issues: high up-front run capital costs of sustainable energy investments for a given amount of capacity. Policies that reduce these costs, such as loans, rebates, grants and tax incentives, could remove this significant barrier but are often lacking at the local level; lack of access to credit or funding for local governments, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and citizens to purchase or invest in renewable energy; lack of skills and experience and information at local governments with RES and decentralized energy system planning. This can lead to resistance towards positive change. Access to information, training, and exchanges can be highly beneficial in tackling this challenge, leading to a skilled workforce that can plan and implement policies, install and operate and maintain these energy systems; misperceptions on technology performance: Proven, cost-effective technologies may be wrongly perceived as risky by local government decision makers as well as by the public if there is little experience with them; numerous legal obstacles: Outdated laws (e.g. building codes, zoning laws, standards, permitting processes) can prevent, discourage or add expense to a RES project. Luckily, many municipalities have it in their power to remove such barriers and; need to transition to a smart energy system: Grid forecasting, smart grid features, and energy storage are not yet widespread, discouraging local governments fromaiming for higher RES targets and ambitious policies while they wait for the grid to be ready.

On the other hand, European’s LOCARBO project sought a change in improved implementation of regional development policies that incorporate actions to increase levels of energy efficiency including public buildings and housing sector. This is to be achieved by finding innovative ways for regional/local authorities to support energy consumers’ behaviour change. LOCARBO is unique by focusing its activities on bottom-up initiatives and mainly because of the approach to handle 3 thematic pillars (services, organizational structures and technological solutions) in a fully integrated way. The issues already addressed in the project are: many of Europe’s local/regional actor struggle with developing targeted, implementation oriented- policies addressing low carbon challenges. This holds particularly for energy wasting buildings irrespective of their ownership or their use. The implementation of these solutions is not targeted enough, related measures are often incidental and fragmented thus results lag behind expectations. Innovative stakeholder involvement measures are emerging, but they are not yet taken up at a significant scale. Specifically, local and regional authorities embark to find their role in these processes as coordination, planning, service provision, monitoring and feedback to policy making. Furthermore, there are various indications raising concerns regarding the reliability of Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) declarations and the quality of the works. The European’s REQUEST IEE Project focused on: identifying issues in respect to existing procedures; highlighting best practices for easy access to reliable EPC input data, delivery of improved quality of the works, as well as more effective compliance frameworks and raising awareness and engaging relevant stakeholders. This project pointed out the following outcomes: need for more support given to homeowners to help them move to the next stage in the customer journey after they have received an EPC outlining the recommendations and the partnerships between the supply and demand sides should be encouraged. The partnerships proved very effective in the pilots for improving communication and building trust at all levels—from project specific partnerships through to partnerships at the local, regional and national levels. Creating a partnership structure brings together a wide range of expertise, strengthening the multi-disciplinary insight from all parties and improving the ability for problem solving.

In order to convince more building owners or influencers to go ahead with circular and energy-independent re-design, retrofit and renovation projects, it is very crucial that the forerunners are able to demonstrate that their projects actually succeeded in achieving the necessary quality for circularity and high energy performance. However, the building process usually starts with an initial concept followed by a number of different steps before finally reaching the operation phase. The time from concept to building site is usually long, perhaps several years. This extended design period involves a large number of different actors with varying levels of influence on the final energy performance of the building. This can make it difficult to actually achieve the energy performance that was set at the beginning of the process. In renovation projects, it can be difficult to compare energy performance and rate of circularity before renovation with the final built result, since the renovation in itself often alters the building in a variety of other ways, for example by improving the indoor environment and offering better possibilities to use the facilities. Levels of activity and numbers of users may be different: the building’s users may not be the same, and may not display the same energy behaviour before and after renovation. Particular consideration and guidance is therefore needed to ensure that the quality of the built result matches the ambition and actually achieves the desired energy savings. There is a challenge to eliminate the long period of time between pre-study and the operation stage (see Fig.  2 ) as well as the overlapping of actors and their ineffective collaboration.

Typical retrofit and renovation process diagram.

During the last two decades, scientific and technological innovation has focused on the preparation of assessment systems and indicators to promote a basic level of energy efficiency. Objections can be raised concerning different interpretations of energy performance and systems boundary condition as it is proposed by EU norms and today’s evaluation methods. The current assessment has influenced design choices by awarding high or low energy certificate scores to only new buildings, of which their energy savings do not make a significant contribution to overall energy sustainability. It is evident that current approach has serious limitation in practice. One of the main objectives of this proposal is to focus on the new knowledge (theoretical and applied), the skills, the novel technologies and the competence that can support new working models that look beyond the scope of NZEB for new buildings, and that could lead to circular economy practices and adaptive and affordable energy-independent, energy-resilient solutions characterized by a wider range of integrated qualitative and quantitative retrofit and renovation innovations for the emerging market of existing buildings. The aim of this study is therefore to stimulate the development and integration of new knowledge, skills and competence at research and practical levels on the basis of multidisciplinary collaborations not commonly possible in a single standards research project. This study will bring together European sustainability researchers, energy harvesting experts, CAD/CAM professionals, building stakeholders and practitioners across a wide spectrum of disciplines to create unique and collaborative knowledge-based policies 29 . Through its participants and interviews, this study will seek to remove barriers and overcome scientific breakthroughs that exist in preventing progress for implementing circular economy practices towards regenerative growth.

This study embarks by engaging experts in CircularB project to preliminarily determine relevant stakeholders (see Fig.  3 ):

Building end-users: building users, owners, and project developers aiming to construct, retrofit, and renovate either new or existing buildings (access to a ready to go platform with complete info for circular economy and renovation;

Public authorities: government, municipalities (“official” platform to support circular re-design and renovation beyond NZEB, case study building, guideline for improved Energy Performance Certificate for ‘beyond NZEB’ building);

Policymakers (guidelines for effective circular re-design, retrofit and renovation; and comprehensive EPC dedicated to both new and existing buildings over various stages of life cycle, guideline of best practices from case study buildings, publications);

Building companies: construction companies and professionals such as engineers, architects, energy advisors, green building consultants (access to circular economy practice, re-design, retrofit and renovation approaches and strategies, training in ‘NZEB and beyond’, integrating the database in platform supported by municipalities, higher number of circualr re-design, retrofit and renovation works); product manufacturers (higher demand for insulation products, systems, ventilation systems and thermal energy storage units); energy suppliers (security of supply, lower energy network costs, reducing energy losses in the distribution networks, potential market for circularity);

Banks and insurers (lower risks for the amortization of the credit and access to attractive split incentives).

Circular economy target groups and interconnections.

From the above, it can be seen that the stakeholders can portray different levels of influences. The end users will mostly interact with facilitators (who are from both sides of supply and policy enabling). This implies that contemporary knowledge and understanding into stakeholders’ influences may be limited and there is a need to further enhance the insights into the stakeholders’ relationship and barriers at different stage of life cycles for existing building sector.

State-of-the art concepts of circular economy practices for existing buildings

Achieving net-zero emissions will require a transformation of the global economy. It is important to note that energy-related emissions make up as much as 83% of CO 2 emissions across land-use systems. Indeed, McKinsey 30 stated that ‘ Effective decarbonization actions include shifting the energy mix away from fossil fuels and toward zero-emissions electricity and other low-emissions energy carriers such as hydrogen; adapting industrial and agricultural processes; increasing energy efficiency and managing demand for energy; utilizing the circular economy; consuming fewer emissions-intensive goods; deploying carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCS) technology; and enhancing sinks of both long-lived and short-lived greenhouse gases ’ 30 . The way for achieving a status beyond NZEBs of new buildings and of existing buildings is to promote the development, implementation, and automation of circular economy strategies by connecting market actors using Industry 4.0 Technologies via digital transformation and by carrying out a series of outreach activities. Innovative circular economy practices and alternative energy harvesting technologies can be included (such as the urban wind turbine successfully developed in WINNERCOST; solar energy developed by SME partners, etc.). Strategies to overcome market barriers to implement circular economy practices beyond NZEBs are through the simplification of the whole process of circular design, retrofit and renovation, to reduce the construction and commissioning stage and also by undertaking pre-simulation through a digital platform enabling the analysis of appropriate circularity strategies, energy performance, life cycle costing and attractive zero-emission/zero-pollution co-benefits.

The circular economy generally implies an industrial economy that can be restorative by design; aims to rely on renewable energy; reduces, monitors, and eliminates the use of energy, water, carbon and toxic chemicals; and eradicates waste through careful design and planning 30 , 31 . As shown in Fig.  4 , the circular economy perspectives for existing building stocks will consume much less resources and energy, while simultaneously being more carbon efficient and maximising waste reduction and management. From this, opportunities in zero energy and positive energy buildings can be identified and a flowchart with the stages for circular design, retrofit and renovation can be designed in order to reach a net zero. The traditional stages to implement circular economy concepts include:

Circular economy perspectives and practices for the existing building stocks.

Although the circular economy concepts and applications to existing building stocks can be realized in practice, the adoption of those measures is unsatisfactory and may not help to achieve the net zero goal by 2050. This is because technological solutions alone cannot resolve the global climate challenge. There is a need to engage societal and indiviual wills to make it happen. As such, the inter-relationship among stakeholders, the influencer and strategies to overcome the barriers are critical to convince the existing building sector to implement circular economy concept towards and beyond net zero. The insights into the influence and inter-relationship among stakeholders of existing building stocks have not been thoroughly identified. Thus, this study will determine and compare the influence and inter-relationship among stakeholders, and will highlight the barriers to implementing circular economy concepts in existing building stocks across Europe.

Methodology

The research adopted a qualitative and on-field approach via semi-structured interviews and dialogue with different stakeholders and operators of the existing building stocks’ value chain (see Fig.  5 ). The non-personal data was collected anonymously without withholding person information. All respondents had given consent for data collection. The data requested in this study was collected and processed by the researchers in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR) and all other applicable EU and UK privacy and data protection legislation. This study is GDPR compliant and has been approved the University of Birmingham’s IRB. The research tasks will determine current policies and practices of circular economy at the building level and associated initiatives, influence, inter-relationships, incentives and barriers. The investigation by semi-structured interviews were conducted across 5 different European countries including Finland (FI), Germany (DE), Latvia (LV), Türkiye (TR), and United Kingdom (UK). These counties constituted intensive research into circular economy in built environments and portrayed the diversity of context, enabling the authors to investigate a variety of dynamics and impacts in the geopolitical and practical fields.

Research methodology.

The semi-structured interviews were preceded by a critical literature review and a desktop study. The review took into account the workshop meetings and discussions with 21 experts and researchers in CircularB project (WP2). These expert interviews have been considered to be substantial for qualitative research 39 , 40 . In general, specialised expert opinions tend to converge after 20 interviews 41 , 42 . In addition, the data from their previous research has been collected to understand the trend and current issues with respect to circular economy implementation in their countries. The in-depth analysis of the data can later point out essential questions for different stakeholders.

On the basis of the initial literature review and desktop study, the stakeholders have been grouped by commercial purpose into: industry stakeholders and non-industry stakeholders. Table 1 defines the detailed stakeholders of existing building sectors across Europe. Consequently, the survey through the stakeholder interviews has been conducted to further gain the crucial information, for later data analyses including (i) ranking for influence, (ii) inter-relationship correlation, and (iii) barrier identification.

In order to extract different scales and dimensions related to the influences, inter-relationships and barriers of the circular economy implementation in the existing building sectors (e.g. deep renovation, retrofit, energy harvesting, energy independence, etc.), open-ended questions have been established and divided into 3 main themes:

influence among stakeholders: this aspect is critical to understand decision making processes, soft and hard power, obligations and incentives that could promote circular economy concepts. This can represent a buttom-up trigger or appeal for competitions and attraction towards circular practices;

inter-relationships among stakeholders: the insights will help to determine the value chain of circular supply chain network, which identifies the dynamics of who, what, when, how and why for any decision towards circular practices to be made.

challenges and obstacles to implement circular economy concepts to existing building stocks: the insignts into these facets are the key enabler for accelerating the adoption of circular practices. There are a number of non-flexible or outdated regulations, risk-averse standardization and specifications, incomplete tools and technologies, and inadequate financial support mechanisms; all of these could discourage the implementation of circular economy concepts.

For each theme, some questions have been defined as shown in Table 2 . The questions are designed to reflect the role and responsibility of associated stakeholders. The questions can introduce a dialogue with each participating interviewee from each European country of focus. Each interview or meeting has been conducted with one stakeholder at a time, in person or via Zoom/Team call, and lasted a minimum of 0.5 h to a maximum of 1.5 h. Semi-structured interviews have been conducted with different stakeholders of the existing building value chain from five countries. The interviews consist of open-ended questions related to the themes. The sequence of questions and the style of conversation can change with the responders, to create a safe and confidential environment of knowledge exchange and to capture the viewpoints raised by the interviewees.

The responders are chosen through a sample of respondents selected by the authors and based on their knowledge and expertise of topic under investigation. Through snowball sampling method, the aim of selections is to identify the best representative stakeholders of public and private sectors currently involved and interested in circular economy. The responders selected have already relevant experiences for example, ‘Smart Campus’ in the UK. On this ground, the snowball sampling is suitable for this study. In fact, the random sampling of respondents is not suitable for this study since the knowledge of argument is not diffuse across all stakeholders. The randomization could actually cause bias and may fail to highlight virtous paths and critical burdens to be overcome.

In this study, totally 65 stakeholders (FI: 6; DE: 9; LV: 6; TR: 35; UK: 9) were available for an interview (nearly all stakeholders were contacted and interviewed either in person or virtually, or approximately 95% success rate). The number of stakeholders is enough to involve all key players across six countries. Anonymity has always been ensured to all respondents to create safe, fair and inclusive environment. Each stakeholder received an interview guide and one of the authors would conduct all the interviews.

Cross-comparison analysis

To analyse the data collected from the interviews, a cross comparison analysis has been investigated. Cross country comparisons make it possible to obtain insight across multi-national scopes and scales. To conduct the cross comparison analysis, the interview data has been rearranged to form a matri of influence vs stakeholder inter-relationship. The analysis of matrix will help assess the policy impacts and incentives for circular economy practices. The application level is represented by the number of boxes ticked as shown in the cross comparison diagrams (see Fig.  6 ): 4–5 boxes indicate the highest/maximum level of application or influence; 2–3 boxes represent a medium level; and one box reveals the lowest or minimal level of application or influence; and no box ticked indicates ‘not yet applied’.

Example of qualitative methodology for cross comparison analysis.

Results and discussion

Influence among stakeholders.

A primary topic related to circular stakeholder engagement is the influence among stakeholders involved in circular practices for existing building stocks. Derived from the extensive expert and stakeholder interviews, Fig. 7 illustrates the influences among stakeholders perceived by circular economy practitioners. Based on Fig. 7 , the influences among stakeholders can vary from country to another. Based on over 60% of significance scale, the top three most influencers are (i) central government and European union, (ii) asset owners and managers; and (iii) financial institutions and investors. Most experts and stakeholders have pointed out that these influencers play a key role in circular economy implementation, which were fully agreed during the interviews. It is noted that the central government and European authority have a role to play to influence the public on this aspect. They can devise inventives, legislations, enforcements, and penalties that strongly guide the decisions of other key actors or agents (e.g. asset owners, investors, business) to implement circular practices.

Cross comparison of circular economy stakeholders’s influences.

It is also interesting to observe that the influences from social medias, third parties, neighbourhoods, local communities, scientific research and educational institutions are not very pronounced. Despite the strong presence of climate emergency on social media, televised broadcasting, documentaries and online plaforms, the actions to reduce global warming to meet Paris Agreement are unsuccessful. This is evident by science-based targets where merely 20% of global businesses support the action towards the reduction of greenhouse gas emission. In addition, some experts and key stakeholders clearly pointed out during the interviews that the access to relevant research and education is relatively poor in many counties. Research outcomes, convinceable insights and key outputs cannot be accessed by the decision makers such as asset owners or asset managers. Such the lacking was stressed by home owners and various actors though circular economy supply chains. At the same time, there has not been any peer pressure nor peer aspiration within or by local communities and neighborhoods to implement circular economy concepts to existing buildings. In addition, they would need to carry out due diligence prior to consider random social media posts/blogs. These have been some of the concerns resulting in the weak influences from these actors.

Inter-relationship among stakeholders

Figure  8 demonstrates the inter-relationships among stakeholders synthetized from the expert and stakeholder interviews. This aspect is relatively complex since stakeholders are interconnected and influenced. Experts’ opinions are analysed and reaffirmed to identify the connections between stakeholders involved in their practices. Based on Fig. 8 , the inter-relationships among stakeholders are pronourced differently from a country to another. It is clear that the high degree of inter-relationships (above 50% of significance scale) are formed through value chain and industry network in the non-residential building sector. This is because each stakeholder does not often connect with the other stakeholders outside their own supply chain network due to their time contraint. The implementation of circular economy practices tend to be a top-down inter-relationship rather than bottom-up approach. This is because the key influence is often by the governmental policies and legislation. The communications tend to be direct down from the top layer of value chain network. A few home owners highlighted the key insights that there is a lack of financial support and inter-relationship across the value chain, making it difficult to pursure the renovation or to retrofit their aging homes. Based on the stakeholder interviews, most home owners often focus on the upgrade or renovation of their aging homes to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy costs. They often discussed with local contractors and after a few round of discussions about circular economy techniques or methods (e.g. solar panels, thermal insulation components, waste management, wall or roof retrofit, façade renovation, etc.) and associated costs, they often discontinued the plan to upgrade their homes. This was mainingly due to the financial constraints and the perceived low value for money.

Cross comparison of circular economy stakeholders’ inter-relationships.

It is also important to point out that various asset owners and investors still have some concerns about the quality of parts, products, and components made from either wastes or recycled materials. Such the concerns have not been well addressed by the inter-relatonships among value-chain stakeholders and industry or professional networks. The experts pointed out that there were not many customers who wish to use second-handed or reclaimed components or products, which might increase depreciation and potentially reduce the life span & future value of their assets. In addition, the community of practices, professional associations and social medias do not gain sufficient ‘market pull’ that can build inter-relationships and sufficiently convince asset owners and key decision makers to adopt CE strategies and tools such as lifecycle perspectives, recycled products, green quality certification, and so on. Based on the expert and stakeholder interviews, there is infufficient market place or exchange platform for recycled or reclaimed materials, components, and/or products. This was due to the lack of standardization for certification, incentives, and accounting tools to record and report the circular practices and their costs/benefits.

Challenges and obstacles to implement circular economy concepts to existing building stocks

Figure  9 provides the significance of challenges and obstacles to implement circular practices to existing building stocks faced by industry practitioners. By delving into the expert and stakeholder interviews, the most critical challenges and obstacles faced by asset owners, decision makers, and other key stakeholders include: (i) financial burden; (ii) resource constraints; (iii) governmental support and enforcement; and (iv) technical challenges. Various experts and stakeholders have stressed the importance of knowledge sharing and educational programs with respect to circular economy and sustainability, which can alleviate the challenges and eliminate some concerns that decelerate the adoption of CE practices. They addressed further that new economic activities (e.g. second-handed material exchange platform) could be incubated from further circularity awareness and knowledge dissemination. In addition, asset owners and investors suggested that financial incentives together with clear and committed governmental policies and enforcement be enacted to mitigate inherit barriers to implement circular economy practices. Certain valorisation value and virtuous circle systems such as carbon credit, carbon tax, auditing system, digitisaiton, BIM, etc. will be highly instrumental to the successful pathway to transition to net zero.

Cross comparison of challenges and obstacles to implement circular economy practices faced by stakeholders (con’t.).

Conclusions

Buildings account for around 39% of global carbon dioxide emissions. In addition, buildings consume around 40% of all the energy produced, cause over 35% of the EU's total waste generation; and account for about 50% of all extracted (fossil) materials. Based on this statistics that the building industry is a key sector required to be revolutionized to meet national and international net zero targets. Recently, CircularB Project funded by European Cooperation for Science and Technology (COST) has been devoted to co-create synergies of digital transformation solutions, data-driven & complexity science and technical capabilities towards achievable, affordable and marketable circular buildings and potentially enabling further circular economy solutions for both new and existing buildings. However, it is clear that technical solutions alone cannot resolve the global issues. This paper delves into socio-technical investigations to derive new insights into the stakeholders’ influences, inter-relationships, and obstacles in the implementation of circular economy concepts on existing building stocks. It is important to note that, based on EU database, existing building stocks represent over 90% of whole building assets. This outcome of this study will therefore help put the circular economy agenda on the fast track to net zero transition. A robust critical literature review of key documentations such as articles, standards, policy reports, strategic roadmaps, and white papers has been conducted. The key stakeholders of existing building stocks at different stages of lifecycle can then be identified. It is also clear that there has not been any research devoted to this particular aspect in depth. Our extensive expert interviews with relevant stakeholders and decision makers draw new insights across all scales of circular economy implementation, including:

With over 60% of significance, the top three most influencers include (i) central government and European union, (ii) asset owners and managers; and (iii) financial institutions and investors.

The top influencers can significantly guide the decision towards the circular economy implementation.

The high degree of inter-relationships among stakeholders are built through value chain and industry network.

The top-down inter-relationship plays a key role in the implementation of circular economy practices.

The most critical challenges and obstacles in the implementation of circular economy include: (i) financial burden; (ii) resource constraints; (iii) governmental support and enforcement; and (iv) technical challenges.

Our new research findings demonstrate the essential need for harmonized actions and tactical/pragmatic policies promoted and regulated by the European Commission, national and local governments who can dominate the influence, promote inter-relationship, and overcome the barriers towards circular economy much more effectively. The financial incentives and governmental enforcement (via policy, legislation, or directive) are reported to be the most critical obstacles that required an urgent need for consideration. Open-access knowledge sharing and educational programs will be instrumental to accelerate the adoption of circular economy practices in the existing building sector.

Data availability

Informed consent was obtained from all respondents. There is no experiment involving human participants. Data available on request to the corresponding author.

D’Agostino, D., Zangheri, P. & Castellazzi, L. Towards nearly zero energy buildings in Europe: A focus on retrofit in non-residential buildings. Energies 10 , 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10010117 (2017).

Article   Google Scholar  

Kaewunruen, S., Sussman, J. M. & Matsumoto, A. Grand challenges in transportation and transit systems. Front. Built Environ. 2 , 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2016.00004 (2016).

Kaewunruen, S., Sresakoolchai, J. & Kerinnonta, L. Potential reconstruction design of an existing townhouse in Washington DC for approaching net zero energy building goal. Sustainability 11 , 6631. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236631 (2019).

European Commission. A new Circular Economy Action Plan for a cleaner and more competitive Europe, Access Online URL (2020). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2020:98:FIN&WT.mc_id=Twitter .

Economidou, M. et al. Review of 50 years of EU energy efficiency policies for buildings. Energy Build. 225 , 110322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110322 (2020).

Zero Carbon Hub. Access Online: (2023). https://www.zerocarbonhub.org/sites/default/files/resources/reports/ZCHomes_Nearly_Zero_Energy_Buildings.pdf .

European Commission. Access Online: (2023). https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficient-buildings/energy-performance-buildings-directive_en .

Interreg Europe. Access Online: (2023). https://www.interregeurope.eu/shrec/news/news-article/10397/renovation-wave-strategy-targets-european-buildings .

Kaewunruen, S., Rungskunroch, P. & Welsh, J. A digital-twin evaluation of net zero energy building for existing buildings. Sustainability 11 , 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010159 (2019).

Kaewunruen, S., Peng, S. & Phil-Ebosie, O. Digital twin aided sustainability and vulnerability audit for subway stations. Sustainability 12 , 7873. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197873 (2020).

Tsoka, S., Theodosiou, T., Papadopoulou, K. & Tsikaloudaki, K. Assessing the energy performance of prefabricated buildings considering different wall configurations and the use of PCMs in Greece. Energies 13 , 5026. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13195026 (2020).

Magrini, A., Lentini, G., Cuman, S., Bodrato, A. & Marenco, L. From nearly zero energy buildings (NZEB) to positive energy buildings (PEB): The next challenge—The most recent European trends with some notes on the energy analysis of a forerunner PEB example. Dev. Built Environ. 3 , 100019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2020.100019 (2020).

Kolokotsa, D., Rovas, D., Kosmatopoulos, E. & Kalaitzakis, K. A roadmap towards intelligent net zero- and positive-energy buildings. Sol. Energy 85 (12), 3067–3084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2010.09.001 (2011).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Castellazi, L., Bertoldi, P., Economidou, M., JRC Technical Reports: Overcoming the split incentive barrier in the building sector. Access Online: (2017). https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC101251/ldna28058enn.pdf .

American Council for Energy Efficiency Economy. Energy Efficiency Impact Report Access Online: (2023). https://energyefficiencyimpact.org/co-benefits-with-energy-savings/ .

Interreg Europe. Access Online: (2023). https://www.interregeurope.eu/shrec/news/news-article/10397/renovation-wave-strategy-targets-european-buildings/ .

Terés-Zubiaga, J. et al. Cost-effective building renovation at district level combining energy efficiency & renewables—Methodology assessment proposed in IEA EBC Annex 75 and a demonstration case study. Energy Build. 224 , 110280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110280 (2020).

Barbosa, R., Almeida, M., Briones-Llorente, R. & Mateus, R. Environmental performance of a cost-effective energy renovation at the neighbourhood scale—The case for social housing in Braga, Portugal. Sustainability 2022 , 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14041947 (1947).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

European Commisison. Access Online: (2023). https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/markets-and-consumers/energy-consumer-rights/protecting-energy-consumers/national-regulatory-authorities_en .

European Commisison. Access Online: (2023). http://ec.europa.eu/easme/sites/easme-site/files/practical_approaches_to_the_buildings_renov_challenge.pdf .

Kaewunruen, S., Guo, Y., Jing, G. & Matsumoto, A. Circular economy implementation in railway systems beyond net zero. Front. Built. Environ. 9 , 1239740. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2023.1239740 (2023).

Giorgi, S. et al. Drivers and barriers towards circular economy in the building sector: Stakeholder interviews and analysis of five European countries policies and practices. J. Clean. Prod. 336 , 130395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130395 (2022).

Kaewunruen, S., Sussman, J. M. & Einstein, H. H. Strategic framework to achieve carbon-efficient construction and maintenance of railway infrastructure systems. Front. Environ. Sci. 3 , 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2015.00006 (2015).

Kaewunruen, S., Sresakoolchai, J. & Yu, S. Global warming potentials due to railway tunnel construction and maintenance. Appl. Sci. 10 , 6459. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10186459 (2020).

Kaewunruen, S. & Liao, P. Sustainability and recyclability of composite materials for railway turnout systems. J. Clean. Prod. 285 , 124890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124890 (2021).

Amini Toosi, H., Del Pero, C., Leonforte, F., Lavagna, M. & Aste, N. Machine learning for performance prediction in smart buildings: Photovoltaic self-consumption and life cycle cost optimization. Appl. Energy. 334 , 120648 (2023).

Sresakoolchai, J. & Kaewunruen, S. Interactive reinforcement learning innovation to reduce carbon emissions in railway infrastructure maintenance. Dev. Built Environ. 15 , 100193 (2023).

International Energy Agency. Cost-Effective Energy and Carbon Emissions Optimization in Building Renovation (Annex 56), Access Online: (2023). https://www.iea-ebc.org .

Rose, J., Thomsen, K. E., Domingo-Irigoyen, S., Monge-Barrio, A. & Hidalgo-Betanzos, J. M. Building renovation at district level—Lessons learned from international case studies. Sustain. Cities Soc. 72 , 103037 (2021).

McKinsey. The Net Zero Challenge, Access Online: (2023). https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-challenge-accelerating-decarbonization-worldwide .

European Commisison, A new Circular Economy Action Plan For a cleaner and more competitive Europe. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1583933814386&uri=COM:2020:98:FIN (accessed 30 Aug 2023).

Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change, Technical Assistance for Assessment of Türkiye’s Potential on Transition to Circular Economy, Report for Contract No EuropeAid/140562/IH/SER/TR. Ankara, Turkiye (2020).

European Commision, Circular economy: definition, importance and benefits. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/economy/20151201STO05603/circular-economy-definition-importance-and-benefits#:~:text=The%20circular%20economy%20is%20a,cycle%20of%20products%20is%20extended . (accessed 1 Sep 2023).

Institution of Structural Engineer, Circular economy and reuse: guidance for designers. https://www.istructe.org/resources/guidance/circular-economy/ (accessed 1 Sep 2023).

Barros, et al. Circular economy as a driver to sustainable businesses. Clean. Environ. Syst. 2 , 100006 (2021).

Bai, et al. Analyzing the interactions among the challenges to circular economy practices. IEEE Access https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3074931 (2021).

Hina, B. et al. Drivers and barriers of circular economy business models: Where we are now, and where we are heading. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130049 (2021).

Holly, F. et al. Challenges on a way to a circular economy from the perspective of the Austrian manufacturing industry. (2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2023.1243374

Mason. Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Grafstrom and Aasma (2021) (2010).

Marshall, B. et al. Does sample size matter in qualitative research? A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 54 (1), 11–22 (2013).

Google Scholar  

Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N. & Marconi, V. C. Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough?. Qual. Health Res. 27 (4), 591–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344 (2017).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mason, M. Sample size and saturation in PhD Studies using qualitative interviews. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research , vol. 11(3).

Eurostat. EU’s Circular material use rate decreased in 2021 (2022). https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20221213-1 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge all experts, interviewees, and responders, who kindly provided time and effort for the completion of this study. This article is based upon work from COST Action (CircularB—Implementation of Circular Economy in the Built Environment., CA21103), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). The APC is kindly sponsored by University of Birmingham Library’s Open Access Fund.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK

Sakdirat Kaewunruen

SRH Berlin School of Technology, Ernst-Reuter-Platz 10, 10587, Berlin, Germany

Patrick Teuffel

Department of Forest Industry Engineering Faculty of Forestry, Karadeniz Technical University, 61080, Trabzon, Turkey

Ayfer Donmez Cavdar

Avoin Association, Helsinki, Finland

BALTECH Study Centre, Faculty of Engineering Economics and Management, Riga Technical University, Kipsalas Street 6A, Riga, 1048, Latvia

Tatjana Tambovceva

Institute of Materials and Structures, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Riga Technical University, Kipsalas Street 6A, Riga, 1048, Latvia

Diana Bajare

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, S.K., P.T.; A.D.C.., O.V., T.T. and D.B.; methodology, S.K., P.T.; A.D.C.., O.V., T.T. and D.B.; software, S.K.; validation, S.K. and D.B..; formal analysis, S.K., A.D.C., and D.B.; investigation, S.K., P.T.; A.D.C., O.V., T.T. and D.B.; resources, S.K., D.B..; data curation, S.K.; writing—original draft preparation, S.K., A.D.C., T.T..and D.B.; writing—review and editing, S.K., A.D.C., and D.B.; visualization, S.K.; project administration, S.K. and D.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sakdirat Kaewunruen .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kaewunruen, S., Teuffel, P., Donmez Cavdar, A. et al. Comparisons of stakeholders' influences, inter-relationships, and obstacles for circular economy implementation on existing building sectors. Sci Rep 14 , 11046 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-61863-0

Download citation

Received : 31 October 2023

Accepted : 10 May 2024

Published : 14 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-61863-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Circular economy
• Stakeholder engagement
• Stakeholder influence
• Interrelationship
• Circular buildings
• Circular materials
• Sustainable assessment
• Business models
• Life cycle perspective

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.