Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Abstract

Concrete, a ubiquitous material in construction, is primarily composed of crushed limestone bound by cement, the production of which accounts for over 8% of global carbon emissions. Solid stone, in contrast, requires significantly less energy to produce, with its processing limited to extraction, cutting, and transportation. This makes it an increasingly attractive low-carbon alternative. Recent collaborations between structural engineers and stonemasons in the UK have demonstrated the technical feasibility of load-bearing and prestressed stone building systems. However, the potential for scaling up the use of structural stone in construction remains largely unexplored. To assess the scale-up potential of structural stone in the UK, our research employed a qualitative and quantitative design involving 19 in-depth interviews with stone quarry and mine managers across the UK and Europe. We found that, as perceived by our sample of interviewees, the biggest reported bottleneck to scaling up structural stone production in the UK is the availability and cost of labour; that a change in architectural preference of aesthetics and stone sizes could reduce waste, energy use and drive down costs; that there is lack of demand for structural stone products despite the increasing interest in it as a low-carbon material; that the decarbonisation potential of stone rests on investment in the sector; and that the total stone resource is not limiting but the process to extend existing, or open new, quarries needs streamlining to allow for rapid scale up. We anticipate our study to be a foundation for strategic planning and investment, enabling stone to reduce the embodied emissions of buildings and be produced economically at scale.
Original languageEnglish
Article number105601
JournalResources Policy
Volume106
Early online date16 May 2025
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2025

Data Availability Statement

The authors do not have permission to share data.

Acknowledgements

We also thank Kelly Harrison for providing helpful comments on the early draft and Dr. Nigel Woodcock for sharing his understanding of mapping UK building stones.

Funding

A report recently published by the BGS (Everett and Shaw, 2024), supports these findings. The study examines the potential for developing building stone resources in Scotland and concludes that increasing or resuming production at existing aggregate quarries is \u201Cthe most feasible approach\u201D (Everett and Shaw, 2024). While reopening disused quarries with potential or starting new ones in unworked locations could be worthwhile, the report notes these options would need significantly more effort and upfront investment. Furthermore, despite societal benefits, such initiatives will only succeed if they are commercially viable for quarry operators.This research was supported by Whitby Wood and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) in the United Kingdom through UK FIRES (grant reference EP/S019111/1). We also thank Kelly Harrison for providing helpful comments on the early draft and Dr. Nigel Woodcock for sharing his understanding of mapping UK building stones. This research was supported by Whitby Wood and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) in the United Kingdom through UK FIRES (grant reference EP/S019111/1 ). We also thank Kelly Harrison for providing helpful comments on the early draft and Dr. Nigel Woodcock for sharing his understanding of mapping UK building stones.

FundersFunder number
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilEP/S019111/1

Keywords

  • Embodied carbon
  • Masonry
  • Natural building materials
  • Scaling up
  • Structural stone

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Economics and Econometrics
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
  • Law

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'On solid ground: Assessing the scale-up potential of structural stone in the UK'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this