Resources, Conservation & Recycling 136 (2018) 166–178

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Construction and demolition waste best management practice in Europe T

a,⁎ b,c d e
José-Luis Gálvez-Martos , David Styles , Harald Schoenberger , Barbara Zeschmar-Lahl
a
Systems Analysis Unit, IMDEA Energy, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain
b
School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom
c
Plant and Agri-biosciences Centre, Ryan Institute, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland
d
Universitaet Stuttgart, Institut für Siedlungswasserbau, Wasserguete- und Abfallwirtschaft, Stuttgart, Germany
e
BZL Kommunikation und Projektsteuerung GmbH, Oyten, Germany

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Construction and demolition waste constitutes a large fraction of all the waste generated in Europe. Its specific
Construction and demolition waste impact can be considered rather low, but the large generated volume and embodied resource makes this waste
Circular economy stream an important focus of current European policies. The European Commission has proposed new targets
Recycling and goals for this waste stream in the Circular Economy package, but, given the rather heterogeneous landscape
Re-use
of waste management practice across Member States, new approaches that take into account the entire value
Best practices
Environmental management
chain of the construction sector are urgently required. This paper synthesises core principles and linked best
Waste management practices for the management of construction and demolition waste across the entire construction value chain.
Waste logistics Systematic implementation of these best practices could dramatically improve resource efficiency and reduce
Recycled aggregates environmental impact by: reducing waste generation, minimising transport impacts, maximising re-use and
Plasterboard recycling by improving the quality of secondary materials and optimising the environmental performance of
treatment methods.

1. Introduction specific environmental impact (per Mg) is low if compared with other
waste streams, the associated environmental impacts of such a high
Currently, the European construction sector produces 820 million amount of CDW is an important concern, mostly derived from its lo-
tonnes (megagram, Mg, or 1000 kg) of construction and demolition gistics and land occupation. Hence, the management of CDW con-
waste (CDW) every year, which is around 46% of the total amount of stitutes a priority for most environmental programmes around the
total waste generated according to Eurostat (Eurostat, 2017). The world, especially in Europe. In fact, the European Commission
average composition of CDW shows that up to 85% of the waste is (European Commission, 2015a) has proposed that, by 2020, “the pre-
concrete, ceramics and masonry, although CDW can be heterogeneous paring for re-use, recycling and backfilling of non-hazardous con-
depending on the origin, and may contain large amounts of wood and struction and demolition waste excluding naturally occurring material
plasterboard (Monier et al., 2011; U.S. Environmental Protection defined in category 17 05 04” – i.e. soil (including excavated soil from
Agency, 1998). In any case, CDW inorganic fraction is frequently contaminated sites) and stones not containing dangerous substances –
characterised as “inert” due to lack of chemical reactivity at ambient “in the list of waste shall be increased to a minimum of 70% by weight”.
conditions. Most CDW consists of excavated materials, which are con- Remarkably, the definition excludes naturally occurring materials but
sidered to have a low environmental impact upon disposal. If excavated introduces overall recovery targets, while some experts have re-
materials are excluded, around 300 million Mg of CDW were generated commended to introduce separate targets per fraction and to revise the
in 2014 at European construction sites (i.e. EU 28 new construction, definition of treatment operations, as backfilling (Arm et al., 2014;
demolition or refurbishment activities). BioIS, 2016). There is also some concern on the use of weight percen-
Construction and demolition waste is characterised by its high vo- tages, since waste managers may focus on the dense mineral fractions
lume and weight but with probably the lowest environmental burden rather than on other fractions with potentially higher potential en-
and the highest inert fraction per Mg of all waste streams. Although the vironmental impact (Arm et al., 2014).

Abbreviations: BaU, business-as-usual; BEMP, best environmental management practice; CEN, Comité Européen de Normalisation; CO2e, equivalent CO2 emissions; CDW, constructionand
demolition waste; EMAS, eco-managementand audit scheme; EN, European norm (European standards); PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls; RA, recycled aggregates; RCA, recycled concrete
aggregates; SWMP, site waste management plans; WRAP, waste and resources action programme
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: joseluis.galvez@imdea.org (J.-L. Gálvez-Martos).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.04.016
Received 26 December 2017; Received in revised form 3 April 2018; Accepted 19 April 2018
Available online 01 May 2018
0921-3449/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
J.-L. Gálvez-Martos et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 136 (2018) 166–178

Novel solutions, instruments and approaches are required for the Table 1
management of CDW. While a recycling rate of 70% for non-hazardous Construction and Demolition Waste composition (BioIS, 2016).
construction and demolition waste can be considered an ambitious Waste Category %, min–max range
target in certain countries, the industry has noticed that national cir-
cumstances are heterogeneous across European Member States and that Concrete and Masonry 40–84
Concrete 12–40
such a target lacks incentive for the industry of those countries or re-
Masonry 8–54
gions where recycling rates already exceed 70% (Craven, 2015). Asphalt 4–26
Against this background, the clear definition and sharing of best Others (mineral) 2–9
practice techniques is an essential approach in the development of new Wood 2–4
policy and strategic frameworks for the construction sector, con- Metal 0.2–4
Gypsum 0.2–0.4
tributing towards the implementation of sustainable development
Plastics 0.1–2
strategy (European Commission, 2015b). This approach underpins the Miscellaneous 2–36
sectoral reference documents developed under article 46 of the Eco-
Management and Audit Scheme, EMAS, regulation (European
Parliament and the Council et al., 2009). These sectoral reference when using concrete structures, while timber-based structures generate
documents include a description of best environmental management ten times less waste. However, demolition of residential buildings can
practices, BEMPs, underpinned by quantitative benchmarks of ex- generate up to 840 kg of waste concrete per demolished m2, while
cellence, based on sector-specific key performance indicators, that va- timber-based structures generate up to 300 kg per m2. In general, con-
lidate high levels of environmental performance. Multi-expert-stake- crete is the main material in CDW, if excavated materials are excluded,
holder involvement in the process of BEMP definition ensures that and is categorised under code 17 01 01 in the European List of Waste
BEMPs target those areas with proven improvement potential and (European Commission, 2000). Other important CDW waste codes are
economic feasibility. The compilation of priority BEMPs for CDW pre- 17 01 02 bricks, 17 01 03 tiles, 17 02 01 timber, 17 02 02 glass, 17 02
vention and management contained in the sectoral reference document 03 plastics, 17 03 02 bituminous mixtures, 17 04 07 metal mixtures, 17
for the construction sector therefore establishes a systematic framework 06 04 insulation materials, 17 08 02 gypsum-based construction ma-
to operationalise the circular economy paradigm for important resource terials and 17 09 03 construction and demolition wastes (including
flows. mixed wastes) containing hazardous substances.
This paper synthesises the main principles underpinning the defi- Although the specific environmental impact (per Mg) is low if
nition of best practices for the management of CDW, reducing waste compared with other waste streams, the aggregate environmental im-
generation, minimising transport impacts, maximising re-use and re- pacts of the large quantities of CDW are significant, and derive mostly
cycling by improving the quality of secondary materials, optimising the from logistics and land occupation at the waste end of the value chain
environmental performance of treatment methods. The authors of this (and resource consumption upstream). The impact of CDW logistics and
paper draw upon BEMP definition experience and insight gleaned from treatments is shown in Table 2. The most relevant environmental as-
the development of six sectoral reference documents, and from pects of CDW generation are influenced by design decisions at the start
European stakeholder inputs regarding CDW management for two re- of the construction value chain; ‘designing-out’ waste is a term in use
levant sectors: the building and construction sector (Joint Research for CDW, and refers to design and planning commercially available
Centre - European Commission, 2012) and the waste management techniques to avoid the generation of waste. The most popular de-
sector (Zeschmar-Lahl et al., 2016). signing out waste technique is the use of prefabricated modules, which
is more common in modern methods of construction. With this ap-
2. Characteristics of construction and demolition waste (CDW) proach, more than 80% of total construction waste can be avoided. For
instance, the construction of a new residential building where the
CDW is a generic term that defines the waste generated by the structure is prefabricated would save around 80–100 kg of waste per
economic activities involving the construction, maintenance, demoli- 100 m2 floor area (Mália et al., 2013).
tion and deconstruction of buildings and civil works. The term “site” is, Some European countries already achieved the objective of 70%
usually, the most appropriate to define a production facility where recycling for CDW. Statistics show that the total mass flow of recovered
CDW is generated. Actually, the distributed nature of construction and waste accounts for more than 80% of the total waste generation in
demolition sites is commonly characteristic of the sector in all Member Member States as the Netherlands, Germany or Denmark (Eurostat,
States of the European Union. 2017). However, in some regions there is a significant amount of illegal
The composition of CDW varies widely as a function of the type of dumping and a heterogeneous market for secondary materials, which
site: e.g. road construction generates a huge amount of excavated ma- hinders the development of secondary materials market, that may not
terials that, if no further use is possible, will become waste, while a be reflected in official statistics. For instance, high collection rates of
building demolition site will generate a large amount of waste concrete.
The heterogeneity of construction activities therefore makes impossible
Table 2
to establish reliable consumption patterns of construction materials or
Life cycle environmental burdens for one Mg of Construction and Demolition
waste generation rates per capita, per work or per m2 floor area. In this Waste treated according to different methods (Blengini and Garbarino, 2010).
regard, several authors have tried to establish quantitative ranges of
Treatment Global warming Primary Energy, Land Use*,
CDW generation rates in a benchmarking exercise (Mália et al., 2013).
potential, kg CO2e/Mg MJ/Mg PDF m2 a/Mg
These rates link the construction activity and the amount of waste per
unit of built, demolished or refurbished area to CDW indicators for Collection 6 100 0.15
different types of structures, construction techniques and traditional Landfill 15 300 0.80
practices. For instance, precast and prefabricated structures generate Recycling 2.5 45 0.18

less construction waste, as the manufacturing process is less wasteful *

Potentially Disappeared Fraction [PDF·m2 y] of species over a certain amount
and designs are specific for each building. At the same time, the ex- of m2 during a certain amount of year is the unit to “measure” the impacts on
pected amount of CDW and its composition is substantially different if ecosystems. “The PDF m2 y represents the fraction of species disappeared on
timber or reinforced concrete structures are used. Table 1 provides an 1 m2 of earth surface during one year. For example, a product having an eco-
overview of the range of components of CDW. Construction of new system quality score of 0.2 PDF m2 y implies the loss of 20% of species on 1 m2
buildings generate from 18 to 33 kg per m2 built area of waste concrete of earth surface during one year.” (Jolliet et al., 2003).

167
J.-L. Gálvez-Martos et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 136 (2018) 166–178

Fig. 1. Construction and Demolition Waste’s Mineral fraction treatment in 2014 (Eurostat, 2017).

well-segregated CDW are achieved in Spain but the market uptake of secondary material in the total system would only be 3% of the total
recycled materials is really low; large storage areas at treatment plants aggregates market, but competing with the highly available resource of
have essentially become temporary landfills (Joint Research Centre - natural aggregates.
European Commission, 2012). The highest quality use of RCA is for new concrete. However, the
Indeed, an inherent problem of CDW management at national level low cost of extracted natural aggregates is a main drawback for the
is the compilation of reliable statistics to inform and monitor policy. uptake of secondary materials in many locations in Europe, as extracted
The mineral fraction of construction waste constitutes category 12.1 of resources would have similar costs to recycled aggregates. As shown for
the European Regulation on waste management statistics, which basi- the case of Spain, in some Member States there is a healthy market of
cally differs from the categories defined in the European list of waste. affordable natural aggregates so the economic savings on the total cost
Therefore, the success of certain policies at national level are not easy to of aggregates in the final product are insignificant. In addition, the
monitor. Fig. 1 shows CDW treatments that Member States reported in environmental impact of natural and recycled aggregates e.g. in terms
the year 2014 (Eurostat, 2017). As observed, a huge amount of waste is of greenhouse gases emissions is highly dependent on their transport
basically sent to final disposal, mainly landfill. (Blengini and Garbarino, 2010). Recycled aggregates from masonry and
Depending on the nature of the construction project, concrete waste ceramic wastes, usually mixed with waste concrete, are less usable in
ranges 40 to 85% of the total waste generated on site (Rimoldi, 2010). bound applications, but their volume is certainly smaller and their
Except for some elements such as beams or blocks, which can be dis- technical viability is proven (Jiménez et al., 2013).
mantled from a building, “clean” crushed concrete waste is barely re- Several case studies around Europe demonstrated more than 95%
usable and its recycling produces an usually downgraded product (ag- CDW recycling, where recycling means any recovery operation by
gregates), as recovery of initial constituents from cement or the original which waste materials are reprocessed into products materials or sub-
aggregate is not feasible. Recycled concrete aggregates, RCA, are usable stances, as defined in the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC)
for the so-called unbound applications (e.g. road sub-base fillings) or as (Joint Research Centre - European Commission, 2012) and showed how
secondary materials in the manufacture of new concrete. Europe con- market barriers could be overcome in relation to (i) availability, (ii)
sumes around 2.6 billion Mg of aggregates (European Aggregates economics and (iii) acceptability. The profit margin on recycled ag-
Association, 2017). If the entire quantity of CDW is transformed into gregates depends on the localisation of the resource, which has to be
recycled aggregates, only a 2% substitution of virgin aggregates would closer than conventional quarries, and the respective taxes applied to
be achieved. In the UK, 6.4% of the aggregates for concrete came from landfill and natural aggregate extraction (European Aggregates
secondary sources or recycled materials in 2015 (The Concrete Centre, Association, 2006). Denmark and the Netherlands have been very
2016). Therefore, there are no technical barriers for a virtual 100% successful in promoting the recycling of CDW using these kind of in-
recycling of the main constituents of CDW, concrete and ceramic struments. Along with other drivers, these market-oriented regulatory
wastes, but barriers derived from their commercialisation, the market tools, including taxes or levies, developed by the public administration,
of virgin materials or their logistics. A good example of these barriers or environmental credits certified by relevant industry-led ecolabeling
are observed in Spain, where, during 2017, 100 million Mg of ag- schemes such as BREEAM or LEED, contribute to improved outcomes.
gregates were consumed in 2017 (ANEFA, 2017), but it is though to Finally, a cultural misunderstanding is that recycled aggregates in
correspond to an actual 22% of the total production capacity of the concrete have much lower operational performance than natural ag-
sector. On the other hand, only 10 million Mg of CDW are generated, gregates (Adams et al., 2016). Researchers have shown that, with
from which the current management system can generate up to 3 mil- proper waste separation, recycled concrete aggregates can substitute
lion Mg of usable recycled aggregate (FERCD, 2015); the impact of this 100% natural aggregates in quality applications of concrete (Adams

168
J.-L. Gálvez-Martos et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 136 (2018) 166–178

et al., 2016; McGinnis et al., 2017; Silva et al., 2014; Wijayasundara 3.3. Waste management strategies
et al., 2017).
The elaboration of CDW management plans or strategies is a very
3. Best environmental management practices for construction and common approach in Europe, since the elaboration of integrated waste
demolition waste management plans is mandatory (European Parliament and the
Council, 2008). However, the quality of implementation and con-
3.1. Methodology for the identification of best environmental management sequent outcomes diverge considerably; for instance, CDW manage-
practices ment has become a privately driven activity in countries with a re-
stricted supply of virgin materials, well-extended environmental
According to the EMAS regulation 1221/2009, a BEMP is the “most awareness and with a reliable CDW recycling infrastructure. In general,
effective way to implement the environmental management system by to be effective, CDW management plans must be accompanied by reg-
organisations in a relevant sector and that can result in best environ- ulation and enforcement practices, or economic drivers, such as taxes,
mental performance under given economic and technical conditions”. levies, etc. Key elements of a best practice strategic plan at different
The identification of BEMPs is a process very similar to that for best scales are summarised in Table 4.
available techniques within the framework of the European Directive The impact of CDW management strategies is not easily quantifiable
on Industrial Emissions, formerly Integrated Pollution Prevention and for two main reasons: the evolving economic framework introduces
Control (Schoenberger, 2009). In a first approach, data is collected from difficulty in the quantification of business as usual, BaU, performance;
the literature, industrial experience, and direct data and feedback from and the allocation of the environmental benefits between the whole
a technical working group of European experts. Performance data is strategy or to a single technique or management practice (e.g. the es-
used to recognise best environmental management practices, while a tablishment of a levy or the investment in recycling plants).
deeper study is required to qualify the selection of best practices re- In any case, there are examples where a whole strategy resulted in a
garding applicability and economic efficiency. In the case of the con- rapid improvement from the BaU counterfactual scenario: in the UK,
struction sector, a technical working group of European experts, prac- the establishment of sound environmental policies and strategies
titioners, regulators, constructors, developers, etc was established at the around CDW through the Waste Resources Action Programme, WRAP,
beginning of the exercise. In a first meeting, the experts give re- contributed to the increase of the recycling rate up to 90% for the whole
commendations and indications to the team of the Joint Research UK (DEFRA, 2017), achieving exemplar cases with 100% concrete or
Centre of the European Commission. The received information drives metal wastes from construction sites diverted from landfill, and
research on the topic, helps organising site visits and experts are con- achieving savings of more than 200 kg CO2 per GBP 100,000 value of
sulted. A first draft report is delivered to the technical working group, the construction (Institute of Carbon and Energy, 2017). In the UK, the
which then ratifies, modify or comment on the list of best practices, the involvement of stakeholders was articulated using the “Halving Waste
indicators used to measure their performance and benchmarks of ex- to Landfill Commitment”, which involved more than 750 companies
cellence where applicable. from the whole supply chain of construction (Waste and Resources
The approach for the identification of BEMPs is further defined in Action Programme, 2011).
other publications derived from EMAS sectoral reference documents, One of the key aspects for strategic plans is the involvement of
e.g. for energy efficiency, (Galvez-Martos et al., 2013), supply chain stakeholders. The International Solid Waste Association established in
management, (Styles et al., in the retail trade sector, 2012), or water 2012 a range of good practice mechanisms in the always challenging
management in the hospitality sector, (Styles et al., 2015) involvement of stakeholders (ISWA, 2012):

3.2. List of best practices • Consultation, communication and involvement of users.

• Participatory and inclusive planning: those parties showing interest
Table 3 summarises BEMPs selected for the management of CDW. should meet regularly to measure the performance of the system,
Best practice definition involved consideration of the entire value chain define or update objectives and monitor progress against bench-
of the construction sector, and follow a sequence along the chain. In the marks.
first instance, best practices address the definition of management • Inclusivity at all levels: the creation of local waste platforms with
strategies in a preconstruction phase (project inception and design), decision-making attributions is a particularly recommended prac-
then techniques around prevention and collection are proposed in a tice.
second category, and re-use, treatment and material recovery practices
are discussed in the third and fourth category. As for any environmental policies, effective waste management
Fig. 2 illustrates the integration of the identified best environmental strategies include a mix of complementary measures such as regulatory,
management practices into the construction value chain, i.e. pre- economic, educational and informative instruments (OECD, 2013; van
construction (inception and design), construction, demolition and Beukering et al., 2009). In this context, economic instruments are
waste to products. designed to motivate waste producers to divert waste from landfills,
CDW best practices essentially operationalise circular economy recycle more waste and optimise the use of resources, so waste is (i)
principles within the construction and demolition sector and beyond. prevented, (ii) well managed, and (iii) optimally treated. These in-
Most of the defined best practices in e.g. demolition are oriented to struments can have greater impact than regulatory mechanisms, and
maximise the re-use of elements, facilitate recycling, material recovery introduce taxes or levies to the polluter, linking the cost of waste
and secondary uses of materials through e.g. quality assurance schemes treatment with the actual amount of waste generated by, for example,
for materials derived from waste. charging per unit of waste. While these instruments have more recently
This work presents those best practices with proven environmental been implemented for household waste streams, the construction in-
benefits that are replicable and affordable for waste authorities and dustry and CDW managers have extensive experience on these types of
managers. Single case studies have generally been avoided where they instrument, including landfill taxes, aggregate levies or others. With
do not have wider applicability, and some best practices are specifically regard to best practice, the business to business, B2B, schemes in
oriented to drive significant environmental improvement in countries Europe are particularly remarkable. For instance, the existence of a B2B
and regions with a poor performance of CDW management – these deposit refund scheme is sometimes a common practice for highly re-
BEMPs may be considered “average” or “standard” in the context of usable packaging, like pallets, construction packaging, drums and
other national frameworks outside of their intended target. others (Lundesjo, 2011; Waste and Resources Action Programme,

169
 Table 3
Summary of best environmental management practices for CDW.
Best Environmental Management Main Description (BEMP is …) Key Actors (decision makers) Impact of best practice on Relevant Stakeholders (addressed actors in the
Practice waste management cost value chain)

Waste Management Strategies

J.-L. Gálvez-Martos et al.

CDW management plans To develop local regional and/or national CDW management Public authorities at national and regional levels Low Contractors, waste management organisations,
plans that involve main stakeholders, prioritise waste prevention developers, clients, suppliers and all actors of the
and re-use, establish minimum sorting and management construction value chain.
requirements, identify and quantify amounts of CDW and
treatment needs, drive innovation on recycling opportunities,
and regulate or standardise the management of hazardous
materials.
Economic Instruments To use economic instruments to encourage and maximise the Public authorities at national and regional High Contractors, waste management organisations,
environmental performance of waste management systems by levels, contractors, suppliers developers, designers and clients.
driving cost savings to recycling (landfill tax), use of recycled
materials (aggregates levy) or B2B refund systems.
Site Waste Management Plans To prevent and manage waste by defining a standard or Public authorities at regional and/or local Medium-High Contractors, developers, clients
regulated site waste management plan specifying actions for levels, waste management organisations,
every type of waste, the expected generated amount of waste, developers, construction companies
management alternatives, allocation of resources, estimate and
minimise costs and define responsibilities.

Prevention and Collection

Designing out waste To prevent and minimise waste at every stage of the life cycle of Designers, architects Low Waste management organisations, developers,
a building during the specification and design phase by clients, suppliers
identifying opportunities for the use of prefabricated elements,
modern methods of construction, rental and re-use of auxiliaries
and reduced use of onsite cuttings. For building demolition, this

170
technique allows the systematic disassembly of buildings in order
to maximise the re-use and recycling of recovered materials.
Site waste management and To prevent and manage waste, including the monitoring of waste Site managers Medium Contractors, waste management organisations,
prevention generation, the establishment of waste separation and collection developers, clients, suppliers
strategies and the update of the site waste management plan.
Material Use Efficiency To avoid material loss by improving the logistics of materials, Designers, architects, site managers Low Suppliers, contractors
planning the management of remains and applying innovative
storage and handling practices.

Re-use
Building de-construction To evaluate and maximize the recovery of materials from Designers, architects, developers, contractors High Suppliers, waste management organisations,
buildings at their end-of-life stage, following the principles of demolition contractors
transparency (all elements are visible), regularity (same
materials are used for the same applications), and simplicity
(limited number of materials and components and easy-to-
separate materials).
Re-use of materials To harvest materials or auxiliaries at construction or demolition Site managers Low-Medium Contractor, suppliers, developers
sites, avoiding waste generation of e.g. bricks, tiles, slaps, beams,
pallets, formworks, auxiliary structures, etc.

Waste treatment and material recovery

Waste sorting and processing To separate and process mono-fractional waste streams, both at Public administration, suppliers, waste High Contractors, site managers, waste management
addressing the acceptability of mobile or stationary plants, in order to maximise the production management organisations organisations, demolition contractors,
recycled aggregates of high quality recycled aggregates. standardisation bodies
Quality assurance schemes To participate in industry-wide agreements on the quality of Public authorities at national and regional High Contractors, developers, clients
recycled products or quality assurance schemes in order to levels, waste management organisations
increase the uptake of recycled aggregates, encourage waste
segregation and diversion from landfill.
Recovery of plasterboard To recycle waste plasterboard and other sources of waste gypsum Suppliers, designers, architects, developers, High Waste management organisations, demolition
to the manufacture of new plasterboard, according, if available, clients contractors
to a quality assurance scheme or industrial agreement.
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 136 (2018) 166–178
J.-L. Gálvez-Martos et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 136 (2018) 166–178

Fig. 2. Best environmental management practices for CDW management in the construction value chain.

Table 4
Common elements of a best practice strategic plan at national, regional and local (municipal or county) scale.
National plan Regional plan Local plans

•management
Identifies and quantifies CDW • Implements national policies • Involves local industry and contractors
opportunities • Quantifies the needs for collection, treatment and • Prioritises waste prevention in local construction projects by
• Involves stakeholders from the recycled material demands establishing environmentally-friendly public procurement policies
construction industry • Establishes investment plans for treatment facilities, • Establishes buildings re-use schemes
• Defines CDW management targets and research and development needs • Establishes minimum waste sorting requirements
environmental policies • Provides or helps in the development of tools for the • Aims to clear guidance for small waste producers and SMEs
• Prioritises waste prevention industry for the safe recycling of materials (e.g. • Establishes enforcement, communication mechanisms, economic
• Provides a realistic regulatory framework quality assurance schemes) instruments and municipal collection points to avoid poor sorting,
for the industry, including codes of
practice
• information
Defines a performance baseline on past quantifiable low collection rates and illegal dumping.

• Identifies future flows of waste

2008a), and these practices have dramatically reduced the amount of involved in a construction or demolition site to improve the perfor-
waste generated at construction sites. Although waste managers are not mance of CDW management. The elaboration of SWMPs is a legal re-
involved in this particular approach, they are key in the management of quirement in some European countries, but not in all, and therefore
the necessary reverse logistics, e.g. in construction consolidation cen- may still be considered a BEMP. Best practice SWMP go beyond legal
tres. requirements by fitting into an overall ambitious strategy, where two
At the local level, some municipalities have applied traceability main phases are identified (Joint Research Centre - European
requirements for CDW in their local licensing. For example, munici- Commission, 2012):
palities in Spain are charging a deposit on the estimated amount of
wastes reported in the site waste management plan as part of the es- - SWMP design. In this phase, the scope of the plan is developed, by
sential licensing requirement. The deposit is re-paid to the contractor e.g. identifying materials to be recovered, re-used, recycled and
when “waste management certificates” are submitted to the authority. disposed during construction or demolition. Waste management
This particular deposit-refund scheme, managed by municipalities, has responsibilities are defined, and the instruments for monitoring,
potential to become a BEMP, but its current implementation does not collecting and promoting correct waste management practices are
meet BEMP requirements for the following reasons: identified, along with measurable indicators and targets. During the
plan design phase, waste types will be defined, estimated, and the
• It is oriented to avoid illegal dumping, i.e. it does not increase the waste management technologies will be sized. A first cost estimation
performance of the system but avoids a particular local problem of will be produced and potential savings will be identified. Procedures
CDW management. for removal, separation, storage, transportation and any waste
• Legally, municipalities do not need to issue permits for their own handling will be developed. A communication strategy should also
construction sites. The waste management deposit becomes, then, be defined in a best practice SWMP. During this phase, waste pre-
voluntary for contractors working with the municipality. vention techniques, re-use and recycling opportunities will be
• The lack of enforcement affects the performance of the scheme. identified per waste stream and their potential on-site application
While large construction companies and contractors were already will be evaluated.
applying BEMP without the need for the deposit, small producers - SWMP implementation. Once the main procedures and strategies
are still failing to fulfil this practice. are defined, the waste manager responsible for the site should
communicate and explain the plan to all the relevant actors within
During the construction activity, site waste management plans, the site and external stakeholders affected by the site activity. The
SWMP, have been proven as an effective measure for the actors areas for waste storage and the available resources should be well

171
J.-L. Gálvez-Martos et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 136 (2018) 166–178

Table 5
Waste prevention opportunities in the design phase.
Origin of waste Opportunity to reduce waste through design

Demolition Re-use existing structure and facilitate maximum recovery rate during deconstruction.
Materials available at site Re-use, recycle and setting out recycling/re-use targets.
Temporary sites Choice of appropriate construction method.
Excavated material Correct foundation depths and earthworks to get a zero cut.
Design changes Design must be flexible and adaptive, although last minute changes should be avoided to reduce the amount of material losses.
Design inception Use environmental criteria to define targets on the performance of the building regarding waste.
Design decisions Use prefabricated elements and standardised design to avoid off-cuts.
Off-cuts Simplify building form to reduce site cutting and use manufacturer dimensions for specific elements.
Over – ordering Produce good estimates of materials requirements. Revise periodically estimation methodology.
Damaged materials Minimize the need for stockholding, e.g. by choosing materials with just-in-time delivery.

identified within the site, and waste containers should be placed as construction site management protocol, which may be articulated in a
close as possible to the generation point. Training and promotion of specific SWMP. From the endless list of waste management options at
the plan should be regularly performed, especially with new con- construction and demolition sites, four main activities of the waste
tractors or subcontractors, and a documentation file shall be kept management activity are identified:
updated.
• Estimation of waste generation and provision of resources. Best
segregation options for a construction site should be analysed in
3.4. Prevention and collection advance of the construction activity, so resources can be allocated
for waste management. The estimation of wastes generated during
In the building life cycle, wastes are generated from demolition the construction activity should be based on a tailor-made estima-
material (of the previous construction on site), damage of materials, off- tion (Martínez-Bertrand and Tomé, 2009), which should be opti-
cuts, design changes, temporary works materials, contamination of mised with the help of the previous experience of the contractor.
clean materials, packaging, etc. Excavated materials and soils may be • Collection and segregation techniques. Several collection tech-
considered also as wastes if they are polluted or if for administrative niques are needed to help site labourers to perform correctly.
reasons they need to be managed as wastes. Approximately 33% of Identified standard practices have the following common basis: (i)
waste generation on a typical construction site can be attributed to waste collection bins are identified for each type of waste; the size of
designers failing to implement waste prevention measures during the each bin or container is appropriate taking into account the esti-
design phase (Osmani et al., 2008), while the remainder can be con- mated amount to be generated, the number of containers and the
sidered unavoidable with current practices and techniques. Table 5 foreseen number of waste deliveries; (ii) waste collection bins are
shows some opportunities for waste prevention during design, i.e. de- usually placed at the same point of the site (e.g. labelled as ‘eco-
signing out waste (adapted from Waste and Resources Action point’, ‘recycling point’, etc.); (iii) temporary collection points are
Programme, 2012). usually placed next to a work position in order to increase the ef-
Modern methods of construction have a huge impact on waste ficiency of waste segregation, but which usually depends on the
generation during construction, since off-cuts and concrete handling are characteristics of the position; (iv) hazardous wastes are collected in
avoided. The waste reduction potential is up to 90% for techniques such a separated point, protected from wind, rain and over a sealed
as: surface with the appropriate measures to prevent and minimise
pollution of rainfall water; (v) all labourers, independently if they
• Volumetric building systems: Off-site manufacturing of three-di- come from the main contractor or a subcontractor are aware of the
mensional modules, e.g. roof and external insulation, roof tiling, on-site waste management techniques, (vi) there is enough space
brick and block work, etc. available for waste deliveries by truck; and (vii) waste collection
• Substitution of concrete frame: timber. points are identified in a site plan and the plan is made available to
• Pre-cast panels: panelised building systems for staircases, roofing, all relevant actors.
basements, etc. • Procedures and methodologies to ensure best management
• Steel frames: substitutes concrete and eliminates waste generation. options. These techniques usually refer to on-site control techni-
• Structural insulated panels and prefabricated roof systems. ques, such as visual inspection, computerised or photographic reg-
• Composite panels. ister, signs, symbols and information, issuing and control of waste
• Pre-cast cladding. management certificates, and, in case it is required, pre-treatment of
• Light steel frame for building façades. waste is available on-site when high segregation rates need to be
• Structural pre-cast elements. achieved, e.g. compactors, roll packers, cardboard balers, shredders
• Insulating concrete formwork. for wood, or portable crushers.
• Provision of waste logistics. Usually, two on-site collection
An example of the application of modern methods of construction is methods are observed: reactive and scheduled. For large fractions,
the Middlehaven Hotel in the UK (Waste and Resources Action such as inert fractions of CDW, a reactive collection is required, e.g.
Programme, 2008b), where a series of precast elements, volumetric a full skip is substituted by another empty skip on demand. For
pods, pre-cast columns and foundations were able to avoid 75% of the smaller volumes of wastes of constant generation, such as those si-
total waste expected from traditional construction methods, saving milar to municipal solid wastes, scheduled collection is the best
more than half a million EUR from waste disposal and unnecessary option.
construction materials. However, the environmental performance of a
specific application should use LCA to evaluate the actual environ- Best management practices on material use refer to logistics
mental performance. schemes that optimise material use by minimising the amount of raw
On-site waste prevention and collection are techniques that materials stored on site, which reduces the likelihood for supplied
should have been identified, designed and scoped in a general

172
J.-L. Gálvez-Martos et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 136 (2018) 166–178

Fig. 3. Supply logistics options to construction sites. Source: (Joint Research Centre - European Commission, 2012).

materials to become waste. In traditional logistics, the majority of most economic option will be the demolition of buildings, which, as
materials are stocked when they arrive on a construction site. This traditionally conceived, produces large amounts of demolition waste
means that materials are double handled, increasing the risk of damage that often results in a significant portion of the total waste stream.
and the rate of waste generation along with the subsequent cost. In this Selective building deconstruction is an alternative to demolition that
sense, stockholding is a term defined as the process of holding materials involves a systematic disassembly with the objective of maximising re-
in readiness for subsequent activities (Constructing Excellence, 2006). use, recycling and diversion from landfill.
Material use efficiency can avoid environmental impacts because: less Although selective deconstruction is able to separate different types
fuel is consumed if less material is transported, less materials leftovers of materials at source, it is not a preferred practice due to the poor
are produced if stockholding is reduced down to a minimum, etc. economics of dismantling; the actual effort, if measured in time, skills
Fig. 3 shows an overview of logistics techniques at construction and labour, is significantly higher than for conventional demolition
sites. Whenever supply is made by manufacturers (e.g. for specially (Joint Research Centre - European Commission, 2012). Those achieving
designed construction elements or products), by local or regional sup- best performances tend to strategies between conventional demolishing
pliers, by urban consolidation centres or by the same construction and full component-by-component dismantling. The application of se-
company, three main practices are observed: ancillary storage, secure lective deconstruction techniques usually involves the following steps:
storage and just-in-time delivery. Ancillary storage (e.g. for bricks, blocks,
timber, etc) is used to buffer the supply of materials for the smooth • First, a hazardous substances audit and an evaluation of the need for
operation of sites. Secure storage has a similar function, but a higher specialised stripping, e.g. of asbestos, should be performed.
degree of security has to be ensured for materials of high value (metals, • Second, manual dismantling of re-usable parts is the preferred op-
kitchens, sanitary ware, etc.). The third technique is just-in-time de- tion for directly re-usable parts, as glass, precious wood, sanitary
livery and constitutes the preferred technique for the supply of ready- ware, heating boilers, re-usable radiators, etc.
mix concrete and other bulky materials. In the case of construction sites • Once the building is empty of directly re-usable elements, floor
in the centre of large cities, storage typically has to be kept to a coverings, ceilings and combustible and non-combustible waste
minimum due to lack of space. In these cases, delivery is normally just- should be stripped and segregated.
in-time, while buffering is performed through consolidation centres for • Finally, depending on the type of building, wooden beams, steel
best performance. frames can be re-used, while buildings with concrete are usually
demolished and concrete waste crushed to produce aggregates.
3.5. Re-use of materials
This selective dismantling of buildings has several advantages over
From the circular economy point of view, the best re-use option in conventional demolition; it increases the diversion rate of CDW from
the construction sector is the re-use of the entire building. Factors such landfills towards more sustainable direct re-use of building components
as space, integrity, aesthetics, refurbishment costs and client satisfac- and recycling of materials. Time and resource allocation are usually the
tion play a key role on the feasibility assessment of the potential of main drawbacks of a deconstruction process. However, adaptive plan-
building re-use (Institute of Civil Engineers, 2008). In many cases, the ning of the deconstruction works can also lead to considerable

173
J.-L. Gálvez-Martos et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 136 (2018) 166–178

reductions of deconstruction duration. national level (Pellegrino and Faleschini, 2016). Upcycling is possible,
Re-use, as a best practice for CDW management, refers to all har- but applicability is quite low: e.g. crushed concrete sand can be used in
vested materials, construction elements and building components that cement production, but with a very low substitution rate of the raw
can be used in a specific site, such us: meals (around 2%) due to composition limitations (Hauer and Klein,
2007).
• Harvested construction products and building elements, e.g. bricks, The benefits from CDW recycling as aggregates cannot be general-
tiles, concrete slabs, beams, wood frames, etc. ised without a large number of assumptions. Studies have considered
• Re-usable auxiliary materials, such as wood from formworks, pal- different scopes and produced varied results owing to different as-
lets, auxiliary structures. The re-use of these is a very common sumptions or framework conditions. The following conclusions (Hiete,
practice in the construction sector and has a non-negligible impact 2013) regarding the environmental performance of crushed concrete
on the economic performance of construction contractors. recycling have been made:

The re-use of building components and construction products has a • Site characteristics are critical: the location influences transport
significant effect on the overall life cycle environmental performance of distances while composition influences the nature of recycled ma-
the construction activity. Approximately 40% of embodied energy can terials and determines the final application.
be saved, despite an increase in transportation needs, and more than • During the use phase, there is no fixed standard for the leachability
60% of the carbon footprint of the concrete structure can be saved when of recycled aggregates.
re-using prefabricated slabs (Roth and Eklund, 2003). • When balancing benefits from primary aggregate substitution, the
type of application and the type and origin of the natural aggregate
strongly influences the life cycle performance.
3.6. Waste treatment and material recovery
• However, washing, which is applied when site segregation is poor,
can count more than 99% of the total environmental impact (Korre
Current CDW processing and recycling techniques can be con- and Durucan, 2009).
sidered well established and their implementation is common across
Europe. However, the nature of the final secondary materials and the
• Although there are studies confirming the better environmental
performance of the recycled aggregates supply chain, the production
market penetration differ widely. A common CDW recycling plant and crushing of concrete is more energy intensive than for primary
usually consists of (1) reception, weighing and visual inspection, (2) aggregates, and the environmental impact can be compensated if the
manual preselection (for unsegregated streams), rejection and diversion ratio of transport distances for primary aggregates versus recycled
to alternative treatments, (3) screening of large materials, (4) magnetic aggregates is above four (Chowdhury et al., 2010).
separation, (5) manual separation of plastic, wood and other waste
streams if required, (6) crushing, and (7) screening and secondary The use of RA and RCA helps to reduce the use of virgin materials
crushing, which is applied depending on the goal product mix. from quarries, which usually have a high environmental impact at local
A CDW treatment plant will normally produce aggregates from the level. For example, the German regions of Berlin and Baden-
inert fraction of CDW, while other types of wastes or recovered mate- Württemberg achieve recycling rates higher than 90% for CDW, which
rials (metals, plastic, wood, and MSW-like in some cases) are diverted can be attributed to the existence of proper standards and environment
to the appropriate treatments. From well sorted waste, high quality regulations (APPRICOD (Assessing the Potential of Plastics Recycling in
aggregates can be produced, since clean crushed concrete aggregates the Construction and Demolition Activities), 2006; QRB, 2009). From
have a much higher applicability than mixed crushed masonry-concrete the life cycle perspective, the use of recycled aggregates produces a net
aggregates. As an example, the standard classification of recycled ag- reduction in the CO2 emissions and primary energy consumption, since
gregates (RA) in Germany is made through a DIN standard 4226-100 the extraction of virgin materials is avoided, but some trade-offs must
(Table 6). be taken into account. For instance, regarding the health and safety
The final destination of RA is the substitution of virgin materials. issue in recycling plants, at least 20–25% of dust in the surroundings of
Although main substitution rates are achieved in low grade applica- recycling plants has been detected to be of a diameter of less than 10 μm
tions, as base, or sub-base materials for roads and backfilling, higher (Kummer et al., 2010) and, therefore, its release should be duly con-
grade applications, e.g. aggregate for new structural and non-structural trolled, e.g through the implementation of de-dusting devices in
aggregate, have a high potential. Although some generalisations can be screening, crushing and handling operations. Also, the location of re-
made, as shown in Table 7, caution is always required in the application cycling plants close to urban areas, although good in terms of life cycle
of standards in the construction industry, as they are usually applied at environmental impact, has an adverse effect due to noise, vibration and
emissions from the commonly used diesel engines.
Table 6 The recycling of CDW from building construction or demolition
Classification of aggregates according to German DIN 4226-100. introduces the risk of potentially hazardous materials that are con-
DIN Classification Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 tained in the original waste material. For instance, concrete foundations
from the 1960’s contain hazardous PCB substances, which are con-
Name of recycled Concrete and Mixed Masonry plus Mixed plus
sidered to be very harmful, e.g. as carcinogens. Other materials, such as
aggregate crusher sand wastes plus crusher sand crusher
(RA) crusher sand sand solvents in paints, tar-based emulsions from roads, asbestos, etc., are
Concrete and ≥90% ≥70% ≤20% ≥80% controlled, although the national approaches differ; a current best
natural practice example of PCB from construction management can be found
aggregates in Denmark (Butera et al., 2014; Zeschmar-Lahl et al., 2016).
Clinker, non-pored ≤10% ≤30% ≥80%
bricks
In order to achieve a less heterogeneous management landscape on
Sand-lime bricks ≤5% the management of hazardous CDW in Europe, the European
Other mineral ≤2% ≤30% ≤5% ≤20% Commission mandated CEN for harmonisation on the assessment of
materials dangerous substances. As a response, a new Technical Committee –
Asphalt ≤1% ≤1% ≤1%
CEN/TC 351 – was created: ‘Construction products: assessment of re-
Foreign substances ≤0.2% ≤0.5% ≤0.5% ≤1%
Density, kg/m3 ≥2000 ≥2000 ≥1800 ≥1500 lease of dangerous substances’. This committee will provide tools and
assessment methods for the quantification of dangerous substances,
(Pellegrino and Faleschini, 2016). which may be released from construction products to the environment

174
J.-L. Gálvez-Martos et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 136 (2018) 166–178

Table 7
Possibilities for recycled construction materials.
Material Use Applicability Specifications/restrictions for RA and RCA

RCA: Recycled Concrete Earthworks, filling and RCA and RA are usually applicable to this use. There Specific requirements for recycled aggregates in terms of
Aggregates (usually with a road sub-bases may be restrictions on the physical properties strength (e.g. with Los Angeles test, or with the amount
minimum of 90% concrete because of sulphate content (causing expansion and of small slaps or flagstone).
content) fragility) and water absorption. Usually, European
Member States ask for the same technical properties
as for natural aggregates, plus some standards,
mandatory or optional, on concrete and impurities.
Buildings and other civil Coarse recycled aggregates may be applied for Recommendation of a 20% maximum substitution of
works, for structural structural concrete (mass concrete or reinforced natural coarse aggregates. Additional requirements are
concrete concrete) but water demand would be higher and specified for recycled aggregates in order to keep
may cause higher cement consumption for the same structural properties. Dutch national standards allow for
resistance as with natural aggregates. Compression a replacement of 20% of natural primary aggregates by
resistance may be reduced (as a function of quality) mixed or concrete aggregates (without additional
and elasticity is lower. performance tests).
Buildings and other civil Up to 100% of application if technical and
works, for non-structural environmental specifications are fulfilled.
concrete
Buildings and other civil Fines and small particles may be used to produce Water demand is increased. A maximum of 25% of
works, for mortar mortar. recycled mortar is recommended in order to keep
properties.
Buildings and other civil Fines from concrete sand crusher have similar The use of crushed cement as substitute material was
works, for cement properties to cement with natural sand. first tried in Japan and a cost reduction is proven. Energy
consumption reduction and saving of natural materials
are the main benefits, but the chemistry of the mixture
does not allow using a substitution rate more than 10%.
RA, recycled aggregates, from Earthworks, filling and Applicable if the content of gypsum is low. Main Cleaning (water washing) is required and increases costs.
mixed wastes (usually with a road sub-bases application of RA is as backfilling material. Usually, Same specifications as for other materials apply.
minimum of 50% concrete not suitable for road pavement bases. Workability may be worse, as water absorption is higher
content) and slower than for natural aggregates.
Buildings and other civil Adequate consistence and resistance properties are The low density of these aggregates may be optimal for
works, for non structural achievable for in-situ concrete for non structural the production of light concrete. Nevertheless, durability
concrete concrete. Not usable for prefabricated concrete is lower than for other aggregates.
elements.

into the soil, ground water, surface water and indoor air (Ilvonen, classification (QRB, 2009). Delgado et al., 2009, collected information
2013). In this respect, an important aspect of the hazardous potential of from some frontrunner quality assurance schemes in Europe, such as
CDW is the leachability of chemicals from produced RA. It is common the Austrian construction materials recycling association, the region of
that RA coming from ashes, slags and other wastes are well regulated Flanders, the SFS standard 5884 in Finland, or the programme Ag-
regarding their composition, while for recycled concrete some countries gregain in the UK, established by WRAP. Although it is out of the scope
apply a set of different criteria. For instance, the Netherlands does not of this paper to discuss the suitability of environmental performance
apply a waste regulation to RA, but a common regulation is used for standards, the lack of harmonisation in Europe regarding RA is re-
natural or RA in terms of environmental criteria. markable and problematic. It was noted that current requirements in
Quality assurance schemes have become a key element for the many Member States of the European Union are less restrictive for
marketing of secondary materials produced from CDW recycling. The virgin materials than for those secondary materials consisting on RA
construction industry, in general, has a very conservative approach to (Saveyn et al., 2014). Regarding the performance of RA, the most im-
innovation, which is basically due to its traditional behaviour and the portant standard is the European EN 12,620 under approval (CEN
legal liability of architects, engineers, developers and contractors re- (European Committee for Standardization), 2013), which specifies the
garding their final products (Zeschmar-Lahl et al., 2016), so construc- properties of aggregates regardless of the origin. This standard is an
tion stakeholders rely on sound standards to support advances. On the attempt to standardise, under the current construction products reg-
other hand, RAs have usually had a low- grade application, e.g. as ulation (European Parliament and the Council, 2011) a harmonised set
backfilling material for quarries, some sub-base applications for road of quality requirements. Other standards are applicable for roads (EN
and cover for landfills. But, it is well known that certain qualities of RA 13,242) or asphalts (EN 13,043).
or RCA fit higher grade applications, e.g. as aggregate material in A key exemplary case of the circular economy in action is the re-
concrete for structural and non-structural applications. A quality as- cycling of plasterboard. Plasterboard (also known as drywall, gypsum
surance scheme, in this context, would establish common rules for board, wallboard, etc.) consists of kiln dried panels made of gypsum
producers and, very importantly, would increase the confidence of final plaster (rehydrated calcium sulphate dihydrate) pressed between two
users. A best practice quality assurance scheme is one that drives in- thick sheets of paper. In Europe, 2.35 million Mg of waste plasterboard
creased uptake of RAs and RCAs, following a voluntary agreement per year from construction and demolition projects are produced and an
approach, rather than regulation, including all stakeholders along the extra 0.6 million Mg are produced during its manufacturing and in-
construction value chain. Among many measures, it should include stallation (Marlet, 2017). However, almost all the waste plasterboard
waste segregation and diversion from landfill, while defining environ- can be successfully fed into the manufacture of new plasterboard or as
ment-related criteria, e.g. as leaching characteristics and reference raw material for other uses, and plasterboard itself can incorporate
standards, and awarding, if possible, an End-of-Waste or by-product wastes from other industrial processes, such as calcium sulfate from flue
character to the secondary material produced. For instance, based on gas desulfurization. Plasterboard produced with 89% recycled material
well-defined protocols and procedures, the region of Baden-Württem- (mainly flue gas desulfurization wastes) was achieved by Knauf in 2013
berg in Germany classifies three quality levels for RAs based on their (Knauf et al., 2013).
leaching characteristics, and defines suitable applications for each The importance of plasterboard segregation and its impact on the

175
J.-L. Gálvez-Martos et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 136 (2018) 166–178

Table 8
Applicability, economics and achievable environmental benefits of the best environmental management practice for construction and demolition waste.
Best Environmental Applicability Economics Achievable environmental benefit
Management Practice

CDW management plans Well extended instrument in large Requires enforcement by public administration Diversion of CDW to landfill. Exemplary case
municipalities or counties. The size of the and the development of awareness instruments. in the UK.
municipality and the region can have a large
impact on the commitment of resources and the
operability of waste platforms.
Economic Instruments The regulatory framework and its enforcement The application of new economic instruments
are the main barriers for the application of applying new fees, levies, etc., should be
some economic instruments. The existence of designed for the system to be self-sustained.
an appropriate environmental awareness, good
management skills and innovative-driven
behaviour along with some good accounting
practices are pre-requisites for the
implementation of economic instruments,
which are complex to manage from the
technical, managerial and social perspectives.
Site Waste Management Well extended instrument and mandatory in Economic benefits from SWMP implementation Up to 95% waste sent to recycling achievable.
Plans (SWMP) some European countries. Since the plan should are not easily quantified, since its performance
take into consideration the specific depends on other best practices
circumstances of the site, no specific issue on implementation. As a rule, SWMP development
applicability is expected. and implementation costs are lower than 0.1%
of total project value.
Designing out waste A modern method of construction requires of Economics are usually favourable, since cost Up to 75% waste reduction achieved.
manufacturing facilities and sites with savings from both materials supply and waste
sufficient capacity for some specific elements. disposal are achieved. Faster construction also
The extended use of traditional construction makes this a competitive technique. Cost
methods, design trends, availability of space, savings range from 0.1 to 1% of total project
availability of skilled workers, and the regional value.
market are the main elements conditioning the
applicability of designing out waste practices.
Site waste management and Low material recovery rates in some countries In general, waste management costs in Exemplary cases with up to 99% of waste
prevention do not necessarily mean poor management, but construction projects are not more than 3% of diverted from landfill.
also a sign of lack of enforcement, lack of total costs; therefore, costs savings through
facilities and/or low accessibility to waste waste prevention can only achieve a small
management services. (BioIS, 2016) saving on-site.
Material Use Efficiency Space availability and the existence of nearby Consolidation centres or just-in-time deliveries The use of consolidation centres has reduced
consolidation centres are a key aspect of allow a better organisation of the site, reduce largely the amount of wastes derived from the
stockholding of materials at construction sites. waste and increase site productivity, so savings handling of stock. Examples for plasterboard
(Transport and Travel Research, 2010) are usually achieved. Consolidation centres have shown materials savings of up to 15%.
account for less vehicle runs than just-in-time
deliveries.
Building de-construction Building deconstruction is applicable in The high demand for manual labour, time and Recovery rates of up to 95–99% can easily be
situations where waste management is very specialised light machinery makes achieved when building selective
expensive and some materials or components deconstruction a rather expensive solution. deconstruction and dismantling are applied.
may be scarce, so there would be an economic Total management costs average 10–15 EUR
drive. In most cases, skilled laboured is per m3 of CDW.
required, while an appropriate legal framework
is in place.
Re-use of materials The lack of a sound market for reclaimed Re-use of auxiliaries is a fully applied measure A virtual zero waste amount sent to landfill is
products and the availability of a large stock of due to the full economic sense of such achievable if re-use is integrated with other
these is a main barrier on the applicability of approach. However, use of reclaimed materials best practices.
such materials. as a conventional source of products in
construction is still way off. For instance, cost
of reclaimed bricks can be 100% more
expensive than conventional ones, but
reclaimed steel frames can save up to 50% of
investment costs.
Waste sorting and processing This technology is well spread around Europe Recycled materials have usually a lower cost Higher confidence from the industry, higher
addressing the and common for waste treatment facilities. It than natural materials. In some European recycling rates (higher than 90% for some
acceptability of recycled requires a good framework of waste segregation Member States, the cost of virgin materials is frontrunners) and significant environmental
aggregates and a healthy demand of recycled products that quite competitive with secondary materials due benefits from the life-cycle perspective.
avoids the accumulation of secondary to availability and market conditions
materials.
Quality assurance schemes Quality schemes and quality standards are in Cost of RA under quality assurance schemes is
general adaptive to the general circumstances around EUR 3–EUR 12 per Mg in many
of the stakeholders involved in the scheme. The European locations, so they are considered to
general recommendation is to avoid any be competitive with virgin materials.
generalisation and make a case-by-case study
on the applicability of a recycled product.
Recovery of plasterboard Given the chemistry of plasterboard, a The cost of segregated plasterboard collection The environmental benefit from direct
maximum of 25% of recycled plasterboard can increases waste management costs in recycling of plasterboard is not high (e.g. 6%
be incorporated into new plasterboard, but construction sites, but is usually compensated less carbon footprint), but there are gains
100% of the raw materials could come from by gate fees for wastes with no plasterboard from its segregation in the management of
alternative sources, as flue gas desulphurisation segregated and the revenues from low-sulphate CDW, since it reduces considerably the
by-products. CDW recycling. amount of sulphate in other fractions of CDW.

176
J.-L. Gálvez-Martos et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 136 (2018) 166–178

whole CDW reprocessing is of high relevance. A separate thematic area the whole landscape of construction stakeholders across the construc-
was set up by WRAP in the UK, where several local authorities in- tion value chain. Systematic documentation of current best practices
troduced waste plasterboard collection at their Household Waste observed across Europe provides an evidence base to develop policies
Collection centres, e.g. Sheffield (Waste and Resources Action and management strategies that deliver circular economy solutions to
Programme, 2009). Also, at European level, the project GypsumTo- the construction sector.
Gypsum (Marlet, 2017) aimed to integrate better the supply chain of
gypsum-based products by closing the loop and to increase the quantity References
of gypsum-based waste being diverted from landfill for recycling.
Europe demands around 15 million Mg of plasterboard, and the annual Adams, M.P., Fu, T., Cabrera, A.G., Morales, M., Ideker, J.H., Isgor, O.B., 2016. Cracking
production of its waste is around 2.35 million Mg. So, therefore, there is susceptibility of concrete made with coarse recycled concrete aggregates. Constr.
Build. Mater. 102, 802–810. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.11.022.
more than enough capacity for recycling. ANEFA, 2017. Actualidad del Sector [WWW Document]. URL http://www.aridos.org/
From the whole value chain of the construction sector, several best wp-content/uploads/2018/01/ANEFActualidad51.pdf.pdf (Accessed 3 April 2018).
practices have an impact on plasterboard products: APPRICOD (Assessing the Potential of Plastics Recycling in the Construction and
Demolition Activities), 2006. Towards Sustainable Plastic Construction and
Demolition Waste Management in Europe. [WWW Document]. URL http://www.
• Plasterboard panels are subject of designing-out waste practices, acrplus.org/index.php/en/projecthemes/previous-projects/2-content/277-
appricodhttp://www.acrplus.org/images/pdf/document142.pdf (Accessed 2 October
since proper sizing and just-in-time practices would reduce the
2017).
amount of wasted plasterboard considerably.
•
Arm, M., Wik, O., Engelsen, C.J., Erlandsson, M., Sundqvist, J.-O., Oberender, A.,
Plasterboard is a durable product, so panels and tiles made of Hjelmar, O., Wahlström, M., 2014. ENCORT-CDW – Evaluation of the European
plasterboard, with no damage, can easily be reinstalled (re-used). Recovery Target for Construction and Demolition Waste. Nordisk Ministerrådhttp://

• The product itself can incorporate secondary material up to virtually dx.doi.org/10.6027/NA2014-916.

BioIS, 2016. Resource Efficient Use of Mixed Wastes: Improving Management of
100% of the raw material, although the industry tends to use natural Construction and Demolition Waste [WWW Document]. URL http://ec.europa.eu/
gypsum. E.g. in Germany the demand for the construction material environment/waste/studies/pdf/construction/Minutes.pdf (Accessed 14 November
gypsum is mainly fulfilled (currently at least 60%) by gypsum as a 2017).
Blengini, G.A., Garbarino, E., 2010. Resources and waste management in Turin (Italy): the
side product of the flue gas desulphurization in the electricity pro- role of recycled aggregates in the sustainable supply mix. J. Clean. Prod. 18,
duction process at coal power plants. 1021–1030. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.027.

• Reprocessing waste plasterboard can produce gypsum of high Butera, S., Christensen, T.H., Astrup, T.F., 2014. Composition and leaching of construc-
tion and demolition waste: inorganic elements and organic compounds. J. Hazard.
quality, according to certain standards, with a variety of potential Mater. 276, 302–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.05.033.
uses apart from new plasterboard: raw material for cement manu- CEN (European Committee for Standardization), 2013. Aggregates for Concrete (Under
facture, roads sub-base, and soil improvement for agriculture. The Approval) [WWW Document]. URL. (Accessed 15 November 2017). https://
standards.cen.eu.
characteristics of each secondary product are defined in quality Chowdhury, R., Apul, D., Fry, T., 2010. A life cycle based environmental impacts as-
assurance schemes e.g. for the UK. In general, the presence of fibres sessment of construction materials used in road construction. Resour. Conserv.
in the waste limits its applicability to a 25% of the total raw meal for Recycl. 54, 250–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.08.007.
Constructing Excellence, 2006. Supply Chain Integration, Logistics and E-Trading.
new plasterboard.
•
Stockholding. [WWW Document]. URL. (Accessed 18 December 2017). http://
Waste plasterboard segregation benefits other CDW recycling, as constructingexcellence.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/denne_stockholding.
sulphates, generally coming from plasterboard, are mixed with other pdf.
Craven, P., 2015. Are Current EU C&D Waste Recycling Targets an Obstacle to Growth?
CDW fractions in unsorted waste management, which prevents the
[WWW Document]. URL. (Accessed 3 October 2017). https://waste-management-
application of the recycled aggregate. world.com/a/are-current-eu-cd-waste-recycling-targets-an-obstacle-to-growth.
DEFRA, 2017. Digest of Waste and Resource Statistics [WWW Document]. URL.
3.7. Applicability, economics, and achievable environmental benefit (Accessed 18 December 2017). https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/
uploads/attachment_data/file/607416/Digest_of_Waste_and_Resource_Statistics__
2017_rev.pdf.
During the research activity, all the BEMPs on CDW management Delgado, L., Catarino, A.S., Eder, P., Litten, D., Luo, Z., Villanueva, A., 2009. End-of-
have been qualified in terms of achievable environmental benefits, Waste Criteria. JCR Technical Report.
European Aggregates Association, 2017. European Aggregates Association: A Sustainable
conditions for applicability, costs and economics of implementation, Industry for a Sustainable Europe. Annual Review 2015–2016.
operational data, reference organisations in Europe and cross-media European Aggregates Association, 2006. Aggregates from Construction and Demolition
effects (Joint Research Centre - European Commission, 2012; Zeschmar- Waste in Europe [WWW Document]. URL http://www.uepg.eu/uploads/Modules/
Publications/pub-12_en-plaquette.pdf (Accessed 15 November 2017).
Lahl et al., 2016). Table 8 summarises the most important information European Commission, 2015a. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of
regarding the applicability, economics and environmental performance the Council Amending Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste (No. COM/2015/0585).
for each of the best practice described in the previous sections. European Commission, 2015b. Sustainable Development - Environment - European
Commission [WWW Document]. URL http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/
(Accessed 15 November 2017).
4. Final remarks European Commission, 2000. COMMISSION DECISION of 3 May 2000 replacingDecision
94/3/EC Establishinga List of Wastes Pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council Directive
75/442/EEC on Waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC Establishinga List of
Observations made during the exercise showed clearly an obvious
Hazardous Waste Pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on
heterogeneity among European Member States, especially in two areas: Hazardous Waste.
treatment of waste and development of markets for secondary mate- European Parliament and the Council, 2011. Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the
rials. It is obvious that the technology and the potential for high per- European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 Laying Down Harmonised
Conditions for the Marketing of Construction Products and Repealing Council
forming waste management systems is already in the market and Directive 89/106/EEC Text With EEA Relevanc [WWW Document].
available to those regions, municipalities, waste authorities or waste European Parliament and the Council, 2009. Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 of the
contractors willing to improve their performance. However, the con- European Parliament and of the council of 25 November 2009 on the voluntary
participation by organisations in a community eco-management and audit scheme
struction sector shows a traditional behaviour, which heavily relies on (EMAS), repealing regulation (EC) No 761/2001 and commission decisions 2001/
standards, while being completely economically driven. In addition, the 681/EC and 2006/193/EC. Off. J. Eur. Union L342/1.
high variety of actors involved in the CDW value chain creates a European Parliament and the Council, 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain
complex mesh of responsibilities, with very different decision-making Directives.
chains across European Member States. Of course, the low impact of Eurostat, 2017. Generation of Waste by Waste Category, Hazardousness and NACE Rev 2
any waste-related decisions on construction project budgets does not Activity.
FERCD, 2015. Report on Production and Managment of Construction and Demolition
encourage improvement beyond current standard practices. Therefore, Waste in Spain (2009–2013) (In Spanish).
most of the observed efforts focus on the creation of drivers addressing

177
J.-L. Gálvez-Martos et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 136 (2018) 166–178

Galvez-Martos, J.-L., Styles, D., Schoenberger, H., 2013. Identified best environmental Document]. URL www.qrb-bw.de (Accessed 1 October 2017).
management practices to improve the energy performance of the retail trade sector in Rimoldi, A., 2010. The Concrete Case. Workshop on the Management of C&D Waste in the
Europe. Energy Policy 63, 982–994. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.061. EU [WWW Document]. URL. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/
Hauer, B., Klein, H., 2007. Recycling of concrete crusher Sand in cement clinker pro- construction_demolition.htm.
duction Lillehammer, Norway. Presented at the International Conference on Roth, L., Eklund, M., 2003. Environmental evaluation of reuse of by-products as road
Sustainability in the Cement and Concrete Industry. construction materials in Sweden. Waste Manag. 23, 107–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.
Hiete, M., 2013. 4 - waste management plants and technology for recycling construction 1016/S0956-053X(02)00052-1.
and demolition (C&D) waste: state-of-the-art and future challenges. In: Pacheco- Saveyn, H., Eder, P., Garbarino, E., Muchova, L., Hjelmar, O., van der Sloot, H., Comans,
Torgal, F., Tam, V.W.Y., Labrincha, J.A., Ding, Y., de Brito, J. (Eds.), Handbook of R., van Zomeren, A., Hyks, J., Oberender, A., 2014. Study on Methodological Aspects
Recycled Concrete and Demolition Waste, Woodhead Publishing Series in Civil and Regarding Limit Values for Pollutants in Aggregates in the Context of the Possible
Structural Engineering. Woodhead Publishing, pp. 53–75. http://dx.doi.org/10. Development of End-of-Waste Criteria Under the EU Waste Framework Directive. JRC
1533/9780857096906.1.53. Technical Report. EUR 26769.
Ilvonen, O., 2013. Assessing release of hazardous substances from construction products – Schoenberger, H., 2009. Integrated pollution prevention and control in large industrial
review of 10 years of experience with a horizontal approach in the European Union. installations on the basis of best available techniques – the Sevilla process. J. Clean.
Build. Environ. 69, 194–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.08.010. Prod. 17, 1526–1529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.06.002.
Institute of Carbon and Energy, 2017. Embodied Energy and Embodied Carbon [WWW Silva, R.V., de Brito, J., Dhir, R.K., 2014. Properties and composition of recycled ag-
Document]. URL. Circular Ecology (Accessed 18 December 2017). http://www. gregates from construction and demolition waste suitable for concrete production.
circularecology.com/embodied-energy-and-carbon-footprint-database.html. Constr. Build. Mater. 65, 201–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.
Institute of Civil Engineers, 2008. The Demolition Protocol [WWW Document]. URL. 04.117.
(Accessed 19 December 2017). https://www.2degreesnetwork.com/groups/ Styles, D., Schoenberger, H., Galvez-Martos, J.L., 2015. Water management in the
2degrees-community/resources/demolition-protocol-2008/. European hospitality sector: best practice, performance benchmarks and improve-
ISWA, 2012. Solid Waste: Guidelines for Succesful Planning [WWW Document]. URL. ment potential. Tour. Manag. 46, 187–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.
(Accessed 18 December 2017). https://www.pseau.org/outils/ouvrages/abrelpe_ 2014.07.005.
iswa_solid_waste_guidelines_for_successful_planning_2012.pdf. Styles, D., Schoenberger, H., Galvez-Martos, J.-L., 2012. Environmental improvement of
Jiménez, J.R., Ayuso, J., López, M., Fernández, J.M., de Brito, J., 2013. Use of fine re- product supply chains: proposed best practice techniques, quantitative indicators and
cycled aggregates from ceramic waste in masonry mortar manufacturing. Constr. benchmarks of excellence for retailers. J. Environ. Manag. 110, 135–150. http://dx.
Build. Mater. 40, 679–690. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.036. doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.05.021.
Joint Research Centre - European Commission, 2012. Best Environmental Management The Concrete Centre, 2016. Concrete Industry Sustainability Performance Report. 9th
Practice in the Building and Construction Sector. Final Draft. [WWW Document]. Report: 2015 Performance Data [WWW Document]. URL. (Accessed 15 November
URL ec.europa.eu. 2017). https://www.concretecentre.com/Publications-Software/Publications/The-
Jolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rebitzer, G., Rosenbaum, R., Ninth-Concrete-Industry-Sustainability-Perform.aspx.
2003. IMPACT +: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J LCA 8, 324. Transport and Travel Research 2010 , Freight Consolidation Centre Study. [WWW
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02978505. Document]. URL www. dft. gov. uk (accessed 11. 12.17).
Knauf, 2013. Knauf Sustainability Report 2013 [WWW Document]. URL knauf.co.uk U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Characterization of Building-Related
(Accessed 12 November 2017). Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States [WWW Document]. URL
Korre, A., Durucan, S., 2009. Life Cycle Assessment of Aggregates [WWW Document]. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/charact_buldin-
URL http://ceramics.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/EVA025-MIRO-Life-Cycle- g_related_cd.pdf (Accessed 14 November 2017).
Assessment-of-Aggregates-final-report.pdf (Accessed 19 December 2017). van Beukering, P.J.H., Bartelings, H., Linderhof, V.G.M., Oosterhuis, F.H., 2009.
Kummer, V., van der Pütten, N., Schneble, H., Wagner, R., Winkels, H., 2010. Ermittlung Effectiveness of unit-based pricing of waste in the Netherlands: applying a general
des PM10-Anteils an den Gesamtstaubemissionen von equilibrium model. Waste Manag. 29, 2892–2901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Bauschuttaufbereitungsanlagen. Gefahrstoffe – Reinhaltung der Luft 11–12, 478–482. wasman.2009.07.002.
Lundesjo, G., 2011. Pallet Waste and Reusable Pallets at Aggregate Industries [WWW Waste and Resources Action Programme, 2012. Achieving Effective Waste Minimisation.
Document]. URL http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/AI_pallet_study.pdf Guidance for Construction Clients, Design Teams and Contractors [WWW
(Accessed 18 December 2017).. . Document]. URL. (Accessed 1 December 2017). http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/
Mália, M., de Brito, J., Pinheiro, M.D., Bravo, M., 2013. Construction and demolition files/wrap/Waste%20min%20mid%20level%20FINAL1.pdf.
waste indicators. Waste Manag. Res. 31, 241–255. Waste and Resources Action Programme, 2011. The Construction Commitments: Halving
Marlet, C., 2017. GtoG - from Gypsum to Gypsum: a Circular Economy for the Gypsum Waste to Landfill. Signatory Report 2011 [WWW Document]. URL wrap.org.uk
Industry With the Demolition and Recycling Industries - Life 11 ENV/BE/001392. (Accessed 1 December 2017).
Martínez-Bertrand, C., Tomé, M., 2009. Gestión de residuos de construcción y demolición Waste and Resources Action Programme, 2009. Implementing a Waste Plasterboard
(RCDS): importancia de la recogida para optimizar su posterior valorización. Collection Scheme at Sheffield City Council HWRC. Plasterboard Case Study. [WWW
Congreso Nacional Del Medio Ambiente, España. Document]. URL wrap.org.uk (Accessed 12 November 2017).
McGinnis, M.J., Davis, M., de la Rosa, A., Weldon, B.D., Kurama, Y.C., 2017. Strength and Waste and Resources Action Programme, 2008a. Reusable Packaging in Construction the
stiffness of concrete with recycled concrete aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 154, Benefits of Reusable Packaging Options for Construction Product Suppliers [WWW
258–269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.015. Document]. URL. (accessed 18 December 2017). http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/
Monier, V., Mudgal, S., Hestin, M., Trarieux, M., Mimid, S., 2011. Management of files/wrap/RTP%20briefing%20note%20for%20suppliers%20-%20Final.pdf.
Construction and Demolition Waste [WWW Document]. URL. (Accessed 14 Waste and Resources Action Programme, 2008b. Middlehaven Hotel Construction [WWW
November 2017). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/2011_CDW_Report. Document]. URL http://bioregional.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/
pdf. WRAPMiddlehavenHotelConstruction_Mar08.pdf (Accessed 18 December 2017).
OECD, 2013. The OECD Database on Instruments Used for Environmental Policy And Wijayasundara, M., Mendis, P., Crawford, R.H., 2017. Methodology for the integrated
Natural Resources Management [WWW Document]. URL. (Accessed 18 December assessment on the use of recycled concrete aggregate replacing natural aggregate in
2017). https://www.oecd.org/env/tools-evaluation/env%20policy-natural structural concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 321–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
%20resources%20brochure.pdf. jclepro.2017.08.001.
Osmani, M., Glass, J., Price, A.D.F., 2008. Architects’ perspectives on construction waste Zeschmar-Lahl, B., Schoenberger, H., Styles, D., Galvez-Martos, J.-L., 2016. Background
reduction by design. Waste Manag. 28, 1147–1158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. report on best environmental management practice in the waste management Sector.
wasman.2007.05.011. Preparatory findings to support the development of an EMAS Sectoral Reference
Pellegrino, C., Faleschini, F., 2016. Sustainability Improvements in the Concrete Industry, Document. Report for the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre [WWW
Green energy and technologies. Springer. Document]. URL http://www.bzl-gmbh.de/de/sites/default/files/
QRB, 2009. Qualitätssicherungssystem Recycling-Baustoffe, Baden-Württemberg [WWW WasteManagementBackgroundReport.pdf (Accessed 15 November 2017).

178