Review of construction and demolition waste management tools and frameworks with the classification, causes, and impacts of the waste

  • Published: 14 November 2023

Cite this article

  • Dewan Sabbir Ahammed Rayhan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3654-1928 1 , 2 &
  • Iftekhar Uddin Bhuiyan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5521-2391 1  

148 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This review looks over the current construction and demolition waste management (C&DWM) situations by scrutinizing the definition, classification, components, compositions, generated sources and causes, impacts of generated construction and demolition wastes (C&DWs), waste management hierarchy (WMH), 3R principles (Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle), Circular Economy (CE), frameworks, tools, and approaches of C&DWM. After reviewing the literature this study contributes to the literature by the following means: (a) suitable working definitions of C&DW and C&DWM are provided, (b) an expanded WMH for construction and demolition operations is presented, (c) frameworks of C&DWM are identified and listed as follows: frameworks based on WMH, including 3R principles and CE concept, frameworks focusing on the quantification, estimation, and prediction of generated C&DW, frameworks focusing on effective and sustainable C&DWM, frameworks focusing economic, social, and environmental performance assessment, frameworks based on multi-criteria analysis (MCA), frameworks based on post-disaster recovery period, and other miscellaneous frameworks, and (d) four categories of tools utilized in C&DWM are identified and explained, namely, approaches employed in C&DWM, information technology (IT) tools employed in C&DWM, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) tools employed in C&DWM, and C&DWM technologies. Moreover, this study also found that CE, and green rating system (GRS) are widely used approaches, Building Information Modeling (BIM), Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), Geographic Information System, and Big Data are the extensively used IT tools, Analytical Hierarchy Process, FUZZY, TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution), Weighted Summation, Elimination and Choice Expressing the Reality II, Elimination and Choice Expressing the Reality III, Evaluation of Mixed Data, and REGIME (REG) are the widely used MCA tools in C&DWM, and Prefabricated Construction and Modular Construction are broadly used C&DWM technologies. Furthermore, it has been observed that the application of the Analytic Networking Process (ANP) and hybridization of ANP, FUZZY, and TOPSIS tools do not catch considerable attention in the literature for conducting MCA, although it yields more precise outcomes. Additionally, most previous research has focused on the estimation of generated C&DW, but less attention has been given to forecasting the generated C&DW due to inadequate available C&DW data. This review article also assists C&DWM practitioners, academics, stakeholders, and contractors in choosing appropriate frameworks and tools for C&DWM while managing C&DW.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

literature review on construction waste management

Data availability

The data supporting this study’s outcomes will be provided by the corresponding author DSAR upon request.

Li, Q., and Sun, P. 2009. Research trend of construction debris reclamation home and abroad. China Building Materials Sciences & Technology 4: 119–122.

Google Scholar  

Pacheco-Torgal, F., and Ding, Y. 2013. Handbook of recycled concrete and demolition waste . Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857096906.3.424 .

Book   Google Scholar  

Roach, I. 2001. Diverting lightweight C and D waste from landfill. Wastes Management 23: 23–25.

Ali, A. 2018. Development of a framework for sustainable construction waste management. A case study of three major Libyan cities. University of Wolverhampton. p. 300. Available at: https://wlv.openrepository.com/handle/2436/622080 . Accessed 14 Aug 2021.

Lu, W., Webster, C., Peng, Y., et al. 2016. Estimating and calibrating the amount of building-related construction and demolition waste in urban China. International Journal of Construction Management 17 (1): 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2016.1166548 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Akhtar, A., and Sarmah, A.K. 2018. Construction and demolition waste generation and properties of recycled aggregate concrete: A global perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 186: 262–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.085 .

Faruqi, M.H.Z., and Siddiqui, F.Z. 2020. A mini review of construction and demolition waste management in India. Waste Management & Research 38 (7): 708–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X2091 .

Menegaki, M., and Damigos, D. 2018. A review on current situation and challenges of construction and demolition waste management. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry 13: 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2018.02.010 .

Aslam, M.S., Huang, B., and Cui, L. 2020. Review of construction and demolition waste management in China and USA. Journal of Environmental Management 264: 110445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110445 .

Perry, G., and VanderPol, M. 2014. Characterization & management of construction, renovation & demolition waste in Canada. In 2014 Recycling council of Alberta conference . Available at: https://recycle.ab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/VanderPol_Perry.pdf . Accessed 3 Sept 2021.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2019. Guide for identifying, evaluating and selecting policies for influencing construction, renovation and demolition waste management. pp. 1–151. Available at: https://ccme.ca/en/res/crdguidance-secured.pdf . Accessed 3 Sept 2021.

Yeheyis, M., Hewage, K., Alam, M.S., et al. 2013. An overview of construction and demolition waste management in Canada: A lifecycle analysis approach to sustainability. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 15 (1): 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-012-0481-6 .

Pickin, J., Randell, P., Trinh, J., et al. 2018. National waste report 2018. Department of the Environment and Energy, Australia and Blue Environment Pty Ltd. pp. 1–126. Available at: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/publications/national-waste-reports/2018 . Accessed 3 Sept 2021.

Shooshtarian, S., Maqsood, T., Khalfan, M., et al. 2020. Landfill levy imposition on construction and demolition waste: Australian stakeholders’ perceptions. Sustainability 12 (11): 4496. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114496 .

Ouda, O.K.M., Peterson, H.P., Rehan, M., et al. 2017. A case study of sustainable construction waste management in Saudi Arabia. Waste and Biomass Valorization 9 (12): 2541–2555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-017-0174-9 .

Blaisi, N.I. 2019. Construction and demolition waste management in Saudi Arabia: Current practice and roadmap for sustainable management. Journal of Cleaner Production 221: 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.264 .

Yuan, H., Chini, A.R., Lu, Y., et al. 2012. A dynamic model for assessing the effects of management strategies on the reduction of construction and demolition waste. Waste Management 32 (3): 521–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.11.006 .

Jin, R., Li, B., Zhou, T., et al. 2017. An empirical study of perceptions towards construction and demolition waste recycling and reuse in China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 126: 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.034 .

Kabirifar, K., Mojtahedi, M., Wang, C., et al. 2020. Construction and demolition waste management contributing factors coupled with reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies for effective waste management: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production 263: 121265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121265 .

Deng, X., Liu, G., and Hao, J. 2008. A study of construction and demolition waste management in Hong Kong. In 2008 4th International conference on wireless communications, networking and mobile computing . IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/WiCom.2008.1745 .

Chen, X., and Lu, W. 2017. Identifying factors influencing demolition waste generation in Hong Kong. Journal of Cleaner Production 141: 799–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.164 .

Hossain, M.U., Wu, Z., and Poon, C.S. 2017. Comparative environmental evaluation of construction waste management through different waste sorting systems in Hong Kong. Waste Management 69: 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.043 .

Mah, C.M., Fujiwara, T., and Ho, C.S. 2016. Construction and demolition waste generation rates for high-rise buildings in Malaysia. Waste Management & Research 34 (12): 1224–1230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X16666944 .

Hoang, N.H., Ishigaki, T., Kubota, R., et al. 2019. A review of construction and demolition waste management in Southeast Asia. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 22 (2): 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-019-00914-5 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Umar, U.A., Shafiq, N., and Ahmad, F.A. 2021. A case study on the effective implementation of the reuse and recycling of construction & demolition waste management practices in Malaysia. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 12 (1): 283–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.07.005 .

Jamal, M.S., and Sobuz, M.H.R. 2017. A sustainable approach of demolition, reconstruction, reuses and recycling construction materials in Bangladesh. BAUET Journal 1 (1): 83–90.

Ashikuzzaman, M., and Howlader, M.H. 2020. Sustainable solid waste management in Bangladesh: Issues and challenges. Sustainable waste management challenges in developing countries. 35–55. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/sustainable-solid-waste-management-in-bangladesh/240071

Fatemi, M.N. 2012. Strategies to reduce construction and demolition (C&D) waste for sustainable building design in Dhaka: Role of architects. In Proceedings of international seminar on architecture: Education, Practice and research . https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nawrose-Fatemi/publication/268524277 .

Chowdhury, F.H., Raihan, M.T., Islam, G.M.S., et al. 2016. Construction waste management practice: Bangladesh perception. In Proceedings of 3rd international conference on advances in civil engineering . Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fazlul-Chowdhury-2/publication/320596439 . Accessed 3 Sept 2021.

Islam, R., Nazifa, T.H., Yuniarto, A., et al. 2019. An empirical study of construction and demolition waste generation and implication of recycling. Waste Management 95: 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.05.049 .

Elshaboury, N., Al-Sakkaf, A., Mohammed Abdelkader, E., et al. 2022. Construction and demolition waste management research: A science mapping analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research Public Health 19 (8): 4496. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084496 .

Wu, H., Zuo, J., Zillante, G., et al. 2019. Status quo and future directions of construction and demolition waste research: A critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production 240: 118163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118163 .

Wu, H., Zuo, J., Yuan, H., et al. 2019. A review of performance assessment methods for construction and demolition waste management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 150: 104407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104407 .

Chen, J., Su, Y., Si, H., et al. 2018. Managerial areas of construction and demolition waste: A scientometric review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15 (11): 2350. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112350 .

Yuan, H., and Shen, L. 2011. Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste management. Waste Management 31 (4): 670–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.10.030 .

Shen, L.Y., Tam, V.W., Tam, C.M., et al. 2004. Mapping approach for examining waste management on construction sites. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 130 (4): 472–481. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:4(472) .

Tam, V.W., and Tam, C.M. 2008. Waste reduction through incentives: A case study. Building Research & Information 36 (1): 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210701417003 .

Yuan, H.P., Shen, L.Y., Hao, J.J., et al. 2011. A model for cost–benefit analysis of construction and demolition waste management throughout the waste chain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (6): 604–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.06.004 .

Park, J., and Tucker, R. 2016. Overcoming barriers to the reuse of construction waste material in Australia: A review of the literature. International Journal of Construction Management 17 (3): 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2016.1192248 .

Tchobanoglous, G., Eliassen, R., and Theisen, H. 1977. Solid Wastes: Engineering Principles and Management Issues . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gavilan, R.M., and Bernold, L.E. 1994. Source evaluation of solid waste in building construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 120 (3): 536–552. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1994)120:3(536) .

Poon, C. 2007. Reducing construction waste. Waste Management 12: 1715–1716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.08.013 .

Poon, C.-S., and Chan, D. 2007. The use of recycled aggregate in concrete in Hong Kong. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 50 (3): 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.06.005 .

Arslan, H., Coşgun, N., and Salgin, B. 2012. Construction and demolition waste management in Turkey. In Waste management—An integrated vision , Rebellon, L.F.M. (ed.), 313–332. London: InTech. https://doi.org/10.5772/46110 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Domingo, N., and Luo, H. 2017. Canterbury earthquake construction and demolition waste management: Issues and improvement suggestions. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 22: 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.03.003 .

Yahya, K., and Boussabaine, A.H. 2006. Eco-costing of construction waste. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 17 (1): 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777830610639404 .

Lu, W., and Yuan, H. 2011. A framework for understanding waste management studies in construction. Waste Management 31 (6): 1252–1260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.01.018 .

Elgizawy, S.M., El-Haggar, S.M., and Nassar, K. 2016. Approaching sustainability of construction and demolition waste using zero waste concept. Low Carbon Economy 7 (1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.4236/lce.2016.71001 .

Spivey, D.A. 1974. Environment and construction management engineers. Journal of the Construction Division 100 (3): 395–401. https://doi.org/10.1061/JCCEAZ.0000443 .

Skoyles, E. 1976. Materials wastage—A misuse of resources. Batiment International, Building Research and Practice 4 (4): 232. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613217608550498 .

Skoyles, E. 1976. Waste of materials and the contractors quantity surveyor. The Quantity Surveyor 209–211.

Fatta, D., Papadopoulos, A., Avramikos, E., et al. 2003. Generation and management of construction and demolition waste in Greece—An existing challenge. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 40 (1): 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(03)00035-1 .

Nagapan, S., Ismail, A., and Ade, A. 2012. Construction waste and related issues in Malaysia. Diges FKAAS 1: 15–20.

Government of UK. 2021. Waste and environmental impact. Classify different types of waste 2021. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/how-to-classify-different-types-of-waste/construction-and-demolition-waste . Accessed 24 Aug 2021.

Polat, G., Damci, A., Turkoglu, H., et al. 2017. Identification of root causes of construction and demolition (C&D) waste: The case of Turkey. Procedia Engineering 196: 948–955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.08.035 .

Graham, P., and Smithers, G. 1996. Construction waste minimisation for Australian residential development. Asia Pacific Building and Construction Management Journal 2 (1): 14–19.

Ofori, G., and Ekanayake, L. 2000. Construction material waste source evaluation. In Proceedings of the second southern African conference on sustainable development in the built environment, Pretoria . https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:108020913 .

Al-Ansary, M., El-Haggar, S., and Taha, M. 2004. Proposed guidelines for construction waste management in Egypt for sustainability of construction industry. In Proceedings of the international conference on sustainable construction waste management , Singapore.

Duan, H., Wang, J., and Huang, Q. 2015. Encouraging the environmentally sound management of C&D waste in China: An integrative review and research agenda. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 43: 611–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.11.069 .

Ruiz, L.A.L., Ramón, X.R., and Domingo, S.G. 2020. The circular economy in the construction and demolition waste sector—A review and an integrative model approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 248: 119238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119238 .

Duan, H., Miller, T.R., Liu, G., et al. 2019. Construction debris becomes growing concern of growing cities. Waste Management 83: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.10.044 .

Yang, K., Xu, Q., Townsend, T.G., et al. 2006. Hydrogen sulfide generation in simulated construction and demolition debris landfills: Impact of waste composition. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 56 (8): 1130–1138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2006.10464544 .

Marinković, S., Radonjanin, V., Malešev, M., et al. 2010. Comparative environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete. Waste Management 30 (11): 2255–2264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.04.012 .

Begum, R.A., Siwar, C., Pereira, J.J., et al. 2006. A benefit–cost analysis on the economic feasibility of construction waste minimisation: The case of Malaysia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 48 (1): 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.01.004 .

Ghisellini, P., Ripa, M., and Ulgiati, S. 2018. Exploring environmental and economic costs and benefits of a circular economy approach to the construction and demolition sector. A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production 178: 618–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.207 .

Ye, G., Yuan, H., Shen, L., et al. 2012. Simulating effects of management measures on the improvement of the environmental performance of construction waste management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 62: 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.01.010 .

Guerrero, L.A., Maas, G., and Hogland, W. 2013. Solid waste management challenges for cities in developing countries. Waste Management 33 (1): 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.09.008 .

Huang, B., Wang, X., Kua, H., et al. 2018. Construction and demolition waste management in China through the 3R principle. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 129: 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.029 .

Ferguson, J., Kermode, N., Nash, C.L., et al. 1995. Managing and minimizing construction waste. A practical guide . London: Thomas Telford. https://doi.org/10.1680/mamcwapg.20238 .

Ashford, S.A., Visvanathan, C., Husain, N., et al. 2000. Design and construction of engineered municipal solid waste landfills in Thailand. Waste Management & Research 18 (5): 462–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X0001800507 .

Marchettini, N., Ridolfi, R., and Rustici, M. 2007. An environmental analysis for comparing waste management options and strategies. Waste Management 27 (4): 562–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2006.04.007 .

Jalali, S. 2007. Quantification of construction waste amount. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/1822/9105 . Accessed 5 Sept 2021.

Won, J., and Cheng, J.C. 2017. Identifying potential opportunities of building information modeling for construction and demolition waste management and minimization. Automation in Construction 79: 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.02.002 .

Esa, M.R., Halog, A., and Rigamonti, L. 2017. Developing strategies for managing construction and demolition wastes in Malaysia based on the concept of circular economy. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 19 (3): 1144–1154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-016-0516-x .

European Commission. 2016. Construction and demolition waste management in United Kingdom. pp. 1–68. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/waste/studies/deliverables/CDW_UK_Factsheet_Final.pdf . Accessed 21 Aug 2021.

Hunt, N., and Shields, J. 2020. Waste management strategy 2020–2025. Loughborough University, UK. pp. 1–17. Available at: https://www.lboro.ac.uk/media/media/services/sustainability/downloads/Waste-Management-Strategy-2020-2025.pdf . Accessed 19 Sept 2021.

Couto, A., and Couto, J.P. 2010. Guidelines to improve construction and demolition waste management in Portugal. In Process management , 285–308. London, UK: IntechOpen.

Hao, J., Shen, L., Devapriya, K., et al. 2006. Construction and demolition waste management in Hong Kong . Hong Kong, China: SDP Research Group, Dept of Building & Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

Li, Y. 2013. Developing a sustainable construction waste estimation and management system . Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.

US-EPA. 2021. Sustainable materials management: Non-hazardous materials and waste management hierarchy. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-materials-management-non-hazardous-materials-and-waste-management-hierarchy . Accessed 2 Oct 2021.

Chung, S.-S., and Lo, C.W. 2003. Evaluating sustainability in waste management: The case of construction and demolition, chemical and clinical wastes in Hong Kong. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 37 (2): 119–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(02)00075-7 .

Covaciu, M., Soproni, V.D., Hathazi, F.I., et al. 2019. Decontamination, drying and sterilization assisted by the high frequency electromagnetic field for the processing of construction waste used on driveways. In 2019 15th International conference on engineering of modern electric systems (EMES) . IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMES.2019.8795092 .

Defra, U. 2011. Guidance on applying the waste hierarchy. London, UK. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69403/pb13530-waste-hierarchy-guidance.pdf . Accessed 2 Oct 2021.

Rodríguez, D. 2016. Ceramic and mixed construction and demolition wastes (CDW): A technically viable and environmentally friendly source of coarse aggregates for the concrete manufacture. Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Ghent University. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-7238813 . Accessed 5 Oct 2021.

Jin, R., Yuan, H., and Chen, Q. 2019. Science mapping approach to assisting the review of construction and demolition waste management research published between 2009 and 2018. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 140: 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.029 .

Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., and Hekkert, M. 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 127: 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005 .

Mahpour, A. 2018. Prioritizing barriers to adopt circular economy in construction and demolition waste management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 134: 216–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.026 .

Mignacca, B., Locatelli, G., and Velenturf, A. 2020. Modularisation as enabler of circular economy in energy infrastructure. Energy Policy 139: 111371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111371 .

Ghaffar, S.H., Burman, M., and Braimah, N. 2020. Pathways to circular construction: An integrated management of construction and demolition waste for resource recovery. Journal of Cleaner Production 244: 118710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118710 .

Bogoviku, L., and Waldmann, D. 2021. Modelling of mineral construction and demolition waste dynamics through a combination of geospatial and image analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 282: 111879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111879 .

Zhang, C., Hu, M., Di Maio, F., et al. 2022. An overview of the waste hierarchy framework for analyzing the circularity in construction and demolition waste management in Europe. Science of the Total Environment 803: 149892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149892 .

Lu, Y., Wu, Z., Chang, R., et al. 2017. Building Information Modeling (BIM) for green buildings: A critical review and future directions. Automation in Construction 83: 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.08.024 .

Lu, W., Chen, X., Peng, Y., et al. 2018. The effects of green building on construction waste minimization: Triangulating ‘big data’with ‘thick data.’ Waste Management 79: 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.07.030 .

Mcdonald, B., and Smithers, M. 1998. Implementing a waste management plan during the construction phase of a project: A case study. Construction Management & Economics 16 (1): 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/014461998372600 .

Esa, M.R., Halog, A., and Rigamonti, L. 2017. Strategies for minimizing construction and demolition wastes in Malaysia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 120: 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.12.014 .

Gupta, S., Jha, K.N., and Vyas, G. 2020. Proposing building information modeling-based theoretical framework for construction and demolition waste management: strategies and tools. International Journal of Construction Management . https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1786908 .

Ayarkwa, J., Agyekum, K., Adinyira, E., et al. 2012. Perspectives for the implementation of lean construction in the Ghanaian construction industry. Journal of Construction Project Management and Innovation 2 (2): 345–359. https://doi.org/10.10520/EJC131245 .

Desale, S.V., and Deodhar, S.V. 2014. Identification and eliminating waste in construction by using lean and six sigma principles. International Journal of innovative Research in Science, Engineering and technology 3 (4): 285–296.

Amade, B., Ononuju, C.N., Obodoh, D., et al. 2019. Barriers to lean adoption for construction projects. Pacific Journal of Science and Technology 20: 153–166.

Bajjou, M.S., Chafi, A., and Ennadi, A. 2019. Development of a conceptual framework of lean construction Principles: An input–output model. Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Systems 18 (01): 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021968671950001X .

Babalola, O., Ibem, E.O., and Ezema, I.C. 2019. Implementation of lean practices in the construction industry: A systematic review. Building and Environment 148: 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.10.051 .

Ahmed, S., and Sobuz, M.H.R. 2019. Challenges of implementing lean construction in the construction industry in Bangladesh. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment 9: 174–207. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-02-2019-0018 .

Ahmed, S., Hossain, M.M., and Haq, I. 2020. Implementation of lean construction in the construction industry in Bangladesh: Awareness, benefits and challenges. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation 39: 368–406. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-04-2019-0037 .

Hussein, M., and Zayed, T. 2021. Critical factors for successful implementation of just-in-time concept in modular integrated construction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 284: 124716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124716 .

Cheng, J.C., and Ma, L.Y. 2013. A BIM-based system for demolition and renovation waste estimation and planning. Waste Management 33 (6): 1539–1551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.01.001 .

Hamidi, B., Bulbul, T., Pearce, A., et al. 2014. Potential application of BIM in cost-benefit analysis of demolition waste management. In: Construction research congress 2014: Construction in a global network . https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413517.029 .

Liu, Z., Osmani, M., Demian, P., et al. 2015. A BIM-aided construction waste minimisation framework. Automation in Construction 59: 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.07.020 .

Akinade, O.O., Oyedele, L.O., Bilal, M., et al. 2015. Waste minimisation through deconstruction: A BIM based deconstructability assessment score (BIM-DAS). Resources, Conservation and Recycling 105: 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.018 .

Wong, J.K.W., and Zhou, J. 2015. Enhancing environmental sustainability over building life cycles through green BIM: A review. Automation in Construction 57: 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.06.003 .

Won, J., Cheng, J.C., and Lee, G. 2016. Quantification of construction waste prevented by BIM-based design validation: Case studies in South Korea. Waste Management 49: 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.026 .

Kim, Y.C., Hong, W.H., Park, J.W., et al. 2017. An estimation framework for building information modeling (BIM)-based demolition waste by type. Waste Management & Research 35 (12): 1285–1295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X17736381 .

Li, C.Z., Zhong, R.Y., Xue, F., et al. 2017. Integrating RFID and BIM technologies for mitigating risks and improving schedule performance of prefabricated house construction. Journal of Cleaner Production 165: 1048–1062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.156 .

Lu, W., Webster, C., Chen, K., et al. 2017. Computational Building Information Modelling for construction waste management: Moving from rhetoric to reality. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 68: 587–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.029 .

Xu, J., Shi, Y., Xie, Y., et al. 2019. A BIM-Based construction and demolition waste information management system for greenhouse gas quantification and reduction. Journal of Cleaner Production 229: 308–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.158 .

Ratnasabapathy, S., Perera, S., and Alashwal, A. 2019. A review of smart technology usage in construction and demolition waste management. In Proceedings of the 8th World Construction Symposium , Sandanayake, Y.G., Gunatilake, S. and Waidyasekara, eds. Colombo, Sri Lanka, 8–10 November 2019, pp. 45–55. https://doi.org/10.31705/WCS.2019.5 .

Liu, H., Sydora, C., Altaf, M.S., et al. 2019. Towards sustainable construction: BIM-enabled design and planning of roof sheathing installation for prefabricated buildings. Journal of Cleaner Production 235: 1189–1201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.055 .

Farooq, U., Rehman, S.K.U., Javed, M.F., et al. 2020. Investigating BIM implementation barriers and issues in Pakistan using ISM approach. Applied Sciences 10 (20): 7250. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10207250 .

Li, C.Z., Zhao, Y., Xiao, B., et al. 2020. Research trend of the application of information technologies in construction and demolition waste management. Journal of Cleaner Production 263: 121458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121458 .

Lu, W., Huang, G.Q., and Li, H. 2011. Scenarios for applying RFID technology in construction project management. Automation in Construction 20 (2): 101–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.09.007 .

Cheng, J.C., and Ma, L.Y. 2011. RFID supported cooperation for construction waste management. In International conference on cooperative design, visualization and engineering . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23734-8_20 .

You, Z., Wu, C., Zheng, L., et al. 2020. An informatization scheme for construction and demolition waste supervision and management in China. Sustainability 12 (4): 1672. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041672 .

Li, H., Chen, Z., Yong, L., et al. 2005. Application of integrated GPS and GIS technology for reducing construction waste and improving construction efficiency. Automation in Construction 14 (3): 323–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2004.08.007 .

Gorsevski, P.V., Donevska, K.R., Mitrovski, C.D., et al. 2012. Integrating multi-criteria evaluation techniques with geographic information systems for landfill site selection: A case study using ordered weighted average. Waste Management 32 (2): 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.09.023 .

Ding, Z., Zhu, M., Wu, Z., et al. 2018. Combining AHP-entropy approach with GIS for construction waste landfill selection—A case study of Shenzhen. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15 (10): 2254. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102254 .

Seror, N., and Portnov, B.A. 2018. Identifying areas under potential risk of illegal construction and demolition waste dumping using GIS tools. Waste Management 75: 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.01.027 .

Biluca, J., de Aguiar, C.R., and Trojan, F. 2020. Sorting of suitable areas for disposal of construction and demolition waste using GIS and ELECTRE TRI. Waste Management 114: 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.07.007 .

Lu, W., Chen, X., Peng, Y., et al. 2015. Benchmarking construction waste management performance using big data. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 105: 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.013 .

Lu, W., Chen, X., Ho, D.C., et al. 2016. Analysis of the construction waste management performance in Hong Kong: The public and private sectors compared using big data. Journal of Cleaner Production 112: 521–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.106 .

Bilal, M., Oyedele, L.O., Akinade, O.O., et al. 2016. Big data architecture for construction waste analytics (CWA): A conceptual framework. Journal of Building Engineering 6: 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.03.002 .

Chen, X., Lu, W., Xue, F., et al. 2018. A cost-benefit analysis of green buildings with respect to construction waste minimization using big data in Hong Kong. Journal of Green Building 13 (4): 61–76. https://doi.org/10.3992/1943-4618.13.4.61 .

Lu, W. 2019. Big data analytics to identify illegal construction waste dumping: A Hong Kong study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 141: 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.039 .

Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., et al. 2016. Where is current research on blockchain technology?—A systematic review. PLoS ONE 11 (10): e0163477. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163477 .

Wang, J., Wu, P., Wang, X., et al. 2017. The outlook of blockchain technology for construction engineering management. Frontiers of Engineering Management 4: 67–75. https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FEM-2017006 .

Turk, Ž, and Klinc, R. 2017. Potentials of blockchain technology for construction management. Procedia Engineering 196: 638–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.08.052 .

Yu, B., Wang, J., Li, J., et al. 2019. Prediction of large-scale demolition waste generation during urban renewal: A hybrid trilogy method. Waste Management 89: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.03.063 .

Di Maria, F., Bianconi, F., Micale, C., et al. 2016. Quality assessment for recycling aggregates from construction and demolition waste: An image-based approach for particle size estimation. Waste Management 48: 344–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.005 .

Wang, H., Zhang, J., and Lin, H. 2019. Satellite-based analysis of landfill landslide: the case of the 2015 Shenzhen landslide. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering . https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2019.1610605 .

Li, H., Chen, Z., and Wong, C.T. 2003. Barcode technology for an incentive reward program to reduce construction wastes. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 18 (4): 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8667.00320 .

Khoshand, A., Khanlari, K., Abbasianjahromi, H., et al. 2020. Construction and demolition waste management: Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach. Waste Management & Research 38 (7): 773–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X20910468 .

Zoghi, M., Rostami, G., Khoshand, A., et al. 2021. Material selection in design for deconstruction using Kano model, fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS methodology. Waste Management & Research 40: 410–419 .   https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X211013904 .

Chen, Z., Li, H., and Wong, C.T. 2005. EnvironalPlanning: Analytic network process model for environmentally conscious construction planning. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 131 (1): 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:1(92) .

Zhang, F., Ju, Y., Gonzalez, E.D.S., et al. 2021. Evaluation of construction and demolition waste utilization schemes under uncertain environment: A fuzzy heterogeneous multi-criteria decision-making approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 313: 127907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127907 .

Coronado, M., Dosal, E., Coz, A., et al. 2011. Estimation of construction and demolition waste (C&DW) generation and multicriteria analysis of C&DW management alternatives: A case study in Spain. Waste and Biomass Valorization 2 (2): 209–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-011-9064-8 .

Dosal, E., Coronado, M., Muñoz, I., et al. 2012. Application of multi-criteria decision-making tool to locate construction and demolition waste (C&DW) recycling facilities in a northern spanish region. Environmental Engineering & Management Journal (EEMJ) 11 (3): 545–556.

Dosal, E., Viguri, J., and Andrés, A. 2013. Multi-criteria decision-making methods for the optimal location of construction and demolition waste (C&DW) recycling facilities. In Handbook of recycled concrete and demolition waste , 76–107. Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857096906.1.76 .

Roussat, N., Dujet, C., and Méhu, J. 2009. Choosing a sustainable demolition waste management strategy using multicriteria decision analysis. Waste Management 29 (1): 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.04.010 .

Banias, G., Achillas, C., Vlachokostas, C., et al. 2010. Assessing multiple criteria for the optimal location of a construction and demolition waste management facility. Building and Environment 45 (10): 2317–2326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.04.016 .

Kourmpanis, B., Papadopoulos, A., Moustakas, K., et al. 2008. An integrated approach for the management of demolition waste in Cyprus. Waste Management & Research 26 (6): 573–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X08091554 .

Marzouk, M., and Abd El-Razek, M. 2017. Selecting demolition waste materials disposal alternatives using fuzzy TOPSIS technique. International Journal of Natural Computing Research (IJNCR) 6 (2): 38–57. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJNCR.2017070103 .

Eghbali-Zarch, M., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Dehghan-Sanej, K., et al. 2021. Prioritizing the effective strategies for construction and demolition waste management using fuzzy IDOCRIW and WASPAS methods. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 29: 1109–1138. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-08-2020-0617 .

Negash, Y.T., Hassan, A.M., Tseng, M.L., et al. 2021. Sustainable construction and demolition waste management in Somaliland: Regulatory barriers lead to technical and environmental barriers. Journal of Cleaner Production 297: 126717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126717 .

Poon, C.S., Yu, A.T.W., Wong, S.W., et al. 2004. Management of construction waste in public housing projects in Hong Kong. Construction Management & Economics 22 (7): 675–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144619042000213292 .

Tam, C.M., Tam, V.W., Chan, J.K., et al. 2005. Use of prefabrication to minimize construction waste—A case study approach. International Journal of Construction Management 5 (1): 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2005.10773069 .

Tam, V.W., Tam, C.M., Chan, J.K., et al. 2006. Cutting construction wastes by prefabrication. International Journal of Construction Management 6 (1): 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2006.10773079 .

Tam, V.W., Tam, C.M., Zeng, S.X., et al. 2007. Towards adoption of prefabrication in construction. Building and Environment 42 (10): 3642–3654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.10.003 .

Jaillon, L., Poon, C.-S., and Chiang, Y.H. 2009. Quantifying the waste reduction potential of using prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong. Waste Management 29 (1): 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.02.015 .

Construction, M.H. 2011. Prefabrication and modularization: Increasing productivity in the construction industry. Smart Market Report. https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/el/economics/Prefabrication-Modularization-in-theConstruction-Industry-SMR-2011R.pdf . Accessed 6 Oct 2022.

Gálvez-Martos, J.L., Styles, D., Schoenberger, H., et al. 2018. Construction and demolition waste best management practice in Europe. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 136: 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.04.016 .

Ajayi, S.O., Oyedele, L.O., Bilal, M., et al. 2015. Waste effectiveness of the construction industry: Understanding the impediments and requisites for improvements. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 102: 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.06.001 .

Hardie, M., Khan, S., O'Donnell, A., et al. 2007. The efficacy of waste management plans in Australian commercial construction refurbishment projects. Construction Economics and Building 7 (2): 26–36. https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v7i2.2988 .

Gulghane, A., and Khandve, P. 2015. Management for construction materials and control of construction waste in construction industry: A review. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications 5 (4): 59–64.

Bandeira, S.R., Maciel, J.B.S., de Oliveira, J.C.S., et al. 2019. Construction and demolition waste management practices at construction sites. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS) 6 (10): 35–45.

Figueira, J.R., Mousseau, V., and Roy, B. 2016. ELECTRE methods. In Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys , 155–185. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3094-4_5 .

Klang, A., Vikman, P.-Å., and Brattebø, H. 2003. Sustainable management of demolition waste—An integrated model for the evaluation of environmental, economic and social aspects. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (4): 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(02)00167-2 .

Yuan, H. 2013. Key indicators for assessing the effectiveness of waste management in construction projects. Ecological Indicators 24: 476–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.07.022 .

Calvo, N., Varela-Candamio, L., and Novo-Corti, I. 2014. A dynamic model for construction and demolition (C&D) waste management in Spain: Driving policies based on economic incentives and tax penalties. Sustainability 6 (1): 416–435. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6010416 .

Zheng, L., Wu, H., Zhang, H., et al. 2017. Characterizing the generation and flows of construction and demolition waste in China. Construction and Building Materials 136: 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.01.055 .

Qiao, L., Liu, D., Yuan, X., et al. 2020. Generation and prediction of construction and demolition waste using exponential smoothing method: A case study of Shandong Province, China. Sustainability 12 (12): 5094. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125094 .

Ding, Z., Gong, W., Li, S., et al. 2018. System dynamics versus agent-based modeling: A review of complexity simulation in construction waste management. Sustainability 10 (7): 2484. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072484 .

Ali, T.H., Akhund, M.A., Memon, N.A., et al. 2019. Application of artifical intelligence in construction waste management. In 2019 8th International Conference on Industrial Technology and Management (ICITM) . Cambridge, UK: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITM.2019.8710680 .

Wu, Z., Yu, A.T., and Poon, C.S. 2020. Promoting effective construction and demolition waste management towards sustainable development: A case study of Hong Kong. Sustainable Development 28 (6): 1713–1724. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2119 .

Kim, S.Y., Nguyen, M.V., and Luu, V.T. 2020. A performance evaluation framework for construction and demolition waste management: Stakeholder perspectives. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management . https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-12-2019-0683 .

Kabirifar, K., Mojtahedi, M., Wang, C.C., et al. 2020. A conceptual foundation for effective construction and demolition waste management. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 1: 100019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2020.100019 .

Kabirifar, K., Mojtahedi, M., Wang, C.C., et al. 2021. Effective construction and demolition waste management assessment through waste management hierarchy; a case of Australian large construction companies. Journal of Cleaner Production. 312: 127790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127790 .

Stenis, J. 2005. Construction waste management based on industrial management models: A Swedish case study. Waste Management & Research 23 (1): 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X05050184 .

Yuan, H. 2012. A model for evaluating the social performance of construction waste management. Waste Management 32 (6): 1218–1228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.01.028 .

Yazdanbakhsh, A. 2018. A bi-level environmental impact assessment framework for comparing construction and demolition waste management strategies. Waste Management 77: 401–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.024 .

Turkyilmaz, A., Guney, M., Karaca, F., et al. 2019. A comprehensive construction and demolition waste management model using PESTEL and 3R for construction companies operating in Central Asia. Sustainability 11 (6): 1593. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061593 .

Karunasena, G., and Amaratunga, D. 2016. Capacity building for post disaster construction and demolition waste management: A case of Sri Lanka. Disaster Prevention and Management . https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-09-2014-0172 .

Shi, M., Cao, Q., Ran, B., et al. 2021. A conceptual framework integrating “building back better” and post-earthquake needs for recovery and reconstruction. Sustainability 13 (10): 5608. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105608 .

Charles, S.H., Chang-Richards, A., and Yiu, T.W. 2022. Providing a framework for post-disaster resilience factors in buildings and infrastructure from end-users’ perspectives: Case study in Caribbean island states. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment . https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-02-2021-0020 .

Mendis, N., Siriwardhana, S., and Kulatunga, U. 2022. Implementation of build back better concept for post-disaster reconstruction in Sri Lanka. In A system engineering approach to disaster resilience: Select proceedings of VCDRR 2021 . Singapore: Springer. 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7397-9_3 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Committee for Advanced Studies and Research (CASR) of Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET) is acknowledged for allowing us to conduct of a thesis on “Development and Evaluation of Construction and Demolition Waste Management Framework in the Context of Dhaka City”.

This study did not receive financial support or funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Appropriate Technology (IAT), Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), Dhaka, Bangladesh

Dewan Sabbir Ahammed Rayhan & Iftekhar Uddin Bhuiyan

Department of Industrial and Production Engineering (IPE), National Institute of Textile Engineering and Research (NITER), Nayarhat, Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Dewan Sabbir Ahammed Rayhan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors contributed equally to generating the idea for this review article. Literature search, data analysis, and drafting were performed by DSAR. Reviewing, editing, and revising were performed by IUB.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dewan Sabbir Ahammed Rayhan .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Rayhan, D.S.A., Bhuiyan, I.U. Review of construction and demolition waste management tools and frameworks with the classification, causes, and impacts of the waste. Waste Dispos. Sustain. Energy (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42768-023-00166-y

Download citation

Received : 27 June 2023

Revised : 14 August 2023

Accepted : 23 August 2023

Published : 14 November 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42768-023-00166-y

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Construction and demolition waste
  • Construction and demolition waste management
  • Frameworks and tools
  • 3R principles (Reduce, Reuse, & Recycle)
  • Waste management hierarchy
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

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

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

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • Materials (Basel)

Logo of materials

Circular Economy of Construction and Demolition Waste: A Literature Review on Lessons, Challenges, and Benefits

Associated data.

Not applicable.

Conventionally, in a linear economy, C&D (Construction and Demolition) waste was considered as zero value materials, and, as a result of that, most C&D waste materials ended up in landfills. In recent years, with the increase in the awareness around sustainability and resource management, various countries have started to explore new models to minimize the use of limited resources which are currently overused, mismanaged, or quickly depleting. In this regard, the implementation of CE (Circular Economy) has emerged as a potential model to minimize the negative impact of C&D wastes on the environment. However, there are some challenges hindering a full transition to CE in the construction and demolition sectors. Therefore, this review paper aims to critically scrutinize different aspects of C&D waste and how CE can be integrated into construction projects. Reviewing of the literature revealed that the barriers in the implementation of CE in C&D waste sectors fall in five main domains, namely legal, technical, social, behavioral, and economic aspects. In this context, it was found that policy and governance, permits and specifications, technological limitation, quality and performance, knowledge and information, and, finally, the costs associated with the implementation of CE model at the early stage are the main barriers. In addition to these, from the contractors’ perspective, C&D waste dismantling, segregation, and on-site sorting, transportation, and local recovery processes are the main challenges at the start point for small-scale companies. To address the abovementioned challenges, and also to minimize the ambiguity of resulting outcomes by implementing CE in C&D waste sectors, there is an urgent need to introduce a global framework and a practicable pathway to allow companies to implement such models, regardless of their scale and location. Additionally, in this paper, recommendations on the direction for areas of future studies for a reduction in the environmental impacts have been provided. To structure an effective model approach, the future direction should be more focused on dismantling practices, hazardous material handling, quality control on waste acceptance, and material recovery processes, as well as a incentivization mechanism to promote ecological, economic, and social benefits of the CE for C&D sectors.

1. Introduction

Over recent decades, urbanization of the world has exponentially increased coinciding with the human population growth; therefore, the use of more material resources has been amplified. In particular, the construction industry is responsible for utilizing a large portion of natural resources (32%) [ 1 ]. Although this value is less than the amount of natural resources used in the 1990s (~40%) [ 2 ], it is estimated that more than 75% of waste generated by the construction industry has a residual value and is not currently reused nor recycled. This is due to the lack of integrated waste management framework [ 1 ]. Although different definitions have been proposed for Construction and Demolition wastes (C&D wastes), such waste is essentially anything that is produced during the construction, renovation or demolition process that is no longer viable for use. In most circumstances, such waste is discarded to landfill. According to this definition, C&D waste resulting from the construction sector accounts for 30% of total waste produced globally [ 3 ], with an estimated average of more than 35% of all C&D waste disposed in landfills annually [ 4 ]. Considering the utilization of natural resources, the consumption of considerable amounts of energy and the generation of large quantities of waste through the life cycle of buildings, the construction industry has a significant environmental impact. This is primarily due to the deployment of the linear economy framework which relies on the notion of take, make, and dispose ( Figure 1 a). In this approach, the raw materials are extracted from natural resources using energy-intensive technology and then processed into fabricating construction materials. Since the majority of construction elements are made in ways that cannot be de-constructed at the end of their lifetime, they are mostly discarded into a landfill or incinerated [ 5 ].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-00076-g001.jpg

Recycling economy: ( a ) linear economy versus ( b ) circular economy.

At present, C&D waste management poses a significant global challenge due to its negative consequences, including environmental degradation and public health [ 6 ]. Such a situation, with contribution to pollution, climate change, and resource depletion, requires an efficient framework to limit said consequences [ 1 , 7 ]. Conventionally, the C&D waste is composed of numerous rejected debris, such as concretes, woods, bricks, glass, steel, etc. [ 8 ]. Due to the high volume of C&D wastes that is produced every year, it is becoming vital that construction waste be managed in a sustainable manner. Conventional strategies, such as linear economy, have been identified as inefficient ways to mitigate such negative environmental consequences. In this regard, the term Circular Economy (CE) has evolved as a novel solution to reduce the detrimental effects on the environment and increase economic growth within the construction sector for the practice of sustainable development. Figure 1 illustrates the difference between a linear economy and the circular economy. The CE is comprised of a novel reformative framework that aids in optimizing the consumption of raw materials and ensures the value of materials throughout their lifecycle [ 9 ]. In addition to this, CE prevents generation of excess waste, hence preserving natural resources [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]. Essentially, the CE strategy demonstrates that everything that is made can be recycled, reprocessed, or reused. Hossain et al. [ 10 ] concluded the main implications of adopting CE for C&D waste as (1) improving the use of sustainable materials which is achievable by integrating the collaborative benefits among all parties involved in the construction project, (2) promoting material efficiency by recycling/reusing the construction wastes, and (3) avoiding the production of unnecessary wastes and consequently disseizing them to landfill. Generally, within the construction industry, the CE aims to add value to the materials that are conventionally discarded into landfill and make them usable for the construction firm or other developments.

To effectively implement CE in a construction firm, various dimensions, such as societal, governmental, economic, behavioral, technological, and environmental aspects, need to be fully elucidated. For example, Ghisellini et al. [ 14 ] investigated the costs and benefits of the CE approach specific to the construction and demolition sector. In another study, Lederer et al. [ 15 ] employed a material flow analysis to determine how a CE can contribute to the reduction of raw mineral material imports for the construction sector in Vienna city. They found that, by reusing/recycling the construction mineral, the need to import said materials could be reduced by 32%. Although attempts to recycle and/or recover the C&D waste have been made in many cases, there is still limited investigation on practicality of incorporating CE in the modern built environment at a large-scale. Unlike small- and medium-scale construction projects, there are more challenges associated with adapting CE to large-scale applications. Considering that, it is not technically possible to eliminate C&D wastes, the integration of innovative applications, such as BIM (Building Information Modeling), with CE could potentially address the challenges in large-scale built environments. In this regard, a few strategies have been identified which can facilitate the transition toward CE in construction sector. These approaches are (1) utilizing sustainable and durable materials, (2) incorporating design for disassembly, (3) using modular and prefabricated elements, and, finally, (4) development of recovery schemes [ 10 , 16 ]. However, minimal research has been conducted to address the aforementioned approaches up to date.

This review paper will provide an overview on how C&D waste can be reused by implementing a CE strategy from a different perspective. Unlike the linear economy, there are more steps to recover or reuse materials; hence, there are more challenges to overcome. In this study, the challenges, and barriers to implement CE for C&D waste will be discussed based on a new angle of considering the five various construction phases that has mentioned above, along with minimizing environmental impacts and mitigating carbon emissions potential. Proceeding this, the potential use of various materials that have been proven to be effective in construction materials (particularly concrete) will be elaborated. This study helps to further advance the knowledge surrounding construction CE and will also provide a theoretical framework to better promote the use of recycled materials in construction or for other applications.

2. Materials and Methods

The strategy used in this study comprised two main stages. In the first stage, a systematic review has been conducted to identify and synthesize research evidence in order to make a generic source of information. This strategy ensures that all relevant, research-based evidence has been collected. For the systematic review of literature, relevant literature was fetched from the largest scientific database, known as Science Direct. To maintain relevancy, the keywords included “construction and demolition”, “waste”, “construction”, “circular economy”, “framework”, “climate change”, “carbon emissions”, etc. The Boolean operators (AND) and (OR) were used separately and in combination for retrieval of relevant publications. Examples of search inputs include: “circular economy” OR “construction and demolition waste” AND “framework”, “construction and demolition” AND “waste”, and “construction waste” OR “demolition waste”, AND “framework”, OR “strategies” OR “management”, etc. The period of search was limited to 2005–2021, with the majority of the publications obtained for this review being from the last five years. This was to ensure that relevancy, novelty, and innovative retrieval of novel ideas and research concepts was maintained. The advantage of this paper to the previously published papers is that the state-of-the-art research in this area is discussed from a new angle of considering the importance of environmental impacts based on C&D waste.

Most retrieved publications were in the English language, as English is a global lingua franca and is widely adopted for communications. Similarly, most of the publications used in this research were peer-reviewed articles published or in press for publication in reputed and well-indexed journals. It should be noted that some of the references also emerged from citations present in the literature. In the second stage, a comparison was made to identify the challenges in implementing construction CE to structure a framework for early adaptation of this effective approach.

3. Background Information

Waste is an inevitable consequence in the production and use of anything, whether it is a by-product in the manufacturing of a material or waste from the demolition of infrastructure. As a society, there is acceptance that waste will always exist; however, due to various factors, such as pollution, resource depletion, reduced landfill space, and climate change, researchers have begun to investigate societies involvement in waste minimization, hence limiting these negative consequences [ 17 , 18 ].

Seadon [ 19 ] explains that the ‘mine-build-discard’ viewpoint of society is far from sustainable. The article states that it is historically proven that societies that are not sustainable will eventually fail. Successful societies are ones that understand the importance of their finite resources, use these resources sustainably, and comprehend the complexity of the surrounding ecosystems. Meadows et al. [ 20 ] further added that a sustainable society is one that:

  • has the ability to develop,
  • is advanced both technically and culturally,
  • all factors are dynamic especially population and production,
  • finite resources are used reasonably and efficiently, and
  • is diverse, democratic, and challenging.

The amount of wastes that are generated annually on a global level are at an alarming rate. According to the recent statistics, the generation of municipal solid waste worldwide were recorded to be 2.02 billion metric tons in the year 2016 and is projected to increase to 3.4 billion metric tons by 2050 [ 21 ]. From the data in Figure 2 a, there is a clear correlation demonstrating that the highest contributors are generally from key countries with high economical contribution into the global market. However, when considering waste-generation worldwide by region, East Asia and the Pacific has the highest, at 23%, with the Middle East and North Africa being the lowest, at 6%, as depicted in Figure 2 b [ 21 ]. The same statistics revealed the waste breakdown by material type with “food and green” being represented the highest, at 44%, while “wood” and “rubber and leather” materials being least represented, at 2%, as shown in Figure 2 c [ 21 ].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-00076-g002.jpg

( a ) Average per capita municipal solid waste generation by region in 2016, ( b ) share of waste generated by region in 2016, and ( c ) global municipal solid waste generation share of materials in 2016 (graphs generated using data from Reference [ 21 ]).

The projected trend will continue to worsen if the current regime remains; therefore, an increase of 70% of annual global waste production is expected. Addressing this problem requires collective efforts from all members of the international community to ensure the prosperity of our future generation.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the New Zealand construction industry was predicted to undergo a growth of 70% by 2029 [ 22 ]. This has altered such that it is now predicted to potentially be the largest ‘construction boom’ ever as the government is proposing to increase the amount of horizontal infrastructure projects to ensure job stability for New Zealanders [ 23 ]. As such, it can be predicted that waste from construction and demolition (C&D), which contributes to approximately 50% of New Zealand landfill waste, will also increase, potentially putting stress on New Zealand’s waste management infrastructure structure. Recycling of waste materials is one method which can be incorporated into New Zealand’s construction industry to reduce the effects that construction and other industries can have on the environment. One such material that has been proven, through research, to benefit from the implementation of waste is concrete. Tavakoli et al. [ 24 ] stated that concrete is, perhaps, the most important construction material used today. Furthermore, he states that, due to the various effects concrete can have on the environment, using waste materials in concrete has the potential to significantly reduce these negative effects.

3.2. Sustainability and Circular Economy: Concept and Principles

Sustainability has become a prominent word and/or matter of concern [ 25 ] as the world is advancing towards development of urban infrastructure. Consequently, there is a surge in pollution and ill effects on the environment [ 26 ]. In any construction project, sustainability is of extreme importance as it brings economic and environmental benefits to the project. As such, a common definition of sustainable development is the assurance that a project accomplishes the needs of today’s generation without compromising the needs of future generations [ 25 ]. The principles of sustainability include three entities as its pillars viz. planet, people, and profit. Regarding the planet, the ecology and/or environmental conditions are of extreme importance, while, for people, the development should meet their needs to provide maximum profit within stipulated resources. The principles of sustainable development quest for development to be viable, bearable, and equitable on social, ecological, and economic grounds.

The idea of CE also emerged from the need to create awareness regarding environmental degradation resulting from consumption and wastage of raw construction materials. The CE is being considered as a novel solution for the depletion of natural raw materials. Initially, the CE concept emerged out of the 3R’s (Reduce-Reuse-Recycle) principle. This proceeded to become the 4R framework, focusing on reduce-reuse-recycle-recover operations of raw materials [ 25 ]. Contrary to the linear economy, in the CE, the raw materials are not disposed of; rather, they are repaired, recycled, and refurbished to be utilized in other processes ( Figure 3 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-00076-g003.jpg

Illustration of material flowchart in the circular economy [ 25 ].

Hence, the principles of a CE include refusing the acquisition of excess raw materials, reforming the design criteria and reducing, reusing, and recycling the waste. Such practices can be deemed efficient in recycling and reducing waste and prevent the current environmental degradation around the globe.

3.2.1. The Hierarchy of Waste Management

Tran [ 27 ] argues that waste should not be a residual product but, rather, thought of as a resource that can be continuously reused in an integrated, closed-loop system. BRANZ (Building Research Association New Zealand) states that waste is a good resource and is currently occupying valuable landfill space. Additionally, waste contributes to air and water pollution; therefore, it must be minimized as much as possible [ 28 ]. One underlying principle of a CE is the waste hierarchy shown in Figure 4 ; this is a concept which places the various methods of waste minimization by levels of importance, i.e., the most effective and practical at reducing waste is prioritized.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-00076-g004.jpg

The global waste management hierarchy [ 29 ].

This globally-used hierarchy begins with the most desirable waste minimization technique; to reduce waste at the source. This simply entails the reduction of excess waste, whether its material packaging or more efficient uses for materials on building sites. The responsibility of the problem falls on companies who create these products or designs buildings or other infrastructure. The second option in the hierarchy is to reuse products/materials once they reach the end of their lifespan. Again, this involves various inputs from different organizations and business, whether its designing for deconstruction on a building site or manufacturing materials which have a long lifespan. The next option is to recycle or compost the materials. Recycling involves finding use for materials which cannot be reused, generally achieved by altering the form of materials to make them desirable for use in other applications or materials. Composting is just recycling that occurs in organic matter, where the materials breakdown and become nutrient rich soil which has many applications. The fourth option is to recover which involves the processing of the waste, in some manner, to produce a valuable outcome. This can include combusting municipal solid waste for energy or recovering precious metals from electronics. The final option, disposal, is the least attractive option on the hierarchy. This is where waste that has no current value is disposed of in a safe manner [ 30 ].

3.2.2. Waste Minimization Strategies

The conventional waste management strategies employ the 3R concept of waste management, that is to Reduce, Recycle, and Reuse the construction waste. This involves avoiding the production of waste, reusing the created waste, and recycling of the created waste. Specifically, avoiding of waste, often referred to as waste minimization, entails measures be used for avoiding the generation of waste at the construction site. Alternatively, reusing and recycling are associated with efficient and sustainable utilization of wastes in a viable manner to implement sustainability in construction projects. With these approaches, the volume of waste to be disposed of in landfills is significantly reduced, not only reducing the problems associated with the ecology of the planet but also assisting in conserving the economy due to reduced consumption of physical and non-physical resources required for waste dumping. The construction- and ecology-related professionals recommend that at site reduction and/or avoiding of waste should be prioritized as it is more conceptual and basic to avoid or reduce the waste generation than to formulate widespread frameworks for treatment of wastes. Although, reusing and recycling strategies ensure the waste raw materials are to be used in a beneficial manner, the strategies do not reduce and/or avoid the waste creation at the source. Nevertheless, these approaches aid in reducing the amount of waste to be disposed of or to be treated. It is apparent that recycling or reusing the waste alone cannot be a fully viable option; however, the construction practitioners should take measures to integrate the minimizing and recycling of waste at site to cater the issue of wastes.

While formulating the waste management strategies in any construction projects, the professionals predict potential causes of waste generation from which the site conditions, efficient waste handling methods, and waste management plan should be opted [ 31 ]. While designing waste management strategies, the site culture and climate should be taken into the consideration. The strict waste audit and determination of waste index can also be helpful in cutting the waste. Moreover, site security should be carefully implemented, and site inspections should be conducted for check and balance of construction waste generation [ 32 ]. An adequate set of planning documents and drawings can also aid in cutting the waste as it eliminates the chance of variation orders [ 33 ]. Moreover, the implementation of lean construction strategies and modular prefabricated construction units can also minimize the waste generation [ 34 ]. Additionally, management should conduct seminars and meetings to educate the workforce on the importance of waste reduction at site. With a combination of efficient supply chain and improved ordering and storage of materials, the generated waste can be reduced. In the 21st century, a new technology, Building Information Modelling (BIM), has evolved which not only reduces the non-physical wastes (time and cost) but also reduces the physical waste. BIM enables the stakeholders to visualize the number of dimensions of construction project, prior to their commencements, hence avoiding clashes and change orders. Through this technology, the waste generated on site can be reduced by a significant amount [ 35 , 36 ].

4. Construction Waste

Construction waste can be classified on various basis, either on the basis of its source or on its nature. When classified on the basis of its nature, the authors have categorized the waste as physical waste (residual debris) and non-physical waste (time overruns and cost overruns). Figure 5 examines the different sources of construction waste. All construction waste can be divided into two categories, either man-made sources or natural sources, as shown in Figure 5 . Upon further examination, the man-made sources can be broken down into the following categories: design, procurement, handling of materials, operation, residual, and other sources [ 37 ].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-00076-g005.jpg

Construction waste types.

Materials falling under C&D waste are valued items and could be recycled for concrete construction. The major share is in concrete which could be recycled as coarse or fine aggregate [ 38 ]. Waste decomposition in New Zealand include wood (38%), plastics (19%), concrete (25%), iron and other metals (6%), organic waste (2%), glass and hazardous materials (2%), and miscellaneous (5%) [ 39 ].

Figure 6 depicts the count of construction waste resulting from construction sector of various European countries, as well as New Zealand, in tons per capita. Evidently, the construction sectors in Denmark, France, Ireland, and Germany are primary contributes of construction waste. Contrarily, Poland, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Greece, Slovakia, Hungary, and New Zealand had the lowest contribution to construction waste generation [ 40 ].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-00076-g006.jpg

Generation of construction waste (tons/capita) in various countries.

C&D waste contributes approximately 50% of New Zealand’s annual waste to landfill; therefore, the construction industry must be significantly involved in the associated waste reduction methods [ 39 ]. Whilst the hierarchy of waste minimization places recycling third after reducing and reusing, a 2019 study by the Auckland City Council on the diversion of demolition waste found that recycling would still hold great benefits [ 41 ]. The study concentrated on the cost-benefit-analysis of diverting demolition waste from landfill for a new housing project. The study considered two options: option A, where the deconstruction process is completed to a modest level, with a greater focus on partial recovery and recycling of waste materials; and option B, which involves an intensive deconstruction approach with a stronger focus on the two top levels of the hierarchy. Comparison between the two options and the original state or status quo found that, while the developers would just break even, the net benefits to society for both options were significant (A: NPV = $6.97 m, B: NPV = $14.46 m). These benefits include creating jobs for the deconstruction efforts, social benefit from training on the job, economic benefit of construction materials that were reused, reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG’s), unwanted noise traffic and pollutants could be reduced, and skills and experience were gained by workers. While the reduction and reusing intensive option was more beneficial to society, recycling was also found to be beneficial. As recycling is the only option for many materials, it is an important waste minimization method that needs to be investigated further.

5. Circular Economy for C&D Waste Management: Feasibility of Waste Minimization

The intrinsic essence of CE lies in reduced disposal of waste into landfills through the utilization of the rejected items in any other viable manner. The CE of construction waste is a 4R solution focusing on Reduce-Reuse-Recycle-Recover operations of raw materials [ 25 ]. With greater application of reuse, recycle, and recover operations, the procurement of raw materials becomes slow and/or stagnant, which not only brings economic benefits but also reduces the amount of GHG emissions resulting from procurement and supply chain activities. Moreover, reduced operation of waste is beneficial as it not only reduces the waste but also prevents the consequent negative effects of waste generation on our living environment.

There have been various studies which analyze the economic feasibility of reducing waste. A large portion of such work considers the reduction of C&D waste, as it is the largest contributor to landfills, globally [ 42 ]. A cost-benefit-analysis undertaken in Malaysia in 2006 found minimizing C&D waste to be economically feasible with a net profit of 2.5% [ 43 ]. This study analyzed the cost and benefits of a construction site in Malaysia minimizing its waste. The study found that there were multiple direct benefits, including purchase cost savings from reusing and recycling materials and selling of scrap metals, waste collection and transport cost savings, and cost savings from landfill charge. Additionally, there were intangible benefits, and these include saving of landfill space, reduced liability for environmental problems or workplace safety, reduced chance of soil and groundwater contamination, and improved public image and environmental concern. The costs that came along with this include direct costs for collection and separation, purchasing of equipment, storage, and transportation. There were also some intangible costs, including risk to workers health and cost of negative externality, i.e., noise and bad smell. These findings are consistent with Auckland City Council’s study which highlights that reducing waste is economically feasible and has a lot of additional benefits which cannot be quantified. One of the key theories mentioned in both pieces of literature was how the increase in wastage levies could incentivize construction companies to incorporate better waste minimization practices.

A group of independent researchers completed cost-benefit-analysis which aimed to test the theory mentioned throughout waste minimization literature [ 39 ]. The research was undertaken by creating a complex model of a waste chain which could accurately represent the complexity of waste within society. A visual representation of the variables and their interaction is displayed in Figure 7 . This conceptual model emphasizes the complexity of waste reduction and provides reasoning for complications global waste reduction that was previously encountered. The model was tested under four charging schemes, and it was found that a high waste levy would result in higher net benefits for construction companies and society; however, this increase in waste levies provided an incentive for the general public to illegally dump their waste. It was concluded that introducing harsher penalties would be an appropriate measure to combat this problem. Under the four charging schemes, it was found that the cost associated with the first few months after implementing the waste minimization process outweighed the benefits; however, at the 11th month, the benefits began to outweigh the costs. It was also found that the high charging schemes incentivized the contractors to begin waste management earlier, therefore making it more effective. It was found that the lower charging schemes were affected when regulation strengthened, with the net benefits dramatically increasing. It was concluded that waste levies must be higher than 76 yuan/ton ($15.50/ton NZD) to have a worthwhile affect. Not only has waste minimization for the contractor been proven to be economically viable, this result has been proven to occur for recycling companies.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-00076-g007.jpg

Visual representation of the model created to determine if increased waste levies would increase waste minimization [ 44 ].

One study investigated the economic viability of using recycled concrete as an aggregate [ 45 ]. The cost-benefit analysis was done with both types of practices: current and concrete recycle method for the dumping of waste. The results suggested that, instead of dumping construction waste, particularly concrete, in landfills, the utilization of concrete waste as aggregates can benefit the construction industry [ 45 ]. The study found that there was a positive net benefit of $30,916,000 a year, as well as a reduction in resource depletion and energy usage. As such, ecological and economical sustainability can be induced in construction projects. One limitation found was the availability of recycled concrete. It was stated that inconsistent quantities of concrete occurred throughout the study as it is a seasonal waste product, which results in reduced profitability. Additionally, the appropriate materials for recycling are variable as sizes alter, and the location for ‘urban deposits’ is forever changing. Therefore, it is more difficult to recycle concrete compared to the status quo as it is difficult to maintain a predictable revenue stream. This unpredictability is due to uncertainty regarding quantities of material and price fluctuation.

As mentioned earlier, the problem of waste reduction is complex involving many contributing factors. A study completed by Van Tran, in 2017, involved interviewing seven experienced professionals in the construction industry. These interviews were undertaken to gather an understanding on the contributing factors to the poor waste minimization within the industry. Interviewees explained the lack of incentive for construction companies to create better waste minimization programs, stressing that the current waste levy of $10 per ton (2017) was insufficient. The current levy fails to affect a company’s financial bottom line; therefore, it does not encourage them to make changes. It was also agreed upon that the levy fee would need to be increased to $150 per ton, to see drastic action [ 27 ]. Such insight is also apparent in the model created by Yuan et al. [ 44 ], where a significant increase in waste levies is needed to see a significant increase in change by contractors. This correlation is widely considered to be an effective approach to reducing waste [ 46 , 47 ]. The interviewees also expressed that an incentive would not be adequate in deterring companies from being unstainable, mentioning that penalties should also be implemented on those that continue to not reduce their waste.

In New Zealand, there are currently two incentive schemes to promote sustainable construction; these are the Green Building and Green Star Certification programs. These programs have seen some success in waste reduction, but it is apparent from the vast amount of literature that incentivizing through higher landfill prices indirectly forces construction companies to either reduce their waste or receive reduction to their financial bottom line. While such measures should improve the reduction of waste, there is also the chance that increased landfill prices and penalty schemes will be passed onto the clients. As such, it is important that clients hold their contractors accountable for waste minimization by expressing their need for sustainable construction practices in their project. If the actions mentioned above were taken to assist in the promotion of waste minimization, it would result in more materials being recycled and repurposed. In turn, this could promote financial opportunities, which could result in second-hand markets for materials or niche recycling markets for companies [ 27 ]. This will likely increase the feasibility of using waste streams and by-products in construction materials, such as concrete.

6. Benefits of Recycling of Construction Materials

The benefits of using recycled materials in construction is driven by the ideology that our natural resources will eventually become scarce if humans continue to mismanage and overuse them, as is occurring currently. Therefore, the benefits will be realized by the three main pillars of sustainability, namely environment, economy, and our society [ 48 ]. The following will outline some of the positive impact of using recycled materials in construction.

6.1. Environmental Benefits

Maximizing the ability to recycle and reuse construction waste will result in a decreased volume of waste going into landfills, hence prolonging the life of landfill sites for future use. The common use of chemical additives in building materials intensifies the contamination to landfill sites. Some of these toxic substances may find their way into natural waterways and streams through ground water intrusion. Increasing the use of recycled material will consequently reduce the transportation requirements of this waste from the construction site to landfill, therefore decreasing the overall CO 2 emission contribution.

6.2. Economic Benefits

There is an argument that the eradication of landfill use will lead to the loss of employment for those involved in the industry; however, this loss can be counter-balanced by the creation of new opportunities using recycled materials. This is due to the deviation of recycled materials from re-used materials in the sense that, unlike reused materials where they are still in their original form, recycled materials will undergo some form of modification process to enhance the secondary product, while maintaining their physical properties to enable the material or product to serve their purpose in the building. Such processes involve skill sets, hence providing an opportunity for employment. This will contribute to the economy through the provision of such opportunities, yet assisting the cause to reduce the negative impacts on our environment.

6.3. Societal Benefits

The continuous population growth will give rise to increased demand of land development. Increased recycling of materials in the construction industry will result in a reduction of land converted to landfills; hence, more quality land would be available for sub-division development to meet housing demands. There are also issues arising from toxic substances from the construction materials that are being disposed of in a landfill that end up in the waterways and natural streams. These uncontrolled scenarios can harm the living organisms found in the surroundings, which can eventually lead to compromising of human health in the community. Additionally, bad odors generated from landfills can be problematic to the nearby community as high winds easily carry them through.

7. Recyclable Materials in Construction

With concrete being a highly used construction material that uses a vast amount of finite materials and contributes to CO 2 production [ 49 , 50 ], it is the perfect candidate for implementing recycled materials to replace cement and aggregate or used as fillers or fibers. The implementation of recycled materials minimizes the waste from waste streams and by-products from manufacturing processes. Numerous studies that highlight the various applications of recycled materials in concrete ( Table 1 ). A review of literature published on these materials was produced in 2018 [ 24 ] with some promising results. The study reviewed various waste materials, these included glass, plastic: Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), tile and ceramics, clay bricks, tires and rubber, metal, concrete waste, agricultural waste, silica flume, fly ash, etc. The study found that waste can be used in concrete, specifically when used in aggregate it can reduce the disposal of large amounts of waste to landfill. When using waste in cement, it reduces the amount of harmful substances in concrete, whilst also being recycled. The specifics of this review are summarized below.

Summary of various benefits of different wastes which can be incorporated as aggregates in concrete.

7.1. Aggregates Replacement

There are various benefits to the properties of concrete when adding waste as an aggregate. Glass is one material which can increase the properties of concretes. Glass can be crushed into three different forms: Coarse Glass Aggregate (CGA), Fine Glass Aggregate (FGA), and Glass Powder (GP). When glass is mixed with cement, it creates a pozzolanic reaction, which reduces GHGs (CO 2 and NO 2 ) produced in concrete [ 51 ]. Additionally, glass has a high thermal conductivity compared to general aggregate; therefore, it can be used on buildings that require thermal stability [ 52 ]. Combining both coarse and fine glass together allows for improved water absorption, therefore reducing shrinkage.

PET is a plastic which can be used in concrete, with many believing it benefits the environment [ 53 ]. Adding this plastic to concrete can increase its ductility and reduce shrinkage cracks which occur due to moisture changes in the concrete [ 54 ]. Another added benefit is that the concrete is lightweight while still maintaining a high quality. Light weight concrete is often used to reduce the dead weight of a structure [ 55 ], whilst lowering the workability, density, modulus of elasticity, tensile strength, and slump [ 56 ]. Overall, this aggregate is good for lightweight and corrosion resistant concrete.

Tiles, marble, and ceramic are other materials which show improvement to concrete properties when added as the aggregate. Using ceramics as coarse grains (10–20%) increases the concretes compressive strength, while the specific weight decreases without a significant negative affect to water absorption [ 57 , 58 ]. It has also been observed that the mechanical strength of the concrete increases, and maximum water penetration is achieved; however, ceramics are porous and hard; therefore, there is poor water absorption and elasticity. Tiles and ceramics have a low specific weight and good pozzolanic properties. It must be noted that ceramics vary in properties, resulting from their manufacturing process and other variables. This can affect their effectiveness in concrete; therefore, they should be tested prior to use. Fired bricks, which are burnt in a kiln, can be used for sand within concrete. The studies showed that clay bricks as sand could be economical and practical in concrete production. There were no adverse negative effects on the concrete with the exception of corrosion that can occur when used with steel reinforced bars. Overall, there were no added benefits to the concrete properties [ 24 ].

Tires and rubber are a waste source that have limited recycling capabilities. The use of rubber in concrete alters this problem as it is beneficial in reducing the stiffness of concrete to protect against fire. An increase in flexural strength was also observed in this study when compared to the control sample. It was also observed that, while the control sample displayed fracture from the brittleness resulting in the sample splitting, the addition of the rubber fiber resulted in deformation, but the sample did not collapse [ 59 ]. It was also found that adding silica flume with the cement paste and rubber particles increased compressive strength [ 60 ]. Furthermore, adding this fiber improved the freeze-thaw resistance [ 61 ]. Overall, rubber seems to be a good additive to aggregate; however, more research must be completed to understand its strength and durability properties.

With 20–30% of agricultural production ending as waste, it is important to optimize the amount recycled. Current research for agricultural waste used in concrete has utilized the shells of almonds and coconuts. A study tested the use of almond shells as a coarse aggregate, which produced average slump, increased air content, and lower air density compared to ordinary concrete [ 62 ]. Following this, another study produced a lightweight good quality concrete using coconut shells [ 63 ]. It was found that coarse grain aggregate had a lower weight and the same mechanical properties as that of normal coarse grain aggregate. It also demonstrated decent quality and flexural behavior identical to the ordinary sample. Recently, it was found that the compressive strength of concrete with coconut shell can be reduced by 22%, which may be mitigated through the reduction of the water-cement-ratio [ 64 ].

7.2. Supplementary Cementitious Materials (SCMs)

Concrete waste research began as far back as World War II, making it the earliest recycled material in concrete. The list of potential SCMs to be used as a replacement for cement or aggregates have been listed in Table 2 . It was found that adding fly ash to the mix helped to prevent shrinkage that was due to the addition of the concrete waste [ 66 ]. Another study found that the use of clay brick powder as cement compensated for the decrease in compressive strength due to the waste aggregate [ 67 ]. The research indicates concrete waste is a viable recycle material to be used as an aggregate; however, caution should be taken when using it as different projects require different concrete properties, and the specific amount of waste can greatly affect the concrete performance.

Summary of various benefits of different wastes which can be incorporated as supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) in concrete.

In the production of metal, 17% of the material becomes a by-product known as slag [ 24 ]. It was found that using this by-product to substitute the coarse grain resulted in high shear modulus and chemical stability in alkaline and acidic solutions [ 68 ]. A study found that mixing slag in high performance concrete produced concrete which was higher in water absorption, tensile strength, and compression strength [ 69 ]. Another study found that, while the slump increased, as expected, the density and bending strength also increased [ 51 , 70 ]. Alternative studies have shown that there is the potential to achieve ultra-strong concrete at around 150 MPa. Overall, the hardness of steel furnace slag relative to traditional aggregates is much higher, therefore increasing the flexural and compressive strength; however, it is important to note that adding slag to concrete increases its weight.

Silica fume is a by-product of the production of silica metal which can improve Portland cement production properties due to its ‘super pozzolanic’ properties. One study found that substituting 10–15% of the cement with silica flume increased the strength properties in the early drying stages [ 71 ]. Alternatively, another study suggests that silica flume could have harmful effects on the durability of concrete [ 72 ]. This result is not desirable; therefore, silica fume should only be used as per requirements and design criterion as it has some negative consequences. In another study, Zhang et al. [ 73 ] investigated the effects of nano silica particles on the impact resistance, mechanical properties and durability performance of concrete supplemented with coal fly ash. The authors added various percentage of nano silica (1–5% of the binder weight), and it was found that the modified concrete with nano silica has a better mechanical properties, along with a better freezing-thawing resistance performance. More specifically, the addition of nano silica resulted an increase in compressive, flexural, and splitting tensile strengths of the samples by 15.5%, 27.3%, and 19%, respectively. The literature also shows that the addition of nano silica can be beneficial for basalt fiber-modified recycled aggregate concrete [ 74 ]. This combination could be useful when using recycle aggregate as the inclusion of basalt fiber can reduce the generation and propagation of primary microcracks in recycled aggregate concrete, as well as mortar. In this regard, nano silica acts as a filler to fill the microcracks and also promoting the cement hydration. Another investigation shows that the addition of certain nano silica can help geopolymerization of the mortar; however, further increasing the nano silica content than its critical ratio can negatively impact the mechanical properties [ 75 ].

When rice husk is burned, its pozzolanic properties increase, making it a very desirable waste material to be added to concrete. One study found that adding rice husk to a high-performance concrete with micro silica resulted in hydration of the cement, hence reducing the porosity of the cement [ 76 ]. Additionally, the compressive strength and water absorption were observed to improve. Alongside this, it was discovered that resistance to a chloride attack was approved in addition to compressive strength and other mechanical properties [ 77 ]. It should be noted that, for countries with limited aggregate production facilities, rice husk can be beneficial as an addition to concrete as it can be used in high strength concrete or repairing mortars. The use of rice husk in concrete products as a cement additive is practical; however, the waste needs to be used at an optimal level to achieve the desired properties.

Coal fueled power plants produce a by-product from the burning of coal known as fly ash [ 78 ]. It was found that the use of fly ash, replacing 40–60% of the cement, results in an increase in the compressive strength in 28 days compared with ordinary cement [ 79 ]. Additionally, class F fly ash with good pozzolanic properties results in good mechanical properties, durability, and low chloride permeability [ 80 ]. The literature has shown that the addition of fly ash can increase mechanical properties of concrete, and, unlike concrete waste and brick, this material will not corrode the steel reinforcement. A study showed that, when 10% of glass powder is used in a cement mixture, it outperforms fly ash on compression strength in the early curing stages; however, at 90 days, fly ash produces a concrete with a higher compression strength and water absorption [ 81 ]. To reduce an Alkali–Silica Reaction (ASR), which is detrimental to concrete performance, it is important to add silica to concrete as an admixture.

Early studies on the chemical properties of the ceramic tile found that it had pozzolanic properties [ 82 ]. A study concluded that the use of clay brick waste in cement could be replaced, achieving 91% of the strength of ordinary concrete [ 83 ]. Additionally, the replacement cement reduced permeability of concrete and increased efficiency. Alternatively, tile powder can be used alongside silica flume to produce a concrete which has similar properties to the controlled sample [ 24 ].

8. Current Regulations, Barriers and Challenges in CE for C&D waste

In an ideal world, all construction waste would be recycled and reused; however, there are many barriers which prevent this from happening. A case study in Australia [ 85 ] found that the six main barriers to C&D being recycled are as follows.

8.1. Policy and Governance

One of the biggest barriers to construction waste reuse in New Zealand is the lack of policy related incentive for companies. Current legislation for construction waste in New Zealand includes the Building Act (2004) and the Waste Management Act (2008). The Building Act (2004) implements the sustainability principles of the Ministry of Business, such as “the efficient and sustainable use of materials” and “the reduction of waste during the construction process” [ 86 ]. The Waste Management Act (2008) encourages the reduction of waste by implementing a $10 per ton levy for all waste products sent to landfill. The levy was used to incentivize waste reduction, whilst simultaneously generating revenue to develop new technology and practices in the industry. It should be noted that the imposed levy did little to change to landfill patterns, with construction waste continuing to rise.

8.2. Quality and Performance

Another barrier to the recycling of C&D waste is the need for it to be in quality condition. In order to make sure materials are of a high quality, they need to be manually sorted. Manual separation requires both time and money, hence increasing the pressure on an already strained system. Separation of materials is particularly important regarding hazardous materials, exemplary of this is timber. When regarding timber separation, it is important that contaminated wood be separated from non-contaminated wood which may be achieved on site or at transfer stations. If the material is sorted on site, then the associated cost is in terms of labor required to separate the material in addition to storage costs. If the material is not properly sorted, then it is unable to be recycled; thus, good separation practices need to be adopted for large amounts of material to be recycled.

8.3. Information

There is a lack of information within industry of the importance of recycling and the potential associated benefits. The construction industry is very dynamic, yet the practitioners have yet to understand the essence and importance of recycling the materials to avoid the waste. The respective organizations need to inform the workforce of the benefits of recycling materials for construction activities, using conducted case studies as examples [ 10 ].

8.4. Cost/Capital

In any construction project, the associated cost is of extreme importance as it is considered a major performance indicator and driver for success of the project. Unfortunately, in New Zealand, it is currently more expensive to recycle a material than it is to send it to the landfill [ 41 ]. Table 3 shows the current cost to recycle material in New Zealand.

Cost of recycling the materials in New Zealand.

8.5. Perception and Culture

Often, the value within C&D material is not fully realized, with many in the industry not considering it is as a potential resource. It is apparent that the majority of construction professionals consider waste as merely a waste and not a potential resource. Globally, there is increased focus on recyclable and renewable technologies in order to meet the sustainable development goals; therefore, it should be mandatory that construction practitioners update their perceptions and shift their focus from conventional methods to newer technologies [ 87 ].

8.6. Knowledge, Education and Lack of Technology

There are many companies and workers within the construction industry that do not have access to education on the circular economy. Education is a key factor to inducing change, with people traditioned to the norm unless educated otherwise. It is the sole responsibility of construction professionals to learn the importance of recycling of materials and, subsequently, encourage their workforce to do the same. Nevertheless, governments and regulatory authorities are also responsible in conducting such educational seminars, meetings, workshops, etc., to update the knowledge and education of construction sector workforce. Generally, the absence of technology required for waste recovery and recycling results in contaminated, low-quality products. As such, the cost of acquisition of recycled materials is high, while the performance of the materials is relatively low and not up to the desired standards [ 87 ].

8.7. Permits and Specifications

Specifications and standard requirements put negative influence on applications of recycled materials. Moreover, there are numerous causes that result in permits for the utilization of recycled materials in certain projects to not be granted. With such barriers, the associated market becomes uncertain regarding the production and availability of recycled materials.

9. C&D Wastes Effects on Greenhouse Gases Emissions

Greenhouse gases (GHG) emission was responsible for global warming and climate change in the past few decades. The major GHGs responsible for global warming are water vapor (H 2 O), methane (CH 4 ), ozone (O 3 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and, most importantly, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) [ 88 ]. Cement is one of the most important key components in construction works where concrete and other construction material derives from cement. In addition, cement and concrete significantly contributes to C&D waste sent to landfill and which creates extra GHG emissions.

The cement industry alone contributes to about 7% of global CO 2 emissions due to the nature of the cement production process [ 89 ]. The majority of CO 2 emission in cement production is due to thermal calcination of calcium carbonate (CaCO 3 ) stone known as limestone in a cement kiln where quick lime (CaO) and a large quantity of carbon dioxide are produced.

Thermal decomposition of calcium carbonate to produce one ton of clinker approximately produces 0.51 t CO2 ; in addition, to produce the required heat of calcination process, typically, a significant amount of fossil fuels (including fuel oil, natural gas, coal, etc.) is burnt, which produces CO 2 and other GHGs. Therefore, to produce one ton of Portland cement, approximately 0.8 t CO2-eq is emitted [ 90 ]. On the other hand, the world’s cement production is increasing by 2.5% annually due to rapid growth in urbanization and industrialization of developing countries [ 91 ]. Therefore, considering the high environmental impacts and GHG emissions potential of both cement and construction industries, it is essential to take steps and develop mitigation strategies to control and reduce CO 2 emissions in the sector. In the past few years, several mitigation strategies have been implemented to reduce the negative impact of the construction industry on climate change, in general, which are (1) increasing energy efficiency in both cement and construction industries; and (2) using alternative fuels (e.g., biofuels, municipal wastes, scrap tiers [ 92 ] in cement kiln); clinker substitution/blended cement; reuse of C&D waste using circular economy concept [ 93 ].

The C&D waste end life disposal methods, including landfill and incineration, significantly contribute to GHG emissions, where C&D waste accounts for 46% of total waste in the EU [ 94 ], 40% total municipal waste in China [ 12 ], and 20% of total solid waste in Japan [ 95 ]. According to Andrade et al.’s [ 96 ] estimation, global C&D waste will be increased from 12.7 billion metric tons in 2018 to 27 billion metric tons by 2050, which indicated an urgent action is needed to restrict C&D waste CO 2 emissions. Xu et al. [ 97 ] developed a new Building Information Modeling software tool to quantify the amount of CO 2 emissions for the C&D waste end of life disposal process in China. They calculated total emissions based on transportation, recycling, and landfill emissions, which shows the potential for further emissions reduction by implementing the circular economy concept in the construction sector, as shown in Table 4 .

CO 2 emissions in C&D waste in China [ 97 ].

Kaliyavaradhan and Ling [ 98 ] studied the potential of carbon dioxide sequestration through C&D waste by the mean of recycled concrete aggregate. They concluded that CO 2 sequestration through C&D waste is a promising solution to reduce GHG emissions and to achieve a realistic balance of the CO 2 cycle in both cement and construction industries. Corsten et al. [ 99 ] showed the application of sustainable waste management significantly reduced GHG emissions and energy use in the Netherlands. In their research, three main waste streams were defined as household waste, bulky household waste, and C&D waste. Their results concluded that high-quality recycling can reduce emissions by 2.3 Mt CO2-eq /y compared to the reference situation in the country in 2008. The study on the environmental and economic impact of C&D waste disposal using system dynamics in Egypt showed that recycling and reuse of such wastes significantly reduce energy use, global warming potential, along with GHG emissions reduction, and conserve the landfills’ space [ 100 ]. Recycling C&D waste can approximately reduce the need for primary raw material to around 12.3 million tons by 2024. It also reduces the CO 2 mitigation cost by $16,161.35 billion over a 20-year period of conducted study. In addition, Islam et al. [ 101 ] conducted research on C&D waste of Bangladesh as an example of a developing country that shows, in 2016, in Dhaka city, approximately 1.28 million tons of C&D waste were generated and sent into landfill or unauthorized places. Their study showed that recycling these wastes can contribute to the national economy of around $45 million and, likewise with a similar proportion, can contribute to emissions reduction.

10. Frameworks and Model Approaches for CE for C&D Waste

The review of literature has revealed that there is limited research on integration of circular economy and construction industry in Australasia, particularly in New Zealand. If CE were adopted in the construction sector, the environmental and economic issues can be reduced. In a model formulated for integrating CE into the construction sector, it was claimed that such integration can be achieved successfully in three layers or three stages via micro, meso, and macro. The authors perceived that micro stage of CE need to focus on eco-friendlier design and cleaner processes, and meso for frameworks accelerating waste trading systems. The most important, macro, needs to deal with the 3R principles among collaborative industries comprising numerous stakeholders [ 102 , 103 ]. Fewer countries, such as the UK and the Netherlands, have integrated CE in construction firms. For instance, the UK has adopted an approach called Resource Efficient Construction, which not only reduces the waste but also cuts the GHG emissions resulting from construction activities. The approach aids the construction practitioners in redesign of the debris as a resource, development of recycled materials, as well as boosting up the process of reuse and recycle. Taking this framework, Ellen MacArthur Foundation has developed a six-stage framework called ReSOLVE, with the following points:

  • Regenerate: Encouraging to move the focus from traditional to renewable technologies and prevent the destruction of ecosystem.
  • Share: Driving towards increasing the lifespan via efficient maintenance schemes and sharing the recyclable and reusable resources and assets.
  • Optimize: Enhancing the efficacy of recycled goods by cutting unwanted wastes via efficient and green supply chain.
  • Loop: Providing the required technology to recreate and recycle the wastes.
  • Virtualize: Dematerializing in both direct and indirect way.
  • Exchange: Encouraging and enhancing the adoption of innovative construction materials and newer techniques.

A questionnaire-based pilot survey in Denmark has revealed that, among the ReSOLVE framework, there are strong chances for the construction process to undergo share, optimize, and loop stages of said framework [ 104 ]. In the Netherlands, an organization with the name International Management Search Association (IMSA) is very dynamic in integrating the CE in construction activities [ 105 ]. The framework proposed determined that an efficient construction waste management plan can be formulated by solving the issues of increasing waste, negative repercussions on ecology of planet, illegal dumping of waste, and absence of support from the top tier of construction organizations.

In another investigation, Esa et al. [ 106 ] developed a framework for CE integration in construction firms, focusing on the involvement of the 3Cs (Contractor, Consultant, and Client) in the 3R operations of construction waste in the five stages of the project lifecycle, i.e., planning, designing, procurement, construction, and demolition. On a micro level, the authors urged the adoption of “Industrialized Building System (IBS)” for efficient and sustainable facility management. At a meso level, it was suggested that the regulations concerning the construction sector should be brought in to action for reduction of waste and encouragement of sustainable development. As the complete eradication of waste is not feasible, at the macro level, the authorities should manage the C&D waste through efficient surveillance mechanism on the workforce. This framework and the roles of various stakeholders at various stages, including planning, designing, procurement, construction, and demolition of project lifecycle can be found in the model the authors proposed [ 104 ]. The numerous waste reduction strategies discussed above, at micro, meso, and macro levels, are discussed in line with the 3R operations of efficient C&D waste management.

Another integrative framework for adoption of CE in C&D waste management was proposed by Ruiz et al. [ 107 ], which focused on formulating the strategies for C&D waste management in five lifecycle stages, i.e., preconstruction, construction and renovation, collection and distribution, demolition and material recovery, and production. Overall, fourteen strategies were proposed as mentioned against every stage and are detailed in Figure 8 :

  • Preconstruction: enforcement of government regulations, taxation on acquisition of raw materials, employment of economic instruments, and prioritization of waste recover options.
  • Construction and Renovation: selective destruction, efficient waste management plan.
  • Collection and Distribution: Collection and segregation practices, on-site sorting, efficient distribution of resources, transportation and recirculation of recyclable and recycled materials.
  • Demolition (End of Life): preference to selective deconstruction over traditional demolition, waste audits and material recovery, etc.
  • Material Recovery and Production: Reuse, recycle, backfilling and recovery of material and/or energy, waste treatment processes, ecological and economic aspects of waste recovery.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is materials-15-00076-g008.jpg

Framework for circular economy adoption in construction [ 107 ].

11. Scientific Reuse Perspectives

Although there are numerous benefits in transitioning to circular economy in C&D sector, the scientific reuse of such wastes needs to be investigated. The recovery process should be in a way to result in an acceptable quality prescribed by specifications and be economically feasible to encourage contractors to recycle and also use the recycled C&D waste materials. In this regard, the chemical composition as well as physical, mechanical and durability performance of recycled waste materials need to be examined. In addition to the properties of recycled materials, from an environmental point of view, the sustainability and life cycle of recycled materials.. Recycling is, by nature, an energy-consuming process; however, in most cases, when considering the social and environmental benefits, the process outweighs discarding C&D materials in landfills; therefore, the recycling becomes feasible. For example, in C&D waste recovery, energy for mining, quarrying, and transportation has already been expended in the first life of recycled materials. This can also reduce the emission and other environmental impacts, such as natural resource depletion and dust/airborne spreads. However, to gain a more in-depth insight, the life cycle analysis can be deployed to assess the contribution of CE to sustainability. In this context, Butera et al. [ 108 ] explored the life cycle of C&D waste management by considering both toxic and non-toxic environmental impacts. The authors found that transportation is the most contributing factor (60–95%) for non-toxic impacts. Interestingly, landfilling minerals had lower impacts than utilization. This is mainly due to a lower levels of leachate per ton of C&D waste materials that reaches ground water resources over a 100-year period. However, leaching oxyanions was found to be critical aspect, and, in this domain, Cr immobilization is soils was found to be pivotal. Overall, the findings show that leaching emissions had a significant influence on toxicity impacts in comparison with the production of the same materials. As expected, CO 2 uptake due to transportation (on-site and off-site) was found to be 15% from the life cycle analysis.

12. Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Directions

Annually, a large portion of waste generated from C&D ends up in landfill, which has led to sever environmental and social problems. The amount of C&D waste disposed is continuing to grow at an alarming rate, resulting in negative consequences. Currently, there are a few model practices in place to recover or reuse a small portion of C&D waste; however, to be deployed globally, numerous challenges/barriers must be overcome. In this regard, the literature demonstrates that the challenges can be classified in five main categories, including legal, technical, social, behavioral, and economic barriers. Within the primary domains, policy and regulations, permits and specifications, technological limitation, quality and performance, knowledge and information, and the costs associated with the implementation of CE model at the early stage are the challenges to be addressed. In addition, it was found that the scale of challenges varies depending on the scale of the projects and also varies from countries to countries. Therefore, a general framework and practicable pathway is needed for a successful transition from linear economy to a circular economy in C&D management sector. However, to be able to propose a framework, there is an urgent need to explore and classify the monetary and social benefits of recycling C&D waste and identify the key associated challenges. To this end, numerous integrative models and frameworks from various regions, such as the UK, the Netherlands, Malaysia, Denmark, etc., were reviewed and critically discussed. This review paper investigates the challenges/barriers in implementing CE in C&D waste and explores the feasibility and benefits of recycling construction waste materials. In this regard, the ecological, economical, and strength and/or durability associated findings from previous literature were uncovered. It was found that the recycling of waste materials in construction has positive influences on environmental, economic, and durability characteristics of the construction activities. As such, the green and sustainably built environment will guarantee good public health and can help government and stakeholders to meet sustainability goals. Additionally, the resources to be spent on formulating the waste management plans and workforce required for their implementation can also be abridged; however, there are numerous barricades faced by the construction sector preventing the recycling of C&D waste materials in construction activities. The identified bottlenecks involved strict quality assurance systems, market uncertainty about availability of waste materials, knowledge and negative perceptions, high cost of material recovery related technologies, etc.

The review of available extensive literature has led to the following recommendations for efficient integration of CE concepts in the construction sector for sustainable development:

  • The waste obtained from C&D activities should be efficiently dealt with and handled such that its quality is not impaired; therefore, its utilization as aggregates or cementitious resource should remain feasible.
  • Selective demolition should be practiced for hazardous materials, such as tubes, asbestos, etc. The handling should be efficient so that mixing does not occur, which can cause contamination of recyclable materials.
  • On-site sorting should be practiced such that mixing of waste may be avoided. The waste should be classified on basis of nature and possible economic benefits.
  • Efficient quality control systems should be enforced with proper check and balance on method of material recovery, waste acceptance criterion, material properties, and pros and cons of material utilization in construction activities.
  • As the concept of CE in the construction sector is not mature, the local and central governments should come forward and play their part in enlightening the organizations regarding the ecological, economic, and social benefits of the CE approach.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.S.; methodology, M.S. and C.K.P.; validation, A.B., A.H.T.; investigation, C.K.P., D.M.A.Z., B.T.O. and M.J.K.; writing—original draft preparation, C.K.P., D.M.A.Z., B.T.O. and M.J.K.; writing—review and editing, A.H.T., A.B. and M.S.; visualization, M.S. and A.H.T.; supervision, M.S. and A.B.; funding acquisition, M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding but the APC was funded by The University of Waikato.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

  • We're Hiring!
  • Help Center

paper cover thumbnail

Waste Management Practices: Literature Review

Profile image of loreto hernandez

Advice provided by project Waste Management Committee members:

Related Papers

literature review on construction waste management

Urban Management Centre -UMC , Meghna Malhotra , Manvita Baradi

Urban areas in India generate more than 1,00,000 MT of waste per day (CPHEEO, 2000). A large metropolis such as Mumbai generates about 7000 MT of waste per day (MCGM, 2014), Bangalore generates about 5000 MT (BBMP, 2014) and other large cities such as Pune and Ahmedabad generate waste in the range of 1600-3500 MT per day (PMC, 2014). Collecting, processing, transporting and disposing this municipal solid waste (MSW) is the responsibility of urban local bodies (ULBs) in India. The Municipal Solid Waste (Management & Handling) Rules notified in 2000 by the Ministry of Environment and Forest require ULBs to collect waste in a segregated manner with categories including organic/food waste, domestic hazardous waste, recyclable waste and undertake safe and scientific transportation management, processing and disposal of municipal waste. However, most ULBs in India are finding it difficult to comply with these rules, implement and sustain door-to-door collection, waste segregation, management, processing and safe disposal of MSW. The National and State Governments have provided an impetus to improve the solid waste management in urban areas under various programs and schemes. The Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM) funded 49 SWM projects in various cities between 2006 and 2009 (MoUD, 2014). Several cities in India have taken positive steps towards implementing sustainable waste management practices by involving the community in segregation, by enforcing better PPP contracts and by investing in modern technology for transportation, processing and disposal. The role of waste pickers/ informal sector in SWM is also increasingly being recognized. These interventions have great potential for wider replication in other cities in the country. This compendium documents eleven such leading practices from cities across India and highlights key aspects of the waste management programs including operational models, ULB- NGO partnerships, and innovative outreach and awareness campaigns to engage communities and private sector. The National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA) is the National Coordinator for the PEARL initiative (Peer Experience and Reflective Learning). It is a program that enables effective sharing of knowledge (related to planning; implementation; governance and; sustainability of urban reforms and other infrastructure projects) among the cities that are being supported by JnNURM (Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission). A number of tasks have been planned to achieve the objectives of the program. One of the key tasks encompassed by this program is Documentation of Good Practices in various thematic areas related to planning; governance and service delivery.

Urban Management Centre -UMC , Manvita Baradi , Meghna Malhotra

The National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA) is the National Coordinator for the PEARL initiative (‘Peer Experience and Reflective Learning’). It is a program that enables effective sharing of knowledge (related to planning; implementation; governance and; sustainability of urban reforms and other infrastructure projects) among the cities that are being supported by JNNURM (Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission). The PEARL initiative provides a platform for deliberation and knowledge exchange to Indian cities and towns as well as professionals working in the urban domain. Sharing of good practices is one of the most important means of Knowledge-Exchange and numerous innovative projects are available for reference on the PEARL portal/website. The ‘Knowledge Support for PEARL’ is a program supported by Cities Alliance that aims to qualitatively further this initiative. One of its components is to carry out a thematic and detailed documentation of good practices in various thematic areas related to planning; governance and service delivery. Urban Management Consulting Pvt. Ltd. in consortium with Centre for Environment Education (CEE) has been selected (through a competitive process) for the said task. The document focuses on the theme of ‘Urban Solid Waste Management’ (SWM), which includes planning; practices; projects and innovations in improving the quality and efficiency of solid waste management in Indian cities. The documentation includes good initiatives adopted and practiced by ULBs in collection and treatment of solid waste as well as the overall management of waste as a resource including aspects of recycling; environmental issues; disposal etc. of municipal waste. It also strives to study examples of people’s participation in these projects for overall enhancement of services and quality of life.

Frank Palkovits

The mining operations conducted in Northern Ontario are generally considered to be among the richest deposits in the world. This extensive area includes multiple active mines, smelters, and refineries. A number of active waste dumps for tailings, slag, and waste rock also exist. It has been recognised that if current market conditions continue, and if the new reserve estimations are accurate, mining in this area could potentially continue for an additional 50 years. Operational difficulties for the organisations operating in this area arise from the fact that the mining operations are situated in some cases within the city limits and, in fact, also dominate a number of small communities around the mine sites. These organisations face a number of increasing regulatory and social demands which are a driving force behind many of the operational changes taking place within the mining community today. Rapidly, an environmentally conscious mining operation is becoming the norm. A solution...

GLORIA T . ANGURUWA

Waste generation is inevitable in every human society, although methods of disposal may differ from region to region especially developing and developed nations, yet waste disposal is generally necessary. This study therefore investigated waste disposal practices amongst residents of Oluyole local government area of Ibadan, Oyo State. It was observed that (44.4%) and (32.4%) of the residents dumped their household refuse with government and private waste collectors respectively, but majority utilized improper waste disposal methods such as dumping in rivers (10.3%), roadsides(14.8%), open dumpsites (20.4%), gutter (9.3%), and open-air burning(33.3%). Larger proportion (97.5%) of the respondents strongly agreed that indiscriminate waste dumping has inimical environmental implications such as flooding, disruption of aesthetic beauty, disease, river pollution amongst others. In order to bring the situation under control, the respondents prefer the full involvement of the government waste collection agency instead of private waste collectors. It is therefore recommended that government waste collector should be empowered to penetrate more traditional core areas for more effective waste collection.

Farhan Fendi

Academia Letters

Amer Hamad Issa Abukhalaf

Citation: Abukhalaf, A. H. I. (2021). Bridging the Gap: U.S Waste Management System. Academia Letters. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL1680

Ruth Jaynann Del Rosario

proposal for waste management

RELATED PAPERS

Sport-Orthopädie - Sport-Traumatologie - Sports Orthopaedics and Traumatology

olaf lorbach

Physical Review A

Gabriele Morosi

Variation – Normen – Identitäten

Peter Rosenberg

Procedia CIRP

Mohammad antar

Parveen yadav

metodologias activas e tecnologias de comunicação na sala de aula

Marcos Katerças

Eyakndue Ntekim

Serambi Tarbawi

Muhammad Syarif

Expert Systems with Applications

Hüseyin Bulgurcu

Frank Claudio Sanabria Iparraguirre

Ewa Talarek

Spine Grivas

Reaction Kinetics, Mechanisms and Catalysis

Slobodan Anić

Jon Swenson

Fouad Nahhat

Biophysical Chemistry

Allen Minton

De Gruyter eBooks

Patrick Donabedian

Journal of Geophysics & Remote Sensing

Thomas Unnasch

Marcelo De Alencar

Frontiers in science

Stella Adeyemo

Dzejla Idrizovic

Rudney Silva

Solutions to Coastal Disasters 2005

  •   We're Hiring!
  •   Help Center
  • Find new research papers in:
  • Health Sciences
  • Earth Sciences
  • Cognitive Science
  • Mathematics
  • Computer Science
  • Academia ©2024

National Academies Press: OpenBook

The Role of Environmental NGOs: Russian Challenges, American Lessons: Proceedings of a Workshop (2001)

Chapter: 14 problems of waste management in the moscow region, problems of waste management in the moscow region.

Department of Natural Resources of the Central Region of Russia

The scientific and technological revolution of the twentieth century has turned the world over, transformed it, and presented humankind with new knowledge and innovative technologies that previously seemed to be fantasies. Man, made in the Creator’s own image, has indeed become in many respects similar to the Creator. Primitive thinking and consumerism as to nature and natural resources seem to be in contrast to this background. Drastic deterioration of the environment has become the other side of the coin that gave the possibility, so pleasant for the average person, to buy practically everything that is needed.

A vivid example of man’s impact as “a geological force” (as Academician V. I. Vernadsky described contemporary mankind) is poisoning of the soil, surface and underground waters, and atmosphere with floods of waste that threaten to sweep over the Earth. Ecosystems of our planet are no longer capable of “digesting” ever-increasing volumes of waste and new synthetic chemicals alien to nature.

One of the most important principles in achieving sustainable development is to limit the appetite of public consumption. A logical corollary of this principle suggests that the notion “waste” or “refuse” should be excluded not only from professional terminology, but also from the minds of people, with “secondary material resources” as a substitute concept for them. In my presentation I would like to dwell on a number of aspects of waste disposal. It is an ecological, economic, and social problem for the Moscow megalopolis in present-day conditions.

PRESENT SITUATION WITH WASTE IN MOSCOW

Tens of thousand of enterprises and research organizations of practically all branches of the economy are amassed over the territory of 100,000 hectares: facilities of energy, chemistry and petrochemistry; metallurgical and machine-building works; and light industrial and food processing plants. Moscow is occupying one of the leading places in the Russian Federation for the level of industrial production. The city is the greatest traffic center and bears a heavy load in a broad spectrum of responsibilities as capital of the State. The burden of technogenesis on the environment of the city of Moscow and the Moscow region is very considerable, and it is caused by all those factors mentioned above. One of the most acute problems is the adverse effect of the huge volumes of industrial and consumer wastes. Industrial waste has a great variety of chemical components.

For the last ten years we witnessed mainly negative trends in industrial production in Moscow due to the economic crisis in the country. In Moscow the largest industrial works came practically to a standstill, and production of manufactured goods declined sharply. At the same time, a comparative analysis in 1998–99 of the indexes of goods and services output and of resource potential showed that the coefficient of the practical use of natural resources per unit of product, which had been by all means rather low in previous years, proceeded gradually to decrease further. At present we have only 25 percent of the industrial output that we had in 1990, but the volume of water intake remains at the same level. Fuel consumption has come down only by 18 percent, and the amassed production waste diminished by only 50 percent. These figures indicate the growing indexes of resource consumption and increases in wastes from industrial production.

Every year about 13 million tons of different kinds of waste are accumulated in Moscow: 42 percent from water preparation and sewage treatment, 25 percent from industry, 13 percent from the construction sector, and 20 percent from the municipal economy.

The main problem of waste management in Moscow city comes from the existing situation whereby a number of sites for recycling and disposal of certain types of industrial waste and facilities for storage of inert industrial and building wastes are situated outside the city in Moscow Region, which is subject to other laws of the Russian Federation. Management of inert industrial and building wastes, which make up the largest part of the general volume of wastes and of solid domestic wastes (SDW), simply means in everyday practice their disposal at 46 sites (polygons) in Moscow Region and at 200 disposal locations that are completely unsuitable from the ecological point of view.

The volume of recycled waste is less than 10–15 percent of the volume that is needed. Only 8 percent of solid domestic refuse is destroyed (by incineration). If we group industrial waste according to risk factor classes, refuse that is not

dangerous makes up 80 percent of the total volume, 4th class low-hazard wastes 14 percent, and 1st-3rd classes of dangerous wastes amount to 3.5 percent. The largest part of the waste is not dangerous—up to 32 percent. Construction refuse, iron and steel scrap, and non-ferrous metal scrap are 15 percent. Paper is 12 percent, and scrap lumber is 4 percent. Metal scrap under the 4th class of risk factor makes up 37 percent; wood, paper, and polymers more than 8 percent; and all-rubber scrap 15 percent. So, most refuse can be successfully recycled and brought back into manufacturing.

This is related to SDW too. The morphological composition of SDW in Moscow is characterized by a high proportion of utilizable waste: 37.6 percent in paper refuse, 35.2 percent in food waste, 10 percent in polymeric materials, 7 percent in glass scrap, and about 5 percent in iron, steel, and non-ferrous metal scrap. The paper portion in commercial wastes amounts to 70 percent of the SDW volume.

A number of programs initiated by the Government of Moscow are underway for the collection and utilization of refuse and for neutralization of industrial and domestic waste. A waste-recycling industry is being developed in the city of Moscow, mostly for manufacturing recycled products and goods. One of the most important ecological problems is the establishment in the region of ecologically safe facilities for the disposal of dangerous wastes of 1st and 2nd class risk factors.

Pre-planned industrial capacities for thermal neutralization of SDW will be able to take 30 percent of domestic waste and dangerous industrial waste. Construction of rubbish-burning works according to the old traditional approach is not worthwhile and should come to an end. Waste-handling stations have been under construction in the city for the last five years. In two years there will be six such stations which will make it possible to reduce the number of garbage trucks from 1,156 to 379 and to reduce the amount of atmospheric pollution they produce. In addition the switch to building stations with capacity of briquetting one ton of waste into a cubic meter will decrease the burden on waste disposal sites and prolong their life span by 4–5 fold. Trash hauling enterprises will also make profit because of lower transportation costs.

Putting into operation waste-segregation complexes (10–12 sites) would reduce volumes of refuse to disposal sites by 40 percent—that is 1,200,000 tons per year. The total volume of burned or recycled SDW would reach 2,770,000 tons a year. A total of 210,000 tons of waste per year would be buried. So, in the course of a five year period, full industrial recycling of SDW could be achieved in practice.

Collection of segregated waste is one of the important elements in effective disposal and utilization of SDW. It facilitates recycling of waste and return of secondary material into the manufacturing process. Future trends in segregation and collection of SDW will demand wide popularization and improvement of the ecological culture and everyday behavior of people.

In recent years the high increase in the number of cars in Moscow has brought about not only higher pollution of the atmosphere, but also an avalanche-like accumulation of refuse from vehicles. Besides littering residential and recreation areas, cars represent a source for toxic pollution of land and reservoirs. At the same time, automobile wastes are a good source for recycled products. In the short-term outlook, Moscow has to resolve the problem of collection and utilization of decommissioned vehicles and automobile wastes with particular emphasis on activities of the private sector. Setting up a system for collection and utilization of bulky domestic waste and electronic equipment refuse is also on the priority list.

In 1999 in Moscow the following volumes of secondary raw materials were produced or used in the city or were recycled: 300,000 tons of construction waste, 296,000 tons of metal scrap, 265 tons of car battery lead, 21,000 tons of glass, 62,500 tons of paper waste, 4,328 tons of oil-bearing waste, and 306 tons of refuse from galvanizing plants.

Such traditional secondary materials as metal scrap and paper waste are not recycled in Moscow but are shipped to other regions of Russia.

The worldwide practice of sorting and recycling industrial and domestic wastes demands the establishment of an industry for secondary recycling. Otherwise segregation of waste becomes ineffective.

There are restraining factors for the development of an effective system of assorted selection, segregation, and use of secondary raw resources, namely lack of sufficient manufacturing capacities and of suitable technologies for secondary recycling.

The problem of utilization of wastes is closely linked with the problem of modernization and sometimes even demands fundamental restructuring of industries. The practical use of equipment for less energy consumption and a smaller volume of wastes and a transition to the use of alternative raw materials are needed. Large enterprises—the main producers of dangerous wastes—are in a difficult financial situation now, which is an impediment for proceeding along these lines.

Private and medium-size enterprises are becoming gradually aware of the economic profitability in rational use of waste. For example, the firm Satory started as a transportation organization specialized in removal of scrap from demolished buildings and those undergoing reconstruction. It now benefits from recycling of waste, having developed an appropriate technology for the dismantling of buildings with segregation of building waste. So, as it has been already mentioned above, the first task for Moscow is to establish a basis for waste recycling.

HOW TO CHANGE THE SITUATION WITH WASTE

Transition to modern technologies in the utilization of wastes requires either sufficient investments or a considerable increase in repayment for waste on the part of the population. Obviously, these two approaches are not likely to be realized in the near future.

The recovery of one ton of SDW with the use of ecologically acceptable technology requires not less than $70–100.

Given the average per capita income in 1999 and the likely increase up to the year of 2005, in 2005 it will be possible to receive from a citizen not more than $14 per year. This means that the cost of technology should not exceed $40 per ton of recycled waste. Unfortunately, this requirement can fit only unsegregated waste disposal at the polygons (taking into account an increase in transportation costs by the year 2005).

Such being the case, it looks like there is only one acceptable solution for Russia to solve the problem of waste in an up-to-date manner: to introduce trade-in value on packaging and on some manufactured articles.

In recent years domestic waste includes more and more beverage containers. Plastic and glass bottles, aluminium cans, and packs like Tetrapak stockpiled at disposal sites will soon reach the same volumes as in western countries. In Canada, for example, this kind of waste amounts to one-third of all domestic waste.

A characteristic feature of this kind of waste is that the packaging for beverages is extremely durable and expensive. Manufactured from polyethylene terephthalate (PTA) and aluminum, it is sometimes more expensive than the beverage it contains.

What are the ways for solving the problem? Practically all of them are well-known, but most will not work in Russia in present conditions. The first problem relates to collection of segregated waste in the urban sector and in the services sector. A number of reasons make this system unrealistic, specifically in large cities. Sorting of waste at waste-briquetting sites and at polygons is possible. But if we take into account the present cost of secondary resources, this system turns out to be economically unprofitable and cannot be widely introduced.

The introduction of deposits on containers for beverages is at present the most acceptable option for Russia. This system turned out to be most effective in a number of countries that have much in common with Russia. In fact this option is not at all new for us. Surely, all people remember the price of beer or kefir bottles. A system of deposit for glass bottles was in operation in the USSR, and waste sites were free from hundreds of millions of glass bottles and jars. We simply need to reinstate this system at present in the new economic conditions according to new types and modes of packaging. Deposits could be introduced also on glass bottles and jars, PTA and other plastic bottles, aluminium cans, and Tetrapak packing.

Let us investigate several non-ecological aspects of this problem, because the ecological impact of secondary recycling of billions of bottles, cans, and packs is quite obvious.

Most of the population in Russia lives below the poverty line. When people buy bottles of vodka, beer, or soft drinks, they will have to pay a deposit value (10–20 kopeks for a bottle). The poorest people will carry the bottles to receiving points. A system of collection of packaging will function by itself. Only receiving points are needed. Millions of rubles that are collected will be redistributed among the poorest people for their benefit, and a social problem of the poor will be solved to a certain extent not by charity, but with normal economic means.

A second point is also well-known. In a market economy one of the most important problems is that of employment. What happens when the trade-in value is introduced?

Thousands of new jobs are created at receiving points and at enterprises that recycle glass, plastics, etc. And we don’t need a single penny from the state budget. More than that, these enterprises will pay taxes and consume products of other branches of industry, thus yielding a return to the budget, not to mention income tax from new jobs.

There is another aspect of the matter. Considerable funding is needed from budgets of local governments, including communal repayments for waste collection and disposal at polygons and incinerators. Reduction of expenses for utilization of waste can be significant support for housing and communal reform in general.

It is practically impossible to evaluate in general an ecological effect when thousands of tons of waste will cease to occupy plots of land near cities as long-term disposal sites. Operation costs of receiving points and transportation costs could be covered by funds obtained from manufacturers and from returned packaging. Besides, when a waste recycling industry develops and becomes profitable, recycling factories will be able to render partial support to receiving points.

Trade-in value can be introduced on all types of packaging except milk products and products for children. It could amount to 15 or 30 kopecks per container, depending on its size. If all plastic bottles with water and beer are sold with trade-in value only in Moscow, the total sum will reach 450 million rubles a year. If we include glass bottles, aluminum cans, and packets, the sum will be one billion rubles. This sum will be redistributed at receiving points among people with scanty means when they receive the money for used packaging and jobs at receiving points and at recycling factories.

The bottleneck of the problem now is the absence in Russia of high technology industries for waste recycling. It can be resolved rather easily. At the first stage, used packaging can be sold as raw material for enterprises, including those overseas. There is unrestricted demand for PTA and aluminum on the part

of foreign firms. When waste collection mechanisms are established, there will be limited investments in this branch of industry.

With regard to the inexhaustible source of free raw material, this recycling industry will become one of the most reliable from the point of view of recoupment of investments. The Government, regional authorities, the population, and of course ecologists should all be interested in having such a law.

The same should be done with sales of cars, tires, and car batteries. Prices of every tire or battery should be higher by 30–50 rubles. These sums of money should be returned back to a buyer or credited when he buys a new tire or a new battery. For sure, such being the case we will not find used batteries thrown about the city dumps. In this case the task is even simpler because there are already a number of facilities for the recycling of tires and batteries.

In fact, a law of trade-in value can change the situation with waste in Russia in a fundamental way. Russian legislation has already been prepared, and the concept of an ecological tax has been introduced in the new Internal Revenue Code. Now it needs to be competently introduced. The outlay for waste recycling has to become a type of ecological tax. To realize this task much work has to be done among the deputies and with the Government. Public ecological organizations, including international ones, should play a leading role.

ACTIVITY OF PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS IN THE SPHERE OF WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE MOSCOW REGION

We know examples of the ever increasing role of the general public in the solution of the problem of waste utilization, first of all in those countries that have well-developed democratic institutions. “Fight Against Waste” is one of the popular slogans of public organizations abroad. Public opinion has brought about measures of sanitary cleaning in cities, secured better work by municipal services, shut down hazardous industries, and restricted and prohibited incineration facilities. Nevertheless, the struggle against wastes in the economically developed countries, being a manifestation of an advanced attitude towards the environment, has in the long run brought about a paradoxical result. Transfer of hazardous industries to countries with lower environmental standards and inadequate public support—Russia, as an example—has made the world even more dangerous from the ecological point of view.

Russia has just embarked on the path of formation of environmental public movements by the establishment of nongovernmental organizations. Representatives of nongovernmental organizations from Russia took part in the international gathering in Bonn in March 2000 of nongovernmental organizations that are members of the International Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Elimination Network. A declaration against incineration was adopted in

Bonn by nongovernmental organizations, which called for elaboration of effective alternative technologies for utilization of waste and safe technologies for elimination of existing stockpiles of POP.

Quite a number of environmental organizations are operating now in Moscow. First to be mentioned is the All-Russia Society for the Conservation of Nature, which was established in Soviet times. There are other nongovernmental organizations: Ecosoglasiye, Ecolain, Ecological Union, and the Russian branches of Green Cross and Greenpeace. All these organizations collect and popularize environmental information and organize protest actions against policies of the Government or local administrations on ecological matters. A new political party—Russia’s Movement of the Greens—is being formed.

Laws currently in force in the Russian Federation (“On Protection of the Environment,” “On State Ecological Examination by Experts,” “On Production and Consumption of Waste”) declare the right of the public to participate in environmental examination of projects that are to be implemented, including those on the establishment of facilities for elimination and disposition of waste. Public examinations can be organized by the initiative of citizens and public associations. For example, under the law of Moscow “On Protection of the Rights of Citizens while Implementing Decisions on Construction Projects in Moscow,” public hearings are organized by the city’s boards. Decisions taken by local authorities, at referenda and public meetings, may be the very reason for carrying out public examinations. Such examinations are conducted mainly by commissions, collectives, or ad hoc groups of experts. Members of public examination panels are responsible for the accuracy and validity of their expert evaluations in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation. A decision of a public environmental panel has an informative nature as a recommendation, but it becomes legally mandatory after its approval by the appropriate body of the State. Besides, the opinion of the public is taken into account when a project submitted for state environmental review has undergone public examinations and there are supporting materials.

Public environmental examination is supposed to draw the attention of state bodies to a definite site or facility and to disseminate well-grounded information about potential ecological risks. This important facet of public environmental organizations in Moscow and in Russia is very weak. To a large extent, it can be explained by an insufficient level of specific and general knowledge of ecology even on the part of the environmentalists themselves. Lack of knowledge on the part of ordinary citizens and public groups and inadequate information (for various reasons) produce alarm-motivated behavior by those who harm the organization of environmental activity in general and waste management in particular.

There are nevertheless positive examples of public participation in designing policies of local authorities in the waste management sphere.

Speaking about the Moscow region we can point to the very productive work of the Public Ecological Commission attached to the Council of Deputies in Pushchino, in Moscow Oblast.

The population of Pushchino is 21,000. The polygon for solid biological wastes (SBW) has practically exhausted its capacities. In 1996, in order to find a way out, the Administration of the town showed an interest in a proposal made by the Austrian firm FMW to support financially the construction of an electric power station in the vicinity of the town that would operate using both fuel briquettes and SBW of the town. The briquettes would be manufactured in Turkey and would contain 70 percent Austrian industrial waste with added oil sludge. It was also envisaged that during the construction period of the electric power station, 300,000 tons of briquettes would be shipped and stockpiled. The original positive decision was annulled due to an independent evaluation of the project organized by the Public Ecological Commission.

The general public of Puschino put forward a counter proposal before the Administration in order to reduce volumes of SBW disposal at the polygon and to prolong its operation—segregation of SBW (food waste, paper refuse, fabrics, metal, glass, used car batteries). As a result, a new scheme for sanitary measures in the town was worked out in 1998, which on the basis of segregation of waste provided for a considerable decrease in refuse flow to the polygon. Unfortunately, for lack of finances in the town budget, the scheme has not been introduced to the full extent. But in spite of severe shortages of special containers for segregated wastes, a network of receiving points for secondary materials was set up.

One of the pressing tasks for greater public activity is wide popularization of environmental knowledge on waste management, especially among the young generation. There is a very important role for public organizations to play in this domain when enlightenment and education are becoming a primary concern of nongovernmental organizations. Referring again to the example of the Public Ecological Commission in Pushchino, I have to underline that this organization is taking an active part in the enlightenment of the population through organizing exhibitions, placing publications in the press, and spurring school children into action to encourage cleaning of the town by means of environmental contests, seminars, and conferences. Children help the Commission organize mobile receiving points for secondary material. They even prepare announcements and post them around the town calling on the citizens to take valuable amounts of domestic wastes and car batteries to receiving points.

There are other examples of a growing influence of public organizations on the policy of administration in the sphere of waste management in the Moscow region. The Moscow Children’s Ecological Center has worked out the Program “You, He, She and I—All Together Make Moscow Clean,” which is being introduced with the support of the Moscow Government. In the framework of this program, children collect waste paper at schools, and they are taught how to

be careful about the environment and material resources. The storage facilities agreed to support the initiative. They buy waste paper at a special price for school children. Then, the schools spend the earned money for excursions, laboratory equipment, books, and plant greenery.

Another example of an enlightened activity is a project realized in 1999 by the firm Ecoconcord on producing video-clips for TV about the adverse effects of waste incineration and the illegality of unauthorized storage of waste.

The name Ecoconcord speaks for the main purpose of this organization—to achieve mutual understanding between the general public and governmental organizations, to encourage public involvement in decision-making, and to promote the formation of policy bodies that would not let public opinion be ignored.

Proceeding from the global task of integrating the activities of interested parties in lessening adverse waste pollution, public organizations have to cooperate with authorities and not stand against them. Cooperation and consensus between governmental and nongovernmental organizations in working out strategies and tactics in waste management should become a prerequisite in successful realization of state policy in this sphere in the Russian Federation.

An NRC committee was established to work with a Russian counterpart group in conducting a workshop in Moscow on the effectiveness of Russian environmental NGOs in environmental decision-making and prepared proceedings of this workshop, highlighting the successes and difficulties faced by NGOs in Russia and the United States.

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

IMAGES

  1. (PDF) A Systematic Review of Construction and Demolition Waste

    literature review on construction waste management

  2. Waste Materials in Construction

    literature review on construction waste management

  3. Chapter 2. Literature Review

    literature review on construction waste management

  4. literature review on construction waste management

    literature review on construction waste management

  5. Literature Review construction waste management.edited.docx

    literature review on construction waste management

  6. (PDF) Utilisation of mine waste in the construction industry

    literature review on construction waste management

VIDEO

  1. Solid Waste Management Concepts

  2. Agriculture solid waste management @TheAdvanceAgriculture @agri

  3. Waste management

  4. ||E

  5. Waste Management Bulky Waste Collection! #wastemanagement #garbagetruck #trashtruck #truck

  6. Waste Management Peterbilt/McNeilus Frontloader #foryou #garbagetruck #wastemanagement #wm

COMMENTS

  1. A Critical Literature Review on Construction Waste Management

    A CRITICAL LITERATURE REVIEW ON CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT Authors: Nasirhusen Chanki Dr. Jayeshkumar Pitroda Birla Vishvakarma Mahavidyalaya Engineering College Abstract Construction is an...

  2. Construction and demolition waste management contributing factors

    Volume 263, 1 August 2020, 121265 Review Construction and demolition waste management contributing factors coupled with reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies for effective waste management: A review Kamyar Kabirifar a , Mohammad Mojtahedi, Changxin Wang, Vivian W.Y. Tam Add to Mendeley

  3. Review of construction and demolition waste management tools and

    This review looks over the current construction and demolition waste management (C&DWM) situations by scrutinizing the definition, classification, components, compositions, generated sources and causes, impacts of generated construction and demolition wastes (C&DWs), waste management hierarchy (WMH), 3R principles (Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle), C...

  4. (PDF) Waste in construction: A systematic literature review on

    Waste in construction: A systematic literature review on empirical studies Conference: 20th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction At: San Diego, USA Authors:...

  5. Construction and demolition waste

    The construction sector is the major resource-consuming and waste-producing sector in our modern society, using - on average - more than 40% of the total raw materials extracted from the earth around the world (Krausmann et al., 2017), and at the same time generating more than one third of the world's solid waste by weight (up to more than 75% when excavated soil is accounted for as well ...

  6. Construction and Demolition Waste Management Research: A Science

    Abstract Construction and demolition waste treatment has become an increasingly pressing economic, social, and environmental concern across the world. This study employs a science mapping approach to provide a thorough and systematic examination of the literature on waste management research.

  7. Circular Economy of Construction and Demolition Waste: A Literature

    Circular Economy of Construction and Demolition Waste: A Literature Review on Lessons, Challenges, and Benefits - PMC Journal List Materials (Basel) PMC8745857 As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature.

  8. Construction waste estimation methods: a systematic literature review

    Twenty-eight papers were selected based on the PRISMA approach and categorised into five estimation methods: area-based waste generation rate, variables modelling method, bill of quantity-based...

  9. A Systematic Review of Construction and Demolition Waste Management in

    A Systematic Review of Construction and Demolition Waste Management in Australia: Current Practices and Challenges by Kamyar Kabirifar *, Mohammad Mojtahedi and Cynthia Changxin Wang School of Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

  10. Liquid waste management in the construction sector: a systematic

    Liquid waste management in the construction sector: a systematic literature review Gayani Karunasena , Akvan Gajanayake , W. M. Pabasara U. Wijeratne , Nick Milne , Nilupa Udawatta , Srinath Perera , show all Pages 86-96 | Received 24 Aug 2022, Accepted 25 Mar 2023, Published online: 13 May 2023 Cite this article

  11. Sustainable construction management: A systematic review of the

    This article is a literature review in the area of sustainable construction management. This analysis was conducted in three phases, as shown in Fig. 1: quantitative analysis, a stage of meta-analysis where the articles are filtered and clustered for manual bibliometric and VOSviewer analysis, and in the last stage, qualitative analysis was carried out, where two different activities were ...

  12. PDF Construction and Demolition Waste Management on The Building Site: a

    36 100% While several authors mention that the management of CDW is neglected in literature (China, 2016), we found some articles that discussed aspects like benefits (4 articles), hindrances to CDW implementation (5 articles), legal and policy issues (8 articles), economic factors and the use of IT in relation to CDW (9 articles).

  13. Construction Solid Waste Management on The Building Site: a Literature

    Solid waste management at the construction site is the act of reducing, reusing, and recycling the generated waste to minimise the quantity of solid waste deposited on the landfills. Contractors maximize profits by minimizing the generation of waste on-site.

  14. A mini review of construction and demolition waste management in India

    While several waste quantification methodologies have been proposed in the literature, the quantification of waste generation in India is inadequate. This inadequacy can be attributed to the lack of appropriate hierarchical control mechanism, absence of a common C&D waste estimation method, and the lack of C&D waste processing knowledge among ...

  15. (PDF) Waste Management in Construction Industry

    Waste Management in Construction Industry - A Review on the Issues and Challenges Conference: 4th International Conference on Environmental Research and Technology (ICERT 2015) Authors: Mohd...

  16. A critical literature review on minimization of material wastes in

    A critical literature review on minimization of material wastes in construction projects R.Janani, N.Lalithambigai Show more Add to Mendeley Share Cite https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.09.011Get rights and content Abstract Advancement of waste materials has a noteworthy effect at nature.

  17. Waste Management Practices: Literature Review

    Download Free PDF. View PDF. Urban Management Centre -UMC, Meghna Malhotra, Manvita Baradi. Urban areas in India generate more than 1,00,000 MT of waste per day (CPHEEO, 2000). A large metropolis such as Mumbai generates about 7000 MT of waste per day (MCGM, 2014), Bangalore generates about 5000 MT (BBMP, 2014) and other large cities such as ...

  18. 14 Problems of Waste Management in the Moscow Region

    In 1999 in Moscow the following volumes of secondary raw materials were produced or used in the city or were recycled: 300,000 tons of construction waste, 296,000 tons of metal scrap, 265 tons of car battery lead, 21,000 tons of glass, 62,500 tons of paper waste, 4,328 tons of oil-bearing waste, and 306 tons of refuse from galvanizing plants.

  19. PDF Waste in Construction: a Systematic Literature Review on Empirical Studies

    This paper presents a review on papers that have systematically investigated the occurrence of waste in the construction industry, including concepts adopted, metrics, and type of feedback...

  20. Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Select Waste to Energy ...

    In a mega city like Moscow, both municipal solid waste management and energy systems are managed in an unsustainable way. Therefore, utilizing the municipal solid waste to generate energy will help the city in achieving sustainability by decreasing greenhouse gases emissions and the need for land to dispose the solid waste. In this study, various Waste to Energy (WTE) options were evaluated ...

  21. Life cycle assessment of the existing and proposed municipal solid

    The waste management model was created using GaBi LCA software, version 7 (Sphera, ... Other necessary information was taken from Russian and European literature sources and from the GaBi (Sphera, 2020) and Ecoinvent databases ... Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems - Part I: Lessons learned and perspectives. Waste Manag. ...

  22. Liquid waste management in the construction sector: a systematic

    Liquid waste management in the construction sector: a systematic literature review Authors: Gayani Karunasena Akvan Gajanayake RMIT University W. M. Pabasara U. Wijeratne Nick Milne...

  23. (PDF) Inter-Regional Cooperation in Waste Management ...

    2019, Moscow set a new record in housing deve lopment, as 4.96 million squar e. meters of new apartment space was built. 23 In comparison, over 4.6 million square. meters of new apartment space ...