Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
How Does the European Recovery Target for Construction & Demolition Waste Affect Resource Management?
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Civil and Architectural Engineering, Building Materials.
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: Waste and Biomass Valorization, ISSN 1877-2641, E-ISSN 1877-265X, Vol. 8, no 5, p. 1491-1504Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The revised EU Waste Framework Directive (WFD) includes a 70 % target for recovery of construction and demolition (C&D) waste. In order to study the potential change in the resource management of the main C&D waste fractions, as a consequence of fulfilling the WFD target, a Nordic project (ENCORT-CDW) has been performed. Waste fractions studied included asphalt, concrete, bricks, track ballast, gypsum-based construction materials and wood. Recovery scenarios were identified and estimations were made regarding expected savings of primary materials, impact on transport, and pollution and emissions. For wood waste, the main differences between re-use, material recycling and energy recovery were evaluated in a carbon footprint screening based on life cycle assessment methodology. The study concluded that the EU recovery target does not ensure a resource efficient and environmentally sustainable waste recovery in its present form since: It is very sensitive to how the legal definitions of waste and recovery are interpreted in the Member States. This means that certain construction material cycles might not count in the implementation reports while other, less efficient and environmentally safe, recovery processes of the same material will count. It is weight-based and consequently favours large and heavy waste streams. The result is that smaller flows with equal or larger resource efficiency and environmental benefit will be insignificant for reaching the target. It does not distinguish between the various recovery processes, meaning that resource efficient and environmentally safe recovery cannot be given priority. Improved knowledge on C&D waste generation and handling, as well as on content and emissions of dangerous substances, is required to achieve a sustainable recovery.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer Netherlands, 2017. Vol. 8, no 5, p. 1491-1504
Keyword [en]
Recovery, Construction & demolition waste, Life cycle assessment, Resource efficiency
National Category
Environmental Management
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-212348DOI: 10.1007/s12649-016-9661-7ISI: 000406399700011Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85001754637OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-212348DiVA, id: diva2:1134778
Conference
9th International Conference on the Environmental and Technical Implications of Construction with Alternative Materials (WASCON) - Resource Efficiency in Construction, JUN 10-12, 2015, Santander, SPAIN
Note

QC 20170821

Available from: 2017-08-21 Created: 2017-08-21 Last updated: 2017-08-25Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Erlandsson, Martin

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Erlandsson, Martin
By organisation
Building Materials
In the same journal
Waste and Biomass Valorization
Environmental Management

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 48 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf