Journal of Cleaner Production 248 (2020) 119238

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Review

The circular economy in the construction and demolition waste sector

e A review and an integrative model approach

pez Ruiz*, Xavier Roca Ramo
Luis Alberto Lo
n, Santiago Gasso

Domingo
Group of Construction Research and Innovation (GRIC), Department of Project and Construction Engineering, Universitat Polit
ecnica de Catalunya, C/ Colom,
11, Ed. TR5, 08222, Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Construction and demolition waste (CDW) is a priority for many policies at global level. This is due to the
Received 3 April 2019 high volume of CDW that is produced and its inadequate management. This situation leads to serious
Received in revised form environmental effects, which are mainly associated with manufacturing processes for new building
1 October 2019
materials because of low product recovery rates. In this context, the concept of Circular Economy (CE) is a
Accepted 8 November 2019
Available online 9 November 2019
potential solution in many sectors, as it involves more efficient use of resources and energy, which leads
to waste minimization and reduction of the environmental impacts of product cycles. Moreover, it
Handling Editor: Prof. Jiri Jaromir Klemes represents potential economic opportunities. The main aim of this study was to identify factors that
could influence the adoption of the Circular Economy concept in the construction and demolition sector.
Keywords: A systematic literature review was conducted to understand the main strategies involved in the devel-
Construction and demolition waste opment of integral circular strategies. The main contribution of this paper is a theoretical framework for
Material recovery the Circular Economy in the construction and demolition sector. The framework is comprised of 14
Waste management strategies within the five lifecycle stages of construction and demolition activities. Particularly, the
Circular economy
framework emphasizes waste management and recirculation of recovered materials for their use as
secondary building materials.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Circular economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. CE initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Research focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Preconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.1. Policies and strategic frameworks: economic instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.2. Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.3. CDW management plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Construction and building renovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.1. Site waste management plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Collection and distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4.1. Collection and segregation techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4.2. Transport processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5. End-of-life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5.1. Selective deconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5.2. Predeconstruction/demolition audits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

* Corresponding author.

pez Ruiz).
E-mail address: [email protected] (L.A. Lo

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119238
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2
pez Ruiz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 248 (2020) 119238
L.A. Lo

4.6. Material recovery and production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4.6.1. Reuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.6.2. Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.6.3. Energy recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.6.4. Backfilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Conceptualization of an integrative CE framework in the CDW sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1. Introduction Economy (CE) is considered a solution as it would reduce envi-

ronmental impacts while contributing to economic growth (Lieder
The construction industry has a strong influence on the three and Rashid, 2016). Thus, CE constitutes a novel regenerative system
aspects of sustainability: environmental, economic and social. It is a to optimize the use of materials and their value throughout their
major provider of employment opportunities and a large contrib- lifecycle phases, and to minimize waste (Bocken et al., 2016; Brown
utor to gross domestic product (GDP) (Smol et al., 2015). In 2016, et al., 2019; Esa et al., 2017).
the construction sector accounted for 6.2% of world GDP, 6.3% in The CE concept has gained academic, government and organi-
Europe and 5.7% in Latin America (Eurostat, 2017; FIIC, 2017). zational recognition. At global level, Germany, Japan, China and
However, in addition to its economic and social benefits, the con- Europe are recognized for having developed legislation on the
struction sector creates serious environmental problems during the implementation of CE principles (Merli et al., 2018; Su et al., 2013).
entire lifecycle of buildings, especially during the operation and In the European Union, CE has become a central aspect of the
end-of-life stages. This is mainly due to the generation of con- development of policies and strategies, as part of the Circular
struction and demolition waste (CDW) and the manufacturing of Economy Action Plan (European Commission, 2018a).
building materials (Geng et al., 2017; Ghisellini et al., 2018a). Although the construction industry is considered one of the key
In this context, CDW is a major challenge for the construction sectors with the greatest potential for CE adoption (Brambilla et al.,
industry due to the increasing volume of waste produced and its 2019) and CDW is identified in CE policies as a priority (European
associated environmental impacts. CDW is the largest waste stream Commission, 2015b), its implementation is a challenging task that
worldwide (30e40% of total solid waste, Jin et al., 2018; Tam and requires drastic changes in the structure of industry and society,
Tam, 2006). In the European Union, CDW accounted for 36% of mainly related to waste management and business operation
the total solid waste produced in 2016 (924 million tons, Eurostat, (Lieder and Rashid, 2016).
2018), while in the United States this proportion was close to 67% Furthermore, research on implementation of the CE model in
(534 million tons, EPA, 2016), and in China it was 30e40% (2.36 the CDW sector has not been extensive. Recent studies have
billion tons, Huang et al., 2018; Zheng et al., 2017) (Fig. 1a and b). analyzed the application of best management practices for CDW
Because of the negative impacts of CDW on the environment (e.g. Ga
lvez-Martos et al., 2018; Huang et al., 2018), and explored
and the high rates of waste produced, the management of CDW has cases of implementation of CE principles in the CDW sector based
become a priority for sustainable development programs world- on the 3 R (reduce, recycle, reuse) principle (Ghisellini et al.,
wide (Esa et al., 2017). Associated environmental impacts include 2018b). In addition, some efforts have been made to develop
land degradation, landfill depletion, carbon and greenhouse gas frameworks for CDW minimization (e.g. Esa et al., 2017 on
emissions, water pollution, high energy consumption and resource Malaysia) and the integration of CE in the built environment
depletion (Akanbi et al., 2018; Ding et al., 2016). Even though there (Pomponi and Moncaster, 2017, on the transition to circular
is increasing interest in implementing recovery practices such as buildings). In addition, the analysis of potential barriers to CE
reuse and recycling, in most cases the waste management process implementation in CDW management practices has been
is inefficient, resulting in large volumes of waste disposed of in addressed (Mahpour, 2018). Other studies have focused on iden-
landfills or even illegally dumped without environmental protec- tifying and comparing the best recovery alternatives for specific
tion measures (Esa et al., 2017; Sua
rez et al., 2016). This situation is CDW typologies (e.g. Jime
nez-Rivero and García-Navarro, 2017 on
evident: only 20e30% of construction and demolition waste is gypsum and Lockrey et al., 2016 on concrete). The literature also
recovered globally (World Economic Forum, 2016). As shown in includes multiple environmental assessments of CDW, including
Fig. 1c, the average recovery rate in the European Union is 46% those by Chau et al. (2017) on the lifecycle energy assessment of a
(European Commission [DG ENV], 2011), although the rate varies concrete-based building in Hong Kong; Coelho and De Brito (2012)
from 10 to 90% among Member States, e.g. United Kingdom 89.9%, on lifecycle analysis of a building in Portugal comparing waste
France 47.5%, Spain 37.9% and Germany 34% (European management options; Martínez et al. (2013) on a building in Spain
Commission, 2015a; fercd, 2015). The average is therefore under evaluating factors that influence demolition processes; and Ng and
the 70% recovery and recycling target by 2020 set in the waste Chau (2015) on the evaluation of energy saving potential of
Directive 2008/98/EC. In the United States it stands at around 70% recycling, reuse and recovery alternatives for types of CDW from a
(Zheng et al., 2017), while in China the recovery rate remains commercial building. In terms of economic assessments of waste
limited at less than 5% (Huang et al., 2018). management practices for CDW, studies include a paper by Jung
In the light of environmental challenges derived from the cur- et al. (2015) on concrete waste, Marzouk and Azab (2014) on the
rent linear economy model of “take-make-consume-dispose”, the evaluation of recycling and disposing of CDW, and Wijayasundara
construction industry requires the implementation of new, et al. (2016) on recycled aggregates and their use in ready-mix
enhanced building strategies focused on the problem of CDW concrete production.
(Jaillon and Poon, 2014). In this context, the transition to a Circular From a CE perspective, most of the current research is focused

pez Ruiz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 248 (2020) 119238
L.A. Lo 3

Fig. 1. Comparison of generation and recovery status of CDW.

on one or more circular principles, and particularly recovery op- 2.1. Circular economy
tions. However, there is a lack of integrative approaches that
consider the application of CE strategies in multiple stages in the Circular economy is a recent concept that has been approached
lifecycle of construction and demolition products, beyond the 3 R in many ways, depending on the social, cultural and political sys-
principle as a waste management strategy. The study aims to tem (Winans et al., 2017). The CE concept is strongly recognized
address this gap by evaluating the scientific literature on the con- among scholars and practitioners in industry and society, because it
struction and demolition sector within the CE concept. The final is considered an alternative for operationalizing businesses under
aim is to develop a theoretical CE framework for the construction the concept of sustainable development (Kirchherr et al., 2017).
industry and particularly the CDW sector. In this study, the explo- Hence, the primary objective of CE is to dismantle the relation
ration of CE strategies on the use of CDW as secondary materials is between economic growth and environmental degradation and
limited to applications in the construction industry, excluding ap- resource consumption through new production practices and
plications in other industries. technological developments, satisfying consumer needs in
This work is structured in six sections. Section 2 provides a different, more sustainable ways (Brown et al., 2019; Ellen
brief literature review of the Circular Economy concept and its MacArthur Foundation et al., 2015).
principles. In addition, an overview is provided of the current and According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2018),
main existing CE initiatives for the CDW sector in the European Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) and Korhonen et al. (2018), the CE
context. Section 3 describes the research methodology used to concept is influenced by many schools of thought, such as cradle-
achieve the objectives of this study. Next, Section 4 presents the to-cradle design, performance economy, biomimicry, industrial
results of the review, based on categorization of CE strategies ac- ecology, natural capitalism and blue economy. In addition, Pauliuk
cording to five lifecycle stages of construction and demolition (2018) identified theoretical influences like regenerative design and
activities. Derived from these results, Section 5 presents a theo- ecological and environmental economics. The notion of CE is also
retical framework for implementing the CE concept in the CDW based on ideas from scientific and semi-scientific concepts that
sector. The paper concludes by highlighting the contributions and include industrial symbioses, cleaner production and the concept of
findings of the study. zero emissions (Korhonen et al., 2018). Furthermore, the 3 R prin-
ciple (Reduction, Reuse and Recycle) is considered the basis of CE
(Ghisellini et al., 2016).
2. Background Although there is no one single concept of CE, it can be broadly
defined as a model in which the value of materials, products and
This section gives a short introduction to the Circular Economy components remains in the production cycle for as long as possible.
model addressed in this study. It presents a brief description of the Thus, at a product’s end-of-life, it can be repeatedly used as a sec-
concept and the main factors and elements that influence circular ondary resource while avoiding and reducing the input of raw
models. In addition, it provides an overview of existing initiatives materials and energy and minimizing waste generation (Ellen
and applications of CE principles with a focus on the CDW sector.
4
pez Ruiz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 248 (2020) 119238
L.A. Lo

MacArthur Foundation et al., 2015; Merli et al., 2018). According to 3. Method

Geissdoerfer et al. (2017), the Circular Economy acts as a regener-
ative system in which resources, energy, emissions and waste A systematic review provides the basis for enhancing knowl-
leakage are minimized by slowing, closing and narrowing material edge of the research area and identifying gaps in published studies.
and energy loops. This is achieved by implementing actions as part Moreover, a systematic review allows specific questions to be
of many strategies of design, reuse, recycling, remanufacturing and, answered, and appraises studies objectively (Petticrew, 2001). The
if possible, energy recovery throughout production processes and methodology applied in this study is an adaptation of Torres-
consumption distribution flows (Kirchherr et al., 2017). Moreover, Carrion et al. (2018), which is based on the proposal of
the use of renewable energy is fundamental to ensure optimal Kitchenham and Brereton (2013) for performing systematic litera-
model efficiency (Korhonen et al., 2018). ture reviews in engineering, later adapted by Bacca et al. (2014) to
According to (Baldassarre et al., 2019), the transition to a CE other scientific areas. This methodology also includes an adaptation
requires the implementation of a framework based on the three of the “mentefacto conceptual” for improving efficiency and
strategies of closing, slowing and narrowing/reducing loops. It is comprehension.
also based on three pillars called technical innovation, business A systematic review was conducted using all the databases in
model innovation and collaboration. In this context: Scopus and Web of Science and the following keywords: “circular
economy”, “closed-loops” AND “(construction OR demolition)

Closing loops consists of creating a circular flow of resources waste”, “debris”. Data were collected from November 2018 to
resulting from the use phase that are generally considered March 2019. Studies published in the last 15 years (2013epresent)
waste. This is achieved through recycling processes. were extracted without geographical restrictions. Unpublished

Slowing loops refers to lengthening the use and reuse of a studies and conference proceedings were excluded. From these
product through actions such as repair, refurbishment and searches, we identified an initial sample of 267 papers to be
remanufacture. investigated, 129 from Scopus and 138 from Web of Science.

Narrowing loops is about reducing the use of resources and Duplicate papers were excluded. A further selection was made
maximizing efficiency in production processes (Bocken et al., considering the following criteria for the content of abstracts:
2016).

Studies that provide frameworks, models and identification of
components of CE applications in the construction and demo-
2.2. CE initiatives lition sector.

Studies that assess and include discussions on the use of
The CE concept has been implemented through government recovered materials in the manufacturing of new construction
policies at local, regional and national level. The German govern- materials from a CE perspective.
ment introduced CE principles as part of the Closed Substance Cycle
Studies that assess the reuse, recycling and recovery of CDW,
and Waste Management Act in 1996, which was subsequently and other waste management practices from an environmental
reorganized in 2012 as an Act to Promote the Circular Economy and and/or economic perspective.
Safeguard the Environmentally Compatible Management of Waste
Reviews on existing initiatives related to the CDW sector in the
(BMU, 2012). In the case of Japan, the government developed the frame of CE principles.
Basic Law for Establishing a Recycling-Based Society, built on the
3 R principle (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). The Government of China After reviewing the abstracts, the 53 most representative papers
incorporated CE as a central pillar of its National Economic and were selected based on the above criteria. Table 2 provides a
Social Development plans. Later, in 2009, it established the Circular summary of the database search. Then, a critical review of the
Economy Promotion Law of the People’s Republic of China (Merli resulting research articles was conducted to identify strategies that
et al., 2018). influenced CE, based on applications in the construction and de-
In the European Union, recent strategies have been developed molition industry, and focused on waste management and use of
that focus on promoting economic growth, preventing the loss of CDW as secondary materials in the construction industry. Subse-
valuable materials and reducing environmental impacts and quently, a theoretical framework approach for CE in the CDW sector
greenhouse emissions (Bocken et al., 2016). Directive 2008/98/EC is was developed and analyzed.
considered an initial document on the implementation of best From the search results (Table 2), we observed that scientific
waste management practices. In 2014, the European Union issued research on the Circular Economy with a focus on construction and
the Communication “Towards a circular economy: A zero waste demolition waste is still an emerging topic. This is revealed by the
programme for Europe” (COM 398, 2014), followed in 2015 by the fact that 51% of the studies were undertaken from 2017 to the
Communication “Closing the loop. An EU action plan for the circular present. Moreover, most of the studies (36%) were approached from
economy” (COM 614, 2015). Both are part of the “Circular Economy an environmental perspective. An observation of all studies showed
Package”, which consists of multiple action plans and legislative that the countries leading research on this area are China, Spain and
proposals focused on each step of the value chain (production, United Kingdom.
consumption, waste management and secondary raw materials) in
five priority sectors: plastics, food waste, critical raw materials,
construction and demolition, and biomass and bio-based products 4. Results
(European Commission, 2015b).
In the construction and demolition sector, CE is a tool for 4.1. Research focus
fostering more efficient CDW management and for reducing
resource and emission leaking from the loops (Mahpour, 2018). In This section identifies the most relevant strategies for adopting
the European context, various approaches include CDW as a central an integral CE model as an approach for the construction and de-
aspect. Table 1 provides an overview of the most important molition sector in the following five lifecycle stages, identified in
regional and national initiatives and strategies developed in Europe the literature search as the most influential stages in the analysis of
regarding CDW in the Circular Economy. CDW:

pez Ruiz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 248 (2020) 119238
L.A. Lo 5

Table 1
Overview of current CE initiatives in the CDW sector.

CE initiative Highlights

COM (2014) 398 e Towards a circular economy: A zero waste programme for
CDW is a priority waste stream.
Europe
The importance of enhancing the market for secondary materials, to increase CDW
Context: recycling rates.
European Union
Stipulates a framework for assessment of the environmental performance of
References: (European Commission, 2014a) buildings as outlined in COM (2014) 445 - Resource efficiency opportunities in the
building sector. Specifically:
- Including actions focused on the stage of preconstruction (specifically design) to
improve CDW management and increase recyclability and recycled content in
construction materials.

Definition of a set of measures such as the application of economic instruments (e.g.
higher landfill taxes) and additional separation obligations during the construction
and end-of-life stages to achieve the 70% recycling target 2020 set in Directive
(2008)/98/EC.

COM (2015) 614 e Closing the loop: An EU action plan for the circular economy
CDW is considered a priority, with a focus on the preconstruction stage.
Context:
Three potential measures are established to guarantee resources for the recovery and
European Union adequate management of CDW, and to facilitate the environmental assessment of
References: (European Commission, 2015b) buildings:
- Guidelines for predemolition/deconstruction assessment;
- Development of a voluntary protocol for recycling;
- Design of a framework of key indicators for the environmental assessment of
buildings and the development of incentives for their application.

EU Construction & Demolition Waste Management Protocol
Framed within the actions of COM (2014) 445.
Context:
Part of the CE Package.
European Union
The main objective is to enhance user confidence in recycled materials, increase use
References: (European Commission, 2016) of recycled materials in the construction industry and improve CDW management
practices in compliance with the recovery target of 70% for 2020.

Constitutes a framework of guidelines to develop efficient CDW management plans
before and during construction activities.

Includes measures and specifications to enhance identification, segregation,
collection, site logistics and treatment practices of CDW.

Gypsum to Gypsum, from production to recycling: a circular economy for the
Project funded by the European Commission on the implementation of best
European gypsum industry with the demolition and recycling industry (2013 management practices for gypsum waste.
e2015).
Participation of 17 members of the European gypsum industry across eight key
Context: Member States (Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Poland, Spain and
European Union the United Kingdom).
References: (Bio, 2016; Eurogypsum, 2018; European Commission, 2018b)
Target of 30% reincorporation of recycled gypsum in manufacturing processes.

Main aspects involved are:
- Value chain analysis;
- Deconstruction of pilot projects;
- Gypsum waste reprocessing and qualification of recycled gypsum;
- Reincorporation of recycled gypsum in the manufacturing process.

Three main implementation phases:
- Analysis and assessment of demolition/deconstruction practices, recycling and
manufacturing of gypsum-based products;
- Implementation of pilot projects based on the best deconstruction practices,
recycling and reincorporation of recycled material;
- Qualitative and quantitative assessment of each pilot project and the complete
project.

Environmental and economic criteria were considered to determine the best waste
management and material production strategies.

The main results were:
- For closed-loop recycling of gypsum waste, systematic dismantling practices need
to be implemented instead of demolition. On-site sorting is required and compli-
ance with material specifications for reincorporation into the manufacturing
process.
- Reincorporation of recycled materials into the manufacturing process is mostly
influenced by material costs.
- The current rate of recycled gypsum reincorporated into manufacturing processes
is around 25%.
- Political and legislative restrictions are the main barrier for gypsum waste recovery
(e.g. landfill fees and requirements for deconstruction).

Spanish Strategy for the Circular Economy 2030.
CDW measures are proposed for the following areas of action:
Action plan 2018e2020. - Manufacturing and design: analysis of technical building regulations to identify
Context: possible constraints in the use of recycled materials and integrate aspects for
Spain building sustainability.
References: (MAPAMA, 2018) - Waste management:
I. Evaluation of Royal Decree 105/2008, which regulates the production and
management of CDW, to enhance the identification, traceability and selective
segregation of CDW, and to improve management processes.
II. Reduction of excavation material from railway projects and its subsequent use
in the restoration of degraded areas. Additionally, development of waste

(continued on next page)

6
pez Ruiz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 248 (2020) 119238
L.A. Lo

Table 1 (continued )

CE initiative Highlights

management plans for CDW recovery from construction works undertaken by

the Directorate of Travel Stations.
- Market for secondary materials: use of recovered CDW in road construction and
ports. Removal of regulatory barriers to the reuse of construction materials
through the analysis of technical regulations for building projects.

Government Construction Strategy 2016e2020
Introduces a program for the adoption of a Building Information Modelling (BIM) 3D
Context: system as a strategy for improving productivity and efficiency in construction
United Kingdom projects.
References: (Infrastructure and Projects Authority, 2016)
Enables the development of more efficient design models.

Provides opportunities for better management of buildings during the construction
stage and at the end-of-life stage by sharing precise information throughout the
construction value chain.

Influences waste minimization.

Introduces a tool for collecting valuable information related to the lifecycle of
buildings.

Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP)
Aimed at providing support for local authorities, businesses and individuals in the
- Resource Efficient Construction implementation of practices for waste reduction, recycling and efficient use of
- Halving Waste to Landfill Commitment resources.
Context:
The Resource Efficient Construction approach aims to encourage construction
United Kingdom practices that reduce costs, minimize waste and reduce atmospheric emissions. In
References: (WRAP, 2013, 2011) summary:
- It supports manufacturing companies in the improvement of production processes
to reduce the associated environmental impacts.
- It provides guidance to constructors and other related actors in the
implementation of good practices in the preconstruction, construction and end-
of-life stages to enhance waste minimization and reuse actions.
- Among the common practices are:
⁃ Design for waste prevention and deconstruction;
⁃ Use of BIM tools;
⁃ Use of prefabricated components;
⁃ Reuse, recycling and energy and water efficiency;
⁃ Quality protocols for recovered materials;
⁃ Finance advice.

The Halving Waste to Landfill Commitment is a voluntary agreement among
stakeholders from the construction industry supply chain, under a supportive
framework for waste reduction.
- Specific targets of waste reduction and disposal in landfills are defined.
- Supportive actions are implemented to apply good waste management practices.

Table 2
Summary of database search.

Keywords Databases search results Results after revision Subject area Country/territory

“circular economy”, Scopus (129 articles) 31 articles duplicated Environmental Science (36%) China
“closed-loops” Web of science (138 articles) 53 articles selected Engineering (19%) Spain
AND “(construction OR demolition) waste”, “debris” Energy (13%) United Kingdom

preconstruction; design, procurement, construction and demolition. Moreover, Ga
lvez-

construction and building renovation; Martos et al. (2018) categorized best CDW management practices in

collection and distribution; four stages according to the basis of CE: preconstruction, construc-

end-of-life; tion, demolition and waste to products. Finally, Yeheyis et al. (2013)

material recovery and production. proposed a CDW management framework based on three stages:
preconstruction (planning and design), construction and renovation
These five main stages are prevalent in studies analyzing CDW and demolition stage.
from a CE perspective and are associated with a set of 14 strategies The literature review showed that the largest proportion of
for implementing legislative and political CE frameworks, efficient studies addressed preconstruction and material recovery and pro-
waste management practices, and the use of CDW in the duction strategies, both in the same proportion (15 articles). This
manufacturing of new materials in the construction industry was followed by studies that included aspects related to collection
(Table 3). and distribution (11 articles) and end-of-life strategies (11 articles).
The identification of these five lifecycle stages is mainly based Finally, a small proportion of studies focused on construction and
on the categorization by Akanbi et al. (2018), Esa et al. (2017), building renovation strategies (two articles).
Ga
lvez-Martos et al. (2018) and Yeheyis et al. (2013). Akanbi et al. From the foregoing results, we provide a synthesis of the review
(2018) conceptualized the CE model in the construction industry of research on circular economy strategies for the CDW sector ac-
in seven stages: extraction/use of virgin raw materials, material in- cording to the outlined categorization of lifecycle stages (pre-
puts, design process, construction and production process, distribu- construction; construction and building renovation; collection and
tion, collection and recycling. Esa et al. (2017) outlined five common distribution; end-of-life; and material recovery and production).
stages across the value chain of a construction project: planning,

pez Ruiz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 248 (2020) 119238
L.A. Lo 7

4.2. Preconstruction construction and demolition processes (Yu et al., 2013). As an

example, and according to Ghisellini et al. (2018a) and Yu et al.
In the preconstruction stage, waste minimization and efficient (2013), the implementation of the Construction Waste Disposal
use of material can be achieved by alternatives focused on opti- Charging Scheme in Hong Kong is considered one of the most
mizing the planning, control and management of CDW from future influential policies for CDW reduction. As a result of its adoption,
construction activities. Three main categories of strategies are the amount of CDW disposed of in landfills has been reduced by
prevalent in this stage: (i) policies and strategic frameworks, (ii) around 60%. However, despite the multiple environmental benefits
design and (iii) CDW management plans. of increasing material recovery, high disposal fees may result in an
increase in illegal dumping (Huang et al., 2018; Yuan, 2017).
Another economic instrument is the application of taxes on pri-
4.2.1. Policies and strategic frameworks: economic instruments
mary materials, which can be used as an instrument for enhancing
Most waste management regulations have been developed for
the market of secondary materials (Nussholz et al., 2019).
household waste, while regulations for CDW are often limited
The analysis of CDW management practices undertaken by
(Yuan, 2017). Hence, the development and enhancement of policies
G
alvez-Martos et al. (2018) and Huang et al. (2018) recognizes the
and strategic frameworks contribute to a sustainable construction
application of appropriate incentives for CDW treatment com-
strategy. A legislative CE framework provides an opportunity to
panies as a potential alternative for enhancing and promoting
manage the environmental challenges resulting from increasing
efficient recycling and recovery methods, and to expand the pro-
CDW generation (Ghisellini et al., 2018a). In this context, regulatory
duction of building products using recovered materials (e.g.
instruments, such as economic instruments, are identified in the

lvez-Martos et al., 2018; Ghisellini et al., 2018a; Huang financial subsidies for recycling companies, low land rental fees for
literature (Ga
CDW management companies). Moreover, a study by Li et al. (2014)
et al., 2018; Nussholz et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2013;
demonstrates that policies focused on increasing subsidies for the
Yuan, 2017; Zheng et al., 2017) as the main influencing strategy
construction process based on prefabrication are a major factor for
among the policies and frameworks applied in the CDW sector for
promoting the adoption of prefabricated elements.
CE. Thus, economic instruments are an effective measure to
encourage waste minimization and material recovery.
Among the economic instruments, a CDW disposal charge is 4.2.2. Design
identified as one of the more successful strategies to reduce the Design is a strategic component that influences waste genera-
amount of waste disposed of in landfills (Ghisellini et al., 2018a; tion in construction projects. Three main strategies are identified in
Wang et al., 2018). A low landfill fee discourages the adoption of this category: (i) design for waste prevention, (ii) design for
reduction and recovery actions and favors disposal in landfills disassembly and deconstruction and (iii) use of prefabricated
(Ghisellini et al., 2018a; Huang et al., 2018). In contrast, disposal elements.
charging schemes encourage waste producers to prioritize reduce,
reuse and recycle practices over disposal, as they can reduce 4.2.2.1. Design for waste prevention. Design for waste prevention
disposal costs (Wang et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2013). These schemes are provides one of the best opportunities to reduce waste generation
based on the polluter pays principle, in which polluters are and strengthen reuse and recycling practices from the early stage of
responsible for environmental impacts and receive economic construction planning and throughout the entire value chain. A lack
pressure to implement recovery practices throughout the of preventive measures and limited knowledge of construction and

Table 3
Summary of relevant CE strategies for CDW.

Stages CE strategy Author/s

Preconstruction (5 Policies and
Economic instruments (G

alvez-Martos et al., 2018; Ghisellini et al., 2018a; Huang et al., 2018; Nussholz et al., 2019;
strategies) strategic Wang et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2013; Yuan, 2017; Zheng et al., 2017)
frameworks:
Design:
Design for waste (Akanbi et al., 2018; Brambilla et al., 2019; Ghisellini et al., 2018a; Gorgolewski M., 2008; Huang
prevention et al., 2018; Jaillon and Poon, 2014; C. Li et al., 2014; Minunno et al., 2018; Yeheyis et al., 2013)

Design for
disassembly and
deconstruction

Use of prefabricated
elements
CDW management plans
nez-Rivero and García-Navarro, 2017; Yeheyis et al., 2013)
(Douglas, 2016; Jime
Construction and building Site waste management plans, SWMP (G

nez-Rivero and García-Navarro, 2017)
alvez-Martos et al., 2018; Jime
renovation (1 strategy)
Collection and distribution Collection and segregation techniques (Dahlbo et al., 2015; Ga
lvez-Martos et al., 2018; Ghisellini et al., 2018a; Huang et al., 2018;
(2 strategies) Jime
nez-Rivero and García-Navarro, 2017)
Transport (Bovea and Powell, 2016; Brambilla et.al., 2019; Coelho and De Brito, 2012; T. Ding et al., 2016;
Ga
lvez-Martos et al., 2018; Jung et al., 2015; Martínez et al., 2013)
End of life (2 strategies) Selective deconstruction
lvez-
(Akanbi et al., 2018; Brambilla et al., 2019; Chau et al., 2017; Coelho and De Brito, 2012; Ga
Martos et al., 2018; Ghisellini et al., 2018a, 2018b; Jime
nez-Rivero and García-Navarro, 2016;
Nussholz et al., 2019; Schultmann and Sunke, 2007)
Predeconstruction/demolition audits (Jime
nez-Rivero and García-Navarro, 2017; 2016)
Material recovery and Reuse (Akanbi et al., 2018; G
alvez-Martos et al., 2018; Ghisellini et al., 2018b; Huang et al., 2018;
production (4 strategies) Minunno et al., 2018; Nussholz et al., 2019; Sassi, 2008; Schultmann and Sunke, 2007)
Recycling (Akanbi et al., 2018; Bovea and Powell, 2016; Christmann, 2018; T. Ding et al., 2016; Huang
et al., 2018; Lockrey et al., 2016; Marzouk and Azab, 2014; Ng and Chau, 2015; Wijayasundara
et al., 2016)
Energy recovery (Chau et al., 2017; Schultmann and Sunke, 2007)
Backfilling (Coudray et al., 2017; Ga
lvez-Martos et al., 2018)
8
pez Ruiz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 248 (2020) 119238
L.A. Lo

constructability increases the waste generated, hinders its control management measures for waste reduction before, during and after
and affects the cost and time of waste management (Esa et al., 2017;
nez-Rivero et al., 2017).
construction activities (Douglas, 2016; Jime
Jin et al., 2018; Yeheyis et al., 2013). In this context, reuse should be In Europe, the development of waste management plans is a
a priority to be researched by the design team to use appropriate common practice, as it is mandatory and required for each con-
components in construction projects. Engineers, architects and struction project (Ga
lvez-Martos et al., 2018). An integral CDW
demolition and salvage companies must develop working re- management plan includes the development of a waste manage-
lationships to enhance the potential of the reuse market. Although ment report, WMR (in the design stage) and a site waste manage-
there are associated cost savings, additional labor costs are often ment plan, SWMP (in the construction planning stage) (Jime
nez-
generated by project management practices and the additional Rivero et al., 2017).
costs of off-site storage should also be considered (Gorgolewski., According to the EU Construction and Demolition Waste Man-
2008). agement Protocol, this waste management model should include
The availability of accurate and reliable forecasts of CDW gen- detailed information regarding:
eration and its detailed composition are essential during the
planning and design stage of construction projects (Yuan, 2017). a) Demolition/deconstruction procedures
Studies by Akanbi et al. (2018), Huang et al. (2018), Minunno et al. b) Type of wastes to be generated
(2018) and Yeheyis et al. (2013) identified Building Information c) Preventive measures to reduce CDW
Modelling (BIM) as an effective technique to estimate the type and d) Transport procedures
volume of recoverable materials and their potential treatment e) Identification of final treatment for CDW that is generated
(reuse, recycling, recovery, landfilling processes) during the design (reuse, recovery or landfill disposal)
stage. BIM-based tools facilitate the management of buildings f) Measures for mandatory on-site segregation
throughout their entire lifecycle and constitute an opportunity in g) Blueprints of CDW treatment facilities
terms of the circular economy, due to their capacity to accumulate
lifecycle information and the significant potential for waste Moreover, it should describe safety issues and procedures to
reduction. In addition, BIM plays a key role in the design of future restrict environmental impacts (e.g. risk of leakage and dust), as
disassembly of buildings and facilitates estimation of the circularity well as a distinction between the planned treatment of hazardous
degree of building materials. Moreover, specifications of materials and non-hazardous waste. The application of these plans also
during the design stage constitute a major factor for determining complies with the requirements of assessment models such as
the level of reusability and recyclability of recoverable building BREEAM, which is an effective framework for the application of CE
materials at the end-of-life stage. strategies in terms of waste prevention and minimization (Douglas,
2016).
4.2.2.2. Design for disassembly or deconstruction. Design for disas-
sembly or deconstruction constitutes a fundamental strategy for 4.3. Construction and building renovation
achieving more sustainable buildings by promoting a closed-loop
system for building components. It has a significant influence on 4.3.1. Site waste management plans
the amount of potential reusable and recyclable materials and fa- From a CE perspective, Esa et al. (2017) highlights the adoption
cilitates the operation of recovery practices (Jaillon and Poon, of site waste management plans (SWMP) as the main strategy
2014). The implementation of design for deconstruction is closely influencing the stage of construction and building renovation. In
linked to the use of prefabricated components. It has the potential this stage, the amount of waste produced depends on the type of
to reduce at a significant rate the waste produced during the con- management. Thus, inefficient management practices imply larger
struction and renovation stage and during demolition/decon- volumes of CDW. Generally, the waste produced in this stage comes
struction activities (Ghisellini et al., 2018b; Jaillon and Poon, 2014). from reinforcement steel-bar cut-offs, imprecise concrete ele-
Apart from environmental benefits, this practice involves lower ments, damaged materials (e.g. bricks and tiles), and sand loss due
working time and lower construction costs. However, this is a to transport (Minunno et al., 2018).
modern construction method and is not widely applied in the The design and implementation of a SWMP is considered an
building sector (Jaillon and Poon, 2014), since its application de- effective strategy to improve CDW management operations, and it
pends on specific site conditions (Ghisellini et al., 2018b). In addi- is applied in any construction and renovation activities, even in the
tion, there is a need for developing quality standards for the end-of-life stage during demolition and deconstruction activities.
industry of prefabricated components (Huang et al., 2018). Similarly to CDW management plans, the adoption of a SWMP
provides opportunities for waste reduction and for increasing the
4.2.2.3. Use of prefabricated elements. The use of prefabricated el- rates of recovered materials. These models identify and estimate
ements consists in the adoption of prefabricated items such as fa- the waste types that will be produced and provide a detailed plan
cades, dry walls, precast slabs and staircase units. These products for waste management. This involves integration of best waste
are produced, assembled and prefinished in external facilities. An management procedures (e.g. segregation, storage, transportation
empirical study by Li et al. (2014) highlights that the use of pre- type and treatment method) and management technologies to
fabricated elements can reduce labor-intensive construction trades recover or dispose of the estimated waste. Moreover, it comprises
(e.g. concreting, bricklaying and plastering), which minimizes detailed information regarding targets, responsibilities, in-
various waste streams such as concrete and wood from concreting. struments for monitoring, communication strategies and cost
In general, 65e80% of total CDW can be reduced by the adoption of estimation for potential savings (Ga
lvez-Martos et al., 2018;
prefabricated systems (Ga
lvez-Martos et al., 2018; Jaillon and Poon, Jime
nez-Rivero and García-Navarro, 2017).
2014).
4.4. Collection and distribution
4.2.3. CDW management plans
In line with the above practices, CDW management plans should The collection and distribution stage distinguishes between two
be developed during the design phase (Yeheyis et al., 2013). These main aspects: (i) collection and segregation techniques and (ii)
plans comprise a strategy for project planning and establish waste transport processes.

pez Ruiz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 248 (2020) 119238
L.A. Lo 9

4.4.1. Collection and segregation techniques environmental impacts and condition the application of recovery
In general, most of the CDW collected from construction and alternatives. Thus, transport distances represent the threshold be-
demolition sites is mixed or contaminated due to the lack of sorting tween environmental benefits and loads (Brambilla et al., 2019).
at source (Huang et al., 2018). This situation reduces the potential The environmental assessment developed by Jung et al. (2015)
and efficiency of reuse and recycling practices (Ghisellini et al., highlights the influence of transport distances in on-site recycling
2018a). In contrast, proper waste collection at source generates and off-site recycling processes for concrete waste. Similarly, Ding
clean waste fractions, which increases their potential for use as et al. (2016a,b) identified this influence in their analysis of recy-
secondary materials (Nussholz et al., 2019). A study by Huang et al. cled aggregates. Martínez et al. (2013) present the results of an
(2018) shows that scrap steel, bricks and elements such as doors assessment of demolition scenarios in the Spanish context to
and windows are usually collected onsite, but most of the CDW that identify the most significant process in terms of environmental
is produced is dumped. In their study, Ga
lvez-Martos et al. (2018) damage. They identified transport as the most influential factor in
identified a set as a common basis for standard collection prac- conventional and selective demolition. Similarly, Coelho and De
tices. Regarding waste collection bins, proper identification by Brito (2012) stated that transport is a conditioning factor in the
waste stream and adequate size, number and labelling are essential. environmental effects of building demolition practices. In their
Temporary collection points should be placed next to construction review, Bovea and Powell (2016) identified the best environmental
or demolition sites. Moreover, hazardous waste must be collected practices for CDW management and emphasized that transport
in a separate point with adequate protection measures (e.g. wind type and distances are factors that affect the environmental ben-
and rain protection). These collection points must be identified in efits of recycling compared to final disposal.
the SWMP and be available to all relevant actors.
Segregation techniques are effective strategies to divert CDW 4.5. End-of-life
from landfills, as they facilitate preparation for re-use, recycling and
other recovery alternatives (Ghisellini et al., 2018a). These practices The end-of-life stage is characterized by high volumes of CDW,
involve separate collection of end-of-life products after dismantling the highest in the entire lifecycle of construction activities. There
or during construction activities, according to the physicochemical are two general practices in this stage: conventional demolition
characteristics of the waste (Jime
nez-Rivero and García-Navarro, and selective demolition or deconstruction. In this stage, the op-
2017; Zheng et al., 2017). Sorting can take place on the construc- portunities for material recovery depend on the type of demolition
tion/demolition site (on-site sorting) or in external transfer stations technique that is used and the type of building (Schultmann and
(off-site sorting) when on-site sorting is not possible (Jime
nez- Sunke, 2007). Some authors such as Akanbi et al. (2018), Chau
Rivero and García-Navarro, 2017). The enhancement of segrega- et al. (2017) and Coelho and De Brito (2012) have assessed the
tion techniques leads to a significant increase in material recovery environmental impacts of demolition/deconstruction techniques,
efficiency, better quality of waste (low impurity levels), lower rates in which deconstruction provides more environmental benefits
of CDW disposed of in landfills and reduction of environmental than conventional demolition. This stage is focused on two main
impacts, as well as economic benefits for contractors. In particular, strategies for CE in the demolition sector: (i) selective decon-
on-site sorting has been identified by Dahlbo et al. (2015), Ghisellini struction and (ii) predeconstruction/demolition audits.
et al. (2018b) and Jime
nez-Rivero and García-Navarro (2017) as a
preferred option over off-site sorting if site conditions permit. This 4.5.1. Selective deconstruction
is a relevant factor for ensuring optimal production of recycled Conventional demolition is a common method for the end-of-
materials (Bovea and Powell, 2016). life of buildings, even when it reduces the possibilities for
salvaging valuable materials by hampering the differentiation of
4.4.2. Transport processes materials (Jime
nez-Rivero and García-Navarro, 2016). In contrast,
Distribution comprises all the transport processes required to selective deconstruction consists of a reverse process of systematic
assure the proper flow of resources throughout the value chain of building disassembling to maximize and facilitate recovery of
building materials, from a waste management and product supply building components and materials, enhancing opportunities for
perspective. Transport processes can be disaggregated into the closing material loops (Chau et al., 2017; Jaillon and Poon, 2014;
following types: Schultmann and Sunke, 2007). Two phases are prevalent in this
strategy: soft-stripping of recoverable materials and demolition of
a) Transport of CDW from a demolition/deconstruction site to structural elements, which is preceded by separation of hazardous
storage deposits materials (Jime
nez-Rivero and García-Navarro, 2016).
b) Transport of CDW from a demolition/deconstruction site Selective deconstruction can be applied through various tech-
directly to treatment facilities (e.g. recycling plants, inciner- niques depending on the availability of workers skilled in waste
ation plants) handling and of construction equipment (Schultmann and Sunke,
c) Transport of treated waste to storage sites 2007). However, the amount and quality of recovered materials
d) Transport of treated waste directly to manufacturing are influenced by the technical organization of the deconstruction
industries process and the availability of verified CDW forecasts (Ho € glmeier
e) Transport of secondary materials (recycled/reused products) et al., 2017; Schultmann and Sunke, 2007).
to construction sites The environmental benefits of deconstruction practices gener-
f) Transport of waste to backfill sites ally include energy savings in the production of new building
g) Transport of residual waste (remaining CDW materials with materials by providing clean and recyclable waste fractions, a
no potential for recovery treatments) to final disposal sites. reduction in landfill burdens and less environmental pollution
(Chau et al., 2017). However, the effect on the environment can also
Several studies analyzing waste management practices for CDW be negative (e.g. additional energy consumption due to the oper-
from a Lifecycle Analysis perspective (Bovea and Powell, 2016; ating time of machinery) and varies according to the type of re-
Brambilla et al., 2019; Coelho and De Brito, 2012; Ding et al., covery process and material (Schultmann and Sunke, 2007).
2016; Jung et al., 2015; Martínez et al., 2013) found that transport Moreover, selective demolition is not widely implemented as a
processes are one of the most influential elements in common end-of-life practice (Nussholz et al., 2019). A study by
10
pez Ruiz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 248 (2020) 119238
L.A. Lo

Coelho and De Brito (2012) compares the environmental impacts of future recirculation in construction projects: (i) reuse, (ii) recycling,
various scenarios based on the demolition technique and the (iii) backfilling and (iv) energy recovery.
recyclability of building materials in Portugal. Their results show a
reduction of 76.9% in climate change impacts when full decon- 4.6.1. Reuse
struction and the subsequent reuse or recycling of materials is Reuse strategies consist of using harvested materials, con-
implemented instead of conventional demolition. Nevertheless, the struction elements and building materials again to meet their
work of Brambilla et al. (2019) evaluates the environmental bene- original or a different function (Huang et al., 2018). Thus, materials
fits of demountable steel-concrete composite floor systems in and components can be directly reused or can require little
buildings, in which the application of deconstruction resulted in a reprocessing through the application of three actions (Schultmann
higher warming potential compared to conventional demolition. and Sunke, 2007):
This is mainly due to the high operating time of the heavy equip-
ment used in deconstruction activities. In particular, the activity of a) Repair is focused on returning used products to working con-
gutting is identified as the main factor in increasing duration. ditions and is limited to assembly and reassembly of fixed parts.
From an economic perspective, there are potential savings when b) Refurbishment consists of improving the quality of used products
selective deconstruction is used instead of demolition. Decon- by simple actions of disassembling, inspection and replacing of
struction techniques can have lower costs than conventional de- components.
molition when we consider the total associated costs, mainly due to c) Re-manufacture is aimed at providing quality for used products,
the influence of the outlet cost, which typically corresponds to according to specific standards which are as rigorous as those
landfill fees (Chau et al., 2017). However, high operational time, for new products.
skills and labor hinder the application of this practice (Ga
lvez-
Martos et al., 2018). Thus, adequate taxation of landfill fees plays Common construction products and building elements that are
an important role in the selection of demolition or deconstruction often reused in new building activities are bricks, tiles, concrete
practices (Chau et al., 2017). slabs, beams, wood frames and auxiliary materials such as wood
from formworks, pallets and auxiliary structures (Ga
lvez-Martos
4.5.2. Predeconstruction/demolition audits et al., 2018). However, some products such as ceramic sanitary
Although the application of predeconstruction/demolition au- ware and electrical plugs can be reused but not reprocessed.
dits is not mandatory, they represent an enforcement measure for Therefore, their useful life is limited to reuse actions (Sassi, 2008).
minimizing waste from end-of-life activities. This practice allows The implementation of reuse is considered one of the best waste
the planning and implementation of more efficient waste man- management practices for the recirculation of materials in the CE
agement strategies and maximizes the volume, quality and po- model (Minunno et al., 2018; Nussholz et al., 2019). Generally, in
tential saving costs of recovered materials, while it reduces waste terms of environmental and economic benefits, reuse is preferred
generation (Jime
nez-Rivero et al., 2016). Like SWMP and CDW over recycling because of its lower energy usage and the avoidance
management plans, predeconstruction/demolition audits should of environmental impacts implied in the manufacture of new
identify the volume, quality, recovery rates and location of the building materials (Akanbi et al., 2018; Gorgolewski., 2008; Sassi,
range of materials expected to be produced during demolition or 2008). The exploration of best CDW management practices in the
deconstruction activities. In addition, it should provide detailed European context developed by G
alvez-Martos et al. (2018) iden-
information regarding which materials must be segregated at tifies that reuse of building components can imply savings of
source, which ones can be re-used or recycled, and which man- around 40% of embodied energy and 60% of the carbon footprint in
agement procedures will be employed for non-hazardous and concrete structures, based on prefabricated elements. However,
hazardous waste (European Commission, 2016; Jime
nez-Rivero and Huang et al. (2018) argue that secondary building materials from
García-Navarro, 2017). reused CDW are not widely accepted in the market. This is mainly
because of the lack of material standards, which leads consumers to
4.6. Material recovery and production doubt the quality of reused materials. Moreover, adequate supply is
not always guaranteed.
Although landfilling is the least preferable management alter-
native in terms of environmental impacts, it is the most common 4.6.2. Recycling
management practice globally (Chau et al., 2017; Huang et al., Besides reuse, the application of recycling methods is a funda-
2018). The adoption of a circular economy framework based on mental strategy in CE, as the use of recycled content in the
reuse, recycling and other recovery practices in the construction manufacturing of construction materials has environmental bene-
and demolition sector has the greatest potential for environmental fits over the use of raw materials. In addition, it constitutes a key
benefits and business opportunities (Brambilla et al., 2019; Smol way to reduce CDW disposed of in landfills and the demand for
et al., 2015). The recirculation of recovered resources in the life- natural resources. Furthermore, it reduces the energy consumption
cycle allows their use in the production of new building materials, of manufacturing processes for the building industry (Bovea and
while avoiding the use of virgin raw materials. This leads to envi- Powell, 2016; Chau et al., 2017; T. Ding et al., 2016) and other in-
ronmental benefits such as energy savings and a reduction in the dustries (Huang et al., 2018).
use of natural resources and pollution (Yeheyis et al., 2013). In comparison to landfill as a CDW management option, recy-
Nevertheless, the construction sector encounters more difficulties cling has significant economic benefits in terms of the total exter-
than other industries, due to multiple factors influencing the nalities related to this practice. It reduces costs through mitigating
application of recovery strategies (Schultmann and Sunke, 2007). environmental and human health damage, and by avoiding the cost
Strategies include the adoption of selective demolition, adoption of of constructing new landfills (Marzouk and Azab, 2014). However,
recovery practices in the early stage of design, individuality of despite the application of a waste hierarchy in which recycling is
buildings, location, characteristics of treatment facilities, etc. preferred over landfill disposal, recycling is not always suitable for
(Nussholz et al., 2019). all CDW typologies (Bovea and Powell, 2016; Minunno et al., 2018).
On that basis, this stage addresses four strategies identified as A study by Ng and Chau (2015) analyzes management alternatives
the most influential in terms of waste management of CDW and its for CDW from a commercial building in Hong Kong. Their results

pez Ruiz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 248 (2020) 119238
L.A. Lo 11

show that there are potential energy savings of 53% in the con- unstable, insufficient supply of recovered materials (Huang et al.,
struction value chain through the application of recycling methods, 2018); lack of market demand for secondary materials (Lockrey
but savings vary according to the material type. For concrete-based et al., 2016; Nussholz et al., 2019); low cost and low taxation of
elements, the best alternative is recycling, while for metal-based virgin raw materials (Dahlbo et al., 2015; Ghisellini et al., 2018b);
elements reuse seems to be the best option. Nevertheless, accord- higher prices of secondary building products than original mate-
ing to Christmann (2018), the implementation of recycling pro- rials (Ghisellini et al., 2018b; Huang et al., 2018); lack of awareness
cesses in the manufacturing stage of metal products can achieve and culture about the environmental costs of waste management
energy savings of 95% for aluminum, 85% for copper, 62e74% for (Lockrey et al., 2016); and lack of regulations and codes for CDW
steel and over 50% for non-ferrous metals. From an economic waste management (Lockrey et al., 2016; Nussholz et al., 2019).
perspective, the production costs of recycled aggregates could be Moreover, there are management barriers such as a lack of
higher than natural aggregates, due to the additional processing contractor awareness, a lack of incentives for treating and recycling
methods required, which represent around 64% of production CDW from regulatory authorities (Huang et al., 2018), low land-
costs. However, this condition varies depending on the scale of the filling fees, a lack of economically viable treatment facilities and a
industry and can result in lower costs for recycled products lack of budget for waste management in construction projects
(Wijayasundara et al., 2016). (Lockrey et al., 2016).
Recycling of CDW can be achieved through two techniques: on-
site recycling and recycling in treatment plants. Bovea and Powell 4.6.3. Energy recovery
(2016) identified on-site recycling as the most efficient option In addition to reuse and recycling strategies, the possibility of
considering environmental aspects when other CE strategies such applying other recovery alternatives such as energy recovery
as on-site sorting are applied. In addition, improvements in the should be analyzed. This strategy can be applied to materials with
efficiency of recycling processes are necessary and can be achieved high caloric potential (e.g. wood and plastics) by incineration to
by implementing new, enhanced technologies that reduce envi- produce energy that could be reintroduced into the system and
ronmental impacts and energy consumption (Huang et al., 2018). used in power plants and heat delivery centers (Chau et al., 2017;
In a general framework, recycling treatments can be applied Huysman et al., 2017; Schultmann and Sunke, 2007). Thus, when
through three typologies: reuse and recycling strategies are limited or have greater effects on
the environment, energy recovery can be implemented before final
a) Closed-loop recycling, in which the salvaged material can sub- disposal (Schultmann and Sunke, 2007).
stitute the original virgin material in a 1:1 ratio.
b) Semi closed-loop recycling, in which the salvaged material can 4.6.4. Backfilling
partially substitute the original virgin material, but raw mate- Lastly, CDW can be used as a substitute for natural resources for
rials must be added to comply with quality requirements. backfilling embankments (Coudray et al., 2017). This is a common
c) Open-loop recycling, in which the salvaged material is used as a practice for materials such as recycled aggregates produced in large
partial substitute in the manufacturing of different materials demolition works, where demolition waste is crushed and used to
(Huysman et al., 2017). fill open sky cavities. From a technical perspective, high dimen-
sioned coarse aggregates are acceptable for backfilling. Currently,
On this basis, steel can be cyclically recycled without losing its the highest substitution rates of recycled aggregates are achieved in
mechanical properties (closed-loop recycling), which produces less low grade applications such as backfilling and bases and sub-bases
carbon emissions than manufacturing from raw materials. In for roads (Coudray et al., 2017; Ga
lvez-Martos et al., 2018).
contrast, concrete waste can be crushed and transformed into ag-
gregates for producing new concrete elements, but at restricted 5. Conceptualization of an integrative CE framework in the
rates according to the technical specifications of concrete mixtures CDW sector
(Minunno et al., 2018).
According to Akanbi et al. (2018), the level of reusability and In this section, a theoretical framework approach is proposed for
recyclability of recoverable building materials is influenced by the adoption of the Circular Economy concept in the CDW sector.
factors such as the environment, design and construction, as well as This theoretical framework is based on the results of the literature
operational and management factors. Hence, specification of review presented in previous sections. To ensure that it is imple-
reusable and recyclable building materials during design and con- mented in a practical way in the entire value chain of building
struction stages is one of the most influential factors. Other factors materials, the approach maximizes the value of building materials
include the use of prefabricated elements, use of nuts and bolts through 14 strategies identified and outlined in five lifecycle stages
instead of nails and gluing in assemblies, minimization of types of for construction and demolition activities. These stages are (i)
building components and layering of building elements according preconstruction, (ii) construction and renovation, (iii) collection
to anticipated lifespan. In addition, the avoidance of secondary and distribution, (iv) end-of-life and (v) material recovery and
finishes is a major factor, as the use of finishes on building materials production. The framework approach operates through 14 strate-
reduces their possibility of recovery. Finally, the avoidance of toxic gies identified from the top-down, in which the CE basis of nar-
and hazardous materials is fundamental for ensuring the possibility rowing, slowing and closing loops (from the framework for the
of recycling materials from buildings at the end-of-life stage. implementation of CE models, Section 2.1) are included at different
However, the use of recovered materials in the construction stages, depending on their relevance. Then, their application and
industry is restricted by several factors such as economic, legisla- interactions in the stages of the construction and demolition cycle
tive and managerial barriers (Ghisellini et al., 2018b). In this are identified. This top-down approach follows a hierarchy in which
context, one of the obstacles for marketing secondary materials in previous strategies for the beginning of construction and demoli-
the building industry is the lack of quality standards for recovered tion activities have a major influence on waste reduction, and
materials. Thus, consumers may not trust secondary materials, facilitate CDW recovery practices. Hence, the proposed framework
since their quality cannot be guaranteed due to a lack of technical in this research is focused on the adoption of CE as an approach to
information about the products (Huang et al., 2018; Nussholz et al., reduce waste generation and maximize recovery of CDW and its use
2019). Other major barriers for secondary materials include: as secondary materials in the construction industry. Fig. 2
12
pez Ruiz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 248 (2020) 119238
L.A. Lo

illustrates the proposed theoretical framework for CE in the con- implied in the supply of material inputs for construction and
struction and demolition sector. renovation activities and in the flows of CDW from construction
The point of departure is prior to the start of construction and and end-of-life activities to treatment facilities. They are also
renovation activities. Hence, the development of adequate legisla- involved in the transportation of treated waste to manufacturing
tive and regulatory instruments is crucial to provide a solid base for industries and in the recirculation of secondary materials. Special
the enhancement of CDW management strategies and to encourage attention must be paid to transport in its various modalities, since
the production of secondary materials. transport distances condition the application of recovery strategies
Thus, in the preconstruction stage (1), government policies and in terms of environmental impact.
strategic frameworks set the legal basis and obligations for con- At the end-of-life stage (4), selective deconstruction might be
struction and demolition companies for further construction pro- preferred over conventional demolition, even though conventional
jects, according to CE principles. In this context, economic demolition is the most widespread technique for the end-of-life of
instruments serve as an effective strategy for reducing landfilling buildings. As described before, the application of selective decon-
and for enhancing the market of secondary materials obtained from struction accompanied by proper collection and segregation tech-
CDW. Through their application, designers and contractors are niques maximize efficiency in the recovery of building materials
guided to prioritize waste recovery practices and to use secondary and components. Despite the environmental and economic bene-
materials in construction projects. Economic instruments can be fits of selective deconstruction, its application must be analyzed
applied at this stage through three measures: a CDW disposal based on the material type and operational factors. In addition to
charge to reduce the waste disposed of in landfills; taxation on this strategy, the adoption of predemolition audits is an effective
primary raw materials to incentivize the demand for secondary tool for enhancing CDW management practices, providing oppor-
building materials; and incentives for CDW management com- tunities for material recovery. These audits are not mandatory, and
panies to reduce the high cost of recycling and recovery treatments. their requirements are similar to those of SWMP and CDW man-
The application of CDW disposal charges has a direct influence on agement plans.
the adoption of practices such as on-site sorting in the collection Finally, at the material recovery and production stage (5), four
and distribution stage (3) and the selection of deconstruction alternatives can be applied: reuse, recycling, energy recovery and
practices at the end-of-life stage (4). backfilling. Even though reuse seems to be a preferred option over
Moreover, similar to economic instruments, the development of other strategies in terms of economics and environmental benefits,
effective design strategies leads to waste minimization, increased its application depends mainly on the type of waste. Moreover, an
rates of recovered materials and increased use of recovered mate- evaluation of the economic and environmental aspects of each of
rials in other construction projects, since important decisions the four strategies is required to determine the most suitable
affecting construction and building renovation (2) and end-of-life (4) alternative according to the specific operational and technical
stages are made at this level. In this area, there are three main conditions of the zone in which the framework is applied. This is a
strategies: design for waste prevention, design for disassembly or very important stage in terms of CE, as it allows loops to be closed
deconstruction and use of prefabricated elements. Design for waste and narrowed.
prevention contributes to incorporating appropriate materials and Some material can be directly reused without additional treat-
components in construction projects. It constitutes a useful tool for ment processes or by applying reprocessing methods such as
demolition and salvage companies, as it provides detailed data on repairing, refurbishing and remanufacturing practices. Recycling
the waste that will be produced. Design for disassembly or alternatives can be implemented considering three main types
deconstruction and the use of prefabricated elements are associ- (closed-loop recycling, semi closed-loop recycling and open-loop
ated strategies. Their adoption leads to the application of selective recycling) depending on the material and the quality standards
deconstruction in the end-of-life stage (4) and facilitates the required to produce new materials. When recycling and reuse is not
collection and segregation of CDW at the collection and distribution possible, energy recovery (depending on the caloric potential and
stage (3), resulting in cleaner fractions of CDW and facilitating its hazardousness of waste) and backfilling (commonly for recycled
recovery and further recirculation as secondary materials. For aggregates) can be applied. Lastly, as the least preferable alterna-
better results, design should be accompanied by the design of CDW tive, CDW with no viable recovery options and residual waste from
management plans. For European practitioners, the development of recovery processes is disposed of in landfills.
such a plan is mandatory in each construction project. For this As a result, from the integral implementation of the CE strate-
purpose, the EU Construction and Demolition Waste Management gies for the CDW sector, four potential outputs are identified: (i)
Protocol provides detailed information and guidance on the recovered materials that 100% substitute original raw materials; (ii)
development of waste management plans. In addition, integral recovered materials with partial recycled content to substitute
CDW management plans include the development of an on-site components of the same material; (iii) recovered materials with
waste management plan (SWMP), which is applied at the con- partial recycled content to substitute components of a different
struction and building renovation stage (2) and during demoli- material; and (iv) energy. These outputs are cyclically reintroduced
tion and deconstruction activities. Thus, the end routes for the CDW into the flow of materials and energy of the value chain of building
that is produced are identified in these plans. materials.
At the collection and distribution stage (3), collection and
segregation practices are applied to the waste produced during 6. Conclusions
activities from both construction and renovation (2) and end-of-life
(4) stages. The adoption of these strategies enhances the applica- This study proposes a theoretical framework approach to the
tion of re-use, recycling and other recovery alternatives for CDW at adoption of the CE concept in the CDW sector. The systematic re-
the material recovery and production stage (5). It is important to view that was conducted concluded that CE is a relevant, innovative
prioritize on-site sorting over external sorting when site conditions concept that is gaining attention in the current scientific landscape.
allow it, because of its greater environmental benefits. However, this concept has not been addressed widely in the CDW
The distribution of resources in the value chain of building sector. Research in this sector has mainly focused on aspects
materials is involved in all the lifecycle stages of the framework, regarding reuse and recycling from an environmental performance
except the preconstruction stage. Thus, transport processes are perspective. Few studies analyze a larger range of CE principles for

pez Ruiz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 248 (2020) 119238
L.A. Lo 13

Fig. 2. Theoretical model approach for CE implementation in the CDW sector.

the construction and demolition sector, and integral approaches benefits depend on specific aspects such as technical, operational
have not been described that consider the application of preventive and managerial factors. Moreover, this method is not widely used,
and operational measures before, during and after construction and since most existing buildings have not been designed for disas-
demolition activities. Moreover, the integration of economic sembly. In the stage of material recovery and production, the
criteria is still limited. Hence, an integral framework is required to application of recovery strategies depends on the type of material,
guide and support CE implementation in the CDW sector since the environmental and economic benefits vary among CDW
sustainably. typologies. Moreover, the benefits of recovery strategies over
The proposed theoretical framework outlines the main aspects landfilling are conditioned by the transport type and distances.
involved in CE from the perspective of waste minimization and Material recovery is a crucial stage in terms of CE, since reuse,
waste management efficiency in construction and demolition ac- recycling and other recovery treatments contribute to closing and
tivities. This framework takes into account influential CE strategies narrowing loops in the sector. However, the potential of the sec-
and their interaction through the five main lifecycle stages of the ondary materials market is currently restricted by consumers’
sector: preconstruction, construction and renovation, collection reservations about using recovered materials, because of the lack of
and distribution, end-of-life, and material recovery and production. standards that guarantee quality. The market is also limited by the
The main findings include the following. In the preconstruction low demand and higher prices of secondary materials over primary
stage, economic instruments play a key role in enhancing the raw materials. In general, strategies in phases prior to construction
market of secondary materials in the construction industry, since and demolition works have a major influence on CE operation, as
recovery strategies are enhanced and prioritized over landfilling. In they provide a waste minimization approach and enhance the re-
addition, design strategies provide a waste minimization approach covery and use of CDW as secondary materials in the sector.
and facilitate the salvaging of materials at the end-of-life of build- This framework could be used as guidance for academics to
ings. Selective deconstruction in the end-of-life stage has envi- expand the knowledge on the potential applications of the CE
ronmental and economic benefits. However, its application and concept. It could also be used by practitioners in the
14
pez Ruiz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 248 (2020) 119238
L.A. Lo

implementation of CE practices in the construction and demolition management e a holistic evaluation of environmental performance. J. Clean.
Prod. 107, 333e341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.073.
sector. Further analysis of complementary aspects of CE models are
Ding, T., Xiao, J., Tam, V.W.Y., 2016a. A closed-loop life cycle assessment of recycled
necessary to provide a more comprehensive dimension of the aggregate concrete utilization in China. Waste Manag. 56, 367e375. https://
theoretical framework (e.g. analysis of stakeholders; economic, doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.031.
technical and social barriers; and bussines model applications). Ding, Z., Wang, Y., Zou, P.X.W., 2016b. An agent based environmental impact
assessment of building demolition waste management: conventional versus
Moreover, further assessment of the proposed framework is green management. J. Clean. Prod. 133, 1136e1153. https://doi.org/10.1016/
required to provide solid estimations of the potential results from j.jclepro.2016.06.054.
the transition to a CE in the CDW sector, and to test its viability. This Douglas, I., 2016. The circular economy. J. Commonw. Hum. Ecol. Counc. 27, 37.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2018. The Circular Economy Concept - Regenerative
must be achieved from an environmental and economic perspec- Economy. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/
tive in which environmental benefits are in balance with economic overview/concept. (Accessed 5 November 2018).
growth. Solid results can enhance the transition to a CE by Ellen MacArthur Foundation, GRANTA, European Commission, 2015. Circularity
indicators. An approach to measuring circularity. Available at: https://www.
encouraging business and public actors to adopt more efficient ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/insight/Circularity-
practices in the sector. Indicators_Project-Overview_May2015.pdf.
EPA, 2016. Advancing sustainable materials management: 2014 fact sheet. Available
at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-11/documents/2014_
Declaration of competing interest smmfactsheet_508.pdf.
Esa, M.R., Halog, A., Rigamonti, L., 2017. Developing strategies for managing con-
The authors declare that they have no known competing struction and demolition wastes in Malaysia based on the concept of circular
economy. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 19, 1144e1154. https://doi.org/10.1007/
financial interests or personal relationships that could have s10163-016-0516-x.
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Eurogypsum, 2018. GTOG Life Project | Eurogypsum. http://www.eurogypsum.org/
sustainable-construction/gtog-life-project/. (Accessed 15 November 2018).
European Commission, 2018a. Circular Economy Package. http://ec.europa.eu/
Acknowledgements environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm. (Accessed 16 November 2018).
European Commission, 2018b. GtoG Project e Gypsum to Gypsum. http://
This study was supported by a grant from the Government of gypsumtogypsum.org/gtog-project/. (Accessed 15 November 2018).
European Commission, 2016. EU construction & demolition waste management
Mexico’s National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) Protocol. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/eu-construction-
and was conducted by the Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya’s and-demolition-waste-protocol-0_nn.
Department of Project and Construction Engineering. European Commission, 2015a. Resource Efficient Use of Mixed Wastes - Member
States Factsheets. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/mixed_
waste.htm. (Accessed 13 September 2019).
References European Commission, 2015b. Closing the Loop - an EU Action Plan for the Circular
Economy. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
Akanbi, L.A., Oyedele, L.O., Akinade, O.O., Ajayi, A.O., Davila Delgado, M., Bilal, M., the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
Bello, S.A., 2018. Salvaging building materials in a circular economy: a BIM- of the Regions. Com(2015) 614 final. European Commission, Brussels.
based whole-life performance estimator. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 129, European Commission, 2014a. Towards a Circular Economy: a Zero Waste Pro-
175e186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.026. gramme for Europe, Communication from the Commission to the European
Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., Graf, S., 2014. Augmented Reality Trends in Edu- Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
cation: A Systematic Review of Research and Applications. Educational Tech- Committee of the Regions. COM (2014) 398 Final. European Commission,
nology & Society. Brussels.
Baldassarre, B., Schepers, M., Bocken, N., Cuppen, E., Korevaar, G., Calabretta, G., European Commission (DG ENV), 2011. Service Contract on Management of Con-
2019. Industrial Symbiosis: towards a design process for eco-industrial clusters struction and Demolition Waste - SR1. Final Report Task 2. A Project under the
by integrating Circular Economy and Industrial Ecology perspectives. J. Clean. Framework Contract ENV.G.4/FRA/2008/0112 33, pp. 1e240. Available at:
Prod. 216, 446e460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.091. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/2011_CDW_Report.pdf.
bio, bre, ICEDD, RPS, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 2016. Resource Efficient Use of Eurostat, 2018. Waste Statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/
Mixed Wastes. Case Study: Gypsum-to-Gypsum, from Production to Recycling, index.php/Waste_statistics#Total_waste_generation. (Accessed 5 September
a Circular Economy for the European Gypsum Industry with the Demolition and 2019).
Recycling Industry. Eurostat, 2017. National Accounts and GDP. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
BMU, 2012. Act reorganising the Law on closed cycle management and waste. explained/index.php?title¼National_accounts_and_GDP. (Accessed 5 December
https://www.bmu.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Abfallwirtschaft/ 2018).
kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz_en_bf.pdf. fercd, 2015. Informe de produccion y gestion de los residuos de construccion y
Bocken, N.M.P., de Pauw, I., Bakker, C., van der Grinten, B., 2016. Product design and demolicion ( RCD ) en Espan ~ a, periodo 2009-2013. Madrid, Espan~ a. Available at:
business model strategies for a circular economy. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 33, 308e320. http://www.rcdasociacion.es/images/documents/INFORME.RCD 2015.(2).pdf.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124. FIIC, 2017. Situacio
n Actual y Perspectivas de la Industria de la Construccio
n en los
Bovea, M.D., Powell, J.C., 2016. Developments in life cycle assessment applied to Países Integrantes de la Federacio
n Interamericana de la Industria de la Con-
evaluate the environmental performance of construction and demolition struccio
n 2016-2017. Versio
n ejecutiva, en: LXXVII Reunio
n del Consejo Direc-
wastes. Waste Manag. 50, 151e172. https://doi.org/10.1016/ tivo de la FIIC. Buenos Aires, Argentina).
j.wasman.2016.01.036. Ga
lvez-Martos, J.L., Styles, D., Schoenberger, H., Zeschmar-Lahl, B., 2018. Construc-
Brambilla, G., Lavagna, M., Vasdravellis, G., Castiglioni, C.A., 2019. Environmental tion and demolition waste best management practice in Europe. Resour. Con-
benefits arising from demountable steel-concrete composite floor systems in serv. Recycl. 136, 166e178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.04.016.
buildings. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 141, 133e142. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M.P., Hultink, E.J., 2017. The Circular Econ-
j.resconrec.2018.10.014. omy e a new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 143, 757e768. https://
Brown, P., Bocken, N., Balkenende, R., Brown, P., Bocken, N., Balkenende, R., 2019. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.
Why do companies pursue collaborative circular oriented innovation? Sus- Geng, S., Wang, Y., Zuo, J., Zhou, Z., Du, H., Mao, G., 2017. Building life cycle
tainability 11, 635. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030635. assessment research: a review by bibliometric analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Chau, C.K., Xu, J.M., Leung, T.M., Ng, W.Y., 2017. Evaluation of the impacts of end-of- Rev. 76, 176e184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.068.
life management strategies for deconstruction of a high-rise concrete framed Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S., 2016. A review on circular economy: the ex-
office building. Appl. Energy 185, 1595e1603. https://doi.org/10.1016/ pected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic sys-
j.apenergy.2016.01.019. tems. J. Clean. Prod. 114, 11e32. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2015.09.007.
Christmann, P., 2018. Towards a more equitable use of mineral resources. Nat. Ghisellini, P., Ji, X., Liu, G., Ulgiati, S., 2018a. Evaluating the transition towards
Resour. Res. 27, 159e177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-017-9343-6. cleaner production in the construction and demolition sector of China: a re-
Coelho, A., De Brito, J., 2012. Influence of construction and demolition waste view. J. Clean. Prod. 195, 418e434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.084.
management on the environmental impact of buildings. Waste Manag. 32, Ghisellini, P., Ripa, M., Ulgiati, S., 2018b. Exploring environmental and economic
357e358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.11.011. costs and benefits of a circular economy approach to the construction and
Coudray, C., Amant, V., Cantegrit, L., Le Bocq, A., Thery, F., Denot, A., Eisenlohr, L., demolition sector. A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 178, 618e643. https://
2017. Influence of crushing conditions on recycled concrete aggregates (RCA) doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2017.11.207.
leaching behaviour. Waste and Biomass Valorization 8, 2867e2880. https:// Gorgolewski, M., Straka, V., Edmonds, J., Sergio-Dzoutzidis, C., 2008. Designing
doi.org/10.1007/s12649-017-9868-2. buildings using reclaimed steel components. J. Green Build. 3, 97e107. https://
Dahlbo, H., Bache
r, J., La
€htinen, K., Jouttij€
arvi, T., Suoheimo, P., Mattila, T., Sironen, S., doi.org/10.3992/jgb.3.3.97.
Myllymaa, T., Saram€ aki, K., 2015. Construction and demolition waste Ho€glmeier, K., Weber-Blaschke, G., Richter, K., 2017. Potentials for cascading of

pez Ruiz et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 248 (2020) 119238
L.A. Lo 15

recovered wood from building deconstructionda case study for south-east applying the circular economy to prefabricated buildings. Buildings 8, 125.
Germany. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 117, 304e314. https://doi.org/10.1016/ https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8090125.
j.resconrec.2015.10.030. Ng, W.Y., Chau, C.K., 2015. New life of the building materials-recycle, reuse and
Huang, B., Wang, X., Kua, H., Geng, Y., Bleischwitz, R., Ren, J., 2018. Construction and recovery. Energy Procedia 75, 2884e2891. https://doi.org/10.1016/
demolition waste management in China through the 3R principle. Resour. j.egypro.2015.07.581.
Conserv. Recycl. 129, 36e44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.029. Nussholz, J.L.K., Rasmussen, F.N., Milios, L., 2019. Circular building materials: carbon
Huysman, S., De Schaepmeester, J., Ragaert, K., Dewulf, J., De Meester, S., 2017. saving potential and the role of business model innovation and public policy.
Performance indicators for a circular economy: a case study on post-industrial Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 141, 308e316. https://doi.org/10.1016/
plastic waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 120, 46e54. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.resconrec.2018.10.036.
j.resconrec.2017.01.013. Pauliuk, S., 2018. Critical appraisal of the circular economy standard BS 8001:2017
Infrastructure and Projects Authority, 2016. Government Construction Strategy and a dashboard of quantitative system indicators for its implementation in
2016-2020. United Kingdom. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov. organizations. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 129, 81e92. https://doi.org/10.1016/
uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/510354/ j.resconrec.2017.10.019.
Government_Construction_Strategy_2016-20.pdf. Petticrew, M., 2001. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and
Jaillon, L., Poon, C.S., 2014. Life cycle design and prefabrication in buildings: a re- misconceptions. BMJ 322, 98e101. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7278.98.
view and case studies in Hong Kong. Autom. ConStruct. 39, 195e202. https:// Pomponi, F., Moncaster, A., 2017. Circular economy for the built environment: a
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.09.006. research framework. J. Clean. Prod. 143, 710e718. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Jime
nez-Rivero, A., García-Navarro, J., 2017. Best practices for the management of J.JCLEPRO.2016.12.055.
end-of-life gypsum in a circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 167, 1335e1344. Sassi, P., 2008. Defining closed-loop material cycle construction. Build. Res. Inf. 36,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.068. 509e519. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210801994208.
Jime
nez-Rivero, A., García-Navarro, J., 2016. Indicators to measure the management Schultmann, F., Sunke, N., 2007. Energy-oriented deconstruction and recovery
performance of end-of-life gypsum: from deconstruction to production of planning. Build. Res. Inf. 35, 602e615. https://doi.org/10.1080/
recycled gypsum. Waste and Biomass Valorization 7, 913e927. https://doi.org/ 09613210701431210.
10.1007/s12649-016-9561-x. Smol, M., Kulczycka, J., Henclik, A., Gorazda, K., Wzorek, Z., 2015. The possible use of
Jime
nez-Rivero, A., Guzma
n-B
aez, A., García-Navarro, J., 2017. Enhanced on-site sewage sludge ash (SSA) in the construction industry as a way towards a cir-
waste management of plasterboard in construction works: a case study in cular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 95, 45e54. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Spain. Sustain. Times 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9030450. J.JCLEPRO.2015.02.051.
Jime
nez-Rivero, A., Sathre, R., García-Navarro, J., 2016. Life cycle energy and ma- Su, B., Heshmati, A., Geng, Y., Yu, X., 2013. A review of the circular economy in
terial flow implications of gypsum plasterboard recycling in the European China: moving from rhetoric to implementation. J. Clean. Prod. 42, 215e227.
Union. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 108, 171e181. https://doi.org/10.1016/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.020.
J.RESCONREC.2016.01.014.
rez, S., Roca, X., Gasso, S., 2016. Product-specific life cycle assessment of recycled
Sua
Jin, R., Yuan, H., Chen, Q., 2018. Science mapping approach to assisting the review of gypsum as a replacement for natural gypsum in ordinary Portland cement:
construction and demolition waste management research published between application to the Spanish context. J. Clean. Prod. 117, 150e159. https://doi.org/
2009 and 2018. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 140, 175e188. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.044.
j.resconrec.2018.09.029. Tam, V.W.Y., Tam, C.M., 2006. A review on the viable technology for construction
Jung, J.S., Song, S.H., Jun, M.H., Park, S.S., 2015. A comparison of economic feasibility waste recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 47, 209e221. https://doi.org/10.1016/
and emission of carbon dioxide for two recycling processes. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 19, j.resconrec.2005.12.002.
1248e1255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-015-0708-2. Torres-Carrion, P.V., Gonzalez-Gonzalez, C.S., Aciar, S., Rodriguez-Morales, G., 2018.
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., Hekkert, M., 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: an Methodology for systematic literature review applied to engineering and ed-
analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 221e232. https:// ucation. IEEE Glob. Eng. Educ. Conf. EDUCON 1364e1373. https://doi.org/
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005. 10.1109/educon.2018.8363388. 2018-April.
Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., 2013. A systematic review of systematic review process Wang, T., Wang, J., Wu, P., Wang, J., He, Q., Wang, X., 2018. Estimating the envi-
research in software engineering. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55, 2049e2075. https:// ronmental costs and benefits of demolition waste using life cycle assessment
doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2013.07.010. and willingness-to-pay: a case study in Shenzhen. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 14e26.
Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A., Birkie, S.E., 2018. Circular economy as an https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.168.
essentially contested concept. J. Clean. Prod. 175, 544e552. https://doi.org/ Wijayasundara, M., Mendis, P., Zhang, L., Sofi, M., 2016. Financial assessment of
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.111. manufacturing recycled aggregate concrete in ready-mix concrete plants.
Li, C., Nie, Z., Cui, S., Gong, X., Wang, Z., Meng, X., 2014a. The life cycle inventory Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 109, 187e201. https://doi.org/10.1016/
study of cement manufacture in China. J. Clean. Prod. 72, 204e211. https:// j.resconrec.2016.02.007.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.048. Winans, K., Kendall, A., Deng, H., 2017. The history and current applications of the
Li, Z., Shen, G.Q., Alshawi, M., 2014b. Measuring the impact of prefabrication on circular economy concept. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 68, 825e833. https://
construction waste reduction: an empirical study in China. Resour. Conserv. doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2016.09.123.
Recycl. 91, 27e39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.07.013. World Economic Forum, 2016. Shaping the future of construction, world economic
Lieder, M., Rashid, A., 2016. Towards circular economy implementation: a Forum (WEF). Available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Shaping_the_
comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. J. Clean. Prod. 115, Future_of_Construction_full_report__.pdf.
36e51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042. WRAP, 2013. Built environment circular economy. Available at: http://www.wrap.
Lockrey, S., Nguyen, H., Crossin, E., Verghese, K., 2016. Recycling the construction org.uk/sites/files/wrap/WRAP%20Built%20Environment%20-%20Circular%
and demolition waste in Vietnam: opportunities and challenges in practice. 20Economy%20Jan%202013.pdf.
J. Clean. Prod. 133, 757e766. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2016.05.175. WRAP, 2011. The Construction Commitments: Halving Waste to Landfill. http://
Mahpour, A., 2018. Prioritizing barriers to adopt circular economy in construction www.wrap.org.uk/. (Accessed 8 January 2019).
and demolition waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 134, 216e227. Yeheyis, M., Hewage, K., Alam, M.S., Eskicioglu, C., Sadiq, R., 2013. An overview of
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.026. construction and demolition waste management in Canada: a lifecycle analysis
MAPAMA, 2018. Espan ~ a Circular 2030. Estrategia Espan ~ ola de Economía Circular. approach to sustainability. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 15, 81e91. https://
Borrador para informacio
n pública, Spain. doi.org/10.1007/s10098-012-0481-6.
Martínez, E., Nun ~ ez, Y., Sobaberas, E., 2013. End of life of buildings: three alterna- Yu, A.T.W., Poon, C.S., Wong, A., Yip, R., Jaillon, L., 2013. Impact of construction waste
tives, two scenarios. A case study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 1082e1088. disposal charging scheme on work practices at construction sites in Hong Kong.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0566-4. Waste Manag. 33, 138e146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.09.023.
Marzouk, M., Azab, S., 2014. Environmental and economic impact assessment of Yuan, H., 2017. Barriers and countermeasures for managing construction and de-
construction and demolition waste disposal using system dynamics. Resour. molition waste: a case of Shenzhen in China. J. Clean. Prod. 157, 84e93. https://
Conserv. Recycl. 82, 41e49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.10.015. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.137.
Merli, R., Preziosi, M., Acampora, A., 2018. How do scholars approach the circular Zheng, L., Wu, H., Zhang, H., Duan, H., Wang, J., Jiang, W., Dong, B., Liu, G., Zuo, J.,
economy? A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 178, 703e722. https:// Song, Q., 2017. Characterizing the generation and flows of construction and
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.112. demolition waste in China. Constr. Build. Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Minunno, R., O’Grady, T., Morrison, G., Gruner, R., Colling, M., 2018. Strategies for j.conbuildmat.2017.01.055.