Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Plants Revisited Management Issues Procedia Engineering 172 ( 2017 ) 1190 – 1197 1877 7058 © 2017 The Authors Published by Elsevier Ltd This is an open acce[.]
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 1190 – 1197 Modern Building Materials, Structures and Techniques, MBMST 2016 Construction and demolition waste recycling plants revisited: management issues Serdar Ulubeylia,*, Aynur Kazazb, Volkan Arslana a Department of Civil Engineering, Bulent Ecevit University, 67100, Zonguldak, Turkey b Department of Civil Engineering, Akdeniz University, 07058, Antalya, Turkey Abstract Today, recycling of construction and demolition waste (C&DW) by plants is a reasonable alternative to the existing unsustainable disposal methods such as landfilling and fly tipping Therefore, this study aims to report current management issues of these plants in the literature As a result, it was seen that these management issues investigated in past researches can be classified under four main groups such as economics, environment, location, and administration Their pros and cons were also revealed in a covering manner As these issues have not been addressed together up to date and each one of them has been investigated separately, the present study is the first attempt to give a full picture of management issues of the recycling plants Thus, it can fill the gap in the literature As a research implication, this study may help researchers who will investigate C&DW recycling plants from different perspectives In terms of the practical implication, it may attract attention of industrial practitioners and entrepreneurs in public authorities and the private sector to benefit from such wastes through plants Finally, as a social implication, better management of C&DW recycling plants can save and enhance the sustainability of the overall environment and affect society positively © 2017 The Authors Published by Elsevier Ltd This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2016 The Authors Published by Elsevier Ltd (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Peer-reviewunder under responsibility oforganizing the organizing committee of MBMST Peer-review responsibility of the committee of MBMST 2016 2016 Keywords: construction and demolition waste; recycling plant; waste management * Corresponding author Tel.: +90-372-291-1521; fax: +90-372-257-4023 E-mail address: ulubeyli@beun.edu.tr 1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors Published by Elsevier Ltd This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of MBMST 2016 doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.139 Serdar Ulubeyli et al / Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 1190 – 1197 1191 Introduction In general terms, construction and demolition waste (C&DW) is divided into two types: inert materials (i.e., sand, bricks, and concrete) and non-inert materials (i.e., plastic, glass, paper, wood, vegetation, and other organic materials) In this regard, bulk excavations are not classified as C&DW According to a different classification, 30% of the C&DW input may be considered to be separate while the rest of 70% is the mixed C&DW of which average density is 1,400 kg/m3 [1] This is because the on-site waste sorting is considered to be time and labor demanding Owing to the nature of production methods and conditions, activities of the construction industry will never reach zero-waste status and a certain level of the waste generation is unavoidable The European Commission considers C&DW as a priority waste stream due to large amounts generated [2] The building debris typically represents 1020% of the total weight of building materials delivered to a building site while the building demolition waste is 1020 times by weight as much as waste generated from the construction of new buildings [3] In general, the demolition waste of construction works accounts for 70% of C&DW [4] Overall, C&DW amounts to more than a quarter of the municipal household waste stream and the total solid waste [5,6] However, the share of C&DW in the total waste generation differ considerably between countries worldwide from Japan (16%) and Germany (19%) to USA (29%), EU (30%), China (30-40%), Hong Kong (38%), Australia (42%), the UK (50%), and Spain (70%) [79] Per capita C&DW generation in ton also shows large variations with low values in Norway (0.2), Poland (0.5), Spain (1), intermediate values in Germany and the UK (2), Hong Kong (3), France and Ireland (4), and high values in Luxembourg (15) [10,7] However, C&DW generation statistics are not rigorously tracked in countries, and thus, the corresponding predictions seem to vary dramatically In many countries, especially developing ones, there are two popular practices to poorly handle C&DW: landfilling and fly tipping As a covering ratio, C&DW currently makes up 25-45% of waste that goes to landfills [11-13] In particular, more than 90% of C&DW is landfilled in Kuwait [14] Similarly, in Hong Kong, much of C&DW go to landfills [15] On the other hand, C&DW is undesirable for disposal in landfills In the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, and Switzerland, there is a landfill ban for the unsorted waste and recyclable materials [16] In USA, many landfills not accept C&DW [17] In Hong Kong, an administrative rule specifies that C&DW containing more than 20% inert material by volume (or 30% by weight) cannot be disposed of at landfills [3] This is because C&DW (i) consumes a huge space, (ii) is recognized to produce harmful chemical leachate, anaerobic degradation that leads to air pollution, landfills gas generated from organic waste materials, and other contaminants, all of which contribute to acidification and toxic impact on ground and surface water and soil by putrefaction [18,19] Therefore, landfilling of C&DW can only be permitted at higher costs Fly tipping is more frequently used another option to landfilling In fact, it is the usual practice to handle C&DW in many countries as in Turkey In this regard, especially in the last two decades, recycling of C&DW by plants has been a reasonable alternative to such unsustainable disposal methods (i.e., landfilling and fly tipping) as chronologically cited in Table In the light of the requirement of such plants, this study aims to report current management issues of these facilities in the literature from financial, environmental, locational, and administrative points of view This is because, in previous works depicted in Table 1, these management issues have not been addressed together up to date and each one of them has been investigated separately Hence, the present study is the first attempt to give a full picture of management issues of the recycling plants Thus, it can fill the gap in the literature Recycling of C&DW In some regions of USA and Europe, where resources for concrete are scarce, recycling of C&DW was first introduced in early 1970s In 1980s, due to the scarcity of landfills and the growing awareness of the pollution and resource potential of C&DW, several plants for sorting and recycling went into operation [20] Today, in terms of the global warming potential, the most environmentally friendly treatment is the recycling of C&DW, followed respectively by landfilling and incineration [21] However, in most of European countries, recycling is a relatively new industry with origins reaching back no farther than 1990s [22] In Turkey, the first recycling plant was established in 2006 As the target of EU in terms of C&DW, Directive 2008/98/EC [23] has set up a minimum target of reuse, recycling, and material recovery of the non-hazardous C&DW at 70% by weight until 2020 Up to date, this target 1192 Serdar Ulubeyli et al / Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 1190 – 1197 has been reached only by five countries, i.e., the Netherlands (98.1%), Denmark (94.9%), Estonia (91.9%), Germany (86.3%), and Ireland (79.5%) [12] When looking at the situation in USA, 73.5% of the C&DW stream is projected as being recovered with a 35% recycling rate for the mixed C&DW, 85% for the bulk aggregate, and over 99% for the reclaimed asphalt pavement [13] In fact, depending on the nature of C&DW, from 50 to 95% of C&DW generated can be recycled [24,25,21] Table Past works on C&DW recycling plants Author(s) Country Topic Brunner and Stampfli [20] Switzerland Material analysis Peng et al [26] USA Types, requirements, and economic viability Huang et al [27] Taiwan Material analysis and economic viability Robinson and Kapo [28] USA Optimal location Wang et al [29] USA Economic viability Duran et al [30] Ireland Economic viability Tam and Tam [15] Hong Kong Requirements and material types Nunes et al [31] Brazil Economic viability Gomes et al [32] Brazil Performance evaluation Tam [33] Australia Economic viability Tam et al [34] Australia Materials, equipment, and costing Zhao et al [35] China Economic viability Chong and Hermreck [36] USA Transportation energy use Ortiz et al [21] Spain Environmental performance Blengini and Garbarino [37] Italy Environmental implications Banias et al [38] Greece Optimal location Coronado et al [39] Spain Network of plant types Hiete et al [40] Germany Optimization of supply-demand chains and costing Zhao et al [9] China Economic viability Xu and Wei [41] China Optimal location Weisheng and Hongping [42] Hong Kong Current practices Mercante et al [43] Spain Life cycle assessment Dosal et al [44] Spain Optimal location Coelho and de Brito [45] Portugal Energy consumption and CO2 emissions Coelho and de Brito [46] Portugal Economic viability Coelho and de Brito [1] Portugal Economic viability Dosal et al [2] Spain Optimal location Galan et al [47] Spain Optimal location Coelho and de Brito [48] Portugal Energy consumption and CO2 emissions Rodriguez et al [22] Spain Management model Advantages of recycling are extensive: conservation/preservation of precious land areas, extension of the lifespan of landfills, cost effectiveness of using recycled products, improvement of general environmental status in terms of energy and pollution, minimization of the resource consumption, utilization of waste which would otherwise be lost to landfill sites, and job creation However, in the absence of major economic incentives, attempts to significantly promote the recycling behavior may not be easy to drive the requisite behavioral change A payment for C&DW in the recycling plants is able to reduce the amount of C&DW to be disposed of and motivate contractors to separate Serdar Ulubeyli et al / Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 1190 – 1197 1193 C&DW at source Similarly, the fundamental encouragement in proposing a landfill-charging scheme is to improve the sorting situation and the recycling rate as in the eastern USA, Austria, and Italy [49,16] As long as the cheap disposal of C&DW is available, there is very little economic incentive to recycle or find alternative uses or even to reduce C&DW However, such a tipping fee may only increase the processing cost which may simply be transferred to clients and reflected in the tender price Recycled mineral construction materials properties and the establishment of quality standards is of primordial importance along with public demonstration projects using those materials in massive quantities In this regard, a standard specification and legislation should be prepared to encourage the implementation of recycled materials for non-structural and structural applications In addition, governments should widely initiate the use of recycled materials for their projects, which can then encourage its use to the industry In USA, many federal and state highway contracts specify the use of recycled materials in the highway construction [50] In Japan, recycling of certain materials is mandatory in demolition [8] In Brazil, the use of the recycled aggregate in paving works and services is mandatory [51] In Hong Kong, the recycled aggregate is used in public projects commissioned [5] However, it is unrealistic to assume that all of recycled materials produced will be automatically accepted as a substitute in the secondary materials market since some application tests and approvals are required Although it is impossible to guarantee a certain quality of recycled products [35], recycled materials can be made to meet design specifications for normal construction materials if properly processed [34] To allow the use of recycled materials in new construction works, there are quality controlled or certificated processing plants in Germany [52] C&DW recycling plants Although the source separation is mandatory in some EU countries such as Austria, Belgium, Germany, Finland, Lithuania, and Slovenia [16], the off-site construction waste sorting is always the most preferred choice to contractors and usually has relatively lower sortability than segregation-at-source In USA, 3500 C&DW recycling centers process between 20% and 30% of C&D waste [53] The total number of plants is also estimated as 1000 for Germany, 150 for Austria, 120 for the Netherlands, 100 for the UK and Italy, 92 for Belgium, 50 for France, 30 for Denmark, 10 for Sweden, for Ireland, and for Spain [11] However, the lack of the recycling plants is encountered in many countries around the world, such as Hong Kong [15] and Brazil [32] In Turkey, there are only three facilities in different cities There are two types of the recycling plants as stationary and mobile Stationary plants of which capacities are 100-350 ton/h usually adopt higher level technologies and are typically provided with the sorting equipment for the separation of unwanted fractions They are suitable in high density areas, capable of producing a high quality of product, and efficient due to the production of different recycled products of various grading However, the initial investment of setting such a plant can be in excess Mobile plants of which capacities are up to 100 ton/h treat smaller quantities of C&DW in temporary demolition worksites, deploy basic technologies, and typically produce low grade recycling aggregates by in-situ recycling They are economically feasible from an amount of 5,000 to 6,000 ton/site [54] However, there are limited cleaning facilities in this type of installation, and therefore, the recycled product is normally of low quality In addition, such a plant that is usually close to residential areas can cause high levels of dust and noise which can be unacceptable If the quantity of the area is lower than a certain amount, a transfer or collection station of which capacity changes between 1-4 ton/h should also be located from an economic point of view Such centers not physically recycle anything, but simply sort out or classify and compact the materials and then send them to the recycling facilities Rejected fluxes are only hazardous and untreatable materials (e.g., tar, asbestos, resins, and adhesives) and wet sludge carrying ultra-fine mixed particles 3.1 Economics The initial investment in an industrial venture of this magnitude involves large funds In terms of its approximate cost, a 20 ton/h plant needs €250,000, a 50 ton/h plant needs €600,000, and a 100 ton/h plant needs €800,000 [31,9] However, the unit cost of recycling of large capacity facilities is less than that of their small capacity counterparts Higher capacity facilities outperform lower capacity ones both in the absolute profitability and in the resilience to fluctuations of several operating parameters [30,55,35,43,45,54] In other words, mobile centers lose their cost 1194 Serdar Ulubeyli et al / Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 1190 – 1197 advantages from the low productivity (economies of scale) and low prices of the processed product In this regard, less than 20 ton/h of the C&DW processing flow will probably not be financially viable [31,39] A mobile recycling center is chosen when the extra revenue from the location advantage by attaining a higher gate fee exceeds the difference between the recycling cost of a fixed center and the mobile center [9] The economic viability is recognized as the underlying requirement for the adoption of the C&DW recycling However, the economic viability is a highly regional variable, dependent on many physical, economic, and social factors Thus, different results have been reported to date, from no viability for private investors [26,31] to the conditional viability by supplying waste wood for waste-to-energy installations [29] and by purchasing old equipment [35] and to the high economic viability [30] with the net benefit of 2.5% of the total project budget [56] and with the return of the investment period of 1-8 years even in the absence of the specific regulatory government policy intervention by offering up to a €1,081 million economic balance or surplus over its lifetime of 60 years [46] Similarly, in most European countries, it is economically feasible to recycle up to 80-90% of the total amount of C&DW [57] There are commercial C&DW recycling plants operating in the Netherlands and Germany, which proves that the C&DW recycling is a profitable business [35] All these studies highlight the importance of key success factors based on government incentives such as (i) taxing virgin materials as in Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Sweden, and the UK [16], (ii) taxing landfilled recyclable materials as in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and the UK [16], (iii) taxing unsorted wastes delivered to the recycling plants maybe by a six times higher gate fee [46], (iv) subsidizing C&DW recycling businesses maybe with the reduction in loans at lower rates than practiced in the market despite the fact that the scant government financing for these facilities is a weakness [25,58,59], (v) subsidies for those disposing of in the recycling centers, (vi) implementing standards for recycled materials, (vii) promoting their introduction in the market perhaps by lowering taxes on construction products with a recycled content, and (viii) a combination of these motivators Although it seems that subsidies impose a cost on the public sector by the increase in savings of C&DW producers and users of secondary materials, a combination of taxes and subsidies could minimize the cost incurred by the public sector as taxes could finance subsidies, and society does not incur an external cost Consequently, only when it is proved that recycling is both economically and environmentally sustainable in comparison with the original material production, recycled materials can play a positive role in the sustainable supply mix 3.2 Environment Operating a recycling facility is, in environmental terms, essentially about some noise and dust generation, and there are no other major self-generated environmental impacts [48] The C&DW recycling chain was proved to be eco-efficient as avoided impacts were found to be higher than generated impacts for environmental indicators even in the worst conditions at least by a factor of three and maybe even as high as 16 times in particular conditions [21,45] The only indicator for which the impacts outweigh environmental gains can be ascribed to re-melting of steel scraps via an electric arch process [37] Coelho and de Brito [48] found that the prevented/produced impacts relationship is 7.9 with respect to the primary energy consumption and as much as 10.8 for CO 2eq emissions Treloar et al [60] highlighted that the energy from recycling could represent as much as 73% of a material’s embodied energy Transportation is the single most influential activity with a 44% share of all primary energy needs [48] and is the step that makes the greatest contribution to environmental impacts [43] However, Blengini and Garbarino [37] concluded that the transportation distance should increase by a factor of two or three before induced impacts would top avoided ones 3.3 Location To install a nominal C&DW recycling facility, a surface area of around (40,000 m 2) of low environmental value land (brownfield or derelict land) near to road accesses is occupied [48] In the micro level, fixed recycling facilities are cleverly and deliberately sited next to landfills in suburb, or often exhausted quarries are reconverted into recycling facilities so that the non-inert waste sorted can be conveniently disposed [61] and transportation costs of residue can be minimized [9] This is because the transportation stage plays a decisive role and recycling is not Serdar Ulubeyli et al / Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 1190 – 1197 always beneficial [43] The location and design of recycling plants are also adapted to respond to the country’s environmental protection for some parameters (i.e., noise, dust, and vibrations) and to lead to the reduction of costs incurred with the waste transport and collection In this regard, a fixed center site is expected to be located further away from the city center or to have a rural character surrounded by urban or densely populated areas close to important transportation corridors It results in an increased transportation cost leading to lower gate fees due to the loss of the location advantage [35] In addition, the cost to transport construction materials made from C&DW should not be relatively high compared with the cost of using similar virgin materials delivered to the construction site via traditional commercial channels In the macro level, recycling plants need to be scattered over the territory where the operating or shipping radius of 15-50 km between facilities is required to avoid the intense market competition, meet the needs of contractors of wider areas, and to prevent the transportation-based pollution [38,37,62,1,47,22] However, the C&DW recycling supply chain has to stay regional since different materials has to be sent to several locations and a lot of transferring and sorting has to be done [36] 3.4 Administration C&DW recycling companies are not affiliated with any business group, but are off-shoots of construction industry firms (e.g., builders and excavators) that envisaged a business opportunity in the waste management as in Germany, Spain, the Netherlands [22], and Turkey In terms of the general management model, most companies in different countries, such as Italy [37], Portugal [62], Palestine [58], and Spain [22], are founded under the private initiative with the scant government involvement However, in some countries, such as Brazil [32] and Japan [5], the responsibility for operating the recycling plants is incumbent upon local public authorities Of three plants in Turkey, two are owned by private enterprises while the remaining one belongs to a municipality As an alternative to these administrative structures, governments may outsource the recycling facilities to qualified contractors following a public competitive tendering procedure [42] Another option can be public-private partnerships where governments and the private sector work together [31] Conclusions Because of the nature of production methods and conditions, activities of the construction industry will never reach zero-waste status and a certain level of the waste generation is unavoidable Especially in the last two decades, recycling of C&DW by facilities has been a reasonable alternative to unsustainable disposal practices, i.e., landfilling and fly tipping Therefore, this study discusses current management issues of these facilities in the literature Consequently, it was determined that these issues investigated in previous studies can be classified under four principle groups such as economics, environment, location, and administration In addition, their pros and cons were revealed as a whole in a detailed manner Since these issues have not been addressed together so far and each one of them has been examined separately, the present study is the first attempt to give a full picture of management issues of the recycling facilities Thus, it can fill the gap in the literature As a research implication, this study may help researchers who will investigate C&DW recycling plants from economic, environmental, locational, and managerial points of view In terms of the practical implication, it may attract attention of industrial practitioners and entrepreneurs in public authorities and the private sector to benefit from such wastes through plants Finally, as a social implication, better management of C&DW recycling plants can save and enhance the sustainability of the overall environment and affect society positively Acknowledgements Authors gratefully acknowledge financial supports provided by Committees on Research Grants of Bulent Ecevit University and Akdeniz University 1195 1196 Serdar Ulubeyli et al / Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 1190 – 1197 References [1] A Coelho, J de Brito, Economic viability analysis of a construction and demolition waste recycling plant in Portugal – part I: location, materials, technology and economic analysis, J Clean Prod 39 (2013) 338–352 [2] E Dosal, B Galan, A Andres, J Viguri, Introduction of social criteria for the optimal location of construction and demolition waste management facilities in Cantabria (Spain), Comp Aid Chem Eng 32 (2013) 1027–032 [3] C.S Poon, A.T.W Yu, L.H Ng, On-site sorting of construction and demolition waste in Hong Kong, Res Cons Rec 32 (2001) 157–172 [4] E Martinez, Y Nunez, E Sobaberas, End of life of buildings: three alternatives, two scenarios, a case study, Int J Life Cyc Ass 18 (2013) 1082–1088 [5] W Lu, V.W.Y Tam, Construction waste management policies and their effectiveness in Hong Kong: a longitudinal review, Renew Sust En Rev 23 (2013) 214-223 [6] M Malia, J de Brito, M.D Pinheiro, M Bravo, Construction and demolition waste indicators, Waste Manag Res 31 (2013) 241–255 [7] C Fischer, M Werge, EU as a Recycling Society: Present Recycling Levels of Municipal Waste and Construction & Demolition Waste in the EU, European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production, Copenhagen, 2009 [8] V.W Tam, Comparing the implementation of concrete recycling in the Australian and Japanese construction industries, J Clean Prod 17 (2009) 688–702 [9] W Zhao, H Ren, V.S Rotter, A system dynamics model for evaluating the alternative of type in construction and demolition waste recycling center – the case of Chongqing, China, Res Cons Rec 55 (2011) 933–944 [10] C Poon, D Chan, The use of recycled aggregate in concrete in Hong Kong, Res Cons Rec 50 (2007) 293–305 [11] Symonds Group, Construction and Demolition Waste Management Practices and their Economic Impacts, Report to DGXI, European Commission, London, 1999 [12] N Tojo, C Fischer, Europe as a Recycling Society: European Recycling Policies in Relation to the Actual Recycling Achieved, Working Paper 2, European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production, Copenhagen, 2011 [13] T Townsend, C Wilson, B Beck, The Benefits of Construction and Demolition Materials Recycling in the United States, White Paper, Construction and Demolition Recycling Association, Illinois, 2015 [14] N Kartam, N Al-Mutairi, I Al-Ghusain, J Al-Humoud, Environmental management of construction and demolition waste in Kuwait, Waste Manag 24 (2004) 1049–1059 [15] V.W.Y Tam, C.M Tam, Evaluations of existing waste recycling methods: a Hong Kong study, Build Env 41 (2006) 1649–1660 [16] N Tojo, Europe as a Recycling Society, Working Paper 6, European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production, Copenhagen, 2010 [17] M.O Federle, Overview of building construction waste and the potential for materials recycling, Build Res J (1993) 31–37 [18] M.R Merino, P.I Gracia, I.S.W Azevedo, Sustainable construction: construction and demolition waste reconsidered, Waste Manag Res 28 (2010) 118–129 [19] W Lu, Y Peng, C Webster, J Zuo, Stakeholders’ willingness to pay for enhanced construction waste management: a Hong Kong study, Renew Sust Energy Rev 47 (2015) 233–240 [20] P.H Brunner, D.M Stampfli, Material balance of a construction waste sorting plant, Waste Manag Res 11 (1993) 27–48 [21] O Ortiz, J.C Pasqualino, F Castells, Environmental performance of construction waste: comparing three scenarios from a case study in Catalonia, Spain, Waste Manag 30 (2010) 646–654 [22] G Rodriguez, C Medina, F.J Alegre, E Asensio, M.I.S Rojas, Assessment of construction and demolition waste plant management in Spain: in pursuit of sustainability and eco-efficiency, J Clean Prod 90 (2015) 16–24 [23] EC Directive, Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC, European Commission, Brussels, 2008 [24] R.A Bohne, H Brattebo, H Bergsdal, Dynamic eco-efficiency projections for construction and demolition waste recycling strategies at the city level, J Ind Eco 12 (2008) 52–66 [25] O.F Kofoworola, S.H Gheewala, Estimation of construction waste generation and management in Thailand, Waste Manag 29 (2009) 731– 738 [26] C.L Peng, D.E Scorpio, C.J Kibert, Strategies for successful construction and demolition waste recycling operations, Const Manag Econ 15 (1997) 49–58 [27] W.L Huang, D.H Lin, N.B Chang, K.S Lin, Recycling of construction and demolition waste via a mechanical sorting process, Res Cons Rec 37 (2002) 23–37 [28] G.R Robinson, K.E Kapo, A GIS analysis of suitability for construction aggregate recycling sites using regional transportation network and population density features, Res Cons Rec 42 (2004) 351–365 [29] J.Y Wang, A Touran, C Christoforou, H Fadlalla, A systems analysis tool for construction and demolition wastes management, Waste Manag 24 (2004) 989–997 [30] X Duran, H Lenihan, B O’Regan, A model for assessing the economic viability of construction and demolition waste recycling—the case of Ireland, Res Cons Rec 46 (2006) 302–320 [31] K.R.A Nunes, C.F Mahler, R Valle, C Neves, Evaluation of investments in recycling centres for construction and demolition wastes in Brazilian municipalities, Waste Manag 27 (2007) 1531–1540 [32] C.F.S Gomes, K.R.A Nunes, L.H Xavier, R Cardoso, R Valle, Multicriteria decision making applied to waste recycling in Brazil, Omega 36 (2008) 395–404 [33] V.W.Y Tam, Economic comparison of concrete recycling: a case study approach, Res Cons Rec 52 (2008) 821–828 Serdar Ulubeyli et al / Procedia Engineering 172 (2017) 1190 – 1197 1197 [34] V.W.Y Tam, D Kotrayothar, Y.C Loo, On the prevailing construction waste recycling practices: a South East Queensland study, Waste Manag Res 27 (2009) 167–174 [35] W Zhao, R.B Leeftink, V.S Rotter, Evaluation of the economic feasibility for the recycling of construction and demolition waste in China—the case of Chongqing, Res Cons Rec 54 (2010) 377–389 [36] W.K Chong, C Hermreck, Understanding transportation energy and technical metabolism of construction waste recycling, Res Cons Rec 54 (2010) 579–590 [37] G.A Blengini, E Garbarino, Resources and waste management in Turin (Italy): the role of recycled aggregates in the sustainable supply mix, J Clean Prod 18 (2010) 1021–1030 [38] G Banias, C Achillas, C Vlachokostas, N Moussiopoulos, S Tarsenis, Assessing multiple criteria for the optimal location of a construction and demolition waste management facility, Build Env 45 (2010) 2317–2326 [39] M Coronado, E Dosal, A Coz, J.R Viguri, A Andres, Estimation of construction and demolition waste (C&DW) generation and multicriteria analysis of C&DW management alternatives: a case study in Spain, Waste Biom Valor (2011) 209–225 [40] M Hiete, J Stengel, J Ludwig, F Schultmann, Matching construction and demolition waste supply to recycling demand: a regional management chain model, Build Res Inf 39 (2011) 333–351 [41] J Xu, P Wei, A bi-level model for location-allocation problem of construction & demolition waste management under fuzzy random environment, Int J Civil Eng 10 (2012) 1–12 [42] L Weisheng, Y Hongping, Off-site sorting of construction waste: what can we learn from Hong Kong?, Res Cons Rec 69 (2012) 100– 108 [43] I.T Mercante, M.D Bovea, V.I Fores, A.P Arena, Life cycle assessment of construction and demolition waste management systems: a Spanish case study, Int J Life Cyc Ass 17 (2012) 232–241 [44] E Dosal, M Coronado, I Munoz, J.R Viguri, A Andres, Application of multi-criteria decision-making tool to locate construction and demolition waste (C&DW) recycling facilities in a northern Spanish region, Env Eng Manag J 11 (2012) 545–556 [45] A Coelho, J de Brito, Environmental analysis of a construction and demolition waste recycling plant in Portugal – part II: environmental sensitivity analysis, Waste Manag 33 (2013) 147–161 [46] A Coelho, J de Brito, Economic viability analysis of a construction and demolition waste recycling plant in Portugal – part II: economic sensitivity analysis, J Clean Prod 39 (2013) 329–337 [47] B Galan, E Dosal, A Andres, J Viguri, Optimisation of the construction and demolition waste management facilities location in Cantabria (Spain) under economical and environmental criteria, Waste Biom Valor (2013) 797–808 [48] A Coelho, J de Brito, Environmental analysis of a construction and demolition waste recycling plant in Portugal – part I: energy consumption and CO2 emissions, Waste Manag 33 (2013) 1258–1267 [49] R Steuteville, Innovators in C&D recycling, Biocycle 35 (1994) 30–33 [50] G.R Robinson, W.D Menzie, H Hyun, Recycling of construction debris as aggregate in the Mid-Atlantic Region, USA, Res Cons Rec 42 (2004) 275–294 [51] A Sales, F.R.D Souza, Concretes and mortars recycled with water treatment sludge and construction and demolition rubble, Const Build Mat 23 (2009) 2362–2370 [52] M Weil, U Jeske, L Schebek, Closed-loop recycling of construction and demolition waste in Germany in view of stricter environmental threshold values, Waste Manag Res 24 (2006) 197–206 [53] EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), Buildings Savings: Strategies for Waste Reduction of Construction and Demolition Debris from Buildings, EPA-530-F-00-001, Environmental Protection Agency, USA, 2000 [54] S.A Kumbhar, A Gupta, D.B Desai, Recycling and reuse of construction and demolition waste for sustainable development, OIDA Int J Sust Dev 06 (2013) 83–91 [55] B Kourmpanis, A Papadopoulos, K Moustakas, M Stylianou, K.J Haralambous, M Loizidou, Preliminary study for the management of construction and demolition waste, Waste Manag Res 26 (2008) 267–275 [56] R.A Begum, C Siwar, J.J Pereira, A.H Jaafar, A benefit–cost analysis on the economic feasibility of construction waste minimisation: the case of Malaysia, Res Cons Rec 48 (2006) 86–98 [57] E.K Lauritzen, Emergency construction waste management, Safety Sci 30 (1998) 45–53 [58] M.I Al-Sari, I.A Al-Khatib, M Avraamides, D Fatta-Kassinos, A study on the attitudes and behavioural influence of construction waste management in occupied Palestinian territory, Waste Manag Res 30 (2012) 122–136 [59] N Calvo, L Varela-Candamio, I Novo-Corti, A dynamic model for construction and demolition (C&D) waste management in Spain: driving policies based on economic incentives and tax penalties, Sustainability (2014) 416–435 [60] G.F Treloar, P.E.D Love, O.O Faniran, Improving the reliability of embodied energy methods for project life-cycle decision making, Logis Inf Manag 14 (2001) 303–317 [61] H.P Yuan, A.R Chini, L.Y Shen, A dynamic model for assessing the effects of management strategies on the reduction of construction and demolition waste, Waste Manag 32 (2012) 521–531 [62] A.B de Melo, A.F Goncalves, I.M Martins, Construction and demolition waste generation and management in Lisbon (Portugal), Res Cons Rec 55 (2011) 1252–1264 ... Construction and demolition waste indicators, Waste Manag Res 31 (2013) 241–255 [7] C Fischer, M Werge, EU as a Recycling Society: Present Recycling Levels of Municipal Waste and Construction & Demolition. .. for construction and demolition wastes management, Waste Manag 24 (2004) 989–997 [30] X Duran, H Lenihan, B O’Regan, A model for assessing the economic viability of construction and demolition waste. .. of a construction and demolition waste management facility, Build Env 45 (2010) 2317–2326 [39] M Coronado, E Dosal, A Coz, J.R Viguri, A Andres, Estimation of construction and demolition waste