Waste Management: M.D. Bovea, J.C. Powell

Waste Management 50 (2016) 151172
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman
Review
Developments in life cycle assessment applied to evaluate the

environmental performance of construction and demolition wastes
M.D. Bovea a,, J.C. Powell b
a
b
Departament of Mechanical Engineering & Construction, Universitat Jaume I, Castelln, Spain

CSERGE, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7 TJ, UK
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 3 September 2015
Revised 23 December 2015
Accepted 28 January 2016
Available online 23 February 2016
Keywords:
Life cycle assessment
LCA
Construction and demolition waste
CDW
Review
a b s t r a c t
This paper provides a review of the literature that applies the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology to
the assessment of the environmental performance of the life cycle of construction and demolition waste
(CDW) management systems. This article is focused on generating a general mapping of the literature and
on identifying the best practices in compliance with LCA framework and proposing directions for future
LCA studies in this field. The temporal evolution of the research in this field and the aim of the studies
have grown in parallel with the legal framework related to waste and energy efficiency of buildings.
Most studies have been published in Europe, followed by USA. Asia and Australia, being at an incipient
application stage to the rest of the world. Topics related to LCA of buildings, including their EoL and
LCA of general CDW management strategies are the most frequently analysed, followed by LCA of EoL
of construction elements and LCA of natural material vs recycled material. Regarding the strategies, recycling off-site and incineration, both combined with landfill for the rejected fractions, are the most commonly applied. Re-use or recycling on-site is the strategy least applied. The key aspect when LCA is
applied to evaluate CDW management systems is the need to normalise which processes to include in
the system boundary and the functional unit, the use of inventory data adapted to the context of the case
study and the definition of a common set of appropriate impact assessment categories. Also, it is important to obtain results disaggregated by unit processes. This will allow the comparison between case
studies.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.
Identification of studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.
Review scheme: classification of the studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
General mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.
Source and activity generating CDW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.
Type of study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.
Time evolution and country of origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.
Source publication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5.
Aims of the LCA studies (topics) and waste management strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LCA methodological aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.
Goal and scope definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.
Life cycle inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.
Life cycle impact assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.
Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bovea@uji.es (M.D. Bovea).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.01.036
0956-053X/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
152
152
152
153
153
153
155
155
155
156
157
157
158
159
159
152
5.
6.
M.D. Bovea, J.C. Powell / Waste Management 50 (2016) 151172
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix A. General mapping . . . . . . . . .
Appendix B. LCA methodological aspects .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1. Introduction
Large quantities of construction and demolition wastes (CDW)
are produced during the construction and demolition of buildings
and civil engineering works. Yet, despite the limited space available for disposal to landfill, the depletion of resources such as
wood, metal and aggregates, and the embodied energy of construction materials, significant quantities of these materials are landfilled, without any previous treatment (JRC, 2011). This is despite
widely available and environmentally effective alternative methods of waste management, such as reuse and recycling. Therefore
it can be seen that there are considerable opportunities for improving current CDW management practices from an environmental
point of view.
This is reflected in the ambitious target that European legislation
(Directive 2008/98/EC) has set to increase the recovery and recycling
of CDW to 70% by 2020. The EC waste hierarchy has established a
sequence of management preferences: prevention, preparing for
re-use, recycling, other recovery, and finally disposal as the least
desirable option. However, variations from this framework are possible for specific waste streams and under specific circumstances in
order to ensure the best solution for the environment.
The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology (ISO 14040-44,
2006) is increasingly being used to identify strategies that will
improve the environmental performance of waste management
systems. Its application to evaluate the environmental behaviour
of alternative scenarios for managing construction and demolition
wastes (CDW) started in end-90s (Craighill and Powell, 1999) and
has been recently increased mainly due to the support measurements set by the legal framework established by Directive
2008/98/EC and Directive 2010/31/EC.
Laurent et al. (2014a,b) reviewed studies that focused on the
application of LCA to waste management in general, concluding
that there was very few LCA studies addressing CDW and that
there was important opportunities to expand this area of research.
This review identified five studies that focused specifically on the
application of LCA to evaluate the environmental performance of
construction and/or demolition waste management systems
(Blengini and Garbarino, 2010; Coelho and de Brito, 2012; Grant
and James, 2005; Mercante et al., 2012; Ortiz et al., 2010b). However, a new body of literature in this field can be find if studies
focused on analysing the whole life cycle of buildings or other civil
engineering works, including its end-of-life (EoL), are included
inside the boundary of the review.
In that context, the LCA methodology has been widely applied
in the literature in order to analyse the environmental performance of buildings, the embodied energy and carbon consequence
of buildings or their products and materials (Ortiz et al., 2009;
Khasreen et al., 2009; Sharma et al., 2011; Buyle et al., 2013;
Cabeza et al., 2014a). However, most of the literature included in
these reviews focuses on the use stage of the building or on the
materials and products used in its construction, and generally considers that the EoL of the building finishes with its demolition. This
review goes beyond that stage and explores the management of
CDW after the demolition process, including impacts or avoided
impacts due to recycling, incinerating, landfill or other alternative
treatment for CDW.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
160
164
164
165
168
170
The overall aim of this paper is to provide a robust review of the

literature focused on applying the LCA methodology to assess the
environmental performance of CDW management systems, in
order to identify a commonality across the studies and thus identify best practices for CDW management under a range of locations
and circumstances. This will provide guidelines for future LCA
research, as applied to CDW management systems, to enable comprehensive comparisons of results across different cases studies.
To achieve this overall aim, the following specific objectives
have been defined: (1) to provide a comprehensive and detailed
mapping of LCA studies (since early studies in the later 1990s to
early 2015) specifically focused on assessing the management of
CDW once it has been produced either during the construction,
refurbishment or after the demolition of buildings or engineering
works. In addition CDW generated at a regional or national level,
altogether regardless of its origin; (2) to identify the temporal evolution, geographical location, origin and type of CDW, etc. for each
study; (3) to classify studies according to their purpose and analyse
the influence of the legal framework on them; and finally (4) how
the LCA methodology has been applied in each case study, to identify best practices and provide a guidance for future studies in
compliance with the standardised LCA framework.
Keeping these objectives in mind, the scope of this review is to
include studies considering totally or partially, the environmental
impacts created or avoided through the different life cycle stages
that can be identified in any CDW management system: collection
and segregation of CDW, transport to different treatment/disposal
facilities, valorisation process (re-use, on-site/off-site recycling,
incineration, etc.) or final disposal in landfill.
Other different reviews have been published but they focus on
different aspects of CDW outside the boundary of this study. Yuan
and Shen (2011) analysed publications related to CDW in order to
identify the potential future trends in six topics (generation, reduction, reuse, recycling, management in general and human factors),
Wu et al. (2014) and Masudi et al. (2012) review methods for
quantifying CDW, Behera et al. (2014), Vntsi and Krki (2014)
and Evangelista and De Brito (2014) review the status of materials
made out of recycled CDW, Clark et al. (2006) review the CDW regulation in US, or Yeheyis et al. (2013) review the current situation
of CDW management in Canada. So, none of them apply the LCA
methodology to assess the environmental performance of the life
cycle of CDW management which this review aims to undertake.
2. Research methodology
2.1. Identification of studies
To achieve a comprehensive understanding of the current
knowledge published in the field of environmental performance
of CDW management from a life cycle perspective, the following
procedure was followed:
The identification of studies in scientific journals was undertaken by a systematic search in Scopus search engine as a starting point. The general string used were construction and
demolition waste, construction waste or demolition waste
and more specific strings were added for more refined searches
using LCA, life cycle assessment, environmental perfor

mance/impact/footprint, etc. A last screening of the literature
was made using alternative search engines such as ISI Web of
Knowledge and Sciencedirect, although very few additional
studies were added.
Specific searches were added for International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment, Waste Management and Waste Management and Research, to ensure inclusion of journals specifically
focused on the subject of the review. Due to the relationship of
CDW topic with the end of life of buildings, specific searches
were also added for Building and Environment, Energy and
Buildings and Building Research & Information.
After identifying potential papers, a filtering process was used
to select those studies focused on applying the LCA methodology to evaluating different strategies for the management of
wastes from construction, demolition or construction and
demolition activities, both from building or other civil engineering activities. Articles including just the demolition process but
without any further analysis on the waste management strategy, were considered outside the boundaries of this review.
A non-systematic search was then conducted to include additional studies of potential relevance not found in the previous
search, by manually checking cited and citing literature in the
selected manuscripts.
A search for PhD thesis and technical reports from governmental institutions with responsibility on CDW management were
finally included in the process. In order to avoid any doubledcounting, thesis and public reports directly used in peerreviewed article have been considered to be associated with
the scientific article.
Only literature reported in English was included in the review

scope. We consider this research methodology to be highly representative of the scientific research in this field.
2.2. Review scheme: classification of the studies
A content analysis of the selected articles was performed to
identify the main topics addressed in each article. It was a feedback
process defining the criteria used to classify each article in order to
support the results and discussion findings. The methodological
elements evaluated for each article selected from the previous
identification of studies are showed in Table 1.
3. General mapping
After applying the research methodology described above, 80
research papers and/or technical reports published until 2014 were
finally selected for being included in the review. Other papers that
include the environmental performance of EoL of buildings, but
just consider the energy to demolish the building and also, in some
cases, the transportation energy to deliver waste materials to landfills or valorisation facilities (Cole and Kernan, 1996; Adalberth,
1997a,b; Blanchard and Reppe, 1998; Keoleian et al., 2000; Chen
et al., 2001; Mithraratne and Vale, 2004; Kofoworola and
Gheewala, 2008, 2009, etc.) are outside the borders of this review,
since they do not consider the impacts created or avoided through
the reuse, recycling, incineration, landfill or any other strategy for
the final management of the CDW generated after the demolition
activities.
A full mapping of the selected studies included in this review is
provided in Appendixes A and B (Broun and Menzies, 2011; Butera
et al., 2015; Citherlet and Defaux, 2007; De Meester et al., 2009;
Guignot et al., 2015; Hedayati et al., 2014; Lewandowska et al.,
2015; Proietti et al., 2013; Takano et al., 2015a; Thormark, 2002,
153
Table 1
Criteria for classifying articles included in the review.
Element
Mapping
General data
Type of study
CDW origin
Activity
Aspects
Aim of the study
(main topic)
Waste management
strategy
Scoping
Year, country, journal, etc.
Case study, methodological study
Waste from a construction process (CW)
Waste from a demolition process (DW)
CDW as a whole
Building
Civil engineering works
Environmental, Economic, Social
LCA of general CDW management strategies
LCA of natural material vs recycled material from CDW
LCA of a building, including EoL
LCA of EoL of buildings
LCA of strategies for the management of wastes from
the construction stage of a building
LCA of refurbishing an element of a building
LCA of construction elements, including EoL
LCA of EoL of construction elements
LCA for electricity production from CDW (wood)
LCA of CDW recycling plant
Recycling on-site/Re-use, Recycling off-site,
Incineration, Landfill
Comparison of WM strategies
LCA methodological aspects

Goal
Compare the environmental performance of different
scenarios (EoL alternatives) for the same CDW
Analyse the environmental performance of one EoL
scenario for CDW
System boundary
Transport between site construction and waste
management facilities
Avoided burdens due to substitution of materials
Avoided burdens due to substitution of energy
Functional unit
Unit to which LCA study data are referred
LCI data
Secondary data (database)
Primary data
LCIA
Mid-point LCIA categories
Mid-point LCIA method
End-point LCIA method
Interpretation
Findings in accordance with the goal and scope
definition
Sensitivity analysis
2006; Toic et al., 2015). All of them analyse, by applying the LCA
methodology, the environmental performance of CDW management systems. Some of them also consider, in addition to the environmental aspect, the financial cost (Hendriks and Janssen, 2003;
Gerilla et al., 2007; Jambeck et al., 2007; Bohne et al., 2008;
Nemry et al., 2010; Chowdhury et al., 2010; Ortiz et al., 2010a;
Blengini and Garbarino, 2010; Hiete et al., 2011; Yu et al., 2011;
Chen et al., 2011; Tae et al., 2011; Marzouk and Azab, 2014;
Dahlbo et al., 2015; Ferrndez-Garca et al., 2016) or the external
cost (Craighill and Powell, 1999; Craighill, 2002; Allacker, 2010),
or the financial cost and social performance together (Klang
et al., 2003; Yeheyis et al., 2013; Hu et al., 2013; Onat et al., 2014).
As a starting point of the review, a general mapping of the 80
research papers has been done by analysing the following general
aspects: year, journal, country, type of waste (construction waste
and/or demolition waste) and its origin (building and/or civil engineering work), aim of the LCA study, waste management strategy
considered and whether the study includes information regarding
other aspects such as economic costs and, social aspects. The following subsections describe the main findings. Further details of
each article can be found in Appendix A.
3.1. Source and activity generating CDW
In general, waste from construction and demolition activities
may have different sources depending on the process in which they
are generated: construction waste (CW), demolition waste (DW) or
154
Table 2
References proposing a methodology for evaluating CDW management systems.
Reference
Description of the methodology proposed
Craighill and Powell (1999)
Integrate external costs of the management of CDW by applying aspects related to the
economic valuation of a range of external impacts including environmental emissions,
road congestion, casualties, jobs and disamenity factors such as smell (Craighill and
Powell 1996)
Apply the Eco-cost Value ratio (EVR model) (Vogtlander, 2001) to analyse the advantage
of using recycling materials in construction
Propose a model for evaluating the sustainable development (environmental, economic
and social aspect) of CDW recycling or re-using activities
Apply the Eco-Efficiency Index (Keffer et al. 1999) to evaluate different scenarios (reuse,
recycling, incineration or landfill) for different CDW fraction materials
Formulate a model (objective function) whose optimisation allows identifying the
recycling network configuration with the lowest cost considering CDW transport,
recycling, landfill and avoided burdens for recycled materials
Propose a model for consequential-LCA (Ekwall and Weidema, 2004) for assessing the
end-of-life of building
Integrate external costs of the management of CDW by applying ExternE (2005)
methodology
Propose a framework for assessing the carbon emissions from the life cycle of a lowcarbon building
Propose a model to quantify the embodied energy of the life cycle of a building
Propose a model integrated in the Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis (LCSA) (UNEP/SETAC,
2011) framework
Propose and apply an index called Carbon Efficiency of a Residential Building (CERB) that
link the life-cycle value and the carbon emission of a building, including a sub-index for
the EoL of the building that takes into account the demolition process and the reuse,
recycling or landfill of specific recovered fractions from CDW
Propose a conceptual framework for CDW management to minimise the disposal of CDW
and define the Construction Waste LCA-based Sustainability Index (CWLSI) to facilitate
the decision making process related to the selection of material, sorting, reuse and
treatment or disposal option of CDW
Propose an empirical study that uses a dynamic model for assessing the environmental
and economic impact of recycled and disposed CDW, including emissions avoided by
recycling and the impact of uncollected wastes
Propose a model integrated in the Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis (LCSA) (UNEP/SETAC,
2011) framework
Hendriks and Janssen

(2003)
Klang et al. (2003)
Bohne et al. (2008)
Hiete et al. (2011)
Vieira and Horvath (2008)

Allacker (2010)
Chen et al. (2011)
Dixit et al. (2013)
Hu et al. (2013)
Li et al. (2013)
Yeheyis et al. (2013)
Marzouk and Azab (2014)
Onat et al. (2014)

a
Aspects considered integrated in

the methodology
Environmental
Economic
da
Social
d
d
d
d
d
Case
study
d
a
d
d
d
External cost.
16
15
14
13
12
number of arcles
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Colombia
China
Denmark
Egypt
Finland
France
Germany
Italy
Japan
Korea
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Serbia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
The Netherlands
UK
USA
Fig. 1. Temporal evolution of literature related to LCA of CDW, by country.
altogether, CDW. And also, depending on the activity, they can

result from buildings or civil engineering works.
Regarding the source, it can be observed that just two studies
Ortiz et al. (2010a,b) focus on analysing wastes produced during
the construction of a residential building, while just two are
dedicated to wastes generated during the refurbishment buildings

(roof) (Rodrigues and Freire, 2014; Napolano et al., 2015). Wastes
produced during the demolition of buildings are the most frequently analysed (in 46 studies) while the remaining studies analyse waste and strategies that apply to combined CDW.
155
considering the environmental impacts of managing the wastes,

and for this reason are outside of the boundaries of this review.
An important increase in the number of articles published, can
be observed in 2003 and 2010 (Fig. 1), coinciding with the publication in Europe of the Directive 2002/91/EC, more recently repealed
and updated to Directive 2010/31/EC. It is also observed that during the last two years (20132014), the number of publications is
growing, indicating increased interest in this field by the research
community.
When the country of origin of the studies is analysed, it can be
seen that 66.3% of the reviewed studies are related to European
countries. Spain, Italy, Portugal and Sweden are the countries publishing the most LCA studies on the environmental performance of
CDW management (Fig. 1). This reflects the existence of both, an
active LCA community and growing concern about the management of CDW, probably encouraged by the national legislation in
each country. The remaining studies are distributed among America (17.5%), dominated by USA, Asia (10.0%), dominated by China,
Oceania (3.8%) dominated by Australia, and Africa (2.5%). With
slight variations, this pattern is similar to that identified by
Laurent et al. (2014a). It can be also observed that Asia and Australia are geographical areas that have taken longer to join this
research field, in 2011 and 2013 respectively, while South America
and Africa are only just beginning to research this area.
According to the activity, in those studies in which it is identified, most wastes arise from buildings, generally residential buildings and in a few cases from office buildings (Junnila and Horvath,
2003; Vieira and Horvath, 2008; Bilec et al., 2010), university
buildings (Scheuer et al., 2003; Wu et al., 2012) or commercial
buildings (Onat et al., 2014). Only Park et al. (2003) considers the
demolition and recycling stage of a civil engineering activity such
as a highway.
3.2. Type of study
The literature has been divided into Case studies and Methodology. 66 of the reviewed articles include a case study (real implemented scenarios), and 14 propose a general methodology for
analysing the environmental performance of CDW management
(see Table 2). Of those, Craighill and Powell (1999), Klang et al.
(2003), Vieira and Horvath (2008), Bohne et al. (2008), Allacker
(2010), Hiete et al. (2011) and Onat et al. (2014) apply the proposed methodology to a case study and will be analysed together
with the remaining case studies.
Those that focus on a case study are divided into two main
groups: (1) studies that compare the environmental performance
of different scenarios (combination of different EoL strategies) for
the same CDW and (2) studies that analyse the environmental performance of one EoL scenario for CDW. As discussed latter, for the
first group it is possible to compare the environmental performance of CDW management strategies, as long as the system
boundaries are sufficiently similar.
3.4. Source publication

The literature reviewed was mainly published in scientific journals (90.0%), while the rest are reports from research groups with
competences in CDW (Craighill and Powell, 1999; AIA, 2010;
WRAP, 2008), PhD and master thesis whose results have not been
published in international journals (Craighill, 2002; Allacker, 2010;
Sveinssnn, 2012) or book chapters (Marinkovic et al., 2013, 2014;
Cabeza et al., 2014b; Guardigli, 2014).
Focusing on literature published in international journals, they
can be divided into four groups according to their main topics of
the journal. Group 1 (waste journals) comprises journals related
to waste management in general (Waste Management, Waste
Management & Research and Resources, Conservation and
3.3. Time evolution and country of origin

The temporal evolution of research studies related to CDW has
been analysed. It can be observed that the first publication analyzing the environmental performance of CDW management, including
the impact created or avoided due to the treatment of the CDW, was
made in 1999 by Craighill and Powell (1999). Previous studies, Cole
and Kernan (1996) and Adalberth (1997a,b), analysed the energy
use during the life cycle of an office building and a single-unit dwelling, respectively, but just until the demolition stage, without
16
Group 1
(Waste)
Resources, Conservaon and Recycling

Waste Management
Waste Management & Research
14
Building and Environment

Building Research and Informaon
Group 2
12
(Building)
Construcon and Building Materials

Energy and Buildings
number of arccles
Internaonal Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
Group 3
10
(LCA)
Environmental Science and Technology

Journal of Industrial Ecology
8 Group 4
(General environment)
Science of the Total Environment

Journal of Cleaner Producon
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy
Environmental Engineering and Management Journal
Others
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Fig. 2. Temporal evolution of literature related to LCA of CDW, by journal.
2013
2014
2015
156

16
LCA of general CDW management strategies
15
LCA of natural material vs recycled material from CDW

LCA of building, including EoL
14
LCA of EoL of building
13
LCA of management strategies for wastes from the construcon stage of a building
Direcve 2010/31/EC
Energy performance buildings
LCA of refurbishing an element of a building
12
LCA of construcon elements, including EoL
number of arcles
11
EoL of construcon elements

LCA of electricity producon from CDW (wood)
10
LCA of CDW recycling plant
9
8
Direcve 2008/98/EC
Waste framework
Direcve 2002/91/EC
Energy performance building
(repealed)
7
6
ISO 14040-44 (2006)
5
4
Council
Direcve 1999/31/EC
3
Landll of waste
2
1
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Fig. 3. Temporal evolution of literature related to LCA of CDW, by topic.

40
number of arcles
Group 1 (waste)
35
Group 2 (building)
30
Group 3 (LCA)
Group 4 (general environment)
25
Others
20
15
10
5
0
LCA of general
LCA of natural LCA of building,
including EoL
CDW
material vs
management recycled material
strategies
from CDW
LCA of EoL of
building
LCA of
LCA of strategies
refurbishing an
for the
management of
element of a
wastes from the
building
construcon
stage of a
building
LCA of
construcon
elements,
including EoL
EoL of
construcon
elements
LCA of electricity
producon from
CDW (wood)
LCA of CDW
recycling plant
Fig. 4. Classification of literature according to the aim of the LCA study and the journal type.
Recycling); Group 2 (building journals) includes journals related to

the built environment (Building and Environment, Building
Research & Information, Construction and Building Materials,
Energy and Buildings, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews);
Group 3 (LCA journal) includes the only specific journal focused
on LCA applications (International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment); and Group 4 (general environment journals) which includes
other Journal Citation Report (JCR) indexed journals focused on
general aspects regarding to the environmental management. The
temporal evolution of each group indicates that from 2010 studies
published in journals in Group 2 (buildings) and Group 3 (LCA)
increased significantly (Fig. 2) which relates to the subject of the
article (Figs. 3 and 4).
3.5. Aims of the LCA studies (topics) and waste management strategies
Ten topics have been identified as the main objectives of the
LCA reviewed studies (Table 1). The temporal evolution of each
topic is analysed in Fig. 3, where it can be observed a constant

growing of articles related to the environmental performance of
CDW management from 2006, following the introduction of the
current LCA framework established by ISO 14040-44 (2006) and
the publication in Europe of the Directive 2008/98/EC and
Directive 2010/31/EC. Directive 2008/98/EC establishes the legislative framework for the handling of waste in the European Community and, for CDW, sets that by 2020, the preparing for re-use,
recycling and other material recovery, including backfilling operations using waste to substitute other materials, of non-hazardous
construction and demolition waste excluding naturally occurring
material defined in category 17 05 04 in the list of waste shall be
increased to a minimum of 70% by weight. Directive 2010/31/EC
regulates the energy efficiency of buildings and encourages the
sector to analyse the energy efficiency throughout the lifecycle of
buildings, including the end-of-life stage.
The number of articles related to the topic LCA of general CDW
management strategies remains constant over the time from 2008
157

100
90
80
% arcles
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
reuse/recycling on-site
recycling o-site
incinera on
landll
Fig. 5. Strategies applied for the management of the CDW.
coinciding with the publication of the Directive 2008/98/EC and

even increasing in the last two years. However, literature regarding
to the topic LCA of buildings, including their EoL or specifically
LCA of EoL building, is growing mainly from 2010 coinciding with
the publication of the updated Directive 2010/31/EC.
These topics are the most frequently studied in the literature
and represent nearly two-thirds of the reviewed literature (23.8%
for LCA of general CDW management strategies and 50.0% for
LCA of buildings, including their EoL and LCA of EoL building).
The remaining percentage is distributed among the rest of the
topics, being LCA of EoL of construction elements and LCA of natural material vs recycled material from CDW, the following topics in
number of article related to.
If the aims of the LCA studies are analysed in depth, relating
them to the group of journals identified in Fig. 2, it can be observed
in Fig. 4 that the aim of studies in Group 1 (waste) is mainly related
to the topics LCA of general CDW management strategies and LCA
of natural material vs recycled material from CDW. Just three cases
(Coelho and de Brito, 2012; Dewulf et al., 2009; Roussat et al.,
2009) are case studies analysing the topic LCA of buildings, including their EoL. This last topic is the only one included in articles
belonging to Group 2 (building) that apply the LCA methodology
for evaluating the environmental performance of the life cycle of
a building, including strategies for its EoL stage. Only Hiete et al.
(2011) in Group 2 (building) treats CDW management at a regional
level. However, when the topic is focused on LCA of EoL of buildings, articles are published in Group 1 (waste) and Group 3
(LCA), such as Martnez et al. (2013) and Dewulf et al. (2009),
respectively. Finally, journals in Group 3 (LCA) and Group 4 (general environment) publish articles related to all the topics associated with the environmental performance of CDW.
Regarding the waste management strategies applied to the
management of the CDW, recycling off-site is applied in 80% of
the reviewed case studies, normally combined with the landfilling
of the non-recyclable fractions (Fig. 5). Incineration is the second
valorisation strategy most often applied, although it is normally
only used for recovering energy from the wood fraction of CDW.
Re-use or recycling on-site strategy is less often applied, since it
involves the on-site sorting of CDW generated after the demolition
process and this is a not a widespread practice in the construction
sector yet (Kibert, 2008). However, it is important to highlighting
that on-site recycling would be the preferred option for the treatment of CDW such as excavated materials and impact category
indicators such as the land use might be fundamental when these
materials are included in the assessment (BIOIS, 2011). When the
selected strategy is off-site recycling, the reviewed literature does
not often specify if the CDW is sorted on-site and then sent directly
to recycling/incineration facilities or if unsorted waste is sent to
off-site sorting facilities before the recovered fractions are transported to recycling/incineration facilities.
Only a few studies (Craighill and Powell, 1999; Craighill, 2002;

Vossberg et al., 2014; Kucukvar et al., 2014; Carpenter et al., 2013;
Martnez et al., 2013; Nuss et al., 2013; Coelho and de Brito, 2012;
Audenaert et al., 2012; Yu et al., 2011; Ortiz et al., 2010b; Roussat
et al., 2009) compare the environmental performance of different
strategies for the same case study. In these instances, a comparison
of the prioritization of the CDW management strategy obtained in
each case study can be made. However, a key influence on the outcome for such a comparison is the boundary system used in each
study. This key point will be analysed further in Section 5.
4. LCA methodological aspects

4.1. Goal and scope definition
According to the ISO 14040-44 (2006) framework, the goal and
scope definition stage includes the intended application, the reasons to carry out the study, the intended audience and the use of
the results. In addition, the system boundary and the functional
unit should be also clearly defined.
This stage is included in all the papers analysed, although not
always with the same level of detail.
The goal definition was partially analysed when the reviewed
papers were classified according to the main aim (topic) in Figs. 3
and 4. Two different groups of papers were observed: those whose
goal is to perform a comparison of the environmental performance
of different scenarios (EoL alternatives) for the same CDW (15%)
and those whose goal is to analyse the environmental performance
of one EoL scenario for CDW (75%). According to this general goal,
the results to be obtained and their interpretation differ from one
group to other.
The possible uses of the results and the intended audience are
rarely detailed in the reviewed papers, and therefore, the need
for a critical review when comparative assertions are intended to
be disclosed to the public, is not included.
The system boundary defines the processes to be included in
the analysis. In a waste management system, this point is not
always unique, since different approaches can be applied
(Finnveden, 1999). For all the reviewed papers, the upstream system boundary (cradle) considered has been the CDW after the
demolition process (demolition process is outside of the system
boundary). However, the downstream system boundary is specific
for each study, depending on what is considered to be the grave
of the CDW management system. For example, whether recycling
or incinerating processes are included.
If recycling is considered as a strategy for valorising some CDW
fractions, the downstream system boundary can be expanded in
order to consider the avoided burdens (credits) due to the production of a secondary material as a substitute for a primary (virgin)
158
Table 3
Primary data for CDW recycling facilities found in the literature.
Recycling on-site
Vossberg et al. (2014)

Mercante et al. (2012) Plant Type Ia
Mercante et al. (2012) Plant Type IIb
Craighill (2002)
Coelho and de Brito (2013a)
Marinkovic et al. (2010)
Ibez-Fors et al. (2011)
Blengini and Garbarino (2010) mobile
Blengini and Garbarino (2010) semi-mobile
Blengini and Garbarino (2010) stationary
Ecoinvent (2008) sorting plant with crusher
Ecoinvent (2008) sorting plant without
crusher
WRAP (2008)e
Park et al. (2003)
Mller (1998)
Offermann (1988) semi-mobile
Offermann (1988) mobile
DAFS (1996)
a
b
c
d
e
Recycling off-site
Handling material
(l diesel/ton)
Mobile crusher
(l diesel/ton)
Handling material
(l diesel/ton)
Operation-Crusher
(kW h/t)
0.21
0.38
0.21
0.52
0.85
0.820.96
<0.001
0.41
1.43
3.07
2.06
2.59
0.660.80
0.31
2.92
0.69
0.71
0.68
3.61
3.7c
2.2d
1.3
0.001
9.6
2.21
1.5
2.707.00
3.006.20
2.68
Plant Type I process mixed C&DW.

Plant Type II has two lines, one processes mixed C&DW (as Type I) and another processes concrete.
Crusher + conveyor belts.
Conveyor belt.
Plasterboard.
material. A similar situation occurs when the system boundary is

expanded to include the avoided burdens due to the production
of energy from incineration strategies. Avoided burdens, linked to
recycling (on-site or off-site) or incineration, are included in nearly
75% of the reviewed studies (Appendix B).
In the reviewed papers, the avoided burdens are not always
considered in the same way. Authors that incorporate them, normally consider avoided emissions from landfill (Vossberg et al.,
2014), avoided virgin materials from mining (Vossberg et al.,
2014; Knoeri et al., 2013; Marinkovic et al., 2010; Coelho and de
Brito, 2013a) or metals (Kucukvar et al., 2014; Coelho and de
Brito, 2013a), avoided energy from incinerating cardboard/paper,
plastic and wood (Kucukvar et al., 2014; Sandin et al., 2014), wood
combustion or gasification (Carpenter et al., 2013; Nuss et al.,
2013). This key point will be discussed further in the next section.
There is a general agreement to include the transport between
the construction site and treatment facilities inside the limits of
the system. However, the impact due to the use of containers for
waste storage stage is rarely considered (Mercante et al., 2012).
It can be observed that the functional unit varies across the
studies reviewed (Appendix B). Studies analysing strategies for
CDW in general, normally consider the functional unit to be
1 tonne or 1 m3 of CDW (generic or with specific material composition) (Craighill and Powell, 1999; Craighill, 2002; Bohne et al.,
2008; Blengini and Garbarino, 2010; Mercante et al., 2012;
Dahlbo et al., 2015), or the amount of CDW generated in a region
during a specific year (Carpenter et al., 2013). If the aim of the
study is to analyse the life cycle of a building including its EoL,
the functional unit normally applied considers the square feet
and the life span of the building (m2/year) (Tae et al., 2011;
Cullar-Franca and Azapagic, 2012; Martnez et al., 2013). In this
case, the life span is not fix, but depends on the case study. Generally, 50 years is considered to be a standard lifespan, but different
age in a range of 3580 years have also been used (Peuportier,
2001; Gerilla et al., 2007; Blengini, 2009; Blengini and Di Carlo,
2010; Scheuer et al., 2003). If the aim of the study is to analyse
the life cycle of civil work, Biswas (2014) considers as a functional
unit 100 m road section and Park et al. (2003) 1 km of a four lane
highway.
Table 4
Primary data for CDW landfill found in the literature.
Vossberg et al. (2014)

Tae et al. (2011)
Mercante et al. (2012)
Ecoinvent (2008)
Craighill (2002)
Diesel (l/ton)
Electricity (kW h/ton)
0.44
0.15
0.130.33
0.75
0.360.44
2.83
4.2. Life cycle inventory

The Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) stage involves the compilation
and quantification of inputs and outputs for each process included
within the system boundary (ISO 14040, 2006).
A number of dedicated tools have been developed for conducting LCA specifically for evaluating the environmental performance
of waste management systems IWM-2 (White et al., 1995;
McDougall et al., 2001), IWMMM (Cirko et al., 2000), WARM
(2006), WASTED (Diaz and Warith, 2006), LCAIWM (den Boer
et al., 2005), WISARD (1999), EASEWASTE (Kirkeby et al., 2005),
MSW-DST (Thorneloe et al., 1999), but only four of the reviewed
studies apply them: Carpenter et al. (2013) and Jambeck et al.
(2007) apply MSW-DST, Kucukvar et al. (2014) apply WARM and
WASTED, and Vieira and Horvath (2008) apply WARM.
The data used in the LCI models considered in the reviewed
papers are mostly from secondary data sourced from literature or
commercial or free LCI databases (Appendix B). The European case
studies, normally used inventory data from ecoinvent (2008),
BUWAL250 (1998) or Idemat database (2001); US case studies
from USLCI database (2012) or ecoinvent (2008), and Australian
case studies from the Australian National Life Cycle Inventory
Database (AusLCI, 2011). In general, when the origin of the LCI data
has not been specified, it is because the article is proposing an LCA
methodology without including a case study.
Ten of the reviewed articles (Craighill, 2002; Park et al., 2003;
WRAP, 2008; Blengini, 2009; Blengini and Garbarino, 2010;
Marinkovic et al., 2010; Ibez-Fors et al., 2011; Tae et al.,
159

Table 5
Primary data for leachate composition from CDW landfill, according to Lpez and Lobo (2014).
COD (mg/l)
BOD5 (mg/l)
NH4N (mg/l)
Sulfates (mg/l)
Ca (mg/l)
Na (mg/l)
Cr (lg/l)
Cd (lg/l)
Cu (lg/l)
Zn (lg/l)
Pb (lg/l)
Ni (lg/l)
As (lg/l)
Hg (lg/l)
Lpez and Lobo (2014)
Melendez (1996)
Weber et al. (2002)
1571
227
401
405
150
495
105
27
28
276
987
59
233
1.4
755
87
305
254
270
163
250
31.9
20.3
657
8.8
20
12.3
293
2011; Mercante et al., 2012; Coelho and de Brito, 2013a; Nuss et al.,
2013; Vossberg et al., 2014) include LCI data from primary sources.
Other studies such as Chowdhury et al. (2010), Blengini and Di
Carlo (2010), Carpenter et al. (2013) and Nuss et al. (2013) indicate
that primary data are used but details are not provided. Table 3
shows a comparison of primary data found in the reviewed articles
for recycling on-site and recycling off-site.
The primary data found in the literature for CDW landfill
includes the electricity and energy consumption for handling and
treating the CDW (Table 4).
An LCI for inert landfill rarely includes leachate or gas emissions
since in general the waste material placed in this kind of landfill
has a low pollutant content and is chemically inert to a large extent
(Doka, 2007). However, future LCI models for inert material landfills should take these emissions into account, since a small percentage of biodegradable materials (wood, painted wood,
paper/cardboard, etc.) can be disposed to inert landfill. Biodegradable materials are often derived from the rejected fractions from
sorting plants or directly from unsorted fractions disposed from
construction or demolition sites. Specific emissions from CDW
landfill due to leachate production can be found in the literature
(Table 5). The volume is largely dependent on the rainfall of the
area where the landfill is located (for example, 53 l/t in north of
Spain, according to Lpez and Lobo (2014)).
4.3. Life cycle impact assessment
The aim of the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) stage is to
evaluate the significance of potential environmental impacts using
the LCI results (ISO 14040, 2006). In general, this process involves
aggregating and allocating inventory data into specific environmental impact categories and category indicators. According to
this framework, mandatory and optional elements can be applied.
Mandatory elements include the assignment of LCI results to the
selected impact categories (classification) and calculation of category indicator results (characterisation). Optional elements include
calculating the magnitude of category indicator results relative to
reference information (normalisation) and converting and aggregating indicator results across impact categories using numerical
factors based on value-choices (weighting).
There are no generally accepted methodologies for consistently
and accurately associating inventory data with specific potential
environmental impacts ISO 14040 (2006). As a consequence several different impact assessment methods have been developed,
which can be grouped into two types: mid-point LCIA methods
(EDIP (Wenzel et al., 1997), Cumulative Energy Demand (CED)
(VDI, 1997), CML (Guine et al., 2002), EIO-LCA (2002), Impact
2002+ (Jolliet et al., 2003), TRACI (Bare et al., 2003), eXoinvent
880
470
42.8
17.8
Wang et al. (2012)
274
8
92
433
4.1
43.8
4
(De Meester et al., 2006), IPCC (2007), BEES (2007), ReCiPe

(Goedkoop et al., 2008), USEtox (Rosenbaum et al., 2008), BMVBS
(2009), EN 15804:2012+A1 (2013)) and end-point LCIA methods
(Ecoindicator 95 (Goedkoop, 1996), Eco-Scarcity (Brand et al.,
1998), EPS2000 (Steen, 1999a,b), Ecoindicator99 (Goedkoop and
Spriensma, 2000), Ecological Footprint (Ecotech, 2001), CSERGE
(Powell et al., 2002), Impact 2002+ (Jolliet et al., 2003), externE
(Bickel and Friedrich, 2005), ReCiPe (Goedkoop et al., 2008)).
In the reviewed literature a range of impact categories and LCIA
methods have been used to evaluate the environmental performance of CDW management systems (Appendix B and Fig. 6).
Impact assessment categories, global warming and energy
are included in most of the reviewed case papers, followed by
acidification, eutrophication and ozone layer depletion
(Fig. 6a). The characterisation factors from the CML method are
mainly used to obtain indicators for these categories (Fig. 6b).
However, studies that just analyse global warming and energy
impact categories normally apply IPCC and the CED as in the case
of Vossberg et al. (2014), Asdrubali et al. (2013) and Zabalza
et al. (2013). However, it is important to note that around 20% of
the reviewed articles do not specify the mid-point method applied
to obtain the impact category indicator.
Regarding the optional elements, Eco-Indicator99 (Goedkoop
and Spriensma, 2000) is the method most applied (Fig. 6c). Nevertheless, it is important to take into account that the ISO 14040-44
(2006) framework establishes that if optional elements are applied,
it is recommended that the study determines how the results are
affected by the end-point LCIA method applied, since several LCIA
methods are available and there is not always an obvious choice
between them. This is the case of Blengini and Di Carlo (2010),
which apply Eco-Indicator99 (Goedkoop and Spriensma, 2000)
and Ecological Footprint (Huijbregts et al., 2008). However,
Pajchrowski et al. (2014), Audenaert et al. (2012), Bohne et al.
(2008), Cabeza et al. (2014a,b) and Guardigli (2014) are the only
studies that solely apply end-point LCIA methods (EcoIndicator99 in all of them).
4.4. Interpretation
In the interpretation stage, and in accordance with ISO 1404044 (2006), findings of either the inventory analysis or the impact
assessment, or both, need to be evaluated in relation to the defined
goal and scope in order to reach conclusions and recommendations
to decision-makers.
This stage is not included in the reviewed papers as an independent section or subsection, as generally occurs with the other
stages of the LCA methodology, but is combined with the result
and/or discussion. Therefore, not all the elements recommended
160
(a) Impact assessment categories

100
90
80
70
% of arcles
60
50
40
30
20
10
(b) Mid-point LCIA methods
Ionising radiaon
Respiratory
inorganic/organic
Parculate maer
Resources depleon
Exergy
Waste
Hazardous waste
Land use
Heavy metals
Non-carcinogens
Carcinogens
Odour
Toxicity
Ozone depleon
potenal
Photochemical
oxidaon potenal
Eutrophicaon
potenal
Acidicaon potenal
Water
Energy
Global warming
potenal
(c) End-point LCIA methods
30
14
25
% of arcles
% of arcles
12
20
15
10
10
8
6
4
ExternE
EPS2000
ReCiPe
IMPACT 2002+
Ecological
Footprint
Ecoindicator'99
Ecological
Scarcity 2006
EN 15804
UseTox
TRACI
eXoinvent
BMWBS
ReCiPe
EDIP
CED
IPCC
CML
IMPACT
2002+
Fig. 6. Impact assessment categories and LCIA methods applied to evaluate the environmental performance of CWD management systems.
by ISO 14044 (2006) are considered, only the significant issues. In

studies comparing different scenarios for the same CDW (Craighill
and Powell, 1999; Craighill, 2002; Roussat et al., 2009; Ortiz et al.,
2010b) the best scenario from an environmental point of view is
identified. The best alternative is also identified in studies comparing the environmental impact of a material produced from virgin
materials versus its equivalent produced using recycled CDW
(Chowdhury et al., 2010; Marinkovic et al., 2010; Knoeri et al.,
2013). In all cases, transport distance is recognised as a critical process. However, case studies analysing the complete life cycle of
buildings, identified the energy consumption during the use stage
as a key parameter (Cuellar-Franca and Azapagic, 2012; Zabalza
et al., 2013; Ortiz-Rodriguez et al., 2010).
Aspects related to the evaluation of elements for enhancing the
confidence in, and the reliability of, the results of the LCA study
such as completeness check, sensitivity check and consistency
check are rarely included. Only around 20% of the reviewed studies
conduct a sensitivity analysis (Table 6).
5. Discussion
Although, for the reasons discussed above, it has not proved
straightforward to compare the findings of all the LCA studies
reviewed in this paper, it has been possible to contrast results from
those comparing the environmental performance of different scenarios (combination of different EoL strategies) for the same case
study. In these cases, aspects such as system boundaries, and func-
tional unit are fixed for each case study and it is possible to analyse
the environmental consequences of applying different strategies
(on-site/off-site recycling, incineration or landfill) to the same
CDW. Paper that meet this criterion are highlighted in the last column of Appendix A with the strategies applied in each case.
Kucukvar et al. (2014), which is the only study that compares
environmental indicators by strategy for each separate CDW fraction (wood, ferro metal, non-ferro metal, plastic, glass, paper, cardboard, drywall and concrete), concluded that for all the materials,
landfilling and incineration could be considered as a second strategy after recycling, although this did depend on the impact category and on the transport distance.
The remaining studies (Roussat et al., 2009; Dewulf et al., 2009;
Ortiz et al., 2010b; Carpenter et al., 2013; Vossberg et al., 2014)
which compared different scenarios (strategies or combination of
strategies) all reached similar conclusions regarding the preference
of strategies for CDW management. Overall results showed that
on-site recycling was always preferred to landfill, but results for
off-site recycling are highly dependent on haulage distance. However, it is important to highlight that if avoided burdens are taking
into account, the quality of the recycled material obtained need to
be considered when the substitution ratio is estimated. If incineration is also taken into account, overall results showed that the
best alternative from an environmental point of view was recycling
non-wood-CDW fraction and combusting wood-CDW fraction to
generate recycled materials and energy, respectively.
Relating these findings to the waste management hierarchy
(Directive 2008/98/EC), Vossberg et al. (2014) and Kucukvar et al.
161
Table 6
Sensitivity analysis conducted in the literature.
Reference
Aspect considered in the sensitivity analysis
Craighill and Powell (1999)
Variations in parameters related to: distances travelled, energy consumption, substitution of rail
for road transport and effect of additional energy consumption at the construction site as a
result of using secondary materials
Variations in average transport distances
Bohne et al. (2008), Marinkovic et al. (2010), Blengini and Garbarino

(2010), Nuss et al. (2013) and Vossberg et al. (2014)
Blengini (2009) and Hossain et al. (2016)
Allacker (2010)
Bilec et al. (2010)
Blengini and Di Carlo (2010), Simion et al. (2013a) and FerrndezGarca et al. (2016)
Carpenter et al. (2013)
Quale et al. (2012)
Sveinssnn (2012)
Coelho and de Brito (2013b)
Knoeri et al. (2013)

Biswas (2014)
Sandin et al. (2014) and Vieira and Horvath (2008)
Onat et al. (2014)
Variation in source for secondary data

Variation in external costs
Variation in the ratio between diesel and gasoline for equipment and for transportation fleets
and transportation distance for concrete supplier
Application of different end-point LCIA methods
Variation in energy offset bases and energy contents of wood from CDW
Variation in parameters related to: on-site waste generation (25%), transport distances to the
modular facility (25%), on-site ad hoc trips (25%), and on-site temporary heating (50%)
Variation in electricity mix and type of concrete
Variations in parameters related to: percentage of mixed/separated CDW input, CO2eq emissions
in each electricity unit consumed, CDW input mass, transportation fuel type, transportation
distance
Variation in cement type and content, CDW composition and transport distances
Variation in recycling rates
Application of attributional- and consequential-LCA
Application of Monte Carlo analysis to measure the sensitivity of each input dataset
(2014) coincide in proposing that adherence to the hierarchy is not

always the best environmental outcome, since off-site recycling of
C&DW is not always preferable to landfilling for all materials due
to the transport distance to the recycling facility. Marinkovic
et al. (2010) arrives at the same conclusion when comparing the
production of concrete/cement from natural aggregate and recycled aggregate concrete. However, Blengini and Garbarino (2010)
and Chowdhury et al. (2010) conclude that the transportation distance of recycled aggregate needs to increase several times before
the induced impacts outweigh the avoided impacts. But for this
aspect, it is difficult to extract definitive conclusions, since the
incorporation of the avoided burdens is not clear in the assumptions included in most of the reviewed articles.
Studies that compared the environmental impacts of a material
produced from virgin materials versus its equivalent produced using
recycled CDW (Chowdhury et al., 2010; Marinkovic et al., 2010,
2013, 2014; Knoeri et al., 2013; Simion et al., 2013a; Biswas, 2014)
all reached similar conclusions regarding to the preference of strategies for CDW management. Overall results showed that in all cases
recycled material generates lower environmental impact that its
equivalent primary material. However, Simion et al. (2013a)
remarked on the need for on-site separate collection to ensure
clean materials and the efficiency of the recycling process, while
Marinkovic et al. (2010), Knoeri et al. (2013) and Chowdhury et al.
(2010) considered transport distances and transport type as critical
parameters to maintain environmental advantage.
Analysing each case study against the standardised framework
established by ISO 14040-44 (2006), has been an exercise to identify best practice when applying LCA to the specific case of analysing the environmental performance of CDW management systems,
and to propose a direction for future LCA studies in this field. For
those studies focused on analysing the environmental performance
of buildings including their EoL stage or only the EoL of buildings, it
would be desirable also to consider the specifications by EN 15978
(2011), since solely recent studies such as Takano et al. (2015b)
and Ferrndez-Garca et al. (2016) consider it for the application
of the LCA methodology.
When comparing results between different LCA studies, the
equivalence of the systems being compared needs to be evaluated
before interpreting the results (ISO 14044, 2006). Consequently,
the functional unit and methodological assumptions, such as system boundary, data quality, allocation procedures, data quality,
and impact assessment method should be defined in such a way
to allow this comparison.
As detailed in the previous section, these circumstances are not
presented in all the reviewed papers, since the studies were not
undertaken with the purpose of being compared. Each one has different assumptions that make it difficult to achieve a quantitative
and objective comparison of the results. However, it is possible to
discuss some qualitative and interpretation aspects and to establish some recommendations that could be useful for future LCA
studies analysing CDW management strategies from an environmental point of view.
Starting with the requirements of the goal and scope definition
stage, it is important to note the need for standardising both the
functional unit and system boundary in order to be able to compare the environmental performance of CDW management systems from different case studies. This lack of standardisation is a
weak point in the reviewed literature, even among articles on the
same topic. The need to specify the context, use and the limitation
of use of the LCA results and the intended audience is also identified as recommended aspects to include in future LCA studies in
this field. Depending on this last aspect, the critical review process
can be compulsory.
Regarding the functional unit, when CDW is analysed in a general way, without being integrated into the life cycle of a building
or engineering civil work, it is useful to consider one tonne of CDW
with a specific composition. However, if we want to consider the
environmental performance of CDW management in a specific
location taking into account the temporal evolution of CDW generation, population or specific type of construction, it is desirable to
consider as a functional unit the annual CDW or the annual CDW
per capita with a specific composition in a specific region. As an
example, the first option is applied in Mercante et al. (2012) that
analyses one tonne of CDW with the composition defined as that
of input waste of a plant processing mixed CDW or in Dahlbo
et al. (2015) that identifies the environmental and economic
impact of a CDW management system and the effects brought
about by changes in the waste composition. An example of the second one is provided in Carpenter et al. (2013) that use the annual
162
Sorted wastes
On-site sorng
Recycling on-site
Avoided material
Recycling o-site plant
Avoided material
Incineraonplant
Avoided energy/heat
Recycling o-site plant
Avoided material
Incineraonplant
Avoided energy/heat
Landll
Recovered fracons
T
CDW
Mixed wastes
Recovered
fracons
T
O -site plant
Rejected
fracons
Landll
T
Waste generaon Waste storage
container
Waste sorng
Waste strategy
Avoided burdens
T transportaon
Fig. 7. Proposed system boundary for LCA studies applied to CDW management.
production of CDW in New Hampshire (US) as the functional unit.

It is also important to note the need to specify the composition of
the CDW (concrete, brick, ceramic, ferro metal, non-ferro metal,
wood, plastic, paper/cardboard, etc.), since the EoL strategies used
largely depend on the composition of the waste. It is also important to know, in addition to the quantity, the composition of the
rejected fraction that is finally disposed of to landfill, in order for
landfill emissions to be included in the analysis. This occurs when
LCI models such as White et al. (1995) or McDougall et al. (2001)
are used to analyse the environmental performance of municipal
waste management.
The system boundary is another key aspect of LCA studies, since
results can be compared if processes included in it are the same.
According to Finnveden et al. (2009), when the life cycle includes
processes such as landfill, recycling or incineration, the system
boundary needs to be explicitly defined together with the allocation procedure. According to the information obtained from the
reviewed studies, a definition of the processes that need to be
included to normalise a broad system boundary for the CDW management can be proposed. It is shown in Fig. 7 and includes the following stages:
Waste storage. Containers used for storing waste on the construction site until its delivery to the subsequent treatment
facility, taking into account the density in container of the
CDW, according to its composition.
Sorting of CDW. On-site sorted wastes vs mixed (un-sorted)
wastes. The first case requires on-site sorting while the second
one requires transport to and treated at an off-sorting plant.
Each process has its own energy consumption, which need to
be differentiated in the LCI stage.
Transport of CDW. Transportation from the construction site to
the following treatment plant depends on the type of sorting
and the EoL strategy:
Sorted waste needs to be transported to a recycling facility if
it is going to be recycled off-site. If it is going to be reused or
recycled on-site, it does not need any external
transportation.
Mixed waste needs to be transported to an off-site sorting
plant if it is going to be sorted into fractions that can be recycled off-site or incinerated. Rejected fractions are sent to
landfill. If mixed waste is not going to be valorised, it is

directly transported to a landfill.
For each one, it is necessary to identify the distance, type of
transport and energy consumption by transported tonne,
according to its density. All these data need to be incorporated at the LCI stage.
EoL strategy. The final treatment of CDW depends on the type of
sorting:
On-site sorted wastes can be re-used/recycled on-site, recycled off-site or incinerated.
Mixed wastes can be: recycled off-site, incinerated or
landfilled.
Avoided burdens. Depending on the EoL strategy, avoided burdens need to be included in the life cycle of the CDW management system:
Re-use, recycling on-site and recycling off-site results in the
production of recycled (secondary) materials that can substitute other materials. In general, on a lifecycle basis, the use
of secondary materials to produce new materials results in
less environmental burdens than the use of primary materials. However it is necessary to consider the burdens due to
the reprocessing process, taking into account the reprocessing efficiency of the secondary material, the quality of the
secondary material for estimating the substitution ratio
(Rigamonti et al., 2009) for avoided burdens.
The electricity and/or heat generated by incineration systems can displace energy produced by conventional means.
It is important to consider whether the avoided burdens
due to the energy/heat recovered, take into account the
replacement of the electrical mix to which the incineration
facility is connected (Hauschild and Barlaz, 2011).
Avoided burdens due to avoided wastes deposited to the
landfill can also be considered when expanding the system
boundaries.
Depending on the goal of an LCA study, and the intended use of
its results, not all studies need to consider all the processes
described previously, and may not need to undertake analysis to
the same depth in all the case studies. However, in order to be able
to compare results from studies with different system boundaries,
it is important that the results are disaggregated by process. That
will allow a comparison of the results by stage or even by the process involved in the management of CDW.
Regarding the LCI stage, and in accordance to the ISO 14044
(2006), the data included in the inventory should be collected for
each process considered inside the system boundary. When
secondary data are used, the source should be referenced and,
especially if the data significantly influence the results of the study,
the data quality should be analysed in detail to verify that they are
applicable to the specific case study. Apart from studies that incorporate some primary data (Tables 35), the remaining reviewed
LCA papers use secondary data from commercial databases
(ecoinvent, 2008; BUWAL250, 1996; Idemat database, 2001;
USLCI database, 2012). However, the majority of these databases
are based on average data representing average processes for a
specific regional area, and are not always applicable to a different
country or city or to an alternative waste management system.
In agreement with Wolf et al. (2012), secondary data sets should
be selected according to their data quality in a strict sense, i.e. their
technological, geographical and time-related representativeness,
completeness and precision. So, there is a need to adapt any secondary data to the case study. Very few of the reviewed articles
include information regarding how data from literature or public
databases has been adapted to their case study. However, for
example, Ortiz-Rodrguez et al. (2010), Ortiz et al. (2010a,b),
Allacker (2010), Mercante et al. (2012) and Sveinssnn (2012)
adapt data from ecoinvent (2008) to their case study by substituting the Swiss energy fuel mix for the energy fuel mix of the country
considered in the case study, or the transport systems and distances for those corresponding to the characteristics of the case
study. Other studies indicate that they use local data but without
detailing it (Chowdhury et al., 2010; Blengini and Di Carlo, 2010)
while other studies indicate they adapt ecoinvent (2008) to the
case study, but without detailing the changes: Ximenes and
163
Grant (2013) adapt the data to the Australian conditions and AIA
(2010) to the USA ones. It is also important to take into account
that data in commercial databases represents the general conditions in industrialized countries. LCI data for developing and
emerging countries is still lacking (Hertwich, 2005; Ortiz et al.,
2009). Making extensive use of data from commercial databases
could lead to correct decisions in developed countries but may
not be applicable in other countries with different conditions.
In the LCIA stage, although in general the reviewed articles
apply the mandatory elements, as ISO 14040-44 (2006) recommends, there is no agreement on which impact categories or
mid-point LCIA methods to apply to evaluate the environmental
performance of CDW management options (Fig. 6). Apart from
impact categories measuring airborne emissions related to processes associated with energy consumption and transport, in
the field of waste management it seems important to also consider land use, especially when landfill is considered as a final
strategy for CDW. Recent studies such as Condeixa et al.
(2014), Carpenter et al. (2013), Nuss et al. (2013) or Simion
et al. (2013a,b) have already included this impact category by
applying categorization factors from EDIP (Wenzel et al., 1997)
or Recipe (Goedkoop et al., 2008). However, according to
Koellner et al. (2013) and Brando and Mil-i-Canals (2013), a
standard method for quantifying land use is still needed in
LCA methodology.
Finally, and as can be concluded from this section, uncertainty
is inherent to the LCA methodology, as occurs with many other
decision support tools. So, it is necessary to analyse the uncertainty
involved in carrying out LCA studies in order to support the interpretation of the LCA results, but only 20% of the revised articles
include a sensitivity analysis. Related to this issue, is the use of a
critical review that may facilitate the understanding and enhance
the credibility of LCA.
Table 7
Directions for future LCA studies applied to evaluate the environmental performance of CDW management systems.
Life cycle stages
Waste generation
Waste storage
Sorting waste
Transportation
Waste strategy and avoided

burdens
LCA methodology stage

Goal and scope definition
Life cycle inventory

Impact assessment
Interpretation
It is important to include and consider the composition of the CDW under study quantified by the proportion of each material (stone,
glass, ferro metal, non-ferro metal, paper/cardboard, etc.)
It is important to consider the impact of the corresponding part of container needed to storage the mixed CDW or the sorted CDW
fractions. For each case, it is necessary to consider the density of the mixed CDW or sorted CDW fraction in container
It is important to differentiate between sorting processes undertaken on-site or off-site. On-site sorting requires partial deconstruction
of the building and segregation of fractions. This can affect the energy required for the demolition process (but this process is out of the
scope of this review). Normally, on-site sorting allows cleaner recyclable fractions to be obtained
Off-site sorting CDW requires energy consumption for transportation and segregation into recyclables fractions
It is important to differentiate transportation between the construction-site and valorisation plants/landfill depending on the sorting
process. It is necessary to consider both distances and diesel consumption for the transport that depends on the fraction to be
transported (mixed, CDW recyclable fraction, etc.). For each case, it is necessary to consider the density of the mixed CDW or sorted
CDW fraction during transportation
On-site and off-site recycling results in the recovery of materials that can substitute other materials. It is important to consider the
impact due to the recycled material (energy and resource consumption and efficiency of the recycling process) and the substitution rate
according to the quality of the recycled material
Energy recovery results in heat/electricity recovery. It is important to consider the efficiency of the energy production when calculating
the displaced energy/heat, taking into account the energy mix of the geographical area
It is important to clearly define the goal and purpose of the LCA study, and the intended audience and the use of the results, because
depending on them a review study could be needed
Functional units should include the amount (1 kg/1 t/1 m3/etc.), temporal reference and its composition. The LCI for each unit
process/management strategy, depends on the CDW composition
System boundaries should include totally or partially the structure of the unit processes included in Fig. 3. A mass balance flow would be
desirable
It is desirable to collect primary LCI data adapted to the case study. If this is not possible for all the unit processes included in Fig. 3 and
secondary LCI data are applied, it is important to evaluate its suitability for the case study
A justification of the impact category selected needs to be included. If landfill is considered as a management option, it would be
desirable to include the land use impact category
Results have to be disaggregated for each unit process included in Fig. 3
Interpretation should be carried out according to the defined goal of the study, and for each unit process. Sensitivity checks and analysis
need to be done in order to identify the most critical key parameters and to evaluate the influence that assumptions made in the
boundary definition or LCI data selection have on the results (transport distances, energy consumptions, efficiency of valorisation
processes, substitution degree for the avoided burdens, etc.)
164
It is important to consider that all the reviewed papers are

based on the LCA framework established by ISO14040-44 (2006).
However, recently the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook (Wolf et al., 2012) and EN 15978 (2011) have
been published as a part of the European Commissions promotion
of sustainable consumption and production patterns and as a part
of the European standards for sustainability of construction,
respectively. Although both documents are in line with the international standard ISO14040-44 (2006), it is too recent to be generally applied in published case studies yet.
6. Conclusions
The review of the literature concerned with the application of
LCA methodology to evaluate the environmental performance of
CDW management system is extensive and 71 articles have been
reviewed in this field. However it proved necessary to include a
broad range of studies, not just those that focused on comparing
strategies for general CDW management, such as studies analysing
the environmental behaviour of waste plants for classifying and
recycling different CDW fractions or comparing natural materials
vs its equivalent made using recycled CDW. However, most of
the literature is dedicated to the building sector, analysing the
whole life cycle of buildings or construction elements, including
the EoL stage, rather than just this last stage in an isolated way.
From the general mapping of the state of the art, it is observed
that the temporal evolution of research in this field and the topics
analysed, are undertaken in parallel with the legal framework. In
that sense, and as promoted by the integrated product policy
(COM 68, 2001), to extend the incorporation of the environmental
performance of products and services steps must be taken to produce and publish information on the environmental impact of
products and services throughout their life cycle. The provision
of a standardized framework (ISO 14040-44 (2006)), the promotion
of public and internationally consensual LCI databases such as
(ELCD database, 2014) and the creation of an appropriate economic
and legal framework (Directive 2008/98/EC; Directive 2010/31/EC)
are effective instruments to this end, in the field of environmental
sustainable CDW management. The importance of this topic is
reflected in the recent growing number of publications related to

the environmental performance of CDW management systems.
However, the LCA methodology is not applied with the same
level of rigor in all the case studies analysed, and for this reason
the compliance of each one against the framework established by
ISO14040-44 (2006) has been analysed. The results show that
not all the revised papers always meet the ISO framework of the
LCA methodology mainly due to a lack of transparency in the definition of the system boundary, LCI data origin or sensitivity analysis of assumptions made in the LCA study.
One of the key findings from this research is the need to standardise how to apply the LCA framework to analyse the environmental performance of CDW management systems, in order to
be able to compare results from different cases studies. This
requires, due to the inherent complexity of LCA studies, transparency and that the assumptions made are clearly described, in
order to facilitate the proper interpretation and comparison of
the results from different case studies. In addition, the use of standardised processes, including the system boundary and functional
unit, LCI data adapted to the context of the case study and a common set of appropriate impact assessment categories are measures
that can help to increase the comparability of studies. In order to
facilitate the interpretation of the results, it is also important to
disaggregate them by normalised processes. This can facilitate
the comparison between case studies with different system boundaries according to their own goals. A general model for CDW management disaggregated by standardised process has been
proposed.
As a recommendation, Table 7 highlights the main aspects to
consider as a direction for future LCA studies when applied to evaluate the environmental performance of CDW management systems, with the aim of facilitating a comparison between
scenarios and to assure the same level of quality.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Generalitat Valenciana
(BEST/2014/045) for funding this research.
Appendix A. General mapping
165
166
Appendix A (continued)
Appendix A (continued)
167
Appendix B. LCA methodological aspects
168
(1)
concrete used in an office building with 5 floors of 4400 m2/floor and 16400 m3/floor: 4980 ton of concrete;
depends on the material; (3)wood; n/s: no specified; ?: not clear.
GEMIS (http://www.iinas.org/gemis.html), Ecocinvent (www.ecoinvent.org/), WARM (epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/warm), WASTED (Daz and Waritz 2006), Australian LCI database (AusLCI 2011), MSW-DTS (mswdst.rti.org/),
USLCI (www.nrel.gov/lci/), BEES (www.earthshift.com/software/simapro/bees), GABI (www.gabi-software.com), SimaPro (www.pre-sustainability.com/simapro), TEAM/DEAM (ecobilan.pwc.fr/en/boite-a-outils/team.html),
Bounstaed (www.bousteadusa.com/bousteadLCA.html), Idemat (www.idemat.nl/), BUWAL250 (BUWAL250 1998), KLC-ECO (www.kcl.fi/eco).
(2)
169
170
References
Adalberth, K., 1997a. Energy use during the life cycle of buildings: a method. Build.
Environ. 32 (4), 317320.
Adalberth, K., 1997b. Energy use during the life cycle of single-unit dwellings:
examples. Build. Environ. 32 (4), 321329.
AIA, 2010. A Guide to Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings. American Institute of
Architects, Washington DC, USA.
Allacker, K., 2010. Sustainable Building: The Development of an Evaluation Method.
Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.
Asdrubali, F., Baldassarri, C., Fthenakis, V., 2013. Life cycle analysis in the
construction sector: guiding the optimization of conventional Italian
buildings. Energy Build. 64, 7389.
Audenaert, A., De Cleyn, S.H., Buyle, M., 2012. LCA of low-energy flats using the Ecoindicator 99 method: impact of insulation materials. Energy Build. 47, 6873.
AusLCI, 2011. Australian National Life Cycle Inventory Database (AusLCI). <http://
alcas.asn.au/AusLCI/>.
Bare, J.C., Norris, G.A., Pennington, D.W., McKone, T., 2003. TRACI: the tool for the
reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J. Ind.
Ecol. 6 (34), 4978.
BEES, 2007. Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability. National
Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Behera, M., Bhattacharyya, S.K., Minocha, A.K., Deoliya, R., Maiti, S., 2014. Recycled
aggregate from C&D waste and its use in concrete: a breakthrough towards
sustainability in construction sector: a review. Constr. Build. Mater. 68, 501
516.
Bickel, P., Friedrich, R., 2005. ExternE: Externalities of Energy: Methodology 2005
Update. Directorate-General for Research Sustainable Energy Systems.
European Commission.
Bilec, M.M., Ries, R.J., Matthews, H.S., 2010. Life-cycle assessment modeling of
construction processes for buildings. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 16 (3), 199205.
BIOIS, 2011. Service Contract on Management of Construction and Demolition
Waste (SR1). European Commission, ENV.G.4/FRA/2008/0112.
Biswas, W.K., 2014. Carbon footprint and embodied energy assessment of a civil
works program in a residential estate of Western Australia. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 19 (4), 732744.
Blanchard, S., Reppe, P., 1998. Life Cycle Analysis of a Residential Home in Michigan.
Report 19985, Centre for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan,
Michigan, USA.
Blengini, G.A., 2009. Life cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: a
case study in Turin, Italy. Build. Environ. 44 (2), 319330.
Blengini, G.A., Di Carlo, T., 2010. The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems
and materials in the LCA of low energy buildings. Energy Build. 42 (6), 869880.
Blengini, G.A., Garbarino, E., 2010. Resources and waste management in Turin
(Italy): the role of recycled aggregates in the sustainable supply mix. J. Clean.
Prod. 18 (1011), 10211030.
BMVBS, 2009. Okobau.dat Database, Federal Ministry of Transport, Building, and
Urban Development, Berlin, Germany.
Bohne, R.A., Bratteb, H., Bergsdal, H., 2008. Dynamic eco-efficiency projections for
construction and demolition waste recycling strategies at the city level. .J Ind.
Ecol. 12 (1), 5268.
Brando, M., Mil-i-Canals, L., 2013. Global characterisation factors to assess land
use impacts on biotic production. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 12431252.
Brand, G., Braunschweig, A., Scheidegger, A., Schwank, O., 1998. Weighting in
Ecobalances with the Ecoscarcity Method Ecofactors 1997. BUWAL (SAFEL)
Environment Series No. 297, Bern, Switzerland.
Broun, R., Menzies, G.F., 2011. Life cycle energy and environmental analysis of
partition wall systems in the UK. Procedia Eng. 21, 864873.
Butera, S., Christensen, T.H., Astrup, T., 2015. Life cycle assessment of construction
and demolition waste management. Waste Manage. 44, 196205.
BUWAL 250, 1998. Life Cycle Inventories for Packagings. Swiss Agency for the
Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), Environmental Series No. 250,
Berne, Switzerland.
Buyle, M., Braet, J., Audenaert, A., 2013. Life cycle assessment in the construction
sector: a review. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 26, 379388.
Cabeza, L.F., Rincon, L., Vilarino, V., Perez, G., Castell, A., 2014a. Life cycle assessment
(LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector:
a review. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 29, 394416.
Cabeza, L.F., Castell, A., Prez, G., 2014b. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of phase change
materials (PCMs) used in buildings. In: Pacheco-Torgal, F., Cabeza, L.F.,
Labrincha, J., de Magalhaes, A. (Eds.), Eco-Efficient Construction and Building.
Woodhead Publishing.
Carpenter, A., Jambeck, J.R., Gardner, K., Weitz, K., 2013. Life cycle assessment of
end-of-life management options for construction and demolition debris. J. Ind.
Ecol. 17 (3), 396406.
Chen, G.Q., Chen, H., Chen, Z.M., Zhang, B., Shao, L., Guo, S., Zhou, S.Y., 2011. Lowcarbon building assessment and multi-scale input-output analysis. Commun.
NonLinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 16 (1), 583595.
Chen, T.Y., Burnett, J., Chau, C.K., 2001. Analysis of embodied energy use in the
residential building of Hong Kong. Energy 26 (4), 323340.
Chowdhury, R., Apul, D., Fry, T., 2010. A life cycle based environmental impacts
assessment of construction materials used in road construction. Resour.
Conserv. Recy. 54 (4), 250255.
Cirko, C., Edgecombe, F.H., Gagnon, M., Perry, G., Haight, M.E., Jackson, D., Love, G.,
Kelleher, M., Massicotte, S., Schubert, J., South, G., Veiga, P., 2000. EPIC/CSR
Integrated Solid Waste Manage Tools: Project Report. University of Waterloo,

Waterloo, Canada.
Citherlet, S., Defaux, T., 2007. Energy and environmental comparison of three
variants of a family house during its whole life span. Build. Environ. 42 (2), 591
598.
Clark, C., Jambeck, J., Townsend, T., 2006. A review of construction and demolition
debris regulations in the United States. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36 (2), 141
186.
Coelho, A., de Brito, J., 2012. Influence of construction and demolition waste
management on the environmental impact of buildings. Waste Manage. 32 (3),
357358.
Coelho, A., de Brito, J., 2013a. Environmental analysis of a construction and
demolition waste recycling plant in Portugal Part I: Energy consumption and
CO2 emissions. Waste Manage. 33 (5), 12581267.
Coelho, A., de Brito, J., 2013b. Environmental analysis of a construction and
demolition waste recycling plant in Portugal Part II: environmental sensitivity
analysis. Waste Manage. 33, 147161.
Cole, R.J., Kernan, P.C., 1996. Life-cycle energy use in office buildings. Build. Environ.
31 (4), 307317.
COM 68, 2001. Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy. Commission of the
European Communities, Brussels, Belgium.
Condeixa, K., Haddad, A., Boer, D., 2014. Life cycle impact assessment of masonry
system as inner walls: a case study in Brazil. Constr. Build. Mater. 70, 141147.
Council Directive 99/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste.
Craighill, A., Powell, J.C., 1996. Lifecycle assessment and economic evaluation of
recycling: a case study. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 17 (2), 7596.
Craighill, A., Powell, J.C., 1999. A lifecycle assessment and evaluation of construction
and demolition waste. Working Paper, Centre for Social and Economic Research
on the Global Environment (WM 99-03): 1-52, University of East Anglia,
Norwich, UK.
Craighill, A.L., 2002. Life Cycle Assessment and Evaluation of Construction and
Demolition Waste Management. PhD School of Environmental Science,
University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Cullar-Franca, R.M., Azapagic, A., 2012. Environmental impacts of the UK
residential sector: life cycle assessment of houses. Build. Environ. 54,
8699.
DAFS, 1996. Deutscher Ausschuss fr Stahlbeton. Umweltgerechter Rckbau und
Wiederverwertung mineralischer Baustoffe. Heft Nr. 462, Berlin, Germany.
Dahlbo, E., Bacher, J., Lahtinen, K., Jouttijarvi, T., Suoheimo, P., Mattila, T., Sironen, S.,
Myllymaa, T., Saramaki, K., 2015. Construction and demolition waste
management: a holistic evaluation of environmental performance. J. Clean.
Prod. 107, 333341.
De Meester, B., Dewulf, J., Van Langenhove, H., 2006. eXoinvent: the Exergy of
Ecoinvent Reference Flows (version 1.0). Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
De Meester, B., Dewulf, J., Verbeke, S., Janssens, A., Van Langenhove, H., 2009.
Exergetic life-cycle assessment (ELCA) for resource consumption evaluation in
the built environment. Build. Environ. 44 (1), 1117.
den Boer, E., den Boer, J., Jager, J., Rodrigo, J., Meneses, M., Castells, F., Schanne, L.,
2005. The Use of Life Cycle Assessment Tool for the Development of Integrated
Waste Manag Strategies for Cities and Regions with Rapid Growing Economies
LCA-IWM. Technische Universitaet Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.
Dewulf, J., Van der Vorst, G., Versele, N., Janssens, A., Van Langenhove, H., 2009.
Quantification of the impact of the end-of-life scenario on the overall
resource consumption for a dwelling house. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 53 (4),
231236.
Diaz, R., Warith, M., 2006. Life-cycle assessment of municipal solid wastes:
development of the WASTED model. Waste Manage. 26 (8), 886901.
Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19
November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives.
Directive 2010/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010
on the energy performance of buildings.
Dixit, M.K., Culp, C.H., Fernndez-Sols, J.L., 2013. System boundary for embodied
energy in buildings: a conceptual model for definition. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev.
21, 153164.
Doka, G., 2007. Life Cycle Inventories of Waste Treatment Services. Ecoinvent report
No. 13, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dbendorf, Switzerland.
EIO-LCA, 2002. Economic Input/Output-Life Cycle Assessment. Carnegie Mellon
University Green Design Institute.
ecoinvent, 2008. The Life Cycle Inventory Data Version 2. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle
Inventories.
Ecotech, 2001. Ecological Footprinting: Final study. Working Document for the
STOA Panel. PE number: 297.571/Fin.St. European Parliament, Directorate
General for Research, Luxembourg.
Ekwall, T., Weidema, B., 2004. System boundaries and input data in consequential
life cycle inventory analysis. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 9 (3), 161171.
ELCD database, 2014. <http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ELCD3/>.
EN 15804:2012+A1, 2013. Sustainability of Construction Works. Environmental
Product Declarations. Core Rules for the Product Category of Construction
Products.
EN 15978, 2011. Sustainability of Construction Works. Assessment of
Environmental Performance of Buildings. Calculation Method.
Evangelista, L., De Brito, J., 2014. Concrete with fine recycled aggregates: a review.
Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 18 (2), 129172.
externE, 2005. Externalities of Energy. Methodology 2005 Update. DirectorateGeneral for Research, Sustainable Energy Systems, European Commission.

Ferrndez-Garca, A., Ibez-Fors, V., Bovea, M.D., 2016. Eco-efficiency analysis of
the life cycle of interior partition walls: a comparison of alternative solutions. J.
Clean. Prod. 112 (1), 649665.
Finnveden, G., 1999. Methodological aspects of life cycle assessment of integrated
solid waste management systems. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 26, 173187.
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., Guine, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S.,
Koehler, A., Pennington, D., Suh, S., 2009. Recent developments in Life Cycle
Assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 91 (1), 121.
Gerilla, G.P., Teknomo, K., Hokao, K., 2007. An environmental assessment of wood
and steel reinforced concrete housing construction. Build. Environ. 42 (7),
27782784.
Goedkoop, M., 1996. The Ecoindicator95: Final Report. Pr Consultants BV,
Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Goedkoop, M., Spriensma, R., 2000. The Ecoindicator99: A Damage Ooriented
Method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment: Methodology Report. Pr Consultants
BV, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Goedkoop, M.J., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J., Van Zelm, R.,
2008. ReCiPe: A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises
Harmonised Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level.
<http://www.lcia-recipe.net>.
Guardigli, L., 2014. Comparing the environmental impact of reinforced concrete and
wooden structures. In: Pacheco-Torgal, F., Cabeza, L.F., Labrincha, J., de
Magalhaes, A. (Eds.), Eco-Efficient Construction and Building. Woodhead
Publishing.
Grant, T., James, K., 2005. Life cycle Impact Data for Resource Recovery from
Commercial and Industrial and Construction and Demolition Waste in Victoria.
EcoRecycle Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
Guignot, S., Touz, S., Von der Weid, F., Mnard, Y., Villeneuve, J., 2015. Recycling
construction and demolition wastes as building materials: A life cycle
assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 19 (6), 10301043.
Guine, J.B., Gorre, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., Koning, A., Oers, L.,
Sleeswijk, A., Suh, S., Udo de Haes, H.A., Bruijn, H., Duin, R., Huijbregts, M.A.J.,
2002. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment. Operational Guide to the ISO
Standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Nertherlands.
Hauschild, M.Z., Barlaz, M.A., 2011. LCA of waste management systems. In:
Christensen, T.H. (Ed.), Solid Waste Technology & Managmenent. Wiley, UK.
Hedayati, M., Iyer-Raniga, U., Crossin, E., 2014. A greenhouse gas assessment of a
stadium in Australia. Build. Res. Inform. 42 (5), 602615.
Hendriks, C.F., Janssen, G.M.T., 2003. Use of recycled materials in constructions.
Mater. Struct. 36, 604608.
Hertwich, E.G., 2005. Life cycle approaches to sustainable consumption: a critical
review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (13), 46734684.
Hiete, M., Stengel, J., Ludwig, J., Schultmann, F., 2011. Matching construction and
demolition waste supply to recycling demand: a regional management chain
model. Build. Res. Inform. 39 (4), 333351.
Hossain, M.U., Poon, C.S., Lo, I.M.C., Cheng, J.C.P., 2016. Evaluation of environmental
friendliness of concrete paving eco-blocks using LCA approach. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 21 (1), 7084.
Hu, M., Kleijn, R., Bozhilova-Kisheva, K.P., Di Maio, F., 2013. An approach to LCSA:
the case of concrete recycling. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (9),
17931803.
Huijbregts, M.A.J., Hellweg, S., Frischknecht, R., Hungerbhler, K., Hendriks, A.J.,
2008. Ecological footprint accounting in the life cycle assessment of products.
Ecol. Econ. 64 (4), 798807.
Ibez-Fors, V., Bovea, M.D., Sim, A., 2011. Life cycle assessment of ceramic tiles.
Environmental and statistical analysis. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16 (9), 916928.
Idemat database, 2001. Delft University of Technology. The Netherlands.
IPCC, 2007. Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change. <http://www.ipcc.ch>.
ISO 14040, 2006. Environmental Management. Life Cycle Assessment. Principles
and Framework. ISO, Geneva.
ISO 14044, 2006. Environmental Management. Life Cycle Assessment.
Requirements and Guidelines. ISO, Geneva.
Jambeck, J., Weitz, K., Solo-Gabriele, H., Townsend, T., Thorneloe, S., 2007. CCATreated wood disposed in landfills and life-cycle trade-offs with waste-toenergy and MSW landfill disposal. Waste Manage. 27 (8), S21S28.
Jolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rebitzer, G., Rosenbaum, R.,
2003. IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int. J.
Life Cycle Assess. 8 (6), 324330.
JRC, 2011. Supporting environmentally sound decisions for construction and
demolition (C&D) waste management: a practical guide to life cycle thinking
and life cycle assessment. In: European Commission, Joint Research Centre,
Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Junnila, S., Horvath, A., 2003. Life-cycle environmental effects of an office building. J.
Infrastruct. Syst. 9, 157166.
Keffer, C., Shimp, R., Lehni, M., 1999. Eco-Efficiency Indicators & Reporting. WBCSD,
Geneva, Switzerland.
Keoleian, G.A., Blanchard, S., Reppe, P., 2000. Life-cycle energy, costs, and strategies
for improving a single-family house. J. Ind. Ecol. 4 (2), 135156.
Khasreen, M.M., Banfill, P.F.G., Menzies, G.F., 2009. Life-cycle assessment and the
environmental impact of buildings: a review. Sustainability 1, 674701.
Kibert, C.J., 2008. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery.
John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.
Kirkeby, J.T., Hansen, T.L., Birgisdttir, H., Bhander, G.S., Hauschild, M.Z.,
Christensen, T.H., 2005. Environmental assessment of solid waste systems and
technologies: EASEWASTE. Waste Manage. Res. 24, 315.
171
Klang, A., Vikman, P.A., Bratteb, H., 2003. Sustainable management of demolition
waste: an integrated model for the evaluation of environmental, economic and
social aspects. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 38 (4), 317334.
Knoeri, C., Sany-Mengual, E., Althaus, H.J., 2013. Comparative LCA of recycled and
conventional concrete for structural applications. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (5),
909918.
Koellner, T., de Baan, L., Beck, T., Brando, M., Civit, B., Goedkoop, M., Margni, M.,
Mil-i-Canals, L., Mller-Wenk, R., Weidema, B., Wittstock, B., 2013. Principles
for life cycle inventories of land use on a global scale. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18,
12031215.
Kofoworola, O.F., Gheewala, S.H., 2008. Environmental life cycle assessment
of a commercial office building in Thailand. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13,
498511.
Kofoworola, O.F., Gheewala, S.H., 2009. Life cycle energy assessment of a typical
office building in Thailand. Energy Build. 41, 10761083.
Kucukvar, M., Egilmez, G., Tatari, O., 2014. Evaluating environmental impacts of
alternative construction waste management approaches using supply-chainlinked life-cycle analysis. Waste Manage. Res. 32 (6), 500508.
Laurent, A., Bakas, I., Clavreul, J., Bernstad, A., Niero, M., Gentil, E., Hauschild, M.Z.,
Christensen, T.H., 2014a. Review of LCA studies of solid waste management
systems. Part I: lessons learned and perspectives. Waste Manage. 34 (3), 573
588.
Laurent, A., Bakas, I., Clavreul, J., Bernstad, A., Niero, M., Gentil, E., Hauschild, M.Z.,
Christensen, T.H., 2014b. Review of LCA studies of solid waste management
systems. Part II: Methodological guidance for a better practice. Waste Manage.
34, 589606.
Lewandowska, A., Noskowiak, A., Pajchrowski, G., Zarebska, J., 2015. Between full
LCA and energy certification methodologya comparison of six methodological
variants of buildings environmental assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20 (1),
922.
Li, D.Z., Chen, H.X., Hui, E.C.M., Zhang, J.B., Li, Q.M., 2013. A methodology for
estimating the life-cycle carbon efficiency of a residential building. Build.
Environ. 59, 448455.
Lpez, A., Lobo, A., 2014. Emissions of C&D refuse in landfills: a European case.
Waste Manage. 34, 14461454.
Marinkovic, S., Radonjanin, V., Maleev, M., Ignjatovic, I., 2010. Comparative
environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete. Waste
Manage. 30 (11), 22552264.
Marinkovic, S., Ignjatovic, I., Radonjanin, V., 2013. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) of
concrete with recycled aggregates (RAs). In: Pacheco-Torgal, F., Tam, V.W.Y.,
Labrincha, J.A., Ding, Y., de Brito, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Recycled Concrete and
Demolition Waste. Woodhead Publishing.
Marinkovic, S., Maleev, M., Ignjatovic, I., 2014. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of
concrete made using recycled concrete or natural aggregates. In: PachecoTorgal, F., Cabeza, L.F., Labrincha, J., de Magalhaes, A. (Eds.), Eco-Efficient
Construction and Building. Woodhead Publishing.
Martnez, E., Nuez, Y., Sobaberas, E., 2013. End of life of buildings: three
alternatives, two scenarios: a case study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (5),
10821088.
Marzouk, M., Azab, S., 2014. Environmental and economic impact assessment of
construction and demolition waste disposal using system dynamics. Resour.
Conserv. Recy. 82, 4149.
Masudi, A.F., Che Hassan, C.R., Mahmood, N.Z., Mokhtar, S.N., Sulaiman, N.M., 2012.
Waste quantification models for estimation of construction and demolition
waste generation: a review. Int. J. Global. Environ. Issues 12 (24), 269281.
McDougall, F., White, P., Franke, M., Hindle, P., 2001. Integrated Solid Waste
Management: Life Cycle Inventory. Blackwell Science, London, UK.
Melendez, B., 1996. A Study of Leachate generated from Construction and
Demolition Waste Landfills. Ms Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville,
US.
Mercante, I.T., Bovea, M.D., Ibez-Fors, V., Arena, A.P., 2012. Life cycle assessment
of construction and demolition waste management systems: a Spanish case
study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17 (2), 232241.
Mithraratne, N., Vale, B., 2004. Life cycle analysis model for New Zealand houses.
Build. Environ. 39 (4), 483492.
Mller, C., 1998. Anforderungen an Werkstoffe fr kreislaufgerechtes Bauen.
<http://www.b-i-m.de/Public/ibac/BTAachenanforder.htm>.
Napolano, L., Menna, C., Asprone, D., Prota, A., Manfredi, G., 2015. Life cycle
environmental impact of different replacement options for a typical old flat
roof. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20 (5), 694708.
Nemry, F., Uihlein, A., Colodel, C.M., Wetzel, C., Braune, A., Wittstock, B., Hasan, I.,
Kreiig, J., Gallon, N., Niemeier, S., Frech, Y., 2010. Options to reduce the
environmental impacts of residential buildings in the European Union-Potential
and costs. Energy Build. 42 (7), 976984.
Nuss, P., Gardner, K.H., Jambeck, J.R., 2013. Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA)
of construction and demolition (C&D) derived biomass and U.S. northeast forest
residuals gasification for electricity production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (7),
34633471.
Offermann, H., 1988. Recycling von Bauschutt Technische und konomische
Kriterien bei der Verfahrensauswahl. Mitteilungen aus dem Fachgebiet
Baubetrieb und Bauwirtschaft, Heft 7, Kuhne (Ed.), UniversittGesamthochschule Essen.
Onat, N.C., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., 2014. Integrating triple bottom line inputoutput analysis into life cycle sustainability assessment framework: the case for
US buildings. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19 (8), 14881505.
172
Ortiz, O., Castells, F., Sonnemann, G., 2009. Sustainability in the construction
industry: a review of recent developments based on LCA. Constr. Build. Mater.
23, 2839.
Ortiz, O., Pasqualino, J.C., Castells, F., 2010a. Environmental performance of
construction waste: comparing three scenarios from a case study in Catalonia,
Spain. Waste Manage. 30 (4), 646654.
Ortiz, O.O., Pasqualino, J., Castells, F., 2010b. Evaluacin ambiental basado en el
anlisis del ciclo de vida (ACV) en la fase de construccin de una edificacin en
Catalua [Environmental assessment based on life cycle analysis (LCA) in the
construction phase of a building in Catalonia]. Afinidad 67 (547), 175181.
Ortiz-Rodrguez, O., Castells, F., Sonnemann, G., 2010. Life cycle assessment of two
dwellings: One in Spain, a developed country, and one in Colombia, a country
under development. Sci. Total Environ. 408 (12), 24352443.
Pajchrowski, G., Noskowiak, A., Lewandowska, A., Strykowski, W., 2014. Wood as a
building material in the light of environmental assessment of full life cycle of
four buildings. Constr. Build. Mater. 52, 428436.
Park, K., Hwang, Y., Seo, S., Seo, H., 2003. Quantitative assessment of environmental
impacts on life cycle of highways. J. Construct. Eng. Manage. 129 (1), 2531.
Peuportier, B.L.P., 2001. Life cycle assessment applied to the comparative evaluation
of single family houses in the French context. Energy Build. 33, 443450.
Powell, J.C., Stolb, B., Peters, M., Tinch, R., Turner, K., White, O., 2002. The
development of a sustainable and effective waste management policy for the
UK (final report), CSERGE, 2002.
Proietti, S., Sdringola, P., Desideri, U., Zepparelli, F., Masciarelli, F., Castellani, F.,
2013. Life Cycle Assessment of a passive house in a seismic temperate zone.
Energy Build. 64, 463472.
Quale, J., Eckelman, M.J., Williams, K.W., Sloditskie, G., Zimmerman, J.B., 2012.
Construction matters: comparing environmental impacts of building modular
and conventional homes in the United States. J. Ind. Ecol. 16 (2), 243253.
Rigamonti, L., Grosso, M., Sunseri, M.C., 2009. Influence of assumptions about
selection and recycling efficiencies on the LCA of integrated waste management
systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14 (5), 411419.
Rodrigues, C., Freire, F., 2014. Integrated life-cycle assessment and thermal dynamic
simulation of alternative scenarios for the roof retrofit of a house. Build.
Environ. 81, 204215.
Rosenbaum, R.K., Bachmann, T.M., Gold, L.S., Huijbregts, M.J., Jolliet, O., Juraske, R.,
Koehler, A., Larsen, H.F., MacLeod, M., Margni, M., McKone, T.E., Payet, J.,
Schuhmacher, M., Meent, D., Hauschild, M.Z., 2008. USEtox: the UNEPSETAC
toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and
freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
13, 532546.
Roussat, N., Mhu, J., Dujet, C., 2009. Indicators to assess the recovery of natural
resources contained in demolition waste. Waste Manage. Res. 27 (2), 159166.
Sandin, G., Peters, G.M., Svanstrm, M., 2014. Life cycle assessment of construction
materials: the influence of assumptions in end-of-life modelling. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 19 (4), 723731.
Scheuer, C., Keoleian, G.A., Reppe, P., 2003. Life cycle energy and environmental
performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design
implications. Energy Build. 35 (10), 10491064.
Sharma, A., Saxena, A., Sethi, M., Shree, V., 2011. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 15, 871
875.
Simion, I.M., Fortuna, M.E., Bonoli, A., Gavrilescu, M., 2013a. Comparing
environmental impacts of natural inert and recycled construction and
demolition waste processing using LCA. J. Environ. Eng. Landscape Manage.
21 (4), 273287.
Simion, I.M., Ghinea, C., Maxineasa, S.G., Taranu, N., Bonoli, A., Gavrilescu, M.,
2013b. Environ. Eng. Manage. J. 12 (4), 779788.
Steen, B., 1999a. A Systematic approach to Environmental Priority Strategies in
Product Development (EPS): version 2000: General System Characteristics. CPM
report 1999:4, Chalmers University of Technology, Gteborg, Sweden.
Steen, B., 1999b. A Systematic Approach to Environmental Strategies in
Product Development (EPS): version 2000: Models and Data of the Default
Methods. CPM report 1999:5, Chalmers University of Technology, Gteborg,
Sweden.
Sveinssnn, M., 2012. Life-Cycle Assessment of a Multi-Family Residence Built to
Passive House Standard. Master Thesis. Norwegian University of Science and
Technology. Norway.
Tae, S., Shin, S., Kim, H., Ha, S., Lee, J., Han, S., Rhee, J., 2011. Life cycle environmental
loads and economic efficiencies of apartment buildings built with plaster board
drywall. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 15 (8), 41454155.
Takano, A., Pal, S.K., Kuittinen, M., Alanne, K., 2015a. Life cycle energy balance of
residential buildings: a case study on hypothetical building models in Finland.
Takano, A., Hafner, A., Linkosalmi, L., Ott, S., Hughes, M., Winter, S., 2015b. Life cycle
assessment of wood construction according to the normative standards. Eur. J.
Wood Wood Prod. 73 (3), 299312.
Thormark, C., 2002. A low energy building in a life cycle its embodied energy,
energy need for operation and recycling potential. Build. Environ. 37 (4), 429
435.
Thormark, C., 2006. The effect of material choice on the total energy need and
recycling potential of a building. Build. Environ. 41 (8), 10191026.
Thorneloe, S.A., Weitz, K.A., Barlaz, M., Ham, R.K., 1999. Tools for determining
sustainable waste management through application of life-cycle assessment:
update on U.S. research. Seventh International Landfill Symposium (Sardinia
99) 5, pp. 629636.
Toic, N., Marinkovic, S., Daic, T., Stanic, M., 2015. Multicriteria optimization of
natural and recycled aggregate concrete for structural use. J. Clean. Prod. 87 (1),
766776.
UNEP/SETAC, 2011. Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. United Nations
Environment Programme/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,
Paris, France.
USLCI database, 2012. U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database. National Renewable
Energy Laboratory. <http://www.nrel.gov/lci/>.
Vntsi, O., Krki, T., 2014. Mineral wool waste in Europe: A review of mineral wool
waste quantity, quality, and current recycling methods. J. Mater. Cycl. Waste
Manag. 16 (1), 6272.
VDI, 1997. Cumulative Energy Demand Terms, Definitions, Methods of
Calculation. In: VDI-Richtlinien 4600. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, Dsseldorf.
Vieira, P.S., Horvath, A., 2008. Assessing the end-of-life impacts of buildings.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (13), 46634669.
Vogtlander, J.G., 2001. The Model of the Eco-cost/Value Ratio: a New LCA Based
Decision Support Tool. PhD Thesis, Delft University, Delft, The Netherlands.
Vossberg, C., Mason-Jones, K., Cohen, B., 2014. An energetic life cycle assessment of
C&D waste and container glass recycling in Cape Town, South Africa. Resour.
Conserv. Recy. 88, 3949.
Wang, Y., Sikora, S., Kim, H., Dubey, B., Townsend, T., 2012. Mobilization of iron and
arsenic from soil by construction and demolition debris landfill leachate. Waste
Manage. 32 (5), 925932.
WARM, 2006. Waste Reduction Model. Environmental Protection Agency, USA.
Weber, W., Jang, Y., Townsend, T., Laux, S., 2002. Leachate from land disposed
residential construction waste. J. Environ. Eng. 128 (3), 237245.
Wenzel, H., Hauschild, M., Alting, L., 1997. Environmental Assessment of Products. Vol.
1: Methodology, Tools and Case Studies in Product Development.
Chapman & Hall, United Kingdom, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Hingham, MA. USA.
White, P., Franke, M., Hindle, P., 1995. Integrated Solid Waste Management: A LifeCycle Inventory. Blackie Academic & Professional, Glasgow, UK.
WISARD, 1999. Waste Integrated Systems Assessment for Recovery and Disposal.
The Ecobilan Group, France.
Wolf, M.A., Pant, R., Chomkhamsri, K., Sala, S., Pennington, D., 2012. The
International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook. Joint
Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, European Union.
WRAP, 2008. Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard. Technical Report. WRAP.
Wu, H., Yuan, Z., Zhang, L., Bi, J., 2012. Life cycle energy consumption and CO2
emission of an office building in China. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17, 105118.
Wu, Z., Yu, A.T.W., Shen, L., Liu, G., 2014. Quantifying construction and demolition
waste: an analytical review. Waste Manage. 34, 16831692.
Ximenes, F.A., Grant, T., 2013. Quantifying the greenhouse benefits of the use of
wood products in two popular house designs in Sydney, Australia. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 18 (4), 891908.
Yeheyis, M., Hewage, K., Alam, M.S., Eskicioglu, C., Sadiq, R., 2013. An overview of
construction and demolition waste management in Canada: a lifecycle analysis
approach to sustainability. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 15 (1), 8191.
Yu, D., Tan, H., Ruan, Y., 2011. A future bamboo-structure residential building
prototype in China: life cycle assessment of energy use and carbon emission.
Yuan, H., Shen, L., 2011. Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste
management. Waste Manage. 31 (4), 670679.
Zabalza, I., Scarpellini, S., Aranda, A., Llera, E., Jez, A., 2013. Use of LCA as a tool for
building ecodesign. A case study of a low energy building in Spain. Energies 6
(8), 39013921.

Waste Management: M.D. Bovea, J.C. Powell

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Waste Management: M.D. Bovea, J.C. Powell

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Waste Management 50 (2016) 151172

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Developments in life cycle assessment applied to evaluate the

Departament of Mechanical Engineering & Construction, Universitat Jaume I, Castelln, Spain

M.D. Bovea, J.C. Powell / Waste Management 50 (2016) 151172

The overall aim of this paper is to provide a robust review of the

M.D. Bovea, J.C. Powell / Waste Management 50 (2016) 151172

using LCA, life cycle assessment, environmental perfor

Only literature reported in English was included in the review

LCA methodological aspects

M.D. Bovea, J.C. Powell / Waste Management 50 (2016) 151172

Description of the methodology proposed

Craighill and Powell (1999)

Hendriks and Janssen

Vieira and Horvath (2008)

Yeheyis et al. (2013)

Marzouk and Azab (2014)

Onat et al. (2014)

Aspects considered integrated in

Fig. 1. Temporal evolution of literature related to LCA of CDW, by country.

altogether, CDW. And also, depending on the activity, they can

dedicated to wastes generated during the refurbishment buildings

M.D. Bovea, J.C. Powell / Waste Management 50 (2016) 151172

considering the environmental impacts of managing the wastes,

3.4. Source publication

3.3. Time evolution and country of origin

Resources, Conservaon and Recycling

Building and Environment

Construcon and Building Materials

Internaonal Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

Environmental Science and Technology

Science of the Total Environment

Fig. 2. Temporal evolution of literature related to LCA of CDW, by journal.

M.D. Bovea, J.C. Powell / Waste Management 50 (2016) 151172

LCA of natural material vs recycled material from CDW

LCA of EoL of building

LCA of refurbishing an element of a building

LCA of construcon elements, including EoL

EoL of construcon elements

LCA of CDW recycling plant

ISO 14040-44 (2006)

Fig. 3. Temporal evolution of literature related to LCA of CDW, by topic.

Recycling); Group 2 (building journals) includes journals related to

topic is analysed in Fig. 3, where it can be observed a constant

M.D. Bovea, J.C. Powell / Waste Management 50 (2016) 151172

Fig. 5. Strategies applied for the management of the CDW.

coinciding with the publication of the Directive 2008/98/EC and

Only a few studies (Craighill and Powell, 1999; Craighill, 2002;

4. LCA methodological aspects

M.D. Bovea, J.C. Powell / Waste Management 50 (2016) 151172

Vossberg et al. (2014)

Plant Type I process mixed C&DW.

material. A similar situation occurs when the system boundary is

Vossberg et al. (2014)

Electricity (kW h/ton)

4.2. Life cycle inventory

M.D. Bovea, J.C. Powell / Waste Management 50 (2016) 151172

Lpez and Lobo (2014)

Weber et al. (2002)

Wang et al. (2012)

(De Meester et al., 2006), IPCC (2007), BEES (2007), ReCiPe

M.D. Bovea, J.C. Powell / Waste Management 50 (2016) 151172

(a) Impact assessment categories