FORUM

Projection of Construction
and Demolition Waste in
Norway
Håvard Bergsdal, Rolf André Bohne, and Helge Brattebø

Keywords
Summary
buildings
construction Current waste generation from the construction and demoli-
demolition tion industry (C&D industry) in Norway is about 1.25 million
renovation tonnes per year. This article presents a procedure for projec-
waste composition tion of future waste amounts by estimating the activity level in
waste projection the C&D industry, determining specific waste generation fac-
tors related to this activity, and finally calculating projections
on flows of waste materials leaving the stocks in use and mov-
ing into the waste management system. This is done through
a simple model of stocks and flows of buildings and materials.
Monte Carlo simulation is used in the calculations to account
for uncertainties related to the input parameters in order to
make the results more robust. The results show a significant
increase in C&D waste for the years to come, especially for
the large fractions of concrete/bricks and wood. These pro-
jections can be a valuable source of information to predict the
future need for waste treatment capacity, the dominant waste
fractions, and the challenges in future waste handling systems.
The proposed method is used in a forthcoming companion
article for eco-efficiency modeling within an evaluation of a
C&D waste system.

Address correspondence to:

Håvard Bergsdal
Institutt for Vann- og miljøteknikk
NTNU N-7491 Trondheim, Norway
<havard.bergsdal@ntnu.no>
<www.ntnu.no/ivm>

© 2007 by the Massachusetts Institute of

Technology and Yale University

Volume 11, Number 3

www.mitpressjournals.org/jie Journal of Industrial Ecology 27

 FORUM
Introduction
In recent years, more attention has been paid
to waste from the construction and demolition
(C&D) industry, both by national environmen-
tal authorities and by authorities in the European
Union. C&D waste amounts are considerable and
represent a source of stress on the environment.
The share of waste sent to reuse and material re-
covery, as well as incineration with utilization of
the energy produced, is today relatively low, and
there is great potential for increasing the amounts
sent to these treatment options, and accordingly
decreasing the amounts sent to landfill sites. A
2001 study of Norwegian waste treatment facil-
ities reported that approximately 44% of C&D
waste was sent to sorting, and of this 33% was ma-
terials recycled, 22% was energy recovered, and
34% was landfilled. The numbers do not include
rocks, gravel, soil, and the like. Furthermore, the
results revealed that the treatment method for
about 40% of C&D waste in Norway was unspec-
ified. Some waste was sent directly to recycling
companies, and therefore not registered in the
statistics, and some waste was also disposed of
illegally (Statistics Norway 2002).
This article presents a method for estima-
tion of the amounts of building materials mov-
ing from the use phase to the waste management
phase, from demolition and renovation activity,
as well as the amounts going directly from man-
ufacturing to end of life as waste from construc-
tion activity. Projections of these waste amounts
from the C&D industry in Norway are estimated
through the development of a simple stocks and
flows model for the period 2004 to 2018. Fur-
thermore, differences between various regions of
Norway are investigated, and the model is finally
applied and exemplified in use for the city of
Trondheim. The model is developed in Matlab
and projects future waste amounts and composi-
tion. Information about C&D activity and waste
composition and generation is insufficient, but
the model allows inclusion of more detailed in-
formation if, or when, improved knowledge of the
system and the trends forming the basis for the
calculations becomes available. This work is not
detailed about on-site processes with regard to
where in the construction, renovation, or demo-
lition process waste is generated, as in the work
28 Journal of Industrial Ecology
of, for example, Bossink and Brouwers (1996) and
Chandrakanthi and colleagues (2002), in which
detailed investigations of the construction pro-
cess and sources of construction waste are con-
ducted.
The approach of estimating C&D activity has
similarities to the method described by Reinhart
and colleagues (2003) to calculate amounts of
C&D debris in the United States. In the work
of Hsiao and colleagues (2002), the approach
is similar for C&D waste in Taiwan, using spe-
cific gravity (tonnes per cubic meter [t/m3 ])1 and
volume of waste per floor area. The results are,
however, not used for projections. Reinhart and
colleagues (2003) calculate C&D activity and
waste generation in Florida from the monetary
value of the activities. Monetary values are also
used to estimate construction waste by Yost and
Halstead (1996). Another approach to modeling
stocks and flows of the built environment is pro-
vided by Müller (2006) for projections of C&D
waste amounts in the Netherlands, relating build-
ing and material stock dynamics (for concrete) to
previous construction activity and future demand
for building stock. In a similar way, Johnstone
(2001a) relates stocks and flows of buildings and
materials required to sustain dwelling services.
In the Trondheim case, the use of a dynamic
model is based on construction, renovation, and
demolition activity (in square meters [m2 ])2, and
linked with empirical waste generation factors
(kilograms per square meter [kg/ m2 ])3 for 10 dif-
ferent waste fractions to produce projections of
future waste generation on the local level. In this
way, the study combines different approaches in
order to cover a complete projection with respect
to changes in waste amounts and composition
with time.
The results of this article are discussed and
evaluated with respect to eco-efficiency in a com-
panion article (Bohne et al., 2007).
Method
The procedure applied for making solid waste
projections from the C&D industry includes the
following steps:
First Step = Estimate the amount of
activity (m2 /yr) of (1) construction,

INPUT PARAMETERS
Floor area growth
of buildings Building demand
Demolition (τd) Activity
Renovation (τr) frequencies
c
Construction (λ )
d
Empirical waste
Demolition (λ ) generation
r
Renovation (λ ) factors
Figure 1 Outline of stocks and flows model for projecting future waste generation from the construction
and demolition (C&D) industry.
(2) renovation, and (3) demolition of build-
ings.
Second Step = Determine the specific waste
generation factors (kg/m2 ) for different frac-
tions of solid waste related to each type of
activity.
Third Step = Calculate the overall waste gen-
eration projection (tonnes/yr) of materials
outflow from building stock, on the basis of
defined development scenarios.
Figure 1 visualizes the three steps, with arrows
representing information flows and boxes repre-
senting information levels. The right part of the
figure shows a general outline of the procedure
used to calculate specific waste flows on the basis
of building stock information and activity level.
The left part of the figure shows the informa-
tion used to obtain knowledge about the building
stock, activity levels, and ultimately waste gener-
ation.
The floor area of building stock in this model
depends on the growth in floor area per build-
ing, which in turn determines the demand for
floor area of building stock. Demolition and ren-
ovation activity (in m2 /yr) is calculated using as-
sumptions about building lifetime and renovation
frequencies, and are denoted τd and τr , respec-
tively. Inputs to building stock from construc-
tion activity are determined by statistical data for
the historical years and are linked to population
Bergsdal, Bohne, and Brattebø, Projection of Construction and Demolition Waste in Norway
FORUM
MODEL CALCULATIONS
Building stock [m2]t
Building types
τd τr
Construction Demolition Renovation
[m2/year]t [m2/year]t [m2/year]t
c d r
λ λ λ
Construction Demolition Renovation
Waste Waste Waste
[tonnes/year]t [tonnes/year] t [tonnes/year] t
growth for the projection period. The total waste
amounts (in tonnes/yr) related to each activity
are calculated by multiplying the construction,
renovation, and demolition activity by their re-
spective empirical waste generation factors λcbt, j ,
λrbt, j , and λdbt, j . The term bt refers to building
type, and j to waste fraction, or material compo-
sition.
The approach chosen in this work uses a sim-
ple stocks-and-flows model based on available
statistics and empirical information. The entire
building stock is covered, but in aggregated form.
In this way, future behavior of different waste
fractions can be compared on national, regional,
and local levels, depending on the scope of the
study and the available sources of information
about building stock and previous construction
activity.
The activity level is related to the size and
characteristics of the building stock. The coun-
ties in Norway have very different population
patterns and therefore also different numbers of
buildings as well as different relative distributions
of building types, depending on the share of urban
versus rural areas. Some have densely populated
areas and cities and others consist mainly of areas
with dispersed population. A diversity of build-
ing types exists, each with its own characteristics
regarding size, construction method, and materi-
als composition, which results in differences in
waste amounts and composition. Buildings can
29
 FORUM
Table 1 Building categories used in this study
Category Buildings
Small Single houses, row (nondetached) houses, and so forth
Large Office buildings, apartment buildings, and so forth
Other Industrial, agricultural buildings, and so forth
be classified into 161 building types based on a
categorization from the Norwegian Mapping Au-
thority (2003), and includes many different types
of residential and nonresidential buildings. Re-
liable information on numbers as well as utility
floor space, in square meters, of buildings is avail-
able from Statistics Norway (2003, 2005). Util-
ity floor space is defined as the measured floor
area within the outer walls, including basements.
The materials composition, and accordingly the
amounts of different waste components, is, how-
ever, not known for the different building types.
The building types are therefore classified and re-
duced to three main categories, according to size
and degree of furnishing, as shown in table 1:
small buildings, large buildings, and other build-
ings. Furnishing does not include furniture, but
is restricted to amounts of inner walls, wall pan-
eling, floor and roof covering, and so on. Small
buildings are different kinds of smaller dwelling
houses, large buildings are apartment blocks, of-
fice buildings, commercial buildings, and the like,
and other buildings are storage buildings, agri-
cultural buildings, industrial buildings, and the
like.
Waste generation is related to these building
categories and to the three different C&D activ-
ities. Waste generation factors are used for the
calculation of waste amounts. The factors rep-
resent anticipated amounts of waste per square
meter, related to each of the three activities and
to each of the building categories. Empirical data
from the municipality of Oslo are the basis for
the waste factors, where waste generation from
projects of construction, renovation, and demoli-
tion is included. Data from 311 different projects
are reported, and the waste generation factors
are based on these and are further adjusted based
on experiences from other projects in Norway as
well as Finland, as described by Statistics Norway
(1998). Waste amounts can then be calculated
for construction, renovation, and demolition ac-
30 Journal of Industrial Ecology
Area Furnishing
Small High
Large High
Large Low
tivity by combining the waste generation factors
with the information about activity levels.
Construction and Demolition
Activity in Norway
The level of C&D activity varies between dif-
ferent parts of Norway. In some areas, construc-
tion activity is the dominant C&D activity (in
terms of floor area), and renovation activity is
dominant in other parts. Demolition activity is
always the lowest. This implies that the waste
generation will also be different, as the waste
generation per floor area is significantly differ-
ent for the different activities. The floor area,
denoted A, of different buildings related to the
construction, renovation, and demolition activ-
ity (denoted act) is reported in Statistics Norway
(1998) for all counties in 1998. Total national
activity levels are found by summing for all coun-
ties, denoted as c, as well as the various building
types, denoted bt, according to equation (1):


Aa ct = Ac,a ct,bt , ∀a ct (1)
c,bt
The relation between the activities is shown in
figure 2, displaying the differences in 1998, for
national numbers.
Construction has the highest level of activ-
ity (in m2 /yr), accounting for 52% of the total
activity. Demolition is very low, with only 8%,
and renovation accounts for 40%. These figures
vary when different counties are examined, as dis-
played in table 2. The relationship between the
activities is based on numbers from 1998 and as-
sumed to be the same for 2002, as no time series
are available for this year.
Table 2 describes the differences in C&D ac-
tivity distribution for the counties in Norway.
For a given level of total C&D activity, the dis-
tribution of construction, renovation, and demo-
lition varies; so in table 2, the values for Lowest

Construction
52%
Figure 2 National C&D activity distribution for Norway in 1998 (% of activity, m2 /yr).
Table 2 Differences in C&D activity distribution on
the county level in Norway in 1998
Activity Lowest Highest Average
Construction 37% 64% 52%
Renovation 30% 48% 40%
Demolition 4% 26% 8%
and Highest do not necessarily refer to the same
county, but are simply the extreme relative val-
ues related to each activity. This means that, for
example, for construction, the county with the
lowest value has only 37% of all its C&D activity
related to construction, while the national av-
erage is 52%. For construction and renovation,
most counties are fairly close to the national av-
erage value. The results for demolition are more
skewed, with the upper value being more than
three times the national average. Great variance
from the national average is found also for the
rest of the counties. This difference might partly
be a result of insufficient and varying registration
of demolition projects in the counties. When re-
ported C&D activity is investigated, reporting
on construction projects is found to be very pre-
cise, but the reporting on renovation and demoli-
tion projects is highly insufficient. The results on
which table 2 are based show no correlation in ac-
tivity between the counties for either population
density or population growth.
Bergsdal, Bohne, and Brattebø, Projection of Construction and Demolition Waste in Norway
FORUM
Demolition
8%
Renovation
40%
As described, the activity is related to three
types of buildings, and the relative contribution
from each of these to the different activities varies
for the counties. The range of variation of these
results is displayed in the first column in table 3,
which represents a subdivision of the results in
table 2.
The average distribution for all counties is
shown in the second column, and the third rep-
resents the standard deviation from the average
distribution for each activity and building type.
Column four is the result of combining the aver-
age percentage value with the total area related to
the given activity for the country as a whole, giv-
ing an idea of the magnitude. These area values
are projected from figures in 1998, from Statistics
Norway (1998).
A considerable variation from the average val-
ues is found in the range values in the first col-
umn of table 3. Most counties, however, do not
have a very different distribution from the av-
erage for the building types. The city of Oslo
is the one that differs the most, possessing the
lowest value related to residential buildings for
all activities, and the highest share related to
larger buildings. No information exists on the
distribution shown in table 2 for any other
years. As for the total amount of activity dis-
played in table 2, the breakdown into building
types shows no correlation between the coun-
ties for either population density or population
growth.
31
 FORUM

Table 3 Differences in C&D activity levels for building categories and counties in Norway in 1998
Range Average Standard Deviation Area (1,000 m2 )

Construction
Small 16%–53% 40% 8.5% 2,668
Large 28%–66% 39% 9.9% 2,603
Other 14%–35% 22% 7.1% 1,481
Renovation
Small 21%–60% 50% 8.6% 2,584
Large 29%–70% 39% 9.2% 1,993
Other 8%–14% 11% 1.9% 593
Demolition
Small 14%–42% 28% 8.2% 278
Large 4%–44% 12% 11.1% 124
Other 42%–78% 60% 9.7% 606

Waste Generation in Norway found, however, regarding waste generation fac-

tors for the different waste fractions. Demolition
After the activity levels related to each build-
produces a very large amount of the heavy frac-
ing category are estimated, waste generation
tion concrete and bricks, compared to the other
factors are linked with activity to calculate waste
activities, making this the main contributor to
amounts. The waste generation factors not only
the total figures. Summing equation (2) for all
give total waste amount per square meter for each
counties and building types, the amounts and
activity and building category, but also give its
composition of C&D waste for the entire country
composition, as displayed in table 4. Total waste
are found, using equation (3):
amounts, denoted W, and their material composi-


tion are found from equation (2) for all activities, Wj,a ct = Wc, j,a ct,bt ∀ j, a ct (3)
building categories, and counties: c,bt

Wc, j,a ct,bt = Ac,a ct,bt · λ j,a ct,bt ∀c, j, a ct, bt
(2)
with λ being the amount of waste per square meter
from table 4.
Table 4 presents estimates of waste amounts
per square meter, which are the empirical results
from 311 projects of construction, renovation,
and demolition in Oslo. These results represent
the only large-scale empirical survey of waste gen-
eration from C&D activities in Norway. Compo-
sition of the building stock with regard to building
types varies for different parts of the country, but
the material composition for each building type
will not differ much. Deviations from the empiri-
cal values from Oslo should be even smaller when
applied on a city level. The empirical factors are
therefore applied on a national scale. As can be
seen from table 4, waste generation is very dif-
ferent for the activities, with demolition clearly
dominating total waste amounts. Variation is
The results are shown in table 5 for construction,
renovation, and demolition.
The major waste fraction is concrete and
bricks, accounting for 67% of the total C&D
waste amount. For demolition alone the same
figure is 85%, which is much higher than
the contribution from construction and reno-
vation. The second largest waste type is wood,
with about 15% of the total, and as much
as 30% of the waste from renovation. The
table further shows that about 10% of the
total waste amount from the C&D industry is of
unknown composition, making it the third largest
category. For construction, as much as 25% of
the waste amounts are of unknown composition.
The large amounts of waste with unknown/mixed
composition are due to insufficient on-site sort-
ing. Mixed waste can be delivered unsorted to
landfills, but at a higher price, and the higher
cost of landfilling mixed waste is sometimes pre-
ferred by some of the contractors over the cost of

32 Journal of Industrial Ecology

 FORUM

Table 4 Empirical waste generation factors and material composition (kg/m2 )

Construction (λcbt, j ) Renovation (λrbt, j ) Demolition (λdbt, j )
Composition Small Large Other Small Large Other Small Large Other

Asbestos 0 0 0 0.50 0.50 0.50 2.14 2.14 2.14

Hazardous 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.40 0.42 0.23
Concrete/bricks 6.50 19.11 17.52 40.40 30.45 18.77 394.30 1,012.46 519.34
Gypsum 3.04 1.38 0.80 5.90 2.44 2.30 3.37 0.01 0.31
Glass 0.24 0.12 0 0.29 0.29 0.29 2.59 0.44 0.20
Insulation/EPS 1.20 0.21 0.10 0.62 0.14 0.10 1.69 0 0.09
Metals 0.11 0.48 0.79 0.38 4.06 6.05 4.45 7.70 45.31
Paper/Plastics 2.92 0.46 0.26 0.71 0.68 0.14 0.92 0.32 2.57
Wood 5.68 2.75 4.05 37.94 8.06 2.30 105.84 48.55 17.09
Unknown 9.60 6.19 7.91 2.70 13.48 2.70 59.02 31.21 14.67
Total 29.36 30.77 31.50 89.47 60.13 33.18 574.72 1,103.25 601.95

Source: Statistics Norway (1998); Valde (2004).

Note: EPS = expanded polystyrene.

increased sorting for some of the waste amounts.
Waste of unknown composition is not distributed
among the other waste fractions, but kept as a
separate category throughout this study.
Great variation is observed between the
amounts of activity as well as waste generation
related to each of the activities. Total waste gen-
eration related to the different activities is found
from equation (4) by summing the waste fractions
for each activity:

8% of the activity, this share results in a greater
Wa ct = Wj,a ct ∀a ct (4)
j
These results are presented in figure 3, showing
the distribution of total C&D waste amounts be-
tween the activities for all of Norway. The bot-
tom line in table 5 displays the corresponding
projection of waste amounts for 2002.
The waste amounts from demolition activ-
ity are adjusted values, as previous reports on
C&D waste from Statistics Norway have esti-
mated overly high waste generation. More than
1.5 million tonnes were estimated in 1998, from
Statistics Norway (1998). Underregistration of
demolition activity and overly high adjustment
factors for this resulted in overestimation of this
activity. In recent statistics the total amount is
adjusted to about 1 million tonnes, mainly from
a reduction in demolition activity as described by
Statistics Norway (2002). Here, waste generation
is estimated as a value between these two figures,
giving an amount in accordance with the figure
from the Ministry of the Environment (2000).
Demolition clearly contributes the most, with
more than half of all waste generated from this
activity. This corresponds to findings by Rein-
hart and colleagues (2003) for the United States,
where demolition is the most important waste-
generating activity on a national basis. Compar-
ing the waste generation of the activities to the
activity distribution in figure 2, the ranking is re-
versed. Although demolition accounts for only
contribution to waste generation. The opposite
is true for construction, and demonstrates what is
displayed with the waste factors in table 4. Demo-
lition is much more sensitive to changes in the
activity level than construction, and the opposite
is true for the waste factors.
Projection of Construction and
Demolition Waste Generation
in Trondheim
Large differences can be found between the
different counties in Norway with respect to pop-
ulation density, C&D activity, waste treatment
facilities, and waste handling systems. Estimation
of future waste amounts from construction, ren-
ovation, and demolition on a local level would
be too uncertain if deduced from the national
or regional levels. Furthermore, such estimates
do not include variations resulting from previous
short-term economic fluctuations, which affect

Bergsdal, Bohne, and Brattebø, Projection of Construction and Demolition Waste in Norway 33
 FORUM

Table 5 Waste amounts and composition for different activities in 2002 (in tonnes and %)
Construction Renovation Demolition Total
Composition (%) (%) (%) (%)

Asbestos 0 0.70 0.32 0.38

Hazardous waste 0.23 0.04 0.04 0.07
Concrete/Bricks 45.80 47.70 84.15 67.24
Gypsum 6.25 5.72 0.15 2.77
Glass 0.47 0.41 0.12 0.26
Insulation/EPS 1.87 0.51 0.07 0.49
Metal 1.32 3.59 4.33 3.63
Paper/Cardboard/Plastics 4.50 0.89 0.27 1.14
Wood 13.67 30.31 6.42 14.58
Unknown composition 25.89 10.13 4.13 9.44
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total waste (tonnes) 205,000 367,00 684,000 1,256,000

Note: EPS = expanded polystyrene.

the C&D activity and the building stock both
in the past and in the years to come. More spe-
cific knowledge of building stock and activity is
essential to estimate future activity and waste
amounts for any local area under investigation.
In developing a methodology for this, the city of
Trondheim is used as an example.
Information related to the building stock in
Trondheim is obtained from the Norwegian Map-
ping Authority and their GAB-register (Ground
property, Address and Building Register), which
is a national register started in 1980, contain-
ing an inventory of existing buildings and con-
struction years. This is the most detailed infor-
mation available and will serve as the foundation
for activity and waste projections. Data quality
for projects of renovation and demolition in this
register is, however, not satisfactory, so this has to
be estimated in another way. These estimations
will be based on expected average lifetimes of the
different building categories, as there exist no re-
liable statistics on building lifetimes in Norway.
Lifetime is an important parameter in estimating
C&D activity, and consequently waste genera-
tion, and the model would benefit from more de-
tailed information on this. This is, however, not
only a problem in Norwegian statistics. The need
for better availability of such data is also noted for
the United States, by Horvath (2004). Assump-
tions and calculations of lifetime are widely used
in models of stocks and flows, both for buildings
and for other products, as described by Müller
(2006), Hug and colleagues (2004), Elshkaki and
colleagues (2005), Kohler and Hassler (2002),
and Johnstone (2001a, 2001b). An examina-
tion of alternative ways to estimate lifetime and
mortality of buildings is provided by Johnstone
(2001b).
For Norway, small buildings are assumed to
have a longer lifetime than the other two build-
ing categories, as displayed in table 6. This is
supported by findings by Kotaji and colleagues
(2003), a state-of-the-art report for life-cycle as-
sessment (LCA) in building and construction.
Assumed lifetime of residential housing varies
between 60 and 120 years in analysis by Müller
(2006), with an average value of 90 years, which
is also in the same range as numbers reported by
Kotaji and colleagues (2003). An average lifetime
of 90 years is assumed for Norwegian residential
housing, and a corresponding 60-year lifetime is
assumed for large and other buildings. Renova-
tion is assumed to be carried out twice during
the lifetime of all buildings, at evenly distributed
intervals.
For small buildings, renovation is assumed to
be carried out every 30th year, as opposed to
every 20th for the rest of the building stock. These
lifetime expectancies and renovation frequencies
are important in this approach to estimating fu-
ture waste amounts. Because the information on
previous activity on renovation and demolition is

34 Journal of Industrial Ecology


Construction
16%
Demolition
55%
Renovation
29%
insufficient, future waste projections will be based
on previous construction activity combined with
lifetime and renovation frequencies. Information
on construction activity from the GAB register
includes all kinds of buildings, which are first
grouped together using the premises set forth in
table 1. The total area constructed can be found
for every year by using information on average
size of buildings from Statistics Norway (1998).
Average sizes of different building types have in-
creased in the past century, but there is no ob-
tainable detailed information on specific growth
rates. A general trend for this increase is, how-
ever, calculated for residential housing in the past
four decades by Myhre (1995). Extending this
trend backward and applying it also to the other
building categories gives an approximation of the
average size of buildings with time. By combining
these numbers with the waste generation factors
from table 4 and the information in table 5, future
waste generation in Trondheim, denoted W(t),
is projected according to equation (5) and the
procedure described in the Method section:
W(t)a ct,bt, j,t = A(t)bt · λcbt, j + A(t − 30)bt · λrbt, j
+A(t − 60)bt · λrbt, j
+A(t − 90)bt · λdbt, j ∀a ct, bt, j, t
(5)
In equation (5), A is the area constructed for a
given year, and λcbt, j , λrbt, j , and λdbt, j are again
the empirical waste generation factors. The areas
Bergsdal, Bohne, and Brattebø, Projection of Construction and Demolition Waste in Norway
FORUM
Figure 3 Total C&D waste distribution
in Norway in 1998 in tonnes.
of renovated and demolished buildings are de-
termined by historical construction activity and
the renovation frequencies and building lifetimes
from table 6. Future construction activity is as-
sumed to increase at a rate of 0.5%, equivalent
to medium population growth. Waste generation
is calculated for all building types, and equation
(5) exemplifies the calculation for small build-
ings with a lifetime of 90 years. The calculations
related to large and other buildings are equiva-
lent, except for the shorter lifetimes and more
frequent renovation. In the calculations, build-
ing stock characteristics are constant with respect
to material composition of buildings, lifetime of
buildings, and renovation frequencies. Stock vol-
ume is not constant, as this is the result of ear-
lier construction activity and lifetime parameters.
The survey of waste generation does not provide
any time series with respect to waste composition
from construction, renovation, and demolition
projects of different building types, and the re-
ported values are assumed to be constant with
respect to time. This will obviously affect the re-
sults, as material use in buildings changes with
time, along with changes in construction tech-
niques and changes in the building stock com-
position, especially in a long-term perspective.
The information about material compositions of
the different building types is, however, insuf-
ficient to provide reliable trends, and the waste
generation factors are therefore assumed constant
for the relatively short projection period in this
study.
35
 FORUM

Table 6 Expected average time (in years) until therefore assumed to follow a normal distribu-
renovation and demolition for Norwegian buildings tion with a standard deviation of 5 years. In this
Small Large Other
way, the waste generation results are smoothed
Activity buildings buildings buildings to avoid unrealistically strong year-to-year fluc-
tuations. As construction year, average area of
First renovation 30 20 20 buildings, and waste generation factors are also
Second renovation 60 40 40 uncertain, they have been provided with a stan-
Demolition 90 60 60 dard deviation of 10%. Simulations are then per-
formed with these uncertainty distributions, and
average waste generation figures are calculated
Table 7 Input parameters in Monte Carlo and presented in figure 4.
simulation of waste amounts for Trondheim, Norway Results for projection of waste amounts, and
Standard Confidence their composition, for Trondheim through 2018
Parameter deviation interval are shown. Results for recent years are included
as well. All figures refer to the combined waste
Number of buildings 10% 95% generation from all three activities and all build-
Average area of buildings 10% 95%
ing types, using the average results from the waste
Activity frequency 5 years 95%
generation simulations.
Waste generation factors 10% 95%
The general trend found in figure 4 is that
waste generation is increasing for all waste types.
This is the result of an increasing building stock,
Uncertainties are related to all the input pa- with respect to both number of buildings and
rameters in the calculations. A simple Monte their average sizes. This is again the result of
Carlo simulation is therefore applied to reduce several decades of national economic growth in
the uncertainties in the calculation of future the last part of the previous century. The growth
waste amounts. Monte Carlo analysis involves in waste amounts is especially strong for the con-
conducting and then comparing repeated trials crete/bricks fraction, where a significant increase
with inputs that sample the distributions of the leads to an estimate of future waste generation
system parameters. The normal distribution with toward 2018 of more than four times the present
standard deviation is used for the parameters, level. The concrete/bricks fraction has both the
which are shown in table 7. Activity frequency highest growth and the largest volumes. The
refers to the time between construction, renova- projections are based on previous construction
tion, and demolition. activity and estimation of lifetimes of buildings.
This simulation is a stochastic technique, From table 6, the lifetime of buildings, except
meaning that it is based on the use of random small buildings, is 60 years. For the waste projec-
numbers and probability statistics to investigate tions, this brings us back to the middle of World
the problem. For each trial, the calculation of War II, when construction activity was low.
waste amounts is carried out with random num- Knowing also from table 2 that demolition of
bers for the parameters, although within the “large” and “other” buildings is the activity gener-
boundaries of the standard deviation, in order ating the most concrete/bricks, this explains the
to produce more robust results. The reason for in- very high increase for this waste fraction, as con-
cluding a simple Monte Carlo technique is to in- struction activity and input to building stock rose
troduce variations in the input parameters listed significantly in the postwar period. Furthermore,
in table 7. The values given in table 6 repre- the use of concrete has become increasingly
sent assumed average lifetimes and renovation important as a building material in the same time
frequencies for different buildings. Assuming a period, especially for large and other buildings. A
fixed lifetime of buildings and of renovation fre- corresponding drop in waste amounts is shown for
quencies is not realistic and will result in strong projections based on the prewar period. Wood,
variations in calculated waste amounts. Both metals, asbestos, and waste of mixed composition
building lifetimes and renovation frequencies are will also increase considerably, and the increase

36 Journal of Industrial Ecology


Figure 4 Projected waste amounts for Trondheim, Norway. EPS = expanded polystyrene.
for asbestos is especially disturbing because
of the potential adverse effects, both to the
environment and to humans, if it is not collected
and handled properly after leaving the stocks in
use. Waste of unknown composition constitutes
a large share of the total waste amounts, and the
considerable increase for this waste type calls for
more attention and better tracking and sorting,
to control its disposal. The growth in waste
generation for the minor waste types is much less
significant, but there is still growth for these as
well.
Figure 4 shows that total waste amounts will
be increasing, according to the projections, and
that the increase will be more significant for some
materials than for others. The method and re-
sults presented do, however, contain several un-
certainties and are so far a preliminary approach
to assess future waste generation based on avail-
able statistics, and the results should therefore be
interpreted with some caution. Simulations are
run to include uncertainties in the input param-
eters, as presented in table 6, in order to reduce
the dependency on single assumptions of, for ex-
ample, average building lifetimes. Furthermore,
Bergsdal, Bohne, and Brattebø, Projection of Construction and Demolition Waste in Norway
FORUM
the time horizon for the projections is relatively
short compared to building lifetimes, and the tim-
ing for the expected increase in waste generation
cannot be regarded as certain. The development
will to a large extent depend on assumptions
about lifetime, which is currently the param-
eter with the most incomplete statistical informa-
tion. The general trends do, however, appear to
be valid, and a significant increase in C&D waste
generation can be expected in the decades to
come.
Conclusions
Knowledge of future waste generation is based
on the activities of construction, renovation,
and demolition. Through simulations of building
stock dynamics and corresponding waste genera-
tion and materials input, future waste generation
has been projected. The post–World War II pe-
riod had a high construction activity level, and
buildings from this period are reaching the end
of their lifetime in the years to come. This is es-
pecially true for large and other buildings, due
to their shorter expected lifetime. Demolition is
37
 FORUM
the main waste-generating activity and therefore
contributes the largest share of total amounts,
although projections predict a considerable in-
crease in waste amounts for all activities. Popula-
tion growth and increased standards of living will
contribute to growth in waste generation, in ad-
dition to the previous construction activity. This
will pose challenges to the waste management
system and its capacity for waste handling.
All waste fractions will increase relative to
the present levels. The most significant increase
will be in the concrete/bricks fraction, where the
results predict a fourfold increase, and for wood,
which is expected to more than double by 2018.
These fractions are also the largest on a weight
basis.
Increasing waste generation calls for more at-
tention to appropriate end-of-life treatment to
reduce the potential stress on the environment
due to C&D activities. With the present devel-
opment, both nationally and internationally, of
stronger regulation of the waste sector and heav-
ier taxation on landfilling, there should also be
strong economic incentives for more recycling.
The potential for better economic and envi-
ronmental solutions is discussed by Bohne and
colleagues (2007), where information on waste
amounts in Trondheim is used to elaborate a
consistent framework for the quantification and
evaluation of eco-efficiency for different waste
treatment scenarios of C&D waste.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Tom-Roger
Markås at the Norwegian Mapping Authority,
Sør-Trøndelag, for providing essential informa-
tion regarding historical data of building stock
in Trondheim from the GAB-register. We fur-
thermore want to thank Anders H. Strømman
at the Industrial Ecology Programme at NTNU
for valuable discussions and for help in perform-
ing Monte Carlo simulations and in the use of
MATLAB. We also want to thank Ingve Simon-
sen at the Department of Physics at NTNU for
valuable help with sorting and arranging infor-
mation in MATLAB and Daniel B. Müller at the
Yale Center for Industrial Ecology for valuable
feedback on the manuscript.
38 Journal of Industrial Ecology
Notes
1. Unless otherwise noted, in this article all tonnes
refer to metric tons. One metric ton (t) = 103 kilo-
grams (kg, SI) ≈ 1.102 short tons. One cubic meter
(m3 , SI) ≈ 35.3 cubic feet (ft3 ).
2. One square meter (m2 , SI) ≈ 10.76 square feet (ft2 ).
3. One kilogram (kg, SI) ≈ 2.204 pounds (lb).
References
Bohne, R. A., H. Brattebø, and H. Bergsdal. 2007. Dy-
namic eco-efficiency projections for C&D waste
recycling strategies at the city level. Journal of In-
dustrial Ecology 11(4). Forthcoming.
Bossink, B. and H. Brouwers. 1996. Construction waste:
Quantification and source evaluation. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 122(1):
55–60.
Chandrakanthi, M., P. Hettiarachi, B. Prado, and J.
Ruwanpura. 2002. Optimization of waste man-
agement for construction projects using simula-
tion. In Proceedings of the 2002 Winter Simulation
Conference, 2002, San Diego, CA: 1771–1777.
Elshkaki, A., E. van der Voet, V. Timmermans, and M.
van Holderbeke. 2005. Dynamic stock modeling:
A method for the identification and estimation
of future waste streams and emissions based on
past production and product stock characteristics.
Energy 30(8): 1353–1363.
Horvath, A. 2004. Construction materials and the en-
vironment. Annual Review of Environment and Re-
sources 29(1): 181–204.
Hsiao, T., Y. Huang, Y. Yu, and I. Wernick. 2002.
Modeling materials flow of waste concrete from
construction and demolition wastes in Taiwan.
Resources Policy 28(1): 39–47.
Hug, F., H. Bader, R. Scheidegger, and P. Baccini. 2004.
A dynamic model to illustrate the development of
an interregional energy household to a sustainable
status. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy
6(2): 138–148.
Johnstone, I. 2001a. Energy and mass flows of housing:
A model and example. Building and Environment
36(1): 27–41.
Johnstone, I. 2001b. Energy and mass flows of hous-
ing: Estimating mortality. Building and Environ-
ment 36(1): 43–51.
Kohler, N. and U. Hassler. 2002. The building stock as a
research object. Building Research and Information
30(4): 226–236.
Kotaji, S., A. Schuurmans, and S. Edwards. 2003. Life
cycle assessment in building and construction: A
state of-the-art report. Brussels, Belgium: Society

of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
(SETAC).
Ministry of the Environment. 2000. Regjeringens
miljøvernpolitikk og rikets miljøtilstand. [The
government’s environmental policy and the state
of the environment.] Oslo, Norway: Ministry of
the Environment.
Müller, D. B. 2006. Stock dynamics for forecasting
material flows – Case study for housing in the
Netherlands. Ecological Economics 59(1): 142–
156.
Myhre, L. 1995. Some environmental and economic as-
pects of energy saving measures in houses. Ph.D.
thesis, Norwegian University of Science & Tech-
nology, Trondheim, Norway.
Norwegian Mapping Authority. 2003. RiksGAB, in-
struction for registration of GAB-data. Hønefoss,
Norway: Norwegian Mapping Authority.
Reinhart, D., T. Townsend, and H. Heck. 2003. Gener-
ation and composition of construction and demolition
waste in Florida. Gainesville, FL: Florida Center
for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management.
Statistics Norway. 1998. Construction and demolition
waste. Oslo, Norway: Statistics Norway.
Statistics Norway. 2002. Nearly half the waste to
unknown treatment. Oslo, Norway: Statistics
Norway. <www.ssb.no/english/subjects/01/05/
avfbygganlen/>. Accessed 15 February 2007.
Bergsdal, Bohne, and Brattebø, Projection of Construction and Demolition Waste in Norway
FORUM
Statistics Norway. 2003. Buildings statistics. Oslo, Nor-
way: Statistics Norway.
Statistics Norway. 2005. Statbank. Oslo, Norway:
Statistics Norway. <http://statbank.ssb.no/
statistikkbanken/>. Accessed 1 October 2005.
Valde, S. 2004. Personal communication with S. Valde.
Oslo Municipal Planning & Building Service,
Oslo, Norway, February 2004.
Yost, P. and J. Halstead. 1996. A methodology for
quantifying the volume of construction waste.
Waste Management and Research 14(5): 453–
461.
About the Authors
Håvard Bergsdal is a Ph.D. student at the
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
(NTNU) in Trondheim, Norway, in the Depart-
ment of Hydraulic and Environmental Engineer-
ing/Industrial Ecology Programme. Rolf André Bohne
is a postdoctoral fellow at NTNU in the Depart-
ment of Civil and Transport Engineering/Industrial
Ecology Programme. Helge Brattebø is a professor
at NTNU and currently head of the Department of
Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering and Master
of Science program director in the Industrial Ecology
Programme.
39