From Waste Management to Component Management in the Construction Industry
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
sustainability Article From Waste Management to Component Management in the Construction Industry Colin M. Rose 1,* ID and Julia A. Stegemann 2 1 Department of Civil, Environmental & Geomatic Engineering, Centre for Urban Sustainability and Resilience, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK 2 Department of Civil, Environmental & Geomatic Engineering, Centre for Resource Efficiency & the Environment, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +44-773-647-5214 Received: 22 December 2017; Accepted: 15 January 2018; Published: 17 January 2018 Abstract: The construction industry uses more resources and produces more waste than any other industrial sector; sustainable development depends on the reduction of both, while providing for a growing global population. The reuse of existing building components could support this goal. However, it is difficult to reclaim components from demolition, and materials remain cheap compared with labour, so new approaches are needed for reuse to be implemented beyond niche projects. This study therefore reviews waste interventions. Multiple case studies, spanning new builds and refurbishment, were undertaken to examine systemic mechanisms that lead to components being discarded. Evidence from fieldwork observations, waste documentation, and interviews indicates that the generators of unwanted components effectively decide their fate, and a failure to identify components in advance, uncertainty over usefulness, the perception of cost and programme risk in reclamation, and the preferential order of the waste hierarchy mean that the decision to discard to waste management goes unchallenged. A triage process is proposed to capture timely information about existing building components to be discarded, make this information visible to a wide community, and determine usefulness by focusing creativity already present in the industry on an exhaustive examination of component reusability and upcyclability. Keywords: reuse; building materials; construction and demolition waste; architecture; engineering; and construction (AEC) industry; end-of-waste; repurposing; upcycling; creativity; utility 1. Introduction The global construction industry uses around 23 Gtpa of non-fuel raw materials [1]. Extraction of these resources causes environmental damage, loss of habitat and biodiversity, and changes in land use patterns [2]. Processing and transporting those resources to supply useful building materials depletes reserves of non-renewable energy, and, in the UK, represents 8% of total greenhouse gas emissions [3,4]. At end-of-life, a large proportion of these resources become waste, with additional environmental impacts (Figure1). Construction activities are responsible for 9 Gtpa of waste globally [ 1], and one-third of total waste generation across EU countries [5]. The European Commission Waste Framework Directive [6] embeds into law the waste hierarchy’s preferential order for waste management: after prevention, direct reuse of a product, then recycling (reprocessing into new products), recovery (such as generating energy through combustion), and, lastly, disposal. Member States are required to achieve a 70% landfill diversion rate by 2020 for all construction and demolition (C&D) waste except natural soil and stone and hazardous waste ([6] Article 11). In the UK, this target has been met: the statutory requirement for Site Waste Management Plans Sustainability 2018, 10, 229; doi:10.3390/su10010229 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2018, 10, 229 2 of 21 (SWMPs;Sustainability repealed 2018, 10, in229 December10.3390/su10010229 2013), along with a voluntary initiative led by WRAP, Halving2 of 22 Waste to Landfill, the Aggregates Levy, and the gradual escalation of the Landfill Tax, have been led by WRAP, Halving Waste to Landfill, the Aggregates Levy, and the gradual escalation of the effective levers in increasing the diversion rate [7]. Around the turn of the millennium, 45% of Landfill Tax, have been effective levers in increasing the diversion rate [7]. Around the turn of the all C&D waste was recycled [8]; by 2014, the figure had risen to 90% [9]. BRE’s SMARTWaste millennium, 45% of all C&D waste was recycled [8]; by 2014, the figure had risen to 90% [9]. BRE’s dataSMARTWaste [10], derived data from [10], thousands derived of from individually thousands reported of individually projects, reported indicated projects, a recycling indicated rate of a 91% in 2012.recycling However, rate of national91% in 2012. and However, EU legislation national does and not EU setlegislation separate does targets not set for separate reuse and targets recycling, for andreuse the mainand recycling, route for and waste the main streams route diverted for waste from streams landfill diverted has from been landfill recycling has intobeen lowerrecycling value products—downcycling—ofteninto lower value products—downcycling—often in an open loop. in an open loop. FigureFigure 1. Simplified 1. Simplified construction construction material material flowsflows and stoc stocks,ks, and and the the broad broad categories categories of their of their global global environmentalenvironmental impacts impacts shown shown in red.in red. No impactsNo impacts are notedare noted for building for building stocks, stocks, as the as material the material changes of repairchanges and ofupgrade repair and are upgrade captured are under captured the under flows inthe and flows out. in Theand operationalout. The operational greenhouse greenhouse gas (GHG) emissionsgas (GHG) of the emissions existing of building the existing stock building are considered stock are considered outside the outside present the scope. present scope. There is a danger in assuming that the impact of construction waste has been successfully There is a danger in assuming that the impact of construction waste has been successfully mitigated as recycling rates rise above 90%. A first problem is that these data are based on whether mitigated as recycling rates rise above 90%. A first problem is that these data are based on whether waste is sent to recycling companies, rather than whether it is recycled in reality. Secondly, the waste is sent to recycling companies, rather than whether it is recycled in reality. Secondly, the impacts impacts of transportation and recycling processes can be considerable. Thirdly, recycling processes of transportationcan be highly wasteful. and recycling The global processes image of can recycling—the be considerable. familiar Thirdly, triangle recycling of arrows—conjures processes can an be highlyidea wasteful. of continuous The cycles, global yet image open-loop of recycling—the recycling is better familiar described triangle as dela ofyed arrows—conjures disposal [11]. When, an idea of continuousfor instance, cycles,timber joists yet open-loop are chipped recycling for chipboard, is better this open-loop described recycling as delayed still disposalrequires trees [11]. to When, be forfelled, instance, milled, timber and joistsproduced are chippedwhen we forwant chipboard, new joists. thisThe recycled open-loop wood recycling chip has still a lower requires economic trees to be felled,value than milled, the joist and from produced which it when came. we It also want has new reduced joists. ‘utility’, Therecycled considered wood as a chipfunction has of a the lower economicdisplaced value impacts than theof extracting joist from whichand processing it came. Ita alsoprimary has reducedmaterial, ‘utility’, and the considered performance as of a functionthat of thematerial’s displaced duty impactsthrough ofa period extracting of time. and A chippe processingd joist aonly primary displaces material, new wood and chip the (e.g., performance from of thatforest material’s thinnings), duty a material through with a low period impacts. of time. In products A chipped like chipboard joist only or displaces animal bedding, new wood it can chip (e.g.,perform from forest a duty thinnings), for a limited a material period of with time, low and impacts. will be buried In products or incinerated like chipboard relatively oranimal soon. A bedding, joist it canretained perform in its a dutyexisting for form a limited may periodbe able ofto time,displace and new, will kiln-dried be buried sawn or incinerated wood, and relativelyperform the soon. duty of supporting a floor for many decades. A joist retained in its existing form may be able to displace new, kiln-dried sawn wood, and perform Utility also drops in the case of end-of-life concrete. Recycled aggregate from concrete displaces the duty of supporting a floor for many decades. primary aggregate—a material with low value and impacts compared with concrete. The lower duty Utility also drops in the case of end-of-life concrete. Recycled aggregate from concrete displaces performed as aggregate represents a loss of between 70 and 185 kg embodied CO2/tonne of concrete primary[12]. Even aggregate—a recycling of material metals entails with a low lossvalue of utility. and Properties impacts of compared products from with refining concrete. steel The scrap, lower dutyfor performed instance, do as not aggregate match those represents of steel obtained a loss of fr betweenom virgin 70 production, and 185 kg so embodiedsecondary steel CO2 is/tonne used of concretefor reinforcing [12]. Even bar recycling and sections, of metals but not entails for higher a loss grade of utility.and applications Properties