296
S. Giorgi et al.
The ‘EU Construction and Demolition Waste Management Protocol’ (2016),
and the ‘Guidelines for the waste audits before demolition and renovation works of
buildings’ (2018) are the primary actions which are part of the Circular Economy
Package presented by the European Commission in 2015. These initiatives act on
the improvement of waste identification, through a better separation and collection,
waste logistics, through better traceability of the waste stream, waste processing,
through an efficient recycling process, and quality management, through the
introduction of quality labelling and certification.
Analysing the current CDW management of European countries (Giorgi et al.
2018), the first obstacle to a sustainable waste flow management is the lack of a
database for monitoring CDW quantities and the confusion regarding who should
control and monitor waste management. In Italy, for example, the legislation
(d.lgs.152/2006) provides several exemptions from the obligation to declare the
quantity of waste generated by the construction and demolition process, as in the
case of a medium-size building process. Consequently, the real-waste flow remains
unknown. The lack of monitoring also concerns the extraction of materials: there is
no official data available on the extraction of construction minerals (such as sand
and gravel), even if the extraction of construction minerals represents a large share
of total material extraction (UNEP 2016). Moreover, if the materials flow does not
change, becoming more efficient and effective, the material consumption in the
construction sector is expected to further increase in future (Fishman et al. 2016).
The Member States that present the highest level of CDW recovery, show the
introduction of laws banning landfills (such as in Belgium and Netherlands) or high
taxes on landfills (such as in the UK) (Resource Efficient Use of Mixed Wastes 2017).
These measures have increased the recycling process, mainly through downcycling.
Instead, within circular economy, it is important to activate upcycling and reuse
processes; however, there are still barriers for the activation of such effective circular
practices.
Through direct interviews with stakeholders of the building value chain (Giorgi
et al. 2019) the obstacles of upcycling and reuse were successfully identified. The
reason that thwarts the activation of a sustainable circular practice at the building
level is the lack of expert operators able to disassemble, and of space to store the
materials to be reused. These gaps lead to high costs in human labour and difficulties
in logistics. However, the main obstacle concerns the legislative framework and
responsibility. Nowadays, the legislative framework does not enable the certification
of the quality and durability of a reused material, because there is a lack of data and
knowledge of the history of the material itself. Consequently, even if it is possible
to use reused/recycled materials, designers and constructor companies prefer to use
new ones only, because they are responsible for the material quality used to build a
building.
More ambitious legislation is necessary to promote the reuse/upcycling of
materials. First of all, it is important to improve market demand for secondary
materials, also for the construction industry, through the application of laws which
ban the extraction of raw materials (e.g. to forbid the opening of new quarries).
Secondly, public building renovation should be the exemplary intervention for
S. Giorgi et al.
The ‘EU Construction and Demolition Waste Management Protocol’ (2016),
and the ‘Guidelines for the waste audits before demolition and renovation works of
buildings’ (2018) are the primary actions which are part of the Circular Economy
Package presented by the European Commission in 2015. These initiatives act on
the improvement of waste identification, through a better separation and collection,
waste logistics, through better traceability of the waste stream, waste processing,
through an efficient recycling process, and quality management, through the
introduction of quality labelling and certification.
Analysing the current CDW management of European countries (Giorgi et al.
2018), the first obstacle to a sustainable waste flow management is the lack of a
database for monitoring CDW quantities and the confusion regarding who should
control and monitor waste management. In Italy, for example, the legislation
(d.lgs.152/2006) provides several exemptions from the obligation to declare the
quantity of waste generated by the construction and demolition process, as in the
case of a medium-size building process. Consequently, the real-waste flow remains
unknown. The lack of monitoring also concerns the extraction of materials: there is
no official data available on the extraction of construction minerals (such as sand
and gravel), even if the extraction of construction minerals represents a large share
of total material extraction (UNEP 2016). Moreover, if the materials flow does not
change, becoming more efficient and effective, the material consumption in the
construction sector is expected to further increase in future (Fishman et al. 2016).
The Member States that present the highest level of CDW recovery, show the
introduction of laws banning landfills (such as in Belgium and Netherlands) or high
taxes on landfills (such as in the UK) (Resource Efficient Use of Mixed Wastes 2017).
These measures have increased the recycling process, mainly through downcycling.
Instead, within circular economy, it is important to activate upcycling and reuse
processes; however, there are still barriers for the activation of such effective circular
practices.
Through direct interviews with stakeholders of the building value chain (Giorgi
et al. 2019) the obstacles of upcycling and reuse were successfully identified. The
reason that thwarts the activation of a sustainable circular practice at the building
level is the lack of expert operators able to disassemble, and of space to store the
materials to be reused. These gaps lead to high costs in human labour and difficulties
in logistics. However, the main obstacle concerns the legislative framework and
responsibility. Nowadays, the legislative framework does not enable the certification
of the quality and durability of a reused material, because there is a lack of data and
knowledge of the history of the material itself. Consequently, even if it is possible
to use reused/recycled materials, designers and constructor companies prefer to use
new ones only, because they are responsible for the material quality used to build a
building.
More ambitious legislation is necessary to promote the reuse/upcycling of
materials. First of all, it is important to improve market demand for secondary
materials, also for the construction industry, through the application of laws which
ban the extraction of raw materials (e.g. to forbid the opening of new quarries).
Secondly, public building renovation should be the exemplary intervention for