ENCORT-CDW - Evaluation of the European recovery target for construction and demolition waste

Arm, Maria; Wik, Ola; Engelse, Christian J.; Erlandsson, Martin; Sundqvist, Jan‐Olov; Oberender, Anke; Hjelmar, Ole; Wahlström, Margareta

doi:10.6027/na2014-916

Cited by 8 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the reduction will vary among countries or even regions since it depends on available supplies and the resources that are replaced, as well as on distances to recycling facilities. In the Nordic countries, Denmark is different from Sweden, Norway and Finland regarding the resources of high quality aggregates, which are largely imported to Denmark [4].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The impact on transport was estimated for each scenario. This could be done in several ways and some alternatives are shown in the project report [4]. The assessment focused on the relative changes, and for asphalt and concrete the cumulative sum of all transport distances for sub-processes associated with the scenario was calculated.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use and phase-out of tar differs from country to country, but the use was ended in the mid-seventies of the previous century. Around 15 % of the Swedish asphalt pavements (14-22 million tonnes) are estimated to be markedly tar contaminated although below hazard classification [4], while the numbers are much lower in other Nordic countries (estimations for Norway and Denmark are given in [4] and [10]). …”

Section: Recovery Of Bituminous Mixtures (''Asphalt'')mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An evaluation of the impact of the target is planned by the European Commission and in order to provide some of the basis for this evaluation, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) initiated a Nordic project, ENCORT-CDW, which was reported in spring 2014 [4]. The objective of the project was to study the potential change in the resource management of the main C&D waste fractions as a consequence of fulfilling the WFD target.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This paper presents the main findings of the ENCORT-CDW project, supplemented with new data. For new data, the data source is indicated in the list of references, in other cases the reader is referred to the ENCORT-CDW report [4]. The Nordic countries included in this study were Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

How Does the European Recovery Target for Construction & Demolition Waste Affect Resource Management?

Arm

Wik

Engelsen

et al. 2016

Waste Biomass Valor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The revised EU Waste Framework Directive (WFD) includes a 70 % target for recovery of construction and demolition (C&D) waste. In order to study the potential change in the resource management of the main C&D waste fractions, as a consequence of fulfilling the WFD target, a Nordic project (ENCORT-CDW) has been performed. Waste fractions studied included asphalt, concrete, bricks, track ballast, gypsum-based construction materials and wood. Recovery scenarios were identified and estimations were made regarding expected savings of primary materials, impact on transport, and pollution and emissions. For wood waste, the main differences between re-use, material recycling and energy recovery were evaluated in a carbon footprint screening based on life cycle assessment methodology. The study concluded that the EU recovery target does not ensure a resource efficient and environmentally sustainable waste recovery in its present form since:• It is very sensitive to how the legal definitions of waste and recovery are interpreted in the Member States. This means that certain construction material cycles might not count in the implementation reports while other, less efficient and environmentally safe, recovery processes of the same material will count.• It is weight-based and consequently favours large and heavy waste streams. The result is that smaller flows with equal or larger resource efficiency and environmental benefit will be insignificant for reaching the target.• It does not distinguish between the various recovery processes, meaning that resource efficient and environmentally safe recovery cannot be given priority.Improved knowledge on C&D waste generation and handling, as well as on content and emissions of dangerous substances, is required to achieve a sustainable recovery.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Recovery Of Bituminous Mixtures (''Asphalt'')mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

How Does the European Recovery Target for Construction & Demolition Waste Affect Resource Management?

Arm

Wik

Engelsen

et al. 2016

Waste Biomass Valor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Attributional life cycle assessment: is a land-use baseline necessary?

Soimakallio

Cowie

Brandão³

et al. 2015

Int J Life Cycle Assess

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to clarify the application of a landuse baseline in attributional life cycle assessment (ALCA) for product systems involving land use, through consideration of the fundamental purpose of ALCA. Currently, there is no clear view in the literature whether a baseline should be used when accounting for environmentally relevant physical flows related to land use. Methods An extensive search of literature was carried out using the key terms 'attributional life cycle assessment' and 'attributional LCA' in the Google Scholar web search engine. Approximately 700 publications were reviewed and summarised according to their type and scope, relevance of land use, key statements and references given for ALCA, and arguments for and against using a baseline in ALCA. Based on the literature review and supplementary literature references, a critical discussion on the use of a baseline and determination of the most appropriate land-use baseline in ALCA is provided. Results and discussion A few studies clearly argued that only absolute (observable) flows without a baseline are to be inventoried in ALCA, while the majority of the studies did not make any clear statement for or against. On the other hand, a land-use baseline was explicitly applied or proposed in a minority of the studies only, despite the fact that we classified land use as highly relevant for the majority of the studies reviewed. Furthermore, the LCA guidelines reviewed give contradictory recommendations. The most cited studies for the definition of ALCA provide general rules for selecting processes based on observable flows but do not argue that observable flows necessarily describe the environmentally relevant physical flows. Conclusions We conclude that a baseline is required to separate the studied parts of the technosphere from natural processes and to describe the impact of land use on ecosystem quality, such as carbon sequestration and biodiversity. The most coherent baseline for human-induced land-use in ALCA is natural regeneration. As the natural-regeneration baseline has typically been excluded, may vary bio-geographically and temporally, and is subject to uncertainties, case studies applying it should be performed so that implications can be studied and evaluated. This is particularly important for agricultural and forestry systems, such as food, feed, fibre, timber and biofuels. Responsible editor: Matthias FinkbeinerElectronic supplementary material The online version of this article (

show abstract