PERSPECTIVE

published: 21 July 2020

doi: 10.3389/frsc.2020.00035

Encouraging Circular Waste

Economies for the New Zealand
Construction Industry: Opportunities
and Barriers
Joanne K. Low, Shannon Lee Wallis*, German Hernandez, I. S. Cerqueira, G. Steinhorn
and Terri-Ann Berry

Environmental Solutions Research Centre, Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

As our global population increases, the resulting waste mountain continues to rise.
It has been identified that the Construction Industry contributes to a large proportion
of the waste to landfill (and cleanfill) sites. Whilst there have been a multitude of
Edited by: commercial ventures and research-based activities targeted to challenge waste volumes,
Elise Louise Amel,
the ambitions of a truly circular economy for this industry remain far from realised.
University of St. Thomas,
United States This article will discuss industry examples of waste minimisation initiatives which have
Reviewed by: been implemented successfully to support a less linear approach and encourage
Ling Shao, sustainable waste management for industrialised nations. We also identify limitations of
China University of
Geosciences, China
this decentralised approach to resource management and suggest how the creation of
Castorina Silva Vieira, resource markets, on both national and international scales, could connect the waste
University of Porto, Portugal
management loop for a vastly improved environmental outcome.
*Correspondence:
Shannon Lee Wallis Keywords: construction waste management, circular waste economy, on-site waste separation, recycling, reuse
swallis@[Link]

Specialty section: INTRODUCTION

This article was submitted to
Urban Resource Management, The greatest worldwide users of raw materials from natural resources are from the Construction
a section of the journal sector (UN Environment, 2017). The industry also consumed around 50% of steel produced in
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 2015 and accounted for 36% of final energy-use and 39% of energy-related CO2 emissions in 2017
Received: 05 December 2019 (World Steel Association WSA., 2015; World Economic Forum WEF., 2016; Global Alliance for
Accepted: 10 June 2020 Buildings Construction., 2018).
Published: 21 July 2020 It is therefore not surprising that Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste accounts for a large
Citation: share of the total municipal waste in developed countries and most landfill waste in developing
Low JK, Wallis SL, Hernandez G, countries (Ibrahim, 2016). The proportion of landfilled construction waste (by weight) compared
Cerqueira IS, Steinhorn G and with total amount of waste varies between 13 and 61% by country (Figure 1), with an average
Berry T-A (2020) Encouraging Circular
proportion of around 30% (Luangcharoenrat et al., 2019). C&D waste can have environmental
Waste Economies for the New
Zealand Construction Industry:
implications when disposed into landfill, such as the release of inorganic pollutants and greenhouse
Opportunities and Barriers. gas emissions (Pimenteira et al., 2005; Roussat et al., 2008; Dubey et al., 2010). Furthermore, C&D
Front. Sustain. Cities 2:35. waste takes up landfill space which is unsustainable and a scarce resource in smaller regions (Poon
doi: 10.3389/frsc.2020.00035 et al., 2003).

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | [Link] 1 July 2020 | Volume 2 | Article 35

Low et al. Circular Waste Economies for Construction

The current waste pathway for buildings tends to be linear— the suppliers rather than the waste contractor, but requires
with a mantra of “take-make-dispose” and little priority is a solution.
given to waste management (Osmani et al., 2008; Andrews, Waste which is unavoidably produced in the C&D industry
2015; Osmani and Villoria-Sáez, 2019). The hierarchy of waste can be recovered to reuse and recycle before entering landfill. The
management puts reduction as the top priority for waste reuse of materials is preferred as it tends to use less energy for
minimisation, followed by reuse, recycle, and finally landfill processing and so has a lower cost than recycling (Peng et al.,
disposal (Peng et al., 1997; Yuan and Shen, 2011). Reduction in 1997; Yuan and Shen, 2011). There is also less generation of
the use of raw virgin materials can occur mainly during the design associated wastes. Nonetheless, recycling can process C&D waste
stage of construction and should be supported by a sustainable into new materials, which helps to reduce the consumption of
procurement strategy. Reuse of waste during construction and virgin raw materials and energy (Pimenteira et al., 2005).
the recycling of residual waste in the final construction stages also In New Zealand, Green Gorilla is a waste management
provide opportunities for waste minimisation. company that accepts and sorts co-mingled waste from the
C&D waste can be classified into two groups: new-build Construction Industry only for recycling. They receive around
waste and demolition waste. New-build waste comes from new 10,000 tonnes of waste each month, over 75% of which is
materials during construction, which arises due to the way we diverted from landfill. Their processing systems recover timber,
design and build. Usually construction activities generate certain non-ferrous metals, cardboard, plasterboard, steel, rocks, and
amounts of unavoidable waste—about 1–10% of purchased concrete. Treated and untreated wood waste can be chipped
materials (Shen et al., 2005; Tam and Lu, 2016). During and used in landscaping and for biofuel production, while
demolition (mechanical destruction of a building), most building plasterboard can be further processed and used in fertilisers.
components can only be recycled (into a new form) or disposed Residual wastes (typically 20% of total) or waste unsuitable
into landfill (Macozoma, 2001). Buildings produce waste over for recycling (e.g., plastics) are sent to a licensed landfill
their lifetime through reconstitution, renovation, and partial (Green Gorilla Youtube., 2016; Green Gorilla Website., 2019;
replacements—not just at the end-of-life; therefore, demolition Sustainable Business Network website., 2019). Even with New
begins when a building is first serviced, maintained or adapted Zealand’s relatively low waste levy this is a successful commercial
(Thomsen et al., 2011). Demolition waste can be inert and operation that recovers value from an otherwise problematic
recyclable (bricks, concrete, sand, untreated wood) or include waste stream.
hazardous substances such as asbestos insulation, treated wood Whilst recycling (into new products) is an option for
and lead-based paints (Roussat et al., 2008; United States achieving significant diversion from landfill, it fails to
Environmental Protection Agency USEPA, 2008; Coudert et al., provide resources for future construction and therefore
2013), thus limiting recycle potential. does not complete the desired waste management loop. Other
disadvantages to the use of this type of waste processing
include health and safety issues associated with handling
Current Solutions co-mingled waste (which may contain asbestos or lead-based
There are many different opportunities to reduce waste in the products) and also energy requirements for recycling in contrast
construction industry but none of them are sufficient to create with reuse.
a truly circular economy. In an ideal waste management system, A building designed for deconstruction is dismantled to
the construction of a new building would first consider how recover and reuse materials (Thomsen et al., 2011; Rios et al.,
much new-build waste can be designed out through careful 2015). This process considers buildings to be future resources for
planning for incoming materials (Poon et al., 2001; Osmani construction materials (Kibert et al., 2001); however, this end-
et al., 2008; Andrews, 2015). This would also consider the of-life consideration is not common. Many older buildings in
end of the building’s life by designing it for deconstruction, Germany are not designed for deconstruction (Kuehlen et al.,
so that it can be mined for future resources. In addition, 2014). Likewise, in Japan many buildings contain composite
buildings would be designed to minimize the use of virgin raw structures or composite materials, making them difficult to
materials and prefer reused and recycled materials (Thomsen dismantle (Nakajima, 2014). While deconstruction is vital to
et al., 2011; Tingley and Davison, 2011; Andrews, 2015) A creating a more circular economy, it can take considerably
sustainable procurement strategy has to consider these reuse more time than demolition. This is due to the need to
and recycling opportunities to decrease the use of virgin raw carefully dismantle buildings, recover and then separate the
materials. On-site waste separation has many limitations and can materials; as a result, there may be increased labour costs,
only be applied in certain circumstances, however the selection construction delay penalties, and disincentives to implement
of certain reusable raw materials (such as timber and sand) deconstruction practices (McGrath et al., 2000; Nakajima, 2014).
may be reclaimed for reuse directly on site or donated via Despite findings that revenue generated from deconstruction
online sharing platforms, such as Civil Share. Co-mingled waste can reduce overall costs to 10% less than demolition costs (Guy
recovery centres are the least problematic for waste separation and McLendon, 2003), demolition remains more favourable in
where available. However, these centres are localised (usually many countries.
in large cities) and do not help all regions of the country (or Waste minimisation for this industry has often focused
world). Finally, the loss of ∼20% of waste to landfill due to on the design (birth) and the deconstruction/demolition (end
construction waste associated with packaging is an issue for of life processing), however there are opportunities available

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | [Link] 2 July 2020 | Volume 2 | Article 35

Low et al. Circular Waste Economies for Construction

FIGURE 1 | Total waste per year and the corresponding percentage of Construction Demolition & Excavation waste for 2016—*except for South Africa (2017),
Germany (2015), and Japan (2011) (Blue Environment, 2018; Department of Environmental Affairs RSA, 2018; Federal Ministry for the Environment Nature
Conservation Nuclear Safety., 2018; Yonetani, 2018; Department of Environment Food Rural Affairs, 2019; Eurostat., 2019).

both during construction and within a building’s lifetime. in savings of about NZD$650 per skip required for landfill waste.
The C&D industry needs a paradigm shift in its approach A square of 25 m2 land with a 9 m3 skip were made available
to construction materials—one that recognizes that buildings for sorting and storing waste on site. Waste was separated into
can become valuable resources throughout their lives, and timber, concrete and masonry, plasterboard, metals, and plastics
consequently creates a supply of reclaimed materials. This is a and packaging. Untreated timber and concrete & masonry waste
“circular economy,” which calls for a new economic model where were collected by the public or reused on-site, while plasterboard
waste is the input of a continuous material loop (Ellen MacArthur was sent to be recycled, metals sold as scrap material and plastics
Foundation EMF., 2015; Ghisellini et al., 2018). The aim is to and packaging returned to the supplier. Most treated timber was
close this loop, so that fewer virgin materials are used, waste sent to landfill, and some was reused for small projects (such
materials become resources for the “next generation of products,” as on animal farms). Photos of waste were posted online on the
and landfill is minimised (Andrews, 2015). Free Stuff and TradeMe sharing websites, where the public could
This article investigates on-site waste management initiatives arrange to pick up the materials for no charge.
including social, environmental and financial barriers. We Generally, this case study was found to be low risk
present our industry examples demonstrating successful waste and inexpensive. Contractors expressed that hiring staff
sorting and waste sharing practices in New Zealand, which show to sort waste full-time would be costly, so they hired
the potential to evolve a resource market in other countries temporary labourers on days predicted to produce more
around the world. Moreover, we suggest that a considerable waste (such as days for deliveries and unloading materials)
barrier to creating a circular economy for construction waste is or requested voluntary work from the public who wanted
the lack of a clear resource market. to take and use the waste material. For this study, about
30 h at the site over ten visits was spent, during which we
facilitatedthe public collections for waste, informed new
REUSE—WASTE SEPARATION AT SOURCE
contractors of the on-site waste separation, and ensured
On-Site Waste Separation waste was stored properly and protected from damage.
On-site separation can reduce waste, increase cost savings and Unfortunately, in other projects this may incur extra costs, effort
has the potential to increase employment on construction sites. or employment.
From 2017 to 2018, we evaluated the use of source-separation This study demonstrated that useful materials can be
(on-site waste separation) for the recovery of construction waste recovered and reused by sorting through waste. On-site waste
on an active new-build site. The site chosen was a residential separation generally requires less effort than the process
development of 350 m2 floor area in Auckland (New Zealand), of aggregating waste and then sorting it off-site (Poon
designed of primarily masonry blocks and internal timber et al., 2001; Krook and Eklund, 2010). Krook and Eklund
framing. In this study, 2,400 kg of waste was generated and (2010) discussed the difficulty in sorting municipal waste in
1,750 kg diverted from landfill (a 73% diversion), which resulted Swedish recycling plants, where they estimated about 20%

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | [Link] 3 July 2020 | Volume 2 | Article 35

Low et al. Circular Waste Economies for Construction

FIGURE 2 | The cycle of input and output materials in the C&D industry split into three stages: reduce, reuse, and recycle. A circular economy is one which avoids the
input of virgin raw materials, and output of waste going to landfill. Currently, the typical life cycle for a building is linear (as shown by the black arrows).

(more than 200,000 tonnes) of waste was incorrectly sorted. between jobs (as all equipment and labour are not constantly
Direct reuse of material within one construction organisation needed, thus are underutilised).
(without entering into a marketplace) will reduce waste
handling. By increasing the number of staff to sort, check
and remove hazardous waste, the number of errors may Barriers for Reuse
decrease, but this is often impractical due to the increased Despite the relative success of both of the examples discussed,
labour costs. there remain multiple barriers restricting the wide scale
application of these types of initiatives. Recent conversations
with contractors have highlighted the following issues which
still present significant barriers to certain waste management
On-Line Waste Share practices. These include:
Waste sharing online platforms can make it easier to upcycle
materials, and so generate an interest in reclaimed C&D • Lack of training and education; although on-site waste
materials. Civil Share is an Auckland-based free website app separation is comparatively simple, it does involve educating
that allows users to share construction materials, labour and site workers which has been complicated by skills shortages
equipment. It currently has over 3,100 users and experienced which have plagued the construction industry for over 30
a 40% increase in users since November 2018. The use of years (Dainty et al., 2004). Attracting and retaining skilled
Civil Share over the last 2 years has resulted in the diversion construction workers has become a major priority (Yankov
of 10,100 tonnes of waste (Civil Share., 2019). By using the and Kleiner, 2001) which has been partially addressed
Civil Share platform, an Auckland construction company (ICB by recruiting foreign and migrant workers (Clark, 2003).
Retaining and Construction) has managed to divert 281 tonnes However, the reliance of engagement of migrant workers on
of construction waste since 2016. During this time, ICB has short or limited term contracts (McGrath-Champ et al., 2016)
saved over $120,000—∼$62,000 saved from landfill bin costs has made efficient on-site separation unrealistic, in part due
and $64,000 generated by hiring out equipment and personnel to language barriers, high staff turnovers rates and project

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | [Link] 4 July 2020 | Volume 2 | Article 35

Low et al. Circular Waste Economies for Construction

management logistics (Annette Day, Naylor Love Contractors, market will also need to define a role to undertake checks for
pers comm.). structural integrity for the reuse of various construction items
• Insufficient logistics; for many contractors there is limited as well as protect consumers from any hazardous components.
space available on site for effective on-site waste separation. This has huge financial implications and it is unlikely that
This restricts separation for recycling and options for retaining this type of commercial venture could profit without the right
materials on-site for future reuse are limited. economic environment. It has been proposed that taxing virgin
• Health and safety issues; although less of an issue for new raw material extraction and using the proceeds to reduce
builds, the deconstruction or demolition process during a taxation on labour could shift the balance to an economy
building’s lifetime may result in the production of asbestos employing more labour to reduce the use of raw materials
contaminated materials which can present considerable health by labour intensive reuse and recycling (McCarthy et al.,
and safety issues for waste providers as well as site contractors. 2018).
Their presence also prohibits reuse or recycling. The inconsistency of a supply of quality reclaimed materials
• Lack of incentives; Waste disposal costs and accompanying can be problematic. Reclaimed materials can sometimes be
taxes and/or levies are often low, while labour is highly inferior to virgin materials; due to age of the material and how
taxed in many industrialised economies. This encourages raw the material was reclaimed and sorted (Falk, 1999; United States
material use and discourages to employ labour for reuse and Environmental Protection Agency USEPA, 2008; Ghisellini et al.,
recycling efforts. 2018). This would affect both the supply of acceptable materials,
and the demand, as it may encourage the perception that all
reclaimed materials are of poorer quality. Theoretically, with
RESOURCE MARKETS FOR THE a closed circular economy the supply of quality reclaimed
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY materials would thin after several cycles when materials age and
are inevitably damaged. However, in some instances, quality
These waste management initiatives have contributed can be improved with better planning around deconstruction,
considerably to the construction waste industry in New design and waste sorting. Increased use of reclaimed materials
Zealand, however it is clear that a truly circular waste economy over time will support reputation and the implementation of
is still far from achievable. For this cycle to operate continuously, better waste management practices (around design, on-site waste
the creation of a resource market is necessary (Figure 2). separation and assessments for safety and quality) can prove the
For materials to be reused, there needs to be a market— adequacy of these materials (Roussat et al., 2008; Rios et al.,
a supply and demand of second-hand materials, offcuts and 2015).
recycled materials (Wang et al., 2010), which can be given away or
sold to generate a profit (United States Environmental Protection
Agency USEPA, 2008; Behnan and Hinkley, 2014) and where CONCLUSION
materials which cannot be reused directly are recycled. Reuse and
For industrialised nations, there are a variety of potential
recycling can only be sustained if there is a market demand for
pathways for construction waste management which maximise
reclaimed materials, so that these materials can be fed back into
diversion from landfill. On-site waste separation, reuse and
the C&D industry and economy.
recycling are all viable options for construction materials,
Barriers previously identified (Section Barriers for Reuse)
however they have limitations which may not be surmountable
which currently restrict the wide scale application of construction
in some instances. The main barrier to a circular economy
material reuse may be reduced by the creation of a resource
for the construction industry is the lack of clear resource
market. This resource market can provide specialized support
markets across the world. Only by recognising the value
with waste management to reduce the pressure on non-
of building materials both raw virgin, in-situ, and post
trained site operators; solve on-site logistics of waste separation
deconstruction/demolition as future resources can a supply
and reduce health and safety issues by externally managing
and demand for reclaimed materials be sustained. Quality
construction materials. In addition, a well-functioning resource
materials need to be guaranteed through the implementation
market could increase the value of waste materials through
of better waste management practices and diligence around
effective trading which incentivises the use of these materials
hazardous materials. This will foster the perception that
rather than relying on virgin raw materials.
reclaimed materials are valuable, and that current buildings
Such a market could be facilitated by a share centre or a
can be future resources. Quantification of the potential
large retail yard where reclaimed construction materials can be
benefits of a developed resource market will require extensive
bought and sold (Kibert et al., 2001; United States Environmental
economic modelling which could be used to inform future
Protection Agency USEPA, 2008). Online sharing platforms can
taxation regimes.
also facilitate resource sharing and further increase demands
for resources. Decentralised waste-sharing platforms could allow
for better recirculation of materials, a wider outreach and a DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
more secure resource market; however, these platforms would
still need to conform to some centralised regulation to ensure All datasets generated for this study are included in the
quality and safety of the materials (Pizarro, 2017). The resource article/supplementary material.

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | [Link] 5 July 2020 | Volume 2 | Article 35

Low et al. Circular Waste Economies for Construction

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

T-AB and SW designed the work. T-AB and JL wrote the paper. We would like to thank Civil Share, especially Regan Burke for
GH contributed to the industry examples. IC collected the raw sharing data and industry knowledge. Sincere thanks also to
data. T-AB, JL, SW, and GS contributed to the structure and
editing of the paper. All authors contributed to the article and Annette Day of Naylor Love Construction and Mark Roberts of
approved the submitted version. Auckland Council.

REFERENCES Green Gorilla Website. (2019). Processing Facility. Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]/processing-facility/ (accessed October 31, 2019).
Andrews, D. (2015). The circular economy, design thinking and education for Green Gorilla Youtube. (2016). Green Gorilla Waste Processing Facility. Retrieved
sustainability. Local Econ. 30, 305–315. doi: 10.1177/0269094215578226 from [Link]
Behnan, C., and Hinkley, J. A. (2014). Lansing gets $6M to fight blight. Lansing Guy, B., and McLendon, S. (2003). Building Deconstruction: Reuse and Recycling of
State J. Retrieved from: [Link] Building Materials. Retrieved from: [Link]
2014/12/16/lansingblight-~million/20479683/ %20House%20Building%[Link].
Blue Environment (2018). National waste report 2018. Prepared for Australian Ibrahim, M. I. M. (2016). Estimating the sustainability returns of recycling
Government – Department of the Environment and Energy. Retrieved construction waste from building projects. Sustain. Cities Soc. 23, 78–93.
from: [Link] doi: 10.1016/[Link].2016.03.005
31d0-429b-912c-91a6dbc83af7/files/[Link] Kibert, C. J., Chini, A., and Languell, J. (2001). “Deconstruction as an essential
Civil Share. (2019). Retrieved from: [Link] (accessed October 31, component of sustainable construction,” in Proceedings of the CIB World
2019). Building Congress, (Wellington, New Zealand), 1–11. Retrieved from: https://
Clark, P. (2003). Labour Agency Set to Import Workers From Romania. [Link]/daten/iconda/[Link]
Retrieved from: [Link] Krook, J., and Eklund, M. (2010). The strategic role of recycling centres for
import-workers-from-romania/[Link] (accessed November 14, environmental performance of waste management systems. Appl. Ergon. 41,
2019). 362–367. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2009.06.012
Coudert, L., Blais, J.-F., Mercier, G., Cooper, P., Gastonguay, L., Morris, P., et al. Kuehlen, A., Volk, R., Stengel, J., and Schultmann, F. (2014). “Deconstruction
(2013). Pilot-scale investigation of the robustness and efficiency of a copper- project planning considering local environmental impacts,” in Paper
based treated wood wastes recycling process. J. Hazard. Mater. 261, 277–285. presented at the meeting of the 2014 (5th) International Conference
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2013.07.035 on Engineering, Project, and Production Management (EPPM), (Port
Dainty, A. R. J., Ison, S. G., and Root, D. S. (2004). Bridging the Elizabeth, South Africa). Retrieved from: [Link]
skills gap: a regionally driven strategy for resolving the construction net/publication/272676149_Deconstruction_Project_Planning_Consideri
labour market crisis. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. Bradf. 11, 275–283. ng_Local_Environmental_Impacts doi: 10.32738/CEPPM.201411.0003
doi: 10.1108/09699980410547621 Luangcharoenrat, C., Intrachooto, S., Peansupap, V., and Sutthinarakorn,
Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (2019). UK Statistics on W. (2019). Factors influencing construction waste generation in
Waste. Retrieved from: [Link] building construction: thailand’s perspective. Sustainability 11, 1–17.
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/784263/UK_Statistics_on_ doi: 10.3390/su11133638
Waste_statistical_notice_March_2019_rev_FINAL.pdf Macozoma, D. S. (2001). Building deconstruction - international report. Prepared
Department of Environmental Affairs RSA (2018). South Africa State of Waste for International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and
Report. Retrieved from: [Link] Construction (CIB). Retrieved from: [Link]
Dubey, B., Townsend, T., and Solo-Gabriele, H. (2010). Metal loss from treated Pub278/[Link]
wood products in contact with municipal solid waste landfill leachate. J. McCarthy, A., Dellink, R., and Bibas, R. (2018). The Macroeconomics of the
Hazard. Mater. 175, 558–568. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2009.10.042 Circular Economy Transition: A Critical Review of Modelling Approaches,
Ellen MacArthur Foundation EMF. (2015). Towards a Circular Economy: Business OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 130. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Rationale for an Accelerated Transition. UK: Ellen MacArthur Foundation. doi: 10.1787/af983f9a-en
Retrieved from: [Link] McGrath, C., Fletcher, S. L., and Bowes, H. M. (2000). “Chapter 8 – UK
TCE_Ellen-MacArthur-Foundation_9-[Link] deconstruction report,” in Overview of Deconstruction in Selected Countries
Eurostat. (2019). Waste Statistics: Statistics Explained. Retrieved from: [Link] (Publication 252), eds. C. J. Kibert, and A. R. Chini (Florida, USA), 158–180.
[Link]/eurostat/statistics-explained/pdfscache/[Link] Retrieved from: [Link]
Falk, R. H. (1999). “The properties of lumber and timber recycled from McGrath-Champ, S., Rosewarne, S., and Rittau, Y. (2016). From one skill shortage
deconstructed buildings,” in Proceedings of the Pacific Timber Engineering to the next: the Australian construction industry and geographies of a global
Conference, Rotorua New Zealand, Vol. 2 ed, eds. G. B. Walford, D. J. Gaunt labour market. J. Ind. Relat. 53, 467–485. doi: 10.1177/0022185611412897
Forest Research Bulletin No. 212, 255-257. Retrieved from: [Link] Nakajima, S. (2014). “Barriers for deconstruction and reuse/recycling of
[Link]/documnts/pdf1999/[Link] construction materials in Japan,” in Barriers for Deconstruction and
Federal Ministry for the Environment Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. Reuse/Recycling of Construction Materials (Publication 397), ed. S. Nakajima
(2018). Waste Management in Germany 2018. Retrieved from: [Link] (Rotterdam, Netherlands), 53–73. Retrieved from: [Link]
[Link]/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Pools/Broschueren/abfallwirtschaft_2018_ file/d/11UEZw8xJwWAcjgIbKmIhWYmu5DuHNEuC/view.
en_bf.pdf Osmani, M., Glass, J., and Price, A. (2008). Architects’ perspectives on
Ghisellini, P., Ripa, M., and Ulgiati, S. (2018). Exploring environmental and construction waste reduction by design. Waste Manag. 28, 1147–1158.
economic costs and benefits of a circular economy approach to the construction doi: 10.1016/[Link].2007.05.011
and demolition sector. A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 178, 618–643. Osmani, M., and Villoria-Sáez, P. (2019). “Chapter 19 - current and emerging
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2017.11.207 construction waste management status, trends and approaches,” in Waste - A
Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction. (2018). 2018 Global Status Handbook for Management 2nd Edn, eds. T. M. Letcher, D. A. Vallero (London:
Report. Retrieved from: [Link] Academic Press), 365–380. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-815060-3.00019-0
11822/27140/Global_Status_2018.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on Peng, C.-L., Scorpio, D. E., and Kibert, C. J. (1997). Strategies for
November 11, 2019) successful construction and demolition waste recycling operations.

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | [Link] 6 July 2020 | Volume 2 | Article 35

Low et al. Circular Waste Economies for Construction

Construct. Manag. Econ. 15, 49–58. doi: 10.1080/0144619973 UN Environment, and International Energy Agency. (2017). Towards a Zero-
73105 Emission, Efficient, and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector Global
Pimenteira, C., Carpio, L., Rosa, L., and Tolmansquim, M. (2005). Solid wastes Status Report 2017. Retrieved from: [Link]
integrated management in Rio de Janeiro: input–output analysis. Waste Manag. files/UNEP188_GABC_en%28web%[Link] (accessed August 25, 2018).
25, 539–553. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2004.08.008 United States Environmental Protection Agency USEPA (2008). Lifecycle
Pizarro, I. O. (2017). Designing out waste - exploring barriers for material Construction Resource Guide. Retrieved from: [Link]
recirculation. (Ph.D. Thesis). Chalmers University of Technology. Retrieved org/docs/Lifecycle%20Construction%20Resource%[Link]
from: [Link] Wang, J., Yuan, H., Kang, X., and Lu, W. (2010). Critical success factors for on-
exploring_barriers_for_material_recirculation_phd_thesis_isabel_ordonez_ site sorting of construction waste: a China study. Resourc. Conserv. Recyc. 54,
[Link] 931–936. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2010.01.012
Poon, C., Yu, A. T., and Ng, L. (2001). On-site sorting of construction and World Economic Forum WEF. (2016). Shaping the Future of Construction:
demolition waste in Hong Kong. Resourc. Conserv. Recycl. 32, 157–172. A Breakthrough in Mindset and Technology. Retrieved from: [Link]
doi: 10.1016/S0921-3449(01)00052-0 [Link]/reports/shaping-the-future-of-construction-a-breakthrough-
Poon, C., Yu, A. T., and Ng, L. (2003). Comparison of low-waste building in-mindset-and-technology. (accessed on November 11, 2019).
technologies adopted in public and private housing projects in Hong Kong. World Steel Association WSA. (2015). World Steel in Figures 2015. Retrieved
Eng. Construct. Archit. Manag. 10, 88–98. doi: 10.1108/09699980310466578 from: [Link]
Rios, F. C., Chong, W. K., and Grau, D. (2015). Design for disassembly and f78d0c5933e4/WSIF_2015_vfinal.pdf (accessed on November 11, 2019).
deconstruction - challenges and opportunities. Proc. Eng. 118, 1296–1304. Yankov, L., and Kleiner, B. H. (2001). Human resource issues in the construction
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2015.08.485 industry. Manag. Res. News 24, 101–105. doi: 10.1108/01409170110782711
Roussat, N., Méhu, J., Abdelghafour, M., and Brula, P. (2008). Leaching Yonetani, H. (2018). Construction and Demolition Waste Management in Japan.
behaviour of hazardous demolition waste. Waste Manag. 28, 2032–2040. Retrieved from: [Link]
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2007.10.019 %20Roundtable(2)-Presentation(4)-Hideko%[Link]
Shen, L., Wu, Y., Chan, E., and Hao, J. (2005). Application of system dynamics Yuan, H., and Shen, L. (2011). Trend of the research on construction
for assessment of sustainable performance of construction projects. J. Zhejiang and demolition waste management. Waste Manag. 31, 670–679.
Univ. Sci. 6A, 339–349. doi: 10.1631/jzus.2005.A0339 doi: 10.1016/[Link].2010.510.030
Sustainable Business Network website. (2019). Green Gorilla. Retrieved
from: [Link] Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
(accessed October 31, 2019). absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
Tam, V. W.-Y., and Lu, W. (2016). Construction waste management profiles, potential conflict of interest.
practices, and performance: a cross-jurisdictional analysis in four countries.
Sustainability 8:190. doi: 10.3390/su8020190 Copyright © 2020 Low, Wallis, Hernandez, Cerqueira, Steinhorn and Berry. This
Thomsen, A., Schultmann, F., and Kohler, N. (2011). Deconstruction, is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
demolition and destruction. Build. Res. Inform. 39, 327–332. Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums
doi: 10.1080/09613218.2011.585785 is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited
Tingley, D. D., and Davison, B. (2011). Design for deconstruction and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted
and material reuse. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. Energy 164, 195–204. academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not
doi: 10.1680/ener.2011.164.4.195 comply with these terms.

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | [Link] 7 July 2020 | Volume 2 | Article 35