Abstract
Purpose
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is increasingly being applied to construction and demolition waste (CDW) recycling. But what is the current state of LCA studies on CDW recycling? In the context of circular economy, several aspects become important in LCA, such as avoided impacts and consideration of the quality of recycled materials. The aim of this study is to identify inconsistencies and best practices, and then provide recommendations for future LCA studies focusing on CDW recycling.
Methods
We conducted a systematic literature review on 76 journal articles. First, a general mapping of the selected studies was performed including the temporal and geographical distribution, and a bibliometric analysis to capture the linkages between the studies. Within the LCA content-based analysis, an in-depth assessment of three important quality aspects: (1) quality of the study based on the applied LCA methodology, (2) inclusion of material quality in LCA, and (3) data quality considering sensitivity and uncertainty analyses, was carried out. Major LCA components such as functional unit (FU), software, database, system approach (attributional or consequential), allocation method, life cycle impact assessment, and interpretation were evaluated. A special emphasis was placed on avoided impacts and the inclusion of recycled material quality in the LCA.
Results and discussion
In this review, it was found that many essential elements of LCA were missing or not implemented correctly. For example, in the definition of FU, some studies did not mention any FU, others defined an invalid FU, and most of the studies defined a uniform FU, which was most likely confused with the reference flow. The main problem observed is the lack of transparent reporting on the different elements of LCA. Regarding avoided impacts, for instance, only 13 studies reported the avoided materials and their substitution coefficients. Also, 6 studies used the term “virgin material” for avoided impacts without further information, which is a very broad term and difficult to interpret. Furthermore, only 12 studies included the quality of recycled material in the LCA.
Conclusion
To obtain reliable LCA results, the practitioners should follow the principal LCA methodology and peer-reviewers should ensure the proper implementation. In CDW recycling, the differentiation between downcycling and recycling is essential; therefore, the quality of recycled materials should be included in the LCA. Considering inconsistent implementation of avoided impacts, a standardized and well-defined avoided impact framework is suggested to be developed to improve the quality and reliability of future LCA studies.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The construction industry is a leading industry in the world considering both its role in economic development, and the environmental impact caused by it. In 2018, 35.9 wt% of the total waste produced in Europe was generated by the construction industry, turning it into the largest contributor to waste production (Eurostat 2021). On the one hand, a large amount of consumed resources and waste generated by the construction industry causes environmental stress; however, on the other hand, it has great potential in the context of the European circular economy (CE). The role of the construction industry within the CE was highlighted in the European Waste Framework (Directive 2008/98/EC) in 2018. This framework introduced a target of 70% as a recovery quote for the construction and demolition waste (CDW) by 2020 for the European member states. Most of these countries have already achieved the target; for instance, in Germany, the CDW recovery rate was 88% in 2019 (Destatis 2021). Although Germany’s CDW recovery rate is relatively high, 75% of recovered CDW is labeled as downcycled, which means that the recycled products end up with lower quality compared with the original products (Volk et al. 2020). In CDW recycling, downcycling is a growing problem that requires awareness, both through technical development for a greater quantity of high-quality recycled aggregates (RAs) production and through quality standards that need to be set through policy instruments.
The differentiation between downcycling and recycling and the importance of achieving high-quality recycled materials have been emphasized within the CE, which has gained increasing attention over the past years by academia, politics, and industries. CE itself has various definitions, for instance, Kirchherr et al. (2017) defined CE as “an economic system that replaces the “end-of-life” concept with reducing, alternatively reusing, recycling, and recovering materials in production/distribution and consumption processes. It operates at the micro, meso, and macro level, with the aim to accomplish sustainable development, thus simultaneously creating environmental quality, economic prosperity, and social equity, to the benefit of current and future generations” (p. 229). On the one hand, CE includes the circularity of materials, components, and products, and on the other hand, CE may also include effects on the economy, environment, and society. Assessing these different aspects within CE is complex (Moraga et al. 2019). Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a widely used tool for quantifying environmental impacts and is recommended to be included in CE assessment (Pomponi and Moncaster 2017; Scheepens et al. 2016; van Stijn et al. 2021). Even though LCA has a standardized framework by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 14040 2006; ISO 14044 2006), it lacks sufficient guidance when it comes to the allocation approach (Majeau-Bettez et al. 2018; Sandin et al. 2014; Schaubroeck et al. 2021; Schrijvers et al. 2016). Within CE, especially in recycling systems, the applied allocation approach can greatly affect the results. In addition, closed-loop and open-loop recycling play a crucial role within the CE context, and not taking this distinction into account in LCA can lead to a deterioration of the recycled material pool (Di Maria et al. 2018; Glogic et al. 2021; Koffler and Florin 2013). Similar to many other fields, LCA has been used in the CDW field by many researchers (Borghi et al. 2018; Butera et al. 2015; Guignot et al. 2015). Additionally, several literature reviews have focused on the LCA in the construction industry. For instance, Zhang et al. (2019a) reviewed LCA studies on recycled aggregate concrete (RAC), covering the effect of the mixture design method, functional unit, allocation, and type and distance of transportation. Wu et al. (2014) also reviewed articles on LCA in concrete, mainly focusing on its use and its end-of-life (EOL) phases. Ghisellini et al. (2018) assessed the economic and environmental costs and benefits of the CE in the construction and demolition sector. Similarly, Lopez Ruiz et al. (2020) reviewed the CE applications in the CDW sector. A scientometric systematic review on LCA applications in CDW was conducted by Chen et al. (2021a), undertaking a science mapping including keyword coherence analysis and a general overview on LCA applications. Bovea and Powell (2016) conducted a detailed review of the applied LCA framework for CDW management, mainly assessing the four steps of LCA. Finally, Mesa et al. (2021) performed a systematic review on LCA studies focusing on CDW and categorized the studies covering their aim, methodology, and impact categories. Although some reviews have focused on CDW management and LCA, a detailed overview of whether and how recycled product quality is included in LCA is lacking. This is a highly important issue considering the role of LCA within CE. At the same time, it is important to address the quality of the LCA study itself through compliance with ISO 14040/44 (2006). To tackle the quality issue in LCA studies focusing on CDW recycling, we performed a comprehensive and critical review on peer-reviewed journal articles. First, a general mapping of LCA studies on CDW recycling was performed including the temporal and geographical distribution and bibliometric analysis. Second, a content-based analysis was performed focusing on three main quality aspects, (1) quality of the study: based on applied LCA methodology by identifying the essential components of LCA, (2) material/product quality: how the quality of input waste or end products were included in the LCA, and (3) data quality: transparent reporting of primary data and whether sensitivity and uncertainty analyses were performed. The overreaching aim of this study is to identify the problematic areas in LCA methodology and reveal the best practices to provide recommendations for future studies.
1.1 Research focus
In this review, we focused on two main areas:
Scientometric analysis: a general mapping to get an overview on:
-
The temporal and geographical distribution of the selected articles.
-
Bibliometric analysis including the article citation, keyword co-occurrence, and journal occurrence. The article citation analysis provides information on the links between the articles and their citation number. Keywords and journal occurrence analyses give an overview of the most frequently selected keywords and the main journals in which the studies were published.
LCA content-based analysis: The compliance of the LCA studies with ISO 14040/44 (2006) was assessed. The most relevant components of the LCA methodology were selected for in-depth analysis. The following research questions were aimed to be answered:
RQ1. Which functional units (FUs) were used in LCA studies? What are the main problems with the selected FU in the reviewed studies?
RQ2. Whether the input CDW and output (mainly RAs) quality was mentioned and considered? And if so, how and to what extend was the quality aspect included in the LCA?
RQ3. Which system approach was used, attributional vs. consequential, not only from an EOL perspective but also the selected databases for modeling background processes?
RQ4. Whether and to what extent the avoided impacts were included in the LCA, and how do they affect the results?
RQ5. Whether sensitivity and uncertainty analyses were conducted, and which aspects were included in the analyses.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: in Sect. 2, the review methodology is described; in Sect. 3, the results are presented and discussed; and in Sect. 4, we draw a conclusion and provide some recommendations for future studies.
2 Methods
A systematic literature review (SLR) is a comprehensive, reproducible, and rigorous method (Minunno et al. 2021; Siddaway et al. 2019), that provides reliable findings on specific research questions through assessing all relevant available literature (Snyder 2019). In this study, we followed the PRISMA statement (Page et al. 2021), and the search strategy is explained in Sect. 2.1.
2.1 Search strategy and selection process
We performed the SLR in four main steps: identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusions. A detailed explanation of each step is given in the following section (summarized in Fig. 1).
Identification: Following the aim and scope of the study, the search strings were determined based on three main topics: LCA, CDW, and recycling. Because using CDW as a keyword could cause exclusion of relevant literature, it was decided to use “construction” and “construction and demolition” keywords instead. Three databases, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct, were selected and the keywords used for each database are given in Table 1. The search was performed in November 2021, and only literature written in English was included. After removing duplicates, a total of n = 1041 articles were included in the screening process.
Screening: Screening was performed in two steps: title and abstract, following the exclusion criteria as shown in Fig. 1.
Eligibility: The last screening was done based on the full-text of the articles (n = 128), and the studies that are not an LCA, out of scope, and not assessing recycling process were excluded. In the full-text screening, the selected articles were limited to peer-review articles. This criteria had not been set before; however, after the full-text screening, it was seen that similar content was used for conference proceedings or book chapters or journal articles by the same author. In order to prevent double counting, it was decided to include only peer-reviewed journal articles. After the eligibility assessment, a total of 77 articles were included for further assessment. In the last step, 4 articles written by Coelho and Brito (2013a, b, c, d) were combined as one study, because these studies assess the same CDW recycling plant from LCA and LCC aspects which were published in four papers. In addition, 2 articles were included through snowballing, as described in detail by Kroell et al. (2022). At the end, 76 articles were selected for in-depth analysis.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Scientometric analysis
Figure 2 presents the geographic and temporal distribution of selected articles. The majority of selected articles were published in 2018 (n = 13) and 2020 (n = 17). Italy and China had the highest number of articles (n = 11), followed by Spain (n = 8).
A bibliometric analysis was performed using VOSviewer, which is a software tool for creating bibliometric networks with various visualization options based on different parameters such as bibliographic linkage, co-citation, or co-authorship relations (van Eck and Waltman 2010). In this review, VOSviewer was used to visualize and analyze the selected articles in a bibliometric form in three levels: article co-citation, keyword co-occurrence, and journal occurrence. An article-level co-citation analysis was selected to assess the citation number of selected articles and identify the links between them. We chose a co-citation analysis to determine whether the results of the selected studies are recognized by each other and to represent their degree of relatedness. The co-citation analysis is shown in Fig. 3, in which the size of the nodes corresponds to the number of citations, the distance between nodes corresponds to the tendency for studies to be jointly cited by other studies, and the lines correspond to the presence of a citation in both directions. Based on the co-citation analysis, Marinković et al. (2010) have the highest number of links (n = 45) followed by Blengini and Garbarino (2010), Hossain et al. (2016), and Knoeri et al. (2013).
Similarly, a keyword co-occurrence analysis was performed applying author keywords option in VOSviewer, in which only the keywords that are mentioned at least 3 times were included. “Life cycle assessment” is the most mentioned keyword, in total 58 times including different variations (“life cycle assessment (LCA),” “LCA”), followed by “construction and demolition waste” and “CDW” (n = 27). Lastly, the journal overview was assessed. The majority of the selected articles (n = 22) were published by the Journal of Cleaner Production, and it is followed by the Journal of Waste Management and the Journal of Resources Conservation and Recycling. The keyword and journal occurrence analyses are presented in the Appendix (Fig. 10).
3.2 LCA content-based analysis
In this section, we selected the most relevant components of the LCA methodology, rather than analyzing all LCA steps. By doing so, we were able to examine and discuss each aspect in more detail. The LCA components that we focused on were selected based on their importance in LCA, their relevance within the CE concept, and the critical points that we observed in the reviewed literature. In the following section, the results for each selected LCA component: FU, CDW input composition and end product quality, data source, software and database, system approach, allocation method, life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) method, and sensitivity and uncertainty analyses, are presented in detail. The results are generally presented in an aggregated way, and only in the discussion of an argument, relevant study results are commented individually.
In addition to environmental impact assessment, economic and social aspects were also evaluated in some studies, as shown in Appendix Table 5, 21% of the reviewed studies included cost impact in addition to LCA. Only one study (Iodice et al. 2021) applied life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) including all three aspects: environmental, economic, and social. This overview highlights especially the need for further research on the social aspect.
3.2.1 Functional unit
FU is defined as “quantified performance of a product system for use as a reference unit” according to ISO 14040/44 (2006) and should be set to align with the goal and scope of the study. The selection of the FU is critical because it provides the basis for quantifying all inputs and outputs, enables appropriate interpretation of results, and allows comparison of LCA results based on equivalent functional performance of different processes, products, or systems (Panesar et al. 2017). Within the reviewed studies, except for 5 articles, the FU was reported. A summary of defined FUs in selected articles is presented in Fig. 4; in general, 3 different focus groups were identified: CDW or aggregate, concrete, and building. In two articles, a non-relevant definition of FU was observed. For instance, Estanqueiro et al. (2018) mentioned that FU was not defined due to the quality issue which is stated as “coarse natural and recycled aggregates may not present the same performance over their life cycle (p.5)”; however, the results were compared per ton of aggregate. The reasoning is not relevant as the aim of FU is to enable the comparison. Another malpractice example was observed in Gan et al. (2016), in which the authors set the FU as “1 kg atmospheric emissions per 1 kg for natural aggregate (NA) and RA (p.77)”, which is an inaccurate description.
Studies that focus on CDW recycling or aggregate production had either defined the FU as mass of CDW handled, input-based (mainly as 1 ton of CDW handled), or as mass of RA produced, output based (mainly as 1 ton of RA produced). Since there is usually more than one end product group in CDW recycling, one way to avoid misunderstanding is to include both the input CDW and end products in the FU, as applied by Di Maria et al. (2018), Zhang et al. (2018), Zhang et al. (2019b), Paula Junior et al. (2021), and Vossberg et al. (2014). This is a useful approach to increase the transparency and comparability of the studies. In addition, including the CDW composition and specification in the FU is relevant as the CDW input quality has a big impact on the recycling efficiency and end product overview. Similarly, when an output-based FU is set, RA quality and application area should be stated. As presented in Fig. 4, majority of studies defined a unitary FU, where waste or product compositions were not included.
For the articles focusing on concrete, where mainly a comparative LCA between natural aggregate concrete (NAC) and RAC is conducted, compressive strength (MPa) or the specific weight of concrete was mentioned in the FU, except for 8 studies. A different approach for defining the FU for RAC vs. NAC comparison was applied by Mistri et al. (2021), where first the environmental impacts were calculated per m3 of concrete, but then, the results were divided by the corresponding compressive strength. FU selection in the comparison of RAC and NAC was also pointed out by Zhang et al. (2019a), and the authors concluded that using the volume of concrete as FU can lead to inaccuracy as the compressive strength of concrete is observed to be decreased with the increased RA input. The authors concluded that combining volume and strength while setting the FU is a convenient approach, but also added that benchmark methods to define FU aiming to avoid the differences of LCA studies and increase the comparability of studies is urgently needed (Zhang et al. 2019a).
Agrela et al. (2021) and Lachat et al. (2021) set two different FUs with two different system boundaries to assess (1) the impact of RA produced though the recycling process and (2) the impact of end products, in this case, road pavement production using RA. This is a convenient and helpful approach especially when the focus of the study is on RAC. In the review, it was observed that the majority of literature evaluating the environmental impacts of RAC does not provide detailed information on the recycling process or on the attribution of environmental impacts to RA which is used in concrete production. In order to increase transparency, including two levels of FU, where impacts per RA production will also be reported separately, was found to be helpful. Marinković et al. (2017) followed a different approach, where again the main focus was on concrete, and performed a sensitivity analysis on selected FU. A comparison was done with FUs of 1 m3 concrete mixes with a specific strength and 1 m3 of concrete mixes including strength, serviceability, and durability. The authors concluded that including the serviceability and durability did not change the results.
The main issue observed within the reviewed papers in terms of FU is the misunderstanding and most probably confusion of FU with reference flow. Reference flow is defined as “measure of the outputs from processes in a given product system required to fulfill the function expressed by the FU” by ISO 14044 (2006). FU is the quantified performance of the system, which should include relevant information to enable comparability. Thus, it is essential to include important information on the assessed system, such as CDW composition and the end products including their quality and possible application areas. A review done by Laurent et al. (2014) on LCA studies on solid waste management systems highlighted the same issue, where the waste composition was left out in the FU, and FU was mostly confused with reference flow. Through this review, we observed a similar issue, and especially for LCA studies focusing on CDW recycling, not only the input waste composition but also the end product overview is essential to enable comparison and correct interpretation of results by preventing possible misunderstandings.
3.2.2 CDW input composition and end product quality aspect
CDW input composition
CDW input quality has a big impact on recycling efficiency. For instance, if the CDW is selectively demolished, compared to a mixed CDW, a lower energy demand will be observed to achieve similar end products. In addition, not only selective or non-selective demolition, but also detailed waste composition is important (Hyvärinen et al. 2020; Müller and Martins 2022; Vegas et al. 2015). According to reviewed articles, it is seen that 50% of the studies did not give any information on the composition of the input CDW. Only 16% of the studies included detailed information with percent division of different material and waste groups. The remaining studies indicated the type of demolition or whether the waste is mixed, brick, or concrete based (see Fig. 5).
As previously touched on Sect. 3.2.1. “Functional unit,” Agrela et al. (2021) compared the different quality of RAs coming from selectively and non-selectively demolished waste without including the demolition process itself. Similarly, Ben Fraj and Idir (2017) compared RAC produced by 3 different RA qualities, one sourced by mixed CDW and the others sorted CDW, but again the demolition process was not included. Selective demolition requires higher energy consumption compared to non-selective demolition (Coelho and Brito 2013c; Iodice et al. 2021; Pantini and Rigamonti 2020); thus, comparing selective and non-selective demolishing, the demolition process itself should be included in the system boundaries. When it comes to comparing two different recycling systems, it is important to include the CDW input quality in the FU to prevent misinterpretation of the results.
RA quality
In CDW recycling, based on the input waste composition and applied recycling technology, a different quality of recycled products that are suitable for different application areas will be produced (Müller and Martins 2022). Overall, two main categories were observed: fine and coarse RA, where coarse RA is considered as high quality and can be used in concrete production; whereas fine RA is a low-quality aggregate to be used in road construction and as a filling material (Di Maria et al. 2018; Estanqueiro et al. 2018; Fořt and Černý 2020; Jain et al. 2020; Marinković et al. 2010; Pavlu et al. 2019; Tošić et al. 2015; Yazdanbakhsh et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2019a, b). Within the selected articles, 30 articles mentioned the different quality of RA as end products through recycling, but only 12 of them included the quality aspect in the LCA (see Fig. 5). For instance, Agrela et al. (2021) mentioned four different quality levels of mixed RA, but for all four of them, the same NA impact was avoided as replaced material, which is contradictory. Similarly, Coelho and Brito (2013c) mentioned fine and coarse RA as end products, but again the same type and amount of NA was considered as avoided impacts. Likewise, Jiménez et al. (2015) stated coarse and fine RAs with different qualities, but in the LCA, mass allocation based on the same economic value was applied.
Articles focusing on concrete mainly included the quality of RAC and NAC in the LCA, through the concrete strength; however, only Colangelo et al. (2018) and Jain et al. (2020) made a distinction between fine and coarse aggregates. In total 15 articles did not touch on the quality of RA, and only 3 articles mentioned the RA quality and application area, but no information on the end product overview (e.g., fraction of different RAs) and the allocation of environmental impacts for RA was included. The main quality inclusion was done through the avoided NA that was replaced by RA. For instance, for a low-quality RA (or fine RA to be used in road construction or filling), sand or fine NA was considered as replaced material; on the contrary for high-quality RA (or coarse RA), gravel or coarse NA was taken as the avoided product (Colangelo et al. 2018; Di Maria et al. 2018; Faleschini et al. 2016; Guignot et al. 2015; Hossain et al. 2016; Jain et al. 2020; Pantini and Rigamonti 2020; Rosado et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2019b). Blengini and Garbarino (2010) included economic allocation for three quality levels of RA, and for the avoided aggregates, again, three different quality levels of NA were considered. Borghi et al. (2018) followed a more comprehensive approach and included both the quality and the market demand for RAs, following the method introduced by Rigamonti et al. (2013). The same method was also used by Iodice et al. (2021), following the example of Borghi et al. (2018). This approach is relevant within life cycle thinking, especially with regard to the distinction between downcycling and recycling.
3.2.3 Data source, software, and database
SimaPro is the main software that was used for the LCA modeling, followed by GaBi, openLCA, and EASETECH. Twenty-four articles did not mention the software that was used, as shown in Fig. 6. More than 72% of the articles used the ecoinvent database for the background data. However, only 11 articles explicitly stated the ecoinvent database type, within them, 4 articles modeled with APOS and 7 articles with a cut-off system approach.
Based on the results, it is seen that 18% of the articles did not indicate the used database, which is essential for the transparency and traceability of the LCA study. As LCA is a data-intensive methodology, LCA practitioners generally collect primary data on selected activities, and generic data are mainly taken from life cycle inventory (LCI) databases (Steubing et al. 2016). As the generic data, or in other words background data, forms a big part of the LCA model, in addition to other parameters, the database selected should be reported transparently to enable reliable interpretation and possible comparison of LCA results. Pauer et al. (2020) studied the use of different databases, such as ecoinvent and GaBi, with different software combinations. The authors highlighted that different database-software combinations give different LCA results, except for global warming potential (GWP) impact and noted that the meaningful interpretation of results requires excellent knowledge on the studied system, database, and life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methodology (Pauer et al. 2020). Not only the database (e.g., ecoinvent), but rather the system model followed by the selected database is essential (APOS, cut-off, or consequential). Saade et al. (2019) emphasized the importance of consistent model choices with the ecoinvent database.
Even though within LCA practitioners, the importance of databases for modeling background processes are beyond argument; still, it is seen that a big portion of LCA studies that we reviewed within this study did not mention the database and software used, 18% and 32% respectively (see Fig. 6). Transparent reporting is essential in LCA, where database and software used for modeling is a part of it, as these two parameters play a big role in the LCA model.
Majority of studies combined the site-specific data with databases and literature values. For the primary data, a lack of transparency and completeness is observed to be the main problem. For instance, not specifying the unit of electricity/diesel demand for the CDW recycling process was observed to be a common issue, which hinders to interpretation of the data, as it is not clear if it is input- or output-based. Similarly, the output overview and percent composition of different product groups, including by-products and waste produced, were missing. Transparent and complete primary data documentation is important and is observed to be lacking. An overview on the primary data that was available in the reviewed articles are presented in the Appendix (Table 6).
3.2.4 System approach (attributional and consequential)
Within the LCA, attributional LCA (ALCA) and consequential LCA (CLCA) are the two main methods that can be used. ALCA approach estimates the share of the global environmental burdens caused by a product, process, or system. On the contrary, CLCA evaluates the environmental consequences of a decision, looking from a wider perspective. Even though the ALCA approach is followed by the majority of LCA practitioners, the attention on the consequential approach has been increasing. At the same time, there is an ongoing discussion within the LCA community on when to use ALCA and CLCA, and the advantages and disadvantages of these two methods. These two approaches differ not only when it comes to allocation issue, but also the background database used (Bamber et al. 2020; Schaubroeck et al. 2021).
Only 13 articles explicitly mentioned the LCA approach that was applied in the article. Four articles (Butera et al. 2015; Hossain et al. 2016; Iodice et al. 2021; Turk et al. 2015) mentioned that the CLCA approach was followed, and 9 articles (Di Maria et al. 2018; Jain et al. 2020; Lockrey et al. 2018; Marinković et al. 2017; Martinez-Arguelles et al. 2019; Rosado et al. 2017; Rosado et al. 2019; Vega et al. 2020; Vitale et al. 2017) stated that the ALCA approach was applied. Sixty-three studies did not mention the applied LCA approach explicitly. Within these 63 studies, 7 of them specified the ecoinvent database type (APOS or cut-off) allowing to identify the system approach. However, for 56 studies, it was not possible to get any information on the system approach. A summary on the system approach and allocation method is shown in Fig. 7.
It is seen that attributional and consequential modeling definition is not clear within the LCA practitioners. For instance, Turk et al. (2015) stated the LCA approach as CLCA, due to the system expansion model being applied. However, the system expansion approach can also be used in ALCA, as a way to prevent allocation problem, as used by Di Maria et al. (2018). This issue has been highlighted by Schaubroeck et al. (2021), who mentioned that the system expansion approach can be used both for ALCA and CLCA. Within the LCA approach topic, not only the impact allocation of end products, but also the database that is used in background systems is essential. None of the articles specifically mentioned the type of the ecoinvent database used for the consequential LCA, which can have a big impact on the result, as the background data creates the base of the CDW recycling model (electricity and diesel). This issue was also pointed out by Weidema (2017), where an error estimation on CLCA studies that were modeled using attributional background databases was presented, and the author concluded that, in average, for 401 impact categories assessed, 67% of the results have more than 10% difference, 22% of the results have more than 100% difference, and 16% of the results have more than 200% difference. The author emphasized the importance of using consequential background data for CLCA studies (Weidema 2017).
3.2.5 Allocation method
As CDW recycling has multiple end products and possible coproducts, the allocation and partitioning of environmental burdens between these products become a challenge. The allocation issue is also highlighted by ISO 14040/44 (2006) and stated that whenever possible, allocation should be avoided by (1) dividing the unit process to be allocated into two or more sub-processes and collecting the input and output data related to these sub-processes, or (2) expanding the product system to include the additional functions related to the co-products, taking into account the requirements of the system boundary.
In this review, the articles were categorized into two main allocation methods followed: system expansion and substitution. We referred system expansion as expanding the system boundaries to include additional product systems to make two systems comparable. On the other hand, substitution was used as crediting for avoided impacts. Within the reviewed articles, 4 studies (Di Maria et al. 2018; Ding et al. 2016; Mah et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2019b) followed the system expansion approach, where mainly the end products of compared systems were balanced through expanding to include NAs that were assumed to have the same quality as RAs. Majority of articles, 54%, applied the substitution approach, by including the avoided impact as environmental benefits in the system boundaries. As it was the most common approach, a detailed overview on the avoided impacts is presented in the following section.
Substitution (avoided impacts)
Substitution is a widely used approach when it comes to assessing recycling systems. Based on the reviewed articles, no consistency on the avoided impact approaches in CDW recycling was observed. A detailed overview on avoided impacts including the substitution ratio, replaced material information, RA quality, and its inclusion in the LCA is presented in Table 2 (for the studies focusing on building and CDW recycling-RA production) and Table 3 (for the studies focusing on concrete). Furthermore, the main outcomes based on GWP are also summarized in a way comparing the recycling option to the conventional one including % reduction on GWP, which is shown as delta (∆), for the studies where the delta ∆ was possible to be calculated as given in the Eq. (1).
It is worth noting that ∆ (%) values are included to have a better overview and not aiming to make a one-to-one comparison of the studies. As LCA includes various parameters and assumptions, a one-to-one comparison of ∆ values can be misleading; thus, the values in Tables 2 and 3 requires careful interpretation. To ease the interpretation, the papers are presented for each focus group: building, CWD recycling—RA production, and concrete—road construction, based on the set FUs.
We observed that the avoided materials and substitution ratios differ from study to study. In addition, transparent reporting of the avoided materials and substitution rates is lacking, as only 13 studies reported the replaced materials and substitution coefficients. For example, virgin materials as avoided impacts were used 6 times without any further specification, which is a broad term and does not specify which materials are considered in the avoided impacts. From the results, it can be concluded that the studies that reported increased environmental impact (in this case GWP) compared to the conventional option generally did not include any avoided impacts. Some exceptions are reported in Table 2, such as Ghanbari et al. (2017), in which authors reported a great reduction in RA impacts compared to NA, but in this case, transport of CDW was not included and no information on by-products, which could end up in landfill, was given. When it comes to the different material groups, in the CDW recycling or RA production, very different approaches were observed. Some studies only included landfill as avoided impact, others all different material groups, and some authors included only NA. Rosado et al. (2019) highlighted the avoided steel impact as a crucial point for the avoided impacts of the CDW management system and mentioned that steel avoidance causes 77% of GWP impact reduction. A similar statement was also done by Pantini and Rigamonti (2020), where the authors compared selective and non-selective demolition and found out that 83% of material recovery can be achieved through steel recycling. In addition, Vitale et al. (2017) highlighted that even though steel only accounts for 3% of the total CDW mass, it provides the largest contributions to avoided impacts with an 89% reduction in GWP. Another issue that was observed through this review regarding steel is the type of replaced steel and the replacement ratio. Vitale et al. (2017) also remarked on the importance of the type of steel as avoided impact and compared three different avoided steel types: a mix of primary and secondary steel, only secondary steel, and only primary steel. The results showed that using only secondary steel as avoided impact causes environmental impacts rather than benefits, contrary to considering only primary steel where environmental benefits are huge.
The biggest difference in the results was observed for the articles focusing on concrete. It was observed that the studies that did not include any avoided impacts for RAC generally end up with a higher GWP compared to NAC (Ben Fraj and Idir 2017; Marinković et al. 2010; Martinez-Lage et al. 2020; Mistri et al. 2021). As the focus is on concrete, most of the studies did not mention RA production in detail (such as byproducts and allocation). In addition, 40% of the studies reported extra cement input for RAC compared to NAC, remaining 60% did not consider an increased cement input for RAC. As cement production is the main contributor to the environmental impacts in concrete production, the inclusion of extra cement can have a big impact on the results. This issue was also mentioned by Visintin et al. (2020), where the authors concluded that for a concrete strength capacity over 45 MPa, RAC causes higher impacts due to the increased cement requirement compared to NAC.
Another important topic is RA quality, as through recycling different qualities of RA with different application areas are produced. Even though, 67% of the studies mentioned different RA qualities, either as quality levels or different particle sizes and application areas, only 12 studies included the RA quality aspect in the LCA, by two ways:
-
1.
Considering different NA qualities that correspond to different qualities of RA produced in the avoided impacts or system expansion approach.
-
2.
Replacement coefficient introduced by Rigamonti et al. (2013) based on Eq. (2).
$$R = Q_1 * Q_2 * M$$(2)where Q1 coefficient considers the purity of RA, where clean composition will have a value of 1, and if impurities such as soil, wood, plastics exist, then the value will be less than 1. Q2 coefficient considers the technical characteristics of RAs compared to the placed material considering the application areas. If the same application is possible then, a value of 1 will be given. M refers to the market coefficient, which is defined as the ratio between the amount of sold and produced RAs, M = 1 indicates that the produced RAs are totally sold.
We found the replacement coefficient introduced by Rigamonti et al. (2013) as a relevant and comprehensive approach, in which both the quality and market demand are considered. However, as the data collection can be challenging, and the data sources, whether the data is based on assumptions, industry data, or literature value, should be clearly stated and included in the sensitivity analysis. In addition, further research on differentiation of two quality coefficients based on purity and technical characteristics, should be further investigated to clarify whether any overlapping occurs, which can lead double counting.
Concerning LCA for the building sector, EN 15804 (CEN 2021) is relevant for the product level and EN 15978 (CEN 2011) for the building level. Both standards include life cycle phases from Module A to C (production to EOL) and additionally Module D. Modules A–C follow the cut-off approach (100:0), and Module D considers the potential benefits of reusable or recycled products and should be reported separately. Within the studies reviewed, only two studies (Kurda et al. 2018; Serres et al. 2016) addressed EN 15804; however, none of these studies mentioned Module D or considered avoided impacts. The consideration of Module D in EN 15804/15978 is important in the CE context, and the quality of recycled material is included in the Module D calculation. However, Module D calculation is criticized for not properly distinguishing between open-loop and closed-loop recycling, which is an issue that requires further improvement (van Gulck et al. 2022).
Inadequate description of substitution modeling in waste management systems was also highlighted by Vadenbo et al. (2017), where the authors stated that modeling of avoided primary materials often suffers from being performed in an unsystematic and nontransparent manner. A framework that reflects different situations by introducing a flexible approach, where displacement rates based on either technical or economic information, was suggested. However, the authors also recommended future studies to undertake the link between technical functionality and product displacement in market-based approaches (Vadenbo et al. 2017).
3.2.6 Life cycle impact assessment method
LCIA is the third stage of LCA, according to ISO 14044 (2006), where elementary flows from LCI will be transposed to the impact categories and the potential contribution of each elementary flow is addressed to the environmental impacts. There are various LCIA methods available, and within each method different LCIA categories exist.
18% of the studies did not indicate the LCIA method that was selected. Majority of studies used the CML method followed by IMPACT 2002 + and CED (see Fig. 8). In terms of mid- and endpoint impact methods, midpoint LCIA methods applied in 72% of the studies followed by both mid- and endpoint methods. Within the midpoint assessment, it is seen that 14% of the studies included only one impact category, mainly as GWP, except for one paper where CED was used. Similarly, the number of studies focusing only on two impact categories is also relatively high, 13%. As different impact categories can give different results, it is important to comment on different impact categories and critically interpret the results. A study done by Chen et al. (2021b) highlighted the importance of LCIA method selection and drew attention to the uncertainties that can occur due to the impact method, which are often ignored by LCA practitioners. The LCA practitioners should be aware of the potential uncertainties of the impact method, be able to justify the selection of the impact categories, and interpret the results critically.
3.2.7 Sensitivity and uncertainty analyses
Data quality analysis is included within ISO 14044 (2006) to better understand the significance, uncertainty, and sensitivity of the LCIA results. In addition, in ISO 14044 (2006), it is stated that uncertainty and data quality analysis should supplement results for completeness, sensitivity, and consistency check of the study.
Through this review, we identified that only 9% of the selected articles assessed the uncertainty of the LCA study, mainly through Monte Carlo simulation and fuzzy sets (see Fig. 9). Majority of articles conducted a scenario analysis, which is mainly a one-factor-at-a-time method to evaluate the robustness of results and spot the most sensitive parameters that could affect the results. Within the reviewed studies, the main scenario analysis was performed on transport distances. For instance, Blengini and Garbarino (2010) evaluated the delivery distance RA compared to NA delivery distance, which was 70% in the base scenario, and concluded that the transport distance ratio of RA to NA should be under 300% for net environmental gain to be achieved through recycling. Some other authors focused on NA distance (Ben Fraj and Idir 2017; Guignot et al. 2015; Ram et al. 2020) to assess the minimum transport distance of NA, where recycling will still have environmental benefits. In addition, the transport distance between the demolition site and the CDW recycling plant was also included in the sensitivity analysis. For example, Pantini and Rigamonti (2020) stated that a radius of 30 km is a good margin to ensure the net environmental benefits for selective demolition. In addition to transport distance, the vehicle type selected in the LCA was also included in the sensitivity analysis by Cuenca-Moyano et al. (2019) and Visintin et al. (2020), where Visintin et al. (2020) found out that using EURO 5 lorry instead of fleet average can save from 0.4% up to 17% depending on the impact category. Faleschini et al. (2016) included the use of PV as the energy source in the scenario analysis, in addition to transport distance in the sensitivity analysis. This is a good option to compensate for the increased transport distance, which is an interesting and useful assessment. Similarly, Coelho and Brito (2013d) included also renewable energy in the sensitivity analysis on transport, where in addition to diesel, biofuel, and electricity were modeled as energy sources for the transportation process, and it was observed that having electricity as the energy source for transportation can save around 30% of GWP compared to diesel. In addition to transport, other aspects were also assessed; for instance, Borghi et al. (2018) performed a comprehensive sensitivity analysis, including avoided product replacement ratio, market coefficient of RA, CDW recycling plant type, and a best scenario where all aspects are set to the best value to assess the maximum environmental potential of the suggested CDW management system. A study done by Jiménez et al. (2015) included the use of different kinds of cement in RAC production, which was not considered by other authors focusing on concrete production. Lachat et al. (2021) included 3 different allocation approaches (0:100, 100:0, 50:50) in sensitivity analysis to allocate the total environmental impacts between a demolished building and RA produced. The authors concluded that following the 100:0 approach hinders the use of RA compared with NA because of the enormous difference in environmental impacts. Using the 50:50 approach lowers the impact of RA but is still not beneficial compared with NA. The 0:100 approach was stated to be the most effective in promoting the use of RA compared to NA, as it resulted in a lower value for RA than NA in 4 of the 8 impact categories. It is worth noting that different results were reported depending on the impact category, for example, RA had lower impacts than NA on abiotic depletion potential for all allocation approaches. Another interesting example, which was previously mentioned in Sect. 3.2.1 Functional unit, was conducted by Marinković et al. (2017), where serviceability and durability of concrete were also included in the FU to evaluate the sensitivity of the selected FU on different concrete mixes. Even though the results did not reveal a big difference, the approach is interesting for the studies focusing on LCA of RAC.
4 Conclusions and future prospect
Through this systematic literature review, we identified some methodological issues on LCA studies focusing on CDW recycling that are not aligned with ISO 14044 (2006). One main issue is the lack of transparent reporting, as we observed that more than 18% of studies did not specify the software, database, or LCIA method used. Similarly, in terms of FU, a tendency to select unitary FUs was present, where relevant information such as waste composition or RA quality was not mentioned. We also took a closer into the avoided impacts, their substitution ratio, and inclusion of the RA quality aspect in LCA and remarked that the RA quality aspect was rarely included in the LCA. Within the CE, in order to differentiate the downcycling and recycling, recycled material quality plays an essential role. Thus, we strongly recommend future LCA practitioners to give special attention on the quality aspect. In addition, as data availability is a known challenge, especially in CDW recycling, sensitivity and uncertainty analyses should be included. The recommendations are summarized in Table 4, based on the review results to give a direction for future LCA studies.
Within this review, some malpractices including the principle LCA elements, such as misunderstanding and wrong definition of FU, were observed. Proper application of LCA methodology is essential for reliable and consistent LCA results. Thus, the LCA practitioners should follow the principal of LCA methodology and peer-reviewers should carefully check the LCA studies to ensure the proper implementation. Within this review, some important LCA aspects are highlighted, and recommendations are provided in Table 4. For LCA studies in CDW recycling, we observed that, there is a need for a standardized and well-defined avoided impact framework to improve the quality and reliability of future LCA studies.
Even though this review provides a comprehensive and detailed overview of LCA studies focusing on CDW recycling, it has some limitations. Only literature in English was considered in the selection process, which may lead to the omission of relevant literature in other languages. Similarly, only articles from peer-reviewed journals were considered, while gray literature that may be relevant to this study was excluded.
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Change history
31 May 2023
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02177-7
References
Agrela F, Díaz-López JL, Rosales J, Cuenca-Moyano GM, Cano H, Cabrera M (2021) Environmental assessment, mechanical behavior and new leaching impact proposal of mixed recycled aggregates to be used in road construction. J Clean Prod 280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124362
Bamber N, Turner I, Arulnathan V, Li Y, Zargar Ershadi S, Smart A, Pelletier N (2020) Comparing sources and analysis of uncertainty in consequential and attributional life cycle assessment: review of current practice and recommendations. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25:168–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01663-1
Ben Fraj A, Idir R (2017) Concrete based on recycled aggregates - recycling and environmental analysis: a case study of paris’ region. Constr Build Mater 157:952–964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.09.059
Blengini GA (2009) Life cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: a case study in Turin, Italy. Build Environ 44:319–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.03.007
Blengini GA, Garbarino E (2010) Resources and waste management in Turin (Italy): the role of recycled aggregates in the sustainable supply mix. J Clean Prod 18:1021–1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.027
Borghi G, Pantini S, Rigamonti L (2018) Life cycle assessment of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste (CDW) management in Lombardy Region (Italy). J Clean Prod 184:815–825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.287
Bovea MD, Powell JC (2016) Developments in life cycle assessment applied to evaluate the environmental performance of construction and demolition wastes. Waste Manage 50:151–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.01.036
Braga AM, Silvestre JD, de Brito J (2017) Compared environmental and economic impact from cradle to gate of concrete with natural and recycled coarse aggregates. J Clean Prod 162:529–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.057
Butera S, Christensen TH, Astrup TF (2015) Life cycle assessment of construction and demolition waste management. Waste Manage 44:196–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.07.011
CEN European Committee for Standardization (2011) EN 15978 (CEN 2011), Sustainability of construction works — assessment of environmental performance of buildings — Calculation method. CEN, Brussels, BE
CEN European Committee for Standardization (2021). EN15804:2012+A2:2019/AC:2021 (CEN 2021), Sustainability of construction works — Environmental product declarations — Core rules for the product category of construction products. CEN, Brussels, BE.
Chen K, Wang J, Yu B, Wu H, Zhang J (2021a) Critical evaluation of construction and demolition waste and associated environmental impacts: a scientometric analysis. J Clean Prod 287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125071
Chen X, Matthews HS, Griffin WM (2021b) Uncertainty caused by life cycle impact assessment methods: case studies in process-based LCI databases. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 172:105678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105678
Coelho A, de Brito J (2013a) Economic viability analysis of a construction and demolition waste recycling plant in Portugal – part I: location, materials, technology and economic analysis. J Clean Prod 39:338–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.024
Coelho A, de Brito J (2013b) Economic viability analysis of a construction and demolition waste recycling plant in Portugal – part II: economic sensitivity analysis. J Clean Prod 39:329–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.006
Coelho A, de Brito J (2013c) Environmental analysis of a construction and demolition waste recycling plant in Portugal - Part I: Energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Waste Manage 33:1258–1267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.01.025
Coelho A, de Brito J (2013d) Environmental analysis of a construction and demolition waste recycling plant in Portugal - Part II: Environmental sensitivity analysis. Waste Manage 33:147–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.09.004
Colangelo F, Petrillo A, Cioffi R, Borrelli C, Forcina A (2018) Life cycle assessment of recycled concretes: a case study in southern Italy. Sci Total Environ 615:1506–1517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.107
Colangelo F, Gomez Navarro T, Farina I, Petrillo A (2020) Comparative LCA of concrete with recycled aggregates: a circular economy mindset in Europe. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25:1790–1804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01798-6
Cuenca-Moyano GM, Martín-Morales M, Bonoli A, Valverde-Palacios I (2019) Environmental assessment of masonry mortars made with natural and recycled aggregates. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:191–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1518-9
Dahlbo H, Bachér J, Lähtinen K, Jouttijärvi T, Suoheimo P, Mattila T, Sironen S, Myllymaa T, Saramäki K (2015) Construction and demolition waste management - a holistic evaluation of environmental performance. J Clean Prod 107:333–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.073
de Schepper M, van den Heede P, van Driessche I, de Belie N (2014) Life cycle assessment of completely recyclable concrete. Materials 7:6010–6027. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma7086010
Destatis (2021) Umweltstatistische Erhebungen. Abfallwirtschaft, Abfallbilanz 2018. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Umwelt/Abfallwirtschaft/Tabellen/liste-abfallbilanz-kurzuebersicht.html. Accessed 16 December 2021.068Z
Di Maria A, Eyckmans J, van Acker K (2018) Downcycling versus recycling of construction and demolition waste: combining LCA and LCC to support sustainable policy making. Waste Manage 75:3–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.01.028
Ding T, Xiao J, Tam VWY (2016) A closed-loop life cycle assessment of recycled aggregate concrete utilization in China. Waste Manage 56:367–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.031
Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (Waste Framework Directive) - Environment - European Commission. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/98/oj. Accessed 13 Mar 2022
Estanqueiro B, Silvestre JD, de Brito J, Pinheiro MD (2018) Environmental life cycle assessment of coarse natural and recycled aggregates for concrete. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 22:429–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2016.1197161
Eurostat (2021) Waste Statistics of the year 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Waste_statistics#Total_waste_generation. Accessed 16 December 2021
Faleschini F, Zanini MA, Pellegrino C, Pasinato S (2016) Sustainable management and supply of natural and recycled aggregates in a medium-size integrated plant. Waste Manage 49:146–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.01.013
Fořt J, Černý R (2020) Transition to circular economy in the construction industry: environmental aspects of waste brick recycling scenarios. Waste Manage 118:510–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.09.004
Gan VJL, Cheng JCP, Lo IMC (2016) Integrating life cycle assessment and multi-objective optimization for economical and environmentally sustainable supply of aggregate. J Clean Prod 113:76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.092
Ghanbari M, Monir Abbasi A, Ravanshadnia M (2017) Economic and environmental evaluation and optimal ratio of natural and recycled aggregate production. Adv Mater Sci Eng 2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7458285
Ghisellini P, Ripa M, Ulgiati S (2018) Exploring environmental and economic costs and benefits of a circular economy approach to the construction and demolition sector. A literature review. J Clean Prod 178:618–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.207
Glogic E, Sonnemann G, Young SB (2021) Environmental trade-offs of downcycling in circular economy: combining life cycle assessment and material circularity indicator to inform circularity strategies for alkaline batteries. Sustainability 13:1040. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031040
Guignot S, Touzé S, von der Weid F, Ménard Y, Villeneuve J (2015) Recycling construction and demolition wastes as building materials: a life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 19:1030–1043. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12262
Hossain MU, Ng ST (2020) Strategies for enhancing the accuracy of evaluation and sustainability performance of building. J Environ Manage 261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110230
Hossain MU, Thomas Ng S (2019) Influence of waste materials on buildings’ life cycle environmental impacts: adopting resource recovery principle. Resour Conserv Recycl 142:10–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.11.010
Hossain MU, Poon CS, Lo IMC, Cheng JCP (2016) Comparative environmental evaluation of aggregate production from recycled waste materials and virgin sources by LCA. Resour Conserv Recycl 109:67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.02.009
Hyvärinen M, Ronkanen M, Kärki T (2020) Sorting efficiency in mechanical sorting of construction and demolition waste. Waste Manage Res 38:812. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X20914750
Iodice S, Garbarino E, Cerreta M, Tonini D (2021) Sustainability assessment of construction and demolition waste management applied to an Italian case. Waste Manage 128:83–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.04.031
International Organization for Standardization (2006) ISO 14040 International standard. In: Environmental management — life cycle assessment — principals and framework. ISO, Geneva, CH
International Organization for Standardization, 2006. ISO 14044 International standard. In: Environmental management — life cycle assessment — requirements and guidelines. ISO, Geneva, CH
Jain S, Singhal S, Pandey S (2020) Environmental life cycle assessment of construction and demolition waste recycling: a case of urban India. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 155:104642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104642
Jiménez C, Barra M, Josa A, Valls S (2015) LCA of recycled and conventional concretes designed using the Equivalent Mortar Volume and classic methods. Constr Build Mater 84:245–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.051
Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resour Conserv Recycl 127:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005
Kleijer AL, Lasvaux S, Citherlet S, Viviani M (2017) Product-specific Life Cycle Assessment of ready mix concrete: comparison between a recycled and an ordinary concrete. Resour Conserv Recycl 122:210–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.02.004
Knoeri C, Sanye-Mengual E, Althaus HJ (2013) Comparative LCA of recycled and conventional concrete for structural applications. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:909–918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0544-2
Koffler C, Florin J (2013) Tackling the Downcycling issue—a revised approach to value-corrected substitution in life cycle assessment of aluminum (VCS 2.0). Sustainability 5:4546–4560. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5114546
Kroell N, Chen X, Greiff K, Feil A (2022) Optical sensors and machine learning algorithms in sensor-based material flow characterization for mechanical recycling processes: A systematic literature review. Waste Manage 149:259–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.05.015
Kurda R, Silvestre JD, de Brito J (2018) Life cycle assessment of concrete made with high volume of recycled concrete aggregates and fly ash. Resour Conserv Recycl 139:407–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.07.004
Lachat A, Mantalovas K, Desbois T, Yazoghli-Marzouk O, Colas AS, Di Mino G, Feraille A (2021) From buildings’ end of life to aggregate recycling under a circular economic perspective: a comparative life cycle assessment case study. Sustainability 13:9625. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179625
Laurent A, Clavreul J, Bernstad A, Bakas I, Niero M, Gentil E, Christensen TH, Hauschild MZ (2014) Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems—part II: methodological guidance for a better practice. Waste Manag 34:589–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.12.004
Li J, Liang J, Zuo J, Guo H (2020) Environmental impact assessment of mobile recycling of demolition waste in Shenzhen, China. J Clean Prod 263:121371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121371
Liu J, Huang Z, Wang X (2020) Economic and environmental assessment of carbon emissions from demolition waste based on LCA and LCC. Sustainability 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166683
Lockrey S, Verghese K, Crossin E, Nguyen H (2018) Concrete recycling life cycle flows and performance from construction and demolition waste in Hanoi. J Clean Prod 179:593–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.271
López Gayarre F, González Pérez J, López-Colina Pérez C, Serrano López M, López Martínez A (2016) Life cycle assessment for concrete kerbs manufactured with recycled aggregates. J Clean Prod 113:41–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.093
Lopez Ruiz LA, Roca Ramon X, Gasso Domingo S (2020) The circular economy in the construction and demolition waste sector - a review and an integrative model approach. J Clean Prod 248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119238
Mah CM, Fujiwara T, Ho CS (2018) Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing toward eco-efficiency concrete waste management in Malaysia. J Clean Prod 172:3415–3427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.200
Majeau-Bettez G, Dandres T, Pauliuk S, Wood R, Hertwich E, Samson R, Hammer Strømman A (2018) Choice of allocations and constructs for attributional or consequential life cycle assessment and input-output analysis. J Ind Ecol 22:656–670. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12604
Marinković S, Radonjanin V, Malešev M, Ignjatović I (2010) Comparative environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete. Waste Manage 30:2255–2264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.04.012
Marinković S, Dragaš J, Ignjatović I, Tošić N (2017) Environmental assessment of green concretes for structural use. J Clean Prod 154:633–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.015
Martínez E, Nuñez Y, Sobaberas E (2013) End of life of buildings: three alternatives, two scenarios. A case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1082–1088. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0566-4
Martinez-Arguelles G, Acosta MP, Dugarte M, Fuentes L (2019) Life cycle assessment of natural and recycled concrete aggregate production for road pavements applications in the northern region of Colombia: case study. Transp Res Rec 2673. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198119839955
Martinez-Lage I, Vazquez-Burgo P, Velay-Lizancos M (2020) Sustainability evaluation of concretes with mixed recycled aggregate based on holistic approach: technical, economic and environmental analysis. Waste Manage 104:9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.12.044
Mercante IT, Bovea MD, Ibáñez-Forés V, Arena AP (2012) Life cycle assessment of construction and demolition waste management systems: a Spanish case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:232–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0350-2
Mesa JA, Fúquene-Retamoso C, Maury-Ramírez A (2021) Life cycle assessment on construction and demolition waste: a systematic literature review. Sustainability 13:7676. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147676
Minunno R, O’Grady T, Morrison GM, Gruner RL (2021) Investigating the embodied energy and carbon of buildings: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of life cycle assessments. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 143:110935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110935
Mistri A, Dhami N, Bhattacharyya SK, Barai SV, Mukherjee A, Biswas WK (2021) Environmental implications of the use of bio-cement treated recycled aggregate in concrete. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 167:105436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105436
Moraga G, Huysveld S, Mathieux F, Blengini GA, Alaerts L, van Acker K, de Meester S, Dewulf J (2019) Circular economy indicators: what do they measure? Resources Conservation and Recycling 146:452–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.045
Mousavi M, Ventura A, Antheaume N (2020) Decision-based territorial life cycle assessment for the management of cement concrete demolition waste. Waste Manage Res 38:1405–1419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X20965676
Müller A, Martins I (2022) Recycling of Building Materials: Generation - Processing - Utilization, 1st edn. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden; Imprint Springer Vieweg, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34609-6
Napolano L, Menna C, Graziano SF, Asprone D, D’Amore M, de Gennaro R, Dondi M (2016) Environmental life cycle assessment of lightweight concrete to support recycled materials selection for sustainable design. Constr Build Mater 119:370–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.042
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev 10:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
Panesar DK, Seto KE, Churchill CJ (2017) Impact of the selection of functional unit on the life cycle assessment of green concrete. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:1969–1986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1284-0
Pantini S, Rigamonti L (2020) Is selective demolition always a sustainable choice? Waste Manage 103:169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.12.033
Park WJ, Kim T, Roh S, Kim R (2019) Analysis of life cycle environmental impact of recycled aggregate. Applied Sciences-basel 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9051021
Pauer E, Wohner B, Tacker M (2020) The influence of database selection on environmental impact results. Life cycle assessment of packaging using GaBi, Ecoinvent 3.6, and the Environmental Footprint Database. Sustainability 12:9948. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239948
Paula Junior AC, Jacinto C, Oliveira TM, Polisseni AE, Brum FM, Teixeira ER, Mateus R (2021) Characterisation and life cycle assessment of pervious concrete with recycled concrete aggregates. Crystals 11:1–30. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst11020209
Pavlu T, Kocí V, Hájek P (2019) Environmental assessment of two use cycles of recycled aggregate concrete. Sustainability (Switzerland) 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216185
Penteado CSG, Rosado LP (2016) Comparison of scenarios for the integrated management of construction and demolition waste by life cycle assessment: A case study in Brazil. Waste Manage Res 34:1026–1035. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X16657605
Pesta J, Pavlu T, Fartova K, Koci V (2020) Sustainable masonry made from recycled aggregates: LCA case study. Sustainability 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041581
Pomponi F, Moncaster A (2017) Circular economy for the built environment: a research framework. J Clean Prod 143:710–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.055
Pradhan S, Tiwari BR, Kumar S, Barai SV (2019) Comparative LCA of recycled and natural aggregate concrete using Particle Packing Method and conventional method of design mix. J Clean Prod 228:679–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.328
Ram VG, Kishore KC, Kalidindi SN (2020) Environmental benefits of construction and demolition debris recycling: Evidence from an Indian case study using life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 255:120258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120258
Rigamonti L, Falbo A, Grosso M (2013) Improving integrated waste management at the regional level: the case of Lombardia. Waste Manag Res 31:946–953. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X13493957
Rosado LP, Vitale P, Penteado CSG, Arena U (2017) Life cycle assessment of natural and mixed recycled aggregate production in Brazil. J Clean Prod 151:634–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.068
Rosado LP, Vitale P, Penteado CSG, Arena U (2019) Life cycle assessment of construction and demolition waste management in a large area of São Paulo State, Brazil. Waste Manage 85:477–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.01.011
Saade MRM, Gomes V, da Silva MG, Ugaya CML, Lasvaux S, Passer A, Habert G (2019) Investigating transparency regarding ecoinvent users’ system model choices. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1509-x
Sabau M, Bompa DV, Silva LF (2021) Comparative carbon emission assessments of recycled and natural aggregate concrete: environmental influence of cement content. Geoscience Frontiers 6:101235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2021.101235
Sandin G, Peters GM, Svanström M (2014) Life cycle assessment of construction materials: the influence of assumptions in end-of-life modelling. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:723–731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0686-x
Schaubroeck T, Schaubroeck S, Heijungs R, Zamagni A, Brandão M, Benetto E (2021) Attributional & consequential life cycle assessment: definitions, conceptual characteristics and modelling restrictions. Sustainability 13:7386. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137386
Scheepens AE, Vogtländer JG, Brezet JC (2016) Two life cycle assessment (LCA) based methods to analyse and design complex (regional) circular economy systems. Case: making water tourism more sustainable. J Clean Prod 114:257–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.075
Schrijvers DL, Loubet P, Sonnemann G (2016) Developing a systematic framework for consistent allocation in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:976–993. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1063-3
Serres N, Braymand S, Feugeas F (2016) Environmental evaluation of concrete made from recycled concrete aggregate implementing life cycle assessment. J Build Eng 5:24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2015.11.004
Siddaway AP, Wood AM, Hedges LV (2019) How to do a systematic review: a best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annu Rev Psychol 70:747–770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803
Simion IM, Fortuna ME, Bonoli A, Gavrilescu M (2013) Comparing environmental impacts of natural inert and recycled construction and demolition waste processing using LCA. J Environ Eng Landsc Manag 21:273–287. https://doi.org/10.3846/16486897.2013.852558
Snyder H (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 104:333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Steubing B, Wernet G, Reinhard J, Bauer C, Moreno-Ruiz E (2016) The ecoinvent database version 3 (part II): analyzing LCA results and comparison to version 2. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1269–1281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1109-6
Suárez Silgado S, Calderón Valdiviezo L, Gassó Domingo S, Roca X (2018) Multi-criteria decision analysis to assess the environmental and economic performance of using recycled gypsum cement and recycled aggregate to produce concrete: The case of Catalonia (Spain). Resour Conserv Recycl 133:120–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.11.023
Tošić N, Marinković S, Dašić T, Stanić M (2015) Multicriteria optimization of natural and recycled aggregate concrete for structural use. J Clean Prod 87:766–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.070
Turk J, Cotič Z, Mladenovič A, Šajna A (2015) Environmental evaluation of green concretes versus conventional concrete by means of LCA. Waste Manage 45:194–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.06.035
Vadenbo C, Hellweg S, Astrup TF (2017) Let’s be clear(er) about substitution: a reporting framework to account for product displacement in life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 21:1078–1089. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12519
van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) VOSViewer: visualizing scientific landscapes. https://www.vosviewer.com. Accessed 15 Feb 2022
van Gulck L, Wastiels L, Steeman M (2022) How to evaluate circularity through an LCA study based on the standards EN 15804 and EN 15978. Int J Life Cycle Assess 27:1249–1266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02099-w
van Stijn A, Malabi Eberhardt LC, Wouterszoon Jansen B, Meijer A (2021) A Circular Economy Life Cycle Assessment (CE-LCA) model for building components. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 174:105683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105683
Vega ADL, Santos J, Martinez-Arguelles G (2020) Life cycle assessment of hot mix asphalt with recycled concrete aggregates for road pavements construction. Int J Pavement Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2020.1778694
Vegas I, Broos K, Nielsen P, Lambertz O, Lisbona A (2015) Upgrading the quality of mixed recycled aggregates from construction and demolition waste by using near-infrared sorting technology. Constr Build Mater 75:121–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.09.109
Visintin P, Xie T, Bennett B (2020) A large-scale life-cycle assessment of recycled aggregate concrete: the influence of functional unit, emissions allocation and carbon dioxide uptake. J Clean Prod 248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119243
Vitale P, Arena N, Di Gregorio F, Arena U (2017) Life cycle assessment of the end-of-life phase of a residential building. Waste Manage 60:311–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.002
Volk R, Kern C, Schultmann F (2020) Secondary Raw Material Markets in the C&d Sector: Study on User Acceptance in Southwest Germany. https://doi.org/10.5445/IR/1000105958
Vossberg C, Mason-Jones K, Cohen B (2014) An energetic life cycle assessment of C&D waste and container glass recycling in Cape Town, South Africa. Resour Conserv Recycl 88:39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.04.009
Wang T, Wang J, Wu P, Wang J, He Q, Wang X (2018) Estimating the environmental costs and benefits of demolition waste using life cycle assessment and willingness-to-pay: a case study in Shenzhen. J Clean Prod 172:14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.168
Weidema BP (2017) Estimation of the size of error introduced into consequential models by using attributional background datasets. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:1241–1246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1239-x
Welsh-Huggins SJ, Liel AB, Cook SM (2020) Reduce, reuse, resilient? Life-cycle seismic and environmental performance of buildings with alternative concretes. J Infrastruct Syst 26. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000510
Wu P, Xia B, Zhao X (2014) The importance of use and end-of-life phases to the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of concrete – a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 37:360–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.070
Wu H, Duan H, Wang J, Wang T, Wang X (2015) Quantification of carbon emission of construction waste by using streamlined LCA: a case study of Shenzhen, China. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 17:637–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-015-0404-9
Xia B, Ding T, Xiao J (2020) Life cycle assessment of concrete structures with reuse and recycling strategies: a novel framework and case study. Waste Manage 105:268–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.02.015
Xiao J, Wang C, Ding T, Akbarnezhad A (2018) A recycled aggregate concrete high-rise building: structural performance and embodied carbon footprint. J Clean Prod 199:868–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.210
Yazdanbakhsh A (2018) A bi-level environmental impact assessment framework for comparing construction and demolition waste management strategies. Waste Manage 77:401–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.024
Yazdanbakhsh A, Bank LC, Baez T, Wernick I (2018) Comparative LCA of concrete with natural and recycled coarse aggregate in the New York City area. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:1163–1173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1360-5
Yazdanbakhsh A, Lagouin M (2019) The effect of geographic boundaries on the results of a regional life cycle assessment of using recycled aggregate in concrete. Resour Conserv Recycl 143:201–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.002
Zhang C, Hu M, Dong L, Xiang P, Zhang Q, Wu J, Li B, Shi S (2018) Co-benefits of urban concrete recycling on the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and land use change: a case in Chongqing metropolis, China. J Clean Prod 201:481–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.238
Zhang Y, Luo W, Wang J, Wang Y, Xu Y, Xiao J (2019a) A review of life cycle assessment of recycled aggregate concrete. Constr Build Mater 209:115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.078
Zhang C, Hu M, Dong L, Gebremariam A, Miranda-Xicotencatl B, Di Maio F, Tukker A (2019b) Eco-efficiency assessment of technological innovations in high-grade concrete recycling. Resour Conserv Recycl 149:649–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.06.023
Zhang J, Ding L, Li F, Peng J (2020) Recycled aggregates from construction and demolition wastes as alternative filling materials for highway subgrades in China. J Clean Prod 255:120223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120223
Zhao Z, Courard L, Groslambert S, Jehin T, Leonard A, Xiao J (2020) Use of recycled concrete aggregates from precast block for the production of new building blocks: an industrial scale study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104786
Acknowledgements
The corresponding author, Berfin Bayram, is a member of the PhD-program “Forschungskolleg Verbund.NRW2”, supported by the Ministry of Innovation, Science and Research North Rhine-Westphalian.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Berfin Bayram: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review and Editing, Visualization, Project administration. Kathrin Greiff: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing—Review and Editing, Funding acquisition.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Communicated by Shabbir Gheewala
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The original online version of this article was revised: in the caption of Fig. 10, two hyperlinks were unfortunately missing. Additionally, table 2 was originally divided in several sections and its layout has now been revised.
Appendix
Appendix
LCSA aspects, environmental, economic, and social, studied in each article are presented in Table 5. Recycling data that was presented in reviewed papers are summarized in Table 6; only the studies that documented the recycling data are included. In Fig. 10, keyword co-occurrence and journal analyses based on selected articles are presented.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Bayram, B., Greiff, K. Life cycle assessment on construction and demolition waste recycling: a systematic review analyzing three important quality aspects. Int J Life Cycle Assess 28, 967–989 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02145-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02145-1