International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2022) 19:2129–2138

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-021-03217-1

REVIEW

Recycling of construction and demolition waste and its impact

on climate change and sustainable development
M. A. T. Alsheyab1,2 

Received: 8 December 2020 / Revised: 18 January 2021 / Accepted: 13 February 2021 / Published online: 1 April 2021
© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2021

Abstract
The huge generated amounts of construction and demolition (C&D) waste around the world, which amounts up to more than
25% of the total generated waste, has become a serious environmental challenge that needs to be addressed. This analytical
review paper sheds light on the different adverse environmental impacts of the presently used conventional management
method of landfilling and proposes waste recycling as an alternative sustainable management option. Analysis showed that
C&D waste recycling could be an effective mitigation option to reduce the risk of landslides; reduce the energy consumption;
offset the greenhouse emissions where about 39% is attributed to the construction industry; recover added-value materials;
create jobs; and protect the earth’s natural resources. The results of analysis highlight the importance of on-site recycling
and segregation at source for offsetting the greenhouse gas emissions as well as mitigating the risks of the hazardous portion.
The results of this analytical review promote the importance of diverting construction and demolition waste from landfill
sites to recycling and help decision makers to adopt the recycling option to achieve sustainable development.

Keywords  Construction and demolition waste · Sustainable development · Recycling · Environmental impact assessment ·
And climate change

Introduction the applied waste management system, collection system,

The construction industry is the largest and fastest grow-
ing industry in the world due to the increase in population,
standards of living, and the higher demand for infrastructure.
This fast growth generates huge amounts of construction
and demolition waste (C&D waste). In general, the C&D
waste amounts are more than a quarter of the total generated
solid waste (Weisheng and Vivian 2013; Miguel et al. 2013).
However, the share of C&D waste differs from one country
to another, as seen in Fig. 1 (Christian and Mads 2009; Viv-
ian 2009; Zhao et al. 2011). However, it is important to high-
light that these reported percentages do not follow a stand-
ardized method, but it depends on many factors including
Editorial responsibility: M. Shabani.
* M. A. T. Alsheyab
malsheyyab@gmail.com
1
Ministry of Development Planning and Statistics, Doha,
Qatar
2
Qatar University, Doha, Qatar
reporting system and its accuracy within each country.
The composition of C&D waste includes a wide variety
of different materials, which could be divided into two types:
(a) Type I which can be treated as non-hazardous waste, such
as concrete, masonry (brick, building stone, such as marble,
granite, limestone, cast stone, concrete block, glass block,
and adobe), soil and, asphalt. (b) Type II materials including
insulation fixtures, wires, cables, lamps, and bulbs, which
contains hazardous substances, such as asbestos, brominated
flame retardants, mercury, lead paint, and metal-containing
wood preservatives (Wilson 2015; Li et al. 2016; Ritzen
et al. 2016).
The presence of these hazardous materials could be a
source of pollution, either as a result of the leachates gener-
ated at the final disposal site or affecting the waste scav-
engers who collect recyclable materials being exposed to
pollutants, such as lead and mercury that cause respiratory,
skin and other illnesses.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

2130 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2022) 19:2129–2138

Fig. 1  Percentage of C&D Percentage of C&D of total generated solid waste

80% 75%
waste of total generated waste 70%
in different countries (Christian 70% 63%
and Mads 2009; Vivian 2009; 60%
Zhao et al. 2011; Mawed et al. 50%
48%
2020; Al-Ansary et al. 2004; 50%
Nunes and Mahler 2020) 38%
40% 33% 35%
29% 30%
30%
19%
20% 16%

10%
0%

Some researchers (Duan et al. 2015; Kanayochukwu et al.
2015) stated that some persistent metals, such as Cd, Cr,
Cu, Pb, Ni, and Zn are leached from improperly disposed
C&D waste reaching the surrounding water, causing seri-
ous health problems, such as ulcers, diarrhea, respiratory
disorders, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and liver damage.
According to the database of the Organization for Eco-
nomic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2015,
about 36% of the total generated waste is attributed to con-
struction and demolition waste as seen in Fig. 2 (Wilson
2015).
The construction industry generates many environmen-
tal pollutants, such as noise, air pollution, solid and liquid
waste, water pollution, harmful gases, and dust (Adnan et al.
2014). It is classified as the world’s largest consumer of
raw materials, the highest energy-consuming sector, reach-
ing up to 36% of the total energy consumption, and one of
the highest energy-related CO2 emissions, counting up to
39% of total global emissions according to 2019 report of
Global Alliance for Buildings and Constructions, where 11%
is attributed to manufacturing building materials and prod-
ucts, such as steel, cement and glass and 28% is attributed
to buildings operations as illustrated in Fig. 3 (Global Status
Report for Buildings and Construction 2019).
It has been reported that more than 50% of construction
and demolition waste is deposited in landfill sites, which
form a real environmental challenge for every country, that
needs to be addressed (Sasitharan et al. 2012).
Therefore, this report looks into the option of diverting
the C&D waste from landfilling to recycling and its impact
on offsetting greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions, alleviat-
ing the demand on primary raw materials and achieving
sustainability.

Fig. 2  Portion of C&D waste of

total waste in OECD countries
in 2015 (Wilson 2015) Water suppy,
sewage,waste
management and Energy
land remediation production
5% 3%
Commercial
11%

Industrial
21%
Construction
&Demolition
36%

Municipal Solid
Waste
24%

13
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2022) 19:2129–2138 2131
Fig. 3  Global share of building
and construction sector in ­CO2
emissions (Global Status Report
for Buildings and Construction
2019)
Buildings
operations
28%
Building
materials &
constructions
11%
Materials and methods
The basis of this study is to perform a comprehensive lit-
erature review of construction and demolition waste includ-
ing the generated amounts, composition, the environmental
adverse impact on climate change and sustainable develop-
ment, current applied management methods and proposed
recycling methods for better sustainability. Then, a mass
flow analysis will be performed using the STAN program,
a software program designed to perform mass flow analy-
sis (MFA) according to the Austrian standard ÖNORM S
2096 (MFA—application in waste management) with the
consideration of data uncertainties. It stands for substance
flow analysis and it consists of building a graphical model
with predefined components (flows, processes, subsys-
tems, system boundaries and text fields), known data (mass
flows, stocks, concentrations and transfer coefficients) with
corresponding physical units that can be either entered or
imported for different hierarchical layers (good, substance,
energy) and time periods. The graph of the model with flows
displayed as Sankey arrows, proportional to its value, which
then can be printed or exported into various graphical for-
mats. Statistical tests are used to detect gross errors in a
given data set (Oliver and Helmut 2008). In this paper, the
STAN program will be used to perform mass flow analysis
Transportation
23%
Other
7%
Other industry
31%
based on published amounts and composition of USA as a
developed country and India as a developing country.
Waste management options
and sustainability
The waste hierarchy is a set of priorities ranking waste
management options according to what is best for the envi-
ronment. The top priority goes to preventing waste, which
ranks the first and involves using less materials in design and
manufacturing, less hazardous materials, and keeping prod-
ucts for a longer time. When waste is generated, the order
of best options is as follows: First, waste reduction. Second,
waste reuse (referring to the use of a waste product without
further transformation and without changing its shape or
original nature). Third, waste recycling (means reprocessing
the waste to turn it into a new substance or product). Fourth,
waste recovery, and last of all in fifth place is waste disposal
(e.g., landfill).
The following Fig. 4 explains the correlation between
waste hierarchy and sustainability where the most sustain-
able option is avoidance and the least are disposal (Sasi-
tharan et al. 2012; Guidance on applying the Waste Hier-
archy 2011).
13

2132 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2022) 19:2129–2138
Fig. 4  Waste management hier-
archy (Sasitharan et al. 2012)
Recovery
Disposal
Analysis of the C&D waste recycling option
Recycling of waste is placed fourth in the waste manage-
ment hierarchy. It aims at producing secondary materials
from waste by reprocessing it to alter its physical–chemi-
cal properties to produce new products to be used again
for the same or other applications (Sasitharan et al. 2012).
The C&D waste is treated in three main methods, landfill-
ing, incineration and recycling. The C&D waste recycling
includes crunching of bricks and concrete to replace the use
of gravel where it can be used as ‘filling’ in new construction
projects or as ‘filling’ under new construction (EPA 2016).
Several environmental risks can be avoided by diverting
C&D waste from landfilling to recycling, one risk associated
with C&D waste landfilling, is the contamination of ground-
water by leachate, resulting from rainwater coming into
contact with the landfilled C&D waste. Another risk asso-
ciated is the formation of hydrogen sulfide, which results
from naturally occurring bacteria that converts the sulfate
extracted from drywall gypsum into hydrogen sulfide. This
can cause not only a bad odor, but also can cause chronic
health impacts at low concentrations and be deadly at high
concentrations (Knut et al. 2004).
Research results (Humam et al. 2020) indicate that the
quality of recycled concrete aggregate is lower than the
quality of natural aggregate. This is due to the remaining
attached fractions of mortar and cement paste after crush-
ing the C&D waste. These remaining fractions decrease the
density by up to 10% compared to that of natural aggregate
13
Avoidance
Reduction
Reuse
Recycling
and increase the water absorbability of recycled aggregate,
which makes its quality control more difficult (Marinkovic
et al. 2010).
While the presence of polluting metals in the waste is
still a major concern for recycling, a study conducted by
Danfenga et al. (2018) into the environmental impact assess-
ment of metals in C&D waste, reported that the total metal
concentrations in the recycled products of C&D waste were
relatively low compared with demolition waste, renovation
waste or C&D waste within a landfill site. Recycling could
provide many environmental, social, and economic benefits
detailed as follows:
Results and discussion
Discussion of environmental impacts
Mitigate the risk of landslides
As the highest portion of C&D waste is inert material, the
typical treatment method is landfilling, especially in the
1970s and 1980s. However, one of the main adverse environ-
mental impacts of landfilling of waste in general including
C&D waste are the final disposal site landslides which can
affect the lives and property of people. Example of that is the
massive landslide of Dona Juana Landfill in Bogota in 1997,
one of the biggest failures in history (Caicedo et al. 2002);
another landslide occurred in the Chinese city of Shenzhen
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2022) 19:2129–2138 2133
in 2015, which resulted from the collapse of an enormous
pile of C&D waste, which killed 73 people and damaged 33
buildings (Navarro and Vincenzo 2019). Therefore, recy-
cling C&D waste would alleviate the pressure on landfill-
ing and consequently reduce the risk of landslides and also
extend the lifespan of landfills.
Offsetting GHGs
Recycling C&D waste means fewer primary materials are
needed; therefore, less virgin resources are being used for
extraction. This means that the lifecycle of the product
changes and all the GHGs that would have been emitted
during the extraction and processing are avoided; therefore,
the total emissions across the whole lifecycle will be reduced
(Eneh and Oluigbo 2012). Also, some contaminants are pro-
duced in landfills that pose a human health risk, such as the
production of hydrogen sulfide, which is an environmental
problem associated with landfills of C&D waste.
In a comparative study of lifecycle assessment for both
landfilling and recycling of C&D waste performed in Cape
Town, South Africa, to determine the embodied energy
and GHGs emissions for both scenarios, it was revealed
that recycling has an advantage over landfilling in terms of
offsetting both energy consumption and GHGs emissions,
depending on whether it is on-site or off-site recycling.
Results of the study showed that on-site recycling could
save more than 92% of energy consumption and about
an 86% saving in GHGs emissions. However, the off-site
Fig. 5  Composition of C&D
waste in the US in 2015 (EPA
2015)
15%
1%
7%
2%
scenario would save about 22% of energy consumption and
21% of GHGs emissions, significantly lower than the values
obtained when recycling on-site and this is attributed to the
need for transportation, which marks the difference between
on-site and off-site savings (Cherilyn et al. 2014).
Materials recovery: material flow analysis (MFA)
Different streams of materials can be recovered by C&D
recycling, which provide a substitute for virgin raw materials
at source, crushed concrete and bricks produce aggregate,
recovered metals, such as steel, aluminum, and copper off-
set the demand to extract more elements from the earth,
recovered wood and cardboard can be used to produce fuel
offsetting the demand of extracting more oil and gas, and
recovered gypsum from drywall can replace the naturally
mined gypsum. All these savings in primary materials have a
direct correlation with decreasing energy consumption, and
consequently offsetting the emissions of GHGs.
It has been reported by Serdar and Aynur (2017) that,
depending on the nature of C&D waste, between 50 and
95% of C&D waste generated can be recycled. In this sec-
tion an MFA will be performed for two countries, the USA
as a developed country and India as a developing country.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) of the USA, in its 2015 fact sheet report published in
2018 about the generated waste in the USA, 548 million tons
of C&D debris were generated. The composition of C&D
waste by material is shown in Fig. 5 (EPA 2015).
2%
3%
Concrete
Drywall and Plasters
Wood products
Steel
Asphalt concrete
Brick and Clay Tile
70% Asphalt Shingles
13

2134 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2022) 19:2129–2138

In a mass flow rate analysis using the STAN, shown in The maximum annual potential recovery, from the waste
Fig. 6, the approximate amounts of recovered materials from generated in US in 2015, of different materials is summa-
548 million tons of C&D generated in the US in 2015, would rized in Table 1.
be as follows.

Table 1  Potential recovery of different materials form C&D waste in

US

Material Potential recovery

(million tons/year)

Concrete 383.6
Drywall and plasters 11
Wood products 38.4
Steel 5.4
Asphalt concrete 82.2
Brick and clay tile 11
Asphalt Shingles 16.4

Fig. 6  Mass flow analysis of C&D waste based on the generated

waste in the US in 2015 (EPA 2015)

13
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2022) 19:2129–2138 2135

Fig. 7  Composition of C&D
1%
waste in India in 2013 (Global 2% 2%
Status Report for Buildings and 5%
Construction 2019)

36%
Soil/Sand/Gravel
23% Bricks & masonry
Concrete
Metals
Bitumen
Wood
Other items

31%

According to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)

of India, the typical C&D waste composition in India is
shown in Fig. 7. It was reported that the estimated amounts
of C&D waste in 2013 in India was about 0.53 billion tons
(Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction, 2019)
(Fig. 8).

Fig. 8  Mass flow analysis of C&D waste based on the generated ▸

waste in India in 2013 (Global Status Report for Buildings and Con-
struction 2019)

13

2136 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2022) 19:2129–2138

The maximum annual potential recovery, from the C&D Conclusion

waste generated in India in 2013, of different materials is
summarized in Table 2.
Table 2  Potential recovery of different materials form C&D waste in
India in 2013
The recycling of C&D waste contributes significantly to
achieving sustainable development through the following
gains:

Material Potential recovery • Although landfills will continue to be an important dis-

(million tons/year) posal option, the recycling of C&D waste will reduce the
Soil/sand/gravel 190.8 possible risk of landslides by minimizing the amounts
Bricks and Masonry 164.3 going to landfilling.
Concrete 121.9 • Reduce the demand on primary materials by replacing it
Metals 26.5 with a secondary material.
Bitumen 10.6 • Cut down the energy consumption including those por-
Wood 10.6 tions corresponding to primary materials extraction,
Other items 5.3 transport and production energy costs, and reuses waste
which can otherwise be lost to landfills. On-site recycling
could save more than 92% of energy consumption and
These recovered materials from C&D waste could be about 86% saving in GHGs emissions.
used as feedstock in the manufacturing of derivative prod- • Considerably offset the GHGs emissions by use of on-sit
ucts (EPA 2020) as seen in Table 3. recycling.
• Recycling of C&D waste contributes to the conserva-
tion and preservation of precious land areas by diverting
Table 3  Possible recycled products from the recovered C&D materi-
als (EPA 2020)
waste from landfills to recycling.
• Create new job opportunities in the recycling and manu-
Recovery material Possible recycled product facturing industries.
C&D wood Engineered wood products   However, the following points should be taken
C&D asphalt shingles Asphalt mixtures into consideration for environmentally sound recycling
C&D drywall New drywall or portland cement of C&D waste:
C&D metals Metal precursor products (billets, ingots)
C&D concrete Concrete and asphalt mixtures • On-site sorting of generated C&D waste would enable
C&D asphalt Asphalt mixtures the reuse of some generated waste and offset the emis-
sions of GHGs.
• Due to variety of materials encountered in C&D waste, it
is important that the C&D waste be segregated at source,
Economic benefits
with each stream managed as required, especially of the
portion containing hazardous substances.
The recycling of C&D waste into new products provides not • Environmental risk assessment should be made as any
only environmental benefits but also economic and social
environmental risk in the precursors of the recycled
benefits by creating employment opportunities and economic
products will be transferred to recycled products, such
activities. C&D waste recycling transforms the materials
as hazardous metals.
into new products, which are either sold to the manufactur- • A feasibility study should be conducted on the neces-
ing market as raw materials for further transformation or
sary resources of labor and machines to carry out the
directly to customers bringing economic benefit to the local
deconstruction and sorting of waste, how it varies from
economy. The process of C&D waste recycling includes
one country to another and how to optimize the process.
a combination of both manual separation and mechanical
equipment, which requires more employees. For example, in
2007, US statistics showed that 230,000 jobs were created Acknowledgements  The author wish to thank all those who assisted
by the C&D recycling industry. It has been reported that for in conducting this work.
every million tons of recycled C&D waste, 233 new jobs are
created (EPA 2016).

13
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2022) 19:2129–2138 2137

Compliance with ethical standards  EPA’s (2016) Recycling Economic Information (REI) Report
Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction (2019). https://​
www.w ​ orldg​ bc.o​ rg/s​ ites/d​ efaul​ t/fi
​ les/2​ 019%2​ 0Glob​ al%2​ 0Stat​ us%​
Conflict of interest  The author declare that he has no conflict of inter-
20Rep​ort%​20for%​20Bui​ldings%​20and%​20Con​struc​tion.​pdf
est.
Guidance on applying the Waste Hierarchy (2011) pb13530-waste-
hierarchy-guidance. www.​defra.​gov.​uk
Humam ZF, Faisal ZS (2020) A mini review of construction and
References demolition waste management in India. Waste Manag Res
38(7):708–716
Kanayochukwu CA, Joel A, Chidozie CN (2015) Spatiality, seasonality
Adnan E, Bernd K, Ehsan R (2014) An evaluation of environmen-
and ecological risks of heavy metals in the vicinity of a degenerate
tal impacts of construction projects. Rev Ingen Constr RIC
municipal central dumpsite in Enugu, Nigeria. J Environ Health
29(3):234–254
Sci Eng 13:1–15
Al-Ansary MS, El-Haggar SM, Taha MA (2004) Sustainable guidelines
Knut S, Dirk J, Stephanie S, Christian T (2004) Definition of waste
for managing demolition waste in Egypt, 9–11 November 2004,
recovery and disposal options, final report
Barcelona, Spain
Li L, Weber R, Liu JG, Hu JX (2016) Long-term emissions of hexabro-
Caicedo B, Giraldo E, Yamin L, Soler N (2002) The landslide of Dona
mocyclododecane as a chemical of concern in products in China.
Juana Landfill in Bogota. A case study. In: Conference: proceed-
Environ Int 91:291–300. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envint.​2016.​
ings of the fourth international congress on environmental geo-
03.​007
technics (4th ICEG), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil At: Rio de Janeiro,
Marinkovic S, Radonjanin V, Malesev M, Ignjatovic I (2010) Compara-
Brazil
tive environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate
CDRA Report (2017) Benefits of construction and demolition debris
concrete. Waste Manag 30:2255–2264
recycling in the United States
Mawed M, Al Nuaimi M, Kashawni G (2020) Construction and demo-
Cherilyn V, Kyle M-J, Brett C (2014) An energetic life cycle assess-
lition waste management in the UAE: application and obstacles.
ment of C&D waste and container glass recycling in Cape Town,
Int J Geomate 18(70):235–245
South Africa. Resour Conserv Recycl 88:39–49
Miguel M, Jorge B, Manuel DP, Miguel B (2013) Construction and
Christian F, Mads W (2009) EU as a recycling society: present recy-
demolition waste indicators. Waste Manag Res 31:241–255
cling levels of municipal waste and construction and demolition
Navarro F, Vincenzo T (2019) Waste mismanagement in developing
waste in the EU. European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consump-
countries: a review of global issues. Int J Environ Res Public
tion and Production, Copenhagen
Health 16:1060
Danfeng Y, Huabo D, Qingbin S, Xiaoyue Li, Hao Z, Hui Z, Yicheng
Nunes KRA, Mahler CF (2020) Comparison of construction and demo-
L, Weijun S, Jinben W (2018) Characterizing the environmental
lition waste management between Brazil. Eur Union USA Waste
impact of metals in construction and demolition waste. Environ
Manag Res 38(4):415–422
Sci Pollut Res 25:13823–13832
Oliver C, Helmut R (2008) Material flow analysis with software STAN.
Duan H, Hu J, Tan Q, Liu L, WangLi YJ (2015) Systematic charac-
J Environ Eng Manag 18(1):3
terization of generation and management of e-waste in China.
Ritzen MJ, Haagen T, Rovers R, Vroon ZAEP, Geurts CPW (2016)
Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:1929–1943
Environmental impact evaluation of energy saving and energy
Eneh AEO, Oluigbo SN (2012) Mitigating the impact of climate change
generation: case study for two Dutch dwelling types. Build Envi-
through waste recycling. Res J Environ Earth Sci 4(8):776–781
ron 108:73–84. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​build​env.​2016.​07.​020
EPA (2016) Recycling Economic Information (REI) Report
Sasitharan N, Ismail AR, Ade A, Aftab HM, Imran L (2012) Issues on
EPA (2015) advancing sustainable materials management: fact sheet
construction waste: the need for sustainable waste management.
assessing trends in material generation, recycling, composting,
In: IEEE colloquium on humanities, science and engineering
combustion with energy recovery and landfilling in the United
research (CHUSER 2012), December 3–4, 2012, Kota Kinabalu,
States
Sabah, Malaysia
EPA (2020) Construction and demolition debris management in the
United States. 2015 U.S., Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery

13

2138 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2022) 19:2129–2138

Serdar U, Aynur K, Volkan A (2017) Construction and demolition Wilson D (2015) UNEP; International Solid Waste Association, Global
waste recycling plants revisited: management issues. Proc Eng waste management outlook 2015
172:1190–1197 Zhao W, Ren H, Rotter VS (2011) A system dynamics model for evalu-
Vivian WYT (2009) Comparing the implementation of concrete recy- ating the alternative of type in construction and demolition waste
cling in the Australian and Japanese construction industries. J recycling. Resour Conserv Recycl 55(11):933–944
Clean Prod 17:688–702
Weisheng L, Vivian WYT (2013) Construction waste management
policies and their effectiveness in Hong Kong: a longitudinal
review. Renew Sustain Environ Rev 23:214–223

13