Next Article in Journal
Online Exercise Classes during the COVID-19 Related Lockdown in Germany: Use and Attitudes
Next Article in Special Issue
Some Remarks towards a Better Understanding of the Use of Concrete Recycled Aggregate: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Building on Strategic eLearning Initiatives of Hybrid Graduate Education a Case Study Approach: MHEI-ME Erasmus+ Project
Previous Article in Special Issue
Mechanical Properties of Concrete Using Recycled Aggregates Obtained from Old Paving Stones
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 14
10.3390/su13147676
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Life Cycle Assessment on Construction and Demolition Waste: A Systematic Literature Review

by
Jaime A. Mesa
1,
Carlos Fúquene-Retamoso
1 and
Aníbal Maury-Ramírez
2,*
1
Departamento de Ingeniería Industrial, Facultad de Ingeniería, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá 110231, Colombia
2
Engineering Faculty, Universidad El Bosque, Bogotá 111711, Colombia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(14), 7676; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147676
Submission received: 13 June 2021 / Revised: 5 July 2021 / Accepted: 7 July 2021 / Published: 9 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Construction and Demolition Waste: Challenges and Opportunities)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is considered an innovative tool to analyze environmental impacts to make decisions aimed at improving the environmental performance of building materials and construction processes throughout different life cycle stages, including design, construction, use, operation, and end-of-life (EOL). Therefore, during the last two decades, interest in applying this tool in the construction field has increased, and the number of articles and studies has risen exponentially. However, there is a lack of consolidated studies that provide insights into the implementation of LCA on construction and demolition waste (C&DW). To fill this research gap, this study presents a literature review analysis to consolidate the most relevant topics and issues in the research field of C&DW materials and how LCA has been implemented during the last two decades. A systematic literature search was performed following the PRISMA method: analysis of selected works is based on bibliometric and content-based approaches. As a result, the study characterized 150 selected works in terms of the evolution of articles per year, geographical distribution, most relevant research centers, and featured sources. In addition, this study highlights research gaps in terms of methodological and design tools to improve LCA analysis, indicators, and connection to new trending concepts, such as circular economy and industry 4.0.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The need for more buildings and infrastructure parallels the population growth and natural expansion of cities and urban projects. In this context, the construction industry has an important role in increasing greenhouse gas emissions and global warming [1]. It is estimated that approximately 40% of all raw materials obtained from the lithosphere are consumed by the construction sector, representing almost 50% of global greenhouse gas emissions [2]. In addition, construction involves high consumption of building materials, water use, and improper waste management during the EOL phase [3].
The sustainability issues previously mentioned are contrasted with new policies to promote the reduction, reuse, and recycling of construction and demolition waste (C&DW), which provide essential reductions in the consumption of virgin materials and impacts associated with primary production and transportation. Research efforts during the last two decades have been oriented to include C&DW materials as an aggregate of new concrete mixtures, for example, [4,5,6,7,8]; new design approaches include the use of building information modeling (BIM), e.g., [9,10]; and others works, for instance, [11,12,13] have evaluated environmental benefits of using C&DW as replacement of virgin materials without affecting mechanical properties significantly.
All of these research approaches have some methodological tools in common. The one most employed is the LCA, which allows consolidating, comparing, and assessing sustainability impacts through environmental, economic, and social indicators. On a broader scope, sustainability of infrastructure and buildings projects are studied from a LCA perspective, since it can highlight environmental and economic drivers in C&DW management [14]; LCA is also employed to make decisions in early design phases, such as the selection of materials or in EOL scenarios to define best suitable options among recycling, reuse, or disposal of materials [15,16]. The usefulness of LCA lies in the determination and comparison of impacts to make decisions that will affect the entire life cycle of any building or infrastructure project.
In the construction field and related explicitly to the C&DW, LCA is commonly used to select the most suitable scenario between landfill, recycling, and incineration [3] but is not commonly considered from a design perspective. A well-defined challenge in this research field is to include life cycle stages of buildings and infrastructures, such as the design, construction, use, operation, and EOL, including environmental interventions related to construction materials (primary production or extraction, transportation, and fabrication of construction materials), construction and maintenance activities, and not only to dismantling operations during the EOL phase [17]
Some literature reviews related to the topic of LCA for C&DW are available; however, they do not cover the same observation window and imply different research purposes. Some examples of the most relevant reviews include Laurent et al., 2014 [18], who presented a comprehensive revision of LCA research works on solid waste management systems to consolidate their main findings and learnings. In addition, they also summarize main findings and research gaps to address new research opportunities. Bovea and Powell 2016 [19] developed a review of the literature related to the application of LCA methodology for assessing the environmental performance of C&DW systems. This work aimed to create a general mapping of existing literature and summarizes the best practices in compliance with the conventional LCA framework.
Similarly, Rodrigues Vieira et al., 2016 [20] presented a review oriented to analyze the use of LCA methodologies during the manufacturing of ecological concrete from C&DW materials. Later, Wu et al., 2019 [21] developed a study of the performance assessment methods (including LCA) for C&DW management. In addition, they proposed a framework for improving the assessment of waste management systems.
Thus, this article presents a systematic and broader literature review of works related to LCA applied to materials derived from C&DW, considering the flow of materials toward the development of circular economy in the construction sector. A bibliometric and content-based analysis highlights common findings, research gaps, and future research trends. On the one hand, bibliometric analysis comprised the evolution of the number of articles during the last two decades, the geographical distribution of works, featured researchers, most relevant research centers and journals, and most cited articles. Furthermore, content-based analysis studied the objective and methodology followed by authors, practical applications, C&DW materials analyzed, and the most common LCA parameters employed in previous studies.

2. Methods

This section describes the methodological steps to collect, screen, and analyze selected works from the existing literature. There is a methodology for the literature review and another for analyzing selected works, which is performed following bibliometric and content-based analysis.

2.1. Literature Review

Search and collection of research articles was performed using the SCOPUS database and complementary searches in Google Scholar. To facilitate the search procedure, we used a search query (Appendix A) that includes keywords such as “LCA”, “construction waste”, “demolition waste”, among others. Furthermore, the search query included additional filters to limit the type of documents (articles from only journals, English language, and matching of extracted keywords).
The PRISMA approach was used to systematically identify the most relevant works regarding the topic of LCA and C&DW (Figure 1). First, 209 records were collected from the SCOPUS database and secondary searches after eliminating duplicates. Later, 173 articles were classified as related works after revising title, abstract, methods, and conclusions. Finally, 150 entries were classified as selected works after performing a detailed and complete revision of articles.

2.2. Bibliometric and Based-Content Analysis

The analysis of the 150 selected works was divided into two main subsections: the first dedicated to summarizing bibliometric attributes, and the second focused on the content-based study of selected works. The bibliometric analysis provides useful information about the overall attributes of articles, authors, journals, among others. For this analysis, bibliometric software was not used for analyzing data.
On the other hand, the content-based analysis aims to study in detail the objectives, methodologies, and applicability of selected works and future research directions. Table 1 summarizes the investigated aspects covered in this study and the possible categories considered for each one. In addition to the research aspects shown in Table 1, this study analyzed the use of LCA indicators, the most common C&DW materials studied in the selected works, and main research topics and trends related to LCA applications on C&DW.

3. Results

3.1. Bibliometric Analysis

This subsection includes the evolution of research articles, contributions by region, most prominent research clusters, most relevant journals, and top-cited articles during the last two decades, among others. Each one of such aspects is described in detail below. Figure 2 shows the evolution of the number of articles during the last two decades. It demonstrates that LCA and C&DW are growing topics, especially during the last five years (Table 2). Regarding research articles, an increase from one or two works up to 37 works in less than 15 years is remarkable. This reveals an expanding research interest motivated for worldwide initiatives such as sustainable development goals, policies, and legislation related to sustainability and a more environmentally conscious society.
In terms of contributions per region, Europe and Asia have a vast advantage over the rest of the world. Just a few selected works were developed in North America, South America, and Oceania. Africa has minimum participation (one contribution) in the sample of selected works. Figure 3a summarizes the distribution of selected works by region. Figure 3b, on the other hand, shows a detailed distribution of selected works per country. Countries with a higher number of contributions based on author affiliations are China (30), Spain (23), Italy (22), Australia (12), and the USA (12).
After summarizing the analysis of selected works regarding affiliation of authors, three leading universities are identified (Figure 4a): (i) The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (China), (ii) Shenzen University (China), and (iii) The University of Adelaide (Australia). In addition, four universities from Italy and three from Spain were identified and important actors in the topic of LCA and C&DW. Finally, from Latin America, just one university is positioned in this ranking, the University of Campinas (Brazil).
The most relevant journals in the topic of LCA and C&DW are Journal of Cleaner Production with 30 selected articles, followed by Waste Management (19), Resources, Conservation & Recycling (18), and the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (10). Figure 4b summarizes the contributions per journal with at least two records. The other journals not mentioned represent individual contributions.
From the analysis of authors’ affiliation, it was possible to identify four main research clusters among authors with several contributions in the LCA application on C&DW management and decision-making. Table 3 includes the most relevant research clusters.
From the sample of 150 selected works, 11 articles were identified as key contributions based on their cumulated citations until the literature search date (21 April 2021). Table 4 comprises a brief description of the 11 articles.

3.2. Content-Based Analysis

Selected works were classified according to their objective and methodology, which were defined previously in Section 2.2. Figure 5 shows a graphical summary of the objective vs. methodology for the 150 selected works. As the main result, it is remarkable that 72% of selected works are oriented to evaluate, assess, or quantify sustainability impacts from an analytical perspective. In the second place, articles proposing methodologies, guidelines, or indicators represent 18%, where most works followed an analytical approach, and just one article is categorized as a framework. In third place, articles aiming to explore or analyze represent 10%. Finally, in this last category, most works are review-type, and just a few are based on other methodologies such as surveys or frameworks.
The practical application of selected works is summarized in Figure 6. most of the works (40%) are focused on the decision-making of the most suitable EOL strategy (recycling offsite, onsite, and landfill). EOL strategies are commonly contrasted using LCA indicators and transportation or reprocessing costs. Another relevant identified application (38%) compares the technical performance of C&DW materials versus virgin materials. Such analysis provides helpful information and methodological approaches for selecting materials and their fractions to fabricate new products. Lastly, the measurement of environmental or mechanical properties of construction materials using fractions of C&DW is also identified (6%), comprising methods, indicators, and assessment frameworks. Sixteen percent of selected works represent very particular applications or individual contributions, including analyzing waste recovery goals in specific regions, evaluating land consumption, and evaluating conventional vs. selective demolition.
Regarding the construction materials analyzed in the selected works, it was found that 49% of them (72 works) considered a very diverse group of materials that included ceramics (concrete, cement, bricks, gypsum, drywall, glass), metals (steel, iron, aluminum, copper), and polymers (insulation, rubber). Another important group of works was focused solely on aggregates from the diverse origin (19%), concrete aggregates (10%), and just nine works (6%) were oriented to a unique material (gypsum, asphalt, bricks, polymers). Fifteen percent of selected works (22) did not specify the construction material. Figure 7 shows the distribution of selected works for the categories in terms of absolute values.
LCA parameters most employed are global warming potential, acidification, energy consumption, eutrophication, and photochemical ozone creation potential, which are conventional parameters included in LCA approaches. Some interesting and nonconventional parameters such as cost, person-year equivalent, land occupation, and Eco-Indicator 99 were also found less frequently in the selected works. Figure 8 summarizes and lists the LCA parameters most used in the selected works.
A detailed analysis of data shown in this section regarding bibliometric and content-based analysis is performed in Section 4 (Discussion).

3.2.1. Research Topics

This subsection describes four main topics identified in the literature analyzed. Such topics summarize the most common and relevant themes covered in LCA and C&DW during the last two decades. Each topic is described in detail as follows:
  • Material Selection/Definition of C&DW Fraction for Construction Applications
The most common topic related to LCA use is the decision-making on choosing construction materials and defining the range of C&DW fractions in new products or building projects. In this topic, concrete was the material most studied, commonly analyzing the carbon footprint, e.g., [128,152]; carbon footprint and embodied energy [134], greenhouse gas emissions and land-use change [7], or analyzing contamination issues such as content and leaching of sulfates in recycled aggregates [146]. Other works were focused on developing new materials or construction products, and using fractions of C&DW as aggregate or filling material. Typical applications of previous works were focused on concrete, asphalt, and bricks.
Related to concrete, [98] compared two use-cycles of natural aggregate concrete and recycled aggregate concrete to analyze the environmental impacts of recycled materials. Results demonstrated the benefits of using recycled materials, such as environmental savings, primary resource use, embodied energy, embodied emissions, and reduced pressure on landfill sites. Reference [52] evaluated the energy consumption of all processes to manufacture concrete curbs using recycled aggregates for replacing natural sand aggregates.
Other works are related to brick manufacturing with some fraction of C&DW, and acceptable results concerning mechanical and durability properties and significant environmental impact reduction. For example, [83] performed an analysis of concrete and ceramic remains used to partially substitute clay soil to produce unfired bricks. Reference [126] compared reusable blocks with recycled brick aggregate, reusable blocks with recycled concrete, reusable blocks with natural aggregate, and regular concrete wall in mechanical properties and environmental impacts. Reference [33] employed LCA to demonstrate significant environmental benefits with the use of demolished concrete blocks over conventional concrete. Similarly, [57] assessed and compared the environmental impacts and sustainability associated with natural blocks manufactured with virgin materials and three generations of ecoblocks manufactured with C&DW. Other authors, e.g., [62,76], employed LCA to quantify and compare the environmental impacts associated with the production of masonry mortar manufactured with different amounts of fine natural and recycled aggregate from C&DW.
Other less common materials were studied in the selected works analyzed; for instance, [143] performed a study to identify the stages that produce the most significant impact on the environment (materials and processes) in the use of ceramic tiles. Likewise, [137] developed a comparative LCA on the energy requirements and implications of greenhouse emissions of recycling construction and demolition rubble and container glass. Reference [55] performed an LCA approach to evaluate the performance of recovered gypsum waste to manufacture ordinary Portland cement. Lastly, [103] demonstrated the calculation of the economic potential and environmental impact of reused steel building elements.
Regarding nonconventional materials, it was found that some authors worked on possible composite materials not directly employed in construction applications, for example, [37] who compared the use of waste materials derived from C&DW as alternative filers in the production of thermoplastic composites using recycled high-density polyethylene as a matrix material. Likewise, [94] assessed the environmental impact of wood polymer composite production using specific C&DW fractions (wood, plastic, plasterboard, and mineral wool) compared to conventional waste treatment scenarios such as landfilling and incineration. C&DW has been used as complementary material in some cases, e.g., [144], who developed a bamboo and C&DW residential building prototype and its LCA compared to a typical brick–concrete building, demonstrating benefits in embodied energy from the recycling of demolition waste.
Other studies were oriented to analyze different life cycle phases of construction materials, as in the case of [77], who assessed the environmental impacts on the production of aggregates via each scenario using life cycle assessment (virgin vs. recycled aggregates), including energy consumption and CO2 emissions as the comparative indicator.
  • EOL Decision-Making
The selection of the most suitable EOL strategy to manage C&DW is one of the most studied topics in the literature. Commonly, it is used to compare decision scenarios such as landfilling materials, recycling, and analysis of C&DW use in different fractions and incineration to obtain thermal energy. Commonly, the LCA approach is used to determine what alternative is better, according to the case study. Some relevant examples of this LCA application include [3], who evaluated environmental impacts considering landfilling, recycling, and incineration of demolition waste. Other works, such as that proposed by [139], assessed the EOL of a building to identify the demolition process variables that affect energy consumption and GHG emissions. Other authors, e.g., [119], combined LCA and LCC (life cycle cost) to analyze the environmental and economic drivers of three different waste disposal scenarios (landfilling, recycled aggregate, and recycled powder). Likewise, [115] compared the life cycle environmental implications of two C&DW management alternatives (inert landfilling and integrated wet recycling). Reference [60] presents analysis of six different scenarios for C&DW that included a combination of landfill, sorting, and recycling, and the use of material for landfill roads. Reference [41] analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with C&DW utilization in road construction compared to landfilling, including analysis of transportation distances and the entire life cycle of construction products. In terms of industrialized treatment processes for C&DW, [29] analyzed mixes of recycled aggregates from C&DW treatment plants to evaluate the viability of their use in the construction of road layers. It was determined that these materials, when they come from C&DW with selective collection at origin, cause less environmental impact than the impact caused by the use of natural aggregates to build road layers.
  • Waste Management Systems
Several studies were focused on or related to strategies around the waste management systems for C&DW. Such works commonly have a managerial approach and included broader analysis on how technical factors influence the sustainability performance of the waste management process. We can here highlight some interesting approaches. For example, [150] proposed a model to evaluate waste management systems, including environmental, economic, and social aspects of C&DW. References [56,145] quantified environmental impacts within an LCA for buildings in which life cycle stages were adjusted to several waste/material management options. Overall analysis, such as the one proposed by [141], consisted of analyzing the energy and environmental implications of the C&DW recycling chain in a particular region of Italy. It included land use, transportation, and avoiding landfills. Moreover, data related to generate life cycle inventories, such as that described in [129], were used to develop and analyze a life cycle inventory of C&DW management systems based on primary data. More recent studies, as in [15], were oriented to develop conceptual C&DW management frameworks to maximize reduction, reuse, and recycling of materials. Lastly, some interesting recent works [34,73] focused on waste prevention scenarios from early design phases. These studies aimed to predict or simulate waste generation before the construction phase and mitigate future environmental impacts derived from C&DW management.
  • Other Trends
Some interesting and novelty approaches were identified in the research articles selected. In the case of sustainability indicators dedicated to C&DW, [15] proposed a cycle-based C&DW sustainability index to assist designers during the selection of material, sorting, recycle/reuse, and treatment or disposal options for C&DW. In the field of methodological approaches, LCA has been combined with different tools to improve results and robustness of the life cycle analysis. Several variations of LCA and combinations can be noted. For instance, [4] proposed LCSA (life cycle sustainability analysis) applied to concrete recycling. Approaches based on building information modeling (BIM) were also identified, e.g., [9,10,39], which analyzed the environmental impact of materials converted into waste by evaluating with a BIM tool.

3.2.2. Common Findings

This subsection summarizes the most representative results from selected works in terms of sustainability after applying LCA on C&DW analysis or management:
  • LCA demonstrates the reduction of this new material on the global warming potential of concrete. Reductions from 66 to 70% are possible for high strength concrete with low clinker content and 7–35% with a higher clinker content [135]. Similarly, [132] developed a comparative analysis of recycled and conventional concrete. Results demonstrated a reduction of (−30%) environmental impacts for Eco-Indicator 99 and ecological scarcity.
  • Transportation stage plays a critical role in the recycling process of C&DW [69,78,129,137]. Depending on the distance to the destination (in the case of production exportation), it can be one of the most predominant stages from the environmental perspective [143].
  • It is necessary to analyze the environmental performance of a system from different perspectives before decision-making. Recycling waste is not always the best alternative for C&DW; it depends on regional differences in operations and waste composition [43].
  • Benefits from substituting primary raw materials can be overset by the increased impacts due to additional energy requirements of the selective demolition compared to the traditional one. Consequently, the environmental sustainability of selective demolition should be addressed on a case-by-case basis [124].
  • Preventative models can support the preparation of national waste programs and could serve as an instrumental tool to simulate the environmental impacts of construction waste management scenarios that include waste prevention [34].
  • LCA and GIS (geographical information systems) provide beneficial results to analyze EOL scenarios by considering the number, size, type, and location of recycling plants [141].

4. Discussion

After performing the literature search, identifying the selected works, and developing the bibliometric and content-based analysis, several issues can be highlighted concerning the concept of LCA and C&DW.
Firstly, LCA approaches and C&DW are a growing and trending topic that will be gaining more relevance in waste management and the design and planning of new industrial and residential projects worldwide. Furthermore, there is a generalized pressure for finding more environmentally friendly solutions and the almost mandatory requirement of measuring and reducing impacts during the whole life cycle of buildings. Therefore, more research efforts are required worldwide to contribute more specialized knowledge to aid designers, architects, and engineers during the conception of new building projects and the EOL management of existing ones. LCA is still challenging due to the data required, the availability of indicators, and characterization factors related to each case study. However, it is a helpful tool to analyze and make decisions related to environmental issues for using and managing C&DW.
Following the previous idea, it is notable that only a few countries have an important research advance in evaluating C&DW materials from a holistic life cycle perspective. For example, countries such as China, Spain, and Italy have a well-established research agenda in the field, proposing strategies and engineering approaches to manage and recover material from existing buildings and comparing technical performances between C&DW and virgin materials. Although most research is limited to a particular region, province, or city, methodological approaches based on geographic information systems, optimization techniques to analyze logistic burdens and costs, detailed environmental analysis, and statistical approaches can be extrapolated to other countries and regions. Furthermore, it is necessary to include in such an analysis the source of virgin materials and construction products from a worldwide point of view since several materials are imported depending on the demanding country or region.
In terms of objectives or purpose of selected works, most are dedicated to evaluate, assess, and quantify technical attributes (environmental, economic, and related to mechanical properties) of C&DW. Such works focus on providing helpful information to make decisions related to select materials, determine the most suitable waste management strategy (recycling onsite, offsite, and landfill) existing C&DW. Nevertheless, the practical application of such works is limited by local conditions and other factors, such as current legislation, transportation infrastructure, and technology availability. In terms of materials, management alternatives for C&DW need to be addressed individually due to the vast amount and variety of construction materials currently available. It is necessary to consolidate comprehensive databases, preferably including the origin and destination of raw materials.
Some works propose new methodologies, guidelines, or indicators to study C&DW materials compared to conventional virgin materials. However, these studies are fewer compared to those dedicated to evaluating, assessing, and quantifying, which demonstrates a lack of methodological approaches, not only for the management of C&DW, but also for the whole life cycle, starting from early design phases. Nevertheless, unfortunately, most existing buildings closer to their EOL stage were constructed without considering life cycle implications, especially those built before 2000. Lastly, in a minor proportion, several works aimed to explore or analyze previous research results. Such articles are review-type and consolidate information and data from LCA application cases on buildings, and highlight research gaps in a general perspective. As an important opportunity, it is remarkable that LCA shows improved results when it is combined with other methodological tools such as material flow analysis, life cycle cost, environmental life cycle costing, multicriteria analysis, among others. Selected works consider a wide variety of C&DW materials that include concrete, steel, brick, plaster, insulation, glass, aluminum, gypsum, board, ash, timber, wood, and rubber.
Moreover, most analytical works consider five to twelve materials, including all possible materials obtained from demolition tasks. This provides a robust characterization in terms of LCA. However, to fully assess many materials through LCA (primary production, secondary production, transportation, use, and EOL) requires a vast amount of information that can be difficult to find in the literature, especially when a local context analysis is necessary and when the chemical composition of materials can vary according to their geographical source. The complexity of this issue is increased when eight or more LCA parameters or indicators are required.
Indicators employed in LCA include various chemical, physical, and technical parameters that provide full detail of sustainability burdens in different life cycle stages (manufacturing, use, and EOL). However, there is no homogeneity in the use of LCA indicators, which does not allow a technical comparison of research works. Therefore, to avoid confusion and misunderstanding of results from the case study analysis, it is necessary to dedicate research efforts to the definition of worldwide accepted indicators or measurement parameters.

5. Barriers and Future Challenges

From the analysis of selected works, several common barriers were identified. The most relevant are described in detail below:
  • LCA is a method based on data inventory; therefore, the robustness of each analysis depends on the availability of data to measure and compare environmental indicators. A significant proportion of selected works (30% approximately) employed a complete set of environmental indicators. Meanwhile, most of the works (50% approximately) employ one to four indicators. This demonstrates a bias in the implementation of the method in the group of selected works. This situation makes it difficult to make a detailed comparison among the research works with traceability and reliability.
  • There are no widely extended policies related to the disposal of debris in construction sites and the threshold of recycled-content building materials [17,144]. This is evidenced in the type of approach proposed by most research works based on local analysis (municipalities, cities, or regions). Therefore, there is no formal approach to evaluate C&DW through LCA in a world unified methodology. The consequences of this situation can be seen on a larger scale in the European Union (Figure 9), where although the recovery average of C&DW is around 30%, the situation varies from country to country. For example, southern countries such as Spain, Portugal, and Greece only recover approximately 5% of the generated C&DW, while northern countries such as Holland, Belgium, and Denmark recover more than 80% of the CD&DW.
  • The economic viability of C&DW management is insufficient to guarantee its implementation. Other factors must be included in the analysis, such as logistic deadlines, availability of resources, transportation issues, derived environmental impacts, among others [150]. It is necessary to have an entire database of environmental and technical data from all raw materials (including geographical origin) to develop robust analysis based on a sustainability perspective that includes environmental and social aspects.
  • Commonly, it is concluded that recycling is more sustainable, but from an absolute perspective, it can cause an unacceptable impact on the environment [150]. The impact of recycling must be considered in any LCA analysis using a case-by-case basis.
  • According to the results previously explained and discussed, five main research challenges need to be addressed to improve the applicability and effectiveness of LCA approaches to study C&DW.
  • LCA implementations found in the existing literature focus on specific locations or cities; there is no traceability of the primary source of materials that can even be imported from distant regions. A robust LCA approach should consider the entire life cycle, considering socioeconomic conditions of locations or countries where raw material is obtained and processed until it is delivered as a construction material or product. The same consideration should be included to select the most suitable EOL alternative of C&DW, involving long travel distances.
  • Most research works are focused on recycling concrete or aggregates of different nature. However, it is necessary to propose new approaches that provide different circular economy strategies such as repair or repurpose to avoid reprocessing of C&DW material that can be more expensive in terms of cost and environment. Recycling is considered one of the less desirable among the circular economy strategies [154,155], since it involves using resources (energy, water, additional supplies) that can be significant compared to the extraction of virgin material. Nevertheless, due to the nature of construction materials, it is difficult to apply many strategies compared to electronics, industrial machines, and domestic appliances.
  • Dedicated design methodologies that include prediction of environmental impact, maintenance tasks, and demolition processes must integrate LCA data from early design phases. Building information modeling presents vast potential as a tool for including LCA aspects and facilitating the waste management of buildings during their EOL stage.
  • Industry 4.0 technology and advanced techniques such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and digital twin are required to boost new research efforts for building project design and waste management. In addition, simulation tools and modeling software need to include material property databases to assess and select materials from early design phases. Thus, it facilitates calculations and the decision-making of construction materials and their fractions when C&DW sources are considered for replacing virgin material.
  • More research is required to evaluate the role of legislation and policies in different countries related to the waste management of C&DW and their evolution during the last decade. For example, stimulating and controlling approaches should be considered to move construction to a circular economy model. In addition, some new business models associated with the servitization of buildings (co-living, working spaces, rent-based offices) must be assessed in the use stage to compensate for possible costs during the EOL phase.

6. Conclusions

This article aimed to consolidate and summarize relevant trends and insights from a systematic literature review of works related to LCA and C&DW during the last two decades. The works identified and selected were analyzed following a bibliometric and content-based analysis. Global bibliometric parameters included the evolution of works in time, geographical distribution of works, most relevant research centers, featured journals, and research clusters. The content-based analysis covered objectives and methodology, practical application, C&DW materials studied, and LCA parameters. Research gaps lie in the need for more research dedicated to design methodologies that provide helpful guidelines to consider the whole life cycle of buildings from early design stages, to include a more circular economy perspective to generate additional alternatives to recycling and recovery of C&DW, and to more broadly analyze globalized supply chains to consider the entire life cycle impact of raw materials. Additionally, there is a need to integrate Industry 4.0 and new data-driven methods to optimize design and decision-making around the management of construction materials. Furthermore, research is necessary to analyze the impact of uneven evolution of legislation and policies worldwide and evaluate their impact on long-term sustainability performance in the world construction sector.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.A.M., and A.M.-R.; methodology, J.A.M.; validation, J.A.M., C.F.-R., and A.M.-R.; formal analysis, J.A.M.; investigation, J.A.M. and C.F.-R.; resources, J.A.M.; data curation, J.A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, J.A.M.; writing—review and editing, J.A.M. and C.F.-R.; visualization, J.A.M.; supervision, C.F.-R. and A.M.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Engineering Faculties of Pontificia Universidad Javeriana and Universidad El Bosque University for their support during the development of this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Full Search Query Employed in SCOPUS Database

TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“CDW” OR “Construction waste” OR “demolition waste”) AND (“LCA” OR “Life cycle Assessment” OR “Life cycle Analysis” OR “Lifecycle Assessment”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, “j”) OR LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, “p”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “cp”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “re”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Life Cycle”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Demolition”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Construction And Demolition Waste”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Life Cycle Assessment”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Life Cycle Analysis”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Demolition Wastes”)) AND (EXCLUDE (OA, “all”)).
Results: 201 records (21 April 2021).

References

  1. Nasab, T.J.; Monavari, S.M.; Jozi, S.A.; Majedi, H. Assessment of carbon footprint in the construction phase of high-rise constructions in Tehran. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 17, 3153–3164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ruuska, A.; Häkkinen, T. Material efficiency of building construction. Buildings 2014, 4, 266–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Ortiz, O.; Pasqualino, J.C.; Castells, F. Environmental performance of construction waste: Comparing three scenarios from a case study in Catalonia, Spain. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 646–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hu, M.; Kleijn, R.; Bozhilova-Kisheva, K.P.; di Maio, F. An approach to LCSA: The case of concrete recycling. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 1793–1803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Guignot, S.; Touzé, S.; von der Weid, F.; Ménard, Y.; Villeneuve, J. Recycling Construction and Demolition Wastes as Building Materials: A Life Cycle Assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 2015, 19, 1030–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Junior, A.C.P.; Jacinto, C.; Oliveira, T.M.; Polisseni, A.E.; Brum, F.M.; Teixeira, E.R.; Mateus, R. Characterisation and life cycle assessment of pervious concrete with recycled concrete aggregates. Crystals 2021, 11, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhang, C.; Hu, M.; Dong, L.; Xiang, P.; Zhang, Q.; Wu, J.; Li, B.; Shi, S. 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. 2018, 201, 481–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhang, C.; Hu, M.; Dong, L.; Gebremariam, A.; Miranda-Xicotencatl, B.; Di Maio, F.; Tukker, A. Eco-efficiency assessment of technological innovations in high-grade concrete recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 649–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jalaei, F.; Zoghi, M.; Khoshand, A. Life cycle environmental impact assessment to manage and optimize construction waste using Building Information Modeling (BIM). Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2019, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zoghi, M.; Kim, S. Dynamic modeling for life cycle cost analysis of BIM-based construction waste management. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Ram, V.G.; Kishore, K.C.; Kalidindi, S.N. Environmental benefits of construction and demolition debris recycling: Evidence from an Indian case study using life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 255, 120258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Narayanaswamy, A.H.; Walker, P.; Reddy, B.V.V.; Heath, A.; Maskell, D. Mechanical and thermal properties, and comparative life-cycle impacts, of stabilised earth building products. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 243, 118096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kvočka, D.; Lešek, A.; Knez, F.; Ducman, V.; Panizza, M.; Tsoutis, C.; Bernardi, A. Life cycle assessment of prefabricated geopolymeric façade cladding panels made from large fractions of recycled construction and demolition waste. Materials 2020, 13, 3931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Di Maria, A.; Eyckmans, J.; van Acker, K. Downcycling versus recycling of construction and demolition waste: Combining LCA and LCC to support sustainable policy making. Waste Manag. 2018, 75, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yeheyis, M.; Hewage, K.; Alam, M.S.; Eskicioglu, C.; Sadiq, R. An overview of construction and demolition waste management in Canada: A life-cycle analysis approach to sustainability. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2013, 15, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Di Maria, A.; Eyckmans, J.; van Acker, K. Use of LCA and LCC to help decision-making between downcycling versus recycling of construction and demolition waste. In Advances in Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2020; pp. 537–558. [Google Scholar]
  17. Blengini, G.A. Life cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: A case study in Turin, Italy. Build. Environ. 2009, 44, 319–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Laurent, A.; Bakas, I.; Clavreul, J.; Bernstad, A.; Niero, M.; Gentil, E.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Christensen, T.H. Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems-Part I: Lessons learned and perspectives. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 573–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bovea, M.D.; Powell, J.C. Developments in life cycle assessment applied to evaluate the environmental performance of construction and demolition wastes. Waste Manag. 2016, 50, 151–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Vieira, D.R.; Calmon, J.L.; Coelho, F.Z. Life cycle assessment (LCA) applied to the manufacturing of common and ecological concrete: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 124, 656–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wu, H.; Zuo, J.; Yuan, H.; Zillante, G.; Wang, J. A review of performance assessment methods for construction and demolition waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 150, 104407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rosado, L.P.; Penteado, C.S.G. Municipal management of construction and demolition waste: Influence of disposal fees. Ambient. Soc. 2020, 23, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Salgado, R.A.; Apul, D.; Guner, S. Life cycle assessment of seismic retrofit alternatives for reinforced concrete frame buildings. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 28, 101064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sözer, H.; Sözen, H. Waste capacity and its environmental impact of a residential district during its life cycle. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 286–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sözer, H.; Sözen, H.; Utkucu, D. Waste potential of a building through gate-to-grave approach based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2020, 15, 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Umadevi, P.; Pradeep, T. A review on environmental, economic and social facets of construction & demolition waste management. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. 2020, 29, 4692–4697. [Google Scholar]
  27. Zhang, J.; Ding, L.; Li, F.; Peng, J. Recycled aggregates from construction and demolition wastes as alternative filling materials for highway subgrades in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 255, 120223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhao, Z.; Courard, L.; Groslambert, S.; Jehin, T.; Léonard, A.; Xiao, J. Use of recycled concrete aggregates from precast block for the production of new building blocks: An industrial scale study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 157, 104786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Agrela, F.; Díaz-López, J.L.; Rosales, J.; Cuenca-Moyano, G.M.; Cano, H.; Cabrera, M. Environmental assessment, mechanical behavior and new leaching impact proposal of mixed recycled aggregates to be used in road construction. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bogoviku, L.; Waldmann, D. Modelling of mineral construction and demolition waste dynamics through a combination of geospatial and image analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bonoli, A.; Zanni, S.; Serrano-Bernardo, F. Sustainability in building and construction within the framework of circular cities and european new green deal. The contribution of concrete recycling. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Caneda-martínez, L.; Monasterio, M.; Moreno-juez, J.; Martínez-ramírez, S.; García, R.; Frías, M. Behaviour and properties of eco-cement pastes elaborated with recycled concrete powder from construction and demolition wastes. Materials 2021, 14, 1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Li, J.; Zhang, J.; Ni, S.; Liu, L.; Walubita, L.F. Mechanical performance and environmental impacts of self-compacting concrete with recycled demolished concrete blocks. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 126129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Llatas, C.; Bizcocho, N.; Soust-Verdaguer, B.; Montes, M.V.; Quiñones, R. An LCA-based model for assessing prevention versus non-prevention of construction waste in buildings. Waste Manag. 2021, 126, 608–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Nguyen, W.; Martinez, D.M.; Jen, G.; Duncan, J.F.; Ostertag, C.P. Interaction between global warming potential, durability, and structural properties of fiber-reinforced concrete with high waste materials inclusion. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 169, 105453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Resch, E.; Andresen, I.; Cherubini, F.; Brattebø, H. Estimating dynamic climate change effects of material use in buildings—Timing, uncertainty, and emission sources. Build. Environ. 2021, 187, 107399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sormunen, P.; Deviatkin, I.; Horttanainen, M.; Kärki, T. An evaluation of thermoplastic composite fillers derived from construction and demolition waste based on their economic and environmental characteristics. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhou, A.; Zhang, W.; Wei, H.; Liu, T.; Zou, D.; Guo, H. A novel approach for recycling engineering sediment waste as sustainable supplementary cementitious materials. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 167, 105435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wang, J.; Wu, H.; Duan, H.; Zillante, G.; Zuo, J.; Yuan, H. Combining life cycle assessment and Building Information Modelling to account for carbon emission of building demolition waste: A case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 172, 3154–3166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wu, Z.; Yu, A.T.W.; Poon, C.S. An off-site snapshot methodology for estimating building construction waste composition—A case study of Hong Kong. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2019, 77, 128–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Butera, S.; Christensen, T.H.; Astrup, T.F. Life cycle assessment of construction and demolition waste management. Waste Manag. 2015, 44, 196–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Cao, X.; Li, X.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, Z. A comparative study of environmental performance between prefabricated and traditional residential buildings in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dahlbo, H.; Bachér, J.; Lähtinen, K.; Jouttijärvi, T.; Suoheimo, P.; Mattila, T.; Sironen, S.; Myllymaa, T.; Saramäki, K. Construction and demolition waste management—A holistic evaluation of environmental performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 107, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fu, F.; Sun, J.; Pasquire, C. Carbon Emission Assessment for Steel Structure Based on Lean Construction Process. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. Theory Appl. 2015, 79, 401–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hol, G.H.P. Building a green swimming pool by using concrete with aggregates from demolition waste. Procedia Eng. 2015, 125, 613–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Ng, W.Y.; Chau, C.K. New Life of the Building Materials-Recycle, Reuse and Recovery. Energy Procedia 2015, 75, 2884–2891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Tošić, N.; Marinković, S.; Dašić, T.; Stanić, M. Multicriteria optimization of natural and recycled aggregate concrete for structural use. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 87, 766–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Udawatta, N.; Zuo, J.; Chiveralls, K.; Zillante, G. Improving waste management in construction projects: An Australian study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 101, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Estanqueiro, B.; Silvestre, J.D.; de Brito, J.; Pinheiro, M.D. Environmental life cycle assessment of coarse natural and recycled aggregates for concrete. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2018, 22, 429–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Faleschini, F.; Zanini, M.A.; Pellegrino, C.; Pasinato, S. Sustainable management and supply of natural and recycled aggregates in a medium-size integrated plant. Waste Manag. 2016, 49, 146–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kucukvar, M.; Egilmez, G.; Tatari, O. Life cycle assessment and optimization-based decision analysis of construction waste recycling for a LEED-certified university building. Sustainability 2016, 8, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Gayarre, F.L.; Pérez, J.G.; Pérez, C.L.; López, M.S.; Martínez, A.L. Life cycle assessment for concrete kerbs manufactured with recycled aggregates. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 41–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mortaheb, M.M.; Mahpour, A. Integrated construction waste management, a holistic approach. Sci. Iran. 2016, 23, 2044–2056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Sou, W.I.; Chu, A.; Chiueh, P.T. Sustainability assessment and prioritisation of bottom ash management in Macao. Waste Manag. Res. 2016, 34, 1275–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Suárez, S.; Roca, X.; Gasso, S. Product-specific life cycle assessment of recycled gypsum as a replacement for natural gypsum in ordinary Portland cement: Application to the Spanish context. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 117, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hossain, M.U.; Poon, C.S.; Lo, I.M.C.; Cheng, J.C.P. Comparative environmental evaluation of aggregate production from recycled waste materials and virgin sources by LCA. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 109, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hossain, M.U.; Poon, C.S.; Lo, I.M.C.; Cheng, J.C.P. Evaluation of environmental friendliness of concrete paving eco-blocks using LCA approach. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 70–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tang, X.; Li, C.; Hu, S.; Liu, Y.; Geng, H. Evaluating extended land consumption in building life cycle to improve land conservation: A case study in Shenyang, China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 109, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zambrana-Vasquez, D.; Zabalza-Bribián, I.; Jáñez, A.; Aranda-Usón, A. Analysis of the environmental performance of life-cycle building waste management strategies in tertiary buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 130, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Penteado, C.S.G.; Rosado, L.P. Comparison of scenarios for the integrated management of construction and demolition waste by life cycle assessment: A case study in Brazil. Waste Manag. Res. 2016, 34, 1026–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Arm, M.; Wik, O.; Engelsen, C.J.; Erlandsson, M.; Hjelmar, O.; Wahlström, M. How Does the European Recovery Target for Construction & Demolition Waste Affect Resource Management? Waste Biomass Valoriz. 2017, 8, 1491–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Cuenca-Moyano, G.M.; Zanni, S.; Bonoli, A.; Valverde-Palacios, I. Development of the life cycle inventory of masonry mortar made of natural and recycled aggregates. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 1272–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ghanbari, M.; Abbasi, A.M.; Ravanshadnia, M. Economic and Environmental Evaluation and Optimal Ratio of Natural and Recycled Aggregate Production. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Ghanbari, M.; Abbasi, A.M.; Ravanshadnia, M. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment and Cost Analysis of Aggregate Production Industries. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2017, 15, 1577–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ghose, A.; Pizzol, M.; McLaren, S.J. Consequential LCA modelling of building refurbishment in New Zealand- an evaluation of resource and waste management scenarios. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 165, 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mah, C.M.; Fujiwara, T.; Ho, C.S. Concrete waste management decision analysis based on life cycle assessment. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2017, 56, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Mastrucci, A.; Marvuglia, A.; Popovici, E.; Leopold, U.; Benetto, E. Geospatial characterization of building material stocks for the life cycle assessment of end-of-life scenarios at the urban scale. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 123, 54–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Rosado, L.P.; Vitale, P.; Penteado, C.S.G.; Arena, U. Life cycle assessment of natural and mixed recycled aggregate production in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 151, 634–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Shan, X.; Zhou, J.; Chang, V.W.C.; Yang, E.H. Life cycle assessment of adoption of local recycled aggregates and green concrete in Singapore perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 918–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hossain, M.U.; Wu, Z.; Poon, C.S. Comparative environmental evaluation of construction waste management through different waste sorting systems in Hong Kong. Waste Manag. 2017, 69, 325–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Vitale, P.; Arena, U. An attributional life cycle assessment for an Italian residential multifamily building. Environ. Technol. 2017, 39, 3033–3045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Vitale, P.; Arena, N.; di Gregorio, F.; Arena, U. Life cycle assessment of the end-of-life phase of a residential building. Waste Manag. 2017, 60, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Bizcocho, N.; Llatas, C. Inclusion of prevention scenarios in LCA of construction waste management. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 468–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Borghi, G.; Pantini, S.; Rigamonti, L. Life cycle assessment of non-hazardous Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) management in Lombardy Region (Italy). J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 184, 815–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Mah, C.M.; Fujiwara, T.; Ho, C.S. Environmental impacts of construction and demolition waste management alternatives. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2018, 63, 343–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Cuenca-Moyano, G.M.; Martín-Morales, M.; Bonoli, A.; Valverde-Palacios, I. Environmental assessment of masonry mortars made with natural and recycled aggregates. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 191–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ghanbari, M.; Abbasi, A.M.; Ravanshadnia, M. Production of natural and recycled aggregates: The environmental impacts of energy consumption and CO2 emissions. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2018, 20, 810–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Göswein, V.; Gonçalves, A.B.; Silvestre, J.D.; Freire, F.; Habert, G.; Kurda, R. Transportation matters—Does it? GIS-based comparative environmental assessment of concrete mixes with cement, fly ash, natural and recycled aggregates. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 137, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Heeren, N.; Hellweg, S. Tracking Construction Material over Space and Time: Prospective and Geo-referenced Modeling of Building Stocks and Construction Material Flows. J. Ind. Ecol. 2019, 23, 253–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Lockrey, S.; Verghese, K.; Crossin, E.; Nguyen, H. Concrete recycling life cycle flows and performance from construction and demolition waste in Hanoi. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 179, 593–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Palacios-Munoz, B.; Gracia-Villa, L.; Zabalza-Bribián, I.; López-Mesa, B. Simplified structural design and LCA of reinforced concrete beams strengthening techniques. Eng. Struct. 2018, 174, 418–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Pantini, S.; Borghi, G.; Rigamonti, L. Towards resource-efficient management of asphalt waste in Lombardy region (Italy): Identification of effective strategies based on the LCA methodology. Waste Manag. 2018, 80, 423–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Seco, A.; Omer, J.; Marcelino, S.; Espuelas, S.; Prieto, E. Sustainable unfired bricks manufacturing from construction and demolition wastes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 167, 154–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Silgado, S.S.; Valdiviezo, L.C.; Domingo, S.G.; Roca, X. 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. 2018, 133, 120–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Hossain, M.U.; Wang, L.; Yu, I.K.M.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Poon, C.S. Environmental and technical feasibility study of upcycling wood waste into cement-bonded particleboard. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 173, 474–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Vitale, P.; Spagnuolo, A.; Lubritto, C.; Arena, U. Environmental performances of residential buildings with a structure in cold formed steel or reinforced concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 189, 839–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Wang, T.; Wang, J.; Wu, P.; Wang, J.; He, Q.; Wang, X. 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. 2018, 172, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Wang, J.; Wu, H.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Zuo, J. Considering life-cycle environmental impacts and society’s willingness for optimizing construction and demolition waste management fee: An empirical study of China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 206, 1004–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Yazdanbakhsh, A.; Bank, L.C.; Baez, T.; Wernick, I. Comparative LCA of concrete with natural and recycled coarse aggregate in the New York City area. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2018, 23, 1163–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Yazdanbakhsh, A. A bi-level environmental impact assessment framework for comparing construction and demolition waste management strategies. Waste Manag. 2018, 77, 401–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Zanni, S.; Simion, I.M.; Gavrilescu, M.; Bonoli, A. Life Cycle Assessment Applied to Circular Designed Construction Materials. Procedia CIRP 2018, 69, 154–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Dastjerdi, B.; Strezov, V.; Kumar, R.; Behnia, M. An evaluation of the potential of waste to energy technologies for residual solid waste in New South Wales, Australia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 115, 109398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Hertwich, E.G.; Ali, S.; Ciacci, L.; Fishman, T.; Heeren, N.; Masanet, E.; Asghari, F.N.; Olivetti, E.; Pauliuk, S.; Tu, Q.; et al. Material efficiency strategies to reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with buildings, vehicles, and electronics—A review. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Liikanen, M.; Grönman, K.; Deviatkin, I.; Havukainen, J.; Hyvärinen, M.; Kärki, T.; Varis, J.; Soukka, R.; Horttanainen, M. Construction and demolition waste as a raw material for wood polymer composites—Assessment of environmental impacts. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 225, 716–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Nußholz, J.L.K.; Rasmussen, F.N.; Milios, L. Circular building materials: Carbon saving potential and the role of business model innovation and public policy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 141, 308–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Pantini, S.; Giurato, M.; Rigamonti, L. A LCA study to investigate resource-efficient strategies for managing post-consumer gypsum waste in Lombardy region (Italy). Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 147, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Park, W.J.; Kim, T.; Roh, S.; Kim, R. Analysis of life cycle environmental impact of recycled aggregate. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Pavlu, T.; Kocí, V.; Hájek, P. Environmental assessment of two use cycles of recycled aggregate concrete. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Rosado, L.P.; Vitale, P.; Penteado, C.S.G.; Arena, U. Life cycle assessment of construction and demolition waste management in a large area of São Paulo State, Brazil. Waste Manag. 2019, 85, 477–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Santos, A.C.; Mendes, P.; Teixeira, M.R. Social life cycle analysis as a tool for sustainable management of illegal waste dumping in municipal services. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 210, 1141–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Sözer, H.; Sözen, H. Evaluating the capacity of a building’s waste and the potential for savings using the life cycle assessment methodology. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2019, 231, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Erduran, D.Ü.; Elias-Ozkan, S.T.; Ulybin, A. Assessing potential environmental impact and construction cost of reclaimed masonry walls. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Vares, S.; Hradil, P.; Sansom, M.; Ungureanu, V. Economic potential and environmental impacts of reused steel structures. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2020, 16, 750–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Vidal, R.; Sánchez-Pantoja, N.; Martínez, G. Análisis del ciclo de vida de un edificio con estructura de madera contralaminada en Granada-España. Inf. Constr. 2019, 71, 289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Yazdanbakhsh, A.; Lagouin, M. The effect of geographic boundaries on the results of a regional life cycle assessment of using recycled aggregate in concrete. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 143, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Akbarieh, A.; Jayasinghe, L.B.; Waldmann, D.; Teferle, F.N. BIM-based end-of-lifecycle decision making and digital deconstruction: Literature review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Colangelo, F.; Navarro, T.G.; Farina, I.; Petrillo, A. Comparative LCA of concrete with recycled aggregates: A circular economy mindset in Europe. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 1790–1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Foster, G.; Kreinin, H. A review of environmental impact indicators of cultural heritage buildings: A circular economy perspective. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Guzdek, S.; Malinowski, M.; Religa, A.; Liszka, D.; Petryk, A. Economic and ecological assessment of transport of various types of waste. J. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 21, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Hafez, H.; Kurda, R.; Kurda, R.; Al-Hadad, B.; Mustafa, R.; Ali, B. A critical review on the influence of fine recycled aggregates on technical performance, environmental impact and cost of concrete. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Hasan, U.; Whyte, A.; al Jassmi, H. Life cycle assessment of roadworks in United Arab Emirates: Recycled construction waste, reclaimed asphalt pavement, warm-mix asphalt and blast furnace slag use against traditional approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 257, 120531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Huang, B.; Gao, X.; Xu, X.; Song, J.; Geng, Y.; Sarkis, J.; Fishman, T.; Kua, H.; Nakatani, J. A Life Cycle Thinking Framework to Mitigate the Environmental Impact of Building Materials. One Earth 2020, 3, 564–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Illankoon, I.M.C.S.; Lu, W. Cost implications of obtaining construction waste management-related credits in green building. Waste Manag. 2020, 102, 722–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Ismaeel, W.S.E.; Ali, A.A.M.M. Assessment of eco-rehabilitation plans: Case study ‘Richordi Berchet’ palace. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 259, 120857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Jain, S.; Singhal, S.; Pandey, S. Environmental life cycle assessment of construction and demolition waste recycling: A case of urban India. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 155, 104642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Khan, S.M.; Qaiser, N.; Shaikh, S.F.; Hussain, M.M. Design Analysis and Human Tests of Foil-Based Wheezing Monitoring System for Asthma Detection. IEEE Trans. Electron. Devices 2020, 67, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Kirthika, S.K.; Singh, S.K.; Chourasia, A. Alternative fine aggregates in production of sustainable concrete- A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 268, 122089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Li, J.; Liang, J.; Zuo, J.; Guo, H. Environmental impact assessment of mobile recycling of demolition waste in Shenzhen, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 263, 121371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Liu, J.; Huang, Z.; Wang, X. Economic and environmental assessment of carbon emissions from demolition waste based on LCA and LCC. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Iodice, S.; de Toro, P. Waste and wasted landscapes: Focus on abandoned industrial areas. Detritus 2020, 11, 103–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Marrero, M.; Rivero-Camacho, C.; Alba-Rodríguez, M.D. What are we discarding during the life cycle of a building? Case studies of social housing in Andalusia, Spain. Waste Manag. 2020, 102, 391–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Grabois, T.M.; Caldas, L.R.; Julião, N.R.; Filho, R.D.T. An experimental and environmental evaluation of mortars with recycled demolition waste from a hospital implosion in Rio de Janeiro. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Mousavi, M.; Ventura, A.; Antheaume, N. Decision-based territorial life cycle assessment for the management of cement concrete demolition waste. Waste Manag. Res. 2020, 38, 1405–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Pantini, S.; Rigamonti, L. Is selective demolition always a sustainable choice? Waste Manag. 2020, 103, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Park, W.J.; Kim, R.; Roh, S.; Ban, H. Identifying the major construction wastes in the building construction phase based on life cycle assessments. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Pešta, J.; Pavlů, T.; Fortová, K.; Koĉí, V. Sustainable masonry made from recycled aggregates: LCA case study. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Bianchini, F.; Hewage, K. How ‘green’ are the green roofs? Life-cycle analysis of green roof materials. Build. Environ. 2012, 48, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Chau, C.K.; Hui, W.K.; Ng, W.Y.; Powell, G. Assessment of CO2 emissions reduction in high-rise concrete office buildings using different material use options. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 61, 22–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Mercante, I.T.; Bovea, M.D.; Ibáñez-Forés, V.; Arena, A.P. Life cycle assessment of construction and demolition waste management systems: A Spanish case study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2012, 17, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Coelho, A.; de Brito, J. Environmental analysis of a construction and demolition waste recycling plant in Portugal—Part I: Energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 1258–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Coelho, A.; de Brito, J. Environmental analysis of a construction and demolition waste recycling plant in Portugal—Part II: Environmental sensitivity analysis. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 147–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Knoeri, C.; Sanyé-Mengual, E.; Althaus, H.J. Comparative LCA of recycled and conventional concrete for structural applications. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 909–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  133. Li, D.Z.; Chen, H.X.; Hui, E.C.M.; Zhang, J.B.; Li, Q.M. A methodology for estimating the life-cycle carbon efficiency of a residential building. Build. Environ. 2013, 59, 448–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Biswas, W.K. Carbon footprint and embodied energy assessment of a civil works program in a residential estate of Western Australia. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 732–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. de Schepper, M.; van den Heede, P.; van Driessche, I.; de Belie, N. Life Cycle Assessment of Completely Recyclable Concrete. Materials 2014, 7, 6010–6027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  136. Kucukvar, M.; Egilmez, G.; Tatari, O. Evaluating environmental impacts of alternative construction waste management approaches using supply-chain-linked life-cycle analysis. Waste Manag. Res. 2014, 32, 500–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Vossberg, C.; Mason-Jones, K.; Cohen, B. An energetic life cycle assessment of C&D waste and container glass recycling in Cape Town, South Africa. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 88, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Zeng, L.; Zhu, H.; Ma, Y.; Huang, J.; Li, G. Greenhouse gases emissions from solid waste: An analysis of Expo 2010 Shanghai, China. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2014, 16, 616–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Martínez, E.; Nuñez, Y.; Sobaberas, E. End of life of buildings: Three alternatives, two scenarios. A case study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 1082–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Bianchini, F.; Hewage, K. Probabilistic social cost-benefit analysis for green roofs: A life-cycle approach. Build. Environ. 2012, 58, 152–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Blengini, G.A.; Garbarino, E. Resources and waste management in Turin (Italy): The role of recycled aggregates in the sustainable supply mix. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 1021–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Blengini, G.A.; Garbarino, E. Integrated life cycle management of aggregates quarrying, processing and recycling: Definition of a common LCA methodology in the SARMa project. Int. J. Sustain. Soc. 2011, 3, 327–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Ibáñez-Forés, V.; Bovea, M.D.; Simó, A. Life cycle assessment of ceramic tiles. Environmental and statistical analysis. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2011, 16, 916–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  144. Yu, D.; Tan, H.; Ruan, Y. A future bamboo-structure residential building prototype in China: Life cycle assessment of energy use and carbon emissi. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 2638–2646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Coelho, A.; de Brito, J. Influence of construction and demolition waste management on the environmental impact of buildings. Waste Manag. 2012, 32, 532–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Barbudo, A.; Galvín, A.P.; Agrela, F.; Ayuso, J.; Jiménez, J.R. Correlation analysis between sulphate content and leaching of sulphates in recycled aggregates from construction and demolition wastes. Waste Manag. 2012, 32, 1229–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Weil, M.; Jeske, U.; Schebek, L. Closed-loop recycling of construction and demolition waste in Germany in view of stricter environmental threshold values. Waste Manag. Res. 2006, 24, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Dosho, Y. Development of a sustainable concrete waste recycling system: Application of recycled aggregate concrete produced by aggregate replacing method. J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 2007, 5, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  149. Tiruta-Barna, L.; Benetto, E.; Perrodin, Y. Environmental impact and risk assessment of mineral wastes reuse strategies: Review and critical analysis of approaches and applications. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2007, 50, 351–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Klang, A.; Vikman, P.Å.; Brattebø, H. Sustainable management of demolition waste—An integrated model for the evaluation of environmental, economic and social aspects. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2003, 38, 317–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Simion, I.M.; Fortuna, M.E.; Bonoli, A.; Gavrilescu, M. Comparing environmental impacts of natural inert and recycled construction and demolition waste processing using LCA. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 2013, 21, 273–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Khan, M.W.; Ali, Y. Sustainable construction: Lessons learned from life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost analysis (LCCA). Constr. Innov. 2020, 20, 191–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Knauf GmbH España. Reciclaje y cierre del ciclo de vida de las placas de yeso laminado. Anales Sectoriales-Reciclaje y Gestión de Residuos. June 2013. Available online: https://www.interempresas.net/Reciclaje/Articulos/109556-Reciclaje-y-cierre-del-ciclo-de-vida-de-las-placas-de-yeso-laminado.html (accessed on 9 June 2021).
  154. Cramer, J. Moving Towards a Circular Economy in the Netheralnds: Challenges and Directions; Utrecht University: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  155. Mesa, J.; González-Quiroga, A.; Maury, H. Developing an indicator for material selection based on durability and environmental footprint: A Circular Economy perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 160, 104887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 07676 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA literature review methodology to identify selected works.
Figure 1. PRISMA literature review methodology to identify selected works.
Sustainability 13 07676 g001
Sustainability 13 07676 g002 550
Figure 2. Evolution of selected works regarding LCA + C&DW during the last two decades. (The number of articles for 2021 includes only January through April).
Figure 2. Evolution of selected works regarding LCA + C&DW during the last two decades. (The number of articles for 2021 includes only January through April).
Sustainability 13 07676 g002
Sustainability 13 07676 g003a 550Sustainability 13 07676 g003b 550
Figure 3. Geographical distribution of selected works: (a) distribution per region and (b) distribution per country.
Figure 3. Geographical distribution of selected works: (a) distribution per region and (b) distribution per country.
Sustainability 13 07676 g003aSustainability 13 07676 g003b
Sustainability 13 07676 g004 550
Figure 4. Most relevant journals and affiliation of authors. (a) Most relevant affiliations of authors (includes affiliations with at least three articles). (b) Detail of most representative journals for selected works (includes journals with more than three research articles during the last two decades).
Figure 4. Most relevant journals and affiliation of authors. (a) Most relevant affiliations of authors (includes affiliations with at least three articles). (b) Detail of most representative journals for selected works (includes journals with more than three research articles during the last two decades).
Sustainability 13 07676 g004
Sustainability 13 07676 g005 550
Figure 5. Classification of selected works in terms of objectives vs. methodologies applied.
Figure 5. Classification of selected works in terms of objectives vs. methodologies applied.
Sustainability 13 07676 g005
Sustainability 13 07676 g006 550
Figure 6. Distribution of selected works based on their practical application.
Figure 6. Distribution of selected works based on their practical application.
Sustainability 13 07676 g006
Sustainability 13 07676 g007 550
Figure 7. Distribution of materials covered in the selected works.
Figure 7. Distribution of materials covered in the selected works.
Sustainability 13 07676 g007
Sustainability 13 07676 g008 550
Figure 8. Most used LCA parameters in selected works.
Figure 8. Most used LCA parameters in selected works.
Sustainability 13 07676 g008
Sustainability 13 07676 g009 550
Figure 9. C&DW recovery in European Union countries. Adapted from ref. [153].
Figure 9. C&DW recovery in European Union countries. Adapted from ref. [153].
Sustainability 13 07676 g009
Table
Table 1. Detail of investigated aspects in the content-based analysis.
Table 1. Detail of investigated aspects in the content-based analysis.
Investigated AspectCategoriesCategory Definition
ObjectiveEvaluate, assess, or quantifyThe article aims to measure life cycle impacts and compare data
Propose methodology, guideline, or indicatorThe article proposes a new methodological approach or indicator
Explore or analyzeThe article analyzes relationships, data, and results from previous research
MethodologyAnalyticalThe article is based on analytical models, experimentation, or mixed approaches to calculate and determine key indicators and compare results
FrameworkThe article proposed a framework to analyze and evaluate EOL scenarios or life cycle implications of using C&DW materials
ReviewThe article employed a literature review approach
SurveyThe article gathers information and research gaps from surveys
ApplicabilityEOL decision makingThe article provides helpful information to compare and select the most suitable EOL scenario
Material selectionThe article provides helpful information to select materials in the fabrication of new products
Measurement of sustainability impactsThe article provides helpful information about how to measure sustainability impacts in a nonconventional way
Table
Table 2. Consolidated summary of selected works obtained from the systematic literature search.
Table 2. Consolidated summary of selected works obtained from the systematic literature search.
Time Interval
2015 to 20212010 to 20142005 to 20092000 to 2004
References[1,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126][3,4,15,18,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146][17,147,148,149][150]
Table
Table 3. Main research clusters of researchers (collaborative research works) worldwide during the last two decades.
Table 3. Main research clusters of researchers (collaborative research works) worldwide during the last two decades.
Research WorksMost Relevant
Authors		Topics Studied
[22,60,68,71,72,86,99]LP Rosado; P Vitale; C PenteadoLCA of natural and mixed recycled aggregate; Waste management of C&DW; Influence of disposal fees on municipal waste management of C&DW; LCA of EOL of residential buildings; Attributional LCA of Italian residential multifamily building.
[56,57,70,85]MD Uzzal Hossain; CS PoonComparative environmental evaluation of construction waste management; Comparative environmental evaluation of aggregate production from C&DW; Upcycling wood waste into cement-bonded particleboard
[31,62,76,91,151]S Zanni; A Bonoli; GM Cuenca-MoyanoEnvironmental assessment and life cycle inventory of mortars made of natural and recycled aggregates; Framework for circular economy in buildings; Environmental impact of natural inert and recycled C&DW processing using LCA.
[74,82,96,124]S Pantini; L Rigamonti; G BorghiSelective demolition; resource-efficient management of asphalt waste; resource-efficient strategies for managing post-consumer gypsum; LCA of nonhazardous C&DW
Table
Table 4. List of most cited selected works. Articles with at least 100 citations (until April 2021).
Table 4. List of most cited selected works. Articles with at least 100 citations (until April 2021).
ReferenceCitationsBrief Description
Laurent 2014 [18]323Review article that analyzes the knowledge from 222 published LCA studies of solid waste management systems from 1995 to 2012.
Blenglini 2009 [17] 286Study about LCA of residential buildings in an urban area under demolition and redesign.
Yeheyis 2013 [15]179Framework to maximize the implementation of 3R strategies (reduce, reuse, and recycling) and minimize the disposal of construction and demolition waste through the use of LCA.
Blengini 2010 [141]155Analysis of environmental implications of C&DW recycling chain in Torino, Italy, using a geographical information system and LCA.
Bianchini 2012 [127]129Review article that analyzes the social cost–benefit of green roofs. A case study involves the use of C&DW for constructing roof layers.
Coelho 2012 [145]119Study of environmental impacts of buildings through their whole life cycle considering different waste/material management options.
Hossain 2016 [56]119Comparative LCA of aggregate production using recycled waste materials and virgin sources from first-hand data.
Ortiz 2010 [3]112Evaluation of environmental impacts of construction waste in terms of the Life Program Environment Directive of the European Commission.
Cao 2015 [42]110Comparison between prefabrication technology and cast in situ technology. Environmental performance is evaluated through LCA.
Knoeri 2013 [132]108Analysis of life cycle impacts of recycled concrete mixtures with different cement types and compared to conventional concrete.
Dahlbo 2015 [43]106Assessment of the performance of C&DW management systems from an environmental and economic perspective.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mesa, J.A.; Fúquene-Retamoso, C.; Maury-Ramírez, A. Life Cycle Assessment on Construction and Demolition Waste: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7676. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147676

AMA Style

Mesa JA, Fúquene-Retamoso C, Maury-Ramírez A. Life Cycle Assessment on Construction and Demolition Waste: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability. 2021; 13(14):7676. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147676

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mesa, Jaime A., Carlos Fúquene-Retamoso, and Aníbal Maury-Ramírez. 2021. "Life Cycle Assessment on Construction and Demolition Waste: A Systematic Literature Review" Sustainability 13, no. 14: 7676. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147676

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop