Economic and Environmental Analysis of Using Recycled Ceramic Demolition Materials in Construction Projects

Abstract

This paper presents a comprehensive economic and environmental analysis of the utilization of recycled ceramic demolition materials in the construction sector, considering three distinct applications: erecting vertical partitions, constructing road bases, and producing decorative finishes. The findings demonstrate significant economic advantages when using recycled ceramic materials in structural applications, specifically vertical partitions and road base layers, with cost reductions of approximately 14.1% and 23.9%, respectively, compared to new materials. Conversely, the economic viability of using recycled materials for decorative finishes (“old brick”) proved limited due to high labor intensity and significant waste generation during processing, resulting in higher costs than using new materials. From an environmental perspective, the recycling of construction ceramics provides substantial benefits, notably in reducing carbon footprints. The greatest environmental benefit observed was a reduction in carbon footprint by about 90% in vertical partition applications, and about 70% for decorative finishes. Despite these benefits, practical implementation faces substantial technological and regulatory barriers, including labor-intensive recovery processes and the absence of unified quality standards. Overcoming these challenges requires further development of advanced sorting and processing technologies, clear regulations, unified quality standards, and educational efforts targeted at the construction industry and investors.

1. Introduction

Contemporary construction faces significant challenges regarding its environmental impact, particularly in resource management and waste generation. The construction industry consumes a substantial portion of natural resources and generates considerable amounts of waste, which are often not effectively managed [1]. According to Eurostat data [Figure 1], construction and demolition waste constitutes about 38.4% of all waste generated in the European Union, indicating substantial potential for their reuse in the context of the circular economy [2]. Implementing circular economy principles, which include minimizing new resource consumption and maximizing reuse of waste materials, can significantly reduce both economic and environmental costs associated with construction processes [3,4]. Within this context, the reuse of demolition materials, such as construction ceramics, gains particular importance. These materials, when properly processed technologically, can contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, limiting exploitation of natural resources, and decreasing environmental burdens resulting from waste disposal processes [5,6,7].

Ceramic demolition materials, such as solid bricks, hollow bricks, and roof tiles, represent a significant fraction of construction and demolition waste (CDW). Due to their mineral nature, they are classified as inert waste, meaning they pose no threat to health or the environment and can be safely reused in new construction projects [8].

The use of ceramic waste in construction includes applications such as aggregate in concrete, road subbase material, and cement mortar components. Studies have shown that incorporating ceramic waste into concrete can enhance its mechanical properties and durability [9]. Furthermore, reusing these materials helps reduce natural resource consumption and CO₂ emissions associated with producing new building materials [10].

The recent literature provides detailed evidence supporting scenarios investigated in this study—namely, the use of ceramic demolition waste in (i) structural applications such as vertical partitions or pavers, (ii) sub-base layers, and (iii) decorative applications such as interior cladding.

For structural applications, several studies confirm that recycled ceramic waste can serve as an effective aggregate in concrete or cementitious products. Jwaida et al. (2024) demonstrated that substituting up to 30% of natural aggregate with ceramic waste in concrete improves compressive and flexural strength while maintaining durability [11]. Similarly, Kiran et al. (2024) optimized paver block mixtures containing ceramic waste using response surface methodology, reporting enhanced mechanical performance and material efficiency [9]. Fu et al. (2024) confirmed through LCA that the use of tile waste reduces environmental impacts while retaining acceptable structural properties [12].

Regarding road base applications, Medina et al. (2023) conducted a systematic review of pavement structures incorporating recycled materials, including ceramics, and provided clear guidelines for assessing their performance from an environmental perspective [13]. In a broader circular economy context, Balasbaneh et al. (2025) demonstrated that ceramic-rich demolition waste can be effectively reused in unbound sub-base layers with clear environmental and cost advantages over virgin materials [14].

Finally, in decorative applications, Huseien et al. (2025) analyzed the reuse of solid clay bricks from demolitions as interior wall cladding, highlighting both their environmental benefits—up to 70% lower carbon footprint—and esthetic value when compared to new imitative materials [15].

These studies justify the selection of the analyzed scenarios and show that ceramic waste reuse offers both environmental and economic potential in various construction contexts.

Despite numerous benefits, the practical application of ceramic demolition materials encounters technical and regulatory barriers [16]. Appropriate procedures for selective demolition and technical evaluation of materials are required to ensure their quality and safety. Additionally, the lack of uniform standards and guidelines for reusing these materials limits their broader application in construction practice [17].

Although there is increasing awareness of the importance of recycling construction ceramics and numerous studies on their use, comprehensive analyses addressing both economic and environmental aspects of ceramic demolition materials’ application in real construction projects remain scarce in the literature [18]. Issues concerning the profitability assessment of ceramic reuse throughout the entire lifecycle of construction projects and potential environmental savings resulting from such an approach remain particularly underexplored. The aim of this paper is to perform a detailed economic and environmental analysis of ceramic demolition materials usage, highlighting potential benefits and challenges associated with their implementation in construction practices.

2. Circular Economy and Reuse of Demolition Waste in Construction

2.1. EU and Polish Regulations and Strategies on Circular Economy and Waste

The European Union, as part of implementing its circular economy strategy [Figure 2], has adopted numerous regulations and action plans aimed at enhancing the recovery and recycling rates of construction and demolition waste (CDW). A key document in this context is the European Green Deal, one of whose primary objectives is achieving climate neutrality by 2050 and reducing waste through its effective reuse in new production cycles [19]. This underscores the importance of selective collection of construction waste and the potential for material reuse [20,21,22].

At the national level, Poland implements strategies aligned with EU guidelines, including the National Waste Management Plan (NWMP 2022), which outlines specific goals for managing construction and demolition waste and adopting circular economy principles in the construction sector. The NWMP aims to increase the recovery and recycling rates of CDW and to develop infrastructure enabling more efficient processing of these materials [23]. Additionally, Polish regulations such as the Waste Act (Journal of Laws 2013, item 21, as amended) impose detailed requirements for maintaining records and reporting on construction waste management, aimed at improving the monitoring of recovery and recycling effectiveness [24].

Despite clear strategic objectives and legal regulations, practical implementation of circular economy principles in the construction sector still encounters barriers such as insufficient infrastructure for recovery and recycling, the absence of uniform quality standards for recycled materials, and limited social and economic awareness of the benefits of reusing ceramic waste. These barriers are not unique to Poland and are observed broadly [25,26].

2.2. Recovery Indicators for Construction Materials (with an Emphasis on Ceramics)

According to data from the European Environment Agency (EEA), the average recovery and recycling rate of construction and demolition waste in EU member states is approximately 80%, indicating that the general target of 70% has been formally met by most member countries [27]. However, these figures include a wide range of waste fractions, and the actual percentage of materials recycled through reuse (such as bricks and roof tiles) remains significantly lower. The predominant utilization remains as aggregates in earthworks and roadworks, classified as recovery rather than genuine material recycling [26].

For construction ceramics specifically, consistent statistical data separating this fraction from overall CDW is lacking, complicating the evaluation of their potential within the circular economy. According to the European Tiles and Bricks Association (TBE), only about 5–10% of bricks from demolitions are currently reused in construction, while the remainder is directed to low-quality recycling or landfills [27]. Moreover, recent studies indicate that globally, up to 30% of ceramics produced ultimately become waste, emphasizing the significant potential for improved recycling strategies within this sector [9,15].

Increasing the actual recycling rates of ceramic materials requires not only technological advancements in separation and cleaning processes but also regulatory and economic incentives for investors and contractors opting for their reuse.

2.3. Legal and Technical Challenges Related to Ceramic Recycling

Recycling of ceramic materials from building demolitions faces a number of challenges [28], both technological and regulatory. From a technological perspective, the main problem is the difficulty in effectively separating ceramic materials from mortars, concrete, as well as organic residues and contaminants. The high porosity and brittleness of ceramic elements limit their potential for reuse in non-load-bearing structures and finishing elements. Additionally, there are limitations to the available technologies for sorting and cleaning ceramic materials, which translates into the need to invest in modern recycling plants. The lack of economically viable methods for recovering ceramics on a large scale means that many companies decide on classic disposal or only use the materials as low-quality road aggregate [29].

From the point of view of regulations, there is a lack of clear guidelines on the quality and permissible physical and mechanical properties of recycled ceramic materials. Current construction and certification standards make little reference to the use of secondary ceramic products in the context of the safety and durability of structures [30].

Another aspect is the lack of systemic incentives, such as tax relief, financial support, or requirements for the share of secondary materials in public procurement, which could actually increase the demand for recovered ceramics. For many investors, it is still more profitable to use primary materials due to their availability and standardization.

2.4. Potential of the Construction Sector to Implement Recycled Materials

The construction sector shows significant potential for implementing recycled materials, including post-demolition ceramics. Construction, as the largest consumer of primary raw materials in Europe, accounts for over 50% of the total consumption of materials [31], which makes it an important area for implementing solutions based on the principles of the circular economy. The demand for cheap and available materials, as well as growing regulatory and environmental pressure, creates space for implementing secondary materials in design and construction practice. In particular, infrastructure investments and residential construction may constitute areas with great potential in this respect, especially in the context of prefabrication, insulation layers, fillings, or non-load-bearing elements [32].

In countries such as the Netherlands, Germany, and Belgium, the growing use of recycled materials is observed thanks to systemic support and certification solutions, e.g., the BREEAM system or reference levels in public procurement [33]. In Poland, there is also an increase in interest in secondary materials, but their actual share in construction projects is still limited. This is due to the lack of sufficient technical knowledge, concerns about the durability and safety of recycled materials, and an insufficient number of manufacturers offering certified secondary products.

Increasing the share of post-demolition ceramics in construction practice requires not only the modernization of the recycling infrastructure but also active education of the construction industry, supporting research on innovative applications of secondary materials, and creating tools for environmental and economic assessment at the design level.

3. Materials and Analytical Methods

As part of the research work to conduct an analysis in the economic and environmental scope, analyses were developed that took into account the possibility of using demolition materials. As part of the analysis, 3 case studies (3 scenarios) were developed:

Scenario 1—construction of a vertical partition

In the assumption of the analyzed case, two variants were considered. Each variant included the existing masonry structure made of full ceramic bricks on cement mortar, while the first variant assumed the demolition of the existing structure without any recovery, but with the need to remove and dispose of the rubble. In the implementation of these processes, significant involvement of construction equipment (backhoe loader, box truck) is observed, the working times of which were estimated based on catalog standards [34] of own observations. Next, within this variant, the construction of a new partition entirely from new materials was taken into account. In the case of the second variant, the demolition of the existing structure, segregation, and cleaning of the obtained post-demolition material were taken into account, which will allow for the acceptance of 70% of the obtained material for further use (the remaining 30% was subjected to the disposal process). The recovery rate considered was adopted based on observations of construction processes and consultations with entities performing this type of work. The value should be considered an average for the demolition of a ceramic brick partition wall. In practice, the recovery rate depends on many factors, the most important of which are the condition and age of the structure being demolished, the type of structure, including the presence or absence of structural load, the experience and diligence of the demolition contractor, and any post-demolition processes that may affect the demolition material in various ways. The adopted recovery rate, as well as any changes therein, will obviously impact the results of economic and environmental analyses; therefore, adopting an average recovery rate seems justified for the analyses.

The obtained material will be used to make a vertical partition identical to the first variant—a partition wall, but using post-demolition material, i.e., post-demolition bricks. The conceptual diagram is presented in Figure 3.

Scenario 2—subgrade for internal road and pavement surfaces

As in the previous case, two variants were considered—the first assuming the use of new material, i.e., crushed aggregate, and the second variant assuming the use of recycled aggregate, i.e., processed by crushing and fractionating brick rubble. Similarly to the previous one, it was assumed that in both variants, there is a partition made of ceramic bricks on cement mortar, which will be subjected to the demolition process. In the first variant, the material from the demolition of the partition will be removed and disposed of, while crushed aggregate will be used for the construction of the subgrade. In the second variant, the material from the demolition will be transported to a recycling plant, where it will be processed by crushing in a crusher along with segregation into appropriate fractions. In both variants, the use of construction equipment for demolition and transport (tractor, backhoe loader, flatbed truck) is observed, while in the second variant, it is additionally necessary to use a crusher. Similarly to the previous one, the machine intensity was determined based on catalog standards, technical and operational documentation, and own observations. The conceptual diagram is presented in Figure 4.

Scenario 3—“old brick” finishing cladding

Two variants were included in the case study, where the first variant involves making internal cladding from new materials—clinker tiles imitating old brick, while the second variant involves making cladding from old demolition bricks processed by processing and cutting. As before, the initial state includes the need to demolish the existing partition in the first variant, and in the second variant, demolish the existing partition from which it is possible to obtain the material. In the first variant, this material is not recovered during demolition work, but is transported and transferred for disposal, while new material is used for the internal cladding. In the second variant, after the demolition of the existing ceramic brick partition, the material is selected and recovered, which is then processed by cleaning and cutting to obtain 2 cm thick ceramic tiles. Both variants one and two involve the use of construction equipment, although the first variant involves more of it. The second variant relies on manual work in the vast majority of the work. The analysis for the second variant assumes a possible yield from demolition of 50% (the value of the given indicator, as before, was adopted based on the implementation processes and consultations with the entities performing the work. It is noted that in the analyzed case, the recovery is relatively lower due to additional losses in the processing process after the material is obtained. These losses result from the interfering processing—cutting bricks into tiles, which also generates waste that reduces the recovery.

The conceptual diagram is presented in Figure 5.

3.1. Economic Analysis

Different types of analyses are used to assess the effectiveness of alternative solutions. Some of the most frequently used are analyses that take into account economic and environmental factors [13,35,36,37,38,39] A dozen or so years ago, the main factors influencing the assessment of the effectiveness of the considered solutions were primarily economic analysis, which was limited only to the cost of acquisition, or in the case of construction to the investment cost. This approach has been devalued as ineffective and inaccurate. Currently, taking into account the impact of the importance of a number of environmental impacts, sustainable development, as well as a broader perspective and a longer perspective, efficiency assessments are prepared taking into account the life cycle. Representatives of such analyses are the LCC (Life Cycle Cost) and LCA (Life Cost Assessment) methodologies.

The LCC (Life Cycle Cost) analysis [35,38] is an important tool supporting investment and design decision-making. It enables a reliable economic assessment that takes into account the entire life cycle of a facility or its element, and not just the initial costs. This is particularly important in the context of sustainable construction, where economic efficiency is combined with energy and environmental efficiency.

LCC = Cost_n + Cost_p + Cost_l − V_r

(1)

where

• Cost_n—costs related to the production of the facility or its elements (labor, equipment, materials);
• Cost_p—operating costs (servicing, inspections, maintenance, repairs, upkeep);
• Cost_l—costs of demolition/dismantling and disposal;
• V_r—eventual residual value.

An important aspect of LCC analysis is also taking into account the change in the time value of money [30]. To include this important aspect in the analysis, discount methods and the associated discount rate can be used. The discount rate reflects the change in the time value of money by determining what part of the future capital can be given up in order to exchange it for currently available funds that can be used at the current time. The discount rate is expressed as a percentage.

$$i={\displaystyle \frac{FV-PV}{FV}}\ast 100$$

(2)

where

• i—discount rate;
• FV—future value of money;
• PV—present value of money.

The issue of discounting is also related to the discount rate. This is a process that takes into account the changing value of money over time, thus allowing for the conversion of future capital into currently available funds.

The NPV (Net Present Value) methodology is often used in LCC analysis. The discounting used in it allows for obtaining the current value of expenses at the time of the analysis. The NPV indicator is also used to assess the profitability of the investment. It is calculated according to the following formula.

$$NPV=\sum _{n=1}^T{\displaystyle \frac{P_p}{{(1+i)}^n}}+K_Z$$

(3)

where

• T—number of periods in which cash flows occur;
• n—years of operation;
• P_P—cash flows;
• i—discount rate;
• K_Z—initial investment outlay, acquisition cost.

The LCCA analysis process can be divided into several stages [35]:

• Determining the costs of the analysis—at the beginning of the analysis, the objectives and scope of its conduct should be precisely defined. It is important to specify whether the purpose of the analysis is to compare different design options, choose the technology used, choose materials, or choose a strategy for maintaining and operating the building. Clearly defining the objectives will allow you to focus on specific aspects of the analysis.
• Identifying cost components—the next step is to carefully classify all costs related to the life cycle of the facility, such as acquisition costs (e.g., construction, production costs), ownership costs (including maintenance, modernization costs), and liquidation costs (demolition costs, management of post-demolition elements). It is important to properly categorize and include all factors that make up the total cost in the analysis.
• Collecting data needed for analysis—the necessary data regarding the costs of individual components should be collected. Actual data resulting from the costs incurred are used, as well as calculations and approximations of costs occurring in the future using various approaches (cost estimates, analogy methods, forecasts). It is worth paying attention to the fact that the data should be reliable and reflect reality, which will enable a reliable and accurate comparison of costs.
• Cost assessment—at this stage, a cost analysis is carried out for individual components and phases of the building’s life cycle. This takes into account the duration of individual phases, the discount rate, and other factors influencing the value. Various cost assessment methods are used, such as NPV analysis, i.e., present value analysis, unit cost, annual cost, etc.
• Comparison of results and evaluation of alternatives—after collecting the necessary data and assessing the costs, you can start comparing the results and alternative solutions. This may involve comparing different designs, materials, technologies, and strategies. The aim of this stage is to find the most cost-effective and economical solutions.
• Conclusions and decision-making—after analyzing the obtained results, conclusions can be drawn and decisions can be made regarding optimal solutions and areas where potential economic savings can be made.

The economic analyses presented in this study were based on a simplified life cycle cost (LCC) approach, incorporating direct costs related to material acquisition, demolition, transportation, processing, and installation. Cost components were estimated using standardized construction cost catalogs (KNR—Katalogi Nakładów Rzeczowych in Polish Language [34,40,41]), supported by technical documentation and market observations. The catalogs used contain data on individual labor costs, construction equipment costs, and any material costs required to complete a unit of construction work. This data is used to calculate direct costs, i.e., labor costs, any construction equipment costs, and materials costs. In addition to direct costs, the calculated price includes necessary overheads such as the contractor’s profit, indirect costs related to the contractor’s operations, and work organization costs—known as construction overheads—as well as the costs of logistics operations related to the acquisition of new materials and the processing of recovered materials. Whenever possible, operational assumptions—such as recovery rates, labor intensity, or equipment use—were calibrated using on-site observations and typical execution methods observed in single-family housing projects. This approach ensures that the presented results reflect realistic conditions in the Polish construction market.

3.2. Life Cycle Assessment

LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) analysis allows for the assessment of the environmental impact of building materials, structural elements, or entire buildings [18]. The calculations of the Global Warming Potential (GWP) value expressed in the equivalent mass of emitted carbon dioxide (eqkgCO2) were carried out based on the guidelines of the EN 15804:2012+A2:2019 Sustainability of construction works—Environmental product declarations—Core rules for the product category of construction products [42].

The article presents the results of environmental analyses for the three scenarios of the use of reclaimed ceramic described above, of which two variants of the use of reclaimed ceramic (disposal or recycling) were proposed for each scenario. Assuming that the construction process stage, use stage and end of life stage will be the same for both analyzed variants, the presented work presents results only for the material stage (product stage A1–A3), which takes into account the following aspects of material production [42]: A2: raw material extraction and processing, processing of secondary material input (e.g., recycling processes), A2: transport to the manufacturer, A3: manufacturing. The carbon footprint analysis was conducted using OneClick LCA software (One Click LCA© Version: 0.30.0, Database version: 7.6, Helsinki, Finnland) [43]. In the calculations, the GWP total (eqkgCO₂) values for the A1–A3 phase were assumed based on the Environmental Product Declaration of building materials available on the Polish market. The environmental impact associated with the machinery required for the demolition, reuse, or landfilling of reclaimed ceramic bricks was assessed based on its fuel or energy consumption. The specific values of the GWP (A1–A3) of particular building materials, fuel, and energy consumption are presented in

Table 1. Values (in eqkgCO₂/declared unit) of GWP (A1—A3) for the analyzed materials.

Material	GWP (A1–A3)	Source
Ceramic brick	0.1560 eqkgCO2/kg	[44]
Cement mortar	0.0924 eqkgCO2/kg	[45]
Crushed coarse gravel	0.00156 eqkgCO2/kg	[46]
Clay pavers	0.1770 eqkgCO2/kg	[47]
Diesel combusted in building machine	3.35 eqkgCO2/l	[43]
Electricity, Poland 2022	1.06 eqkgCO2/kWh	[43]

.

The energy consumption of the crushing process was estimated based on the performance of standard jaw crushers, with a typical electricity demand of 10–20 kWh per tonne of processed material [37]. This range reflects common operational conditions in medium-scale recycling plants. However, it should be noted that alternative crushing technologies—such as impact crushers or hybrid (electro-hydraulic) systems—may exhibit different energy profiles depending on material hardness, grain size distribution, and moisture content. Authors indicate that comparative evaluation of various crushing technologies and their energy intensities could form a valuable part of future environmental assessments focused on optimizing demolition ceramics recovery.

4. Results

4.1. Comparison Analysis of Costs of Using New and Recycled Materials

The analysis covered three applications of ceramic post-demolition materials. The choice of applications was dictated by the observation of construction processes in selected sectors of single-family housing construction in Poland. This is a sector dominated by individual investors, often implementing investments using economic methods or as part of partial execution, trying to use the opportunities to save investment outlays. The issues of using post-demolition substances—mainly due to environmental aspects—are current and are the subject of emerging regulations, including legal ones [38,48,49].

The first solution considered is the use of small-sized ceramic elements for the construction of new vertical partitions. These are, in particular, solid and perforated ceramic bricks, as well as ceramic blocks. The reuse of these materials is associated with a number of processes from the demolition of the vertical partition structure constituting the source of the material, through the selection of the material in terms of its suitability for reuse, to the preparation of the material by its cleaning for re-installation. In the case of using new products, these processes do not occur, because the new product is ready for installation after its purchase.

Taking into account the previously specified processes, the costs of providing ceramic material—post-demolition and newly obtained—for the construction of a 25 m² partition were presented. In the case of post-demolition material, the given cost includes a positive verification of the condition of the post-demolition material at the level of 70%. Based on observations, it was found that on average, even during careful demolition, approx. 30% of the obtained material is not suitable for further use due to its technical condition and damage caused during demolition work.

Figure 6 and Figure 7 present the results of the cost analysis. In the case of the variant based on the purchase of new material, in order to maintain the comparability of the analysis, the cost of demolition and management through disposal of the masonry structure was additionally taken into account, which in the second variant will be the source of obtaining post-demolition material. In the case of the variant based on the reuse of post-demolition material, the demolition processes (this is a process different from demolition), the process of segregation and cleaning of the obtained material and the process of management through the disposal of part of the material, that cannot be reused due to its technical condition, were taken into account.

As can be seen from the prepared graphs, in the variant based on the use of post-demolition material, savings of EUR 112.99 are achieved, which is 14.1% of the value in the variant based on the acquisition of new material. The large share of labor costs in the variant based on the recovery of post-demolition material is worth noting. This results from the demolition processes and the sorting and preparation of the material for installation.

The second example of the use of ceramic post-demolition material is its use for the construction of sub-base layers for pavements and internal roads, and driveways (with a permissible traffic load of 3.5 t for passenger cars) in order to stabilize and strengthen the ground before the construction of concrete or aggregate sub-base layers stabilized with a cement binder. An alternative solution is the use of aggregate, most often crushed, with a fraction of 4–31.5 mm.

In order to use ceramic material to make an aggregate layer of the substructure, in contrast to the previously considered case of using the material to build vertical partitions, in the analyzed example, there is no need to carry out work aimed at maximizing lossless recovery, because this material will be subject to, among others, crushing processes. Hence, when considering the processes necessary to obtain material for the substructure, it is necessary to take into account the demolition processes and processing (mainly through crushing and fractionation) of rubble into the appropriate qualitative composition of post-recycled aggregate. Similarly to before, in Figure 8 and Figure 9, the results of the economic analysis are presented, assuming as a representative quantity a layer of the substructure with a thickness of 15 cm and an area of 100 m².

The analysis of the costs of providing crushed aggregate without using demolition material and providing recycled aggregate for the construction of a 15 cm thick sub-base with an area of 100 m² indicates possible savings of EUR 544.05, i.e., 23.9% of the value for the variant based on the lack of use of demolition material and the purchase of crushed aggregate. The analysis of the cost distribution in the individual variants indicates the significant importance of labor and equipment costs for the variant using material recovery.

The last of the analyzed examples is the use of demolition material, in particular old solid ceramic bricks, to make ceramic tiles used for internal wall cladding. Such ceramic tiles are a fashionable and quite common solution for finishing internal walls in new residential buildings. In connection with such use, it is necessary to implement demolition processes (not demolition) of the element constituting the source of the material, e.g., a masonry wall made of ceramic bricks. The next process is the segregation of the obtained material and rejection of damaged products. It is noted that during segregation, as well as later in subsequent processes, a relatively high material rejection is obtained (approx. 50%). After cleaning the material, the last process is cutting the brick to obtain a tile. It is assumed that up to 5 tiles measuring 6.5 × 25 cm can be obtained from one brick (standard size 25 × 12 × 6.5 cm). The material obtained in this way is used to make stylish interior wall claddings imitating old interiors. Considering a new, alternative solution, it is difficult to indicate such unequivocally and equally. There are various claddings on the market, including ceramic (clinker), imitating the old look. However, they do not fully correspond to the previously mentioned demolition brick tiles. Apart from the esthetic differences (which in the context of use for finishing works seems important), clinker cladding tiles measuring 6.5 × 25 cm imitating old brick were included in the cost analysis as an alternative to ceramic demolition material. The results are presented in Figure 10 and Figure 11.

Cost analysis in the example taken indicates a different relationship. This time, the cost of preparing the product using demolition material significantly exceeded the cost of obtaining a new product. This is due to the very labor-intensive work associated primarily with the processing (cutting) of demolition bricks, as well as the largest rejection of material during selection and waste during processing. Similarly to the previously analyzed examples, a high share of labor costs is noted in the variant based on the use of demolition material.

In addition to the comparison of total costs for each scenario, a basic assessment of cost-effectiveness was conducted to evaluate the economic rationality of using recycled materials in specific applications. The analysis was based on cost components derived from standardized Polish construction cost catalogs (KNR), complemented by market observations and the authors’ experience. Cost-effectiveness was considered in relation to the functional output (e.g., square meters of wall or cladding), allowing a comparative view of unit costs. The results indicate that the reuse of ceramic demolition materials can be economically viable in structural applications, while in decorative or labor-intensive uses, the high manual processing effort and material loss may limit its competitiveness.

Although the presented cost analysis focuses on manual recovery scenarios, preliminary estimations indicate that automated sorting and cleaning systems could reduce labor costs by up to 50% in high-throughput operations. For instance, systems utilizing optical recognition and robotic separation achieve faster throughput and lower reject rates, resulting in potential return on investment (ROI) within 3 to 5 years. Such technologies, although requiring initial capital expenditures, can significantly improve the economic viability of recycling processes at scale, especially in urban or industrial contexts where large volumes of demolition materials are processed [1].

At this stage, the authors do not provide a detailed cost–benefit analysis of such automated solutions, as it falls beyond the scope of the current study. However, the inclusion of these technologies is highlighted as a relevant direction for further research, particularly within broader investigations into the economic and technological optimization of ceramic waste recovery systems.

4.2. Environmental Savings: Reduction in CO₂ Emissions, Reduction in Waste (Environmental Analysis)

Figure 12 presents the results of the LCA analysis for two variants of the construction of a vertical partition with an area of 25 m². In the first variant (landfill deposit of the reclaimed clay bricks and use of the new materials), the total GWP is 1136.26 eqkgCO₂, with 117.86 eqkgCO₂ for the second variant (reuse of 70% of the reclaimed clay bricks). In the first variant, the share of the material is about 83% of the total GWP; in the second variant, the material is 57.02% of the total GWP, with a 42.98% share of machines. Reuse of ceramic bricks for the construction of a building partition, assuming a recovery of 70%, allows for a reduction in its carbon footprint by about 90%.

Figure 13 presents the results of the LCA analysis for two variants of the construction of the sub-base layer for the access road. In the first variant (landfill deposit of the reclaimed clay bricks and use of the new materials), the total GWP is 803.57 eqkgCO₂, with 825.71 eqkgCO₂ for the second variant (reuse of the crushed reclaimed clay bricks). In the first scenario, it is assumed that the reclaimed clay bricks are demolished and transported to a landfill, a process that necessitates substantial use of machinery. Conversely, the environmental impact associated with natural aggregates is comparatively low relative to the fuel consumption required for the processing and treatment of the landfilled ceramic bricks. Consequently, in this scenario, the contribution of the material to the total Global Warming Potential (GWP) is approximately 0.05%. In the second scenario, it is assumed that all reclaimed clay bricks are crushed and subsequently reused as recycled aggregate in the subgrade. Therefore, the GWP in this case arises only from the fuel consumption of the machinery involved in the crushing and processing operations. Reusing ceramic bricks, after crushing them, to create a sub-base layer for an access road increases the carbon footprint by approximately 3% compared to a sub-base made of new materials.

Figure 14 presents the results of the LCA analysis for two variants of making internal wall claddings with an area of 50 m2. In the first variant (landfill deposit of the reclaimed clay bricks and use of the new materials), the total GWP is 526.34 eqkgCO₂, with 158.62 eqkgCO₂ for the second variant (reuse of 50% of the reclaimed clay bricks and cutting). In the first variant, the share of the material is about 76% of the total GWP; in the second variant, the material is 43.69% of the total GWP, with a 56.31% share of machines. Reusing ceramic bricks to make internal wall cladding, assuming a 50% material recovery rate and additional energy consumption associated with the need to cut the tiles, allows for a reduction in the carbon footprint by approx. 70%.

5. Discussion

The obtained results of economic and environmental analyses draw attention to the benefits resulting from the use of ceramic post-demolition materials in construction. In the economic aspect, the use of post-demolition materials turned out to be particularly effective in the construction of vertical partitions and the sub-base of roads and pavements. In the case of a vertical partition, savings reached 14.1%, while in the construction of sub-base layers, it was possible to achieve savings of 23.9%. These results are confirmed in the literature, which indicates that the reuse of demolition materials in infrastructure and structural construction often leads to significant reductions in investment costs [4,35,40]. A clearly different economic result was obtained in the case of the use of post-demolition ceramics for the production of decorative cladding (“old brick”). In this scenario, the costs of preparing the secondary material were higher than the costs of using new material, which is related to the significant labor intensity of the processes of sorting, selecting, and processing the demolition material. In this case, the issues of labor costs and material losses constitute economic barriers that make it difficult to implement the recovery of building ceramics, especially in applications requiring precise processing and selection, which is confirmed by studies indicated in the literature [49]. Additionally, attention should be paid to the issue of the comparability of products. While the use of post-demolition material to make wall claddings gives the actual effect of an “old interior”, the use of new products is basically just an imitation, which will not always be in line with the expectations of customers or investors.

In turn, the results of the environmental analysis clearly confirm the positive impact of using post-demolition ceramics on the reduction in CO₂ emissions. Particularly beneficial effects were noted in the reuse of bricks to build vertical partitions, where it was possible to reduce the carbon footprint by as much as 90%. A significant reduction (by about 70%) of emissions also occurred in the process of making internal wall claddings. These results are consistent with the research of other authors, who indicate that recycling ceramics significantly contributes to reducing the impact of the construction sector on the environment, primarily by reducing the consumption of natural resources and reducing emissions related to the production of new materials [5,37].

The economic and environmental analyses conducted by the authors clearly indicate that the use of demolition ceramics is most beneficial in construction applications, both in terms of cost and the environment. At the same time, areas have been identified in which further work is necessary to optimize the recycling and material processing processes in order to make the recovery of ceramics economically attractive while reducing the carbon footprint, also in more demanding applications, including decorative or infrastructural ones.

5.1. Practical Limitations and Implementation Possibilities

Despite the indicated positive economic and environmental aspects, the implementation of recycled ceramic materials in construction practice encounters practical and regulatory barriers. One of the obstacles is technological difficulties related to the effective recovery, segregation, and cleaning of materials. The high porosity and brittleness of ceramics result in losses during the selection process, which affects the final amount of material available for reuse. This problem is also emphasized by other authors who point to the need to develop technologies that improve the separation and recovery processes of building materials [31].

A significant barrier is also the lack of uniform standards and quality guidelines for post-demolition materials, which limits their use, especially in the case of construction and finishing applications. The lack of standardization makes it difficult for investors and contractors to assess the risk associated with the use of secondary materials, which limits the demand for these products. This is confirmed by studies indicating the need to introduce appropriate regulations and certification systems for not only recycled materials [32,50] but also ESG frameworks and standards [51,52,53].

An additional aspect is the level of awareness and social and market acceptance of recycled materials. In practice, investors and contractors often prefer new materials due to their predictable features and repeatable quality. A separate issue is the aspect of the guarantees that manufacturers of new materials provide for their products, which is closely related to the features of new products.

The authors point out that in regions with less developed waste management systems, low-tech solutions such as mobile jaw crushers and on-site manual selection are often the only feasible options. While less efficient, these approaches can still contribute to circular economy goals when properly integrated into small-scale construction workflows, particularly in rural or informal urban sectors [7]. Their implementation may support incremental progress in material recovery, especially where centralized recycling infrastructure is lacking.

Overcoming the indicated barriers requires taking action, both technological, regulatory, and educational, which will increase the competitiveness of recycled products and support the possibilities of their wider use in construction.

5.2. Proposals for Improvements and Further Research Directions

In light of the presented economic and environmental analyses and the indicated barriers, according to the authors, it is crucial to undertake further research and actions aimed at optimizing and popularizing the use of demolition ceramics. First of all, it is worth paying attention to the possibilities of developing and implementing technologies that improve the efficiency of recovery, selection, and processing of ceramics, which can reduce costs and material losses. In particular, attention should be paid to the development and implementation of technologies that improve the efficiency of material recovery, sorting, and processing, thereby reducing costs and material losses.

A promising direction is the automation of these processes, which can enhance repeatability and ultimately ensure consistent quality of recycled building materials. One potential approach to increasing the cost-effectiveness of ceramic recycling is the use of AI-assisted sorting systems. Studies have shown that automatic visual-based classifiers and robotic arms can achieve material recovery rates exceeding 90% while significantly reducing labor intensity. Compared to manual sorting, such technologies decrease material losses and shorten processing times, leading to measurable economic benefits in large-scale operations [1,9,17].

An important direction of research should also be the development of uniform quality standards and technical guidelines for recycled materials, which will increase their credibility and market acceptance. Further research can also focus on evaluating the energy profiles of different crushing technologies (jaw, impact, cone crushers), which can affect the environmental footprint in material recovery processes.

Another area worth exploring is the development of business models supporting the circular economy, such as economic incentive systems, mandatory shares of recycled materials in construction projects, and educational programs for the construction industry. Popularization of knowledge and increasing awareness of the benefits resulting from the use of post-demolition materials can influence the change in attitudes of investors and contractors, supporting the broader implementation of sustainable construction principles. In this context, regulatory actions that could more effectively support and stimulate the implementation of solutions based on secondary materials will also be important.

6. Conclusions

As part of the preparation of the article and the conducted economic and environmental analysis, a detailed assessment of the use of ceramic post-demolition materials was presented in the context of three application scenarios: the construction of vertical partitions, the construction of road sub-bases, and the production of decorative cladding. The obtained results allow for the formulation of the following conclusions:

• The use of ceramic post-demolition materials shows economic benefits in the case of structural applications, such as the construction of vertical partitions and road sub-base layers. In particular, financial savings can amount to 14.1% and 23.9%, respectively, compared to the use of new materials.
• The use of post-demolition materials in the production of decorative cladding (“old brick”) for the adopted model turned out to be economically less beneficial due to the significant labor intensity and high level of waste generated during the processing of materials from the scrap. In this case, the cost of using post-demolition materials was higher than the cost of new materials.
• From the environmental point of view, recycling construction ceramics brings significant benefits, especially in the case of structural and decorative applications. The greatest reduction in the carbon footprint (approximately 90%) was noted when reusing bricks to build vertical partitions, while in the case of decorative cladding, the carbon footprint was reduced by approximately 70%.
• Despite the clear advantages, the implementation of post-demolition ceramics in practice encounters significant barriers, both technological and regulatory. The key problems remain the high labor intensity of recovery processes and the lack of uniform quality standards for secondary materials, which currently limits their wider use.
• Further actions are necessary to increase the scale of practical implementation of post-demolition ceramics, including the development of modern sorting and processing technologies, the creation of clear regulations and uniform quality standards, as well as systematic educational and promotional activities aimed at the construction industry and investors.

The analyses carried out indicate that the strategic implementation of post-demolition ceramics in construction can significantly contribute to the achievement of sustainable development goals by reducing the consumption of natural resources, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and minimizing the amount of construction waste going to landfills.

The authors believe that the use of ceramic demolition materials is a promising alternative, both economically and environmentally, especially in structural applications. However, further research and technological and regulatory developments are necessary to effectively exploit the full potential of the circular economy in the construction sector.