Moving towards 100% recovery of concrete demolition
waste across Europe
A review of barriers and opportunities for the concrete
industry
Karl Downey
Postgraduate Certificate in Sustainable Value Chains
25 September 2016
Page 2 of 16
Table of Contents
1. Brief background and organisation information ................................................................... 3
2. The Sustainability Challenge / Opportunity ......................................................................... 4
3. Critical Analysis .................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Options for concrete recovery and recycling ....................................................................... 5
3.2 Environmental assessment of concrete recycling ............................................................... 6
3.3 Barriers to recovery of concrete C&DW .............................................................................. 7
3.4 Concrete sector initiatives ................................................................................................. 11
4. Conclusions and recommendations ..................................................................................... 12
5. Bibliography ......................................................................................................................... 13
6. Appendix 1: Interview list ................................................................................................... 16
Figures and Tables
Table 1: C&DW management in selected countries .............................................................................. 8
Figure 1: Concrete C&DW recycling value chain ................................................................................... 9
Abbreviations
C&DW – Construction and demolition waste
CSI – Cement Sustainability Initiative
GWP – Global warming potential
LCA – Life cycle assessment
RCA – Recycled concrete aggregate
Page 3 of 16
1. Brief background and organisation information
The recommendations in this paper are addressed to the European concrete industry
generally.
Concrete is the most used construction material in the world. It is composed of cement,
aggregates, water, and, sometimes, additions and chemical admixtures1. Cement is the binder,
which reacts with the water to “glue” the other ingredients together. Aggregates include fine
aggregates (sand) and coarse aggregates, and are generally produced from gravel or crushed
rock, or recycled material.
The European concrete industry is largely made up of small, local companies. For example,
the European Ready-Mix Concrete Organisation counted around 1,300 concrete producers and
6,600 plants among its European member countries in 2013 (ERMCO 2014), and there are
around 5,500 precast concrete companies and 8,000 plants in Europe (BIBM 2015). The
aggregates industry is also made up of small companies – 15,000 companies and 25,000
quarries in Europe (UEPG n.d.) – who produce aggregates for concrete and other applications.
The European cement industry, by contrast, is made up of medium to large companies, many
of which are owned by multi-national groups. The large cement companies typically produce
concrete too, but this only makes up a small share of the total concrete market in a given
country.
The author is employed by CEMBUREAU, the European Cement Association. CEMBUREAU
is the representative body of the European cement industry, based in Brussels and with
members in 28 European countries. CEMBUREAU is a main member of The Concrete
Initiative, an advocacy initiative grouping the European cement, aggregates, ready-mix and
precast concrete industries. CEMBUREAU is also a member of the European Concrete
Platform (ECP), a technical and advocacy platform grouping the European cement,
admixtures, ready-mix and precast concrete industries.
At a global level, the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI), part of the World Business
Council for Sustainable Development, is a CEO-led initiative of cement companies, which
promotes sustainability initiatives within the cement and concrete industry (CEMBUREAU is
a Communication Partner of the CSI). Recently, the CSI was the initiator of a project to
develop a global responsible sourcing scheme for concrete, soon to be launched as the Concrete
Sustainability Council (of which the ECP is also a founding member).
1 The proportions of these ingredients will depend on the required properties of the concrete, such as
strength, resistance to harsh environments, durability etc., but are roughly as follows, by volume: 10-
15% cement, 60-75% aggregates, 15-20% water (NRMCA n.d.).
Page 4 of 16
2. The Sustainability Challenge / Opportunity
Some 2.5 billion tonnes of waste were produced in the EU in 2010. Of this, 25-30% is
construction and demolition waste (C&DW) (European Commission 2016).
The Waste Framework Directive of the European Union (European Commisssion 2008) set
down a target of 70% recovery of C&DW by 2020. Many countries or regions have already
exceeded this target: e.g. the Netherlands, where recovery is at 93% (European Commission
2015f), or Flanders, where a 75% target by 2000 was already defined in 1995 (Vynkce &
Vrijders 2016). However, many other countries and regions are still lagging: for example
Bulgaria and Romania, where recovery rates are low and statistics are inconsistent or non-
existent (European Commission 2015a&b).
This paper looks at the specific case of concrete C&DW2, which accounts for a third to two
thirds of all C&DW (Bio Intelligence Service 2011). Tackling the huge volumes of concrete
demolition waste produced will have the benefits of reducing extraction of primary raw
materials and reducing the amount of waste that goes to landfill. The sustainability challenge
is how to go beyond the target set by the European Commission and reach 100% recovery of
concrete demolition waste across Europe. The word “recovery” is deliberately used here to
mean re-use, recycling or any other useful function for waste which substitutes primary
material and keeps demolition concrete from being disposed of in landfill. The objective,
therefore, is to reach 100% recovery and 0% disposal; how that waste should be used is
discussed later.
This challenge is explored from the point of view of the concrete industry. Is the industry
implicated in the targets set by the European Commission, and can leadership by the concrete
industry itself accelerate the trend?
2 Although the term “C&DW” covers waste from construction as well as demolition, this paper will only
discuss concrete waste from demolition, as this is much more significant in terms of volumes generated.
Page 5 of 16
3. Critical Analysis
3.1 Options for concrete recovery and recycling
To recycle concrete at the end of its life, it is crushed to produce recycled concrete aggregates
(RCA)3.
For the purposes of this paper, three broad uses of crushed demolition concrete will be
distinguished4:
A. Use as an aggregate in new concrete (sometimes referred to as “closed-loop” recycling)
B. Use as an aggregate in unbound applications
C. Backfilling
A. Recycled concrete aggregates in concrete
Replacing coarse (diameter ≥ 4mm) natural aggregates in concrete by coarse RCA has been
studied extensively (e.g. Özalp et al. 2016; Quattrone et al. 2014; Agrela et al. 2013). Concrete
with a high percentage of coarse RCA (20-50%) tends to have worse performance than
concrete with natural aggregates due mainly to the higher water absorption and lower density
of RCA due to adhered hardened cement paste. For low-strength applications, the difference
in performance can be less (Agrela et al. 2013).
For that reason, the recommended maximum quantity of coarse RCA in concrete given in
standards depends on the strength class of the concrete and the exposure conditions. The
European concrete standard, EN 206-1, provides (informative) guidance on the use of up to
50% coarse RCA in concrete depending on the application (CEN 2014). Further guidance is
given in national annexes to this standard.
When concrete is crushed to be recycled, coarse particles are generated, as well as a large
amount of particles of less than 4mm diameter (“fines”). Fines from recycled concrete can
present difficulties for recycling into concrete: they can increase water absorption and
decrease strength, and their quality can be variable due to difficulties with separating out
impurities (Fan et al. 2016). Therefore, their use in concrete is more limited by standards than
coarse RCA (CEN 2014), and unbound applications is the usual use.
B. Unbound applications
Unbound applications are those uses of RCA without a binder such as cement or asphalt, but
where the material is nevertheless subject to certain engineering requirements such as shape,
compressive strength or fragmentation resistance, and therefore may require some processing
before use (Jiménez 2013).
Unbound applications are the most common recycling method of concrete demolition waste.
RCA can in some cases even offer better properties than natural aggregates for some
applications such as road sub-base, due to its angular shape and residual binding capacity due
to remaining cement paste (Interviewee #2).
3 In some cases it is also possible to re-use concrete directly at the end of its life, for example with
precast concrete elements (Huuhka et al. 2015). 4 It is, in principle, also possible to use RCA in asphalt, although this is not widespread and suffers
some technical difficulties (Qasrawi & Asi 2016), and will not be discussed further here.
Page 6 of 16
C. Backfilling
Backfilling covers all other material recovery of C&DW. There is no commonly agreed
definition of backfilling (Bio by Deloitte et al. 2016), but for the purpose of this paper it is
understood as use of waste, usually without prior processing or engineering requirements, in
applications such as quarry restoration, landscaping, embankments, landfill cover etc.
Backfilling is considered recovery under the Waste Framework Directive. In the context of its
proposal for a revised directive, the European Commission has proposed a definition for
backfilling; key to this definition is the idea that the waste must substitute primary material
(European Commission 2015h).
Backfilling does have a benefit – use of primary material is reduced – but in the case of
concrete, value is lost since the potentially excellent mechanical properties of RCA are not
fully availed of if it is backfilled along with other waste. It seems clear that backfilling of
concrete demolition waste should be avoided where possible. At the very least, there should be
an obligation to sort C&DW before backfilling, in order to remove recyclable waste such as
concrete.
3.2 Environmental assessment of concrete recycling
Life-cycle assessments (LCA) of coarse RCA prepared for use in concrete have found that the
environmental impact (particularly for the impact category “global warming potential”, GWP)
is often greater than that of natural coarse aggregates (Marinković et al. 2010; Lisbona et al.
2016; Müller et al. 20155). For example, for the case studied by Lisbona et al. in the north of
Spain, GWP was about 18% higher for recycled aggregates. This is due to the extra processing
needed to achieve suitable quality for use in concrete, and/or increased transport distances
compared to natural aggregates. In general, the higher the quality of aggregate needed, the
higher the CO2 footprint due to processing (Quattrone et al. 2014). Furthermore, structural
concrete containing RCA requires a higher cement content to obtain the same concrete
properties, further reducing the environmental benefit6.
Since the overall impact is highly dependent on the aggregates’ transport mode and distance,
it is difficult to make generalisations about the impact of using RCA in concrete. Concrete
with RCA can show better LCA results than traditional concrete when transport distances of
the recycled aggregates are very short compared to natural aggregates7. This could become a
more common situation in future, with recycled aggregates being available closer to the place
of demand, i.e. urban centres (Marinković et al. 2010).
LCA results do not necessarily provide the complete picture, however. The environmental
indicators used in traditional LCAs do not consider other impacts (environmental or
otherwise) such as occupation of landfill space or (local) resource depletion, which would need
to be assessed to determine the overall sustainability of concrete using RCA (Lisbona et al.
2016; Colina & De Larrard 2016).
5 This study was commissioned by CEMBUREAU, the European Cement Association. 6 For Colina & De Larrard (2016), this is only the case for concrete with 100% RCA; for lower RCA
content the environmental impact is similar to traditional concrete. 7 For example, for the case studied by Marinković et al. (2010) in Serbia, this ratio was 20 km versus
150 km.
Page 7 of 16
3.3 Barriers to recovery of concrete C&DW
Numerous studies and policy reports have identified the general barriers to greater C&DW
recovery, which are not necessarily unique to concrete (e.g. Bio Intelligence Service 2011; JRC
European Commission 2011; Bio by Deloitte et al. 2016).
There is great diversity across Europe with regard to these drivers and barriers. Seven
countries selected for their diversity are compared in Table 1, which allows certain trends to
be observed.
France (outside of Paris) and Romania can be characterised as countries with a low population
density and plentiful supply of primary materials. The Netherlands and the south-east of
England are the opposite: they lack both primary materials and landfill space. For that
reason, solutions to C&DW evolved out of necessity in the latter two regions, but such
circumstances would be impossible to export to France or Romania.
In Western Europe a “recycling culture” can be said to exist, as evidenced by political will to
deal with C&DW, and voluntary industry initiatives. In Romania this is not yet the case.
Looking to other industries, gypsum and glass have commonalities with concrete: low value
means less incentive to recover it at end of life (unlike metals, for example). This has led
producers to actively engage in the recovery of their end-of-life materials and contribute to the
financing of collection systems (Eurogypsum 2015). This suggests that greater engagement
with other actors in the recycling value chain could be useful also for concrete.
The concrete C&DW recycling value chain is made up of a number of actors (see example in
Figure 1, based on Interview #5), each with their own commercial motivations and legal
obligations. A region with successful C&DW management tends to have policy in place which
incentivises all these actors to act towards the same objective.
The examples in Table 1 indicate that countries or regions with higher recovery rates tend to
have some or all of the following attributes: restrictions on landfilling of C&DW; a high
population density; binding, enforced regulation on C&DW sorting; industry commitment to
managing C&DW; sufficient waste management facilities; and guidance or standards for use
of recycled materials. Of these, the most urgent and perhaps easiest to export to other
countries would be a requirement to carry out pre-demolition audits and sort C&DW, and a
restriction on landfilling. Once this is in place, there is a business opportunity for
entrepreneurs to process and market this material (Interviewee #5).
The final step, still not developed in many countries, is to develop guidance or standards
which encourage use of recycled aggregates in ever more demanding applications.
Page 8 of 16
Table 1: C&DW management in selected countries
Country C&DW
generated
per year
(million
tonnes)1
C&DW
recovered2
Recycled
aggregates
as a
percentage
of total
aggregates3
Population
density (people
per km2)4
Availability
of primary
aggregates
Legislation on
C&DW
Industry position, initiatives etc.
France 65 63% 6% 122 high Binding, but not
always enforced. Rules
on backfilling very
open.
Construction industry is committed to
improving C&DW management, and
research projects as well as innovative
collection schemes exist.
Finland 2.2 77%5 1% 18 high6 Legislation promoting
use of concrete for
unbound applications;
high landfill costs.
Industry commitments exist; technical
standards for use of demolition concrete
available since the 1990s.
Germany 87.6 90% 12% 234 high Strong regulations on
e.g. C&DW sorting
(though variability by
region).
Industry initiatives for C&DW
management have existed for many
years.
Netherlands 25.7 93% 20.5% 503 low Very well developed,
including landfill
bans.
Multiple initiatives, including a new
“green deal” (the “Betonakkoord”) for
sustainable concrete between industry
and the government.
Romania 0.95 <40%7 0% 86 high No binding legislation. Lack of recycling facilities, lack of
leadership or coordination among
industries.
Spain 29.5 52-83%8 0% 93 high Low landfill taxes. Regional initiatives exist, but there is a
lack of nationwide efforts on C&DW.
UK 45 86.5% 22% 269 varies by
region
Landfill taxes;
voluntary waste
management plans.
Multiple industry initiatives exist.
Note: Differences in definitions, data quality, etc., mean that the numbers cannot always be directly compared from one country to another. All data is from European Commission (2015b-g),
with reference year 2012 except where noted, with supplementary information from Interviewees #1–#4.
1. Excludes excavated soils
2. Includes backfilling except where noted
3. Source: (UEPG n.d.)
4. Source: (The World Bank n.d.)
5. Data is for 2011
6. Assumption based on fact that recycled aggregates only make up 1% of all aggregates produced
7. Data is unreliable. Excludes backfilling
8. There are inconsistencies between different sources of data.
Page 9 of 16
Figure 1: Concrete C&DW recycling value chain
Page 10 of 16
Barriers to closed-loop recycling of concrete
Despite the fact that use of coarse RCA in concrete is possible in the right conditions,
this practice is still not widespread: in most European countries the recycled content of
concrete is less than 1% on average (ERMCO 2016).
One of the reasons is a lack of experience or trust in RCA. Therefore, work is ongoing in
several countries to provide guidance on the use of RCA in concrete, e.g. in Belgium
(Vynkce & Vrijders 2016).
A practical barrier is the fact that small concrete producers do not have space to store
RCA separately. One solution to this would be to blend a small amount (e.g. 5-10%) of
RCA with primary aggregates at aggregate quarries. Concrete standards may have to be
adjusted slightly to take this practice into account (Interviewee #6).
Processing demolition concrete to the level where it can be used in concrete has a
another disadvantage: it produces more fines, a by-product with little commercial value
(Quattrone et al. 2014). This means that it can be more attractive for a recycler to sell
concrete demolition waste wholly for unbound applications – where both coarse and fine
particles can easily be used together – rather than further processing and separation of
the coarse aggregates, for use in concrete. Improving the possibilities to use recycled
fines in concrete could remove this paradox, and encourage recyclers to process concrete
C&DW to a higher quality with a view to selling it all to concrete producers
(Interviewee #3).
Should closed-loop recycling of concrete be promoted?
Quality material from C&DW is not always available consistently or locally, and
recycled content does not necessarily mean lower environmental impacts. Therefore, the
European concrete industry’s position up to now has been that targets for recycling of
C&DW should not include targets on recycled content of concrete (The Concrete
Initiative 2015). Natural aggregates are abundant, and aggregate demand is such that
100% recycling of concrete across Europe could be achieved with all demolition concrete
being used as aggregates for unbound application (European Concrete Platform 2014).
Stakeholders and literature agree, however, that an effort to increase the possibilities
for closed-loop recycling is nevertheless worthwhile. Close to urban areas, land for
quarries faces competition from other uses, and therefore construction aggregates can
suffer local scarcity (Ioannidou et al. 2014). An effort to achieve greater closed-loop
recycling of concrete into concrete would be of benefit to the concrete industry itself in
such areas. Furthermore, the industry would have benefits in terms of image by
promoting the recyclability of its products (competing materials, such as steel, can claim
near 100% recycling of their products at end of life) (Interviewee #6).
The aim should not be to arrive at a situation where all concrete produced has a high
recycled content. But widening the scope of possible applications, while also creating a
demand for high-quality RCA, reduces the chance that demolition concrete will be
consigned to applications where its properties are not fully exploited.
Page 11 of 16
3.4 Concrete sector initiatives
The European concrete industry has not made a coordinated effort to promote concrete
demolition waste recovery up to now, although it has given input to EU policy
developments (The Concrete Initiative 2015; European Concrete Platform 2014). The
Cement Sustainability Initiative proposed a set of indicators to measure and promote
concrete recycling in 2009, but this has not been followed up since then (Cement
Sustainability Initiative 2009).
However, the large number of company or national initiatives suggests a willingness to
work on this topic. LafargeHolcim (a global cement, concrete and aggregates producer)
has launched a recycled aggregate service, which includes all services to do with
collecting, recycling and recovery of concrete waste (Interviewee #3). Numerous
European and national research projects are investigating various aspects of concrete
recycling, from advanced sorting and processing techniques, to the use of fines in cement
(e.g. HISER n.d.; R-beton n.d.; Recybéton n.d.).
There appears to be a lack of awareness of the outcomes of such projects, and they often
do not lead to action at European level or replication in other countries. This is
something that could be coordinated better by European organisations, in the form of
sharing of best practices or using research results as input to the development of
technical standards or guidelines.
Page 12 of 16
4. Conclusions and recommendations
The preceding analysis indicates that for any country or region, there are specific stages
in the evolution towards higher value-added recycling of concrete, passing from
eliminating landfilling, eliminating backfilling, and moving towards high quality
processing of demolition concrete for use in ever more demanding situations, be they
unbound or in concrete. Any strategic action plan should help each region to reach the
next step in this evolution, bearing in mind its specific (geographical, developmental)
circumstances. Therefore, the recommendations below should lead to actions specific to
the context in question.
The subsequent Strategic Action Plan will be developed on the basis of these
recommendations. Leadership by the European organisations described in Chapter 1 of
this paper will be fundamental in implementing the Plan.
Recommendations
1. Advocacy at national and European level
It is recommended that the European concrete industry promote policy that encourages
recycling of demolition concrete. This would include, at the very least, a ban on
landfilling of concrete demolition waste; tightening of rules on what kind of operations
can be considered backfilling; and a call for mandatory pre-demolition audits and sorting
of C&DW. In more developed countries, policy requests should be more nuanced and
promote the best available techniques for concrete recycling for the most appropriate
applications.
2. Engagement with other actors in the recycling value chain
It is recommended that the European concrete industry take leadership to drive demand
for quality RCA. Engagement and leadership can help promote selective demolition of
buildings and sorting of waste, which in turn provides quality assurance and reliability
to purchasers of recycled products. Engagement could include voluntary commitments to
use RCA in concrete, and collaboration with other actors in the value chain on pilot
projects, in order to demonstrate the possibilities of recycling.
3. Involvement in research projects and sharing of best practices
Much work is already happening in academia and in European and national research
projects on concrete recycling. It is recommended that the European concrete industry
be fully involved in such projects in order to improve recycling processes and explore the
limits for safe use of RCA, including fines, in all applications. This would aid the further
development of standards or guidelines to enable concrete to be recycled in the most
appropriate and highest value application in all cases.
Page 13 of 16
5. Bibliography
Agrela, F., Alaejos, P. & Juan, M.S. De, 2013. Properties of concrete with recycled
aggregates. In F. Pacheco-Torgal et al., eds. Handbook of Recycled Concrete and
Demolition Waste. Woodhead Publishing, pp. 304–329.
BIBM, 2015. European Precast Concrete Industry Factbook 2015, Available at:
http://www.bibm.eu/documenten/bibm-factbook-2015-(final).pdf.
Bio by Deloitte et al., 2016. Workshop “Improving management of construction and
demolition waste” 25th May 2016 Background Paper.
Bio Intelligence Service, 2011. Service contract on management of construction and
demolition waste - SR1. Final Report Task 2, Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/2011_CDW_Report.pdf.
Cement Sustainability Initiative, 2009. Recycling Concrete, Geneva. Available at:
http://www.wbcsd.org/Pages/EDocument/EDocumentDetails.aspx?ID=11133&NoSe
archContextKey=true [Accessed July 22, 2016].
CEN, 2014. EN 206 Concrete - Specification, performance, production and conformity.
Colina, H. & De Larrard, F., 2016. The French National Project “Recybeton”: Recycling
Concrete into Concrete. II International Conference on Concrete Sustainability
ICCS16, pp.1091–1101.
ERMCO, 2016. Overview of use of RA in concrete in Europe and USA and applicable
regulations (unpublished).
ERMCO, 2014. Ready-mixed concrete industry statistics. Year 2013. , (July). Available
at: http://www.ermco.eu/documents/statistics/ermco-statistics-y-2013-final-
version.pdf.
Eurogypsum, 2015. Roadmap and proposal of procedures for the implementation of a
sustainable value chain, Brussels.
European Commission, 2015a. Construction and Demolition Waste management in
Bulgaria, Brussels.
European Commission, 2015b. Construction and Demolition Waste management in
Finland, Brussels.
European Commission, 2015c. Construction and Demolition Waste management in
France, Brussels.
European Commission, 2015d. Construction and Demolition Waste management in
Germany, Brussels.
European Commission, 2015e. Construction and Demolition Waste management in
Romania, Brussels.
European Commission, 2015f. Construction and Demolition Waste management in the
Netherlands, Brussels.
European Commission, 2015g. Construction and Demolition Waste management in
United Kingdom, Brussels.
European Commission, 2015h. Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 2008/98/EC on
waste, Brussels: European Commission. Available at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:c2b5929d-999e-11e5-b3b7-
01aa75ed71a1.0018.02/DOC_1&format=PDF.
European Commission, 2016. Waste - Environment - European Commission.
European Commisssion, 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives. Official
Journal of the Europian Union, L13, pp.3–30. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/.
European Concrete Platform, 2014. The Waste Hierarchy, Concrete and Recycling,
Available at: http://www.europeanconcrete.eu/images/stories/Documents/2904 - ecp
Page 14 of 16
- waste hierarchy and concrete recycling - 2014-05-15.pdf.
Fan, C.-C. et al., 2016. Properties of concrete incorporating fine recycled aggregates from
crushed concrete wastes. Construction and Building Materials, 112, pp.708–715.
Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950061816302136.
HISER, HISER Project - Holistic Innovative Solutions for an Efficient Recycling and
Recovery of Valuable Raw Materials from Complex Construction and Demolition
Waste (HISER). Available at: http://www.hiserproject.eu/ [Accessed September 15,
2016].
Huuhka, S. et al., 2015. Reusing concrete panels from buildings for building: Potential
in Finnish 1970s mass housing. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 101,
pp.105–121. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.05.017.
Ioannidou, D. et al., 2014. New indicator for resource accessibility assessment, based on
surface land cover. In WorldSB14 Barcelona. pp. 1–7.
Jiménez, J.R., 2013. Recycled aggregates (RAs) for roads. In F. Pacheco-Torgal et al.,
eds. Handbook of Recycled Concrete and Demolition Waste. Woodhead Publishing,
pp. 351–377.
JRC European Commission, 2011. Supporting Environmentally Sound Decisions for
Construction and Demolition ( C&D ) Waste Management - A practical guide to Life
Cycle Thinking (LCT) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Available at:
http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/waste-Guide-to-LCTLCA-for-C-D-waste-
management-Final-ONLINE.pdf.
Lisbona, A., Dolado, J.S. & Vegas, I., 2016. Sustainability Assessment of Concrete with
Recycled Concrete Aggregates. In II International Conference on Concrete
Sustainability. pp. 1124–1135. Available at:
http://www.iccs16.org/frontal/doc/Ebook_ICCS16.pdf.
Marinković, S. et al., 2010. Comparative environmental assessment of natural and
recycled aggregate concrete. Waste Management, 30(11), pp.2255–2264.
Müller, C., Reiners, J. & Palm, S., 2015. Closing the loop: What type of concrete re-use is
the most sustainable option? Available at:
http://www.theconcreteinitiative.eu/images/Newsroom/Publications/2016-01-
16_ECRA_TechnicalReport_ConcreteReuse.pdf.
NRMCA, NRMCA | Applications & Promotion | Concrete Basics. Available at:
http://www.nrmca.org/aboutconcrete/ [Accessed September 10, 2016].
Özalp, F. et al., 2016. Effects of recycled aggregates from construction and demolition
wastes on mechanical and permeability properties of paving stone, kerb and
concrete pipes. Construction and Building Materials, 110, pp.17–23.
Qasrawi, H. & Asi, I., 2016. Effect of bitumen grade on hot asphalt mixes properties
prepared using recycled coarse concrete aggregate. Construction and Building
Materials, 121, pp.18–24. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.101.
Quattrone, M., Angulo, S.C. & John, V.M., 2014. Energy and CO2 from high
performance recycled aggregate production. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
90, pp.21–33. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.06.003.
R-beton, Ressourcenschonender Beton – Werkstoff der nächsten Generation (Resource-
friendly concrete - material for the next generation). Available at: http://www.r-
beton.de/ [Accessed September 1, 2016].
Recybéton, Projet National RECYBETON - Accueil. Available at:
http://www.pnrecybeton.fr/ [Accessed September 1, 2016].
The Concrete Initiative, 2015. Construction & demolition waste Policy do’s & don’ts,
Brussels. Available at:
http://www.theconcreteinitiative.eu/images/Newsroom/Factsheets/The_Concrete_Ini
tiative_CDW_dos_donts_2015-10-21.pdf [Accessed July 22, 2016].
Page 15 of 16
The World Bank, Population density (people per sq. km of land area). Available at:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST [Accessed September 24, 2016].
UEPG, Estimates of Aggregates Production data 2012. Available at:
http://www.uepg.eu/statistics/estimates-of-production-data/data-2012 [Accessed
September 24, 2016a].
UEPG, Estimates of Aggregates Production data 2014. Available at:
http://www.uepg.eu/statistics/estimates-of-production-data/data-2014 [Accessed
September 15, 2016b].
Vynkce, J. & Vrijders, J., 2016. Reycling of Construction and Demolition Waste - An
Overview of RILEM Achievements and State of the Art in the EU. In II
International Conference on Concrete Sustainability. Madrid, pp. 55–65.
Page 16 of 16
6. Appendix 1: Interview list
# Name &
position
Organisation Activity Country Date Method
1 Alina Cristea,
Sustainable
Development
Manager
Holcim Romania Cement,
concrete and
aggregates
producer
Romania 24/08/2016 By phone
2 Peter Broere,
Association
Secretary
BRBS Recycling National
association
of recycling
companies
Netherlands 24/08/2016 By phone
3 Mark
Tomlinson,
Business
Development
Manager
LafargeHolcim Cement,
concrete and
aggregates
producer
Worldwide 24/08/2016 By phone
4 Leo Dekker,
Manager
Technology &
Sustainability
Mebin Concrete
producer
Netherlands 24/08/2016 By phone
5 Jose Blanco,
Secretary
General
European
Demolition
Association
Demolition Europe 12/09/2016 By phone
6 Jean-Marc
Potier,
Technical
Director
SNBPE -French
Ready-Mix
Concrete
Association
National
concrete
association
France 13/09/2016 By phone