Waste Management 31 (2011) 2497–2502

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

A web-based Decision Support System for the optimal management

of construction and demolition waste
G. Banias a,b,⇑, Ch. Achillas a,b, Ch. Vlachokostas a, N. Moussiopoulos a,b, I. Papaioannou a
a
Laboratory of Heat Transfer and Environmental Engineering, Aristotle University Thessaloniki, Box 483, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
b
School of Economics and Business Administration, International Hellenic University, 57001 Thermi, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Wastes from construction activities constitute nowadays the largest by quantity fraction of solid wastes in
Received 12 January 2011 urban areas. In addition, it is widely accepted that the particular waste stream contains hazardous mate-
Accepted 11 July 2011 rials, such as insulating materials, plastic frames of doors, windows, etc. Their uncontrolled disposal result
Available online 10 August 2011
to long-term pollution costs, resource overuse and wasted energy. Within the framework of the DEWAM
project, a web-based Decision Support System (DSS) application – namely DeconRCM – has been devel-
Keywords: oped, aiming towards the identification of the optimal construction and demolition waste (CDW) manage-
Construction and demolition waste
ment strategy that minimises end-of-life costs and maximises the recovery of salvaged building materials.
Web-based application
Decision Support System
This paper addresses both technical and functional structure of the developed web-based application. The
DeconRCM web-based DSS provides an accurate estimation of the generated CDW quantities of twenty-one different
waste streams (e.g. concrete, bricks, glass, etc.) for four different types of buildings (residential, office,
commercial and industrial). With the use of mathematical programming, the DeconRCM provides also
the user with the optimal end-of-life management alternative, taking into consideration both economic
and environmental criteria. The DSS’s capabilities are illustrated through a real world case study of a
typical five floor apartment building in Thessaloniki, Greece.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Up to recently, common practice was to discard CDW materials

Construction and demolition waste (CDW) are generated on
active building sites (Stein, 1996). CDW include a wide range of
materials depending on the source of the waste, namely excavation
materials (e.g. earth, sand, gravel, rocks and clay), road building
and maintenance materials (e.g. asphalt, sand, gravel and metals),
demolition materials (e.g. debris including earth, gravel, sand,
blocks of concrete, bricks, gypsum, porcelain and lime-cast), as
well as other worksite waste materials (e.g. wood, plastic, paper,
glass, metal and pigments) (Fatta et al., 2003). CDW are problem-
atic not mainly for their hazardous nature, but mostly for the sig-
nificant volume generated. In the European Union, more than
450 million tonnes of construction and demolition waste is gener-
ated annually. Excluding earth and excavated road material, the
amount of CDW generated is estimated to be roughly 180 million
tonnes per year (EC, 2000). This stream presents the third largest
in quantities, only following waste from the mining and farming
industry (Dorsthorst and Kowalczyk, 2002).
⇑ Corresponding author at: Laboratory of Heat Transfer and Environmental
Engineering, Aristotle University Thessaloniki, Box 483, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece.
Tel.: +30 2310 994109; fax: +30 2310 996012.
E-mail address: gbanias@aix.meng.auth.gr (G. Banias).
and debris in landfills, most often the same ones built for the dis-
posal of MSW (Garrido et al., 2005). The substantial volume of
CDW presents significant pressure to landfill capacities and have
led to considerable environmental concerns (Esin and Cosgun,
2007). Disposal of CDW cannot in any case be considered as a sound
management practice for end-of-life building materials. Even worse,
there are many cases reported where CDW ended up in uncontrolled
open dumps, not taking into account the severe burden imposed
upon the environment (Fatta et al., 2003). Apart from the aesthetic
degradation, environmental impacts of such practices include, soil
and water contamination, air pollution as a result of resulting fires,
reduced land and property values, destruction of open spaces and
landscape blight (El-Haggar Salah, 2007). In addition, heaps of
CDW may include asbestos waste, which poses a significant health
risk, especially in building sites which are later converted into
residential areas or playgrounds (Hendricks et al., 2000).
Following the waste management prioritisation of alternatives,
CDW disposal stands on the basis of pyramid and indicates the
least favourable building materials’ end-of-life option following
‘‘Avoidance’’, ‘‘Reduce’’, ‘‘Reuse’’ and ‘‘Recycle’’. Among measures
to minimise CDW quantities are considered also the control of
aspects such as design quality, applied technology and habitual
construction methods (Ekanayake and Ofori, 2004; McDonald
and Smithers, 1998). The stream is characterised by its very high

0956-053X/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.07.018
2498 G. Banias et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 2497–2502
recovery potential, since total waste recycled can reach 80%
(Bossink and Brouwers, 1996). However, in current practice, the
vast majority of CDW (almost two thirds) is being landfilled. How-
ever, there are countries with significant achievements in the field,
such as Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium that have
surpassed 80% recycling rates (Erlandsson and Levin, 2005). Best
recycling practices have been achieved in cases where both raw
materials and necessary disposal sites are scarce (Lauritzen,
1998). In addition, recycling plays a crucial role in order to pre-
serve areas for future urban development, and to improve at the
same time local environmental quality (Kartam et al., 2004). Prior
to recycling, CDW can be also reused. For instance, inert, uncon-
taminated end-of-life building materials can be used as filling
material for land reclamation purposes (Poon et al., 2001).
In order to assist construction companies, public bodies, engi-
neers and individuals towards environmental-friendly sound man-
agement of CDW, a web-based Decision Support System (DSS) has
been developed, namely DeconRCM. A beta version of DeconRCM
can be visited at: http://pandora.meng.auth.gr/deconrcm. Cur-
rently, the application is built for the case of the Region of Central
Macedonia, Greece, but can be easily expanded to other areas with
the necessary adjustments. In this paper, functional specifications
of DeconRCM are provided, together with a brief description of its
technical aspects. The DSS tool’s capabilities are illustrated through
a real-world case study of a five-floor residential building in Thes-
saloniki, Greece.
2. Overview of the DeconRCM
The main objective of DeconRCM is twofold. It provides an accu-
rate estimation of the generated quantities of 21 different waste
streams produced by two main processes (renovation and demoli-
tion). Four building types are considered, namely residential, office,
commercial and industrial. Generated CDW are based on the typical
construction practice in Greece (Anastaselos, 2009). An algorithmi-
cal model, is constructed and embodied in the DSS tool for the esti-
mation of the generated quantities of CDW (Anastaselos, 2009). The
model that was developed and incorporated into the DeconRCM tool
for the analytical calculation and the quantification of materials
embodied in existing buildings was validated for its performance.
Two residential buildings that were demolished were examined,
one in the city of Kalamaria and another in the city of Kozani.
The accuracy of the derived results was considered as accept-
able, with the overall deviation between the actual and the calcu-
lated CDW quantities (for mixed CDW) to lie in the order of 8–9%.
More specifically, the difference between the calculated quantities
with the use of the developed model in comparison to the actual
quantities weighted on site varies from 6% to 10% for the various
waste streams in the case of the building in Kalamaria and from
5% to 9% for the various waste streams in the case of the building
in Kozani. The only exception in both cases was the estimation of
cables’ mass. Cables heavily vary on building structure and use
and thus it is considered as the hardest stream to be quantified
with the use of a generic model. However, the estimations were
not totally disoriented since the deviation in this particular waste
stream rose to 26% and 18% for the cases of Kalamaria and Kozani,
respectively. The comparison between CDW quantities calculated
with the tool developed for the DeconRCM application and actual
waste quantities weighted on site for the two aforementioned case
studies are detailed in Moussiopoulos et al. (2009).
Furthermore, the model for the estimation of the generated
CDW quantities was also validated in the case of the waste from
construction activities in the Aristotle University campus, Thessalo-
niki, Greece (Banias et al., 2011a). Maintenance of the university’s
buildings (mainly construction and electromechanical works) is
conducted annually with a significant CDW volume generated,
which leads to considerable management cost. The deviation
between the model’s calculated quantities and the actual weighted
CDW quantities in this case was in the order of 10% (Fragkoudakis,
2011). The deviation is also considered as acceptable, taking also
into consideration that this particular case study refers to large-
scale activities of heavily differentiated buildings.
On top of the above, DeconRCM specifies the optimal manage-
ment strategies for all generated CDW streams, taking simulta-
neously into account economic and environmental criteria. This is
achieved with the use of mathematical programming. All end-of-life
treatment facilities (including landfills) within the limits of the Re-
gion of Central Macedonia are incorporated in appropriate databases
– analytically presented in the material to follow – and illustrated in
Google maps. Optimal routes from the worksite to treatment facili-
ties are also communicated to the end user, together with an estima-
tion of the overall management cost. DeconRCM’s structure and data
flow are depicted in Fig. 1.
DeconRCM is built with the use of a web mapping via Google
Maps API, a free web mapping service application and technology
that powers many map-based services (Google, 2011a). A database
with all the necessary information (e.g. coordinates, contact details,
available technologies, accepted streams, pricing policies, etc.)
regarding disposal sites within the area under consideration is
embodied in the application. The database, which is MySQL 5x
(MySql, 2011), can be accessed and edited only by the application’s
administrator. Feedback forms, based on PHP 5.2 scripting language
(CodePlex, 2010), are designed in order to assemble all necessary
input data regarding the source worksite of the building under
demolition or renovation (e.g. coordinates, type of building, num-
ber of floors, surface, year of construction, type of heating system,
etc.) (Banias, 2009). The full description of the web-based DSS’s
technical and functional specifications is provided in Section 3.
Estimation of the generated CDW quantities is realised with the
use of an algorithmical model in Excel file format, based on build-
ing practices in Greece (Anastaselos, 2009). The output is stored in
databases, also developed with MySQL. Optimisation is achieved
with the use of a mixed-integer linear programming (MIPL) model
(Aidonis, 2009). Fixed and variable cost elements included in the
optimisation approach concern the building’s deconstructing or
demolishing process, CDW separation, renting/loading/using a
container, etc. Revenues from secondary materials’ sales are also
considered (Aidonis et al., 2008).
Fig. 1. Structural components of DeconRCM.
 G. Banias et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 2497–2502
3. Technical platform
DeconRCM is hosted on a GNU/Linux web server (LAMP) which
embraces support for all necessary software tools and services, i.e.
MySQL, PHP, Apache, etc. (Fig. 2). The user’s interface is designed
with technologies required for the development of Web 2.0 appli-
cations (javascript/Ajax), which facilitate interactive information
sharing. Such technologies allow users to interact with other users
and/or to change website content, in contrast to non-interactive
websites where users are restricted to passive view of information
provided. For the case of DeconRCM, the user’s interface interactive
features focus on two main functionalities. The first one is imple-
mented by linking the DeconRCM’s user interface with Google
Maps. It is aforementioned that this process is implemented with
the use of Google Maps API (Google, 2011a).
The second functionality focuses on the interactive connection
between the user interface and the web server. This is carried
out by a Google Web Toolkit (GWT) (Google, 2011b) based user’s
interface, interchanging JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format-
ted data through HTTP/JSON sessions with a PHP powered web-
server. JSON, is a lightweight computer data interchange format,
which extends the capabilities of JavaScript to support the data
exchange between the interface of the application and the server.
It is a text-based, human-readable format for representing simple
data structures and associative arrays (called objects). Access from
the web server to the database is implemented through PHP scripts
(Banias, 2009).
The aforementioned algorithmical model for the estimation of
CDW generated quantities is integrated in DeconRCM with the use
of PHPExcel libraries. A PHPExcel library provides a set of classes
for the PHP programming language, which allow to interact with
Excel file format (CodePlex, 2010). Fig. 3 depicts the algorithm’s
structural components interrelation. Results visualisation is Java
based.
The integration of the MILP model that mathematically
addresses the optimal management for end-of-life building mate-
rials is carried out with the use of PHP scripts for the development
of the model’s objective function. MILP is resolved with the use of
lp_solve library (version 5.5.0.14), which is a free MILP solver
based on the revised simplex method and the branch-and-bound
method (Sourceforge.net, 2009).
Both storage and data management in DeconRCM are imple-
mented with the relational database management system MySQL
that uses Structured Query Language (SQL). SQL is widely accepted
Fig. 2. Technological platform of DeconRCM.
2499
Fig. 3. Incorporation of the CDW estimated quantities algorithm into DeconRCM.
as the most popular language for adding, accessing and managing
content in a database. It is mostly noted for its quick processing,
proven reliability, ease and flexibility of use. The data model is
comprised of six databases which include all the necessary input
data and components required for the embodied algorithmical
models. More specifically, the model is developed with the use of
the following databases; (i) decon_cities, (ii) decon_sites, (iii)
decon_materials, (iv) decon_material_costs, (v) decon_source_site,
and (vi) decon_renovation_site. Data model is further detailed in
the work of Banias (2009).
The DeconRCM’s user interface has been developed using GWT,
which is a Software Development Kit (SDK) for the development of
web applications implemented in Java. GWT is the basis for the
implementation of Web2.0 features and facilitates the development
of DeconRCM’s AJAX part. The Java application’s implementation is
compiled to highly optimised JavaScript that runs across all brows-
ers. This ensures the optimal configurability and compatibility of
DeconRCM application with the GoogleMap service which is also
based on javascript (Fig. 4). GWT is a development toolkit for build-
ing and optimising complex browser-based applications such as
DeconRCM web-based application. GWT is a framework for com-
posing AJAX interactive web applications and provides a set of core
Java applications (APIs) and widgets (Banias, 2009).
4. Web interface
DeconRCM’s end-user should insert all input data required in or-
der to estimate CDW quantities, management cost and optimal
management practices. At first, the user needs to determine the
exact position of the worksite under review in a Google map. Fur-
thermore, the user is asked to choose whether the project refers
to building demolition or renovation, as well as the specific building
type. On top of the above, the user needs to answer a simplified
feedback form with all necessary technical characteristics and
details of the building considered. For example, in the case of a
residential building, the following fields need to be filled in: (i) Con-
struction year, (ii) building dimensions (length, width) and number
of floors, (iii) ground floor use (residence, parking or pilotis), (iv)
roof type, (v) existence of basement and elevator, (vi) total balco-
nies’ surface, (vii) type of heating system (e.g. central or individual
boiler, accumulators, etc.) and number of radiators per floor, (viii)
number of apartments and WCs per floor, (ix) number of windows
per floor, (x) type and number of frames (aluminium, timber, plas-
tic) and (xi) number of internal walls. Similar sets of questions are
considered for the rest of the building types and/or in the case that
renovation is examined.
2500 G. Banias et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 2497–2502

Fig. 4. Google Web Toolkit (GWT) technology.

Fig. 5 depicts the information and result management interface,
which include the ‘‘Information’’ and ‘‘Calculation’’ tabs. By clicking
‘‘CDW quantities’’ field of the ‘‘Information’’ tab (Fig. 5a), the total
amount of produced waste is presented (Fig. 5b). With the ‘‘Calcula-
tion’’ tab, the user is provided with the following options: (i)
‘‘Environmental sensitivity bar’’ for the determination of the desired
CDW recycling rate resulting from construction activity (Fig. 5c), (ii)
‘‘Edit’’ function for modifications of building technical characteris-
tics as earlier provided, (iii) ‘‘Delete’’ function, (iv) ‘‘Resolve’’ func-
tion for the MILP model run (Fig. 5c). As a next step, DeconRCM
provides optimal routes from the worksite to the selected CDW
treatment facilities (Fig. 5d). It should be noted that the ‘‘Environ-
mental sensitivity bar’’ is embodied in the application in order both
to comply with legislative issues (e.g. minimum recycling rates) and
to provide with the possibility to manage the generated CDW in a
more environmentally sound manner.
Last but not least, it should be clearly stated that the information
embodied in DeconRCM may be dynamically updated. The adminis-
trator of DeconRCM is capable to modify stored information regard-
ing both the CDW treatment facilities (e.g. add CDW treatment

Fig. 5. Screenshots of DeconRCM.

 G. Banias et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 2497–2502 2501

facilities, modify their capacity, accepted waste streams, applied inert materials. The latter represent the largest portion of the total
practices and other relevant information), as well as the data con- CDW of most structures, present minimum remaining economical
cerning relevant cost elements. value and in most cases do not pay-off expenses. Thus, as also sug-
gested in the Scenarios described in Table 2, total management
5. Application and managerial insights costs are considerably increased. Their ‘‘exploitation’’ is the only
way towards reaching the regulated/legislated targets. Apart from
The applicability of DeconRCM is demonstrated through a real- introducing regulatory constraints for minimum recovery rates of
life case study of a five-floor residential building in Thessaloniki, end-of-life building materials, another path for local policy-makers
Greece. The building is to be demolished and replaced by a new could be under consideration; i.e. the development of a local
one. The problem that the decision-maker confronts is firstly to secondary market through the provision of adequate incentives to
estimate the produced CDW quantities that need to be managed, investors (Banias et al., 2011b). This would have increased the
and secondly to optimise the transportation, recycling and disposal economical benefits of deconstruction and thus would have made
processes. After inserting the building’s technical characteristics, recycling of metals, wood, or other materials optimal, regardless
the expected CDW quantities are estimated. For the case under of minimum regulated recycling rates, just like the case of alumin-
study quantities are presented in Table 1. ium in the examined Scenario I (Table 2).
The tool proceeds with the transportation, recycling and dis- Another issue should be raised at this point. An increase in the
posal optimal options through the MILP solution. For the case con- recycling rate indicates a significant increase in the cost of CDW
sidered, four recycling alternative scenarios are examined, namely management. More specifically, in the base-case scenario
0%, 30%, 60%, and 100%. Recovered materials and management costs (recycling rate: 0%), the total management costs approximates
for the four scenarios are depicted in Table 2. More specifically, in 38 k€ (37.4 €/m2). Despite zero recycling, DeconRCM’s optimal
Scenario I (0%) for which no constraint regarding minimum recy- solution suggests the recovery of aluminium before the building’s
cling rate exist, the optimal solution suggests the deconstruction demolition in order to profit from its sale to the secondary market
of aluminium components (mostly door and window frames) and and minimise total management costs. For Scenario II (recycling
their exploitation in the secondary market. This is grounded on rate: 30%), total management costs are approximately 40 k€
the fact that there is a secondary market well established locally (39.8 €/m2). In this case, apart from aluminium, aggregates, wood,
for aluminium frames and profits pay off the required expenses iron and steel from heaters, boilers and piping are also recovered.
(mostly personnel) (Banias et al., 2011b). In the case that regulatory For Scenario III (recycling rate: 60%), the same waste streams are
constraints exist for end-of-life building materials (as the ones sug- suggested to be recovered. However, Scenario III the recovery of
gested with Scenarios II (30%), III (60%) and IV (100%), respectively), aggregates is higher compared to Scenario II. Total costs are esti-
then – most possibly – aluminium cannot satisfy them since this mated in the order of 43 k€ (42.2 €/m2). Scenario IV presents the
particular waste stream represents only a small minority of the recovery of all end-of-life building materials. Although environ-
total CDW generated. In such a case more waste streams need to mental benefits are considerable, management cost exceeds
be also included in the ‘‘alternative’’ management. Metals and wood 46 k€ (45.5 €/m2) more than 20% increase compared to the base-
are those streams that create some profits in the local secondary case scenario.
market and thus exploited. The remaining quantities of ‘‘alterna- Apart from the case already discussed, DeconRCM has been
tively’’ managed CDW from the structure under study comprise of applied in a number of buildings within Thessaloniki. Total CDW
management cost is mostly affected by the demolition practice
applied (demolition or deconstruction), composition of materials
Table 1 and the location of the worksite. Undoubtedly, the quantity, qual-
Expected CDW quantities for the case under study. ity and – in many cases – the composition of CDW is closely asso-
EWC code Material Produced quantity (t) ciated to the construction type (concrete or metal) and the
1 17 01 01 Concrete 1778.8
construction year. The management cost of a typical residential
2 17 01 02 Bricks 90.3 building is expected to range between 31 and 42 €/m2. For metal
3 17 01 03 Ceramic tiles 15.8 constructions, the corresponding cost is considerably lower
4 17 01 03 Sanitary ware 1.4 (24–32 €/m2), mostly due to the fact that demolition process is fas-
5 17 01 03 Marbles 8.4
ter. Moreover, the full recovery of end-of-life building materials
6 17 02 01 Wood 4.1
7 17 02 02 Glass 2.5 increase management cost by 20–25% compared to building demo-
8 17 02 03 Plastic (pipes) 0.3 lition without any materials’ recovery. The corresponding percent-
9 17 04 02 Aluminium 8.6 age is limited to approximately 10% for the case of metal
10 17 04 05 Iron and steel (heating coil) 1.1 constructions, since revenues from end-of-life building materials’
11 17 04 05 Iron and steel (boiler) 0.3
12 17 04 05 Iron and steel (pipes) 1.5
sales to the secondary market are substantial. Last but not least,
13 17 04 11 Cables 0.2 the construction year can be characterised as most crucial in terms
14 17 06 04 Insulation materials 1.5 of a building’s CDW management overall cost. Quantity of rein-
forced concrete is limited in older buildings resulting to lower
demolition cost but also to limited recovered materials.
Table 2
Recovered materials and management costs for the case under study.

Scenario Recycling Recovered materials Management Cost

6. Conclusions
rate (%) cost (€) increase
(%) CDW is considered as a ‘‘priority’’ waste stream according to the
I 0 Aluminium 38,147 – EU Waste Strategy. Promotion of structures’ deconstruction, the use
II 30 Aluminium, metals, 40,578 6.3 of eco-friendly building materials, the substitution of dangerous
wood, inert substances, the incentives for use of secondary building materials,
III 60 Aluminium, metals, 43,058 12.8
and the introduction of strict legislation regarding building materi-
wood, inert
IV 100 All materials 46,391 21.6 als’ end-of-life management are policy measures that need to be
promoted. However, the economical dimension of the problem still
2502 G. Banias et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 2497–2502
remains of critical importance. In this context, DeconRCM supports
decision-making in order to adopt optimal CDW management
alternatives.
DeconRCM’s major advantage lies in its web-based technology.
There are several reasons in favour of a web-based DSS, e.g. raise of
awareness, enhancement of detailed knowledge and encourage-
ment of specific target groups’ commitment towards sustainable
CDW management. In addition, DeconRCM’s ‘‘look-and-feel’’ inter-
face enables users -who do not always have the adequate scientific
background- to retrieve information and navigate through data
interactively. Future research directions include the expansion of
the DeconRCM nationally and another area in EU with similar
building characteristics presents top priority for the research team.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Prof. E. Iakovou, Prof. A.
Papadopoulos, Dr. D. Aidonis and Dr. D. Anastaselos for their con-
tributions in the framework of the DEWAM project, funded by
the General Secretariat for Research and Technology of the Hellenic
Ministry of Development (2005–2009). The authors would also like
to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments,
which greatly improved the quality of the manuscript.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.07.018.
References
Aidonis, D., 2009. Applied Operations Research Methodologies for the Optimal
Design and Operation of Reuse and Recycling Networks of Construction and
Demolition Materials. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Aristotle University Thessaloniki (in Greek).
Aidonis, D., Xanthopoulos, A., Vlachos, D., Iakovou, E., 2008. An analytical
methodological framework for managing reverse supply chains in the
construction industry. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 11, 1036–1046.
Anastaselos, D., 2009. Development of an Integrated Evaluation System for Thermal
Insulation Solutions. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Aristotle University Thessaloniki (in Greek).
Banias, G., 2009. Development of a System for the Optimal Construction and
Demolition Waste Management. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Aristotle University Thessaloniki (in Greek).
Banias, G., Moussiopoulos, N., Aidonis, D., Achillas, Ch., Vlachokostas, Ch., 2011a.
Integrated management of waste from construction activities in the Aristotle
University campus, Thessaloniki, Greece. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on Environmental Management, Engineering, Planning and
Economics (CEMEPE 2011), Skiathos Island, Greece, 19–24 June.
Banias, G., Moussiopoulos, N., Achillas, Ch., Vlachokostas, Ch., 2011b. Management
of waste from construction activities in the Region of Central Macedonia with
the application of an online tool. In: Nikolaou, K. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th
Environmental Conference of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, 18–20 March (in
Greek).
Bossink, B.A.G., Brouwers, H.J.H., 1996. Construction waste: quantification and
source evaluation. J. Construct. Eng. Manage. 122 (1), 55–60.
CodePlex, 2010. Official CodePlex Web Site. PHPExcel 2007 classes. URL:
<http://www.codeplex.com/PHPExcel> (last visited: May, 2010).
Dorsthorst, B., Kowalczyk, T., 2002. Design for recycling. Design for deconstruction
and materials reuse. In: Proceedings of the International Council for Research
and Innovation in Building Construction (CIB) Task Group 39 – Deconstruction
Meeting, Karlsruhe, 9 April 2002, pp. 70–80.
EC (European Commission), 2000. Directorate-General Environment, Directorate
EIndustry and Environment, ENV.E.3-Waste Management, Management of
Construction and Demolition Waste, Working Document No. 1.
Ekanayake, L.L., Ofori, G., 2004. Building waste assessment score: design-based tool.
Build. Environ. 39, 851–861.
El-Haggar Salah, M., 2007. Sustainability of Construction and Demolition Waste
Management, Sustainable Industrial Design and Waste Management Cradle-to-
cradle for Sustainable Development, pp. 261–292 (Chapter 8).
Erlandsson, M., Levin, P., 2005. Environmental assessment of rebuilding and
possible performance improvements effect on a national scale. Build. Environ.
40 (11), 1459–1471.
Esin, T., Cosgun, N., 2007. A study conducted to reduce construction waste
generation in Turkey. Build. Environ. 42 (4), 1667–1674.
Fatta, D., Papadopoulos, A., Avramikos, E., Sgourou, E., Moustakas, K., Kourmoussis,
F., et al., 2003. Generation and management of construction and demolition
waste in Greece – an existing challenge. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 40, 81–91.
Fragkoudakis, E., 2011. Construction and Demolition Waste Management in the
Aristotle University Thessaloniki, Greece. Diploma Thesis. Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Aristotle University Thessaloniki (in Greek).
Garrido, E., Calno, F., Ramos, A.F., Zamorano, M., 2005. Methodology of
environmental diagnosis for construction and demolition waste landfills: a
tool for planning and making decisions. Environ. Technol. 26, 1231–1241.
Google, 2011a. Official Google Code Web Site. Google Maps API. URL:
<http://code.google.com/apis/maps/> (last visited: May, 2011).
Google, 2011b. Official Google Code Web Site. Google Web Toolkit. URL:
<http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/> (last visited: May, 2011).
Hendricks, F., Nijkerk, A., Van Koppen, A., 2000. The Building Cycle. Aeneas, The
Netherlands.
Kartam, N., Al-Mutairi, N., Al-Ghusain, I., Al-Humoud, J., 2004. Environmental
management of construction and demolition waste in Kuwait. Waste Manage.
24, 1049–1059.
Lauritzen, E.K., 1998. Emergency construction waste management. Safety Sci. 30,
45–53.
McDonald, B., Smithers, M., 1998. Implementing a waste management plan during
the construction phase of project: a case study. Construct. Manage. Econ. 16 (1),
71–78.
Moussiopoulos, N., Banias, G., Aidonis, D., Anastaselos, D., Achillas, Ch., Iakovou, E.,
Papadopoulos, A., Vlachokostas, Ch., 2009. Development of a web based
application for the optimal demolition waste management in the Region of
Central Macedonia. In: Lekkas, T.D. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on the Environmental Science and Technology – CEST2009, Chania,
Crete Island, Greece, 3–5 September, pp. 954–961.
MySQL, 2011. Official Web Site. URL: <http://www.mysql.com/> (last visited: May,
2011).
Poon, C., Yu Ann, T., Ng, L., 2001. On-site sorting of construction and demolition
waste in Hong Kong Resources. Conserv. Recycl. 32 (2), 157–172.
Sourceforge.net, 2009. Official Sourceforge.net Web Site. Introduction to lp_solve
5.5.0.14. URL: <http://lpsolve.sourceforge.net/5.5/> (last visited: May, 2011).
Stein, E.L., 1996. Construction and demolition waste. In: Lund, H.F. (Ed.), The
McGraw-Hill Recycling Manual, vol. 2, McGraw-Hill, Madrid (Chapter 20).