Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120258

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Environmental benefits of construction and demolition debris

recycling: Evidence from an Indian case study using life cycle
assessment
V.G. Ram a, *, Kumar C. Kishore b, Satyanarayana N. Kalidindi b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Tirupati, India

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

Article history: The adversarial effects of construction and demolition (C&D) waste on the environment are on the in-
Received 19 November 2019 crease. While materials such as metals, wood, glass and plastics are segregated and diverted for reuse/
Received in revised form recycling, C&D debris consisting of concrete, bricks and tiles are landfilled in most of the countries. LCA
22 January 2020
studies have indicated a clear preference for recycling. However, it has been inferred that the environ-
Accepted 24 January 2020
Available online 27 January 2020
mental credits obtained in these studies were mainly from recycling of metals and wood and studies
focusing on environmental impacts/benefits evaluation of C&D debris recycling is limited. This is
Handling editor: M.T. Moreira particularly relevant in the cases of developing countries like India, where C&D debris forms a bulk of
C&D waste generation. Therefore, this paper evaluates the environmental impacts of four different
Keywords: scenarios for managing C&D debris comprising the present (S1) and future (S2) landfilling options and
Construction and demolition waste recycling options without transfer stations (S3) and with transfer stations (S4). LCA according to ISO
C&D debris methodology is performed based on locally sourced data supplemented with Ecoinvent database.
LCA IMPACT 2002þ impact assessment method has been applied for environmental impact quantification
Landfill
using SimaPro software. Landfilling of C&D debris generates environmental impacts, and recycling
Recycling
scenarios generate environmental benefits in all 15 impact categories. Single score values of landfilling
Transfer station
scenarios are 1.83 mPt (S1) and 2.78 mpt (S2) and that of C&D debris recycling are 2.56 mPt (S3)
and 1.91 mPt (S4). The robustness of the results was shown through sensitivity analysis. Recycling
remains beneficial compared to landfilling as long as the diesel and electricity consumption of C&D
debris recycling facility remains less than 475% of the current consumption. Furthermore, even if the
transportation distance from quarry to crushing unit is reduced to zero, recycling still remains a better
alternative. The merit of considering the future landfilling scenario in the decision making has been
discussed since the challenges that might be encountered in setting up new landfills are underestimated.
The implications of the findings and their relevance to urban local bodies have also been discussed to
help policymakers take informed decisions while facing challenges of managing C&D debris.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction population is expected to witness an increase of 60% (addition of

The urban ecological footprint is on the rise, globally. The
resource demand and consumption has already crossed the bio-
regenerative capacity of the earth. To produce the resource needed
and to assimilate the generated waste, there is severe stress on the
environment owing to rapid urbanisation activities, especially in
fuelling development in cities (Rees, 1999). Global urban
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ramkrithik@gmail.com (V.G. Ram).
2.5 billion people) by 2050 and almost 90% of it is projected in Asia
and Africa. Some of the world’s most populous cities are Tokyo (37
million inhabitants), New Delhi (29 million), Shanghai (26 million),
Sao Paulo (22 million), and Mumbai (20 million). Tokyo’s popula-
tion is expected to decline, and therefore, Delhi is anticipated to
become the most populous city by 2028 as it is continuously
growing (UN, 2018).
Rapid urbanisation often leads to massive amounts of con-
struction activities resulting in both the consumption of raw ma-
terials and generation of construction and demolition (C&D) waste.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120258
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 V.G. Ram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120258
For instance, C&D waste generation in China is estimated to be
between 1.6 and 2.5 billion tonnes (Duan and Li, 2016). India gen-
erates about 112e431 million tonnes every year (Jain et al., 2018),
and Brazil is reported to generate about 100 million tonnes of C&D
waste (Rosado et al., 2019). A major portion of this waste is either
landfilled or being dumped in unauthorised places such as side-
walks, roadsides, canals, and lakes in most of the countries (Di
Maria et al., 2018).
Unauthorised disposal practices lead to several undesirable ef-
fects on the environment. For example, illegal disposal of C&D
waste was identified as one of the primary reasons for floods in
Chennai due to choking of sewers in the city. In China, an illegal
construction landfill collapsed, claiming 75 lives and damaged
many infrastructures. While the literature recommends recycling of
C&D waste, the city corporations responsible for the management
of C&D waste dispose of the waste in landfills. Several barriers such
as lack of awareness, inadequate policies, weak enforcement, and
negligible incentives impede the development of infrastructure for
recycling C&D waste in India and other developing countries
(Hossain et al., 2016; Ram and Kalidindi, 2017).
Studies have shown the need for government interventions to
nurture a recycling ecosystem. For example, Brazil, China, Hong
Kong, USA, and many European countries have developed policies
to offer incentives and subsidies in the form of financial grants and
tax rebates for setting up C&D waste recycling facilities (Lu and
Tam, 2013; So € derholm, 2011; Wang et al., 2018). Recycling rates
in countries such as Australia, Belgium, Japan, UK and Taiwan has
been found to be greater than 50% of total generated C&D waste
(Bio Intelligence Service, 2011; WBCSD, 2009). However, the
installed capacity for recycling C&D waste in India amounts to only
about 2.5% of total waste generation. The statistics of recycling rates
from many other developing countries are not encouraging as well.
This can be attributed to the lack of awareness and knowledge on
benefits arising from recycling C&D waste.
Studies quantifying the environmental impacts of C&D waste
management have reported significant benefits of recycling. It was
inferred that the environmental credits obtained in these studies
were mainly from the recycling of metals, wood, and plastics
(Blengini, 2009; Di Maria et al., 2018; Kucukvar et al., 2014; Rosado
et al., 2019, 2017; Wang et al., 2018). Authors could not find liter-
ature focussed on evaluating the environmental benefits of recy-
cling C&D debris. In recent years, materials such as metals and
wood are being diverted for reuse/recycle to a large extent (Rosado
et al., 2019); whereas, C&D debris comprising concrete, brick ma-
sonry, excavated earth and ceramics are landfilled, especially in
developing countries (Mah et al., 2018). There is a pressing research
need to quantify the impacts of recycling C&D debris to facilitate
decision making in countries generating significant amounts of
C&D debris. Therefore, the primary aim of this study is to quantify
the environmental impacts of recycling C&D debris.
2. Literature review
Landfilling, recycling and incineration are commonly depicted
waste management scenarios for C&D waste management (Ortiz
et al., 2010). Landfilling was found to be generating the highest
environmental impacts (Penteado and Rosado, 2016) and also
resulted in highest economic costs (Di Maria et al., 2018). Recycling
has been shown to be a better alternative in a number of studies
using various comparative methods including life cycle assessment
(LCA) techniques such as process LCA and hybrid LCA (Kucukvar
et al., 2014; Ortiz et al., 2010). Moreover, an increase in the per-
centage of recycling was found to reduce environmental impacts.
Environmental benefits have been reported in 13 out of 14 impact
categories for C&D waste recycling (Blengini and Garbarino, 2010).
The ratio of prevented to produced impacts of a C&D waste recy-
cling facility equals 7.9 in the case of primary energy consumption
and 10.8 for CO2-eq emissions (Coelho and Brito, 2013). Thus,
prevented impacts due to recycling outweigh the produced impacts
of operating a recycling facility.
C&D waste recycling plants powered by electricity were found
to generate very low environmental impacts as compared among
plants that are run by diesel (Borghi et al., 2018). Recycling systems
with no storage operations (transfer stations) and reduced trans-
portation distances were found to perform better comparatively.
LCA studies have also been combined with the willingness to pay
(WTP) approach to quantify the environmental costs and benefits.
Landfilling was found to cause an environmental cost of $1.73
(¥12.04) against recycling that showed environmental benefits of
$0.17 (¥1.21) for every tonne of demolition waste handled. Likewise,
concrete and steel recycling were reported to yield environmental
benefits, unlike brick & mortar recycling (Wang et al., 2018).
However, C&D waste recycling was not found to be beneficial in
certain situations. Transportation distances influence the environ-
mental impacts generated (Mercante et al., 2012), and a definite
preference between off-site recycling and landfilling could not be
established (Vossberg et al., 2014).
There are various methods for quantification of environmental
impacts such as carbon footprint, substance flow analysis, envi-
ronmental impact assessment, eco-labelling and life cycle assess-
ment (LCA) (Jolliet et al., 2015). LCA technique is found to be widely
adopted in the literature on C&D waste management (Bovea and
Powell, 2016). Table 1 summarises various LCA studies in C&D
waste management and the environmental credits considered in
those studies. The dominance of parameters like metals and wood
recycling could be inferred. However, in India and other developing
countries, C&D waste predominantly consists of C&D debris and is
devoid of materials that cause the highest environmental credits
reported in other studies (Mah et al., 2018; Ram and Kalidindi,
2017). Steel, electrical wires, wooden doors, glass windows and
other materials which have high economic value and a robust
informal recycling network are seldom disposed in landfills. It is
necessary to exempt the environmental credits from these mate-
rials to understand the exclusive benefits of C&D debris recycling.
In such scenarios, it is not clear if recycling C&D debris is still
beneficial. This research gap has been observed by Blengini and
Garbarino (2010) as well.
Furthermore, about 90% of the LCA studies on C&D waste were
from European countries, the US and China (Bovea and Powell,
2016). Studies from developing countries such as India are
limited and empirical data ascertaining the environmental benefits
of recycling over landfilling from these regions is important owing
to the regional differences in practices and composition of waste
generated. Therefore, the objective of this research is to evaluate
the environmental impacts of C&D debris recycling and identify a
sustainable C&D debris management scenario among landfilling
and off-site recycling scenarios.
3. LCA methodology
LCA methodology in accordance with ISO 14040, 2006a and ISO
14044, 2006b is adopted for evaluating the environmental impacts
and benefits, and it involves four stages namely, (1) Goal and scope
definition, (2) Life cycle inventory, (3) Life cycle impact assessment,
(4) Interpretation and results.
3.1. Goal and scope
The goal is to quantify and compare the environmental impacts
of C&D debris management scenarios. Chennai, the capital city of
 V.G. Ram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120258
Table 1
Environmental credits considered in LCA studies of C&D waste management.
Country Author Focus
Spain Ortiz et al. (2010) C&D waste management
USA Kucukvar et al. (2014) scenarios
Cape Town, South Africa Vossberg et al. (2014)
Brazil, Penteado and Rosado (2016)
South America
Flanders, Belgium Di Maria et al. (2018)
Malaysia Mah et al. (2018)
Lombardy, Italy Borghi et al. (2018)
Shenzhen, China Wang et al. (2018)
Brazil Rosado et al. (2019)
Spain Mercante et al. (2012) C&D waste recycling
Portugal Coelho and Brito (2013)
Turin, Italy Blengini and Garbarino (2010)
Turin, Italy Blengini (2009) End-of-life phase
Italy Vitale et al. (2017)
Note.
Mr - Metals recycling (Metal includes iron, steel, aluminium), Wr - Wood recycling, Pr - Plastics recycling, Par - Paper recycling.
Cr - Cardboard recycling, Dr - Drywall recycling, Gr - Glass recycling, V- Virgin aggregate replacement, L - Landfill avoidance.
the state of Tamil Nadu and the fourth largest Metropolitan City in
India with a population of 4.6 million (Census of India, 2011) has
been chosen as the case for this study. C&D debris recycling facility
is currently unavailable in Chennai city, but the Greater Chennai
Corporation (GCC), the municipal body, is taking measures to set up
recycling facilities.
The dumpsites in Chennai occupy about 180 ha in total and are
almost overflowing. The height of the dump in one of the dump-
sites in Chennai has reached 15m already (Peter et al., 2019).
Because of the regulatory restrictions on the maximum height of
dumping, the municipal body is searching for a new dumping
ground to cater to the disposal needs of the city. A significant
portion of C&D debris dumped in these landfills can be recycled.
The municipal body is faced with a dilemma of pursuing either
recycling or developing a new landfill for C&D waste management
in the city. As environmental benefits accruing from C&D debris
recycling are unclear, Chennai city presents a suitable case for our
research.
The current scenario of C&D waste management in Chennai is
depicted in Fig. 1. The portion of waste which is separated and sold
in the secondary market and the illegally dumped waste is
excluded from the study. Thus, this study effectively considers C&D
debris (the inert portion of C&D waste) which consists of concrete,
masonry, tiles, boulders and soil.
One tonne of C&D debris is chosen as the functional unit for the
study. The composition of C&D debris being dumped in landfills
was determined by visual analysis of 100 truckloads that were
randomly chosen from the dumpsites, and the results are shown in
Fig. 2. Among C&D debris, concrete and masonry waste contribute
to about 53%. Studies conducted in other Indian cities have also
indicated similar waste compositions of C&D waste. Metals,
bitumen, wood and other waste contribute only 10% whereas C&D
debris contributes to 90% of the total C&D waste (TIFAC, 2001).
Since the study aims at comparing different waste management
scenarios, common elements of the systems such as building de-
molition, waste handling and on-site storage are not considered.
This practice is commonly adopted in the literature on C&D waste
and is known as ‘‘zero burden assumption’’ (Ekvall et al., 2007). This
simplification is justified as neglecting the common processes in
the scenarios considered facilitates effective comparison especially
in situations where the scenarios handle identical amounts of
waste. The system boundaries considered for landfilling and recy-
cling of C&D debris are shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, respectively. The
3
Consideration of environmental credits
Mr Wr Pr Par Cr Dr Gr V L
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
study considers the avoided burdens of NA production and the
system boundary for the same is shown in Fig. 5.
This study excludes the burdens due to the infrastructure of
crushing facility, trucks, support structure and maintenance oper-
ations of both NA and RA production facilities. The processes and
technology used by both NA and RA production facilities are largely
identical, and therefore the exclusion does not result in any sig-
nificant error and gives a balanced comparison (Vossberg et al.,
2014). Additionally, the upstream material and energy spent for
crusher manufacturing and assembly, and replacement of spares
cause negligible environmental impacts as operation phase con-
tributes to 94% of the life cycle emissions (Landfield and Karra,
2000). A similar approach has been followed in several other
works in the literature (Mercante et al., 2012; Penteado and Rosado,
2016; Rosado et al., 2019).
3.2. Development of various scenarios
In this study, the relative impacts of four different scenarios of
C&D debris management have been analysed. Table 2 presents the
classification of various end-of-life scenarios of C&D debris man-
agement considered. A brief description of each of these scenarios
has been detailed in the subsequent sections.
3.2.1. Current scenario of dumping C&D debris in landfill (S1)
Estimates of C&D debris generation in Chennai city indicate
about 1.14 million tonnes every year (Ram and Kalidindi, 2017). Out
of that, only 0.4 million tonnes of C&D debris is being dumped in
two active dumping grounds, namely Kodungaiyur and Perungudi.
The collection and transportation network consists of trucks with
16-tonne and 21-tonne carrying capacities. The amount of C&D
debris dumped in the landfills is obtained by analysing the records
of weighbridges operating in the dumpsites. From the data
collected, it was found that the total quantity of waste dumped in
Kodungaiyur in 2014 is 0.21 million tonnes and that in Perungudi is
0.18 million tonnes and the detailed inventory is presented in
Table A1 and Table A2 respectively (Appendix A).
It was estimated that one tonne of C&D debris is transported to
11.4 tonne-km. Since transportation distances play a major role in
C&D waste management (Blengini and Garbarino, 2010; Borghi et al.,
2018; Mah et al., 2018; Mercante et al., 2012), instead of assuming
transportation distance from the geometric centre of each zone to
their corresponding dumpsite, this study generated a weighted
4 V.G. Ram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120258

Fig. 1. Current scenario of C&D waste management in Chennai.

Fig. 2. Composition of C&D debris landfilled in Chennai.

 V.G. Ram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120258 5

Fig. 3. System boundary for C&D waste landfilling.

Fig. 4. System boundary for C&D debris recycling.

Fig. 5. System boundary for natural aggregate production.

Table 2
Classification of end-of-life scenarios considered.

Scenario Waste management scenario Usage of transfer stations Avoided burdens of NA production Avoided burdens of landfilling Current/Future state

Dumping/Landfilling Recycling

S1 ✓ C
S2 ✓ F
S3 ✓ ✓ ✓ C
S4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ C

centroid for each zone based on the actual locations of waste gen-
eration. The actual location of waste generation is obtained based on
details available in the demolition permits issued by the municipal
corporation in one year. Waste generation points are plotted in QGIS
(an open-source GIS platform), and the distribution of these data
points as obtained from QGIS is shown in Fig. 6. The transportation
distance from the weighted centroid to the corresponding landfill is
calculated and is detailed in Table A3 of Appendix A.
3.2.2. Scenario of dumping C&D debris in future landfills (S2)
S2 represents a scenario of C&D debris dumping in future
landfills under the assumption that the existing landfills are
entirely depleted. As explained earlier, landfills in Chennai are
overflowing, and a search for the location for constructing new
landfills are already underway. The situation in other Indian cities is
not very different. Moreover, the Indian urban population has been
projected to reach 600 million by 2031 from 377 million in 2011.
Such rapid urbanization will result in city limit expansion, and
subsequently, the waste will be transported over longer distances
than the current practice. Therefore, additional environmental
burdens will be generated in the future compared to the current
scenario. Furthermore, the presence of commonly encountered
NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) syndrome among the public poses a
significant challenge to locate future landfills within or near the city
6 V.G. Ram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120258
Fig. 6. Actual points of waste generation overlapped on the zonal map of Chennai.
limits (Lu et al., 2016). NIMBY syndrome typically refers to the at-
titudes of community groups to oppose developments of noxious
facilities such as landfill sites, hazardous waste facilities, and nu-
clear plants. While the residents recognise the necessity of such
facilities, they are against developing them near their homes. Dis-
counting those impacts in the trade-off during decision making
might be more realistic and relevant.
Based on the inputs given by GCC officials, tentative places ex-
pected to replace Kodungaiyur and Perungudi dumpsites are
Minjur in the northern part of Chennai and Kuthambakkam in the
southern part of Chennai respectively. These places are situated
farther away from the city, and the distance calculations are made
according to the procedure detailed in scenario S1. It has been
estimated that one tonne of C&D debris will have transported 29.3
tonne-km for this scenario (S2), which is more than 2.5 times the
current scenario (S1). The related data is presented in Table A4 of
Appendix A.
3.2.3. Recycling of C&D debris (S3)
S3 presents a scenario where the waste is recycled instead of
dumping in landfills. In this scenario, the waste is assumed to be
sent directly for recycling from the waste generation sites. The
municipal body (GCC) planned to set up recycling facilities in the
existing dumpsites because of several challenges in identifying land
within city limits for crushing activities. The idea of locating recy-
cling facility in landfills is in line with the recommendations in the
literature (Cheung and Rootham, 1991). The distance travelled by
one tonne of C&D debris remains the same in this scenario as that
of scenario S1, i.e. 11.4 tonne-km.
3.2.4. Recycling of C&D debris aided by a network of transfer
stations (S4)
S4 presents a case where C&D debris from all the 15 zones will
be sent to identified transfer stations before being transported to
recycling facilities. C&D waste generation sites are geographically
dispersed, and therefore, the GCC has planned to establish transfer
stations within the city where the waste can be dumped by waste
generators and later transported to recycling facilities. Setting up of
transfer stations is considered to be beneficial as dispersion of
generation sources complicates the management of C&D waste
(Penteado and Rosado, 2016), and C&D waste generators incur
lower costs for transporting to smaller distances and hence
compliance might be high. In addition, the lack of a collection
network has been attributed to cause illegal dumping and this
scenario is expected to enhance the efficiency of C&D waste man-
agement system. Presently, the GCC has planned to develop 10
transfer stations for C&D waste collection, and the locations of
those are shown in Fig. 7.
The transportation distance from the weighted centroid to
transfer stations and from transfer stations to recycling centres is
detailed in Table A.5-A.7 (Appendix A). A tonne of C&D debris will
be transported 4.15 tonne-km from weighted centroids to transfer
station and 12.69 tonne-km from transfer stations to recycling
centres.
Scenarios S3 and S4 consider the avoided burdens of NA pro-
duction and landfilling. It is assumed that every tonne of recycled
aggregate produced will replace one tonne of natural aggregate.
Thus, the substitution ratio in this study for NA to RA is 1:1. Addi-
tionally, recycling a tonne of C&D debris prevents a tonne of waste
from entering the landfills. A 1:1 substitution is considered for the
case of avoided burdens of landfilling.
3.3. Life cycle inventory (LCI)
The LCI phase quantifies all environmental inputs (energy and
raw material) and outputs (emission to air, water and soil) of the
unit processes in a complete life cycle (ISO 14040, 2006a). The data
collected from two dumpsites, a natural aggregate crushing unit in
Chennai, an aggregate quarry in Tirupati in the state of Andhra
Pradesh and a C&D waste processing facility located at Delhi form
part of our evidence for this research. The required data were
collected in-person using questionnaires and interviews by the
authors during the visits to each of the facilities mentioned. Tele-
phonic discussions were conducted for validation and clarification
of obtained data. Meanwhile, the required secondary data were
retrieved from Ecoinvent v3.5 database using Simapro 9.0.0.41 (LCA
software package). Suitable modifications based on available Indian
data were made to the values obtained from the generic database.
The usage of data from generic database due to the unavailability of
proper local inventory data has already been discussed and fol-
lowed by many other C&D waste management studies from
countries such as Brazil, Spain and South Africa (Mercante et al.,
2012; Penteado and Rosado, 2016; Rosado et al., 2019; Vossberg
et al., 2014).
3.3.1. C&D waste recycling facility
The chosen facility for the study was commissioned in Burari,
New Delhi in the year 2009 (oldest facility in India) with a ca-
pacity to handle 2000 tonnes per day (TPD). The recycling facility
occupies 2.83 ha of land and receives waste from 70 collection
centres situated across New Delhi. The facility had processed
284,325 tonnes of C&D waste during its 340 operational days in
the year 2018. The process flow of this facility has been mapped
and is shown in Fig. 8. Various materials such as whole bricks,
wood, plastics, metals and rags are manually sorted and sent for
recycling and the rejects are landfilled. Sorted waste concrete and
mixed C&D debris are processed to obtain output sizes ranging
from 75 mm to 20 mm.
 V.G. Ram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120258 7

Fig. 7. Location of transfer stations to be developed in Chennai.

Fig. 8. Process flow of C&D waste recycling facility in Burari, New Delhi.
8 V.G. Ram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120258
From a tonne of C&D waste entering the facility, 0.725 tonnes of
recycled aggregates (coarse & fine) is produced. Based on the data
collected from the facility, the LCI has been developed and pre-
sented in Appendix B. This facility has been found to be consuming
about 0.812 kWh of electricity, 1.35 L of diesel and 6.33 L of water
for every tonne of recycled aggregates produced (considering gate-
to-gate system boundary).
3.3.2. Natural aggregate production
Natural aggregates are sourced from either river beds (sand as
fine aggregate) or quarried rocks (crushed stone as both coarse and
fine aggregates). An active quarry was selected in this study for
developing the LCI. Quarry operations near city limits in India are
negligible either because of regulatory restrictions or lack of
adequate rock-deposits. Hence, materials are sourced from far away
locations. In the case of Chennai, it has been found that the trucks
travel an average distance of 40 km (one-way) to deliver the
quarried rocks to crushing units. The crushing facility that was
studied occupies 2.43 ha of land and operates for 300 days in a year.
It produced 206,625 tonnes during the year 2018. The process flow
of the crushing unit under study is shown in Fig. 9. The average
transportation distance to customer sites is assumed to be 15
tonne-km based on average distances hauled by trucks from this
facility. The LCI data collected is detailed in Appendix B. The
observed facility is found to be consuming 3 KWh, 2.22 L of diesel
and 3.63 L of water for every tonne of natural aggregates produced
considering cradle-to-gate system boundary.
3.4. Life cycle impact assessment
The LCIA phase aims to evaluate the magnitude and significance
of all environmental impacts using the results from the LCI phase
(ISO 14040, 2006a). LCIA modelling has been performed using
Simapro 9.0.0.41. IMPACT 2002þ (Jolliet et al., 2003) method has
been adopted for LCIA in this study. IMPACT 2002þ method is
commonly adopted in C&D waste management studies because of
its superiority owing to the benefits it offers through the adaptation
of existing LCIA methods such as Eco-indicator 99, IPCC and CML
(Blengini and Garbarino, 2010; Hossain et al., 2016; Rosado et al.,
2019, 2017; Vitale et al., 2017). The Impact 2002þ method con-
sists of 15 midpoint indicators which are mapped to four damage
(end-point) categories (Jolliet et al., 2003).
4. Results and discussion
The characterization results of all scenarios are detailed in
Fig. 9. Process flow of natural aggregate crushing facility in Chennai.
Table 3. Throughout the analysis, negative values denote environ-
mental savings.
4.1. Present landfills (S1) vs future landfills (S2)
Upon comparing the landfilling scenarios S1 and S2, it is found
that depletion of existing landfills could lead to an overall rise in
impact by about 60.42% due to increased transportation distances
(2.5 times of the current distances). Landfilling one tonne of C&D
debris generates 4.12 kg CO2 eq emissions and consumes 62.91 MJ
energy for scenario S1. For the case of S2, it will generate 6.59 kg
CO2 eq emissions and consume about 101.23 MJ energy. A signifi-
cant increase has been observed in all of the impact categories
except land occupation impact category. A change of more than
100% increase in the impact has been observed in three categories:
Non-carcinogens (137.75%), aquatic ecotoxicity (133.57%) and
terrestrial ecotoxicity (151.54%).
In several studies, recycling has been proved to be a better
alternative as compared to landfilling based on reduced environ-
mental impacts (Mah et al., 2018; Ortiz et al., 2010; Penteado and
Rosado, 2016; Rosado et al., 2019; Vossberg et al., 2014). Howev-
er, there are few studies that have reported that recycling is not
always beneficial (Borghi et al., 2018; Mercante et al., 2012). This
study shows the impact of the scenario wherein the existing
landfills get depleted and thereby putting the authorities under
pressure to identify alternative dumping grounds. The challenges in
developing a new dumpsite are numerous and cannot be over-
stated. Even in the case of Chennai, several protests and public
outcry were reported in the media in the places shortlisted for
constructing new landfills (The Times of India, 2013). Moreover,
obtaining environmental clearances for setting up landfill facilities
in new places has been very challenging for GCC (The Hindu, 2013).
The struggle faced by the GCC starting from 2013 and not being able
to secure a place for future landfill yet, shows the magnitude of this
problem to an extent. As found in this study, the impacts due to
landfilling could only increase in the future because landfill spaces
are limited. This effect will be more pronounced in rapidly urban-
ising countries, like India where landfilling is predominant.
4.2. Recycling vs landfilling
An overall reduction of 350% and 315% in impacts is observed in
recycling scenarios (S3 and S4) compared to current landfilling
scenario (S1). Lowest environmental benefits are noticed in
terrestrial acidification/nitrification (175%), and the highest bene-
fits are seen in mineral extraction (1190%) impact categories.
 V.G. Ram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120258 9

Table 3
Characterization of impacts for all scenarios.

Impact category Unit S1 S2 S3 S4

Carcinogens kg C2H3Cl eq 0.017 0.021 0.032 0.026

Non-carcinogens kg C2H3Cl eq 0.052 0.125 0.119 0.096
Respiratory inorganics kg PM2.5 eq 0.008 0.010 0.008 0.005
Ionizing radiation Bq C-14 eq 27.57 44.50 36.08 25.80
Ozone layer depletion kg CFC-11 eq 7.4E-07 12.1E-07 8.3E-07 5.5E-07
Respiratory organics kg C2H4 eq 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.001
Aquatic ecotoxicity kg TEG water 211 494 1483 1392
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg TEG soil 227 570 786 680
Terrestrial acid/nutri kg SO2 eq 0.190 0.232 0.143 0.079
Land occupation m2org.arable 0.402 0.402 0.315 0.289
Aquatic acidification kg SO2 eq 0.029 0.037 0.032 0.022
Aquatic eutrophication kg PO4 P-lim 3.1E-04 4.9E-04 6.6E-04 5.5E-04
Global warming kg CO2 eq 4.12 6.59 6.41 4.92
Non-renewable energy MJ primary 62.91 101.23 89.93 66.70
Mineral Extraction MJ surplus 5.0E-04 7.8E-04 54.1E-04 52.5E-04
% variation compared e 60.42% 350.19% 315.36%
to scenario S1

The high environmental benefits accrued from the recycling
scenarios (S3 and S4) are primarily attributed to the avoided
burden of natural aggregate production. The avoided burden of NA
production is about 121% higher as compared to the avoided
burden of landfilling. This result could be attributed to the higher
benefits obtained due to avoided transportation from the quarry to
the crushing unit. A sensitivity analysis for this parameter is carried
out and presented in the following section.
Recycling a tonne of C&D debris instead of landfilling will avoid
6.41 kg CO2 eq emissions (S3) and 4.92 Kg CO2 eq emissions (S4)
from entering the atmosphere and saves 89.93 MJ (S3) and 66.7 MJ
(S4) of primary energy. In addition, a saving of 0.316 m2 (S3) and
0.290 m2 (S4) organic arable land is possible if a tonne of C&D
debris is diverted for recycling instead of landfilling (Table 3). If the
avoided burden of future landfilling is considered in the scenarios
S3 and S4, the environmental savings in global warming, non-
renewable energy, and land occupation in the modified scenarios
(S3.1 and S4.1) are shown in Table 4.
Besides environmental savings, recycling is believed to create
several social impacts as well. For instance, setting up recycling
facilities will create employment opportunities and thereby boost
the local economy. Governance performance of urban local bodies
would greatly improve owing to better waste management system.
Other benefits include enhanced social image and perceived health
of the society.
4.3. Recycling without transfer stations (S3) vs recycling with
transfer stations (S4)
Recycling scenarios S3 and S4 show environmental benefits in
all 15 impact categories. The overall environmental savings of 350%
(S3) reduces to 315% (S4) because of the inclusion of transfer sta-
tions in recycling scenario. A reduction of only 10% (approx.) is
observed in environmental savings if transfer stations are included
in the recycling scenario. While this portion of savings might be lost
if transfer stations are included, the potential benefits that might
Table 4
Characterization of impacts for modified scenarios.
Impact category Unit S3.1 S4.1
Global warming kg CO2 eq 8.84 7.36
Non-renewable energy MJ primary 127.60 104.37
Land occupation m2org.arable 0.316 0.290
accrue are plenty including increased waste collection, lower
transportation distances to small generators, and improved social
image owing to decreased unauthorised disposal (Penteado and
Rosado, 2016). Therefore, the decision to build transfer stations
depends on the trade-off between the potential costs and benefits,
which are contingent on the characteristics of the regions.
The characterization results of individual unit processes of
scenario S3 and S4 are shown in Fig. 10. In scenario S3, the envi-
ronmental impact due to recycled aggregate production was almost
80%, and transportation (waste collection) contributed to about
19.6% of the total impacts. In the case of S4, transportation
contributed to 24% of the total impacts, transfer station led to about
8% of the total impacts and RA production contributes the rest.
Unlike other studies, the contribution of transportation to the total
environmental impacts is found to be low owing to the strategic
positioning of recycling infrastructure and the availability of land
spaces according to the requirements in the case of Chennai.
Therefore, a proper network design, including transfer stations
coupled with land availability, might lead to lower environmental
impacts as observed in the scenarios S3 and S4.
The damage characterization factors used by Jolliet et al. (2003)
to map mid-point indicators to end-point indicators is adopted in
this paper. It can be inferred that landfilling scenarios cause greater
damage and recycling scenario (S3) results in the least damage
based on the four damage assessment indicators (details given in
Appendix C). Among the four indicators, the highest damage due to
landfilling and the lowest benefits from recycling occurs in human
health category.
This study utilised default normalisation factors proposed by
Jolliet et al. (2003) (no weighting of data). The final stage consists of
converting the end-point categories into a single score which is
measured in milli-points (mPt), a dimensionless figure. A milli-
point indicates the average impact in a specific category caused
by a person during one year in Europe (Vitale et al., 2017).
The single score results obtained for all the four scenarios
considered in this study are shown in Fig. 11. The single scores of
landfilling scenarios are 1.83 mpt (S1) and 2.78 mpt (S2). Recy-
cling generated single scores of 2.56 mpt and 1.91 mpt for
scenarios S3 and S4 respectively. Thus, C&D debris recycling
scenarios fare better than landfilling scenarios. The utility of
single score results exists in simplifying interpretation and
decision-making for the policymakers. The government inter-
vention to push recycling of C&D debris in cities could be justi-
fied using the single score results.
10 V.G. Ram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120258

Fig. 10. Characterization results of Scenario S3 (top) and S4 (bottom).

Fig. 11. Single score environmental impacts of Scenario S1eS4.

 V.G. Ram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120258
4.4. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis determines the effect of variations in as-
sumptions, methods and data on the results. Mainly, the sensitivity
of the most significant issues identified is determined (ISO 14044,
2006b). It is to be noted that the highest environmental impact is
caused due to crushing and sieving during RA production, and the
highest environmental savings resulted from avoided burdens are
due to transportation of rocks from quarry to crushing facility
during NA production. Hence, a sensitivity analysis of the following
parameters is carried out: 1. Diesel and electricity consumed (RA
production); 2. Transportation from quarry to aggregate crushing
facility (NA production). Each parameter is varied to identify the
maximum increase/decrease till recycling with transfer station (S4)
remains a suitable alternative instead of landfilling, based on global
warming impact categories.
In the current state, diesel and electricity consumed in RA pro-
duction facility will have to remain less than 375% for recycling (S4)
to be beneficial compared to landfilling. In the future state (S4.1),
the consumption of diesel & electricity can increase up to 475% to
remain a beneficial alternative to landfilling.
Recycling fares better than landfilling even if the second
parameter, transportation distance from quarry to crushing unit, is
reduced to zero. It has been established earlier that the highest
environmental benefits were due to avoided burdens of NA pro-
duction and transportation was found to have played a major role.
Now, the sensitivity analysis reinforces the fact that this observa-
tion might not be invalidated due to changes in transportation
distance (from quarry to crushing unit in NA production). Hence,
the finding of this study, that recycling fares better than landfilling,
is strongly implied.
4.5. Comparison with other studies
The diesel and electricity consumption values of recycled
Fig. 12. Diesel and Electricity consumption of RA production facilities.
11
aggregate (RA) and natural aggregate (NA) production facilities
determined are compared with the values reported in the literature
and presented in Fig. 12 and Fig. 13 respectively (Estanqueiro et al.,
2016; Faleschini et al., 2016; Ghanbari, 2018). The studied RA pro-
duction facility utilises a diesel generator in addition to electricity
obtained from the power grid, and hence, high diesel consumption
value and low electricity value are observed. In the case of NA
production, the electricity consumed by the facility is within the
average values found in the literature. However, diesel consump-
tion is very high due to high transportation distance from the
quarry to the crushing unit. The sensitivity of these parameters has
already been discussed and observed to be not affecting the sce-
nario preferences.
The preferences established towards recycling scenarios over
landfilling is in agreement with other studies in the literature. The
slightly lesser benefits observed for the recycling scenario with
transfer station over the recycling scenario with no transfer stations
are as expected and also in agreement with Borghi et al. (2018).
While some studies (Di Maria et al., 2018; Mah et al., 2018; Wang
et al., 2018) strictly preferred not to develop transfer stations, we
believe that the preference is contingent on the local conditions
apart from the relative environmental benefits. In those regions
that are plagued with weak enforcement, prevalent illegal dumping
and adequate land availability with urban local bodies (as in
Chennai city), setting up recycling facilities with transfer stations
might be preferred. The chances to reduce illegal dumping and
increased quantity of waste collection owing to the presence of
transfer stations could outweigh the 10% loss in environmental
benefits as compared to the recycling scenario with no transfer
stations.
4.6. Relevance to urban local bodies and policymakers
The need for governmental intervention in the form of taxes and
subsidies is reinforced by the amount of environmental savings
12 V.G. Ram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120258
Fig. 13. Diesel and Electricity consumption of NA production facilities.
achieved in supporting C&D debris recycling initiatives. A projec-
tion of the quantum of environmental savings accrued from recy-
cling is presented in Fig. C4-C6 in Appendix C for a ten-year period.
In order to project the savings in the future, the growth rate of
waste generation is assumed to be 10% and the existing landfill
spaces in Chennai get entirely depleted by 2025. If recycling facility
without TS is set up in 2019, about 78,290 tonnes of CO2 eq emis-
sions, 1,116,969 GJ of primary energy and 322 ha of organic arable
land can be saved by the year 2028. If recycling facility along with
TS is set up, 63,107 tonnes of CO2 eq emissions, 879,760 GJ of pri-
mary energy and 295 ha of organic arable land can be avoided by
the year 2028. While the quantum of savings might differ for other
cities and countries, depending on the transportation distances and
quantity recycled, the result depicting exclusive environmental
benefits in C&D debris recycling is not case-specific and hence,
applicable for all regions and countries.
Therefore, the results of this study will help policymakers in
India and other developing countries where landfilling of C&D
debris is predominant and will guide them to understand when
and why recycling (with or without transfer stations) is a better
alternative. The benefits shown in recycling C&D debris without
considering the credits obtained from materials such as metals and
wood forms one of the unique contributions of this work and might
sensitise decisionmakers about the value in pursuing C&D debris
recycling. In addition to analysing the environmental impacts/
benefits generated for the waste management options (landfilling,
recycling, and or incineration) of the current scenario, future sce-
nario (with increased transportation distance) must also be taken
into consideration as performed in this study. The consideration of
potential costs of the impacts of future scenario could serve as the
benchmark to decide on grant of subsidies for supporting recycling
initiatives. Since there are environmental benefits from recycling,
subsidies are not extra costs to the society but rather an upfront
investment to reap those benefits as indicated in the results of the
LCA study.
Dust and noise emissions have not been included in this study.
Moreover, the secondary data used for quantifying impacts is based
on Eco-invent database which primarily is built from European
studies. Lack of such secondary data from India also forms a limi-
tation of this study as actual impacts might vary from the projected
impacts for the Indian case. The dust and noise emissions from both
natural aggregate and recycled aggregate production facilities
could be measured to enhance the quality of the data. Quantifying
the dust emissions from primary and secondary transportation of
C&D waste would improve the accuracy of environmental impacts.
While the secondary data for electricity consumption exists for
India, other parameters such as diesel consumption and their up-
stream and downstream emissions needs to be developed to
facilitate the accurate quantification of impacts for the local
scenario.
5. Conclusion
The environmental benefits of C&D waste recycling reported in
the literature are derived mainly from the environmental credits
obtained due to metals and wood recycling. The number of studies
evaluating the environmental performance of C&D debris recycling
is limited. The current C&D management system of Chennai, India
in the year 2014 was evaluated and compared with recycling by
applying the LCA methodology and SimaPro software. The study
considered 15 mid-point indicators and 4 end-point indicators
mapped to a single score, according to IMPACT 2002þ impact
assessment method. QGIS tool was used to map the actual waste
haulage distances and thus, sets apart from various other studies
that approximate transportation distances. The following conclu-
sions are drawn from the results:
 An increase in transportation distance by about 2.5 times due to
depletion of existing landfills leads to an overall rise in impact
by about 60.42%.
 V.G. Ram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120258
 Recycling scenarios show environmental benefits in all the 15
impact categories.
 Recycling a tonne of C&D debris instead of landfilling will avoid
6.41 kg CO2 eq emissions (S3) and 4.92 Kg CO2 eq emissions (S4)
from entering the atmosphere and saves 89.93 MJ (S3) and
66.7 MJ (S4) of primary energy. Additionally, a saving of 0.32 m2
(S3) and 0.29 m2 (S4) organic arable land can be achieved.
 Sensitivity analysis indicated a strict preference to recycling
over landfilling. For instance, even if the transportation distance
from quarry to crushing unit is reduced to zero, recycling sce-
narios perform better.
 Landfilling of C&D debris generates a net impact of 1.83 mpt (S1)
and 2.78 mpt (S2). C&D debris recycling offers net environ-
mental benefit having single scores of - 2.56 mpt (S3) and - 1.91
mpt (S4).
 Over a ten-year time-frame, establishment of recycling facility
with transfer stations in the city of Chennai could prevent
63,107 tonnes of CO2 eq emissions, 879,760 GJ of primary energy
consumption and 295 ha of organic arable land loss.
The merit of including future landfilling scenario during the
decision making has been discussed as often the challenges that
might be encountered in setting up new landfills are under-
estimated. Even though the benefits of incorporating transfer sta-
tions in the recycling infrastructure is less, a reduction of 10% has to
be weighed with respect to the potential benefits that may accrue
due to transfer stations such as increased collection and enhanced
social image. The implications of the findings and their relevance to
urban local bodies have also been discussed to help policymakers
take informed decisions while facing challenges of managing C&D
debris.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
V.G. Ram: Conceptualization, Software, Investigation, Writing -
review & editing, Visualization, Supervision. Kumar C. Kishore:
Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing -
original draft. Satyanarayana N. Kalidindi: Resources, Supervision,
Project administration.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120258.
References
Bio Intelligence Service, 2011. Service Contract on Management of Construction and
Demolition Waste - SR1. European Commission. https://op.europa.eu/en/
publication-detail/-/publication/0c9ecefc-d07a-492e-a7e1-6d355b16dde4.
(Accessed 21 January 2020).
Blengini, G.A., 2009. Life cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: a
case study in Turin. Italy. Build. Environ. 44, 319e330. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2008.03.007.
Blengini, G.A., Garbarino, E., 2010. Resources and waste management in Turin
(Italy): the role of recycled aggregates in the sustainable supply mix. J. Clean.
Prod. 18, 1021e1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.027.
Borghi, G., Pantini, S., Rigamonti, L., 2018. Life cycle assessment of non-hazardous
construction and demolition waste (CDW) management in lombardy region
(Italy). J. Clean. Prod. 184, 815e825. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2018.02.287.
Bovea, M.D., Powell, J.C., 2016. Developments in life cycle assessment applied to
evaluate the environmental performance of construction and demolition
wastes. Waste Manag. 50, 151e172. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2016.01.036.
Census of India, 2011. Census Data. http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011-Common/
CensusData2011.html. (Accessed 22 September 2019).
Cheung, B.M.H., Rootham, R.C., 1991. Waste Recycling in Hong Kong. Polmet 91:
Pollution in the Metropolitan and Urban Environment. Hong Kong Institution of
Engineers, pp. 463e469.
13
Coelho, A., de Brito, J., 2013. Environmental analysis of a construction and demo-
lition waste recycling plant in Portugal - Part I: energy consumption and CO2
emissions. Waste Manag. 33, 1258e1267. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2013.01.025.
Di Maria, A., Eyckmans, J., Van Acker, K., 2018. Downcycling versus recycling of
construction and demolition waste: combining LCA and LCC to support sus-
tainable policy making. Waste Manag. 75, 3e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2018.01.028.
Duan, H., Li, J., 2016. Construction and demolition waste management: China’s
lessons. Waste Manag. Res. 34, 397e398. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242X16647603.
€ rklund, A., Eriksson, O., Finnveden, G., 2007. What life-cycle
Ekvall, T., Assefa, G., Bjo
assessment does and does not do in assessments of waste management. Waste
Manag. 27, 989e996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.02.015.
Estanqueiro, B., Dinis Silvestre, J., de Brito, J., Duarte Pinheiro, M., 2016. Environ-
mental life cycle assessment of coarse natural and recycled aggregates for
concrete. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 22, 429e449. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19648189.2016.1197161.
Faleschini, F., Zanini, M.A., Pellegrino, C., Pasinato, S., 2016. Sustainable manage-
ment and supply of natural and recycled aggregates in a medium-size inte-
grated plant. Waste Manag. 49, 146e155. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2016.01.013.
Ghanbari, M., 2018. Production of natural and recycled aggregates: the environ-
mental impacts of energy consumption and CO2 emissions. J. Mater. Cycles
Waste Manag. 20, 810e822. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-017-0640-2.
Hossain, M.U., Poon, C.S., Lo, I.M.C., Cheng, J.C.P., 2016. Comparative environmental
evaluation of aggregate production from recycled waste materials and virgin
sources by LCA. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 109, 67e77. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.resconrec.2016.02.009.
ISO 14040, 2006a. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles
and Framework.
ISO 14044, 2006b. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Re-
quirements and Guidelines.
Jain, S., Singhal, S., Jain, N.K., 2018. Construction and demolition waste (C&DW) in
India: generation rate and implications of C&DW recycling. Int. J. Constr. Manag.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1523300.
Jolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rebitzer, G., Rosenbaum, R.,
2003. Impact 2002þ: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int. J.
Life Cycle Assess. 8, 324e330. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978505.
Jolliet, O., Saade-Sbeih, M., Shaked, S., Jolliet, A., Crettaz, P., 2015. Environmental Life
Cycle Assessment, first ed. CRC Press, pp. 10e14. https://doi.org/10.1201/b19138.
Kucukvar, M., Egilmez, G., Tatari, O., 2014. Evaluating environmental impacts of
alternative construction waste management approaches using supply-chain-
linked life-cycle analysis. Waste Manag. Res. 32, 502e508. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0734242X14536457.
Landfield, A.H., Karra, V., 2000. Life cycle assessment of a rock crusher. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. Recycl. 28, 207e217. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(99)
00045-2.
Lu, W., Chen, X., Ho, D.C.W., Wang, H., 2016. Analysis of the construction waste
management performance in Hong Kong: the public and private sectors
compared using big data. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 521e531. https://doi:10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.06.106.
Lu, W., Tam, V.W.Y.Y., 2013. Construction waste management policies and their
effectiveness in Hong Kong: a longitudinal review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
23, 214e223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.007.
Mah, C.M., Fujiwara, T., Ho, C.S., 2018. Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing
toward eco-efficiency concrete waste management in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod.
172, 3415e3427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.200.
Mercante, I.T., Bovea, M.D., Ib an~ ez-Fore
s, V., Arena, A.P., 2012. Life cycle assessment
of construction and demolition waste management systems: a Spanish case
study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17, 232e241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-
0350-2.
Ortiz, O., Pasqualino, J.C., Castells, F., 2010. Environmental performance of con-
struction waste: comparing three scenarios from a case study in Catalonia,
Spain. Waste Manag. 30, 646e654. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2009.11.013.
Penteado, C.S.G., Rosado, L.P., 2016. Comparison of scenarios for the integrated
management of construction and demolition waste by life cycle assessment : a
case study in Brazil. Waste Manag. Res. 34, 1026e1035. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242X16657605.
Peter, A.E., Nagendra, S.M.S., Nambi, I.M., 2019. Environmental burden by an open
dumpsite in urban India. Waste Manag. 85, 151e163. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2018.12.022.
Ram, V., Kalidindi, S.N., 2017. Estimation of construction and demolition waste using
waste generation rates in Chennai, India. Waste Manag. Res. 35, 610e617.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X17693297.
Rees, W.E., 1999. The built environment and the ecosphere: a global perspective.
Build. Res. Inf. 27, 206e220. https://doi.org/10.1080/096132199369336.
Rosado, L.P., Vitale, P., Penteado, C.S.G., Arena, U., 2019. Life cycle assessment of
construction and demolition waste management in a large area of Sa ~o Paulo
State, Brazil. Waste Manag. 85, 477e489. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2019.01.011.
Rosado, L.P., Vitale, P., Penteado, C.S.G., Arena, U., 2017. Life cycle assessment of
natural and mixed recycled aggregate production in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 151,
634e642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.068.
14 V.G. Ram et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120258
€ derholm, P., 2011. Taxing virgin natural resources: lessons from aggregates
So
taxation in Europe. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55, 911e922. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.05.011.
The Hindu, 2013. Tipping Point for Trash in Chennai. https://www.thehindu.com/
news/cities/chennai/tipping-point-for-trash-in-chennai/article5016605.ece.
(Accessed 22 September 2019).
The Times of India, 2013. Will Chennais’s Piles of Garbage Be the Ruin of a Model
Village? https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Will-Chennais-piles-
of-garbage-be-the-ruin-of-a-model-village/articleshowprint/20143262.cms.
(Accessed 22 September 2019).
TIFAC, 2001. Utilization of Waste from Construction Industry. Technology Infor-
mation, Forecasting and Assessment Council Publications. https://tifac.org.in/
index.php/8-publication/184-utilisation-of-waste-from-construction-industry.
(Accessed 22 September 2019).
UN, D.E.S.A., 2018. 68% of the World Population Projected to Live in Urban Areas by
2050. https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-
revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html. (Accessed 21 January 2020).
Vitale, P., Arena, N., Di Gregorio, F., Arena, U., 2017. Life cycle assessment of the end-
of-life phase of a residential building. Waste Manag. 60, 311e321. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.002.
Vossberg, C., Mason-Jones, K., Cohen, B., 2014. An energetic life cycle assessment of
C&D waste and container glass recycling in Cape Town, South Africa. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 88, 39e49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.04.009.
Wang, T., Wang, J., Wu, P., Wang, J.U.N., He, Q., Wang, X., 2018. Estimating the
environmental costs and benefits of demolition waste using life cycle assess-
ment and willingness-to-pay: a case study in Shenzhen. J. Clean. Prod. 172,
14e26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.168.
WBCSD, 2009. Recycling Concrete: the Cement Sustainability Initiative. https://
www.wbcsd.org/Sector-Projects/Cement-Sustainability-Initiative/Resources/
Recycling-Concrete. (Accessed 21 January 2020).