Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100076

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cleaner Waste Systems

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/cleaner-waste-systems

Life cycle assessment of construction and demolition waste management

based on waste generation projections of residential buildings in Metro ]]
]]]]]]
]]

Manila, the Philippines

Laurenze John G. Estrada, Jun Nakatani , Toru Hayashi, Tsuyoshi Fujita
⁎

Department of Urban Engineering, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The environmental impact of the existing and improved management systems of the estimated current and future
Construction and demolition waste generation of construction and demolition waste (CDW) in Metro Manila, the Philippines, was evaluated in terms
Life cycle assessment of global warming potential (GWP) and urban land occupation (ULOP). CDW generation quantities were esti-
ReCiPe midpoint method mated using dynamic material flow analysis, and the environmental impacts of different CDW management
Global warming potential
systems were evaluated based on life cycle assessment using the ReCiPe midpoint method. The results showed
Urban land occupation
that the recycling and reuse of CDW, especially steel, contributes to reducing the environmental impact of
Specialized sorting
recycling systems; however, landfilling is still a better option unless the demand for recovered CDW increases.
This study highlights the need for maximizing the use of secondary materials recovered from CDW; accordingly,
the introduction of specialized sorting to the waste chain should show promise in reducing both the GWP and
ULOP of CDW management.

1. Introduction Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the

The generation of construction and demolition waste (CDW),
which accounts for at least 30 % of the total solid waste produced
worldwide, has dramatically increased (Ginga et al., 2020). Although
Target 11.6 in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, as
well as the Philippine Development Plan 2017–2022, suggests huge
potential in acquiring the co-benefits of sustainable waste manage-
ment and resource recovery following the concept of circular
economy, these programs require data-driven decisions. However, in
general, waste management data in developing countries are limited.
Rapidly developing countries have become the major contributors to
CDW generation with millions of tons of CDW generated annually
(Akhtar and Sarmah, 2018); yet, these countries, including Southeast
Asian nations such as the Philippines lack data and legal documents
specific for CDW and have unclear responsibility assignment for its
management (Hoang et al., 2020). The lack of a CDW database,
overlapping jurisdiction on CDW management (CDWM) among the
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), and Local
Government Units (LGUs), and absence of standard procedures for
the management of CDW hinder the efficient implementation of
CDWM.
According to the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP),
climate change and domestic waste disposal are among the Filipinos’
top environmental problems (ISSP Research Group, 2019), and solid
waste management problem is one of the prevalent environmental
concerns associated with the country’s rapid urbanization (Raflores and
Regmi, 2015). Metro Manila—the Philippines’ capital region—lacks
sufficient facilities to adequately dispose of its garbage, especially CDW.
In addition, reports on waste source distribution in the region do not
include CDW as an independent source (National Solid Waste
Management Commission et al., 2019). Without proper CDWM prac-
tices, associated environmental issues and land use conflicts are ex-
pected to intensify as the population and economic activities continue
to expand (Zheng et al., 2017).

Abbreviations: CDW, Construction and demolition waste; CDWM, Construction and demolition waste management; DENR, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources; DPWH, Department of Public Works and Highways; EMB, Environmental Management Bureau; FAPC, Floor area per capita; GDP, Gross domestic
product; GWP, Global warming potential; ISSP, International Social Survey Programme; LCA, Life cycle assessment; LCI, Life cycle inventory; LCIA, Life cycle impact
assessment; LGU, Local Government Unit; LOS, Level of significance; MFA, Material flow analysis; ReCiPe, RIVM, CML, Pre; ULOP, Urban land occupation; US, United
States; WGR, Waste generation rates
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nakatani@env.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp (J. Nakatani).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clwas.2023.100076
Received 14 September 2022; Received in revised form 15 December 2022; Accepted 6 January 2023
2772-9125/© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
L.J.G. Estrada, J. Nakatani, T. Hayashi et al.
To estimate large-scale CDW generation, previous studies used gross
domestic product (GDP) and population correlated with floor area
statistics (Huang et al., 2013; Tam and Lu, 2016; Lederer et al., 2020;
Lu et al., 2017; Akhtar and Sarmah, 2018; Ding and Xiao, 2014), while
small-scale CDW estimation was conducted using waste generation
rates (WGRs) and material intensities (Mália et al., 2013; Solís-Guzmán
et al., 2009; Mah et al., 2016; Kern et al., 2015). The population and
economic activity expansion were shown to be directly proportional to
CDW generation (Lu et al., 2017; Tam and Lu, 2016). Further, it was
proposed that the determination of waste indicators and WGRs is the
key to effectively manage CDW (Mália et al., 2013; Solís-Guzmán et al.,
2009). Several studies have been conducted to quantify both current
and future CDW generation under different scenarios, such as adopting
different waste treatment options (e.g., recycling) (Ding and Xiao,
2014; Akhtar and Sarmah, 2018) and prolonging the service life of
structures to slow down waste generation and resource depletion
(Huang et al., 2013; Lederer et al., 2020).
Meanwhile, life cycle assessment (LCA) has been widely adopted
along with material flow analysis (MFA) in evaluating the environ-
mental impacts of CDW under different waste management scenarios
(Borghi et al., 2018; Di Maria et al., 2020; Rosado et al., 2019;
Kucukvar et al., 2014; Jain et al., 2020). LCA is used to assess the en-
vironmental benefits and burdens associated with waste management
systems and identify strategies to improve their performance. While
some studies were conducted to evaluate the life cycle impact of re-
covering concrete waste into recycled concrete aggregates for road
construction (Borghi et al., 2018; Di Maria et al., 2020; Jain et al.,
2020), other studies were performed to evaluate the impacts of dif-
ferent treatment options for CDW, including steel waste, timber waste,
glass, paper, and plastic (Rosado et al., 2019; Kucukvar et al., 2014;
Coelho and de Brito, 2012). These studies usually included landfilling
and recycling for CDW treatment (Coelho and de Brito, 2012; Kucukvar
et al., 2014; Yeheyis et al., 2013). Previous studies also suggest that the
performance of CDWM systems can be greatly influenced by various
factors, such as transport distance (Li et al., 2019; Coelho and de Brito,
2012), treatment facility location (Kucukvar et al., 2014; Galan et al.,
2013), shift in recycling rate and quality (Di Maria et al., 2020; Rosado
et al., 2019), and fuel used in treatment facilities and transportation
units (Jain et al., 2020; Borghi et al., 2018).
The accurate determination of the environmental impacts of waste
management systems is essential to realize data-driven decision-making
(Rosado et al., 2019), making life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
methods critical for environmental assessment studies. The results of
LCA studies on CDW mainly depend on impact categories based on the
LCIA method used, such as ReCiPe (Jain et al., 2020), ILCD 2011 and
CED method (Borghi et al., 2018), and Impact 2000 + and CML
baseline (Rosado et al., 2019). Further, the majority of CDW LCA stu-
dies conducted in China (Li et al., 2019), the United States (US)
(Kucukvar et al., 2014), and European countries (Di Maria et al., 2020;
Coelho and de Brito, 2012) made use of primary data, data from pre-
vious studies performed in their respective countries, and/or data from
country-specific life cycle inventory (LCI) databases, such as US LCI,
Eurostat, and Ecoinvent. On the contrary, studies conducted in coun-
tries without a local LCI database such as India (Jain et al., 2020), Brazil
(Rosado et al., 2019), and Malaysia (Mah et al., 2016) adopted primary
data, other countries’ databases, or world average inventory data.
The literature on both CDW estimation and environmental assess-
ment in developed and emerging economies has become exhaustive;
however, further research is still needed, especially in developing
countries (Jain et al., 2020). In this study, the environmental assess-
ment of CDWM systems integrating both current and future waste es-
timation projections was performed in a developing region. So far, very
few studies that included future CDW projections were conducted in
developed countries, and only one of these studies involved environ-
mental assessment. In addition, studies based on landfilling and
2
Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100076
recycling as CDW treatment options greatly outnumber those involving
material reuse, while studies based on CDW other than concrete, such
as steel and wood, are very limited.
Thus, in this study, the authors aimed to estimate the total current
(2020) and future (2040) residential CDW generation in Metro Manila,
with the intention to compare with the region’s demand for recovered
waste materials, and evaluate the potential environmental impacts of
the existing and improved CDWM systems—management practices
implemented by major residential construction companies in the re-
gion—in terms of climate change measured by global warming poten-
tial (GWP) and land space consumption measured by urban land oc-
cupation (ULOP).
2. Material and methods
2.1. Study area
Metro Manila has a total land area of 619.54 km2 and a population
of 13,484,462 as of 2019 (Mapa, 2021). It is the second most populous
and the most densely populated region of the Philippines with a 36 %
GDP share in 2018 (Perez, 2019). Based on a report on land use clas-
sification in the region, the residential area constitutes 65 % of the
region’s land area (Japan International Cooperation Agency, 2001).
Metro Manila started to take its current shape and regional boundaries
in 2000, hence, the period from 2000 to 2020 was taken as temporal
limits for GDP, population, and floor area statistics used in this study’s
CDW generation estimation.
Metro Manila has only one operational sanitary landfill with a
capacity of 32 million tons, serving four of the region’s 17 cities/
municipalities. The average collection of 1890 tons/day does not ac-
count for the total amount of generated CDW. In the latest national
solid waste management status report (2008–2018) (Environmental
Management Bureau DENR, 2018), CDW was not considered as an
independent waste source, only as a portion of the industrial waste
that accounted for 4.1 % of the total municipal solid waste. This is
associated with the lack of CDW assessment in the country’s waste
management premise.
2.2. CDW generation estimation
Step 1. The floor area per capita (FAPC), the most important factor
in shaping the demand for housing floor area stocks, which was deemed
to have a significant relationship with GDP per capita (Hu et al., 2010)
was calculated using Eq. (1):
Ht
FAPCt =
At (1)
where Ht is the assumed single housing unit size in square meters per
one housing unit, and At is the average household size in the number of
persons per one housing unit, both in the corresponding year t. Due to
the expected saturation of FAPC from 2000 to 2020, the relationship
between GDP per capita and FAPC was modeled using logarithmic re-
gression, while the future FAPC (2021–2040) was predicted based on
the trend in Metro Manila’s GDP per capita using the resulting regres-
sion model.
Step 2. A dynamic MFA model that represents the floor area and the
material flow composition of residential building stocks based on the
study of Hu et al. (2010) was modified and used in this study to esti-
mate CDW generation in Metro Manila using projected building stocks,
construction, and demolition floor areas driven by FAPC, the average
lifetime of a residential structure, and WGRs. The quantity of annual
residential building stocks (St) was calculated using Eq. (2):
St = FAPCt × Pt (2)
where Pt is the population in the study area at any given time t.
Step 3. The quantity of the annual demolition floor area (Dt) was
L.J.G. Estrada, J. Nakatani, T. Hayashi et al.
Fig. 1. System boundaries of the CDWM systems in Metro Manila.
calculated by multiplying the probability percentage of a residential
structure being demolished, f(t), by the estimated building stocks of the
previous year, St - 1, using Eq. (3). The probability was calculated fol-
lowing a Weibull probability distribution function, a widely known
function used in life cycle studies, as shown in Eq. (4):
Dt = St 1 × f (t ) (3)
1 permanent structures according to the Government Procurement
f (t ) = ×
t
×e (t )
(4)
where β is the shape factor adopted from Daigo et al. (2017), and ղ is
the scale factor, which was made equal to the assumed average life of
structure t. This agrees well with Pasha et al. (2006), indicating that ղ is
the time at which the majority (63.2 %) of systems or components
under analysis fail. In Weibull analysis, the scale parameter represents
3
Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100076
the mean time to failure (MTTF); hence, Eq. (4) becomes
f (t ) = e 1
(5)
Due to lack of data for the average lifetime of structures in Metro
Manila, three average lifetimes were considered: (a) 15-year life,
which signifies the structural liability of structural engineers for
Reform Act (2003) (Republic Act No. 9184); (b) 50-year life, which
signifies the declaration of a condominium residential unit to be
obsolete, where repair and restoration are no longer advised pur-
suant to the Condominium Act (1996) (Republic Act No. 4726); (c)
25-year life, which is a relatively conservative assumption between
15 and 50 years.
Step 4. Following the dynamic MFA, construction floor areas, Ct,
L.J.G. Estrada, J. Nakatani, T. Hayashi et al.
were calculated using the basic stocks formula (Hu et al., 2010; Huang
et al., 2013; Daigo et al., 2017) defined by Eq. (6):
Ct = St + Dt St 1 (6)
Step 5. The total annual CDW generation at any year t, CDWt, was
calculated by multiplying the calculated construction and demolition
floor areas, Ct and Dt, respectively, with the corresponding WGRs using
Eq. (7):
CDWt = (WGRC × Ct ) + (WGRD × Dt ) (7)
WGRC is the construction WGR equal to 32.9 kg/m2, which was
based on the study by Mah et al. (2016) on different waste compositions
of residential construction projects in Malaysia, which is relatively si-
milar to the Philippines. Meanwhile, WGRD is the demolition WGR
equal to 1613.7 kg/m2, used as the material intensity of reinforced
concrete residential structures in China after 2000 in the study of Gao
et al. (2020).
2.3. LCA
LCA was used in this work for assessing the most sustainable CDWM
practice considering both the current and future CDW generation to
evaluate the environmental impacts of different CDWM systems im-
plemented by major residential construction companies in Metro
Manila and compare them with some alternative and improved systems.
Step 1. The goal and scope of the LCA were defined. The functional
unit considered was the treatment of the projected total annual re-
sidential CDW generated in Metro Manila in 2020 and 2040. The con-
sideration of total annual CDW in lieu of one (1) ton of waste was to
emphasize the importance of the balance between the region’s potential
supply and total demand for recycled/reused materials, which could
not be examined from a study on 1 ton of waste.
In a comparative LCA of CDWM systems involving different waste
treatment options, the ReCiPe 2016 midpoint method was used fol-
lowing a hierarchist cultural perspective. In the selection of impact
categories, previous reports indicated that two of the top environmental
problems that Filipinos wanted to prioritize are climate change and
waste disposal (ISSP Research Group, 2019). In addition, the green-
house gas emissions from the waste sector accounted for 10.60 % of
total emissions in Metro Manila in 2010 according to Raflores and
Regmi (2015), and there are not sufficient landfill sites and waste
treatment facilities in the region. Correspondingly, in ReCiPe’s long list
of midpoint impact categories, GWP and ULOP were purposely selected
to be the impact categories for the LCIA.
The system boundaries depicted in the CDWM systems shown in
Fig. 1(a), (b), and (c) are based on actual and existing practices im-
plemented by the construction companies and LGUs within the region.
The CDWM systems considered in the 2020 scenario are S0 and S1,
which were also considered in the 2040 scenario as FS0 and FS1a to-
gether with the improved systems FS1b and FS2. A system expansion or
an avoided burden approach (Nakatani, 2014) is applied to consider the
environmental benefits of reuse/recycling depending on the supply-
demand balance for recycled/reused materials in the systems that in-
clude recycling (S1, FS1a, FS1b and FS2). The systems are defined as
follows:
S0/FS0 – The landfilling system where all CDW generated within the
region is dumped at landfill sites, and portions of steel and wood scrap
are scavenged for private use.
S1/FS1a – The demand-based recycling system where portions of
concrete waste are recycled as road aggregates. The term “demand-
based” signifies that only concrete waste is demanded for recycling.
FS1b – The supply-based recycling system, which is an improved
version of FS1a, where the quantity of waste to be recycled is not
limited to the demand for road construction but is rather based on the
supply of CDW.
FS2 – Recycling with a specialized sorting system in the 2040
4
Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100076
scenario, which is the improved version of FS1b, where a process called
“specialized sorting” is introduced between the sorting and reuse/re-
cycling processes.
Step 2. After the goal and scope definition, the LCI analysis was
performed. The CDW quantity inventories were obtained through in-
terviews with area managers of major multiunit residential construction
companies in Metro Manila. Also, the transport distances used were
based on the actual distances between the landfill site, concrete re-
cycling/crushing plant, materials recovery facility, and the centroid of
Metro Manila where multiunit residential buildings are located.
Step 3. Following the LCI analysis, LCIA was performed using the
ReCiPe method. ReCiPe 2016 at midpoint was used following a hier-
archist (H) cultural perspective—a perspective based on the most
common policy principles with regard to time frame (Goedkoop et al.,
2008) to incorporate uncertainties from conversion and aggregation
steps.
Step 3a. The first stage of the LCIA was classification and char-
acterization. The selection of GWP and ULOP as impact categories
streamlined this process; however, due to the insufficiency of en-
vironmental data collected from the study area, the elementary flows
and corresponding characterization factors used were obtained from
the Rest-of-World data calculated in the Ecoinvent database v3.8
(2021), which indicated the residual difference between the global
dataset and the non-global datasets when all datasets are scaled to the
production volume of their reference product (Weidema et al., 2013).
For impacts of operations of processes, such as transport, landfill,
sorting and recycling processes, we applied LCIA datasets of the allo-
cation at the point of substitution (APOS) system model in the Ecoin-
vent database (Wernet et al., 2016), considering that the APOS system
model was recommended for application areas where the consequential
modelling was less relevant (Weidema et al., 2013). The GWP and
ULOP were calculated using Eq. (8):
GWPorULOP = (qij cfij )
j i (8)
where j is the type of the treatment, i is the type of the waste material,
qij is the quantity of waste i allocated to the treatment process j (kg/
year), and cfij refers to the midpoint characterization factor of waste i
for treatment j (kg of CO2-eq./kg of waste for GWP; m2a/kg of waste for
ULOP). The characterization factors of ULOP (in m2-yr annual crop
equivalents) refer to the relative species loss caused by urban land use
(Huijbregts et al., 2017).
Step 3b. To evaluate the aggregated environmental impact of each
CDWM system in terms of GWP and ULOP, normalization was per-
formed to express both impact categories in the same unit of mea-
surement (person-year) using world average reference values indicated
in the ReCiPe 2016 database (RIVM, 2020) called normalization scores.
The normalized GWP or ULOP was calculated using Eq. (9):
GWPorULOP
NGWPorULOP =
j i nfGWPorULOP (9)
where N is the normalized score, and nf is the world average normal-
ization factor (kg of CO2-eq./person in 2010 for GWP; m2a/person in
2010 for ULOP).
2.4. Sensitivity Analyses
Because of the extensive data-dependency of the results of both
CDW generation estimation and LCA on economic projections, and
since economic profiles of developing countries are deemed unstable
compared to developed countries, sensitivity analyses were performed
to evaluate the response of the CDWM systems’ GWP and ULOP con-
sidering different sensitivity factors, such as (a) ± 10 % change in the
CDW quantity generation, (b) incremental increase in the demand for
recycled concrete and steel waste, and (c) shift/change in concrete and
steel waste recycling rates.
L.J.G. Estrada, J. Nakatani, T. Hayashi et al.
Fig. 2. Construction and demolition floor areas (bars) and CDW generation (dots) estimation.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. CDW generation estimation
GDP per capita versus FAPC. The regression analysis between FAPC
and GDP/capita resulted in an R2 value of 0.98, statistically proving
that the region’s FAPC can be predicted using Metro Manila’s trend in
GDP. The FAPC projections were translated to building stocks, which
were eventually used in calculating construction and demolition floor
areas.
Construction and demolition floor areas. Fig. 2 shows the construction
and demolition floor areas in the current and future scenarios. The
construction area is expected to have a relative increase of 63 % in 15-
year mean life, 84 % in 25-year mean life, and approximately 146 % in
50-year average life, while demolition areas are expected to increase by
33 % from 2020 to 2040 in all average structure lifetime assumptions.
CDW generation. Fig. 2 also shows the projected total CDW quan-
tities comparing the 2020 and 2040 scenarios in all average lifetime
assumptions. These results showed that the trend in CDW estimation
projection is directly proportional to the trend in construction and de-
molition floor areas; however, although construction area projections
are higher than those of demolition areas, the calculated demolition
wastes are larger than the projected construction waste quantities due
to the huge gap between their respective WGRs. The significant dif-
ference in the projections considering different average structure life-
time assumptions is the most pressing uncertainty in the CDW estima-
tion. The extension of the service life of a structure from 15 years to 25
or 50 years significantly reduces waste generation by about 40 % or 70
Fig. 3. t-test between the estimated and actual construction floor areas.
5
Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100076
%, respectively. The avoided demolition of existing structures also di-
minishes the need to construct new residential structures, avoiding
construction waste generation.
CDW data used in LCA. A paired sample t-test was performed to
determine the average structure lifetime used in LCA (Fig. 3). The re-
sults of the comparison between the calculated construction floor areas
and the actual annual construction floor areas in Metro Manila, pro-
vided in the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA, 2023) database,
showed that only the data set from the 50-year average structure life-
time has a p-value of greater than the level of significance (LOS),
proving that this data set had no significant difference from the actual
construction floor areas recorded in Metro Manila from 2000 to 2019;
hence, the CDW data based on the 50-year average structure lifetime
was used in LCA.
If p-value ≤ LOS, there is a significant difference between the data
sets; if p-value > LOS, there is no significant difference between the
data sets.
CDW percent waste composition. Table 1 shows the waste material
flow quantities of the CDWM systems following the CDW generation
projection based on the 50-year average structure lifetime assumption
and the corresponding percentages of waste composition for construc-
tion according to the study by Mah et al. (2016) based on the mixed
construction method of reinforced concrete residential structures in
Malaysia and for demolition according to the report by Gao et al.
(2020) based on the material intensities of reinforced concrete re-
sidential structures in China after 2000.
L.J.G. Estrada, J. Nakatani, T. Hayashi et al. Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100076

Table 1
Waste material flow quantities in the CDWM systems.

Waste Chain Activity Distance* CDW Quantity (in kilotons)

(in kilometers)
2020 Scenario 2040 Scenario

From To S0 S1 FS0 FS1a FS1b FS2

Source Landfill, mixed CDW 30 6363 8547

Source Sorting, mixed CDW 10 6363 8547 8547 8547
Landfill, mixed CDW Scavengers/Private use 20 233 317
Sorting, mixed CDW Reuse, steel 12 2 6 6
Sorting, mixed CDW Reuse, wood 12 55 76 76
Sorting, mixed CDW Recycle, steel 10 0 0 385
Sorting, mixed CDW Recycle, concrete 10 1382 1751 7123
Sorting, mixed CDW Landfill, mixed CDW 30 4924 6714 957 829
Recycle, steel/concrete Landfill, mixed CDW 20 138 175 1020 220
Sorting, mixed CDW Sp. Sorting, steel 0 443
Sorting, mixed CDW Sp. Sorting, wood 0 152
Sorting, mixed CDW Sp. Sorting, concrete 0 7123
Sp. Sorting, wood Reuse, wood 10 144
Sp. Sorting, steel Reuse, steel 10 14
Sp. Sorting, steel Recycle, steel 10 366
Sp. Sorting, concrete Recycle, concrete 10 6767
Sp. Sorting, mixed CDW Landfill, mixed CDW 30 427
Reuse, wood New construction project 12 55 76 76 144
Reuse, steel New construction project 12 2 6 6 14
Recycle, steel New construction project 12 0 0 77 146
Recycle, concrete New construction project 12 1244 1576 6411 6767

*based on actual distances from known locations of Landfill sites (North Caloocan, Metro Manila), material recovery sites (DPWH Bureau of Research and Standards),
recycling facility (concrete crushing plant), and location where there’s evident saturation of multi-story residential structures (Makati City, Metro Manila) obtained
from https://maps.google.com

3.2. LCIA
Following the classification, characterization, and normalization
procedures described in Section 2.3, Fig. 4(a), (b), and (c) show the
results of the LCIA.
3.2.1. GWP
As shown in Fig. 4(a), in the 2020 scenarios, the emissions from
inert landfilling and transport significantly contribute to the GWP of the
landfilling system (S0), while that of the demand-based recycling
system (S1) is aggravated by the sorting of mixed CDW. The graph
shows that the avoided CO2 emissions from recycling and/or reuse of
concrete, steel, and wood waste are not sufficient to negate the effect of
sorting mixed CDW, resulting in a relatively lower GWP of S0 at 35.01
Gg CO2-eq., 53.73 Gg CO2-eq. lower than the net total GWP of S1.
Importantly, the avoided emission from the recycling/reuse of waste
materials is due to the avoided emission from the supposed primary
production of such materials, assuming that the recycled/reused ma-
terials will be utilized for projects, obviating the need for production of
the supposed raw construction materials. Meanwhile, in the 2040 sce-
narios, FS0 and FS1a follow the GWP trends of S0 and S1, respectively,
dominated by the emissions from waste transport, inert landfilling, and
mixed CDW sorting. The GWP of S0 has increased by 34 % in FS0, while
that of S1 increased by 29 % in FS1a.
Fig. 4(a) also highlights the GWP of the improved CDWM systems
(FS1b and FS2). From GWP of 114.05 Gg CO2-eq. in FS1a with zero
steel waste recycled, the introduction of recycling steel waste sig-
nificantly contributed to a net avoided emission of 95.98 Gg CO2-eq. in
FS1b. These results signify the positive implications of not limiting the
quantity of recycled materials based on the current demand, thus, al-
lowing all generated wastes to undergo waste treatment options (re-
cycle/reuse) rather than restricting the quantity of recycled materials
based on the current demand for road aggregates. Likewise, the in-
troduction of specialized sorting in FS2, although it also contributed to
a significant amount of CO2 emissions due to concrete and steel sorting,
eventually reduced emissions further due to the increased recyclability
of waste materials, especially steel. The GWP in FS2 was found to be at
−169.12 Gg CO2-eq., indicating a 73.14 Gg CO2-eq. increase in avoided
GWP than that of FS1b.
The LCIA results on the CDWM systems in the 2040 scenario showed
that recycling steel had the most contribution to the avoided GWP due
to the avoided emissions from the supposed steel production; likewise,
sorting mixed CDW and concrete led to the aggravation of GWP in re-
cycling-based CDWM systems. Moreover, the GWP of FS1b and FS2
could become even smaller if the LCIA dataset of the APOS system
model was replaced with that of the consequential (substitution) model;
the GWP of reinforcing steel in the latter dataset, 3.44 Gg CO2-eq./kg,
was larger than the GWP in the former dataset, 2.14 Gg CO2-eq./kg,
whereas the GWP of soring processes had relatively small differences
between the models. The reduction in emissions due to transport and
inert landfilling is also noticeable in the improved CDWM systems due
to the avoided hauling of a certain CDW quantity from source to landfill
sites.
3.2.2. ULOP
Fig. 4(b) shows the ULOP of the CDWM systems, both in the 2020
and 2040 scenarios, in terms of million m2a. The results showed that
the demand-based recycling systems (S1, FS1a) had higher ULOP than
the landfilling systems (S0, FS0) because of the significant effect of
sorting of mixed CDW. Mixed CDW sorting requires huge facilities—use
of urban land in the case of Metro Manila—to cater to the bulk of CDW
generated in the region. The impact of converting urban land into
sorting facilities could be more damaging to the environment, in terms
of ULOP, than the impact of CDW landfilling.
Meanwhile, the ULOP of the landfilling system and demand-based
recycling in 2020 (S0, S1) is expected to worsen by 34 % in 2040 (FS0,
FS1a). Out of all the CDWM systems, FS1a has the most potential da-
mage to the environment in terms of ULOP. However, the avoided
emissions brought by the increase in the quantity of materials for re-
cycling in FS1b (introduction of steel recycling and increase in the
concrete waste quantity for recycling) and the introduction of specia-
lized sorting to increase the waste recycling rate in FS2 were sufficient

6
L.J.G. Estrada, J. Nakatani, T. Hayashi et al. Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100076

Fig. 4. LCIA results of the CDWM systems.

7
L.J.G. Estrada, J. Nakatani, T. Hayashi et al.
to balance and negate the effect of mixed CDW sorting in the system.
The improved systems could reduce the potential damage equivalent of
9.73 million m2a (FS1a) to approximately 1.67 million m2a and 0.82
million m2a in FS2 and FS1b, respectively, owing to reduced material
production compared to the damage from converting urban lands to
sorting and specialized sorting facilities.
Likewise, the relatively larger impact of sorting mixed CDW on
ULOP compared to landfilling may be associated with the gap between
the characterization factors used as per the Ecoinvent database. The
characterization factor used for sorting mixed CDW is based on the
sorting of reinforced concrete waste, which includes all emissions and
damages from the upstream processes of sorting combined concrete and
steel waste including the dismantling, facility construction, and pre-
sorting of waste.
3.2.3. Normalization
Through the utilization of the ReCiPe midpoint (H) 2016 world
average normalization factors, Fig. 4(c) shows the combined environ-
mental impact of each CDWM system, in terms of GWP and ULOP ex-
pressed in the normalized unit of equivalent emission of a single person
in 2010 (person*year). The results showed that the demand-based re-
cycling systems (S1, FS1a) were more damaging to the environment
compared to the landfilling systems (S0, FS0), mainly because of the
contribution of the GWP caused by the sorting of mixed waste. The
emissions of S1 were higher than the emissions of S0 by equivalent
emissions of 7060 person*years, while a gap of equivalent emissions of
8830 person*years is expected between FS1a and FS0.
Only the improved systems FS1b and FS2 are expected to have a
beneficial impact on the environment in the future scenario, resulting in
avoided equivalent emissions of 11,880 person*years and 20,890 per-
son*years for FS1b and FS2, respectively. This is due to the significant
contribution of the avoided GWP to these CDWM systems. Thus, the
ULOP of the improved systems is not a pressing concern.
Fig. 5. Summary results of sensitivity analyses.
8
Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100076
3.3. Sensitivity analysis
To evaluate the behavior of GWP and ULOP of each CDWM system
in the future scenario, sensitivity analyses were performed considering
the changes of different variables, and the results are summarized in
Fig. 5. The 10 % relative change in wood waste quantity had the least
effect on the GWP and ULOP of the CDWM systems, while the change in
concrete and steel waste generation had the opposite environmental
impact. The increase in concrete waste is the most burdensome to GWP
and ULOP and thus is the relative decrease in steel waste generation. On
the contrary, the relative decrease in concrete waste and the relative
increase in steel waste contribute to the reduction of both GWP and
ULOP, especially for the improved systems FS1b and FS2.
Initially, the demand for recycled CDW considered in this study was
limited to only recycled aggregates from concrete waste—as in FS1a.
An incremental increase in the demand for recovered CDW, including
the demand for recycled steel, was considered another sensitivity
factor, and the results showed that the increased demand for the re-
cycled concrete aggregate can reduce GWP by equivalent emissions of
6199 person*years and ULOP by equivalent damage of 1049 person*-
years. Meanwhile, by increasing the demand for recycled steel from
zero to a quantity equivalent to the projected quantity of steel scrap
exported by the Philippines based on the UN Comtrade database (ne-
cessary adjustments were made to limit the steel scrap at a regional
quantity proportional to the GDP, as projected for 2040), the GWP and
ULOP of the demand-based recycling system could potentially avoid
equivalent emissions and damages of 5217 and 103 person*years, re-
spectively, highlighting that the increase in demand for recycled con-
crete waste affects GWP and ULOP more compared to the increased
demand for recovered steel. Further, maximizing the demand for both
recycled concrete waste and recycled steel waste can result in a total
avoided equivalent emission of 11,416 person*years in GWP and
avoided equivalent damage of 1152 person*years in ULOP in the case of
L.J.G. Estrada, J. Nakatani, T. Hayashi et al.
FS1a.
The recycling rates of concrete and steel waste were also considered
as another sensitivity factor. The response of the GWP and ULOP of the
recycling systems (FS1a, FS1b, and FS2) were evaluated when the
concrete waste recycling rate was reduced to 50 % (initially at 90 % and
100 %), and the results showed that from equivalent avoided emissions
of 12,012 person*years, the GWP and ULOP could worsen by equivalent
emissions of 56–3653 person*years, and equivalent damages of 75–618
person*years, respectively. Further, since steel recycling was con-
sidered only in FS1b (at 20 % recycling rate) and FS2 (at 40 % recycling
rate), the response of these systems was evaluated when the steel re-
cycling rate increased to 100 %, and the results showed that both GWP
and ULOP had a strong positive response.
4. Conclusions
Based on the results of the LCA, emissions and damages from the
transport, inert landfilling, and mixed CDW sorting are the key con-
tributors to the GWP and ULOP of CDWM systems both in current and
future scenarios. The recycling system has more environmental impacts
than the landfilling system if the quantity of recycled CDW is limited by
the recycled concrete aggregate demand for road construction, in-
dicating that CDWM systems that integrate waste recycling and reuse
will only be beneficial to the environment if majority, if not all, of the
potentially generated CDW can be recycled and/or reused as con-
struction materials.
The introduction of specialized sorting in the waste chain can
greatly improve both the GWP and ULOP of the CDWM system, pro-
viding the least net environmental burden compared to any other
system in the future scenario, due to the recycling of CDW that caused
avoided emissions and damages from the supposed production of raw
construction materials, especially steel.
This study paves the way for the development of procedures for
quantifying CDW generation and treating it as a separate waste source.
While the authors recognize the uncertainties caused by WGRs and
waste compositions adopted from the studies conducted in other
countries, the rapid urbanization of Metro Manila will continue to in-
crease CDW if no waste reduction interventions are implemented. The
CDW generation estimation results obtained in this study support pre-
vious findings highlighting the need to prolong the service life of
structures using more durable construction materials to slow down
CDW generation. This study also promotes technological improvements
in CDWM systems aimed at increasing waste recycling rates, which can
eventually boost environmental benefits.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Laurenze John G. Estrada: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Visualization.
Jun Nakatani: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Data
curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing,
Visualization, Supervision, Project administration. Toru Hayashi:
Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Tsuyoshi Fujita:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing,
Supervision, Project administration.
Data Availability
Data will be made available on request.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
9
Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100076
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the respondents (residential construction
companies, concrete crushing plant, scavengers, junk shop owners,
DENR, DPWH) for supporting the data collection by providing base
ideas, awareness, and perspective on CDW status in Metro Manila. This
research was funded and supported by the Project for Human Resource
Development Scholarship by Japanese Grant Aid (JDS), Japan
International Cooperation Center (JICE). (JDS No. B0012020PHL005).
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at doi:10.1016/j.clwas.2023.100076.
References
Akhtar, A., Sarmah, A.K., 2018. Construction and demolition waste generation and
properties of recycled aggregate concrete: a global perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 186,
262–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.085
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, 815–825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.
287
Coelho, A., de Brito, J., 2012. Influence of construction and demolition waste manage-
ment on the environmental impact of buildings. Waste Manag. 32, 532–541. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.11.011
Condominium Act, Republic Act No. 4726 (1966). 〈https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/
ra1966/ra_4726_1966.html〉.
Daigo, I., Iwata, K., Oguchi, M., Goto, Y., 2017. Lifetime distribution of buildings decided
by economic situation at demolition: D-based lifetime distribution. Procedia CIRP 61,
146–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.221
Di Maria, A., Eyckmans, J., Acker, K., 2020. Use of LCA and LCC to help decision-making
between downcycling versus recycling of construction and demolition waste. In:
Pacheco-Torgal, F., Ding, Y., Colangelo, F., Tuladhar, R., Koutamanis, A. (Eds.),
Advances in Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling. Woodhead Publishing,
pp. 537–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819055-5.00026-7
Ding, T., Xiao, J., 2014. Estimation of building-related construction and demolition waste
in Shanghai. Waste Manag. 34, 2327–2334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.
2014.07.029
Environmental Management Bureau, DENR, 2018. National Solid Waste Management
Status Report 2008–2018. 〈https://emb.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/
National-Solid-Waste-Management-Status-Report-2008–2018.pdf〉 (accessed August
29, 2022).
Galan, B., Dosal, E., Andres, A., Viguri, J., 2013. Optimisation of the construction and
demolition waste management facilities location in Cantabria (Spain) under eco-
nomical and environmental criteria. Waste Biomass. Valor 4, 797–808. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12649-013-9196-0
Gao, X., Nakatani, J., Zhang, Q., Huang, B., Wang, T., Moriguchi, Y., 2020. Dynamic
material flow and stock analysis of residential buildings by integrating rural–urban
land transition: a case of Shanghai. J. Clean. Prod. 253, 119941. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2019.119941
Ginga, C.P., Ongpeng, J.M.C., Daly, M.K.M., 2020. Circular economy on construction and
demolition waste: a literature review on material recovery and production. Materials
13 (13), 2970. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13132970
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J., van Zelm R.,
2008. ReCiPe 2008, A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises har-
monised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level; First edition
Report I: Characterisation.
Government Procurement Reform Act, Republic Act No. 9184 (2003). 〈https://www.
lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2003/ra_9184_2003.html〉.
Hoang, N.H., Ishigaki, T., Kubota, R., Yamada, M., Kawamoto, K., 2020. A review of
construction and demolition waste management in Southeast Asia. J. Mater. Cycles
Waste Manag. 22, 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-019-00914-5
Hu, M., van der Voet, E., Huppes, G., 2010. Dynamic material flow analysis for strategic
construction and demolition waste management in Beijing. J. Ind. Ecol. 14 (3),
440–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00245.x
Huang, T., Shi, F., Tanikawa, H., Fei, J., Han, J., 2013. Materials demand and environ-
mental impact of buildings construction and demolition in China based on dynamic
material flow analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 72, 91–101. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.resconrec.2012.12.013
Huijbregts, M.A.J., Steinmann, Z.J.N., Elshout, P.M.F., Stam, G., Verones, F., Vieira, M.,
Zijp, M., Hollander, A., van Zelm, R., 2017. ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle
impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
22, 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y
ISSP Research Group, 2019. International social survey programme: environment III -
ISSP 2010. GESIS data archive. Cologne ZA5500 Data file Version 3. 0. 0. https://doi.
org/10.4232/1.13271
Jain, S., Singhal, S., Pandey, S., 2020. Environmental life cycle assessment of construction
and demolition waste recycling: a case of urban India. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 155,
104642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104642
L.J.G. Estrada, J. Nakatani, T. Hayashi et al.
Japan International Cooperation Agency (J.I.C.A.), 2001. The study on the standardiza-
tion for integrated railway network of Metro Manila (SIRNMM) final report: ap-
pendix. 〈https://openjicareport.jica.go.jp/740/740/740_118_11633419.html〉 (ac-
cessed August 23, 2022).
Kern, A.P., Dias, M.F., Kulakowski, M.P., Gomes, L.P., 2015. Waste generated in high-
rise buildings construction: a quantification model based on statistical multiple
regression. Waste Manag. 39, 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.
043
Kucukvar, M., Egilmez, G., Tatari, O., 2014. Evaluating environmental impacts of alter-
native construction waste management approaches using supply-chain-linked life
cycle analysis. Waste Manag. Res. 32, 500–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242×14536457
Lederer, J., Gassner, A., Fellner, J., Mollay, U., Schremmer, C., 2020. Raw materials
consumption and demolition waste generation of the urban building sector
2016–2050: a scenario-based material flow analysis of Vienna. J. Clean. Prod. 288,
125566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125566
Li, J., Xiao, F., Zhang, L., Amirkhanian, S.N., 2019. Life cycle assessment and life cycle
cost analysis of recycled solid waste materials in highway pavement: a review. J.
Clean. Prod. 233, 1182–1206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.061
Lu, W., Webster, C., Peng, Y., Chen, X., Zhang, X., 2017. Estimating and calibrating the
amount of building-related construction and demolition waste in urban China. Int. J.
Constr. Manag. 17, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2016.1166548
Mah, C.M., Fujiwara, T., Ho, C.S., 2016. Construction and demolition waste generation
rates for high-rise buildings in Malaysia. Waste Manag. Res. 34 (12), 1224–1230.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242×16666944
Mália, M., de Brito, J., Pinheiro, M.D., Bravo, M., 2013. Construction and demolition
waste indicators. Waste Manag. Res. 31, 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242×12471707
Mapa, D.S., (2021, August 23). Highlights of the National Capital Region (NCR)
Population 2020 Census of Population and Housing (2020 CPH). Philippine Statistics
Authority (PSA). 〈https://psa.gov.ph/content/highlights-national-capital-region-ncr-
population-2020-census-population-and-housing-2020〉.
Nakatani, J., 2014. Life-cycle inventory analysis of recycling: mathematical and graphical
frameworks. Sustainability 6 (9), 6158–6169. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6096158
National Solid Waste Management Commission, N.S.W.M.C., Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, D.E.N.R., Institute for Global Environmental Strategies,
I.G.E.S., 2019. National Strategy to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants from
Municipal Solid Waste Sector in the Philippines. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Quezon City, Philippines. 〈https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.
10
Cleaner Waste Systems 4 (2023) 100076
28567.83368〉.
Pasha, G.R., Khan, M.S., Pasha, A.H., 2006. Empirical analysis of the Weibull distribution
for failure data. J. Stat. 13 (1), 33–45.
Perez, J.B., (2019, April 25). All regional economies grow in 2018. Philippine Statistics
Authority (PSA). 〈https://psa.gov.ph/grdp/grdp-id/138508〉.
Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) (2020 – OpenSTAT website database. 〈https://
openstat.psa.gov.ph/〉.
Raflores, L.S.D., Regmi, R.K., 2015. Understanding the Water and Urban Environment of a
Megacity: The Case of Metro Manila, Philippines. Water and Urban Initiative Working
Paper Series. United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of
Sustainability,.
RIVM, (2020, July 2) Normalization scores ReCiPe 2016. 〈https://www.rivm.nl/en/
documenten/normalization-scores-recipe-2016〉.
Rosado, L.P., Vitale, P., Penteado, C.S.G., Arena, U., 2019. Life cycle assessment of con-
struction and demolition waste management in a large area of São Paulo State, Brazil.
Waste Manag. 85, 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.01.011
Solís-Guzmán, J., Marrero, M., Montes-Delgado, M.V., Ramírez-de-Arellano, A., 2009. A
Spanish model for quantification and management of construction waste. Waste
Manag 29, 2542–2548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.05.009
Tam, V.W.-Y., Lu, W., 2016. Construction waste management profiles, practices, and
performance: a cross-jurisdictional analysis in four countries. Sustainability 8 (2),
190. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020190
Weidema, B.P., Bauer, C., Hischier, R., Mutel, C., Nemecek, T., Reinhard, J., Vadenbo,
C.O., Wernet, G., 2013. Overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the
ecoinvent database version 3. Ecoinvent Report 1(v3). The Ecoinvent Centre,, St.
Gallen.
Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., Weidema, B., 2016.
The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess 21. pp. 1218–1230. 〈http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11367-016-
1087-8〉.
Yeheyis, M., Hewage, K., Alam, M.S., Eskicioglu, C., Sadiq, R., 2013. An overview of
construction and demolition waste management in Canada: a lifecycle analysis ap-
proach to sustainability. Clean. Technol. Environ. Policy 15, 81–91. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10098-012-0481-6
Zheng, L., Wu, H., Zhang, H., Duan, H., Wang, J., Jiang, W., Dong, B., Liu, G., Zuo, J.,
Song, Q., 2017. Characterizing the generation and flows of construction and demo-
lition waste in China. Constr. Build. Mater. 136, 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2017.01.055