Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 160174

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

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

Full length article

Assessing the economic impact and ecological footprint of

construction and demolition waste during the urbanization of rural
land
Madelyn Marrero, Manuel Puerto, Cristina Rivero-Camacho, Antonio Freire-Guerrero,
Jaime Sols-Guzmn
Department of Building Construction II. E.T.S. de Ingeniera de Edicacin, University of Seville, 41012 Seville, Spain

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

Article history: The present work analyses the management of construction and demolition waste (C&DW) in urban-
Received 1 April 2016 ization projects from a dual perspective: ecological and economic. A well-established model for waste
Received in revised form 14 October 2016 quantication, previously developed by the authors, is employed and adapted for the assessment of
Accepted 16 October 2016
urbanization work. The quantication model is based on the work breakdown system (WBS) of con-
Available online 10 November 2016
struction budgets. Five urbanization projects are evaluated; two are industrial and three residential. The
quantities, budget, and ecological footprint (EF) are determined. The EF evaluation follows the same
Keywords:
methodology as dened by the authors for construction projects but with several new incorporations,
Ecological footprint
Economic impact
such as the quantication for the felling of trees and the machinery footprint. The result shows that 98%
Urbanization of the C&DW generated is due to earthworks and tree felling. An overwhelming 97% of the EF is due to
Waste fuel consumption by on-site machinery and construction materials. Finally, a new scenario is proposed in
which the soil is 100% reused and the inert waste is crushed and used as concrete aggregate, which reduces
the EF by more than 20% in all cases analysed. The results show that it is possible to quantify the integral
impact within construction projects of the application of recycling and of reuse strategies by means of a
WBS. Finally, from a construction project perspective, the traditional model for waste management and
economic control can be completed with an environmental analysis using the EF indicator.
2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In recent years, a global issue has arisen regarding the envi-
ronmental impact of the construction industry, especially that of
its construction and demolition waste, C&DW (Agamuthu, 2008).
Among the many reasons identied for the limited effectiveness of
C&DW management, feature the contrasting opinions held by the
two major groups involved in the process. The rst group includes
the authorities and general public whose focus is on minimizing the
amount of C&DW entering landlls. The other major group is com-
prised of promoters and subcontractors who are more concerned
about the benets and prots from conducting C&DW manage-
ment, and less interested in whether the generated C&DW would
burden the environment (Yuan and Shen, 2011).
There is major economic and environmental concern due to the
fact that materials extracted from nature that are involved in deliv-
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jaimesolis@us.es (J. Sols-Guzmn).
ering the target building elements, are thrown away as construction
waste. Li et al. (2016), in accordance with the mass balance prin-
ciple, calculates that the sum of the weight of the construction
materials, packaging materials, and extracted materials is equal to
that of the target building elements and construction waste.
Waste minimization is economically feasible and plays an
important role in the improvement of environmental management.
From this standpoint, economic instruments for minimizing con-
struction waste can be employed to encourage waste-prevention
efforts, to discourage the least desirable disposal practices, as
well as to prevent the negative consequences of environmentally
unfriendly treatment and disposal practices of construction waste
materials (Begum et al., 2007). Construction method, project size,
building type, material storage method, human error, and technical
problems are the main factors that affect the waste generation of
newly constructed buildings (Mokhtar et al., 2011).
In order both to minimize the amount of C&DW entering land-
lls and to reduce the cost of the construction project, a good waste
management plan is needed. The rst step is to predict the amount
of waste generated during the construction processes. The volume

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.10.020
0921-3449/ 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 M. Marrero et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 160174
determined can then be used to dene the container sizes and types
and the pick-up frequency, both necessary in order to reach the next
step: material recycling and/or reuse. A good quantication proce-
dure at project level also allows waste to be properly treated, by
preventing mixtures and deterioration (del Ro Merino et al., 2010;
Li and Zhang, 2013).
Many models have been established over the last decade to
determine the project waste quantities, such as SuperDrecksKescht
r Betriber (Oeko-Service Luxembourg, 2002), which proposes
quantication of C&DW at the worksite, and is able to estimate
types and volumes produced. The National Technical Univer-
sity of Athens (NTUA) has developed an indicative mathematical
model for the estimation of the quantities of C&DW generated
(Kourmpanis et al., 2008). SMARTWasteTM is another quantica-
tion method, applied in the United Kingdom, and is based on data
obtained from previous experiences and calculates the waste vol-
umes in 13 categories: ceramic, concrete, wooden pallet, etc. (BRE,
2008). Other C&DW quantication models, mathematical and soft-
ware development, can be found in (Cheng and Ma, 2013; Wu et al.,
2014).
The present authors, together with others, have also devel-
oped a quantication model to estimate the type and quantity of
waste generated by a range of construction projects, such as new
buildings, demolition, renovations, and alterations (Sols-Guzmn
et al., 2009). The input parameters in the model are: work type,
number of storeys, foundation type, and total built area. In recent
years, the model has been tested at the Los Alcores Community
(Seville, Spain) treatment plants. The classication code used is the
same as that which Spanish quantity surveyors normally employ to
obtain the bill of quantities, thereby making the model both easy to
understand and to implement (Marrero and Ramirez-De-Arellano,
2010). In 2013 (Prez-Carmona et al., 2013), the model was suc-
cessfully implemented in Ecija Community, Spain. The model has
also been adapted to road construction evaluation (Sols-Guzmn
et al., 2014).
None of the previous models has considered the analysis of
yet another major impact on building development: the resources
needed to transform farmland into an urbanized estate ready for the
construction of the building. Environmental awareness programs
have broadened the scope to include green concepts and principles
through the introduction of a variety of green-rating tools and sim-
ilar mechanisms for the evaluation of the expected environmental
performance of a structure. However, these principles and mech-
anisms are, in general, related only to built structures, and fail to
take into account the entire landscape and socio-cultural ecosystem
within which they function (Deal, 2001).
A new model is proposed that considers all the waste-generating
activities which occur during land transformation. These activities
cover earthmoving and land conditioning, landscaping, the con-
struction of new roads, walkways, and of parking areas, and the
introduction of installations, which include sewage and rainwa-
ter disposal, gas supply, street lighting, telecommunication lines,
and electrical power. The new proposed methodology for the waste
quantication starts directly in the project budget classication. A
new classication is not needed, and budgets are normally well con-
trolled and dened in the construction sector then in the present
methodology each work unit has its corresponding waste genera-
tion quantities. Then the methodology only depends on the quality
of the denition of the construction work units leaving aside other
considerations.
Five case studies, in Andalusia, Spain, are analysed and a waste
management strategy is proposed in order to minimize both costs
and the impact on the environment. The present work establishes
a procedure in order to determine the quantities of waste and the
waste management costs in urbanization works. For the cost eval-
uation, the Andalusian Construction Cost Database (ACCD, 2014) is
161
used and new unitary costs are proposed that are created using its
work breakdown system (WBS).
Once the waste quantities are determined, the environmen-
tal assessment is made. The impact of buildings construction has
been studied through ecological indicators, such as the Ecological
Footprint (Bastianoni et al., 2007), Carbon Footprint (Sols-Guzmn
et al., 2015) and Emergy Analysis (Marchi et al., 2015; Pulselli et al.,
2014, 2007).
In those previous works, the environmental impact of con-
struction materials was obtained through LCA from international
databases. In the current work, the Ecological Footprint (EF) analy-
sis uses Ecoinvent data through Simapro, since this database covers
all the commonly employed materials in buildings construction,
making it easier to analyse complete buildings (Martnez-
Rocamora et al., 2016a). In order to obtain the CO2 emissions
embodied into construction materials, their Life Cycle Inventory
(LCI) is analyzed after applying the IPCC 100a methodology. This
methodology, which is used for the Carbon Footprint indicator, iso-
lates CO2 and other GHG emissions from the LCI, being thus easier
to account for CO2 emissions. More complex methodology such as
ReCiPe or Ecoindicator 99 are not necessary in the EF calculations,
making possible its high acceptance potential in the construction
sector, mainly due to its simplicity and that it allows fast compar-
isons between constructive solutions in projects, i.e. rockwool vs.
PE insulation in walls, or inclined vs. at roofs (Gonzlez-Vallejo
et al., 2015b).
Specically in the construction sector, cost control always
takes place by means of the project budget and its bill of quan-
tities (Marrero et al., 2014b). In the latter, the various tasks
taking place on the construction site are broken down into three
key elements: manpower, materials and machinery. Emission or
embodied energy factors are then applied to those elements, which
are subsequently converted into environmental impacts. The pre-
vious facilitates the incorporation of simple ecological indicators,
such as EF, into the construction sector by means of the always
presented cost control (Gonzlez-Vallejo et al., 2015a; Martnez-
Rocamora et al., 2016b; Sols-Guzmn et al., 2013).
The environmental assessment is made using the Ecological
Footprint (EF) indicator. A previously established model by the
authors among others for the evaluation of construction projects
is adapted to the C&DW footprint (Gonzlez-Vallejo et al., 2015a;
Sols-Guzmn and Marrero, 2015; Sols-Guzmn et al., 2013). The
EF indicator was introduced by Wackernagel and Rees (1996), who
measured the EF of humanity and compared it with the carrying
capacity of the planet. The EF is dened as the amount of land that
would be required to provide the resources (grain, feed, rewood,
sh, and urban land) and absorb the emissions (CO2 ) of humanity.
On this basis, the proposed model assesses the waste management
in urbanization projects by means of an overall vision: environ-
mental and economic evaluation.
On one hand, there are several strong aspects concerning the
EF methodology, such as its simplicity, ease in calculation, and
the fact that it can be understood and adopted by the gen-
eral public (Weidema et al., 2008); an indicator that is easy to
communicate and reliable can inuence consumers decisions, leg-
islation, and regulation (European Comission (EC), 2003; Galli et al.,
2012), allowing the benchmarking of human demand for renewable
resources and of carbon uptake capacity with the natural supply,
and the determination of clear targets (Galli et al., 2012). The main
differentiating aspects are the aggregation of factors of different
sources and the importance of productivity changes.
EF provides an aggregated assessment of multiple anthro-
pogenic pressures; methodologies that include several indicators
can be preferable because they prevent the overlapping of impact
categories (Finnveden et al., 2009). It is also true that the EF can
be studied per category (different land classications), which aids
162 M. Marrero et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 160174
in the identication of the most inuential aspects (Herva et al.,
2008).
The EF analysis reects both the increases in the productivity
of renewable resources (for example, if the productivity of agri-
cultural land is increased, then the footprint of a ton of wheat
decreases), and the benets of technological innovations (for exam-
ple, if the paper industry doubles the general efciency in the
production of paper, the footprint per ton of paper is halved). The
EF interprets these changes and determines the degree of innova-
tion success in helping the demands of humanity stay within the
limits of the Planets ecosystem capacity.
On the other hand, the EF presents weaknesses such as the
aggregation of factors from various sources into a single indica-
tor normally gives only a general perspective of all impacts within
an activity or productive sector (Bare et al., 2000) and the aggrega-
tion is a subjective process based on strong hypotheses in order to
express all results in a single unit (Giljum et al., 2011). The EF fails to
differentiate between sustainable and non-sustainable land usage.
This limitation can be considered of major importance. For exam-
ple, in agriculture, intensive land exploitation can attain a higher
productivity and a lower EF, but it can also deteriorate the pro-
ductivity for future generations by means of soil impoverishment,
pesticides, fertilizers and water consumption (van den Bergh and
Verbruggen, 1999). Among other weaknesses are: that cannot cover
all aspects of sustainability, neither can it cover all environmen-
tal concerns, especially those for which no regenerative capacity
exits; it is not geographically explicit and contains a number of
controversial underlying assumptions, although these have been
documented (Galli et al., 2012).
2. Methodology
In order to analyse the on-site recycling of the waste generated
during the transformation of rural land into an urban state, it is
necessary to identify actions that take place in different urban-
ization projects, such as the installation of various utilities and
earthmoving. The rst step is to dene these activities and their
corresponding work quantities in order to calculate their potential
waste generation.
After the waste quantication is performed, the economic and
environmental impact is then assessed. The study considers two
scenarios: all waste is sent to treatment plants; or on-site recy-
cling takes place (which implies that less raw material is purchased
and part of the C&DW management expenses is avoided). The
breakeven point is then determined. In order to complete the com-
parison, the environmental impact of each of the two scenarios is
determined by means of the EF indicator. Previous work by the
authors has determined the economic and environmental impact
reduction achieved by on-site recycling during road constructions
(Sols-Guzmn et al., 2014).
2.1. Waste-generating activities
The urbanization work can be divided in two stages: prelimi-
nary work and earthmoving, and installation of utilities. In Stage
1: preliminary work and earthmoving, which together prepare the
land for the infrastructure work, are included. This work also covers
the cleaning and clearing of the land, and the felling of trees. The
generation of waste expected from the vegetation removed from
the area, is generally in the form of plant debris. Other waste gen-
erated at this stage is that from earthmoving, which mostly consists
of soil. For its quantication, earthmoving is differentiated into two
types: excavation and rell. In the rst type, (clearings, trenches,
piles, wells, etc.), the entire volume is transformed into waste. In
work requiring land contribution (landll), only a small proportion
of the soil, sand, gravel, and/or organic compost for gardening is
transformed into waste during its manipulation.
In Stage 2: the soil grading and paving and the installation work
take place. The installations are grouped into: water supply, power
supply, street lighting, telecommunication, sewer system, gas, gar-
dening, and trafc signalling. Once the activities are identied,
another important aspect in the quantication is then addressed:
data measurement and its accuracy. The method, structure, data,
and accuracy may vary depending on specic characteristics of
a project. In order to overcome these potential discrepancies,
Jung and Woo (2004) proposed a standard progress-measurement
package which addresses issues for the standardization of the
work breakdown structure (WBS) and established that the level
of progress measurement constitutes a critical issue in terms of the
workload required to maintain control of the system and of the
accuracy.
All WBSs have the same goals and similar methodologies. The
basic concept in all of these systems is to divide a complex problem
into simpler parts that can then be aggregated to dene a com-
plete construction development. In particular, the present model
uses the Andalusia Construction Information Classication System
(ACICS) (ACCD, 2014). Its most extended usage is for estimating
cost in dwelling construction and is mandatory in public devel-
opments in Andalusia, Spain. ACICS divides work units into a
hierarchic organization. The highest level is the construction site.
The following divisions are called chapters, and each represents a
construction process: Demolition, Earthworks, Foundation, Water
disposal, Structure, Partition, Roof, Installation, Insulation, Finish,
Carpentry, Glass and Polyester, Coating, Decoration, Urbanization,
Safety, and Waste Management. The subsequent divisions are the
sub-chapters.
In Andalusias WBS (ACCD, 2014), the chapter titled Waste
Management is formed of sub-chapters: Metals, Asphalt, Concrete-
Bricks-Tiles, Insulation Material, Wood-Paper, Soil, and Others. The
classication combines the National Decree 105/2008 (Spain MP,
2008) and the European Waste List (EWL) (EC, 2000).
During the transformation of a rural farm into an urbanized
state, two chapters of the ACICS are needed for the work deni-
tion: Earthworks and Urbanization. The work units which belong
to these two chapters are to be analysed in order to quantify the
waste.
2.2. Waste quantication
Once the activities which generate waste are identied using a
standard procedure, the next step is to identify the waste quantities
expected. The construction waste is normally classied into two
main groups: hazardous and non-hazardous (Marrero et al., 2011).
In urbanization processes, hazardous or potentially hazardous
waste is in the form of plastic and/or metallic containers, cans and
drums, from roadway-marking paints. These containers are man-
aged separately. This group also includes tar waste from the paving
of roads.
The non-hazardous waste expected in the urbanization project
can be grouped into: wood, plastic, soil, metal, and con-
crete/ceramic classications. The wood residues are due to land
clearing, tree felling, and packaging.
Once all items that generate waste are identied in a standard-
ized classication, the waste can be calculated as a function of
the original item, using three transformation coefcients (Sols-
Guzmn et al., 2009),
QRi = Qi CRi CCi CTi (1)
where: QRi is the waste quantity i obtained from the original
material quantity, Qi ; CRi is a coefcient that represents the per-
centage of the original constructive element that becomes waste;
 M. Marrero et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 160174 163

Table 1
Examples of quantication coefcients.

CONSTRUCTIVE ELEMENT WASTE ORIGIN WASTE TYPE CR CC CT

PREVIOUS WORKS
m3 Clearing excavation t wood 1.00 1.00 1.00
m2 Trees (olive) tree felling t wood 1.00 0.896 1.00
m2 Trees (orange) tree felling t wood 1.00 0.137 1.00
m2 Trees (pine) tree felling t wood 1.00 0.065 1.00
m2 Trees (holm oak) tree felling t wood 1.00 0.259 1.00

EARTH WORKS
m3 Soil removal excavation m3 soil 1.00 1.00 1.25
m3 Soil rell losses m3 soil 0.01 1.00 0.95
m3 Articial gravel base losses m3 soil 0.01 1.00 0.95

SEWER SYSTEM
u Connector PVC D = 200 mm losses t PVC 0.05 0.03895 1.00
m Underground collector PVC 315 mm losses t PVC 0.05 0.0113 1.00
u Sewage pit lid D = 120 cm h < 2.50m losses m3 mortar 0.05 0.681 1.10
u Sewage pit lid D = 120 cm h < 2.50m losses m3 ceramic 0.06 1.918 1.30
u Sewage pit lid D = 120 cm h < 2.50m wooden pallet t wood 0.05 0.0556 1.00

CCi is a coefcient to change the constructive element units into
waste element units; and CTi is a coefcient that takes into account
the material volume change.
The units and measurement criteria employed originate from
the geometrical characteristics of the components that make up
the item (ACCD, 2014). The unit system is that traditionally used,
and all data is represented in values that measure the quantity of
each item, Qi, in m, m2 , m3 , kg, or unity (U). Once the quantities Qi
have been determined, the next step is to calculate the expected
waste.
2.3. Coefcient determination
The procedure requires the development of a coefcient list to
be as comprehensive as possible, in order to have a quantication
method that takes into account the greatest possible number of
development projects. Many coefcients, CCi, CTi, and CRi, are esti-
mated from the Andalusian Construction Costs Database (ACCD,
2014). In this section the coefcient determinations of a number of
these estimations are described.
For example, the stage of preliminary work is comprised of
earthmoving, clearing, cleaning, and felling trees. Applying the
present methodology to the earthmoving work, all the land exca-
vation, clearing, etc. becomes waste and hence the CR coefcient is
equal to 1.00. The CC coefcient is also equal to 1.00 because the
item measurement unit is the same in the construction project as
in the waste management plan: cubic metre of soil. Finally the CT
is the estimated volume change of the soil after excavation, which
takes place during clearing, the opening of boxes, pits, trenches,
etc. The coefcient is 1.25: an average expansion value for differ-
ent soil types. However, if the soil is brought from a quarry and is
used as rell, then the nal quantity is compacted soil and a com-
paction ratio of 95% is used, and the CT is 0.95 (ACCD, 2014). In work
requiring land contribution (landll, rell, etc.), the hypothesis is
that 1% (ACCD, 2014) of the soil is wasted during its manipulation:
the CR is therefore 0.01 (Table 1).
The work also includes cleaning and clearing the land. The waste
expected from the vegetation removed in the area generally con-
sists of plant debris. The plants are calculated at an average height
and density per square metre and go into a separate container to be
picked up by the biomass treatment plant. Part of this waste is not
clean since it contains vegetation mixed with soil; its destination
is the C&DW treatment plant.
Another type of waste comes from trees and normally under-
goes different treatment owing to its potential recycling capacity.
The biomass is handled and treated by a specialized plant, which
pays for its transport and buys the material, and therefore repre-
sents an income to the contractor. For the quantication of wood
waste from felling trees, 100% becomes waste; the CR coefcient
is equal to 1.00. Four possible harvests are evaluated, which are
typical for Andalusia, Spain: olive, orange, stone pine and holm oak
trees (Barranco et al., 2008).
In order to calculate the CC coefcient, the amount of
wood expected from the trees in the urbanization lot is
determined. Three densities of plantation are dened: low, dis-
persed, each tree occupies four times the space of the cup;
medium, three times; and high, twice, which corresponds to
the densest plantation. The cup sizes have been obtained from
Figueroa Clemente and Redondo Gmez (2007) and are summa-
rized in Table 2. CC coefcient are obtained from Table 2, and appear
in the corresponding column CC (Table 1).
As regards the sewerage work, this generates waste from pipes,
manholes, pits, etc. One of the materials to be quantied is that of
the PVC pipes, measured in tons. The CC coefcient is calculated
depending on the type of tube placed, which makes it necessary to
consult supplier catalogues for specic pipe diameter and thickness
(Table 1).
Certain items in the sewerage work need brick for their exe-
cution. The CC depends on the brick dimensions, which vary
depending on type: drilled, solid, hollow, etc. An average value of
24 11.5 7 cm of perforated and solid bricks is taken. The bricks
are delivered on wooden pallets with plastic wrap. A European pal-
let of 1200 800 mm and of weight 25 kg is considered, which can
withstand a maximum weight of 1000 kg. From the brick manu-
facturer, a perforated brick unit weighs 1.60 kg, and therefore the
pallet can carry 625 units. The calculation of their CC depends on
the number of units employed. Pallets are normally returned to the
supplier, however a certain number cannot be reused, and hence
losses are 5% and the CT ratio is 1.00 (Table 1). A similar calculation
is performed for other materials delivered on pallets. In order to cal-
culate plastic packaging waste, the quantity is determined by the
number of turns required to properly wrap a pallet, and the plastic
density is of 1.40 t/m3 according to the Spanish Building Technical
Code (Spain MH, 2006).
Similar analysis are made with the waste generated by the fol-
lowing works: trafc signals, electricity, paving, water supply and
telecommunications (see Appendix A Supplementary material).
2.4. Cost evaluation
An accurate cost evaluation of the construction waste manage-
ment requires the construction work classication by means of a
164 M. Marrero et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 160174

Table 2
Calculation of the amount of wood expected in the urbanization.

Type Density Crown diameter (m) Mean tree height (m) Density of plantation(unit/m2 ) Weight of treest/unit Woodt/m2

Olive Medium 4.50 3.00 0.0165 54.287 0.896

Orange Low 3.18 4.00 0.0247 5.542 0.137
Pine High 7.50 20.00 0.0089 7.304 0.065
Holm Oak Low 5.10 5.00 0.0096 27.000 0.259

Table 3
Quantities of the felling trees and soil.

QUANTITIES

IDENTIFICATION DIMENSIONS RESULTS

EWL CODE ACICS CODE Concept Qi CR CC CT Auxiliary Total

17 C&D WASTE
1702 17M Wood, paper, cardboard, plastic, synthetic material and glass
17 02 01 17MMM00200 Wood (t)
Olives =01TVA00001 28,159.63 1.00 0.896 1.00 25,231.03
Oranges =01TVA00002 100,756.51 1.00 0.137 1.00 13,803.64
Pines =01TVA00003 115,537.08 1.00 0.065 1.00 7,509.91
46,544.58

1705 17T Soil and gravel

170504 17TTT00110 Soil and gravel uncontaminated by
hazardous substances (m3)
Clearing =01TLL00100 34,609.93 1.00 1.00 1.25 43,262.41
Connector PVC =15AAA00010 361.00 1.00 1.92 1.25 866.40
Underg. collector =15ACP00004 3,531.14 0.01 0.40 0.95 13.42
Sewage pit prefab. =15APP00001 109.00 1.00 2.262 1.25 308.20
Sewage pit lid =15APP00030 1.00 1.00 2.83 1.25 3.54
Storm drain prefab. =15ASS00010 176,00 1.00 0.135 1.25 29.70
Piping PEHD 225 =15EEE00001 1,541.00 0.01 0.054 0.95 0.79
Concrete pad lamp =15EPP11110 168.00 1.00 0.512 1.25 107.52
Public reg. pit light =15EPP00710 210.00 1.00 0.1875 1.25 49.22
Piping PEHD 110 =15EPP00007 5,489.00 0.01 0.0075 0.95 0.39
Reg. casket A-1 =15EWW00001 251.00 1.00 1.458 1.25 457.45
Soil removal =15MAA00001 6,332.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 7,915.00
Articial gravel base =15MCC00001 5,642.31 0.01 1.00 0.95 53.60
Soil rell =15MEE00001 20,760.21 0.01 1.00 0.95 197.22
Soil rell =15MRW00001 15,662.00 0.01 1.00 0.95 148.41
Soil rell =15MRW00002 838.20 0.01 1.00 0.95 7.96
Soil rell =15MRW00003 17,147.44 0.01 1.00 0.95 162.90
Soil removal =15MZZ00001 31,520.19 1.00 1.00 1.25 39,400.24
Concrete oor tile =15PPP00050 13,383.45 0.01 0.03 0.95 3.81
Cast-iron pipe =15SCD00020 1,841.66 0.01 0.041 0,95 0.72
Piping PEHD 160 =15SCE00023 3,574.25 0.01 0.065 0,95 2.21
Drain =15SDE00001 3.00 1.00 2.2619 1,25 8.48
Fire hydrants =15SHD00025 12.00 1.00 2.2619 1,25 33.93
Water suction pipe =15SYD00050 4.00 1.00 2.2619 1,25 11.31
Pipe PVC 110 =15TCC00016 4,118.43 1.00 0.3960 1,25 2,038.62
95,083.45

WBS as described in Section 2.1 for the project activities. In order
to clearly dene the C&DW budget, another special cost is incurred
due to the fact that waste can be reused on the same construction
site, or the waste can be sold for recycling or reuse, thereby gener-
ating an income. Therefore the rst hypothesis for the C&DW cost
is that the material recuperated on the construction site belongs to
the constructor and its recuperation offsets other costs.
In Table 3, as an example, the original work units which are part
of the urbanization project P5 of the study case section generate
wood, and soil and gravel waste among others. In the case of urban-
ization work with ACCD codes 01TVA00001 or Felling olive tree and
15ACP00004 or Sewerage underground collector are transformed
into waste quantities 17MMM00200, wood waste and 17TTT00110,
soil and gravel waste, respectively. The corresponding coefcients
calculated in the previous section are applied, CR, CC and CT. Finally,
in Table 4 the waste management budget is obtained from applying
the ACCD cost to each corresponding code.
Recent research shows that the percentage of projects that
include on-site crushing machines has reduced (Gangolells et al.,
2014). It is therefore necessary to encourage the preliminary assess-
ment of using these machines, since there are crushing machines
that can reduce the economic and environmental costs. In order to
justify the economic protability of recycling on-site, a breakeven
point can be determined; in Spain, the minimum volume is set
at 337.87 m3 of crushed C&DW in order to substitute concrete
aggregates (Sols-Guzmn et al., 2014). Good project planning and
training on waste management for the construction workers is also
necessary (Villoria Sez et al., 2014). This will prevent difculties
in the organization and management of the work, and will improve
the nal results.
2.5. Environmental assessment
The same WBS used for the cost assessment in the previous sec-
tion is used for the ecological evaluation. The four main resource
categories of a construction project are: manpower, construction
materials, machinery, and on-site consumption (Gonzlez-Vallejo
et al., 2015a). Manpower impact arises from food consumption
and municipal solid waste (MSW) generation on-site during the
builders working hours. The construction materials consume
 M. Marrero et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 160174 165

Table 4
Budget of the waste management.

Identication Dimensions Budget

ACICS Code U Concept Quantity Cost (D ) Partial (D ) Total (D )

17 WASTE MANAGEMENT
17A Metals and alloys
17AAA00100 t Aluminium waste disposal. max. distance 15 km 0.22 72.27 15.67
17ABC00100 t Copper waste disposal. max. distance 15 km 0.10 72.27 7.58
TOTAL 17A 23.25

17F Asphalt, tar and other tar products

17FSS00100 t Asphalt waste disposal. container 3m3 . Recycling 134.26 15.21 2,042.09
plant. max. distance 15 km
TOTAL 17F 2,042.09

17H Concrete, bricks, tiles, ceramic tiles, ceramic

material, gypsum materials
17HCL00100 m3 Brick waste disposal. container 3m3 . Recycling 18.02 13.49 243.09
plant. max. distance 15 km
17HHH00100 m3 Concrete waste disposal. Recycling plant. max. 374.81 21.67 8,122.05
distance 15 km
TOTAL 17H 8,365.14

17M Wood, paper, cardboard, plastic, synthetic and

glass
17MMM00120 t Wood, paper and cardboard waste disposal. 2.53 15.66 39.61
Recycling plant. max. distance 15 km
17MMM00200 t Wood clearing, waste disposal. Recycling plant. 46,544.58 22.00 1,023,980.76
max. distance 15 km
17MMP00100 t Plastic waste disposal. max. distance 15 km 18.28 69.18 1,264.91
TOTAL 17M 1,022,676.24

17T Soil
17TTT00110 m3 Inert soil. authorized landll. max. distance 15 km 95,083.45 10.13 963,195.35
TOTAL 17T 963,195.35

17W Others
17WWW00100 t Hazardous waste authorized handler. max. 0.004 41.54 0.15
distance 15 km
TOTAL 17W 0.15
GRAND TOTAL 49,096.76

Table 5 work is treated as an environmental cost. The traditional construc-

Equivalence factors (WWF International, 2010).
Productive land Category Equivalence Factor (gha/ha)
Cropland 2.51
Pastures 0.46
Forest 1.26
Productive sea 0.37
Built land 2.51
energy in their manufacturing and also generate C&DW, which
implies collection and transport of waste. The machinery consumes
energy in the form of fuel or electricity.
On-site consumption refers to all elements that cannot be
attributed to a particular work unit because they serve several ele-
ments within the project. In this category, the on-site electricity
and water consumption is considered. Finally, the project lot itself
has a footprint, since it consumes directly occupied territory. All
these impact sources are nally transformed into partial and global
footprints.
Fig. 1 summarizes the EF model, where items classied at vari-
ous levels (sources of impact and footprints) are represented with
different colours that are described in the legend. The rst level
features the sources of impact: workforce, machinery, construction
materials, electricity, water, and the area directly occupied.
For these calculations, up-to-date equivalence factors must be
considered for the project in order to transform the results into
global hectares over hectares (gha/ha). These equivalence factors
are shown in Table 5.
The following sections discuss the various concepts that make
up the EF, in which the consumption of natural resources in the
tion budget classication is rst dened: machinery, manpower,
and materials unit costs.
2.5.1. Manpower: food consumption
Although the mobility of workers has also been taken into
account in previous calculation models (Gonzlez-Vallejo et al.,
2015a; Sols-Guzmn et al., 2013), the standard UNE-EN 15978
(2012) establishes that, for the construction phase, the transport
of workers back and forth to the worksite must not be included,
and therefore neither must this mobility be included in the case of
workers of any company.
In order to determine the EF of food, its consumption by workers
that occurs during working hours (breakfast and lunch) is con-
sidered to cause an impact that is attributable to the building, as
was applied by Domenech Quesada (2007). Moreover, it could be
assumed that food provides the energy needed to do the work
involved, thereby effectively becoming the fuel of workers.
According to Grunewald et al. (2015), the EF of food in Spain is
approximately 1.15 gha/person. Its broken-down composition into
the six EF categories is presented in Table 6 following the propor-
tions for a Spanish resident. The equivalence factors are implicit in
the EF values for each category, and are expressed in gha/person.
The EF of food consumed by workers is determined through Eq.
(2). and it is taken into account that, according to a recent study
on the daily distribution of nutrients in the standard Spanish diet
(Moreno Rojas et al., 2015), breakfast and lunch represent 15% and
46% respectively of the daily diet of an adult (>25 years old). The
total number of hours worked is obtained from the bill of quantities,
166 M. Marrero et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 160174

Fig. 1. Methodology for the calculation of Ecological Footprint.

Table 6 EFi : Footprint of food consumption in EF category i (gha/person)

Ecological Footprint of food in Spain.
(Table 6)
Category i Percentage (%) EFi (gha/person) 365: Days in a year
Cropland 49.65 0.571
Grazing land 11.00 0.127
Forest land 1.00 0.012
2.5.2. Manpower: municipal solid waste (MSW)
Fishing grounds 29.00 0.334
Built land 0.35 0.004 The average generation rate of MSW per worker is employed to
Carbon 9.00 0.104 calculate the EF:
TOTAL 100.00 1.150
F ef
EFMSW = HW MSWg EMSW (3)
and eight hours is assumed to be the standard duration of a working 100 A
day.
where
Hw BL EFi EFMSW : MSW Ecological Footprint (gha/yr)
EFfi = (2)
Hd 100 365 Hw : Total hours worked (h/yr) by all the workers in the worksite
where MSWg: MSW generated per hour (0.000077 t/h) (EUROSTAT,
EF : Partial Ecological Footprint of food consumption in EF cat- 2015)
egory i (gha/yr) EMSW : Emission factor of MSW (0.244 t CO2 /t) (Almasi and
Hw : Total number of hours worked (h/yr) by all the workers in Milios, 2013)
the worksite F: Is the part of the CO2 that is absorbed by forests (72%). The
Hd : Number of hours worked per day (8 h/day/person) other 28% corresponds absorbance by oceans
BL: Breakfast and lunch percentage of the total daily food intake A: Absorption factor of forests (3.59 t CO2 /ha) (GFN, 2014)
of a Spanish adult (61%) ef: Equivalence factor of forests (gha/ha) (Table 5)
 M. Marrero et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 160174 167

2.5.3. Construction materials Table 7

Calculation of the EF of material transport, such as tonnes of steel consumed.
The second resource classication from the budget is the
construction material, which, through manufacturing processes, Transport Characteristics
transportation and installation (see Fig. 1), consumes energy from Weight (t) 51.11
different sources (necessary for the material extraction, manufac- Truck capacity (t) 24
ture and commissioning) and consumes fuel (during transportation Average distance (km) 530
of the material from the factory to the construction site). Materials Diesel consumption (l/100 km) 26
Diesel emission factor 0.0026
are included in the impact study, since we analyse the overall eco-
Number of trucks 3
logical footprint of the urbanization project, and this includes the Absorption factor of forests (tCO2 /ha) 3.59
C&DW the materials generate. In this way, when C&DW is recycled Forests equivalence factor (gha/ha) 1.26
on-site, then the raw and/or new material consumption is reduced Energy EF of transporting materials (hag) 0.000245245
and therefore the corresponding footprint is also reduced.
This methodology for the calculation of the footprint produced
by the materials takes into account the emissions produced (kg where
CO2 ) during the life cycle from cradle to the site, for example, the EFm : Materials EF (gha/yr); Cmi : Material consumption i (kg/yr);
emissions to bring gravel from the quarry to the construction site. Emi : Emission (kg CO2 /kg); F: 72% CO2 is absorbed by the forests;
The transport impact is dened for average distances travelled for A: Absorption factor of forests (kg CO2 /ha); ef : Equivalence factor
each family of materials; Table 7 presents an example. Emissions of forests (gha/ha).
must be transformed into hectares by considering the correspond-
ing equivalence factor. 2.5.4. Construction and demolition waste (C&DW)
In order to obtain the kg of CO2 embodied in the material, the The calculation of the EF of C&DW is based on the project
unitary weight of each construction unit needs to be determined, budget; since 2008, this budget has constituted a separate item
since databases of life-cycle assessment (LCA) are dened in terms in all projects in Spain, as required by Royal Decree 105/2008
of kg of material: (Marrero and Ramirez-De-Arellano, 2010). The present model, as
stated before, is based on the evaluation of materials, machinery,
 F ef and manpower (Fig. 2). In the case of waste, the footprint of the
EFm = Cmi Emi (4) materials, or rather their remains, cuts, broken parts, etc., has been
100 A
i included in the footprint of whole new material bought. However,

Fig. 2. Flowchart for the determination of the EF of C&DW.

168 M. Marrero et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 160174
the machines and manpower used in the internal transport and in
the landll or treatment plant also need to be quantied, as well as
the machine operator impact. On-site recycling strategies include
crushing machines and workforce. The manpower is calculated as
in the previous section while the machinery impact is calculated as
laid out in the methodology in the following section.
2.5.5. Machinery
The footprint caused by the use of machinery, particularly for
its power consumption (of both fuel and electricity), and especially
the energy consumption linked to engine power (Marrero et al.,
2014a) is calculated. The technical data of different models and
types of machines on the market are collected (SEOPAN, 2008), and
a differentiation is made between whether the machine uses petrol
or diesel:
Diesel: 0.15 to 0.20 L consumed in 1 h per kW installed.
Petrol: 0.30 to 0.40 L consumed in 1 h per kW installed.
By choosing the most unfavourable consumptions, the litres of
fuel consumed are:
V = P Wh R (5)
where
V: Volume fuel consumption (l/yr); P: Engine power (kW); Wh :
Working hours (h/yr); R: Engine performance of either diesel or
gasoline (l/kWh).
The fuel EF is:
ef
EFfl = V E (6)
A from the moment it is urbanized. In this analysis, as shown in
where
EF : footprint of fuel consumption (fossil) by machinery
(gha/yr); V: fuel consumption (l/yr); E: emissions (kg CO2 /l) (28%
are reduced by the absorption by the oceans); A: absorption factor
of forests (kg CO2 /ha); ef : equivalence factor of forests (gha/ha).
For the consumption of electrical machinery:
C = P Wh CF (7)
where
C: Consumption (GJ/yr); P: Machine or tool power (kW); Wh :
working hours (h/yr); CF: Conversion factor (GJ/kWh).
The electrical system performance and emissions are obtained
from the Ministry of Industry (SPAIN MI, 2013):
ef
EF el = C E (8)
A
where
C: Power consumption (GJ/yr); E: emissions (kg CO2 /GJ) (28%
are reduced by the absorption by the oceans); A: absorption factor
of forests (kg CO2 /ha); ef : equivalence factor of forests (gha/ha).
2.5.6. On-site consumption: electricity and water consumption
On-site consumption represents elements that cannot be
attributed to a single activity within the construction work: elec-
tricity and water consumption.
For the power consumption of the urbanization, the Spanish
technical report ITC-BT-10 (Royal Decree 842/2002) was taken into
account, which establishes a consumption of 0.10 kW/m2 in com-
mercial and ofce buildings. The total hours of ofces in use (taking
8 h a day for 5 days a week and 52 weeks a year) and the size of the
ofce oor determine the kWh of electricity needed.
The EF of water consumption is assigned in previous mod-
els (Gonzlez-Vallejo et al., 2015a; Sols-Guzmn et al., 2013) to
the forest land category, whereby it is considered that the for-
ests capacity to produce water is approximately 1500 m3 /gha/year
(Domenech Quesada, 2007). However, this assumption is not rec-
ognized in the methodology of the ofcial indicator (Borucke et al.,
2013), in which the forest land category is specically dedicated to
the impacts generated by wood fuel and products.
Therefore, in this model, water consumption is computed as the
energy needed to bring it to the point of consumption, including
treatments both previous and subsequent to its use, as specied in
the standard UNE-EN 15978 (2012). The calculation method for the
EF of water consumption can be observed in Eq. (9), whereby it is
assumed that the only energy needed in the whole process is that
of electricity.
F ef
EFw = Cw EIw Eel (9)
100 A
where
EFw : Partial Ecological Footprint of water consumption (gha/yr)
Cw : Water consumption (m3 /yr)
EIw : Energy intensity of drinking water (0.44 kWh/m3 )
(EMASESA, 2005)
Eel : Emission factor of electricity (0.000248 t CO2 /kWh) (REE,
2014)
F: Reduction in emissions due to the CO2 absorption in oceans
(28%)
A: Absorption factor of forests (3.59 t CO2 /ha) (GFN, 2014)
ef : Equivalence factor of carbon absorption land (1.26 gha/ha)
(GFN, 2014)
2.5.7. Land consumed
Ecological Footprint methodology takes into account the land
occupied directly, as this land will be biologically unproductive
Fig. 1, the surface will respond to the plot size of the development,
multiplied by the years (fraction of time) that the work lasts:
EFs = S eb (10)
where
S: Direct surface occupation (ha/year); eb : equivalence factor of
built area (gha/ha).
There are two possible types of territory dened: that of forests
or crops. In our case, the land is considered crop territory.
3. Case studies
Five urbanization projects in Andalusia, Spain: two industrial
projects in Seville and three residential projects (one in Huelva and
two in Seville) are analysed using the following steps:
1. Quantity surveying is carried out on the urbanization projects.
2. Waste is classied into hazardous and non-hazardous, whereby
hazardous waste consists of paint and concrete additives, cans
and containers, and road asphalt. The non-hazardous waste
is mainly wood (from trees and pallets), metals (copper, alu-
minium, and steel), plastic, concrete, ceramics, and soil.
3. The coefcients dened in Section 2.3. (CR, CC, CT) are applied.
4. The cost assessment is performed. Positive costs include trans-
port of the waste to the recycling plant and its treatment.
Negative costs refer to the waste sold to secondary markets, such
as biomass energy production and metal recycling plants.
5. Finally, the EF is assessed in the projects.
In Table 8, the ve projects are described, including the type of
trees in each lot.
In Fig. 3, the calculated waste volume is summarized for all
projects. The most important quantities in all these projects are
those of soil and wood. To a lesser extent, the quantities of con-
crete and asphalt are also signicant. The metals and plastics are
 M. Marrero et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 160174 169

Table 8
Project description.

Project Number Usage Location Lot size (ha) Project Budget (D ) Cost (D /ha) Type of trees (%) Tree weight (t/ha)

P1 Industrial cija (Seville) 62.026 17,823,409 287,354 Olive (10%) Orange (70%) Pine (20%) 1,100.35
P2 Industrial cija (Seville) 5.368 826,791 154,011 Olive (35%) Orange (35%) Pine (30%) 2,220.39
P3 Residential Palma del Condado (Huelva) 0.712 187,613 263,501 Holm oak (100%) 6,522.47
P4 Residential cija (Seville) 5.688 1,235,143 217,149 Olive (25%) Orange (50%) Pine (25%) 2,137.01
P5 Residential La Algaba (Seville) 11.537 4,962,546 430,142 Olive (20%) Orange (70%) Pine (10%) 4,892.90

Fig. 3. Volume of C&DW generated by lot size.

low in volume. The main hazardous waste is asphalt, which is highly
recyclable (Fig. 3).
4. Results
The volume of soil waste is extremely high: in order to reduce
its impact it is important to reuse the excavated soils, which can
signicantly reduce waste management costs. Table 9 shows a com-
parison of the project quantities in two different scenarios: without
reusing the soil and no on-site recycling; and with reuse of the soil
and on-site recycling. The quantities in the project materials dif-
fer between the two scenarios due to the installation of a crushing
machine on-site, since less raw material is therefore needed and
there is also less waste to manage. This results in a budget and
management cost reduction.
The total quantities of the ve projects analysed are summa-
rized in Table 9 which are obtained from the urbanization budgets,
the total machinery working hours, manpower hours and main
construction materials in tonnes; those quantities are transformed
into its corresponding EF by applying the proposed methodology
in Table 10.
The starting quantities of the project, where no material reuse
and recycling takes place, are taken from the original projects stud-
ied. Most relevant materials, in terms of waste, are summarized in
Table 9. The fth and seventh columns correspond to the proposed
improvements in the present study: the soil is re-used and crushing
machines for concrete, brick and asphalt are installed on-site. The
resulting material obtained is used as ll material, recycled aggre-
gate (brick and concrete) or for reuse in the case of asphalt. Both
the reuse of the soil and the recycling of waste on-site reduce the
management costs, which are proportional to the waste volume.
The previous savings on waste management add an income from
the sale of scrap metal and wood which further reduce the man-
agement budget. All projects have a high tree density: the average
selling price of wood in the region, as veried through consultation
with several companies, is 22 D per tonne.
The average waste generated is mainly soil from earthworks and
wood from fallen trees: together these represent 99% of the total
waste (see Fig. 3).
Finally, the EF is calculated in the ve projects, per hectare
urbanized. The waste management EF is due mainly to the man-
power and machinery, see Table 10. The EF is generated by the
transportation of waste from the construction site to the treat-
ment plants and the collection of waste on-site. The machines and
trucks consume fuel, while the manpower during working hours
consumes food, and generates MSW. The fuel, the food processing,
and the MSW together generate a fossil footprint; the food con-
sumed also generates crop, forest, sheries and pasture footprints
(Gonzlez-Vallejo et al., 2015b).
From the project analysis, it can be observed that P5 generates
the highest EF, which is due to the volume of materials and waste
transported, mainly in the form of soil. It is interesting to notice that
P3 is small in size but has the same EF per square metre than P1,
which is 100 times bigger. This indicates that the project work units
taking place per square metre are more important than the lot size.
For all 5 projects studied, on average, the machinery together with
the construction materials have the highest impact (97%) which is
mainly represented in the Carbon Footprint (Fig. 4). The preparation
work and earthmoving machinery carry major impact. During the
construction stage, the materials incur the highest impact (Sols-
Guzmn et al., 2013). During the following stage of the building
life-cycle, usage, and maintenance, the manpower carries a more
signicant source of impact, at about 8%, which gives rise to foot-
prints in term of crops, sheries and pasture (Martnez-Rocamora
et al., 2015).
170 M. Marrero et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 160174

Table 9
Material, manpower and machinery quantities of the projects before and after recycling.

Project Material No reuse nor recycling on-site Reuse and recycling on-site

Construction material quantities Waste quantities Construction Waste quantities

material quantities

(t) (m3 ) (t) (m3 ) (t) (m3 ) (t) (m3 )

P1 Soil 307,102.26 180,648.39 830,288.85 488,405.21 12,883.91 7,578.77 190,846.42 112,262.60

Wood 0.00 0.00 82,915.01 82,915.01 0.00 0.00 82,915.01 82,915.01
Concrete 63,758.95 26,566.23 9,875.23 4,114.68 63,758.95 26,566.23 0.00 0.00
Asphalt 5,271.64 4,792.40 631.27 573.88 4,640.37 4,218.52 0.00 0.00
Brick 1,693.99 1,254.81 131.95 97.74 1,693.99 1,254.81 0.00 0.00
Others 56,730.04 40,521.46 65.06 65.06 351,579.66 40,521.46 65.06 65.06
Total 434,556.89 253,783.30 923,907.37 576,171.58 434,556.89 80,139.79 273,826.49 195,242.67
Machinery/Trucks (h) 83,691.43 197,680.44 83,691.43 124,775.15
Workforce (h) 192,186.84 98.196 192,269.25 82.41

Material (t) (m3 ) (t) (m3 ) (t) (m3 ) (t) (m3 )

P2 Soil 21,451.42 12,618.48 15,457.23 9,092.49 6,868.97 4,040.57 5,525.17 3,250.10
Wood 0.00 0.00 11,913.92 11,913.92 0.00 0.00 11,913.92 11,913.92
Concrete 2,484.00 1,035.00 597.34 248.89 2,484.00 1,035.00 0.00 0.00
Asphalt 1,528.23 1,389.30 69.47 69.47 1,451.81 1,319.83 0.00 0.00
Brick 168.14 124.55 11.95 8.85 168.14 124.55 0.00 0.00
Others 11,348.30 8,105.93 4.91 4.86 26,007.16 8,105.93 4.91 4.60
Total 36,980.09 23,273.26 28,054.82 21,338.48 36,980.09 14,625.88 17,444.00 15,168.62
Machinery/Trucks (h) 3,428.29 6,826.64 3,428.29 4,890.49
Workforce (h) 13,693.74 9.12 13,693.74 7.39

Material (t) (m3 ) (t) (m3 ) (t) (m3 ) (t) (m3 )

P3 Soil 3,235.29 1,903.11 17,279.46 10,164.39 284.02 167.07 16,339.77 9,611.63
Wood 0.00 0.00 4,644.00 4,644.00 0.00 0.00 4,644.00 4,644.00
Concrete 867.00 361.25 65.02 27.09 867.00 361.25 0.00 0.00
Asphalt 769.11 699.19 38.456 34.96 726.80 664.23 0.00 0.00
Brick 54.12 40.09 3.25 2.41 54.12 40.09 0.00 0.00
Others 6,727.10 4,805.07 1.26 1.19 9,720.68 4,805.07 1.26 1.19
Total 11,652.62 7,808.72 22,031.45 14,874.04 11,652.62 6,037.72 20,985.03 14,256.82
Machinery/Trucks (h) 458.52 4,759.895 458.52 4,571.22
Workforce (h) 16,588.42 2.67 16,588.42 1.71

Material (t) (m3 ) (t) (m3 ) (t) (m3 ) (t) (m3 )

P4 Soil 40,886.84 24,051.08 28,525.59 16,779.76 11,600.49 6,823.82 0.00 0.00
Wood 0.00 0.00 12,155.75 12,155.75 0.00 0.00 12,155.75 12,155.75
Concrete 3,520.75 1,466.98 1,044.11 435.05 3,520.75 1,466.98 0.00 0.00
Asphalt 2,486.79 2,260.72 22.10 135.64 2,337.59 2,125.08 0.00 0.00
Brick 422.63 313.06 16.82 12.46 422.63 313.06 0.00 0.00
Others 8,142.50 5,816.07 10.54 11.04 37,578.05 5,816.07 10.54 11.04
Total 55,459.51 33,907.91 41,774.92 29,529.69 55,459.51 16,545.01 12,166.79 12,166.79
Machinery/Trucks (h) 1,974.75 9,446.21 1,974.75 3,974.13
Workforce (h) 14,161.77 23.29 14,161.77 19.89

Material (t) (m3 ) (t) (m3 ) (t) (m3 ) (t) (m3 )

P5 Soil 80,970.90 47,629.94 161,641.87 95,083.45 9,514.02 5,596.48 90,868.09 53,451.82
Wood 0.00 0.00 46,544.58 46,544.58 0.00 0.00 46,544.58 46,544.58
Concrete 13,100.28 5,458.45 899.54 374.81 13,100.28 5,458.45 0.00 0.00
Asphalt 3,296.16 2,996.51 134,26 149.83 3,131.35 2,846.68 0.00 0.00
Brick 173.81 128.75 24.33 18.02 173.81 128.75 0.00 0.00
Others 51,055.59 36,468.28 21.13 21.13 122,677.28 36,468.28 21.13 20.81
Total 148,596.74 92,681.92 209,265.71 142,191.82 148,596.74 50,498.63 137,433.80 100,017.21
Machinery/Trucks (h) 17,963.01 45,496.47 17,963.01 32,079.08
Workforce (h) 64,979.26 49.45 64,979.26 47.03

The results show, in all projects studied, that C&DW repre-
sents between 40 and 55% of the total project footprint, thereby
underlining that any improvements made in its management lead
to signicant environmental impact reduction in urbanization
projects.
The fossil footprint is the highest in all cases (at about 98%) and
all other types are signicantly low. This is due to the transportation
and collection of waste, which consumes diesel and has a high EF.
In-situ recycling is crucial for the reduction of this EF. This can be
achieved by re-using the soil and crushing waste; this needs to be
included in the rst stage of the project design.
Regarding the economic assessment, CDW management costs
represent about 10% of the projects budget and this percentage can
be halved in all cases when recycling and/or reuse takes place on the
construction site; machinery and manpower costs basically remain
the same (See Table 11), but materials and CDW management costs
are reduced because waste transportation, recycling plant fees and
raw material consumption are reduced.
In the biggest project analysed, P1, the budget is reduced 2.5 M
Euros by implementing reuse/recycling strategies. The cost savings
are as high as the reduction of EF, the EF is reduced by 17%, which is
similar to the 14% total cost reduction. Moreover, the EF is sensitive
to the economic viability of the recycling work.
In P3, the smallest project analysed, it was not protable to use
a crushing machine on-site because the breakeven point would not
have been reached and the EF is therefore reduced by only 7%; this is
 M. Marrero et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 160174 171

Table 10
EF of projects by type of impact source.

PROJECT IMPACT SOURCE EF per impact source (gha/yr/ha) TOTAL EF (gha/yr/ha)

Fossil Pasture Fisheries Crops Land consumed

P1 Without reuse and recycling on-site Machinery 208.57 0.33 0.53 1.21
Manpower 0.14 0.14 0.22 0.53
Materials 103.33
On-site consumption 3.40 0.06 0.10 0.23
Built land 2.51
Total 315.44 0.53 0.85 1.96 2.51 321.29

Reuse and recycling on-site Machinery 153.49 0.15 0.24 0.56

Manpower 0.09 0.14 0.22 0.52
Materials 102.12
On-site consumption 3.72 0.21 0.16 0.67
Built land 2.51
Total 259.42 0.50 0.63 1.74 2.51 264.80

P2 Without reuse and recycling on-site Machinery 92.5 0.09 0.14 0.32
Manpower 0.07 0.12 0.18 0.42
Materials 93.35
On-site consumption 2.09 0.12 0.19 0.44
Built land 2.51
Total 188.02 0.32 0.51 1.18 2.51 192.54

Reuse and recycling on-site Machinery 70.04 0.07 0.11 0.26

Manpower 0.07 0.12 0.18 0.07
Materials 86.93
On-site consumption 2.09 0.12 0.19 0.44
Built land 2.51
Total 159.13 0.30 0.48 0.76 2.51 163.19

P3 Without reuse and recycling on-site Machinery 193.90 0.15 0.23 0.54
Manpower 0.95 1.54 2.45 5.66
Materials 109.32
On-site consumption 0.72 0.11 0.18 0.42
Built land 2.51
Total 304.9 1.80 2.86 6.62 2.51 318.69

Reuse and recycling on-site Machinery 186.44 0.14 0.06 0.52

Manpower 0.95 1.54 0.63 5.66
Materials 97.87
On-site consumption 0.72 0.11 0.18 0.42
Built land 2.51
Total 285.97 1.79 0.87 6.60 2.51 297.75

P4 Without reuse and recycling on-site Machinery 113.48 0.09 0.14 0.33
Manpower 0.07 0.11 0.18 0.42
Materials 150.03
On-site consumption 2.07 0.11 0.18 0.42
Built land 2.51
Total 265.65 0.32 0.51 1.17 2.51 270.15

Reuse and recycling on-site Machinery 53.69 0.05 0.08 0.17

Manpower 0.07 0.11 0.18 0.42
Materials 134.38
On-site consumption 2.07 0.11 0.18 0.42
Built land 2.51
Total 190.21 0.27 0.44 1.01 2.51 194.44

P5 Without reuse and recycling on-site Machinery 276.58 0.25 0.40 0.92
Manpower 0.16 0.25 0.41 0.94
Materials 195.07
On-site consumption 1.86 0.08 0.13 0.30
Built land 2.51
Total 473.67 0.59 0.93 2.16 2.51 479.85

Reuse and recycling on-site Machinery 204.60 0.20 0.31 0.72

Manpower 0.16 0.25 0.41 0.94
Materials 171.01
On-site consumption 1.86 0.08 0.13 0.30
Built land 2.51
Total 377.63 0.53 0.85 1.96 2.51 383.48

mirrored in 8% reduction in total costs. The P4 project provides the 5. Conclusions

greatest percentage of reduction, 39% of EF: this is due to the ability
to reuse all the soil; in addition, the total cost is reduced by 19%.
The percentage reductions of other projects are: for P2, 18% and 9%;
and for P5, 25% and 11%, of the EF and budget costs, respectively
(Table 11).
From a construction project perspective, the present work con-
cludes the traditional model for waste management and economic
control can be completed with an environmental analysis using
the EF indicator. The EF evaluation follows the same methodology
172 M. Marrero et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 160174

Table 11
Cost evaluation of the ve urbanization projects in two different scenarios, with or without reuse and recycling on-site.

PROJECT IMPACT SOURCE Cost Assesment TOTAL (KD /ha)

KD %

P1 Without reuse and recycling on-site Machinery 1517 8.52 4.45

Manpower 3589 20.1 57.87
Materials 9391 52.7 151.41
CDW Management 3326 18.7 53.62
Total 17,823 100 287.35

Reuse and recycling on-site Machinery 1518 8.5 24.48

Manpower 3590 20.1 57.88
Materials 8111 45.5 130.77
CDW Management 2110 11.8 34.01
Total 15,331 86.0 247.16

P2 Without reuse and recycling on-site Machinery 97.17 11.8 18.10

Manpower 255.78 30.9 47.65
Materials 406.88 49.2 75.80
CDW Management 66.97 8.1 12.48
Total 826.79 100 154.02

Reuse and recycling on-site Machinery 97.24 11.8 18.11

Manpower 255.78 30.9 47.65
Materials 376.40 45.5 70.12
CDW Management 21.64 2.6 4.03
Total 751.06 90.8 139.91

P3 Without reuse and recycling on-site Machinery 15.12 8.1 21.23

Manpower 86.44 46.1 121.40
Materials 93.03 49.6 130.66
CDW Management 6.97 3.7 9.79
Total 187.61 100 263.50

Reuse and recycling on-site Machinery 15.13 8.1 21.25

Manpower 86.44 46.1 121.40
Materials 84.25 44.9 118.32
CDW Management 13.35 7.1 18.75
Total 172.47 91.9 24.22

P4 Without reuse and recycling on-site Machinery 58.08 4.7 10.21

Manpower 264.74 21.4 46.54
Materials 746.08 60.4 131.17
CDW Management 166.24 13.5 29.23
Total 1,235.14 100 217.15

Reuse and recycling on-site Machinery 58.24 4.7 10.24

Manpower 264.74 21.4 46.54
Materials 674.04 54.6 118.50
CDW Management 0.530 0.04 0.09
Total 997.55 80.8 175.38

P5 Without reuse and recycling on-site Machinery 324.47 6.5 28.12

Manpower 1,221.29 24.6 105.86
Materials 2,777.25 56.0 240.73
CDW Management 639.55 12.9 55.44
Total 4,962.55 100 430.14

Reuse and recycling on-site Machinery 324.60 6.5 28.14

Manpower 1,221.29 24.6 105.86
Materials 2,520.85 50.8 218.50
CDW Management 353.81 7.1 30.67
Total 4,420.55 89.1 383.16

as dened by the authors for construction projects but with sev-
eral new incorporations, such as the quantication for the felling
of trees and the machinery footprint.
The result shows that the C&DW generated is mainly due to
earthworks and tree felling during urbanization works. The EF is
overwhelming due to fuel consumption by on-site machinery and
construction materials in all cases studied. A new scenario is pro-
posed in which the soil is 100% reused and the inert waste is crushed
and used as concrete aggregate, which reduces the EF by more than
20% in all cases analysed. The cost are reduced from 8 to up to 19%,
the last takes place in the biggest projects where crushing machines
are protable.
In all projects studied, C&DW represents between 40 and 55% of
the total project footprint, thereby underlining that any improve-
ments made in its management lead to signicant environmental
impact reduction in urbanization projects.
- The clearing work, such as felling trees and earthworks, consti-
tutes the greatest producer of waste. These two actions represent
over 98% of the total waste in each of the 5 cases studied. Therefore,
it is necessary to rene the quantication of such amounts, since
variations in their quantities greatly affect the waste management
budget.
- The waste due to the site preparation work has the greatest
impact, and hence it is necessary to nd solutions to reduce its envi-
ronmental impact. The felling or uprooting of trees is one of these
activities, and therefore this project should anticipate that impact.
To this end, the felling of trees and the clearance work should
be considered as producing preventable waste. Ideally, these trees
 M. Marrero et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 160174
Fig. 4. Average percentages of each resource footprint.
can be replanted, and the impact minimized. However, since this
replanting is often complicated, another option arises that takes
advantage of these natural resources, such as wood, agglomerates
and biomass, and also represents an income to the project. This
income can reduce the economic impact of the transport and treat-
ment of soil, which is the most expensive item in all 5 budgets.
- The EF of the C&DW in urbanization projects is largely made
up of the fossil footprint (98%) owing to the trucks and machinery
employed in the collection and transport of waste. A good strategy
to reduce the EF is to reuse the soil in-situ, but this needs to be
dened in the design stage of the construction projects.
- The EF model is useful for the study of the feasibility of imple-
menting in-situ recycling on the construction site. In the biggest
project, the EF and the economic impact are signicantly reduced,
and it is highly protable to reduce and recycle on-site. In the
smaller projects, however, the savings are smaller: at about only
5%, thereby discouraging its implementation.
- The total EF in all projects studied is mainly that of the Carbon
Footprint, (97%) due to the importance of the machinery, construc-
tion materials, and the transportation of material and waste in this
kind of project. The C&DW management represents an average of
approximately 50% of the EF in all projects. The workforce only
represents a mere 1% of the sources of impact.
Acknowledgements
This research did not receive any specic grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-prot sectors.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found,
in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.
10.020.
References
ACCD, 2014. Andalusian Construction Cost Database (ACCD). Consejera de Obras
Pblica y Vivienda de la Junta de Andaluca. Available: http://www.
juntadeandalucia.es/fomentoyvivienda/portal-web/web/areas/vivienda/texto/
28c8aa4d-2483-11e0-a6d1-9169d730d750 (accessed 01.04.15.).
Agamuthu, P., 2008. Challenges in sustainable management of construction and
demolition waste. Waste Manag. Res. 26, 491492.
Almasi, A.M., Milios, L., 2013. Municipal Waste Management in Spain, Available:
http://glossary.eea.europa.eu//terminology/
sitesearch?term=municipal+waste+management+in+Spain (accessed
05.08.15.).
173
BRE, 2008. SMARTWasteTM. Building Research Establishment (BRE) Ltd., Watford,
United Kingdom, Available: www.smartwaste.co.uk (accessed 10.02.16.).
Bare, J.C., Hofstetter, P., Pennington, D.W., Haes, H.a.U., 2000. Life cycle impact
assessment workshop summary. Midpoints versus endpoints: the sacrices
and benets. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 5 (6), 319326.
Barranco, D., Fernndez Escobar, R., Rallo, L., 2008. Olive Cultivation (in Spanish: El
Cultivo Del Olivo, rst ed. Consejera de Agricultura y Pesca. Junta de
Andaluca, Seville, Spain.
Bastianoni, S., Galli, A., Pulselli, R.M., Niccolucci, V., 2007. Environmental and
economic evaluation of natural capital appropriation through building
construction: practical case study in the Italian context. Ambio 36, 559565.
Begum, R.A., Siwar, C., Pereira, J.J., Jaafar, A.H., 2007. Factors and values of
willingness to pay for improved construction waste managementa
perspective of Malaysian contractors. Waste Manage. 27, 19021909.
Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Iha, K., Larson, J., Lazarus, E.,
Morales, J.C., Wackernagel, M., Galli, A., 2013. Accounting for demand and
supply of the biospheres regenerative capacity: the National Footprint
Accounts underlying methodology and framework. Ecol. Indic. 24, 518533.
Cheng, J.C.P., Ma, L.Y.H., 2013. A BIM-based system for demolition and renovation
waste estimation and planning. Waste Manage. 33, 15391551.
del Ro Merino, M., Izquierdo Gracia, P., Weis Azevedo, I.S., 2010. Sustainable
construction: construction and demolition waste reconsidered. Waste Manage.
Res. 28, 118129.
Deal, B., 2001. Ecological urban dynamics: the convergence of spatial modelling
and sustainability. Build. Res. Inf. 29, 381393.
Domenech Quesada, J.L., 2007. Ecological Footprint and Sustainable Development
(in Spanish: Huella Ecolgica Y Desarrollo Sostenible), rst ed. AENOR, Madrid.
EMASESA, 2005. Sustainability and management. How we were, how we are.
19752005 (in Spanish: Sostenibilidad y gestin. As ramos, as somos.
19752005). Available: http://www.emasesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/
03/Informe-de-Sostenibilidad-2005.pdf (accessed 01.01.16.).
EUROSTAT, 2015. Municipal Waste Generated by Country in Selected Years (kg Per
Capita), Available: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.
php/File:Municipal waste generated by country in selected years %28kg per
capita%29 new.png (accessed 01.01.16.).
European Comission (EC), 2000. European Waste List. Adopted by Decision
2000/532/EC, last amended by Council Decision 2001/573/EC.
European Comission (EC), 2003. Integrated Policy Product. Development of the
Environmental Life Cycle Concept. COM, Brussels, Belgium.
Figueroa Clemente, M.E., Redondo Gmez, S., 2007. Natural Sinks of CO2 : A
Sustainable Strategy Between Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol (in
Spanish: Los Sumideros Naturales De CO2 : Una Estrategia Sostenible Entre El
Cambio Climtico Y El Protocolo De Kyoto), rst ed. Universidad de Sevilla,
Seville, Spain.
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., Guine, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S.,
Koehler, A., Pennington, D., Suh, S., 2009. Recent developments in life cycle
assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 91, 121.
Global Footprint Network (GFN), 2014. Learning Package of National Footprint
Accounts 2014 edition. Available: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.
php/GFN/page/licenses1/ (accessed 01.01.16.).
Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B., Giljum, S., 2012.
Integrating Ecological, Carbon and Water footprint into a footprint Family of
indicators: denition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecol.
Indic. 16, 100112.
Gangolells, M., Casals, M., Forcada, N., Macarulla, M., 2014. Analysis of the
implementation of effective waste management practices in construction
projects and sites. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 93, 99111.
174 M. Marrero et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117 (2017) 160174
Giljum, S., Burger, E., Hinterberger, F., Lutter, S., Bruckner, M., 2011. A
comprehensive set of resource use indicators from the micro to the macro
level. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55, 300308.
Gonzlez-Vallejo, P., Marrero, M., Sols-Guzmn, J., 2015a. The ecological footprint
of dwelling construction in Spain. Ecol. Indic. 52, 7584.
Gonzlez-Vallejo, P., Sols-Guzmn, J., Llcer, R., Marrero, M., 2015b. The
construction of residential buildings in Spain in the period 20072010 and its
impact according to the Ecological Footprint indicator (in Spanish: la
construccin de edicios residenciales en Espana en el perodo 20072010 y su
impacto segn el indicador Huella Ecolgica). Inf. la Construccin 67 (539),
e111.
Grunewald, N., Galli, A., Katsunori, I., Halle, M., Gressot, M., 2015. The Ecological
Footprint of Mediterranean Diets, Available: http://www.footprintnetwork.org
(accessed 01.01.16.).
Herva, M., Franco, A., Ferreiro, S., lvarez, A., Roca, E., 2008. An approach for the
application of the Ecological Footprint as environmental indicator in the textile
sector. J. Hazard. Mater. 156, 478487.
Jung, Y., Woo, S., 2004. Flexible work breakdown structure for integrated cost and
schedule control. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 130, 616625.
Kourmpanis, B., Papadopoulos, A., Moustakas, K., Stylianou, M., Haralambous, K.J.,
Loizidou, M., 2008. Preliminary study for the management of construction and
demolition waste. Waste Manage. Res. 26, 267275.
Li, Y., Zhang, X., 2013. Web-based construction waste estimation system for
building construction projects. Autom. Constr. 35, 142156.
Li, Y., Zhang, X., Ding, G., Feng, Z., 2016. Developing a quantitative construction
waste estimation model for building construction projects. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 106, 920.
Marchi, M., Pulselli, R.M., Marchettini, N., Pulselli, F.M., Bastianoni, S., 2015. Carbon
dioxide sequestration model of a vertical greenery system. Ecol. Modell. 306,
4656.
Marrero, M., Ramirez-De-Arellano, A., 2010. The building cost system in Andalusia:
application to construction and demolition waste management. Constr.
Manage. Econ. 28, 495507.
Marrero, M., Sols-Guzmn, J., Molero Alonso, B., Osuna-Rodriguez, M.,
Ramirez-de-Arellano, A., 2011. Demolition waste management in spanish
legislation. Open Constr. Build. Technol. J. 5, 162173.
Marrero, M., Freire, A., Sols-Guzmn, J., Rivero, C., 2014a. Study of the Ecological
Footprint of the Construction Activity (in Spanish: Estudio De La Huella
Ecolgica De La Transformacin Del Uso Del Suelo), Available: http://www.
seguridadypromociondelasalud.com/n136/en/index.html (accessed 01.06.16.).
Marrero, M., Fonseca, A., Falcon, R., Ramirez-De-Arellano, A., 2014b. Schedule and
cost control in dwelling construction using control charts. Open Constr. Build.
Technol. J. 8, 117.
Martnez-Rocamora, A., Sols-Guzmn, J., Marrero, M., 2015. A structure for the
quantity surveillance of costs and environmental impact of cleaning and
maintenance in buildings. In: Mercader-Moyano, P. (Ed.), The Sustainable
Renovation of Buildings and Neighbourhoods. Bentham Science Publishers,
Berlin, pp. 103118.
Martnez-Rocamora, A., Sols-Guzmn, J., Marrero, M., 2016a. LCA databases
focused on construction materials: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 58,
565573.
Martnez-Rocamora, A., Sols-Guzmn, J., Marrero, M., 2016b. Toward the
ecological footprint of the use and maintenance phase of buildings: utility
consumption and cleaning tasks. Ecol. Indic. 69, 6677.
Mokhtar, S.N., Mahmood, N.Z., Che Hassan, C.R., Masudi, A.F., Sulaiman, N.M., 2011.
Factors that contribute to the generation of construction waste at sites. Adv.
Mater. Res. 163-167, 45014507.
Moreno Rojas, R., Fernndez Torres, A., Garca Pereda, J., Cmara Martos, F., Amaro
Lpez, M.A., Ros Berruezo, G., Martnez de Victoria Munoz, E., Martnez de
Victoria Carazo, I., 2015. Estimation of the daily nutrients distribution in the
Spanish standard diet. Nutr. Hosp. 31, 26602667.
Oeko-Service Luxembourg, 2002. SuperDrecksKescht Fir Betriber, Available:
http://www.superdreckskescht.lu (accessed 10.01.16.).
Prez-Carmona, J.J., Marrero, M., Sols-Guzmn, J., 2013. Quantication CDW
Software (Modelo De Cuanticacion De RCD Ajustado Al Real Decreto
105/2008. Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain.
Pulselli, R.M., Simoncini, E., Pulselli, F.M., Bastianoni, S., 2007. Emergy analysis of
building manufacturing, maintenance and use: em-building indices to
evaluate housing sustainability. Energy Build. 39, 620628.
Pulselli, R.M., Pulselli, F.M., Mazzali, U., Peron, F., Bastianoni, S., 2014. Emergy
based evaluation of environmental performances of Living Wall and Grass
Wall systems. Energy Build. 73, 200211.
REE, 2014. The Spanish Electric System (in Spanish: El Sistema Elctrico Espanol),
Available: http://www.ree.es/es/estadisticas-del-sistema-electrico-espanol/
informe-anual/informe-del-sistema-electrico-espanol-2014 (accessed
10.04.16.).
SEOPAN, 2008. Machinery Costs Manual (in Spanish: Manual De Costes De
Maquinaria), Available: http://www.concretonline.com/pdf/07construcciones/
art tec/SeopanManualCostes.pdf (accessed 01.07.16.).
SPAIN MI, 2013. Spanish Electrical System Report 2013 (in Spanish: El Sistema
Elctrico Espanol. Informe 2013. Ministry of Industry, Madrid, Spain.
Sols-Guzmn, J., Marrero, M., 2015. The Ecological Footprint of Building
Construction, rst ed. Bentham Science Publishers, Berlin.
Sols-Guzmn, J., Marrero, M., Montes-Delgado, M.V., Ramrez-de-Arellano, A.,
2009. A Spanish model for quantication and management of construction
waste. Waste Manage. 29, 25422548.
Sols-Guzmn, J., Marrero, M., Ramrez-de-Arellano, A., 2013. Methodology for
determining the ecological footprint of the construction of residential
buildings in Andalusia (Spain). Ecol. Indic. 25, 239249.
Sols-Guzmn, J., Marrero, M., Guisado Garca, D., 2014. Model for the
quantication and budgeting of the construction and demolition waste:
application to roads (in Spanish: modelo de cuanticacin y presupuestacin
en la gestin de residuos de construccin y demolicin. Aplicacin a viales).
Carreteras 4, 618.
Sols-Guzmn, J., Gonzlez-Vallejo, P., Martnez-Rocamora, A., Marrero, M., 2015.
The carbon footprint of dwelling construction in Spain. In: Muthu, S.S. (Ed.),
The Carbon Footprint Handbook. CRC Press, pp. 259280.
Spain MH, 2006. Building Technical Code (in Spanish: Cdigo Tcnico De La
Edicacin). Ministry of Housing, Madrid, Spain.
Spain MP, 2008. National Decree 105/2008, February 1, Which Regulates the
Production and Management of Construction and Demolition Waste (in
Spanish: Real Decreto 105/2008, De 1 De Febrero, Por El Que Se Regula La
Produccin Y Gestin De Los Residuos De Construccin Y Demolicin).
Ministry of Presidency, Madrid, Spain.
UNE-EN 15978, 2012. Sustainability of Construction Works. Assessment of
Environmental Performance of Buildings. Calculation Methods. AENOR,
Madrid.
Villoria Sez, P., del Ro Merino, M., Porras-Amores, C., San-Antonio Gonzlez, A.,
2014. Assessing the accumulation of construction waste generation during
residential building construction works. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 93, 6774.
WWF International, 2010. Living Planet Report 2010 Global Footprint Network. ZSL
(Zoological Society of London), Gland, Switzerland.
Wackernagel, M., Rees, W., 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human
Impact on the Earth, rst ed. British Columbia, Gabriola Island. New Society.
Weidema, B.P., Thrane, M., Christensen, P., Schmidt, J., Lkke, S., 2008. Carbon
footprint: a catalyst for life cycle assessment? J. Ind. Ecol. 12, 36.
Wu, Z., Yu, A.T.W., Shen, L., Liu, G., 2014. Quantifying construction and demolition
waste: an analytical review. Waste Manage. 34, 16831692.
van den Bergh, J.C.J., Verbruggen, H., 1999. Spatial sustainability, trade and
indicators: an evaluation of the ecological footprint. Ecol. Econ. 29, 6172.
Yuan, H., Shen, L., 2011. Trend of the research on construction and demolition
waste management. Waste Manage. 31, 670679.