Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorFufa, Selamawit Mamo
dc.contributor.authorFjellheim, Kristin
dc.contributor.authorVenås, Christoffer
dc.contributor.authorVevatne, Jonas Tautra
dc.contributor.authorKummen, Thea Mork
dc.contributor.authorHenke, Lilo Maria Keti
dc.date.accessioned2023-05-02T06:32:06Z
dc.date.available2023-05-02T06:32:06Z
dc.date.created2023-04-28T09:58:35Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.citationResources, Conservation & Recycling Advances (RCR Advances). 2023, 18 .en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3065658
dc.description.abstractThe building and construction industry is responsible for up to 25% of the total waste generated globally. Most construction sites in Norway on average generate 40–60 kg waste per gross floor area built and the average material recovery rate is ca. 46%. Existing requirements focus on waste sorting as a measure to increase material recovery rates. There are on-going national activities with an ambition to achieve waste free construction sites. However, there is lack of a common definition, standard and transparent data collection, and reporting system. This study presents a method for the evaluation and follow-up of construction waste and the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The methodology was tested using the actual construction waste data collected from 36 Norwegian building cases to evaluate the quantity of construction waste, waste-related GHG emissions per building typology, sorting grade and waste recycling rate. The buildings in total generated ca. 7800 tonnes of waste and ca.12900 tonnes CO2eq and on average ca. 51 kg/m2 waste and 88kgCO2eq/m2. The building projects had a high average sorting grade (89%) and a low average recycling rate (32%). Gypsum, mixed wood, clean wood, and mixed waste are the top waste fractions representing ca. 56% of the total waste volume. This highlights there is still a long way to go to achieve waste free construction sites ambitions. The results also suggest the need for using transparent data collection and communication methods, collaboration in the value chain, stricter regulations, and incentives for encouraging the development of new and existing waste prevention solutions and technologies.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.no*
dc.subjectConstruction wasteen_US
dc.subjectRecyclingen_US
dc.subjectSorting gradeen_US
dc.subjectWaste reporten_US
dc.subjectGHG emissionen_US
dc.titleWaste free construction site - A buzzword, nice to have or moreen_US
dc.title.alternativeWaste free construction site - A buzzword, nice to have or moreen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holder© 2023 The authorsen_US
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Teknologi: 500en_US
dc.source.pagenumber10en_US
dc.source.volume18en_US
dc.source.journalResources, Conservation & Recycling Advances (RCR Advances)en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200149
dc.identifier.cristin2144074
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 321009en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal