An environmental construction and demolition waste management model to trigger post-pandemic economic recovery towards a circular economy the Mexican and Spanish cases

An Environmental Construction and Demolition Waste Management Model to Trigger Post-pandemic Economic Recovery Towards a Circular Economy: The Mexican and Spanish Cases Pilar Mercader-Moyano, Jesús López-López, and Patricia Edith Camporeale Abstract TheArchitecture,EngineeringandConstruction(AEC)industryconsume 40% of raw material generating 35% of industrial waste worldwide. In the EU, it consumes 50% of raw material and generates 35% of industrial waste; while in the USA, 22% of 600 million tons of Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) were recycled into new products: 52% as aggregates but 24% ended in landfills, in 2020. A transition to a circular economy may trigger post-COVID-19 economic recovery. Thus, the EU promotes it through the EU Green Deal, Renovation Wave and Circular Economy Action Plan. This work applies the Spanish CDW “weighted transfer of measurement” current model to broaden its construction material database and to add environmental indicators. Latin America has the world’s highest urbanization rate (84%) but lacks effective CDW management to thrive in Regenerative Sustainability, Climate Change mitigation and post-pandemic economic recovery. This research quantifies onsite 61 Mexican social housing CDW, comparing both countries’ results. Mexico consumes 1.24 ton m−2of raw materials and produces 0.083 ton m−2CDW with a 16% recycling rate, while Spain consumes 1.90 ton m−2 and produces 0.08 ton m−2with a 75% recycling rate. Cement-based, ceramic and mixed CDW represent 83.44% for Mexico and 95.61% for Spain. The implementation of this methodology will deliver sustainable CDW management in Mexico, minimizing CDW production, by the replacement of current construction materials foreco-efficient ones and the promotion of related legislation.Moreover,thisupdated P. Mercader-Moyano (B) Departamento de Construcciones Arquitectónicas I. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura, Universidad de Sevilla, Avenida Reina Mercedes 2, 41012 Seville, Spain e-mail: [email protected] J. López-López Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo, Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, Tampico, Mexico P. E. Camporeale Facultad de Arquitectura y Urbanismo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, La Plata, Argentina © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 S. S. Muthu (ed.), Environmental Footprints of Recycled Products, Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8426-5_4 83 84 P. Mercader-Moyano et al. transformation coefficient database widens the Spanish model to an international scale. Keywords Building sector circular economy ·CDW environmental footprint assessment ·CDW quantification ·Post-pandemic economic recovery ·CDW executive project indicators 1 Introduction Buildings consume 40% of natural resources and primary energy worldwide (López- Mesa et al. 2009) while the AEC industry generates 35% of the industrial waste (Hendriks 2000) and 36% of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. Only in the EU, the AEC industry represents 10% of GDP, consumes 50% of natural resources and 40% of primary energy and generate 35% of CDW. The carbon footprint accounts for 30% of the total but if construction materials had a more efficient use they could decrease 80% (Da Costa-Gómez 2020; Mercader Moyano 2010). In the EU, CDW represents the largest flow in terms of mass: 1/3 of 3 billion tons annually, being this quantity relatively stable. This sector seems to be economically circular as it avoids landfills and incineration. However, CDW recycling mainly orients to backfilling with a low grade of recovery like recycled aggregates used in road subsoil, reducing its potential towards circular CWD management (European Commission 2018). Spain is the 7° EU country in the CDW production ranking: 138 million tons generated during 2018 with a 75% recycling rate (Eurostat 2020a) while the European average was 90% (Eurostat 2020b). However, CDW is not suitable for reuse or recycling because of old construction techniques that prevent high purity raw material recovery during demolition or refurbishment.ItcouldbepossibletopreventCDWaugmentandachieveabetterrecycling processif pricesbecamecompetitive,second-use materialswerereliableandmaterial data from existing buildings were available. Notwithstanding, the decades between the construction period and CDW management at the demolition or refurbishment stages constitute another barrier (European Environment Agency 2020). COVID-19, declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), provoked a sanitary crisis triggering the economy to the lowest activity level since 2009: GDP fell 1.674% worldwide (OECD 2020; World Bank 2020). Raw material and oil prices fall have become a barrier to these initiatives: idle assets, disruptions in supply chains, uncertainty in availability and price volatility add other barriers to the circular transition (Fig. 1). However, the circular economy path to achieve decarbonized cities, energy poverty reduction and socioeconomic sustainability like the EU Circular Economy Action Plan (European Commission 2019), the “Renovation Wave” and the “Green Deal” (European Commission 2020a) show strong affinity to EU strategic priorities to economic recovery. These new business models activate local resources, reduce import dependence, diversify supplies to increase resilience and make create An Environmental Construction and Demolition Waste Management … 85 Fig. 1 The shift from the linear to the circular economy trigger post-pandemic recovery. Source The authors 650,000–700,000 jobs by 2030. The reduction of cost mobility and food benefits lowincome households, promoting equality. In addition, circular economy contributes to achieving carbon neutrality with a nearly 300 million tons annual reduction (almost 50%) by 2050. Furthermore, the EU Social and Economic Committee identifies the building sector as the main actor to promote European recovery after the COVID19 crisis because of the intensive use of labour in the AEC industry, mainly in the hands of local companies (Zahradnik et al. 2020). In Spain, the building energy retrofit plan manages a e300 million budget provided by the National Fund for Energy Efficiency and EU Funds for the Spanish COVID economic recovery. That will generate around 48,000 jobs annually in the next nine years (Gobierno de España 2020); these funds will help the most vulnerable groups make the necessary housing retrofit including active or passive HVAC-SDHW systems. As a matter of fact, the circular economy promotes the 7 Rs: redesign, reduce, reuse, repair, renovate, recover and recycle (European Commission 2020b), making EU compel the standardization of seconduse materials and its dissemination among stakeholders to reduce CDW production and acquire a better and higher recycling quality (European Commission 2020a). European Commission has issued 54 measures to apply along the construction material lifecycle infive prior sectors that comprehend construction and demolition. Some of them are the CDW Protocol and Guidelines (European Commission 2018) that improves the reliance on recycled products, Level(s) that provides an assessment and reporting framework to promote a lifecycle approach for residential and office buildings, one-use plastic ban, critical raw material reuse/recycling, eco-design, ecolabelling to favour spare parts availability for repair, waste treatment at the end of the lifecycle and packaging reuse/recycling (European Commission 2020c). Nevertheless, after the 2008 crisis when Spanish regulations promoted building retrofit, they did not care about CDW plastic insulation material management. Consequently, in 2010, 10% of CDW (860 million tons) came from plastic materials apart 86 P. Mercader-Moyano et al. from those typically associated, whose environmental footprint remains disregarded (Villoria Sáez et al. 2018) and provoked the failure to achieve the 70% CDW recycling rate (European Commission 2008; Ministerio de la Presidencia 2008). Since EU Directives guide EU members’ regulations, Spain updated CDW management through the Spanish Strategy on Circular Economy 2030 (Jefatura de Gobierno 2011; Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente 2015a,b; Ministerio de la Presidencia 2008). Furthermore, Spain intends to achieve a sustainable, decarbonized, resource-efficient and competitive economy consisting of six goals for 2030: five of them are directly or indirectly related to CDW management: 15% CDW reduction, 30% of raw materials, as well as CO2e emissions reduction to less than 10 million annual tons because of the construction material reuse. The situation is quite different In Latin America and the Caribbean; this region presents the highest urbanization rate worldwide (84%), where 32% of the total population lives in cities of more than 1 million people that accounts for 40% of the global urban population. Municipal solid waste (MSW) including CDW collection leaves aside 7% of marginal and rural people (40 million) that produce 35,000 tons daily (United Nations Environment Programme 2018). Moreover, 60% of MSW (145,000 tons daily) ends in landfills, some of which have acquired international standards as authorized places being most of them only “supervised landfills”. In the case of Mexico City, which has got only two authorized landfills, the city government haslaunched the Zero Waste Plan toreduce the 8600 tons sent tolandfills to 2000 tons by 2024, from a current amount of 16,000 daily tons (CDMX 2019;Ríos2019). In Mexico, CDW accounts for 6.7% of GDP, generated approximately 5.6 million jobs (Cámara Mexicana de la Industria de la Construcción 2016) without including CDW due to natural disasters (earthquakes) (Araiza-Aguilar et al. 2019). Mexico, which is the second regional economy and the 15th globally, had a poverty rate of 48.8% in 2018 (61.1 million people) that will increase to 66.9%, becoming the 4th poorest regional country with a GDP fall of 8.6% (Comisión Económica para América Latina yelCaribe2020; Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social 2018). As a consequence, high residential density and large population make cities most vulnerable to infectious disease outbreaks (Ghosh et al. 2020; Matthew and McDonald 2006), especially in the case of Mexico cities as mentioned above. CDW quantification is the first step for CDW management policies to promote circular economy as a trigger for economic recovery. Many CDW quantification methodologies depend on local goals and scenarios, which could vary according to population augment, legislation, planning and the AEC industry (Jin et al. 2019;Wu etal. 2014).CDWquantity andqualitydepend onconstructionsystems andmaterials, building typologies, age and demolition techniques (Menegaki and Damigos 2018). Additionally, CDW management plans are mandatory in many countries, requiring CDW selection, collection and transport to treatment plants or landfills, controlled by audits (Kabirifar et al. 2020). The increment of the AEC industry activity in developed and developing countries motivates the comparison of CDW management in different scenarios such as the EU, USA and China, recommending the adoption An Environmental Construction and Demolition Waste Management … 87 of emergent technologies, onsite audits, government supervision, economic incentives, interaction with stakeholders, coordination between operative departments and directions towards a circular economy (Aslam et al. 2020). This research reviews different CDW quantification methodologies (Table 2in Appendix 1) that include material flow analysis, direct and indirect onsite and offsite CDW quantification, CDW track load counts to treatment plants or landfills, surveys to workers, recyclers and government officials to follow CDW from origin to end and executive project plans consulting among others. For instance, Mercader et al. quantify CDW from 10 social housing blocks, following the work breakdown structure of the Andalusian Construction Cost Database (BCCA) and the Royal Decree 105/2008 about CDW management in Spain (Barónetal.2017;Mercader-MoyanoandRamírez-de-Arellano-Agudo2013;Ministerio de la Presidencia 2008). This methodology quantifies CDW as the portion of the resource material that become waste during the construction process by transformation coefficients that, unlike others, calculate CDW weight and volume, allowing to measure, for instance, soil swelling. On the other hand, some authors use municipal statistical data based on demolition permissions combined with GIS data about building area, volume, age and typology (Kleemann et al. 2017). Building Information Modelling is a platform where CDW quantification methodologies proliferate, providing several data sources for CDW production and involving stakeholders, designers and decision-makers to plan from design and procurement documentation to construction and demolition stages (Akinade et al. 2018; Cheng and Ma 2013; Liu et al. 2019; Won and Cheng 2017;Xuetal.2019). Mercader Moyano et al. develop a quantification method for construction materials and CDW measuring their embodied energy and carbon emissions from cradle to the end of the construction stage and calculating indicators based on the BCCA work breakdown structure (Mercader Moyano et al. 2019). Many other authors develop CDW quantification methods using BIM tools (Bakchan et al. 2019; Ge et al. 2017; Guerra et al. 2019) and GIS data (Li et al. 2020; Miatto et al. 2019; Park et al. 2014; Tanikawa and Hashimoto 2009). Other authors link BIM with life cycle assessment (LCA) for CDW quantification (Jalaei et al. 2019). Likewise, LCA has provided a versatile tool to assess CDW from a circular economy framework (Jiménez Rivero et al. 2016; Luciano et al. 2018). In Mexico, CDW quantification follows a methodology that considers the construction material purchases with a CDW production coefficient =0.3 m3m−2 and another one to convert volume to weight =1.5 ton m−3, referred to research from the USA and Europe. The composition of CDW consisted in the observation and measure of truckloads sent to a landfill in Mexico Federal District (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales 2010). In the commitment of the environmental goals proposed by the Development National Plan 2013–2018, SEMARNAT and the Mexican Chamber of Construction Industry delivered a National Plan for CDW management to implement the Mexican Standard NOM-161-SEMARNAT- 2011. The CDW quantification focused on the tasks that produced the highest volumes of CDW while giving general recommendations about the CDW measurement and onsite selection. This report estimated that 6.08 million tons generated in 88 P. Mercader-Moyano et al. 2011 would reach 9.2 million tons in 2018, with a rise of 3.5% of the AEC industry activity. CDW composition consists of 39% of soil excavation, 25% of concrete, 24% of mixed CDW and 12% of other types (Cámara Mexicana de la Industria de la Construcción 2016; Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente 2014). However, the lack of effectiveness of this CDW quantification model shows the need to obtain real coefficients from CDW production and management, which would favour the CDW circular economy, increasing Mexican GDP and offering an exit to the post-COVID crisis from the AEC industry. This paper aims to develop a CDW management methodology through the transformation coefficient calculation of each construction material that becomes CDW, followed by its environmental footprint to quantify them from the design stage. This methodology, applied to social housing in Mexico, was developed and successfully implemented by the authors, giving rise to municipal regulations associated with the Andalusian Construction Costs Database and BIM software in Spain. Since current coefficients used in Mexico have failed to succeed because they base on foreign models, this methodology adapted to the Mexican scenario delivers data from onsite CDW quantification and user surveys after auditing 61 single-family housing over five years. This work will be the first step to help CDW management policies and municipal regulations to predict CDW production and promote reusing and-or recycling to minimize raw materials consumption. Furthermore, the environmental footprint addition to the original Spanish methodology accomplishes the EU Circular Economy Action Plan requirements (European Commission 2020b). 2 Objective and Methodology The methodology consists of three stages that satisfy the objectives of the main scope that was mentioned above. In the first stage, the definition of the housing conventional construction model (CCM) requires establishing the typology features, select a representative sample and quantify the material resources consumed in the construction process. In the second stage, the CDW quantification requires its identification and characterization and the calculation of the transformation coefficients from the onsite measurement and surveys. In the third stage, CDW embodied energy (EE) and CO2e emissions combined with CDW destination characterize the CDW to assess its environmental footprint (Fig. 2). This methodology applies the Spanish CDW methodology, which uses the weighted transfer of measurement (WTM) to identify and quantify CDW generated from the consumed material resources of the social housing CCM studied over ten years and developed by Mercader-Moyano and Ramírez-de-Arellano-Agudo (2013). It has also provided the basis for new CDW municipal regulations in Andalusia and Madrid (Ramírez de Arellano Agudo 2014). In this way, this work adds new CDW transformation coefficients and environmental footprint assessment to favour the transition from a linear economy model to a circular one. Consequently, CDW can be reintroduced into the economic cycle as reused, recycled and by-products. An Environmental Construction and Demolition Waste Management … 89 Fig. 2 Methodological framework and stages. Source The authors 3 Materials and Methods The methodology is divided into three stages. 3.1 First Stage: Characterization and Selection of Social Housing Sample Mexican social housing presents a built area between 42 and 76 m2. On the other hand, the Building Code (CONAVI) states a lower size for them that includes a kitchen-dining room, one or two bedrooms, one bathroom, one parking space and basic services, considering that one family can satisfy all their needs there (Alderete Herrera 2010; Gobierno Federal de México 2016). Building materials and systems changed along with the evolution of the social housing in Mexico, so this work comprehends cases that are not more than 10-years-old to avoid referring to extinguished processes and materials. The CCM consists of reinforced concrete foundation slab and pillars, concrete block walls, reinforced concrete vault blocks and prefabricated beams, outer cement-based finish, inner plaster finish, ceramic floors, single-pane glazing with aluminium frame and wooden doors with aluminium frame (López-López 2019). In the ‘70s and ‘80s, several companies begin to build social housingneighbourhoodsforlow-incomepopulationsinurbanoutskirts;theycomprehend one/two-story houses with a rigid scheme that do not respond to the household changing needs along their life cycle (Sánchez-Corral 2013). The sample locates in Saltillo City, the capital district of Coahuila State, in Northern Mexico, next to the USA frontier. Despite its large volume of social 90 P. Mercader-Moyano et al. housing neighbourhoods, the city government lacks the necessary data to determine CDW management policies (Hyman et al. 2015). In 2015, Coahuila State population accounted for more than 2,950,000 people, 27% of which (around 807,000 people) were distributed 90% in urban areas and 10% in rural areas, with a poverty rate of 61.1% (Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social (CONEVAL) 2020). Its strategic location, administrative importance and industrial development make this city a relevant data source in the social housing sector to approach CDW production in the AEC industry (Fig. 3). Even when the social housing CCM changed traditional materials like adobe or quincha for modern ones like reinforced concrete, the construction techniques that localdevelopersusearestillartisan,as onsitesurveystosupervisorsandworkershave shown (Figs. 4and 5). During the last decade, the MCC morphology, construction systems and materials have been standardized by the different building companies in Saltillo, building nearly identical prototypes. The three main companies situated in SE Coahuila: DAVISA, RUBA and SERVER, produce the prototypes between 46 and 52.13 m2that are the basis for this investigation. The BMCs list utilizes a material take-off (MTO) whose data sources are the Housing Institute of Coahuila State Government, local building companies and Saltillo housing developers. Due to different criteria among the Mexican States, this research adopts the average between 58 m2(from Coahuila State mortgages) Fig. 3 Saltillo City location in Coahuila State, Mexico. Source Modified from López-López (2019) An Environmental Construction and Demolition Waste Management … 91 Fig. 4 Social housing under construction. Source The authors Fig. 5 Inner plaster finish and reinforced concrete vault block concrete slab. Source The authors and 42 m2(from CONAVI prescriptions) that accounts for 49.4 m2with 90% confidence interval and 10% error in regard to the mortgages delivered in Saltillo during 2016 (López-López 2019) (Table 3in Appendix 2). The first step consists of a social housing historic and evolution approach to find the referential places in Saltillo City. After selecting the sample, the second step consists of the 61 social housing audits to identify and quantify the material resource consumption involving direct observation and surveys to workers and supervisors. When following the model developed by Arellano (Ramírez de Arellano Agudo 2002), the work breakdown structure (WBS) codifies the CCM construction tasks. These data come from the executive project documentation and technical specification sheets. The bill of quantities (BOQ) provides the BMC consumption; each task code consists of one letter (X) and the addition of a sequence of two letters and three numbers in the case that there is more than one type (XYZ00n) while BMCs show a 98 P. Mercader-Moyano et al. Fig. 9 Sankey diagram: CCM construction materials and CDW. Source The authors An Environmental Construction and Demolition Waste Management … 99 Fig. 10 CDW weight (ton m−2) Fig. 11 CDW EE (kWh m−2) landfill (D) accounts for 69.20 kg m−2while reused offsite CDW (RCa) comprehends 27.19 kg m−2inert soil and only 19.92 kg m−2other CDW (Fig. 15). The proposed model validates its methodology when compared with Spanish social housing CCM that consumes 1.9 ton m−2and produces 0.08 ton m−2of CDW (Mercader-Moyano and Ramírez-de-Arellano-Agudo 2013). Both models omit inert soilasCDW.IntheMexicancase,6.71% of material resourcesbecomeCDW, whileit accounts for 4.21% in the Spanish case, deducing a more efficient CDW management for this last one. Nevertheless, mixed CDW accounts for 6.27E−2tonm −2(75.76% CDW) in the Mexican CCM and 6.80E−2tonm −2(85.13% CDW) in the Spanish CCM. After adding mixed CWD with ceramic, the total amount rises to 83.44% in the Mexican case and 95.61% in the Spanish case (Fig. 16; Table 8). Results show that mixed CDW (mortar, onsite made concrete and concrete elements) accounts for the largest volume and weight. This waste could be grinded 100 P. Mercader-Moyano et al. Fig. 12 CDW CO2e (ton m−2) Fig. 13 Recycled CDW (ton m−2) onsite to use as inert aggregate for subsoils (“Concretos Reciclados” n.d.) or to make onsite blocks as it happened in an exceptional case reported in Buenos Aires (Yajnes et al. 2017). Nonetheless, many authors propose to use it as inert aggregate in prefabricated blocks (Luciano et al. 2020; Pacheco-Torgal 2014; Rakhshan et al. 2020). These experimental materials represent a solution to make concrete blocks, but they still lack the required certification, dissemination and acceptance from users, developers and stakeholders, as it happens with blocks with added cardboard or just adobe bricks (Molar-Orozco et al. 2020; Roux Gutierrez et al. 2015). An Environmental Construction and Demolition Waste Management … 101 Fig. 14 CDW to landfill (ton m−2). Source The authors inert soil paper/cardboa plastics wooden pallet ceramic cement-based mixed steel/copper other Fig. 15 CDW environmental indicators of the CCM. Source The authors Asitisobserved,steelcanbe recycledreducing its environmental footprint, recovering part of their EE and the carbon emissions from its production process. However, recycling cement-based products partially reduce the EI and carbon emissions of cement production because their by-products present low aggregate value. As this work has pointed out, Mexico still lacks mandatory CDW quantification andenvironmentalfootprintassessment, so theproposedmethodologyis determinant to implement federal and state legislation for CDW recovery to reintroduce them in the productive chain, minimizing those with low aggregated value that end in infrastructure work subsoil but mostly in landfills. These latter constitute pollution and infection focus exposing vulnerable populations that live in the surroundings. 102 P. Mercader-Moyano et al. 0.00E+00 1.00E-02 2.00E-02 3.00E-02 4.00E-02 5.00E-02 6.00E-02 7.00E-02 8.00E-02 9.00E-02 Mexican model Spanish model ton.m-2 iron/steel paper/cardboard aggeregates, cement & concrete ceramic wood plastics plaster natural stones & terrazzo others Fig. 16 CDW per type: Mexican and Spanish CCM. Source The authors Moreover, landfills augment the incidence of breathing illnesses, increasing risk groups comorbidity in the case of the COVID19 pandemic, without leaving aside that 66.9% of the Mexican population will be poor in 2021 as mentioned in the Introduction (Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe 2020). Likewise, landfills emit biogases, including GHG with a high proportion of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2), small amounts of nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulphide (H2S), hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2) and trace amounts of carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3), aromatic and cyclic hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Environmental issues caused by these gases comprehend from nauseating odours to Global Warming contribution. Moreover, some of them as NH4, CO, VOC and CO2have a direct harmful effect on human health. Furthermore, refrigerant and foaming gases and aerosols like chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) and halons provoke atmospheric ozone (O3) depletion. Besides, landfill leachate may pollute soils and superficial/subterranean adjacent water bodies, causing toxicity, eutrophication and acidification issues. Landfills also cause the proliferation of fauna that transmit illnesses or act as their vector like flies, mosquitoes, fleas, rats, birds and others that provoke diarrhoea, typhus, paludism, giardiasis, dengue fever, bubonic plague, leptospirosis and toxoplasmosis among others, rising public health costs (Gobierno de México 2015). An Environmental Construction and Demolition Waste Management … 103 5 Conclusions This work proposes a methodology for CDW quantification and environmental characterization applied to 61 social housing in Saltillo City, Coahuila, Mexico. This methodology considers not only CDW weight and volume but CDW physical or chemical transformation and the changes in their measurements criteria. It validates its results by contrasting CDW quantification at the executive project stage with the CDW amounts effectively measured onsite along the construction process. The obtained 38 CR coefficients are added to the database developed in the CDW quantification methodology that has served as a basis for this research (Mercader- Moyano and Ramírez-de-Arellano-Agudo 2013). After being contrasted with the Spanish CR coefficients, it is possible to apply the new ones to the Mexican CCM to foresee CDW types and quantities and to plan its storage onsite and CDW destination for reuse or recycle. This methodology may serve as a basis for the implementation of local and national regulations. Regarding the Spanish methodology, this research not only validates its application to any other country but updates and complements it with the addition of a multidimensional environmental footprint indicator. The design of this indicator synthesizes CDW environmental footprint and destination for each executive project in a radial graphic. Moreover, it may be a precedent for CDW environmental assessment labelling. On the other hand, Mexico lacks enough CDW selection plants and authorized landfills favouring unauthorized places. Additionally, the lack of control of mandatory regulations makes that a high proportion of CDW ends in the mentioned illegal places, increasing environmental risks (Turcott Cervantes et al. 2021). These barriers require an integrated plan that covers the needed policies to shift from a linear economic model of extraction, use and discard towards a circular one of transformation of waste into a resource, involving all those AEC industry actors, generating green jobs, environmental benefits and motorizing the weak economy after the COVID19 pandemic. Notwithstanding, the authors find some limitations in this research: one is the dependence on staff collaboration for surveys. Another one is CDW destination verification because of the many illegal landfills where CDW may end. To solve the first one, a kind of incentive could improve the collaboration and for the second one, strict monitoring could assure the result accuracy. These updates and additions prepare this new method to fulfil the new exigencies and objectives of the EU Circular Economy Action Plan that Spain had not accomplished by 2020 (European Commission 2020b). Possible future lines of research will orient to the addition of CR coefficients to the CDW normalized database for social housing, by extending the work to other building typologies over the whole Mexican territory. Other research lines could be the CDW economic valorisation to implement business models that make its transformation viable after the pandemic economic crisis. Circular business models involve local resources, reduce import dependence on supplies making the AEC industry more resilient and as they are labour intensive, 104 P. Mercader-Moyano et al. they can create new jobs: EU estimations calculate around 600,000/700,000 net jobs by 2030. Other lines of research may be the real estimation costs of CDW management developed from the executive project stage to include them in social housing public procurements through a BIM model as proposed by Mercader-Moyano et al. (2019). The addition of a CDW management plan and a fee to the municipal permission would compel the promoter to commit to these new regulations. One of the CC and pandemic consequences will be the worsening of the already existing poverty and inequality in countries like Mexico (López-Feldman 2014). A proper CDW management as part of a circular economy model delivers undoubtful benefits to the environment reducing the increment of GHG emissions, contributing to Climate Change (CC) mitigation while eradicating open-air garbage dumps to limit environmental pollution. In the EU, the circular transition could reduce 300 million tons per year by 2050. Reuse and recycling may produce seconduse materials that close the material flow loop and diminish the depletion of raw materials. Also, CDW management may deliver social benefits like sanitary conditions and public health improvement, construction and operation of new facilities create employment and workers training improves quality labour, especially in local communities favouring social inclusion and diminishing poverty. Nevertheless, the fall of raw material prices, the disruption of supply chains and the reduced investment that worsens liquidity might threaten the advances towards a circular model. Notwithstanding, the COVID-19 recovery would foster resilience, sustainability and inclusion if labour and capital resources underpin the circular economy transition agenda like recycling infrastructure instead of remaining idle in a low aggregate demand economy. This model improves the capital assets productivity, efficient production of materials and waste reduction expanding the resource base of the economy. In the EU, approximately 15% of construction materials become waste during the construction phase showing a 50% overuse of steel and concrete materials. Likewise, aluminium recycling market could augment from EUR 3 billion to EUR 12 billion with a recycling rate increment by 2050. About 180/190 million tons of steel, plastics and aluminium lose their original value of EUR 140/150 billion when they reach their end of life preserving only 41% each year through volume or price losses. If the recycling process could be improved in quality and quantity, the EU could gain new resources, independence from imports, new jobs and help meet its CC goals. Better CDW waste management and recycling technologies and design for recyclability may maintain the material value longer in the economic cycle (Klevnäs and Kulldorff 2020). Acknowledgements This paper is funded by “Mapei Spain S.A.” for financial support via the research contract (68/83) ref.: 3719/0632 “Implementation of eco-efficient and urban health measures in building renovation and urban regeneration for the requirement of new products in the construction sector—2nd phase” and a Research Personnel Training Grant (arts. 68/83 LOU) ref. 3719/0632. This research was also developed due to the financial support of the University of Seville (VI PPIT-US; 2.2.3. 2018 grants) for the research stay of Jesús López-López at University of Seville in Spain. Finally, certain data and procedures from this work were gathered during the An Environmental Construction and Demolition Waste Management … 105 doctoral research developed by the author entitled “Characterization of CDW in Mexico. A theoretical model”, in co-supervision between the University of Seville and the Autonomous University of Tamaulipas. Appendix 1 See Table 2. Appendix 2 See Tables 3,4,5,6,7and 8. 106 P. Mercader-Moyano et al. Table 2 Comparison of CDW quantification methods Author Country Study case CDW quantification methodology Conclusions Villoria Sáez et al. (2018) Spain Residential façade renovation in Jerez and Madrid cities Visits to construction sites for direct and indirect measurement Focusedonthereductionof concrete, ceramic, metal and wood CDW Blaisi (2019)Saudi Arabia CDW in the Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia Truck loads measurement from construction sites to landfills Lack of institutional collaboration, CDW management policies, coordination among the different actors, incentives, mandatory laws for CDW collectors, landfills and recycling plants Kartam et al. (2004)Kuwait Kuwait’s recycling plants CDW minimization CDW recycling plants: advantages and disadvantages Cha et al. (2020)South Korea 1034 residential buildings CDW rate measurement before demolition to calculate carbon emissions and potential recyclability according to economic and environmental values Plastic waste has the highest recycling rate followed by wood, aggregates and metals (continued) An Environmental Construction and Demolition Waste Management … 107 Table 2 (continued) Author Country Study case CDW quantification methodology Conclusions Wu et al. (2016) China Shenzhen city Deep surveys to recyclers and officials to gather data on CDW in construction and demolition sites from CDW production to final disposition. Extrapolation and CDW production methods, material flows and possible CDW use CDW production is increasing in Shenzhen city so higher recycling rates may augment CDW economic potential Yuan (2017) Data collection through publications, government regulations, surveys and group discussions with public authorities and industry actors Lack of coordination among the government departments, reliable data, construction project supervision and slow increment of recycling plants Li et al. (2013)New residential building at Shenzhen city CDW production index based on built area, bill of quantities and material waste rate Coefficient table for CDW generation for AEC industry Jaillon et al. (2009)Hong Kong Potential CDW reduction by implementation of prefabricated systems Wu et al. (2019) Critical comparison of CDW quantification methods in different scenarios Detailed pros and cons of them Li et al. (2016) High-rise building in Tangshan CDW quantification from the work breakdown structure and bill of quantities CDW calculation at design phase to help developers minimize CDW (continued) 114 P. Mercader-Moyano et al. Table 3 Building elements composition of the 61 audited social housing Task Construction system Number of dwellings Total Load bearing structure Reinforced concrete (σ: 200 kg/cm2)58 61 Reinforced concrete (σ: 200 kg/cm2)+ steel/wood 3 Roofs Reinforced concrete (σ: 200 kg/cm2)38 61 Lightened reinforced concrete with EPS blocks 20 Reinforced concrete (σ: 200 kg/cm2)+ steel/wood 3 External walls Concrete block 52 61 Ceramic brick 4 Concrete block +brick 5 Internal walls Concrete block 49 61 Ceramic brick 5 Drywall 6 Concrete block +drywall 1 Floors Polished cement 0.10 m 29 61 Vitrified tile 31 Cement-based terrazzo 0.30 ×0.30 × 0.025 1 External coatings Cement-based 42 61 Lime 2 Premixed 14 Non-specified 3 Internal coatings Plaster 49 61 Cement-based 5 Non-specified 3 No coating 4 Windows/doors Inner wooden doors +Al frame 61 Steel cover door +wooden frame 61 Kitchen steel door +steel frame 61 Single-glazed Al windows 61 An Environmental Construction and Demolition Waste Management … 115 Table 4 Codes according to CCM social housing tasks and material resources Task Task type Material resources Code Description Family Code Description A. Excavations and backfillings ADS Plot clearing N. Raw material NTI Inert soil ALT Plot cleaning NTO Organic soil ALD Plot clearing and cleaning NAA Sand/gravel ANC Plot levelling and compaction NPN Natural stone ANV Plot levelling NCL Lime ACT Plot compaction H. Cement-based HHC Cement ATR Plot demarcation HHO Onsite made concrete AEC Foundation excavation HHP Premixed concrete AEP Well excavation HMM Mortar AEN Levelling excavation HBC Concrete block ARE Backfilling HPA Artificial stone ARN Levelling landfilling HMP Cement-based terrazzo AWW Other works HRI Exterior coating B. Foundations BMM Stone masonry secured with cement mortar HAI Adhesive BCC Cyclopean concrete: 40% stone min. 10 HEI Joint filler BZA Reinforced concrete basement HVI Prefabricated reinforced concrete beam BZC Reinforced concrete continuous basement HBO Concrete slab block BLC Reinforced concrete plate slab M. Metals MHC Steel BDC Foundation beam MAA Aluminium BME Levelling wall MAB Bronze BMC Containment wall MBC Copper BTL League beam MBL Brass (continued) 116 P. Mercader-Moyano et al. Table 4 (continued) Task Task type Material resources Code Description Family Code Description BCE Especial foundation MHH Iron BWW Other works MCC Annealed wire C. Masonry CKH Reinforced concrete pillars MPP Lead CKA Reinforced concrete column MRR Mixed waste CCE Reinforced concrete top ring beam MOO Insulation material CVI Reinforced concrete beam Y. Gypsum-based YYY Gypsum CCM Reinforced concrete slab L. Cellulose LMD Wood CAB Reinforced concrete slab with ceramic brick vault LMP Industrialized wood CVC Reinforced concrete slab with concrete block vault LPC Paper/cardboard CVP Reinforced concrete slab with EPS block vault LTM Wooden pallet CBA Bare concrete block wall P. Industrialized metals PHV Reinforcing steel bar CLA Bare ceramic brick wall PHR Electric wire CCA Bare reinforced concrete wall PME Steel bar mesh CMB Concrete block wall PCL Nail CMP Stone wall PKC Reinforced steel bar column CML Ceramic brick wall C. Ceramic CPC Ceramic floor CMC Reinforced concrete wall CAZ Tile CMW Other walls CMC Walls CPC Cement mortar A. Clay-based ACT Roof tile (continued) An Environmental Construction and Demolition Waste Management … 117 Table 4 (continued) Task Task type Material resources Code Description Family Code Description CFC Lean concrete subfloor ALD Brick CFA Reinforced concrete subfloor ABB Adobe brick CBC Concrete floor ABA Lightened brick CRP Concrete moulding S. Synthetic SMP Plastics CRS Drainage chamber SMS Synthetics CWW Other works SPV PVC D. Roof DIM Waterproof coating T. Painting TBA Water-based DPB Concrete block parapet TSE Sealer DPL Ceramic brick parapet DCH Concrete chamber DBT Water tank base DCP Rainwater basin DBP Rainwater drain pipe DPP Tilted subfloor DWW Other works E. Coatings EAP Cement-based plaster EAI Industrialized cement-based plaster EYS Gypsum plaster ELC Ceramic tile coating EPC Ceramic tile floor EPB Mud floor EPF Polished cement floor EZB Mud baseboard EZC Ceramic baseboard ETX One-layer textured coating EPV Vinylic painting (continued) 118 P. Mercader-Moyano et al. Table 4 (continued) Task Task type Material resources Code Description Family Code Description EWW Other coatings F. Water, sewer and gas systems F1H Water provision F2S Sewer F3G Gas F5W Others G. Electric, lighting and communication systems G1E Electric G2I Lighting G3T Communication G4D Automation G5W Others H. Windows, doors H1A Aluminium H2M Wood H3A Steel H4C Hinges, latches, locks H5P Plastic H6W Others I. Outside works I1J Gardening and landscape I2I Outer lighting I30 Complementary works I4L Final cleaning I5W Other works An Environmental Construction and Demolition Waste Management … 119 Table 5 Material resources quantification of social housing Task Task type Material resources Code Description Code Description Specifications Q u Code Description Deliver. quant. Net quant. Orig. unit Normal quant. kg/m2 ASoil excavation-prelimin. works ATR001 Demarcation 1pl NCL Lime 5.00E−03 5.00E−03 t1.01E−01 BFoundation BLC001 Reinforced concrete foundation slab Premixed-concrete Holcim (σc=200 kg/cm2), coarse aggr. max. 3/4 , slump test: 0.12 cm, steel bar, double mesh 3.8 (0.20 ×0.20 m), superimposed in both directions, tied with annealed wire (BWG 16) 49.40 m2HHP200 Premixed concrete 65.93 m32.88E+02 PHV3-8 Steel bar 595 561 kg 1.14E+01 PHVC-16 Annealed wire 43.84 kg 7.77E−02 CMasonry CKH001 Reinforced concrete pillar Onsite made concrete (σc= 150 kg/cm2), coarse aggr. max. 3/4,castedinconcrete block wall (6 width), 1 steel bar 3,8 fixed to foundation slab (L-shape), 0.40 m length, separated 1.20 m each 102.45 mHHO150 Onsite concrete 1.91 1.75 m38.50E+01 PHV3-8 Steel bar 66.84 64.83 kg 1.14E+01 CCE001 Top ring beam Concrete (σc=150 kg/cm2) 0.15 ×0.20 m, prefabricated steel frame ARMEX DeAcero™, 0.12 ×0.18 m 12.75 mHHO150 Onsite made concrete 0.42 0.38 m31.86E+01 PKC12 Prefab. frame ARMEX 0.12 ×0.18 m 13 12.75 m4.23E−01 CVC001 Reinforced concrete slab with concrete block vault Onsite made concrete 0.15 high compression layer 0.04 m high steel mesh DeAcero™ 66-1010 49.40 m2HVI Prefab. reinforced concrete beam 66 65.87 m7.20E+01 HBO Concrete block 268.57 263.30 Block 2.16E+02 PME Steel mesh 50 49.40 m25.00E+00 (continued) 120 P. Mercader-Moyano et al. Table 5 (continued) Task Task type Material resources Code Description Code Description Specifications Q u Code Description Deliver. quant. Net quant. Orig. unit Normal quant. kg/m2 HHO150 Onsite made concrete 2.16 1.98 m39.60E+01 CMB001 Concrete block wall Concrete block 0.15 ×0.20 × 0.40 m laid with cement mortar 1:5 102.56 m2HBC15 Concrete block 0.15 × 0.20 ×0.40 m 1400 1370 Block 1.66E+02 HMM1-5 Onsite made mortar (1:5) 0.92 m33.35E+01 CBC001 Concrete floor auxiliary yard σc=150 kg/cm2, 0.08 m width polished 5.16 m2HHO150 Onsite made concrete 0.41 m36.00E+01 CBC002 Concrete floor parking space σc=150 kg/cm2, 0.08 m width textured 15.44 m2HHO150 Onsite made concrete 1.24 m36.00E+01 CBC003 Concrete shoulder σc=150 kg/cm2, 0.08 m width, squared textured 0.65 × 1.20 m 7.80 m2HHO150 Onsite made concrete 0.62 m33.03E+01 CRS Sewer chamber σc=75 kg/cm2, floor width =0.08 m polished, concrete walls 1.10 ×0.20 ×0.40 m onsite made, reinforced concrete cover σc= 100 kg/cm2steel mesh 66-1010 3 u HBC15 Concrete block 0.15 × 0.20 ×0.40 m 98.01 Block 9.73E−01 HMM1-5 Onsite made mortar (1:5) 4.03E−04 m31.47E−02 HHO75 Onsite made concrete 0.04 m31.71E+00 HHO100 Onsite made concrete cover 0.02 m31.07E+00 PME Steel mesh 66-1010 0.44 m24.45E−02 DRoof DIM001 Insulation/waterproof coating Elastomeric acrylic coating Thermotek™ Max 7, type 7ª, cold aqueous emulsion, reinforced with simple membrane Thermotek™ 59.30 m2PBA Insulating/waterproof painting ×200 l 62.56 59.30 l1.68E+00 SMS Simple membrane Thermotek ×roll = 109.25 m 62.56 59.30 m24.20E+00 (continued) An Environmental Construction and Demolition Waste Management … 121 Table 5 (continued) Task Task type Material resources Code Description Code Description Specifications Q u Code Description Deliver. quant. Net quant. Orig. unit Normal quant. kg/m2 DPB001 Concrete block parapet Onsite made with mortar 1:5 andontopmortarchamfer (0.05 a 0.01 m) 33 mHBC15 Concrete block 0.15 × 0.20 ×0.40 m 82.10 80.49 Block 9.78E+00 HMM1-5 Onsite made mortar 1:5 0.05 m31.97E+00 DCH001 Concrete chamfer Mortar 1:5, 45° 32 mHMM1-5 Onsite made mortar 1:5 0.36 m31.31E+01 DBT001 Storage water tank base h:2 concrete block rows laid with mortar 1:5 and onsite made reinforced concrete plate w=0.08 m steel mesh 66-1010 DeAcero™ plastered with stucco Cemix™ 1 u HBC15 Concrete block 10.90 10.69 Block 1.30E+00 HMM1-5 Onsite made mortar 1:5 0.01 m32.61E−01 HHO100 Onsite made concrete 0.08 m33.89E+00 PME Steel mesh 66-1010 1.003 1.00 m21.01E−01 HMMP Stucco Cemix 17.23 16.3 kg 3.30E−01 DCP Rainfall drainage pipe PVC pipe 2 2 u SPV PVC pipe 2 6.00 5.90 m4.78E−01 ECoatings EAI001 Premixed mortar coating Exterior block coating Aderblock CEMIX™ w= 0.005 m max. on primary sealer 5-1 CEMIX™ 69.80 m2HMMP Stucco Cemix 0.07 0.07 t 1.41E+00 HRI Primary sealer 24.43 23.27 kg 4.71E−01 EYS001 Gypsum coating Width =0.015 m 151.25 m2YYY Gypsum 0.61 kg 1.22E−02 EYS002 Ceiling gypsum plastering w=0.015 m 42.70 m2YYY Gypsum 170.80 kg 3.46E+00 ELC001 Interior ceramic coating White enamelled ceramic Tile grade 1A model Alcalá Vitromex™ 7.62 m2CMC Ceramic 8.08 7.62 m21.39E+00 HAI Adhesive Cemix™ 2.96 2.82 kg 5.71E−02 ELC002 Ceramic tile coating on façades Ceramic tiles DalGres, Slate Brown 1ª, Daltile™ 0.605 × 0.605 m laid with floor adhesive Pegamix Constructor Cemix™ 4.80 m2CMC Ceramic tile 5.09 4.80 m28.74E−01 HAI Adhesive Cemix™ 1.87 1.78 kg 3.60E−02 (continued) 122 P. Mercader-Moyano et al. Table 5 (continued) Task Task type Material resources Code Description Code Description Specifications Q u Code Description Deliver. quant. Net quant. Orig. unit Normal quant. kg/m2 EPC001 Ceramic tile interior floor Ceramic tiles DalGres, Slate Brown 1ª, Daltile™ 0.605 × 0.605 m laid with floor adhesive Pegamix Constructor Cemix™ 41.95 m2CMC Ceramic tile 44.47 41.95 m27.64E+00 HAI Adhesive Cemix™ 16.31 15.54 kg 3.15E−01 EZC001 Ceramic tile baseboard Ceramic tiles DalGres, Slate Brown 1ª, Daltile™ 0.605 × 0.605 m laid with floor adhesive Pegamix Constructor Cemix™ 43.75 mCMC Ceramic tile 5.57 5.25 m29.56E−01 HAI Adhesive Cemix™ 0.10 1.94 kg 3.94E−02 FWater, sewer and gas systems F1H001 Water pipes Thermally fused PP pipe Random/PP-R (NMX-E-226/2-CNCP-2007) Tuboplus, Rotoplas™, 3/4-1/2 within foundation slab and walls 45.00 mSMP PP pipe thermally fused 45.90 45.00 m 7.29E+00 F1H002 Shower set 2 ceramic lock mixing faucets, shower with sprinkler, 2 PVD brushed nickel-plated stopcocks, model Builders Glacier Bay™ 1 u 6.07E−02 F1H003 Bath set Bath set HD Cosmos II RD 4 pieces WC white with rounded storage tank 4.8 l with frontal handle, basin and washstand Orion™ 1 u 9.78E−01 F1H004 Laundry set Granite worktop with laundry basin 65 ×50 cm 1 u 1.12E+00 F2S001 Sewer piping PVC pipe (NMX-E-215/1-1994-SCFI) Futura Rexolit™ or simil, 2-4 embedded in foundation slab and walls 20 uSPV PVC pipe 2 20.40 20.00 m 3.24E+00 (continued) An Environmental Construction and Demolition Waste Management … 123 Table 5 (continued) Task Task type Material resources Code Description Code Description Specifications Q u Code Description Deliver. quant. Net quant. Orig. unit Normal quant. kg/m2 F3G001 Gas piping Copper pipe L-shaped (NMX-W-018-SCFI-2016) Nacobre™ or simil. 1/2 welded with tin/antimony (95/5) embedded in foundation slab and walls 14.50 mMBC Copper pipe 14.79 14.50 m7.81E−02 GElectric, lighting, communication systems G1E001 Grid connection 1 u 2.02E−02 G1E002 Main control table 3 100A keys Schneider Electric™ 1 u 1.01E−02 G1E003 Wiring Wire calibre 12 y 14 (NOM-001-SEDE-2012) Condumex™ or simil. Corrugated plastic tube  1/2-3/4 embedded in slab foundation and walls 35.60 mMBC Electric wire 36.67 35.60 m1.44E−02 SMP Corrugated plastic tube 36.67 35.60 m1.44E−01 G1E004 Cieling socket embedded resin octagonal box 4 ×4 Bticino™ 5 u 1.37E−02 G1E005 Socket embedded resin box 2 ×4 for 3 modules Bticino™ for double contact with ivory plate Levinton™ 11 u8.20E−03 (continued) 130 P. Mercader-Moyano et al. References Ajayi SO, Oyedele LO, Ceranic B, Gallanagh M, Kadiri KO (2015) Life cycle environmental performance of material specification: a BIM-enhanced comparative assessment. Int J Sustain Build Technol Urban Dev 6(1):14–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/2093761X.2015.1006708 Akinade OO, Oyedele LO, Ajayi SO, Bilal M, Alaka HA, Owolabi HA, Arawomo OO (2018) Designing out construction waste using BIM technology: stakeholders’ expectations for industry deployment. J Clean Prod 180:375–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.022 Alderete Herrera JCA (2010) Vivienda de interés social. Universidad Veracruzana. Repositorio Institucional 5 Ambiente SM (n.d.) En marcha, Basura Cero en la Ciudad de México [WWW document]. Secretaría del Medio Ambiente. https://sedema.cdmx.gob.mx/comunicacion/nota/en-marcha-basura-cero- en-la-ciudad-de-mexico. Accessed 4.22.21 Araiza-Aguilar JA, Gutiérrez-Palacios C, Rojas-Valencia MN, Nájera-Aguilar HA, Gutiérrez- Hernández RF, Aguilar-Vera RA (2019) Selection of sites for the treatment and the final disposal of construction and demolition waste, using two approaches: an analysis for Mexico city. Sustainability 11:4077. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154077 Argüello Méndez TR, Cuchí Burgos A (2008) Análisis del impacto ambiental asociado a los materiales de construcción empleados en las viviendas de bajo coste del programa 10×10 Con Techo-Chiapas del CYTED. Informes de la Construcción 60:25–34 Aslam MS, Huang B, Cui L (2020) Review of construction and demolition waste management in China and USA. J Environ Manag 264:110445. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110445 Bakchan A, Faust KM, Leite F (2019) Seven-dimensional automated construction waste quantification and management framework: integration with project and site planning. Resour Conserv Recycl 146:462–474. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.02.020 Barón J, Conde J, Osuna M, Ramírez A, Solís J (2017) Consejería de Fomento y Vivienda/Vivienda y Rehabilitación/Base de Costes de la Construcción de Andalucía (BCCA), 29 abril 2016. Banco de precios Blaisi NI (2019) Construction and demolition waste management in Saudi Arabia: current practice and roadmap for sustainable management. J Cleaner Prod 221:167–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2019.02.264 Cámara Mexicana de la Industria de la Construcción (2016) Plan de Manejo de Residuos de la Construcción y la Demolición Carpio M, Roldán-Fontana J, Pacheco-Torres R, Ordóñez J (2016) Construction waste estimation depending on urban planning options in the design stage of residential buildings. Constr Build Mater 113: 561–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.061 CDMX (2019) Ahorrará Gobierno de la Ciudad de México para 2024, 8 mil 500 mdp con estrategia “Basura Cero” [WWW document]. CDMX. https://www.jefaturadegobierno.cdmx.gob.mx/com unicacion/nota/ahorrara-gobierno-de-la-ciudad-de-mexico-para-2024-8-mil-500-mdp-con-est rategia-basura-cero. Accessed 4.22.21 Cha G-W, Moon HJ, Kim Y-C, Hong W-H, Jeon G-Y, Yoon YR, Hwang C, Hwang J-H (2020) Evaluating recycling potential of demolition waste considering building structure types: a study in South Korea. J Cleaner Prod 256:120385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120385 Cheng JCP, Ma LYH (2013) A BIM-based system for demolition and renovation waste estimation and planning. Waste Manage 33:1539–1551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.01.001 Cochran KM, Townsend TG (2010) Estimating construction and demolition debris generation using a materials flow analysis approach. Waste Manage 30(11):2247–2254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. wasman.2010.04.008 Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (2020) Contracción de la actividad económica de la región se profundiza a causa de la pandemia: caerá -9,1% en 2020 [WWW document]. https://www.cepal.org/es/comunicados/contraccion-la-actividad-eco nomica-la-region-se-profundiza-causa-la-pandemia-caera-91. Accessed 9.30.20 An Environmental Construction and Demolition Waste Management … 131 Concretos Reciclados [WWW document] (n.d.). http://www.concretosreciclados.com.mx/#3. Accessed 12.20.20 Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social (2018) Pobreza en México | CONEVAL [WWW document]. https://www.coneval.org.mx/Medicion/Paginas/PobrezaInicio. aspx. Accessed 9.28.20 Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social (CONEVAL) (2020) Informe de pobreza y evaluación 2020. Coahuila, México Da Costa-Gómez O (2020) Buildings and construction [WWW document]. Mercado Interior, Industria, Emprendimiento y Pymes - European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/sus tainability/built-environment_en. Accessed 1.13.21 de Guzmán Báez A, Villoria Sáez P, del Río Merino M, García Navarro J (2012) Methodology for quantification of waste generated in Spanish railway construction works. Waste Manage 32(5):920–924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.01.007 DingT, Xiao J (2014) Estimation of building-relatedconstructionanddemolitionwaste in Shanghai. Waste Manage 34(11):2327–2334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.07.029 European Commission (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives European Commission (2016) 2030 climate & energy framework [WWW document]. Climate action. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2030_en. Accessed 2.9.21 European Commission (2018) EU construction and demolition waste protocol and guidelines European Commission (2019) The European green deal European Commission (2020a) Renovation wave [WWW document]. Energy. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficient-buildi ngs/renovation-wave_en. Accessed 1.15.21 European Commission (2020b) A new circular economy action plan for a cleaner and more competitive Europe European Commission (2020c) Level(s) the European framework for sustainable buildings [WWW document]. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/topics/circular-economy/levels_en. Accessed 1.15.21 European Environment Agency (2020) Construction and demolition waste: challenges and opportunities in a circular economy Eurostat (2020a) Recovery rate of construction and demolition waste% of construction and demolition mineral waste recycled [WWW document]. Eurostat. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ databrowser/view/CEI_WM040__custom_354944/bookmark/table?lang=en&bookmarkId=7e4 febc4-a0fd-444b-aae0-94643539ce0d. Accessed 1.18.21 Eurostat (2020b) Generation of waste by economic activity [WWW document]. Generation of waste by economic activity. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ten00106/default/table?lan g=en. Accessed 1.18.21 Ge XJ, Livesey P, Wang J, Huang S, He X, Zhang C (2017) Deconstruction waste management through 3d reconstruction and bim: a case study. Vis Eng 5:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40327- 017-0050-5 Ghosh A, Nundy S, Ghosh S, Mallick TK (2020) Study of COVID-19 pandemic in London (UK) from urban context. Cities 106:102928. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102928 Gobierno de España (2020) Estrategia Española de Economía Circular ESPAÑA CIRCULAR 2030 Gobierno de México (2015) Informe de la Situación del Medio Ambiente en México Gobierno Federal de México (2016) Código de Edificación de Vivienda 2010 GODF (2015) Norma Ambiental para el Distrito Federal NADF-007-RNAT-2013, que establece la clasificación y especificaciones de manejo para residuos de la construcción y demolición, en el Distrito Federal; actualizada el 26 de febrero de 2015. Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal Guerra BC, Bakchan A, Leite F, Faust KM (2019) BIM-based automated construction waste estimation algorithms: the case of concrete and drywall waste streams. Waste Manage 87:825–832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.03.010 132 P. Mercader-Moyano et al. Hendriks CF (ed) (2000) Sustainable raw materials: construction and demolition waste. RILEM report. RILEM Publ, Cachan Hyman M, Turner B, Carpintero A, United Nations Institute for Training and Research, Inter- Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals, United Nations Environment Programme(2015) Guidelines fornational wastemanagement strategies:movingfrom challenges to opportunities ITEC Instituto de la construcción de Catalunia (n.d.) Información ambiental de productos y sistemas [WWW document]. https://itec.es/metabase/productos-sostenibles/0/0/0/. Accessed 2.9.21 Jaillon L, Poon CS, Chiang YH (2009) Quantifying the waste reduction potential of using prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong. Waste Manage 29(1):309–320. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.wasman.2008.02.015 Jalaei F, Zoghi M, Khoshand A (2019) Life cycle environmental impact assessment to manage and optimize construction waste using Building Information Modeling (BIM). Int J Constr Manag 1–18. http://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1583850 Jefatura de Gobierno (2011) Ley 22/2011 Residuos y Suelos Contaminados Jiménez Rivero A, Sathre R, García Navarro J (2016) Life cycle energy and material flow implications of gypsum plasterboard recycling in the European Union. Resour Conserv Recycl 108:171–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.01.014 Jin R, Yuan H, Chen Q (2019) Science mapping approach to assisting the review of construction and demolition waste management research published between 2009 and 2018. Resour Conserv Recycl 140:175–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.029 Kabirifar K, Mojtahedi M, Wang C, Tam VWY (2020) Construction and demolition waste management contributing factors coupled with reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies for effective waste management: a review. J Cleaner Prod 263:121265. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121265 Kartam N, Al-Mutairi N, Al-Ghusain I, Al-Humoud J (2004) Environmental management of construction and demolition waste in Kuwait. Waste Manage 24(10):1049–1059. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.wasman.2004.06.003 Kleemann F, Lehner H, Szczypi´nska A, Lederer J, Fellner J (2017) Using change detection data to assess amount and composition of demolition waste from buildings in Vienna. Resour Conserv Recycl 123:37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.06.010 Klevnäs P, Kulldorff A (2020) The circular economy and covid-19 recovery how pursuing a circular future for Europe fits with recovery from the economic crisis. Material Economics Li J, Ding Z, Mi X, Wang J (2013) A model for estimating construction waste generation index for building project in China. Resour, Conserv Recycl 74:20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rescon rec.2013.02.015 Li CZ, Zhao Y, Xiao B, Yu B, Tam VWY, Chen Z, Ya Y (2020) Research trend of the application of information technologies in construction and demolition waste management. J Cleaner Prod 263:121458. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121458 Liu Z, Osmani M, Demian P, Baldwin A (2015) A BIM-aided construction waste minimisation framework. Autom Constr 59:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.07.020 Liu H, Sydora C, Altaf MS, Han S, Al-Hussein M (2019) Towards sustainable construction: BIM- enabled design and planning of roof sheathing installation for prefabricated buildings. J Clean Prod 235:1189–1201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.055 López-Feldman A (2014) Cambio climático, distribución del ingreso y la pobreza. El caso de México, Estudios del cambio climático en América Latina. Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), Santiago de Chile López-López J (2019) Caracterización de los residuos de la construcción de la vivienda en México. Un modelo teórico. Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla López-Mesa B, Pitarch Á, Tomás A, Gallego T (2009) Comparison of environmental impacts of building structures with in situ cast floors and with precast concrete floors. Build Environ 44:699–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.05.017 An Environmental Construction and Demolition Waste Management … 133 Lu W, Chen X, Peng Y, Shen L (2015) Benchmarking construction waste management performance using big data. Resour, Conserv Recycl 105:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec. 2015.10.013 Luciano A, Reale P, Cutaia L, Carletti R, Pentassuglia R, Elmo G, Mancini G (2018) Resources optimization and sustainable waste management in construction chain in Italy: toward a resource efficiency plan. Waste Biomass Valor. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-018-0533-1 Luciano A, Cutaia L, Cioffi F, Sinibaldi C (2020) Demolition and construction recycling unified management:the DECORUMplatformforimprovementofresourceefficiencyintheconstruction sector. Environ Sci Pollut Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09513-6 Matthew RA, McDonald B (2006) Cities under siege: urban planning and the threat of infectious disease. J Am Plann Assoc 72:109–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360608976728 MedinaRossJA,México,SecretaríadeMedioAmbiente yRecursosNaturales(2001)Minimización y manejo ambiental de los residuos sólidos. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, México Menegaki M, Damigos D (2018) A review on current situation and challenges of construction and demolition waste management. Curr Opin Green Sustain Chem. Reuse and recycling/UN SGDs: how can sustainable chemistry contribute? Green Chem Educ 13:8–15. http://doi.org/10.1016/j. cogsc.2018.02.010 Mercader Moyano M (2010) Cuantificación de los recursos consumidos y emisiones de CO2 producidas en las construcciones de Andalucía y sus implicaciones en el protocolo de Kioto (tesis doctoral). Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla Mercader-Moyano P, Ramírez-de-Arellano-Agudo A (2013) Selective classification and quantification model of C&D waste from material resources consumed in residential building construction. Waste Manag Res 31:458–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X13477719 Mercader Moyano MP, Camporeale PE, Cózar-Cózar E (2019) Evaluación de impacto ambiental mediante la introducción de indicadores a un modelo BIM de vivienda social. HS 9:78–93. http:// doi.org/10.22320/07190700.2019.09.02.07 Miatto A, Schandl H, Forlin L, Ronzani F, Borin P, Giordano A, Tanikawa H (2019) A spatial analysis of material stock accumulation and demolition waste potential of buildings: a case study of Padua. Resour Conserv Recycl 142:245–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.12.011 Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente (2015a) Real Decreto 180/2015 Traslado de residuos en el interior del territorio del Estado Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente (2015b) Plan Estatal Marco de Gestión de Residuos (PEMAR) 2016–2022 Ministerio de la Presidencia (2008) Real Decreto 105/2008. La producción y gestión de los residuos de construcción y demolición Molar-Orozco ME, Velázquez-Lozano J, Vázquez-Jimánez MG (2020) Comportamiento térmico de tres prototipos en Saltillo, Coahuila (bloques de tierra, concreto y tapa de huevo). HS 10:22–31. http://doi.org/10.22320/07190700.2020.10.01.02 OECD (2020) The global economy risks falling ill. Interim report, March 2020 [WWW document]. OECD Economic Outlook. http://www.oecd.org/economic-outlook/. Accessed 1.13.21 Official Journalof the EuropeanCommunities.Commission Decision 2001/118/ECofwastes,2001. European waste catalogue Pacheco-Torgal F (2014) Eco-efficient construction and building materials research under the EU framework programme horizon 2020. Constr Build Mater 51:151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.conbuildmat.2013.10.058 Park JW, Cha GW, Hong WH, Seo HC (2014) A study on the establishment of demolition waste DB system by BIM-based building materials [WWW document]. Appl Mech Mater. https://doi. org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.522-524.806 Parisi Kern A, Ferreira Dias M, Piva Kulakowski M, Paulo Gomes L (2015) Waste generated in high-rise buildings construction: a quantification model based on statistical multiple regression. Waste Manage 39: 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.043 134 P. Mercader-Moyano et al. Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente (2014) Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-161- SEMARNAT-2011 Rakhshan K, Morel J-C, Alaka H, Charef R (2020) Components reuse in the building sector—a systematic review. Waste Manag Res 38:347–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X20910463 RamV,KalidindiSN(2017)Estimationofconstructionanddemolitionwasteusingwastegeneration rates in Chennai, India: waste Management & Research. J Sustain Circular Econ 35(6):610–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X17693297 Ramírez de Arellano Agudo A (2002) Retirada selectiva de residuos: Modelo de presupuestación. Colegio Oficial de Aparejadores y Arquitectos Técnicos de Sevilla, Sevilla Ramírez de Arellano Agudo A (2014) Presupuestación de obras. Secretariado de Publicaciones, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla Ríos O (2019) Instituto de ecología [WWW document]. Instituto de Ecología UNAM. http:// www.ecologia.unam.mx/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=193. Accessed 4.22.21 Roux Gutierrez RS, García Izaguirre VM, Espuna Mujica JA (2015) Los materiales alternativos estabilizados y su impacto ambiental. Nova Scientia 7:243–266 Sánchez-CorralJ(2013) La vivienda“social” en Méxicopasado, presente, futuro? Sistema Nacional de Creadores de Arte- JSE, México Secretaría del medio ambiente (2018) Norma ambiental para el D.F. NADF-024-AMBT-2013, que establece los criterios y especificaciones técnicas bajo las cuales se deberá realizar la separación, clasificación, recolección selectiva y almacenamiento de los residuos del Distrito Federal Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (2010) Estudio de análisis, evaluación y definición de estrategias de solución de la corriente de residuos generada por las actividades de construcción en México Tanikawa H, Hashimoto S (2009) Urban stock over time: spatial material stock analysis using 4d-GIS. Build Res Inf 37:483–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210903169394 Turcott Cervantes DE, Romero EO, del Consuelo Hernández Berriel M, Martínez AL, del Consuelo Mañón Salas M, Lobo A (2021) Assessment of some governance aspects in waste management systems: a case study in Mexican municipalities. J Cleaner Prod 278:123320. http://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclepro.2020.123320 United Nations Environment Programme (2018) Waste management outlook for Latin America and the Caribbean Villoria Sáez P, Santa Cruz Astorqui J, del Río Merino M, Mercader Moyano MP, Rodríguez Sánchez A (2018) Estimation of construction and demolition waste in building energy efficiency retrofitting works of the vertical envelope. J Cleaner Prod 172:2978–2985. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.113 Won J, Cheng JCP (2017) Identifying potential opportunities of building information modeling for construction and demolition waste management and minimization. Autom Constr 79:3–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.02.002 World Bank (2020) Global economic prospects, June 2020. World Bank, Washington, DC. https:// doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1553-9 Wu Z, Yu ATW, Shen L, Liu G (2014) Quantifying construction and demolition waste: an analytical review. Waste Manage 34:1683–1692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.010 Wu H, Duan H, Zheng L, Wang J, Niu Y, Zhang G (2016) Demolition wastegeneration and recycling potentials in a rapidly developing flagship megacity of South China: prospective scenarios and implications. Constr Build Mater 113:1007–1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016. 03.130 Wu Z, Yu ATW, Poon CS (2019) An off-site snapshot methodology for estimating buildingconstruction waste composition—a case study of Hong Kong. Environ Impact Assess Rev 77:128–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.03.006 Wu H, Zuo J, Zillante G, Wang J, Yuan H (2019) Status quo and future directions of construction and demolition waste research: a critical review. J Cleaner Prod 240:118163. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclepro.2019.118163 An Environmental Construction and Demolition Waste Management … 135 Xu C, Jia M, Xu M, Long Y, Jia H (2019) Progress on environmental and economic evaluation of low-impact development type of best management practices through a life cycle perspective. J Clean Prod 213:1103–1114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.272 Yajnes M, Caruso S, Kozak D, Kozak A, Mühlmann S (2017) Gestión de residuos y producción de bloques con material reciclado in situ en una obra de escala intermedia en la ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina, in: 3er Congreso Internacional de Construcción Sostenible y Soluciones Eco- Eficientes. 3er Congreso Internacional de Construcción Sostenible y Soluciones Eco-Eficientes, Universidad de Sevilla, Departamento de Construcciones Arquitectónicas I, Sevilla, pp 1035– 1059 Yuan H (2017) Barriers and countermeasures for managing construction and demolition waste: a case of Shenzhen in China. J Cleaner Prod 157:84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017. 04.137 Zahradnik P, Palmieri S, Dirx J (2020) Resolución sobre las propuestas del CESE para la reconstrucción y la recuperación tras la crisis de la COVID-19 Zaman AU, Lehmann S (2013) The zero waste index: a performance measurement tool for waste management systems in a ‘zero waste city’. J Cleaner Prod 50:123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2012.11.041