This research analyzes the feasibility of obtaining a real Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) footprint by quantifying and analyzing waste gen-erated in two residential developments. The aim is for the CDW footprint obtained during construction to serve as a reference for similar future projects, enabling more accurate waste management estimates. The methodology combines theoret-ical estimation and quantitative measurement of construction waste, comparing planned estimates with actual on-site data. Calculating the CDW footprint revealed significant discrepancies between EGR and PGR estimates and actual waste: up to 18% and 27% less, respectively, for non-hazardous waste, and 400–900 times more than actual for hazardous waste. For Level I CDW, primarily generated during excavation, the footprint ranged from 3.83 m3/m2 B/R for one basement to 4.60 m3/m2 B/R for two basements. For Level II CDW, the footprint depended on the construction system: 0.50 m3/m2 S/R for traditional construction and 0.30 m3/m2 S/R for prefabricated or industrialized elements. Hazardous CDW was quantified in mass due to a lack of volumetric data, showing lower values in industrialized constructions (0.000046 t/m2 S/R) than in traditional ones (0.000075 t/m2 S/R). These findings support compliance with current regulations and provide data-driven benchmarks that promote waste minimization and eco-efficient construction practices.

Assessment of the Ecological Footprint of Construction and Demolition Waste in Residential Buildings / Piña Ramírez, C., Vidales Barriguete, A., Aguilera Benito, P., Krassowska, J., Vitiello, V.. - (2026), pp. 64-72. (ReShaping the Built Environment through Sustainability and Circularity - RESBA 2026 ) [10.1007/978-3-032-34930-9_8].

Assessment of the Ecological Footprint of Construction and Demolition Waste in Residential Buildings

Veronica Vitiello
2026

Abstract

This research analyzes the feasibility of obtaining a real Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) footprint by quantifying and analyzing waste gen-erated in two residential developments. The aim is for the CDW footprint obtained during construction to serve as a reference for similar future projects, enabling more accurate waste management estimates. The methodology combines theoret-ical estimation and quantitative measurement of construction waste, comparing planned estimates with actual on-site data. Calculating the CDW footprint revealed significant discrepancies between EGR and PGR estimates and actual waste: up to 18% and 27% less, respectively, for non-hazardous waste, and 400–900 times more than actual for hazardous waste. For Level I CDW, primarily generated during excavation, the footprint ranged from 3.83 m3/m2 B/R for one basement to 4.60 m3/m2 B/R for two basements. For Level II CDW, the footprint depended on the construction system: 0.50 m3/m2 S/R for traditional construction and 0.30 m3/m2 S/R for prefabricated or industrialized elements. Hazardous CDW was quantified in mass due to a lack of volumetric data, showing lower values in industrialized constructions (0.000046 t/m2 S/R) than in traditional ones (0.000075 t/m2 S/R). These findings support compliance with current regulations and provide data-driven benchmarks that promote waste minimization and eco-efficient construction practices.
2026
9783032349293
9783032349309
Assessment of the Ecological Footprint of Construction and Demolition Waste in Residential Buildings / Piña Ramírez, C., Vidales Barriguete, A., Aguilera Benito, P., Krassowska, J., Vitiello, V.. - (2026), pp. 64-72. (ReShaping the Built Environment through Sustainability and Circularity - RESBA 2026 ) [10.1007/978-3-032-34930-9_8].
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2026_RESBE_Ecological footprint.pdf

accesso aperto

Licenza: Copyright dell'editore
Dimensione 2 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11588/1070235
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact