recycled construction minerals for urban infrastructure in germany: non-technical issues

7/29/2019 Recycled Construction Minerals for Urban Infrastructure in Germany: Non-technical Issues

1/12

Recycled Construction Minerals forUrban Infrastructure in Germany:

Non-technical Issues*

by ANDREAS BLUM and SYLKE STUTZRIEMER

Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional Development (IOER), Department of Housing and SustainableConstruction, Dresden, Germany

Keywords: C&DW recycling construction materials public works urban infrastructure public actors attitudes institutionalcontext regulation

INTRODUCTION

Under the guiding principle of a sustainable use of

resources and a reduction of waste, e.g. as outlined

for Europe with the Thematic Strategy on the

sustainable use of natural resources (COM(2005)

666) and the Thematic Strategy on the prevention

and recycling of waste (COM(2005) 670)

(European Commission 2005), the use of recycled

mineral construction materials (RCM) is an

important issue. In the German context, legal

regulations such as the Recycling Economy and

Waste Act (Gesetz /KrW-/AbfG 1994) and the

Landfilling Ordinance (Verordnung/DepVerwV

2005) as well as voluntary commitments ofthe construction industry (ArbeitsgemeinschaftKreislaufwirtschaftstrager Bau/KWtBau 2005), sup-port the reduction of construction and demolition

waste (C & DW) and the reduction of the use ofnatural resources. Within a construction industrythat in general is developing less dynamically atpresent, maintenance and renovation of an ageingbuilding stock and urban infrastructure is gainingimportance. In many places, public works con-struction is tending to become the most mineralresources consuming construction sector of thenear future. At the same time construction worksfor technical urban infrastructure with trafficinfrastructure and sewerage systems at the centre offer less critical options for the use of RCM

compared to building construction. Existing tech-nical regulations for road construction in

*Paper contributed to College of Europe/WI Conference

Sustainable growth in the European Union, Brugge,6./7.12.2006

Abstract

Construction and demolition activitiesproduce waste in very significantquantities. At the same time the con-

struction industry has a high demandfor natural resources. Re-integratingrecyclables/reusables into the materialcycle and appreciating residuals fromconstruction and demolition activities

as resources are important contribu-tions to a sustainable use of resources.Nevertheless, the recycling potentials

are not yet used to full potential andalso the largest share of recycling

activities still actually has to be char-acterized as down-cycling. This studyanalysed the non-technical (e.g. social,

institutional, contextual) issues of con-struction and demolition waste recy-cling in the field of municipal roadconstruction and urban infrastructurein Germany. This field was chosen

because there the use of recycledconstruction materials is comparablyeasy and at the same time public

organizations are usually held respon-sible for giving good examples. Based

on theoretical models for the construc-tion sector rooted in action theory,theory of innovation and theory of

institutionalization and qualitativeexpert interviews with stakeholdersfrom construction industry, buildingmaterials industry and municipal pub-lic works departments, the study iden-

tified obstacles rooted in theinstitutional context, uncertainties ofactors and the utilization of regulatory

gaps.

2007; 34:148158


2/12

Germany, for example, admit a substitution ofnatural materials with RCM to the extent of 80%up to 100% even for high quality applications.Projections based on data from the year 2000(Schmidt, 2002) estimate that until the year 2010RCM in Germany have the potential to substitute1520% of the overall production of mineralaggregates.

Nevertheless, these opportunities are still not

yet used as desired, as the results of an earlier

explorative study of IOER (Finkenstein, 2002)

show. This first study also showed that the

attitudes towards the issue differ considerably.

While representatives of urban infrastructure

departments from some cities reported a global

share of recycling materials for road construction

reaching up to 40% of the materials used (without

differentiation of the quality), in other cities theuse of recycling materials was categorically

rejected. Altogether (Figure 1), about 70% of the

generated C & DW in Germany is recovered, but

the largest part of that is still used below its value

and actually has to be characterized as down-

cycling (e.g. backfilling of ditches, landscaping,

use for non-load-bearing layers of roadbeds, etc.).

In order to better understand this situation a

qualitative interview based study was conducted

with stakeholders from the construction industry,

material suppliers and municipal public works

departments, with a focus on non-technical

potentials of, and obstacles to the use of RCM

for urban infrastructure construction. The study

was based on a theoretical examination of thesocial, institutional and regulatory context. The

theoretical framework and results of the qualita-

tive study are presented in the following sections.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: BUSINESS AS USUAL OR

WINDOWS OF OPPORTUNITY?

To define model hypotheses as a starting point for

the qualitative study, the project started with a

theoretical examination. Since the use of RCM forpublic works construction was interpreted as an

environmentally orientated innovation within a

highly institutionalized field of action, valuable

input was sought from action theory, theory of

innovation and theory of institutionalization. The

considerations are mainly based on the instructive

models introduced by Klusemann et al. (2003),

Beschorner et al. (2005) and Zundel et al. (2004)

for the German construction and housing sector.

Figure 1. Quantities of C & D waste and recycling materials 2002. (Blum and Stutzriemer, 2005; Data:Arbeitsgemeinschaft/KWTBau 2005).

Road constr.

16,6 Mt

Demolition

52,1 Mt

Building constr.

4,3 Mt

C&DW quantities 2002 (without excavation and timber)

Total: 73,0 Mt

Landfill

6,6 MtOther

utilisation*

13,6 Mt

Recycling 51,1 Mt

Backfilling,

noise protection banks

9,9 Mt

Other

uses**

4,9 Mt

Concrete

aggregate

0,8 Mt

Road construction

and asphalt recycling

35,5 Mt

Landfillconstruction

1,7 Mt

from

*e.g. open pit mining**e.g. landscaping, sports field construction

Recycled Construction Minerals for Urban Use in Germany


3/12

USE OF RECYCLED CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AS A

CHANGE OF ACTION PATTERN

In order to focus on the non-technical obstacles to

the use of recycling materials for urban infra-

structure, the perspective adopted was rooted in

action theory. The use of recycling materials isanalysed as a shift of action patterns from a

conventional business-as-usual approach towards

a revised action pattern that takes into account

environmental concerns. Such an environmentally

oriented shift of action pattern is determined by

several factors. An interesting model for environ-

mentally responsible action in the construction

sector was developed within the context of the

German national research centre Environment

and Region (Klusemann et al., 2003). As general

models of environmentally responsible action(e.g. Kals & Montada, 1994) it comprises two

levels and several determinants of action. The first

level of the development or change of an action

pattern is the preparedness for a specific (revised)

action pattern. The two main components deter-

mining preparedness are responsibility-related

cognitions and emotions. Thus, as a precondition

for environmentally responsible action, the actors

first have to know about environmental problems

and they have to have an idea of who is

responsible and an understanding of to what

degree changed action will be effective with

respect to the initial environmental problem.

Secondly, they have to feel that something should

(or should not) be done, e.g. because they are

afraid about climatic changes or pleased by a

beautiful landscape without landfill sites. On the

second level of the action model, the transfer of

preparedness for action into actual action, the

social and the situation context become effective

as general main determinants. They include

observed action models and expectations of

others, and situation barriers and incentives. Inaddition, from their research on target group

specific models for the explanation of environ-

mentally relevant decisions in business activities,

Klusemann et al. (2003) identified two further

important determinants to complete the general

model for actors from the construction sector. The

one in favour of environmentally responsible

action is explicit, and detailed knowledge about

measures and technologies of ecological construc-

tion. The other, in contrast, is the perceived extent

of inability to cope with the complexity of thesubject or task. Both comply with the implications

of general models of action explaining the change

of action patterns, as for example described by Al

Diban (1995) for construction actors.

It is a fundamental element of action theory that

the largest part of action that we undertake is

based on consolidated and mostly un-reflectedinterpretations of situations demanding action

(interpretative framework). This, on the one hand,

is a precondition to efficiently cope with the

multitude of everyday demands from our complex

social, economic and ecological environment. On

the other hand, it makes it very difficult to change

action patterns once they have proven to work in a

certain context especially if this context is as

complex as construction planning and work. As an

example, Bresnen et al. (2005, p.558), for the case

of management innovation in construction high-

light the potentially conservative influence of

routines and show the importance of well-

established ways of working (as) more

immediate templates and sources of meaning

and legitimacy, thus taking effect as barriers

against the implementation of innovation. This

means that it needs quite a strong impetus to

catalyse the questioning of well-established action

patterns and routines as a first precondition of

change. According to the action model outlined by

Al Diban (1995) based on Fietkau (1984) this

impetus often is given by experienced or antici-pated loss of control: disturbance. A perceived

disturbance signals deficits in the prevailing

framework of interpretation and the respective

action pattern for a given situation. It destabilizes

the certainty of the actor as regards further action.

If an actor is not able to overcome the disturbance

e.g. environmental policy recommends the use

of recycled construction materials where for years

natural materials have been used on his own, the

above mentioned perception of not being able to

cope with the situation may occur: We (I) do nothave any experience with these materials yet. In

this case, to draw on external expertise to gain

the above-cited detailed knowledge about mea-

sures and technologies of ecological construction

is an option to overcome the uncertainty about

adequate action. Especially within a professional

context of action, this solution is by no means

trivial because it requires the preparedness of the

actor to accept own gaps in expertise. In many

cases the more likely solution to the problem

might be that the actor chooses to ignore or deny

the disturbance: These politicians do not know

A. Blum and S. Stutzriemer


4/12

anything at all about this subject. However, this

recourse in action theory makes clear that dis-

turbance, which usually has a primarily negative

connotation particularly within a highly institu-

tionalized context like an urban infrastructure

planning authority, may be turned into a positiveimpulse from the point of view of an environmen-

tally concerned reflection of consolidated inter-

pretative frameworks and patterns of action.

Nevertheless, in order to analyse the degree to

which this approach is relevant also for the case of

municipal public works, it is necessary to shed

some light on the contextual conditions of action

in this field. Individual actors within a municipal

administration, i.e. staff members in public works

departments, act within a widely externally deter-

mined setting of action requirements and alter-

natives. Opposed to environmentally responsibleaction of private actors, which follows subjective

dispositions and appraisals, administrative action

first of all is the objective implementation of

applicable legislation and regulations. This means

that within a model of action a stringent and

institutionalized template for action is part of the

social and professional! context of staff

members in public works departments. The

realization of own individual dispositions that

do not comply with this framework usually is

possible only within the scope of discretion or thepreparation of amended or new local regulations,

e.g. following a pioneer attitude. In consequence,

a frequently adopted strategy to overcome a

disturbance in the sense developed above will

rather be to deny the disturbance following the

template of: This recommendation does not

comply with applicable regulations. This means

that for a more widespread use of RCM for public

works the shift of individual action patterns has to

be analysed also in the context of institutional

innovation.

USE OF RCM AS AN ISSUE OF INSTITUTIONAL

INNOVATION

From the point of view of institutional innova-

tion, Beschorner et al. (2005) provide an instruc-

tive starting point with their analysis of innovation

processes for the field of construction and hous-

ing. They identified three phases of innovation,

extending from proto-institutionalization over

approaching institutionalization to completed

institutionalization (translation of terms A.B.).Completed institutionalization is characterized as

settled state of the art (sedimentation).

Approaching institutionalization inter alia is

characterized by problem-solving talks and proto-

institutionalization is characterized by problem-

discussion talks.

In general, all three levels exist for the use ofRCM for urban infrastructure construction in the

current situation: at least recycling of asphalt in

road construction projects can be considered as

fully institutionalized and as settled state of the art

and some non-critical uses of RCM as quite

common, at least locally approaching institutio-

nalization. On the other hand the use of RCM for

high quality applications appears as often still

being on the first level of problem-discussion

talks and practical experience exists mainly from

research and pilot applications. Thus, at the very

least, higher quality use of RCM for municipal

public works from a theoretical point of view still

has to be considered as an innovation at the very

beginning of the path of institutionalization.

The remaining question is: to what degree and

with what dynamic the development follows this

path. To identify the relevant factors it is helpful to

refer to the windows of opportunity model,

which was described by Zundel et al. (2004) for

the institutionalization of sustainability, among

others, for the development of residential building

stock (Figure 2).For our case the model was translated as

follows: an institutionalized pattern of action

i.e. the predominant use of natural new materials

for municipal public works follows a given

trajectory as long as the inhibition thresholds to

neighbouring innovative alternatives i.e. the use

of RCM remain high and the path remains clear:

the trajectory is stable.

A destabilization of the trajectory and thus a

window of opportunity for a shift to the

alternative path can be initiated in two ways. Onthe one hand the transition can be facilitated by

increasing the flow resistance for the established

action pattern/trajectory; on the other, if the

inhibition threshold for implementation of the

alternative option is lowered. According to Zundel

et al. (2004) destabilizing factors exerting influ-

ence in one or another direction may come from

the cultural, the political or the techno-economic

systems which are facing periods of stability and

instability themselves. For our case, for example,

an increase in the public awareness concerningresource consumption (cultural instability) may



5/12

cause the political system to adopt new regula-

tions leading to techno-economic instabilities,

generating new processes or technologies. The

other way round, innovative pioneer entrepre-

neurs may cause an instability of the techno-

economic system leading to cultural instability

and again political instability, being the first step

to new regulations or arrangements. At the same

time, stabilities in one or two of the three systems

can also rule out instabilities in another. However,

from a theoretical perspective it becomes clear that

disturbances in the case of individual actors

initiating a review of consolidated action pattern

and destabilizations in the case of institutiona-

lized trajectories preparing a window of opportu-

nity are crucial for a change towards more

environmentally aware action (Figure 3).

PERSPECTIVES, ATTITUDES AND MOTIVATIONS OF

KEY ACTORS

Based on this model and the results from the

earlier explorative study we identify the hypothe-

tical factors below. They are distinguished by their

origin within the different systems and their

potential to either stabilize or destabilize the

established trajectories (see above, Zundel et al.,

2004) of material use for public works on the one

hand and the treatment of construction and

demolition waste (C & DW) on the other. These

factors also were the basis for the definition of the

interview guidelines for the expert interviews with

key actors from the construction industry and

municipal public works departments.

HYPOTHETICAL FACTORS

From the political system, mostly regulations and

programmes can be expected to affect the stability

or destabilization of a given trajectory. In general,

we can say that the German national strategy for

sustainability includes targets of reduced waste

generation and resource consumption. Also the

Recycling Economy and Waste Act (Gesetz /

KrW-/AbfG 1994) states the general purpose to

support the recycling economy in order to

conserve natural resources and to ensure an

environmentally compatible disposal of waste(Gesetz /KrW-/AbfG 1994, 11). For the use of

RCM, in addition the recent Landfilling

Ordinance (Verordnung /DepVerwV 2005)

made simple and cheap landfilling or down-

cycling more difficult. One interesting path of

down-cycling to date was, for example, the use of

C & DW as substitute landfilling construction

materials for driveway construction and profile

modelling on landfill sites. This option existed

even for already regularly closed landfill sites, with

the consequence that driveways tend to have athickness of 5m and the profile of the landfilling

Figure 2. Scheme of alternative trajectories of action and window of opportunity (translated and adapted fromZundel et al., 2004).



6/12

happened to be intentionally modelled craggy inorder to increase the need of substitute landfilling

construction materials. This disposal path was

attractive to both the owner of the landfilling site,

who was enabled to prolong the service life even

after the closure of the site and the owner of C &

DW, having a cheap option of disposal. With the

new regulations, untreated waste should generally

not be landfilled any more and landfilling thus

becomes more expensive. This in turn has the

potential to destabilisze the flow of the C & DW

disposal trajectory. Looking at technical construc-tion norms and regulations, we have a nearly

balanced situation, since RCM may in many cases

be used to substitute new materials for road and

urban infrastructure construction. On the other

hand, the trajectory of C & DW disposal and use of

natural materials for urban infrastructure con-

struction is stabilized by regulations on ground-

water protection. Here, in fact, we have the

situation of conflicting environmental targets;

even if actors are prepared to use RCM they often

step back because of the risk of harmful substances

being washed out of broken concrete and into the

ground water (e.g. sulphates, chlorides and heavymetals).

With regard to the cultural system, we can

identify some soft factors that are potentially

influencing the stability of trajectories. On the

one hand political, environmental or sustainabil-

ity agendas often see public actors as responsible

for giving good practice examples, which may be

interpreted as a constructive disturbance of

consolidated traditional action patterns or trajec-

tories. On the other hand, RCM for the individual

actors often have the image of first of all still beingwaste. Such reservations are particularly enforced

by a hesitant regulatory process of formal/legal

approval of RCM as construction materials. To

date, only a minority of German federal states

have defined regulatory standards for a clear

separation between RCM being considered as

waste or as a product in terms of a commodity.

This situation, together with the risk aversion of

government clients tending to make very con-

servative design choices (e.g. according to UK

National Audit Office 2001 on modernizing con-

struction cited in Brady et al., 2005), potentially

Figure 3. Model for the examination of non-technical obstacles to the use of RCM for public works construction(Blum & Stutzriemer, 2005).

Preparedness for action

Emotions

Responsibility

Action-

pattern

Disturbance(perceived or anticipated

changed consequences of action)

Cognitions

Destabilisation(e.g. new

regulations,technologies,

public awareness )

Destabilisation(e.g. Institutional

change, changedreponsibilities)

Situative context:e.g.

institutionalised

action models;

complexity of

subject

(stable)

Techno-economic,Political and

Cultural context

(stable)

Revision of action pattern(additional knowledge, expertise )

Revised

action-

pattern

Denial of

disturbance

+ -



7/12

keeps high the inhibition threshold for a shift to

alternative options. It has to be borne in mind that

individual actors in public administration such

as the public works departments in the case of our

study in general are not paid for triggering

innovation but for implementation of applicableregulations.

From the techno-economic system, first of all

prices of RCM compared to those of new materials

have to be considered as driving factors. Because

construction materials, due to their usually large

volume and high weight, are transport sensitive

commodities, prices usually are determined by

regional supply and demand. Thus, a local short-

age of new construction materials, e.g. if there is a

natural lack of mineral resources or economic

shortage due to dynamic construction industry,

can be expected to hinder a given trajectory infavour of the use of recycling materials. Also,

growing recycling facilities and technological

progress have the potential to lead to high quality

RCM at favourable prices that also might lower the

inhibition threshold to the use of RCM.

QUALITATIVE INTERVIEW BASED STUDY

To gain more detailed insight into perspectives,

attitudes and motivations of different actors anapproach of semi-structured open-ended expert

interviews was chosen. The interview guidelines

were designed based on the analytical results and

hypotheses. Representatives from C & DW recy-

cling and RCM production industry, from urban

infrastructure construction companies and from

municipal public works departments took part in

the interviews. They were addressed for the three

key actors groups: production and supply of materi-

als, construction industry, and clients. However, the

first results showed that the first two groups could

in fact be considered as one, because thesebusiness areas in practice are closely linked

together. Altogether, 15 intensive qualitative inter-

views with participants from the construction and

recycling industry and 10 intensive qualitative

interviews with representatives from municipal

public works departments were conducted. This

qualitative approach does not allow generaliza-

tions in statistical terms, but helped to gain insight

also into more hidden motivations of the partici-

pants by allowing frank statements. The main

criteria for the choice of participating cities weresize, geological and political particularities. The

participants from the construction and recycling

industry represented professional associations at a

national and federal state level and small, medium

and large sized enterprises. The core results of the

study are presented in the following paragraphs.

Uncertainties of Users

Questioned to which degree the option to use

RCM is considered in calls for tenders for public

works construction, the perception is fairly evenly

split. About half of the participants see a trend

towards RCM being equally accepted or even

favoured, while the other half still sees a dis-

crimination against RCM in calls for tenders that

are not neutral concerning specified product use.

There are also cases reported where single munici-

palities explicitly excluded the use of RCM. Inaccordance with the theoretical model, represen-

tatives of the recycling industry see uncertainties

and lack of information by the users as a major

reason for this situation. On the other hand,

respondents from the municipalities point out

that, even if calls for tenders are neutral concern-

ing the use of RCM, bidders often do not consider

this option, but seem to prefer proven solutions.

Such uncertainties partly result from the fact that

RCM are seen as more environmentally critical

than new construction materials as mentionedabove, especially concerning the risk of harmful

substances being washed out into the ground-

water. In addition, especially the respondents in

the municipal departments indicate that there are

still uncertainties and reservations concerning

technical properties, e.g. the long term load

capacity and stability.

Quality Assurance is Central

In line with these uncertainties, the participants

highlight the necessity for clear quality standardsand quality assurance schemes. A first step is

existing standards for RCM giving clear specifica-

tions for different categories of quality and

application. Nevertheless, it is criticized that in

most federal states RCM are still not approved as

industrial products but still formally considered as

waste until they are used for construction and thus

forming part of a new product, be it a road or

other construction. In consequence, RCM owners

are formally owners of waste, which means that

the full range of waste regulations (e.g. concerningstorage) has to be complied with. In addition,



8/12

participants from the CD & W industry com-

plained that the waste label in general damages

the image of RCM. To deal with this Bavaria,

Baden-Wuerttemberg and the Saarland are the first

federal states to implement regulations on the

approval of RCM as industrial products ofequivalent value to new materials. However, they

are occasionally criticized for permitting compar-

ably high threshold values for harmful substances.

For example, the regulations in Bavaria and

Baden-Wuerttemberg permit 250 mg/l for sul-

phates in eluates, which is slightly above the

respective value specified by the drinking water

ordinance (240 mg/l).

A special issue concerning quality assurance for

RCM pointed out by the participants from the

supply side as well as from demand side is the

problem of black sheep, i.e. that some suppliersof RCM may be tempted to dilute high-quality lots

with low-quality material out of some dump.

Owing to the usually large quantity and volume of

materials used for public works construction, a

100% quality control on site is not possible and

would also be too expensive. Even if implemen-

ted, such a quality control would at the very least

outweigh the cost advantages of RCM, where such

exist. Hence municipal clients to a great extent

have to trust in the accountability and reliability of

suppliers. The approach most widely discussed toovercome this problem is the organization of RCM

suppliers into quality associations providing

third party certifications of quality over the whole

recycling chain. As an example, the city of Berlin,

for demolition projects one major starting point

of the recycling process for construction materials

cooperates exclusively with quality-certified

companies.

Landfilling Still an Option

In this context also the above-mentioned recentlyenacted or amended regulations for waste man-

agement become relevant. Questioned about the

expected effects of these regulations, the majority

of the interview partners formally pointed out that

there is still not much practical experience, but

also in general indicated that they were not very

optimistic. From their previous experience they

judged that still too many gaps might exist. Asked

what it means for his business and the use of

RCM, that untreated C & DW cannot be landfilled

any more, one interview partner from a recyclingcompany said: The question is: what means

treated? If construction and demolition waste

was transported and dumped onto my yard and

afterwards loaded and transported somewhere else

it was treated wasnt it?

Another two-fold issue in this context men-

tioned by participants from the RCM industryresults from the situation that landfill sites often

are in municipal ownership. Thus, from an

institutional point of view municipal actors are

reporting contradictory demands: on the one

hand it is about using RCM for municipal public

works and thus saving resources and ideally saving

money: on the other it is about economically

running their waste management facilities and

landfilling sites, which are locally already compet-

ing for waste and the related fees. This situation

occasionally already leads to acquisition and

transports of C & DW over longer distances

cheaper for the waste owner and profitable for the

operator of the landfilling site.

Regional Differences

In general, the participants highlighted regional

differences for the use of RCM. In regions with a

shortage of natural mineral resources RCM are

almost naturally appreciated as secondary

resources due to the high transport costs for

construction materials. In regions that are rich innatural mineral resources the smaller difference in

the prices of natural and recycled construction

materials together with the mentioned reserva-

tions of the actors take effect in favour of proven

natural materials. Some respondents also pointed

out that natural mineral materials may locally

even be cheaper than RCM. This is a consequence

of high capacity facilities for extraction and

production of new mineral construction materials,

which were built in times of dynamic growth of

the construction industry and are today over-dimensioned and thus leading to falling prices.

Such considerations lead to another frequently

mentioned issue: in times of a widely increasingly

restricted economic situation for both construc-

tion industry as well as public budgets, construc-

tion activities are generally reduced and decisions

first of all follow economic considerations.

Not really a question of regional difference, but

an issue of genius loci, is the perception reported

that smaller cities might have advantages in trying

out innovations. In smaller cities, actors networksare more personal and knowing each other helps



9/12

to build confidence. Sometimes in such settings

the question of which construction materials

might be used for public works actually is closely

linked to the question of which company to

support or which work places to maintain.

CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK

Recycling of mineral C & DW and the use of

recycled construction materials has the potential

to substitute significant quantities of primary

resources used for public works construction.

However, after some years of approaching insti-

tutionalization, with an increasing interest in and

fashionable (Beschorner et al., 2005) use of RCM,

the results of the project indicate that the current

trend of sustainability in this specific field appears

less optimistic. As a global figure the substitutionrate of new materials with RCM for 2002 in

Germany was below 9%, which means even a

small decrease compared to the year 2000

(Arbeitsgemeinschaft/KWTBau 2005), although it

was actually expected to continue rising until

2010. Although not representative in statistical

terms, two quotations from the interviews may be

taken to illustrate the situation. A pilot project was

reported that was intended as a long-term test of

RCM in road construction, but after having built

in the materials the monitoring and evaluationwas cancelled because of a lack of interest: Today

nobody even remembers which particular part of

the road was built using RCM. The other example

describes an expert from a municipal environ-

mental (!) department, responsible for the final

coverage of a closed landfill site demanding huge

quantities of mineral materials. Asked why he

used new natural materials and did not consider

RCM he answered that he wanted to avoid

trouble with the approving administration con-

cerning the specification of the materials with

respect to the potential elution of harmfulsubstances. Obviously, uncertainties of actors

due to missing consistent standards for anapproval of RCM as specified products instead of

still labelling them as waste and closely linked

not yet widely implemented schemes for quality

assurance and certification, are the main obstacles

to the use of RCM for public works construction.

Finally we have to accept that other issues

of sustainability in construction and energy

consumption in particular, at least at present,

seem to be absorbing action potentials. The use ofmineral resources is not so much an issue for

practitioners as it is from a political or scientific

perspective.

Against this background and to support next-

generation issues of sustainable construction, that

might for instance follow the implementation of

the above-cited European strategies on resourcesand waste, we can highlight some strategic issues.

The study shows that standardization, certification

and management of RCM quality are important to

reduce uncertainties of actors and to enhance

reliability and trust within the market. In regions

with rich and therefore comparably cheap naturalmineral resources, it might also be necessary to

consider subsidies for the support of the RCM

market, at least in the form of public actors andadministrations being prepared to eventually

accept higher costs for the use of RCM. This leads

to another conclusion on the stage of publiccommunication, where clear political messages in

favour of the use of RCM together with the will of

public actors to give good examples are needed.

This could be a valuable contribution to changethe context for private individual and institutional

action and help to overcome routines. To this end,

at least some optimism can be derived from the

observation that the city of Berlin has decided, forpublic demolition and deconstruction projects, to

cooperate only with deconstruction and recycling

companies that have a quality managementimplemented. Furthermore, on the occasion of

the publication of the fourth monitoring report of

the association for a recycling construction econ-

omy (Arbeitsgemeinschaft/KWTBau, 2005), repre-sentatives from the political system and from

private construction and recycling industries

agreed that the voluntary self-commitment on

increasing recycling rates should be continued andalso new federal regulations should make the use

of RCM easier and more clear. Thus, there are still

some actors who productively disturb the con-

solidated pattern of action, with a target to closethe mineral cycle to more than 70% of recycling

and to more than 9% of substitution of new

mineral construction materials consumption. Ifwe finally take into account the discussion on

shrinking cities in early-industrialized countries

(e.g. Westphal & Turner, 2004; Pallagst &Wiechmann, 2004), this may become even more

important in the future. Gruhler et al. (2006) have

shown that under conditions of shrinkage, cities

increasingly become mineral resource providers

with some hundreds of tonnes of reusableconstruction material taken out every day, while



10/12

at the same time urban infrastructure becomes the

most important sector of demand for mineral

construction materials, with a great potential for

the use of RCM. Thus the issue of recycling/

recycled construction materials will certainly stay

on the agenda towards sustainable growth inEurope.

References

Al Diban, S. (1995) Umweltbewutsein im

Bauwesen. Dresden: Diplomarbeit TU Dresden,

Institut fur Psychologie, IOER (Environmental

awareness in the construction sector).

Arbeitsgemeinschaft Kreislaufwirtschaftstrager Bau

(KWTBau) (2005) 4. Monitoring Bericht

Bauabfalle Erhebung 2002. Berlin: KWTBau

(4

th

monitoring report on construction and demoli-tion waste, 2002 survey).

Beschorner, T., et al. (2005) Institutionalisierung

von Nachhaltigkeit -- Eine vergleichende

Untersuchung der organisationalen Bedurfnisfelder

Bauen & Wohnen, Mobilitat und Information &

Kommunikation. Marburg: Metropolis (Institu-

tionalization of sustainability a comparative

analysis of the organisational fields construc-

tion and housing, mobility and information

and communication).

Blum, A., Stutzriemer, S. (2005) Baustoffrecycling

im kommunalen Tiefbau -- theoretische Grundlagen

und Befragungsergebnisse. Dresden: 2. IOER

Forschungsforum (Recycling of construction

materials for public works construction --

theoretical framework and interview results).

Brady, T., et al. (2005) Can integrated solutions

business models work in construction? Building

Research & Information 33 (6), pp. 571579.

Bresnen, M., et al. (2005) Implementing change in

construction project organizations: exploring

the interplay between structure and agency.

Building Research & Information 33 (6), pp.547560.

Commission of the European Communities

(2005) Taking sustainable use of resources forward:

A Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling

of waste (COM(2005) 666). Brussels: EC.

Commission of the European Communities

(2005) Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use

of natural resources (COM(2005) 670). Brussels:

EC.

Fietkau, H.-J. (1984) Bedingungen okologischen

Handelns. Weinheim: Beltz (Preconditions ofecological action).

Finkenstein, C. (2002) Stoffstrome und

Flacheninanspruchnahme des Bauens und

Wohnens. Studienarbeit IOER. Dresden: IOER

(Material flows and land consumption for

building and housing).

Gesetz zur Forderung der Kreislaufwirtschaft undSicherung der umweltvertraglichen Beseitigung

von Abfallen 2005 (KrW-/AbfG, 1994/2005)

(Recycling economy and waste act (short title);

most recent amendment: 2005).

Gruhler, K., et al. (2006) Effects of future city

development: loss of efficiency. In: R.

Pietroforte, E.de. Angelis, and F. Polverino

(eds), Construction in the XXI century: local

and global challenges. Joint 2006 CIB W065/

W055/W086 International Symposium Pro-

ceedings. Ingegneria economico-gestionale, 39.

Napoli, Roma: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane,

2006, pp. 130131, full text on CD.

Kals, E., Montada., L. (1994) Umweltschutz und

die Verantwortung der Burger. Zeitschrift

fur Sozialpsychologie 25, pp. 326337

(Environmental Protection and citizens

responsibility).

Klusemann, et al. (2003) Zielgruppenspezifische

Modelle zur Erklarung umweltrelevanter

Entscheidungen in der Wirtschaft: Ergebnisse einer

interdisziplinaren Forschungsgruppe. Umwelt-

psychologie 7 (2), pp. 114133 (Target groupspecific models for the analysis of environmen-

tally relevant decisions in the economic sector).

Pallagst, K.M., Wiechmann, T. (2004) Shrinking

Smart? Stadtische Schrumpfungsprozesse in

den USA. In: N. Gestring, et al. (eds), Jahrbuch

StadtRegion 2004/05. Schwerpunkt: Schrumpfende

Stadte. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissens-

chaften 2004 (Yearbook CityRegion 2004/2005.

Focus: Shrinking Cities).

Schmidt, M. (2002) Technische, okologische und

wirtschaftliche Einflusse auf die Mengen anrezyklierten Baustoffen in Deutschland. Strae +

Autobahn 2002 (1), pp. 1116 (Technical,

ecological and economic influence on the

quantity of recycled construction materials in

Germany).

Verordnung uber die Verwertung von Abfallen auf

Deponien uber Tage und zur Anderung der

Gewerbeabfallverordnung 2005 (DepVerwV

2005) (Landfilling ordinance; short title).

Westphal, C., Turner, J. (2004) Strategies for Deve-

loping Shrinking Cities and Towns - Examplesfrom Germany and Britain. IOER Dresden,



11/12

USAL Salford. Essay, LUDA project newslet

ter No. 6. Available from: http://www.

luda-project.net/newsletters/newsletter_No6.htm

#essay[cited 10 November 2006].

Zundel, S., et al. (2004) Zeitstrategien okologischer

Innovationspolitik. Berlin: IO

W(Time-strategies ofecological innovation policy).

Anndreas Blum & Sylke StutzriemerLeibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional

Development (IOER)

Department of Housing and Sustainable

Construction

Weberplatz 1, 01217 Dresden, GermanyE-mail: [email protected]



12/12

recycled construction minerals for urban infrastructure in germany: non-technical issues

Documents