ORIGINAL PAPER

Estimation of Construction and Demolition Waste (C&DW)Generation and Multicriteria Analysis of C&DW ManagementAlternatives: A Case Study in Spain

M. Coronado • E. Dosal • A. Coz • J. R. Viguri •

A. Andres

Received: 26 February 2010 / Accepted: 27 January 2011 / Published online: 18 February 2011

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract Construction and demolition waste (C&DW)

constitutes a priority waste stream in the European waste

strategy due to its large volume and its high recycling and

reuse potential. Directive 2008/98/EC on waste, stresses

the need of quantify the waste stream and to improve the

material recovery efficiency of C&DW in the European

Union. Designing a suitable network of facilities involves

an adequate knowledge of the inputs to material recovery

facilities. In this work, a two-step methodology for the

quantification and waste management analysis of C&DW

has been developed and applied to the case study in Can-

tabria, a northern Spanish region. In the first step, the

quantification of C&DW was calculated by means of an

equation which combines municipal licenses and ratios of

waste per unit area of construction, demolition and reno-

vation. The selected ratios for the study case in Cantabria

belong to four northern Spanish regions, and they were

developed by two associations of architects, one techno-

logical institute and by the regional legislation recently

developed in the region. In the second step, the waste

management assessment for C&DW was carry out throw

the development of a multicriteria-based methodology for

decision-making in order to select the most suitable man-

agement alternative. The application of the methodology to

the case study in Cantabria has been performed using four

multicriteria analysis methods: Evamix (EV), Weighted

Summation (WS), Electre II (E2) and Regime (REG).

Analyses of the sensitivity of the results have been also

carried out in order to investigate the robustness of the

solutions obtained in the decision making process.

Keywords Construction and demolition waste �Generation � Multicriteria analysis

Introduction

The European Commission considers construction and

demolition waste (C&DW) as a priority waste stream

because of the large amounts generated [1–4] and its high

potential for reuse and recycling embodied in the compo-

sition of the waste [5, 6]. Specific legislation for C&DW

has been developed in Europe such as the Directive

2008/98/EC on waste, which stresses the need of quantify

the waste stream and to improve the material recovery

efficiency of C&DW in the European Union [7]. According

to this Directive, the recycling target of C&DW by 2020 is

70%, and therefore recycling facilities are needed in order

to achieve this target.

The situation of the construction sector in Europe has

been conditioned by the economic situation, and conse-

quently the international economic recession experimented

in the last years has severely impacted on Europe and on

their C&DW generation. Figure 1 shows the generation of

C&DW in the European countries in the year 2008 [8].

According to Fig. 1, the European country which showed

higher generation of C&DW in 2008 was France arising

almost 253 Mt/year. Germany and the United Kingdom

generated between 100 and 200 Mt/year in 2008. The

Netherlands and Italy generated C&DW in the range of 50

and 100 Mt/year in 2008. The rest of the countries generated

less than 50 Mt/year, being Latvia the least generator

country by far, with around only 10.000 tons/year in 2008.

M. Coronado � E. Dosal � A. Coz � J. R. Viguri � A. Andres (&)

Department of Chemical Engineering and Inorganic Chemistry,

University of Cantabria, Avda. Los Castros s/n, 39005

Santander, Spain

e-mail: andresa@unican.es

123

Waste Biomass Valor (2011) 2:209–225

DOI 10.1007/s12649-011-9064-8

The recycling rate of C&DW in Europe shows significant

variations among the countries. Some countries showed

recycling rates below 10% while others showed recycling

rates over 90%. According to the European Commission [6]

the data of recycling rates in the European countries in the

year 2006 show that five countries reported recycling rates

that already fulfil the target of the European Directive,

Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Ireland and The Netherlands.

While another five countries, Austria, Belgium, France,

Lithuania, and the United Kingdom, reported recycling rates

between 60 and 70% and three countries, Latvia, Luxem-

bourg and Slovenia, reported recycling rates between 40 and

60%. The rest of the countries showed recycling rates below

40%. However for six countries, no data was available to

estimate the recycling rates, Bulgaria, Italy, Malta, Roma-

nia, Slovakia and Sweden. Due to the lack of data in some

countries it is difficult to estimate the average recycling rate

in Europe, but in conclusion, the recycling rate in 2006 was

reasonable ([50%) for most countries.

The specific situation of C&DW in Spain shows that

important amounts of C&DW are annually generated but

the recycling rate is much lower than in other European

countries, as illustrated in Fig. 1. In order to improve this

situation a regulation called II Spanish Integrated National

Plan for C&DW [9] regarding the control and recovery of

wastes was recently issued in Spain. Cantabria is a northern

Spanish region which produces thousands of tons of

C&DW annually, most of which is dumped due to the

absence of a network of collection and recycling facilities

for the recycling of the recyclable fractions contained in

the waste. In this way, a regional construction and demo-

lition waste regulation has also been developed; this is the

Fig. 1 Generation of C&DW in

the European countries in the

year 2008 [8]

210 Waste Biomass Valor (2011) 2:209–225

123

Sectorial Plan of C&DW of Cantabria [10] which estab-

lishes recycling targets of C&DW in the next years.

In order to take advantage of the recycling potential and

to increase the recycling amounts of C&DW it is necessary

to know the specific composition of this waste. According

to Cochran, K. et al. [11], the typical components of

C&DW include concrete, asphalt, wood, metal, drywall,

and smaller amounts of packaging materials, such as paper

and plastic. Most materials from C&DW are mainly inert

(concrete, rubble, etc.), but C&DW also contains small

amounts of hazardous waste as is defined in Directive

2008/98/EC on waste [7]. One of the most obvious

examples is asbestos-based insulation [12]. In this way, the

European Environmental Agency established a European

Waste Catalogue and Hazardous Waste List to distinguish

the management of inert and hazardous materials from this

waste flow [13].

The composition of C&DW may vary widely depending

on the generation regions [14]. Table 1 summarises the

composition of C&DW in some European countries [6].

Significant differences in composition can be observed

among the countries in Table 1. For example, the main

component in C&DW in Finland is wood, while in Estonia

is metal and in the rest of the countries is the mineral

fraction which has a high potential for recycling in order to

be used as secondary aggregates. These differences in the

composition of C&DW among countries could be attrib-

uted to a countless of factors such as differences in cli-

matology, local availability of materials, construction

techniques and economic and cultural differences among

others.

The accurate estimation of quantities and composition

of C&DW is necessary in order to ensure a minimum

continuous input to the recycling plants. However, it is

quite difficult to estimate the generation of C&DW, since

construction and demolition companies have not been

obliged to record and report the qualitative and quantitative

characteristics of the waste. In order to estimate C&DW

generation several studies have been found in the literature

[15–19]. The most common method is based on the floor

area of the buildings constructed, demolished and reno-

vated and proposed ratios of waste generated per unit area

constructed, demolished and renovated. The selection and

application of one ratio instead of other might affect the

results due to variations of construction methods and

materials from one region to another among others.

Therefore, any estimation calculated based on just one ratio

could be questioned. In order to minimize this handicap,

different suitable ratios can be applied to quantify the waste

and also to assess the possible variations of the results

based on the employed ratio.

Several studies about the application of multicriteria

analysis (MCA) have been found in the literature [20–28].

MCA is a decision-making tool useful to evaluate different

options or alternatives taking into account different criteria,

which often conflict between them. Through the combi-

nation of the decisional criteria together with the impor-

tance assigned to each one (weight), it is possible to reach

one overall evaluation to solve the decision-making

problem [29]. Decision-making in the field of waste man-

agement is a difficult issue because several stakeholders are

involved: producers, recyclers, natural arid manufacturers

or local communities, among others.

The aim of this paper is the development of a two-step

methodology for the quantification of C&DW and the

assessment of different waste management alternatives.

This methodology was applied to a case study in Cantabria,

a northern Spanish region with 500.000 inhabitants and

with an area of 5.321 km2, which has experienced a high

increase in new construction during last years. Due to this

increment new regulations have been developed in Canta-

bria such as the regional Decree for C&DW.

Table 1 Composition of C&DW in some European countries [6]

Country The Netherlands

(2001)

Denmark

(2003)

Estonia

(2006)

Finland

(2006)

Czech Rep

(2006)

Spain

(2005)

Germany

(2007)Waste %

Concrete 40 32 17 33 33 12 70

Masonry 25 8 35 54

Other mineral waste 2 – – – – 9 –

Total Mineral waste 67 40 17 33 68 75 70

Asphalt 26 24 9 – – 5 27

Wood 2 – 41 4 –

Metal 1 – 40 14 – 3 0.4

Gypsum – – – – – 0.2 –

Plastics – – – – – 2 –

Miscellaneous 7 36 34 12 32 12 3

Waste Biomass Valor (2011) 2:209–225 211

123

Materials and Methods

This work presents a two-step methodology for the esti-

mation of C&DW generation. This includes the quantifi-

cation and composition of the generated amounts and the

study of its management through multicriteria analysis.

Figure 2 schematizes the general methodology of this

paper.

The study of the management of the amounts of C&DW

estimated in the first step of the methodology is performed

in the second step through MCA.

Methodology for the Estimation of the Generation

of C&DW

The methodology for the estimation of C&DW generation

consists of two major parts, the estimation of the generated

quantities and the estimation of its composition. Several

methodologies have been found in the literature in order to

estimate C&DW generation. Some of these methodologies

employ ratios of waste produced while others methodolo-

gies use available data of cement production [16] or solid

waste collected in the area [15]. Two kind of ratios of

waste produced are commonly used in the literature, ratios

of waste produced per person in the same way as Municipal

Solid Waste (MSW) is calculated, and ratios of waste

generated per unit area constructed, demolished and reno-

vated [17–19].

The quantification methodology proposed in this work

combines ratios of waste per unit area of activity (in

kilograms per square meter) with municipal licenses (in

square meters) granted for construction, demolition and

renovation activities. Figure 2 presents a scheme with the

mathematical equation employed for the calculation of

C&DW. In this scheme C&DWj is the total quantity of

construction and demolition waste generated, and it is

calculated based on the used ratio of waste per unit area

constructed, demolished and renovated (j). Ri is the ratio of

waste per unit area produced by the different activities

(i = construction, demolition and renovation).

The composition of C&DW is usually based on the

European Waste Catalogue which is a hierarchical list of

waste descriptions established by Commission Decision

2000/532/EC2. This catalogue classifies the waste materi-

als and categorizes them according to what they are and

how they were produced [30]. The estimation of the

composition of C&DW is calculated taking into account

the ratios previously used in the quantification

methodology.

Multicriteria Analysis for the C&DW Management

In this work, the proposed methodology for the determi-

nation of the most suitable C&DW management alternative

is based on multicriteria analysis (MCA). Decision making

should start with the identification of the stakeholder

groups involved in the decision, reducing the possible

disagreement about problem definition, requirements, goals

and criteria [31]. The methodology developed for the

multicriteria analysis is divided into the following steps:

The first step is to identify and define the decision

problem. The management of C&DW needs to be modified

in order to fulfil the legislation. Landfill disposal is the less

favourable option taking into account the Directive

2008/98/CE adopted by the European Union [7]. This

Directive lays down a five-step hierarchy of waste

management options (in descending order): waste preven-

tion; re-use; recycling; recovery (including energy recov-

ery); and safe disposal. This Directive set a new recycling

target by 2020, when each Member State shall recycle 70%

of their C&DW.

The second step involves determining different alter-

natives and decisional criteria to evaluate them and to solve

the defined problem. The complex and dynamic nature of

environmental problems requires flexible and transparent

decision-making that embraces a diversity of knowledge

and values. For this reason, stakeholder participation in

environmental decision-making has been increasing in

national and international policy [32]. Since complexity

implies multiplicity of legitimates views, it is very

important to analyze the different perceptions of theFig. 2 General methodology: estimation of the generation of C&DW

and multicriteria analysis for the C&DW management

212 Waste Biomass Valor (2011) 2:209–225

123

involved stakeholders on a problem, which usually are

conflicting [33]. According to Tanz and Howard [34]

involvement of stakeholder groups in the planning,

management, and policy analysis helps to resolve conflicts,

increases public commitment and reduces distrust between

the stakeholders. Therefore, the methodology developed in

this paper combines environmental criteria with socio-

economic criteria, in order to take into account both the

environmental dimension and the social dimension of the

problem.

The third step consists on the assessment of the relative

importance of criteria in order to minimize the subjectivity

associated to the process [35]. And the forth step involves

the application of specific MCA methods in order to obtain

and determine a reasonable rank-order of the C&DW

management alternatives. Nowadays, numerous techniques

for solving a MCA problem are available [36]. Among the

most commonly used methods are The Analytic Hierarchy

Process (AHP) [37], Multi-attribute Utility Theory

(MAUT) [38], and the outranking methods such as

ELECTRE and PROMETHEE methods [39].

Finally, the weights of the criteria and the scoring values

of the alternatives which always contain some uncertainties

should be assessed. It is therefore an important question

how the final ranking of the alternatives is sensitive to the

changes of some input parameters of the decision model

[40].

Case Study: Results and Discussion

The two-step developed methodology is applied to the case

study in the management of C&DW in Cantabria. In the

first step, the estimation of the generated quantities and the

composition of C&DW were calculated. In the second step,

the assessment of the most suitable waste management

alternative was carried out.

Estimation of Construction and Demolition Waste

Generation in Cantabria (Spain)

In this work, the estimation of C&DW generation in

Cantabria is performed according to specific ratios of waste

produced per unit area of activity in order to apply the

methodology shown in Fig. 2. With this aim, four ratios of

waste per unit area of activity from four different northern

Spanish regions have been selected. One ratio was pro-

vided by the Catalan Institute of Construction Technology

(R1) [41], two of these ratios belong to two regional

associations of architects from northern Spanish regions:

the regional Association of Architects of La Rioja (R2) [42]

and the regional Association of Architects of Corunna (R3)

[43], and finally the ratio established by the Sectorial Plan

of C&DW of Cantabria (R4) [10] was also applied. This

ratio is based on the methodology used in the II Spanish

Integrated National Plan for C&DW for the estimation of

C&DW generation in Spain [9]. Therefore, this ratio is not

a specific ratio for Cantabria. On the other hand, con-

structed, demolished and renovated surface areas have been

provided by the Spanish National Department of Devel-

opment [44] and the Regional Statistical Institute of Can-

tabria [45] through annual municipal licenses granted in

Cantabria for the period 2003–2008. The following

assumptions were considered:

• Clearing wastes and excavated soil from previous

activities have not been taken into account in this study

because point source data were not available.

• The proportion of residential and non-residential

demolition is estimated based on a review of the

available data from the period 1990–2008 of residential

and non-residential building area of buildings con-

structed in Cantabria, where 91% of total constructed

building area corresponds to residential buildings, and

only 9% to non-residential buildings.

• The C&DW generation of partial demolition is esti-

mated to be 20% lower than total demolition according

to the II Spanish Integrated National Plan for C&DW

[9].

• Ratios R1 [41] and R4 [10] do not present data about

renovation activities, and an approximation has been

taken into account: renovation activities generate less

than 10% of the total C&DW stream.

• The contribution of illegal activities (activities without

a work license) is estimated to be 5%, and the

contribution of C&DW from civil work is 28% of the

total C&DW stream [9].

The results of the generation of C&DW through the four

ratios of waste per unit area of activity (R1, R2, R3 and R4)

considered, and the disposal amounts into the inert muni-

cipal landfill in Cantabria (Spain) are represented in Fig. 3.

Regarding the evolution of C&DW generation in Can-

tabria, the quantity of C&DW generated in Cantabria

increased from 2003 to 2005, while between 2005 and

2006 the amount of C&DW generated remained almost

constant. However, since 2006 construction sector has

experienced an important recession. The decreasing trend

was around 15% in the period 2006–2007, while in the

period 2007–2008 this decrease was over 45%. Similar

trend has been experienced in most of the countries, and

especially in Spain where the percentage of the Gross

Domestic Product (GDP) attributed to construction indus-

try was 10.4% in 2005 [46].

Figure 3 show differences in C&DW generation

depending on the used ratio of waste produced per unit area

of activity. The largest amounts of C&DW are obtained

Waste Biomass Valor (2011) 2:209–225 213

123

using ratio R4 from the Sectorial Plan of C&DW of

Cantabria [10], and ratio R3 from the regional Association

of Architects of Corunna [43]. However, the C&DW

generation calculated using ratio R2 from the regional

Association of Architects of La Rioja [42] and ratio R1

from the Catalan Institute of Construction Technology [41]

show differences around 30% with respect to the results

obtained using the other two ratios of waste per unit area

(R4 and R3). As a conclusion, the generation of C&DW

depends on the used ratio of waste produced per unit area

of activity. Therefore, specific ratios should be developed

in each region in order to obtain a more accurate estimation

of the generation of C&DW.

Taking into account the results obtained from all the

used ratios of waste per unit area of activity, the calculated

average of generation of C&DW in the period 2003–2008

was around 400.000 tons/year, and the average of C&DW

generated in Cantabria per person was between 0.36 and

0.82 tons per inhabitant and year in the studied period

(2003–2008).

The difference found between disposal and generation in

the period 2003–2008 was between 40 and 60%. Data of

landfilled quantitiess were obtained from companies run-

ning the landfills in Cantabria [47]. The difference between

disposal and generated quantities should correspond to

waste reused at the source, recycled waste, reused in fill-

ings areas and road construction or illegal dumping, among

others. Construction and demolition recycling facilities

were inexistent during the period under study (2003–2008),

and several illegal landfill areas existed in this Region.

Without any network collection and recycling facilities,

most C&DW was legally or illegally dumped. The illegal

dumping of C&DW in public areas affects the rich and

green landscape of Cantabria.

The composition of C&DW generated in Cantabria was

estimated based on the ratios previously used in the esti-

mation of the amounts generated. Unfortunately, the

composition of the total C&DW stream based on the

European Waste Catalogue has only been possible to do by

estimations starting from one of the proposed ratios. This

was due to the lack of ratios for composition of waste

originating from renovation works in three of the selected

ratios (R1, R2, and R3). Hence, total amount of different

waste materials generated in Cantabria, has only been

calculated by means of ratio R3 proposed by the regional

Association of Architects of Corunna, and the results are

shown in Fig. 4.

According to Fig. 4 the major fractions of C&DW

generated in Cantabria were concrete (39%), bricks (30%)

and wood (22%). The I Spanish Integrated National Plan

for C&DW [48] established that major contribution to

C&DW in Spain in year 2005 were bricks (54%) and

concrete (12%). Therefore, the composition of C&DW

generation depends strongly on the used ratio. A field study

should be carried out in Cantabria in order to determine the

specific composition of C&DW in the region.

Fig. 3 Generation of C&DW through four ratios of waste per unit

area of activity (R1, R2, R3 and R4) and the disposal amounts into the

inert municipal landfill in Cantabria (Spain)

Fig. 4 Composition of C&DW

according to the European

Waste Catalogue in Cantabria

(Spain) [30]

214 Waste Biomass Valor (2011) 2:209–225

123

Multicriteria Analysis for the C&DW Management

in Cantabria (Spain)

A multicriteria analysis has been performed using the

Packaged DEFINITE 3.0 which was chosen for this

application because it includes four different MCA evalu-

ation methods: Weighted Summation (WS), Electre II (E2),

Evamix (EV) and Regime (REG) [49]. Weighted summa-

tion is considered to be a very simple technique of the

MAUT family of methodologies, and it is based on the

transformation of all criteria into a scale (usually 0–1,

where 1 represents best performance), multiplied by

weights and then summed to obtain the results [36]. Electre

II [39] and Evamix are outranking approaches. Electre II

method uses concordance and discordance indexes which

measure the relative advantages or disadvantages of each

alternative over all other alternatives in order to provide a

final ranking of alternatives throw pairwise comparison

[50]. The Evamix approach [51] also makes a pairwise

comparison using concordance and discordance indexes,

but the difference with the Electre approach is that separate

indexes are constructed for the qualitative and quantitative

criteria [52]. Finally, the Regime method is a generalised

form of concordance analysis based in essence on a gen-

eralisation of pairwise comparison methods. Regime is able

to examine both quantitative and cardinal data through

using the net concordance index [53].

Problem Definition and Requirements

Once upon current situation of C&DW has been analyzed,

the Sectorial Plan of C&DW of Cantabria [10] establishes

the necessity of a network of waste treatment facilities

dense enough to rise the proposed recycling target (recy-

cling rate of 30% by 2011 and 65% by 2014) and to

decrease the transportation costs. In this way, this plan

divides the territory into five functional areas to reach an

optimal waste management. In each one of the five regional

areas a new facility, including transfer station (TS) or

recycling plant (RP), should be set in order to minimize the

waste transport and to allow that each area manages each

own waste. The aim of the application of this methodology

to the case study is to evaluate different waste management

alternatives using MCA in order to determine the most

suitable C&DW management alternative in Cantabria.

Selected Alternatives

This step is relevant due to the fact that selection of the

alternatives will influence the final solution. In this work,

waste management alternatives were selected taking into

account different options for the waste management and

different networks of C&DW recycling facilities to carry

out them. The different options of management vary upon

the recycling objectives. According to this, the waste

management options selected are the following: ‘‘Option

0’’ which represents the current situation (100% landfill

disposal), ‘‘Option 1’’ and ‘‘Option 2’’ are options based on

the recycling targets established by 2011 and 2014 in the

Sectorial Plan of C&DW of Cantabria [10] respectively.

On the other hand, ‘‘Option 3’’ represents the highest

recycling targets in Europe (85% of recycling) and ‘‘Option

4’’ constitutes an extreme waste management option (100%

recycling).

These five waste management options generate all the

possible alternatives in the MCA by varying the network

of facilities designed to carry out the management. Five

different netwok facilities have been considered (0, a, b, c

and d). ‘‘Netwok facility 0’’ represents the current existing

facilities (landfills). ‘‘Network facities a, b, c and d ‘‘only

differ between them in the combination of recycling plants

and transfer stations, whose total sum must be five. For

example, ‘‘Network facility a’’ has one recycling plant and

four transfer stations, ‘‘Network facility b’’ has two recy-

cling plants and three transfer stations, ‘‘Network facility c’’

has three recycling plants and two transfer stations, and

finally ‘‘Network facility d’’ has four recycling plants and

one transfer station.

The MCA must consider not only the recycling objec-

tives, but also the competiveness of the facility. In this

sense, the maximum recycling plant (RP) capacity must be

established taking into account economical criteria. Nunes

et al. [54] showed that Brazilian recycling plants had both

low productivity and selling cash flows when their waste

inputs were below 45.000 tons/year. In the same way, the

Regional Plan for C&DW Management of Castilla-La

Mancha (Spain) fixed this quantity in 50.000 tons/year

[55]. Thus, the recycling plants with capacities lower than

this value were not considered as valid alternatives

(Table 2).

Selected Criteria

In this case study the criteria were selected taking into

account the different stakeholder groups implicated in the

problem definition. Stakeholders include the initiator of an

activity (producer of C&DW), local communities, the

authority which usually is the regional government, and the

recyclers among others. Table 3 shows the criteria and the

stakeholder groups.

Management Costs. The costs assumed by the C&DW

generator in order to manage the waste. C&DW generators

must assumed two costs types: the landfill or recycling

facilities tipping fees and the transport costs. In this work

the landfill tipping fees were supplied by the company

which runs the landfills in Cantabria: 15 €/ton for clean

Waste Biomass Valor (2011) 2:209–225 215

123

C&DW waste and 56 €/ton for mixed debris [47]. The

recycling tipping fees were estimated from data collected

in Spanish plants [56–59] and also taking into account that

the recycling fees must be lower than the landfill ones.

Thus, the recycling tipping fees were fixed in 14 €/ton for

clean C&DW waste and 35 €/ton for mixed debris.

Due to the relevance of the transport costs, the recycling

facility locations were fixed in areas where nowadays

C&DW are dumping or areas where the existing facilities

could decrease the investment costs. For determining the

costs due to the transport of the waste, ‘‘the price list for

the truck transport’’ in Catalonia, a northern Spanish

region was used [60].

Profitability of New Facilities. Despite the environ-

mental considerations, the final decision on setting up a

recycling centre is mainly dependant on economical cri-

teria [54]. Therefore, the total costs and the total incomes

were calculated. The total costs, including operating costs

and initial investment, were considered. The operating

costs were collected from the bibliography [61–63], while

the investments ones were calculated by means of an

equation fitted from the available data considered in the II

Spanish Integrated National Plan for C&DW [9]. This

equation considers the costs as function of the input

capacity.

Beside the costs, estimating the profits also involves the

estimation of the incomes derived from the secondary

aggregates sale and the tipping fees, which were explained

before (management cost criterion). Thus, the secondary

aggregates average sale price was fixed in 3 €/ton, and the

Table 2 Alternatives for the multicriteria analysis of the C&DW management in Cantabria (Spain)

Network facilities 0 (0RP ? 0TS) a (1RP ? 4TS) b (2RP ? 3TS) c (3RP ? 2TS) d (4RP ? 1TS)

Options

0 (0% recycling) 0 – – – –

1 (30% recycling) – 1a 1b – –

2 (65% recycling) – 2a 2b 2c –

3 (85% recycling) – 3a 3b 3c –

4 (100% recycling) – 4a 4b 4c 4d

RP Recycling Plant, TS Transfer Station

Table 3 Socio-economic and environmental criteria for the multicriteria analysis of the C&DW management in Cantabria (Spain)

Stakeholder groups Criteria Sub-criteria

Socio-economic criteria

Producers 1.Management Costs (€/ton) Transport costs

Typing fees

Recyclers 2. Profitability of new facilities (€/ton) Incomes

Costs

Natural aggregates producers 3. Intrusion into natural aggregates market Natural aggregates production

Recycled aggregates production

Society 4. Social acceptability (?????/-----) Use of sustainable technologies

Atmospheric pollution (dust)

Acoustic pollution

Social municipalities 5. Local acceptability of municipalities (?????/-----) Local employment

Local disturbance: noise and dust

Visual impact

Ratio of affected population

Regional government 6. National Regulatory compliance (?????/-----) National target

7. European Regulatory compliance (?????/-----) European target

Environmental criteria

Regional Government 8. CO2 emission due to waste transport (t CO2/t transported) Kilometres covered

t CO2/Km covered

Regional Government 9. Landfill space savings (m3) Volume of the recycled aggregates produced

216 Waste Biomass Valor (2011) 2:209–225

123

recycling tipping fees were set in 14 €/ton for clean C&DW

waste and 35 €/ton for mixed debris.

Intrusion into Natural Aggregates Market. An important

economic aspect to assess the waste management strategies

is the influence of the use of secondary raw materials on the

economic activity [25]. Possible affections to the natural

raw market must be taking into account. However, once

upon this criterion were evaluated, a result of 2% of max-

imum intrusion was found. Therefore this criterion has been

considering as negligible and removed from the criteria list.

Social Acceptability. Three sub-criteria were qualita-

tively assessed from the point of view of the society (1) the

use of sustainable technologies (2) the atmospheric pollu-

tion by means of dust and (3) the acoustic pollution, pro-

duced by the noise caused by the transport and the

proposed facilities for recycling C&DW in the region.

Alternatives with more ambitious recycling objectives are

sociality preferred, but these alternatives also cause more

disturbances in terms of noise and dust. Alternatives with

equal recycling objectives cause more disturbance when

more recycling plants versus transfer stations were located.

Local Acceptability of Municipalities. The Not in My

Back Yard syndrome and the local community acceptance

or rejection is unambiguously revealed as one of the most

urgent local pressures for the effectiveness of any inte-

grated waste management scheme [23]. Four sub-criteria

were considered in order to assess this criterion (1) local

employment (2) local disturbance in terms of dust and

noise (3) the visual impact caused by the new facilities, and

(4) the ratio of affected population. The last two sub-cri-

teria are qualitative while the first ones are quantitative.

National Regulatory Compliance. Recycling rates has

been set at National level. Therefore, it is important to

assess the compliance of these targets. According to the II

Spanish Integrated National Plan for C&DW the recycling

target by 2011 is 40% [9].

European Regulatory Compliance. Recycling rates has

been set at European level. Therefore, it is important to

assess the compliance of these targets. According to

Directive 2008/98/EC on waste the recycling target by

2020 will be 70% [7].

CO2 Emission Due Transport. Both C&DW amounts

and the existing distance from the source of generation to

the final destination of C&DW, which could be landfill

sites or recycling facilities, contribute to the CO2 emis-

sions. Due to the environmental impacts derived from this,

the CO2 emission associated to each management alterna-

tive was evaluated by means of an equation fitted from the

available data of the CO2 emissions of various transport

modes from the ‘‘Forum of Trade and Development’’

which took place in Geneva in 2008 [64]. This equation

considers the emissions as function of the tare weight and

the distance covered by the truck (gCO2/tonC&DW*km) [64].

Landfill Space Savings. Recycling C&DW avoids

landfill disposal. This criterion was calculated by con-

verting the mass of C&DW recycled into volume. This

volume corresponds to the saving space in landfills.

Assignment of Weights

Assignment of weights to objectives in order to introduce

the relative importance of each criterion is a critical step in

MCA evaluation because the final ranking of the C&DW

management alternatives can be influenced by the assigned

weights. The Regime method just allows preference

weights based on qualitative judgements, while the other

three methods Weighted Summation, Evamix and Electre II

allow to set quantitative weights.

Transportation of C&DW is a limiting factor due to its

high volume and therefore, the distribution of weights in

each scenario was established with the aim of assessing the

influence of transport in the rank ordering. According to

Alvarez et al. [35] the assignment of weights can be done

taking into account a scenario of equal weights, two

extreme scenarios and several intermediate scenarios as it

is shown in Table 4, where nine different scenarios of

weights were contemplated in order to assess the sensitivity

of the obtained ranking using Weighted Summation, Eva-

mix and Electre II.

On the other hand, three scenarios of weights were

selected using Regime, these scenarios are: ‘‘scenario A’’

where the criterion CO2 emission due to waste transport is

more important than the other criteria, ‘‘scenario B’’ with

equal weight distribution for all the criteria and ‘‘scenario

C’’ where the criterion CO2 emission due to waste transport

is less important than the other criteria.

MCA Methods Application

The impact matrix contains alternatives versus criteria.

This matrix was introduced in the software DEFINITE 3.0

Table 4 Scenarios for the MCA of the C&DW management in

Cantabria (Spain)

Scenarios Weights

‘‘scenario 1’’ The same weight is given to all the criteria

‘‘scenario 2’’ 100% CO2–0% others

‘‘scenario 3’’ 90% CO2–10% others

‘‘scenario 4’’ 75% CO2–25% others

‘‘scenario 5’’ 60% CO2–40% others

‘‘scenario 6’’ 50% CO2–50% others

‘‘scenario 7’’ 40% CO2–60% others

‘‘scenario 8’’ 25% CO2–75% others

‘‘scenario 9’’ 0% CO2–100% others

Waste Biomass Valor (2011) 2:209–225 217

123

which contains four separate multi-criteria techniques:

Weighted Summation (WS), Electre II (E2), Evamix (EV)

and Regime (REG) [49]. Table 5 shows the estimated

impact matrix of the proposed alternatives in the MCA

performed.

The software is able to weigh up the alternatives and

assess the most suitable giving a rank of the alternatives.

MCA rankings of the scenarios were calculated based on

the specific sets of weights and the results of the rankings

for the multicriteria analysis of the C&DW management in

Cantabria (Spain) using four different analysis methods are

shown in the next figures: Weighted Summation (Fig. 5),

Evamix (Fig. 8) and Electre II (Fig. 7).

In ‘‘scenario 2’’ which only considers CO2 emissions

due to waste transport and in the six intermediate scenar-

ios: ‘‘scenario 3’’, ‘‘scenario 4’’, ‘‘scenario 5’’, ‘‘scenario

6’’, ‘‘scenario 7’’ and ‘‘scenario 8’’, the best punctuation

was given to the alternative with a recycling rate of 100%

through four recycling plants and one transfer station (4d).

However, in some scenarios of weights more than one

alternative is considerate to be the best solution. For

example, in ‘‘scenario 1’’ of equal weights distribution

Weighted Summation and Evamix (Figs. 5, 6 respectively)

gave the best punctuation to two alternatives. These two

alternatives have a recycling rate of 100% but through

different network facilities, one of them through four

recycling plants and one transfer station (4d) and the other

through three recycling plants and two transfer stations

(4c). While the Electre II method (Fig. 7) shows that

independently of the network facility the best solutions are

all the alternatives which recycle 100% of C&DW (4a, 4b,

4c and 4d). Similar results were obtained using the Electre

II method in ‘‘scenario 9’’ which excludes CO2 emissions

due to waste transport, where independently of the network

facility best solutions are all the alternatives which recycle

100% of C&DW (4a, 4b, 4c and 4d), while the solution

obtained through Evamix method gave the best position to

the alternative of 100% recycling through two recycling

plants and three transfer stations (4b). The solutions

obtained in ‘‘scenario 9’’ through Weighted Summation

gave the best punctuation to alternative of 100% recycling

through three recycling plants and two transfer stations

(4c).

As a conclusion, the results show that the ranking of the

alternatives obtained with the different MCA methods is

very similar; all of them give the best punctuation to

alternatives with recycling of 100% of C&DW. Depending

on the weight scenario considered the best solution varies

between the four alternatives with recycling of 100% of

C&DW (4a, 4b, 4c and 4d). The differences between these

alternatives only consist on the selected network facility;

this is the combination of recycling plants and transfer

stations. Ta

ble

5Im

pac

tm

atri

xfo

rth

em

ult

icri

teri

aan

aly

sis

of

the

C&

DW

man

agem

ent

inC

anta

bri

a(S

pai

n)

Cri

teri

aA

lter

nat

ives

01

a1

b2

a2

b2

c3

a3

b3

c4

a4

b4

c4

d

Man

agem

ent

Co

sts

(€/t

on

)3

1.5

42

9.2

32

8.4

82

8.2

01

9.4

52

4.5

52

8.4

62

3.9

62

2.5

02

9.1

62

3.3

92

1.5

32

0.8

1

Pro

fita

bil

ity

of

new

faci

liti

es(€

/to

n)

03

0.0

72

7.1

53

1.7

42

9.8

12

8.4

83

2.3

33

0.5

22

9.3

23

2.6

53

0.8

82

9.9

62

9.1

6

So

cial

acce

pta

bil

ity

(??

??

?/-

--

-)

--

--

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

Lo

cal

acce

pta

bil

ity

of

mu

nic

ipal

itie

s(?

??

?±

--

--

)?

??

?-

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Nat

ion

alre

gu

lato

ryco

mp

lian

ce(?

??

?±

--

--

)-

--

--

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

?

Eu

rop

ean

reg

ula

tory

com

pli

ance

(??

??

±-)

--

--

--

--

--

--

-?

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

??

CO

2em

issi

on

sd

ue

tow

aste

tran

spo

rt(t

on

CO

2/t

on

tran

spo

rted

)

0.0

08

0.0

07

80

.00

72

0.0

07

90

.00

67

0.0

05

70

.00

82

0.0

06

70

.00

54

0.0

08

70

.00

69

0.0

54

0.0

04

2

Lan

dfi

llsp

ace

sav

ing

s(m

3)

74

,70

07

4,7

00

74

,70

08

9,9

17

89

,91

78

9,9

17

11

7,5

83

11

7,5

83

11

7,5

83

13

8,3

33

13

8,3

33

13

8,3

33

13

8,3

33

218 Waste Biomass Valor (2011) 2:209–225

123

The software DEFINITE 3.0 also includes sensitivity

and uncertainty analysis. Sensitivity analysis assesses the

influence of the weights assigned to each criterion, while

uncertainty analysis assesses the effect of uncertainties in

the criteria scores. The sensitivity analysis was performed

using the three previously used MCA methods and addi-

tional MCA method called Regime method.

Figures 8 and 9 shows the results of the sensitivity and

uncertainty analysis respectively.

Results show that for scenarios of weights in which

transport was given higher importance, greater than 50%

weight, the alternative with a recycling rate of 100%

through four recycling plants and one transfer station (4d)

is the preferred management option. On the other hand,

almost in all the weight scenarios alternative of ‘‘current

waste management’’ (0) is the worst alternative.

Results obtained from Regime shows that when the

criterion of CO2 emissions due to transport is considered

Fig. 5 Results of the rankings for the multicriteria analysis of the C&DW management in Cantabria (Spain) using the method WeightedSummation

Waste Biomass Valor (2011) 2:209–225 219

123

more important than the rest, the best punctuation is given

to alternative with a recycling rate of 100% through four

recycling plants (4d). While in the scenarios where all the

weights of the criteria are equally distributed or in the

scenario where the criterion of CO2 emissions due to

transport is considered less important than the rest, alter-

native of 100% recycling through two recycling plants and

three transfer stations (4b) is the best.

In order to perform the uncertainty analysis ‘‘scenario

1’’ where weights were equally distributed among the

criteria, was selected to assess possible variations in the

results. The probability of an alternative obtain certain

position in the final ranking is calculated by the software.

The results obtained considering uncertainties of 10, 25 and

50% for all the criteria and using the same MCA methods

are shown in Fig. 9.

The size of the circles in the figure is proportional to the

probability that each alternative of waste management

occupies a certain position in the rank order. The MCA

method Electre II only permitted to introduce 10% of

Fig. 6 Results of the rankings for the multicriteria analysis of the C&DW management in Cantabria (Spain) using the method Evamix

220 Waste Biomass Valor (2011) 2:209–225

123

uncertainty, and the results do not allow giving a suitable

ranking of preferences because several alternatives are in

the same position.

The large sized circles on the main diagonal of the

graphs indicates that, despite scores deviating from the

values assigned up to 10%, the ranking of the areas hardly

varied. However, this stability decreases when the uncer-

tainty increase up to 25 and 50% when the probabilities of

obtaining different rankings were higher.

In conclusion, the robustness of the results obtained

through the different MCA analyzed is confirmed, and

therefore, the most suitable management options are those

with 100% recycling targets and moreover with a network

recycling facilities of four recycling plants and one transfer

station (4d).

Conclusions

The proper assessment of the situation of C&DW involves

the estimation of the quantities and composition of the

waste generated as well as the evaluation of its waste

Fig. 7 Results of the rankings for the multicriteria analysis of the C&DW management in Cantabria (Spain) using the method Electre II

Waste Biomass Valor (2011) 2:209–225 221

123

Fig. 8 Sensitivity analysis of the ranking of C&DW management alternatives to the criteria weightings with different MCA methods in

Cantabria (Spain)

Fig. 9 Influence of criteria scores uncertainty in the ranking of C&DW management alternatives with different MCA methods in Cantabria

(Spain)

222 Waste Biomass Valor (2011) 2:209–225

123

management. With this aim, in this work, a two-step

methodology has been developed and applied to the study

case in Cantabria. The first step is the estimation of C&DW

generation and the second step is the multicriteria analysis

of the C&DW management alternatives.

Results from the estimation of the generation of C&DW

in Cantabria using four different ratios of waste per unit

area of construction, demolition and renovation activities

show important differences in the total amount generated

upon the used ratio. The selected ratios belongs to one

regional Plan for C&DW, two association of architects

from two northern Spanish regions, and one technological

institute from another northern regions. The difference

found between the highest and the lowest amounts esti-

mated using these ratios was found around 30%. Taking

into account the results obtained using the four ratios the

average ratio of C&DW generation per inhabitant varies

from 0.6 to 0.8 kg per inhabitant and year, and the average

generation of C&DW was 400.000 tons/year. The com-

position of C&DW generated presented major fractions of

concrete (39%), bricks (30%) and wood (18%). These

values confirm the high recycling potential of C&DW in

Cantabria. The comparison of the generated and disposal

quantities does not coincide, differences in the range of 40

and 60% were found in the studied period (2003–2008).

Because of these differences the management alternatives

of C&DW in Cantabria should be evaluated.

Results from the multicriteria analysis carried out using

four MCA methods shows that the best solution for the

C&DW management in Cantabria is a recycling of 100%

of the C&DW generated by means of four recycling

plants and one transfer station, alternative 4d, while the

worst alternative is alternative of current waste manage-

ment which is the landfill of the 100% of the waste

generated, alternative 0, in most of the weight scenarios

under study. The sensitivity and the uncertainty analysis

demonstrated the robustness of these results and therefore,

it can be concluded that MCA can be useful in this kind

of environmental decision-making problems. This meth-

odology has allowed a reliable analysis to evaluate and

compare in detail all the alternatives proposed. However,

the selection of criteria and alternatives should be an

important step, and thus MCA should be adapted and

additional criteria could be included in order to assess

specific problems.

Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge financial

support for this research under the framework of the Spanish Edu-

cation and Science Ministry, Project CTM CTM2008-06344-C03-01,

and the R?D?I project ‘‘Sistema de Indicadores para el Flujo Sos-

tenible de Recursos y Residuos. Punto Focal de Residuos de Canta-

bria’’, into collaboration agreement of Cantabrian Government and

University of Cantabria, Spain.

References

1. Bossink, B., Brouwers, H.: Construction waste: quantification and

source evaluation. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. Appl. 122(1), 55–60

(1996)

2. Al-Ansary M.S., et al.: Sustainable Guidelines for Managing

Demolition Waste in Egypt. Proceedings of the International

RILEM Conference on the Use of Recycled Materials in Building

and Structures, Barcelona,1, 331–340, 2004. e-ISBN: 2-912143-

52-7. Abstract number 221. CIMNE congress web http://con

gress.cimne.upc.es/rilem04/frontal/Papers.htm (2004). Accessed

June 2010

3. Esin, T., Cosgun, N.: A study to reduce construction waste

generation in Turkey. Build. Environ. Appl 42, 1667–1674

(2007)

4. Solıs-Guzman, J., et al.: A Spanish model for quantification and

management of construction waste. Waste Manag. Appl 29,

2542–2548 (2009)

5. Aggregates Advisory Service: Construction and demolition

Waste - the European Union Priority waste streams Programme.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

Research. http://www.p2pays.org/ref/17/16592.pdf. Accessed

June 2010

6. European Commission: Bio intelligence Service (2010). Service

contract on management of construction and demolition waste.

Draft Final Report Task 2. European Commission (DG ENV)

European commission web http://ec.europa.eu/environment/

waste/prevention/pdf/WPG_final_report.pdf. Accessed Oct 2010

7. European Commission: Directive 2008/98/EC of the European

Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste

8. Eurostat: Statistics database 2010. Waste statistics. Eurostat web.

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_

wasgen&lang=en. Accessed Oct 2010

9. Boletın Oficial del Estado (BOE)/Official Spanish Gazette. 2009.

Decision 20th Jan. 2009. II National Spanish Plan for C&D

Waste. BOE Num 49:19893-20016 (2009)

10. Boletin Oficial de Cantabria (BOC)/Official Gazette of Cantabria

2007. Decree 22/2007, 1th March. Sectorial Plan of C&D Waste

of Cantabria. BOC Num 052: 3412–3445

11. Cochran, K., et al.: Estimation of regional building-related C&D

debris generation and composition: case study for Florida, US.

Waste Manag. Appl. 27, 921–931 (2007)

12. Fatta, D., et al.: Generation and management of construction and

demolition waste in Greece-An existing challenge. Resour.

Conserv. Recycl. Appl 40, 81–89 (2003)

13. EPA, European Waste Catalogue and Hazardous Waste List.

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

web. http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Environment/Waste/

WEEE/FileDownLoad. Accessed June 2010

14. Hendriks, C., Janssen, G.: A new vision on the building cycle.

Aeneas technical publishers (2004)

15. Sousa et al.: Construction and demolition waste in the region of

Porto-Portugal: Management and survey. Proceedings of the

International RILEM Conference on the Use of Recycled Mate-

rials in Building and Structures, Barcelona. Spain. Abstract 267.

CIMNE congress web http://congress.cimne.upc.es/rilem04/fron

tal/Papers.htm (2004). Accessed June 2010

16. Shi, J., Xu, Y.: Estimation and forecasting of concrete debris

amount in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Appl 49, 147–158

(2006)

17. Zhao, W.: Evaluation of the economic feasibility for the recycling

of construction and demolition waste in China- The case of

Chongquig. Appl. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. (2009). doi: 10.1016/

j.resconrec. 2009.09.003

Waste Biomass Valor (2011) 2:209–225 223

123

18. Martınez Lage, I., et al.: Estimation of the annual production and

composition of C&D Debris in Galicia (Spain). Appl. Waste

Manag. (2009). doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2009.11.016

19. Kofoworola, O.F., Gheewala, S.H.: Estimation of construction

waste generation and management in Thailand. Waste Manag.

Appl 29, 731–738 (2009)

20. Poon, C.S.: Evaluating waste management alternatives by the

multiple criteria approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Appl. 17,

189–210 (1996)

21. Simoes Gomes, C.F., et al.: Multicriteria decision making applied

to waste recycling in Brazil. Omega Appl. 36, 395–404 (2008)

22. Colson, G., et al.: A multiple criteria analysis for household solid

waste management in the urban community of Dakar. Waste

Manag. Appl. 27, 1690–1705 (2007)

23. Banias, G., et al.: Assessing multiple criteria for the optimal

location of a construction and demolition waste management

facility. Build. Environ. Appl. 45, 2317–2326 (2010)

24. Wang, J.Y., et al.: A system analysis tool for construction and

demolition wastes management. Waste management Appl 24,

989–997 (2004)

25. Roussat, N., et al.: Choosing a sustainable demolition waste

management strategy using multicriteria decision analysis. Waste

Management Appl 29, 12–20 (2009)

26. Spoerri, A., et al.: Expert- based scenarios for strategic waste and

resource management planning- C&D waste recycling in the

Canton of Zurich, Switzerland. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Appl. 3,

592–600 (2009)

27. Lenihan, H.: A model for assessing the economic viability of

construction and demolition waste recycling - The case of Ire-

land. Resour. Conserv. Recycling 46, 302–320 (2006)

28. Stylianou, M.: An integrated approach for the management of

demolition waste in Cyprus. Waste Management and Research

Appl. 26, 573–581 (2008)

29. Janssen, R.: On the Use of Multi-Criteria Analysis in Environ-

mental Impact Assessment in The Netherlands. Appl. J. Multi-

Crit. Decis. Anal. Vol. 10, 101–109 (2001). doi:10.1002/mcda.

293

30. European Community: Commision Decision 2000/532/EC of 3

May 2000. European Waste Catalogue

31. Fulop, J.: Introduction to decision making methods. Laboratory

of operations research and decision systems, computer and

automation institute, Hungarian Academy of sciences. Ever-

green College web. http://academic.evergreen.edu/projects/bdei/

documents/decisionmakingmethods.pdf (2010). Accessed Oct

2010

32. Reed, M.S.: Stakeholder participation for environmental man-

agement: A literature review. Biol. Conserv. Appl. 1441, 2417–

2431 (2008)

33. Mustajoki, J., et al.: Participatory multicriteria decision analysis

with Web-HIPRE: A case of lake regulation policy. Appl.

Environ. Model. Softw. 19, 537–547 (2004)

34. Tanz, J.S., Howard, A.F.: Meaningful public participation in the

planning and management of publicly owned forest’. For. Chron.

Appl. 67, 125–130 (1991)

35. Alvarez-Guerra, M., et al.: A multicriteria- based methodology

for site priorisation in sediment management. Environ. Int. Appl.

35, 920–930 (2009)

36. Higgins, A., Hajkowicz, S.: A comparison of multiple criteria

analysis techniques for water resource management. Eur.

J. Opera. Res. Appl. 184, 255–265 (2008)

37. Saaty, T.L.: The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw- Hill, New

York (1980)

38. Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with multiple objectives:

preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York (1976)39. Roy, B.: Multicriteria 1996 methodology for decision aiding.

Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (1996)

40. Bonbacu, S.: using the multi-criteria analysis (mca) in the

drafting of Doctorate papers. Annals of the oradea university.

Fascicle of Management and Technological Engineering Appl.

VII (2008)

41. Instituto de Tecnologıa de la Construccion de Cataluna (iTeC)/

Catalan Institute of Construction Technology. http://www.itec.

cat/ca/publications/pdf/altres/canon_runes/pla_gestio.pdf. Acces-

sed Apr 2009

42. Colegio de Arquitectos la Rioja (COAR)/Regional Association of

Architects of La Rioja (COAR) http://www.coar.es/visado/

impresos.fr.htm (2009). Accessed Apr 2009

43. Colegio de Arquitectos de arquitectos tecnicos de A Coruna

(COAATAC)/Regional Associations of Architects and Technical

Architects of Corunna, http://www.coaatac.org/files/adjuntos/

articulo/ProduccionResiduos.pdf (2009). Accessed Apr 2009

44. Ministerio de Fomento/National department of Development.

http://www.fomento.es/MFOM/LANG_CASTELLANO/INFOR

MACION_MFOM/INFORMACION_ESTADISTICA/Construc

cion. Accessed Feb 2009

45. ICANE: Instituto Cantabro de Estadıstica/Statistic Institute of

Cantabria. Municipal Statistics. Building and Construction

Information. www.icane.es. Accessed Mar 2009

46. Eurostat: News release euro indicators 2010. Eurostat web

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITYPUBLIC/4-19102010-

AP/EN/4-19102010-AP-EN.PDF. Accessed Oct 2010

47. Medioambiente, Agua, Residuos Y Energıa de Cantabria S.A

(MARE). Company web http://www.mare.es. Accessed June

2010

48. Boletın Oficial del Estado (BOE)/Official Spanish Gazette:

Decision 12th July 2001. I National Spanish Plan for C&D

Waste. BOE Num 166: 25305-25313

49. Janssen, R., et al.: DEFINITE 3.0 case studies and user manual.

Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Institute for Environmental Stud-

ies. Vrije Universiteit. (2003)

50. Olson, D.L.: Decision aids for selection problems. Springer,

Berlin (1996)

51. Voogd, H.: Multicriterion evaluation with mixed qualitative and

quantitative data. Environ. Plan. Bull. Appl. 9, 221–236 (1982)

52. Figuerira, J., et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the

art surveys. International series in operations research & man-

agement science, 78 (2005)

53. Vreeker, R., Nijkamp, P., Welle, C.T.: A multicriteria decision

support methodology for evaluating airport expansion plans. Appl.

Ideas (RePEc) 7 27-47. doi: 10.1016/S0969-6997(01)00005-9

(2002)

54. Nunes, K.R.A., et al.: Evaluation of investments in recycling

centres for construction and demolition wastes in Brazilian

municipalities. Waste Manag. Appl. 27, 1531–1540 (2007)

55. Diario Oficial de Castilla la Mancha (DOCM)/Official Regional

Gazette of Castilla La Mancha: Decision 13th December 2005.

Regional Plan for C&DW of Castilla la Mancha (2006-2015).

DOCM n8 253: 16th December 2005. Decree 189/2005

56. BTB, 2009. Bizkaiko Txintxor Berziklategia (BTB). C&DW

recycling plant Tipping fees and sales price of secondary

aggregates. http://www.btbab.com. [Consulted October 2010]

57. Salmedina, S.L. Salmedina C&DW recycling plant. Tipping fees

and sales price of secondary aggregates. http://salmedinatri.com

(2009) [Consulted October 2010]

58. UTE planta de Navalcarnero. C&DW recycling plant. Tipping

fees and sales price of secondary aggregates. http://www.

uteplantanavalcarnero.es (2009) [Consulted October 2010]

59. Alcorec. C&DW recycling plant. Tipping fees and sales price of

secondary aggregates. http://www.alcoresrecicla.com (2009)

[Consulted October 2010]

60. Chamber of Commerce of Sabadell. http://www.cambrasabadell.

org (2004). Accessed Oct 2010

224 Waste Biomass Valor (2011) 2:209–225

123

61. Scora engineers. Project of construction of a C&DW recycling

plant in San Lucar de Barrameda (Cadiz). Scora Web http://

www.proyectoasistido.com/index2.php?option=com_docman&

gid=882&task=doc_view&Itemid=48 (2007) [Consulted Octo-

ber 2010]

62. Onanadıa de Dios, C., Ruız Puente, M.C. C&DW recycling plant.

Master thesis. Cantabria University (2005)

63. CIUDEN. Feasibility study of a recycling plant of C&DW in

Bierzo. Fundacion Ciudad de la Energıa (CIUDE)/Foundation of

the City of Energy. Spanish Government. http://www.Ciuden.

es/index.asp?pagina=programas&c=6&subpagina=233 (2008) [Con-

sulted October 2010]

64. Geneva Trade & Development Forum (GTDF). Conference of the

Geneva Trade & Development Forum (GTDF): The trade and

environment relationships reconsidered. The case of regional

trade and regional trade agreements. http://www.gtdforum.

org/download/Commerce%20&%20nvir-ang.pdf (2008) [Con-

sulted Oct 2010]

Waste Biomass Valor (2011) 2:209–225 225

123