In this study, the current situation of recycling and reuse of construction and demolition waste in the Nordics, including techniques and facilities, was described. The results show that, while many things are similar, there is also differences between the countries. The recycling and reuse rate targets are not being met, but the barriers are not technical. Techniques for recycling and reuse exist and are available, but the upscaling of these are met with legislative, economic and social barriers in all countries.
For the island regions, the main challenge for large-scale reuse and recycling operations is long distances and small volumes. To some extent, these are also a factor in Finland. The small volumes often make recycling and reuse operations non-profitable, and new material is usually cheap, and more easily available. In Denmark, with short distances and high landfill fees, it is usually less expensive to sort and recycle, which leads to higher recycling rates, whereas in Norway where there is no landfill tax, a larger share is landfilled. Short distances in e.g., southern Finland and southern Sweden can lead to better recycling regionally than on the national level, but this was not the focus of this study. The reporting and availability of waste statistics varies in the regions, with the smaller regions partly lacking and Denmark performing well. Better and more detailed data would help to identify opportunities for improvement.
Differences in material treatment occur, especially in the handling of wood waste and mineral waste. In Finland, Sweden and Norway, wood waste per capita is high, compared to Denmark. This is explained by different building techniques and materials used. In Denmark, the wood is often recycled, whereas in Finland and Sweden, where wood is an abundant resource, it is mostly directed to energy recovery. Here is the potential to improve, and to use wood waste in a more circular way. For mineral waste, it is noticeable that if there is an End-of-Waste regulation for concrete waste, it can be used in more high-value construction. The building traditions are evident here; for example, companies providing techniques for brick reuse have had to adapt to different techniques based on prevalent mortar used in brick buildings. Companies for brick reuse are mostly successful in Denmark and Sweden, whereas the use of bricks is not as common in the other Nordic countries.
The main problem in raising the reuse and recycling rates in the Nordic is the lack of on-site sorting. Where sorting on both construction and demolition waste is done on-site, the easier the materials recycle. Harmful substances used in previous decades pose a relatively small risk, and as long as the sorting keeps this material separated, it can be handled safely. The case examples showing reuse and recycling of materials indicate that the better the materials are separated, the more high-value recycling is possible. Many require work and labour which can increase the costs, highlighting the need for economic incentives or drivers. As many good examples were found, most are still on a quite small scale, driven by start-ups or projects getting external funding. For this study, only examples that are a main part of a company’s business model were included.
The most important step remains in the prevention of CDW. Measures to keep buildings from being demolished, for example by renovating and refurbishing, produces less waste. When demolishing a building, mapping of the materials and reusable materials is key in preventing waste. Then the building can be dismantled, and reusable and recyclable materials sorted out on site. For new buildings, design for disassembly and adaptability should be a prerequisite, as well as building passports that keep track on what materials are used in the buildings. This will help prevent waste and promote reuse and recycling in the long run.