2007; 34:148158

Recycled Construction Minerals for Urban Infrastructure in Germany: * Non-technical Issues

by ANDREAS BLUM and SYLKE STUTZRIEMER Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional Development (IOER), Department of Housing and Sustainable Construction, Dresden, Germany

Abstract
Construction and demolition activities produce waste in very significant quantities. At the same time the construction industry has a high demand for natural resources. Re-integrating recyclables/reusables into the material cycle and appreciating residuals from construction and demolition activities as resources are important contributions to a sustainable use of resources. Nevertheless, the recycling potentials are not yet used to full potential and also the largest share of recycling activities still actually has to be characterized as down-cycling. This study analysed the non-technical (e.g. social, institutional, contextual) issues of construction and demolition waste recycling in the field of municipal road construction and urban infrastructure in Germany. This field was chosen because there the use of recycled construction materials is comparably easy and at the same time public organizations are usually held responsible for giving good examples. Based on theoretical models for the construction sector rooted in action theory, theory of innovation and theory of institutionalization and qualitative expert interviews with stakeholders from construction industry, building materials industry and municipal public works departments, the study identified obstacles rooted in the institutional context, uncertainties of actors and the utilization of regulatory gaps.

Keywords: C&DW recycling construction materials public works urban infrastructure public actors attitudes institutional context 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
*Paper contributed to College of Europe/WI Conference Sustainable growth in the European Union, Brugge, 6./7.12.2006

2005) as well as voluntary commitments of the construction industry (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Kreislaufwirtschaftstrager Bau/KWtBau 2005), sup port the reduction of construction and demolition waste (C & DW) and the reduction of the use of natural resources. Within a construction industry that in general is developing less dynamically at present, maintenance and renovation of an ageing building stock and urban infrastructure is gaining importance. In many places, public works construction is tending to become the most mineral resources consuming construction sector of the near future. At the same time construction works for technical urban infrastructure with traffic infrastructure and sewerage systems at the centre offer less critical options for the use of RCM compared to building construction. Existing technical regulations for road construction in

148

# 2007 Taylor & Francis ISSN 14041049 DOI 10.1080/14041040701388744

MINERALS & ENERGY VOL 22 NOS 34 2007

Recycled Construction Minerals for Urban Use in Germany

Germany, for example, admit a substitution of natural 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 2010 RCM in Germany have the potential to substitute 1520% of the overall production of mineral aggregates. 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 the use 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 downcycling (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 the social, institutional and regulatory context. The theoretical framework and results of the qualitative 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 for public 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).

C&DW quantities 2002 (without excavation and timber) Total: 73,0 Mt

from Road constr. 16,6 Mt Demolition 52,1 Mt Building constr. 4,3 Mt

Landfill 6,6 Mt
Landfill construction 1,7 Mt

Other utilisation* 13,6 Mt

Recycling 51,1 Mt
Other uses** 4,9 Mt Concrete aggregate 0,8 Mt Road construction and asphalt recycling 35,5 Mt
*e.g. open pit mining

Backfilling, noise protection banks 9,9 Mt

**e.g. landscaping, sports field construction

MINERALS & ENERGY VOL 22 NOS 34 2007

149

A. Blum and S. Stutzriemer

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 infrastructure, the perspective adopted was rooted in action theory. The use of recycling materials is analysed 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 environmentally 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 determining 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. In addition, from their research on target group specific models for the explanation of environmentally 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 construction. The other, in contrast, is the perceived extent of inability to cope with the complexity of the subject 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-reflected interpretations 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 highlight the potentially conservative influence of routines and show the importance of wellestablished 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 anticipated 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 not have any experience with these materials yet. In this case, to draw on external expertise to gain the above-cited detailed knowledge about measures 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

150

MINERALS & ENERGY VOL 22 NOS 34 2007

Recycled Construction Minerals for Urban Use in Germany

anything at all about this subject. However, this recourse in action theory makes clear that disturbance, which usually has a primarily negative connotation particularly within a highly institutionalized context like an urban infrastructure planning authority, may be turned into a positive impulse from the point of view of an environmentally concerned reflection of consolidated interpretative 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 determined setting of action requirements and alternatives. Opposed to environmentally responsible action 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 the preparation 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 innovation, Beschorner et al. (2005) provide an instructive starting point with their analysis of innovation processes for the field of construction and housing. 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 protoinstitutionalization is characterized by problemdiscussion talks. In general, all three levels exist for the use of RCM 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 institutionalization. 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. On the 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 influence 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 concerning resource consumption (cultural instability) may

MINERALS & ENERGY VOL 22 NOS 34 2007

151

A. Blum and S. Stutzriemer

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

cause the political system to adopt new regulations leading to techno-economic instabilities, generating new processes or technologies. The other way round, innovative pioneer entrepreneurs may cause an instability of the technoeconomic 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 institutionalized trajectories preparing a window of opportunity are crucial for a change towards more environmentally aware action (Figure 3).
PERSPECTIVES, ATTITUDES AND MOTIVATIONS OF KEY ACTORS

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

Based on this model and the results from the earlier explorative study we identify the hypothetical 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

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 downcycling 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 a thickness of 5m and the profile of the landfilling

152

MINERALS & ENERGY VOL 22 NOS 34 2007

Recycled Construction Minerals for Urban Use in Germany

Figure 3. Model for the examination of non-technical obstacles to the use of RCM for public works construction (Blum & Stutzriemer, 2005).
Cognitions Situative context: e.g. institutionalised action models; complexity of subject (stable) Responsibility Preparedness for action Emotions Techno-economic, Political and Cultural context (stable)

Actionpattern Disturbance
(perceived or anticipated changed consequences of action)

Destabilisation
(e.g. Institutional change, changed reponsibilities)

Destabilisation
(e.g. new regulations, technologies, public awareness )

Revision of action pattern

(additional knowledge, expertise )

+ Revised actionpattern

Denial of disturbance

happened to be intentionally modelled craggy in order 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 construction 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 construction is stabilized by regulations on groundwater 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 heavy metals). 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 sustainability 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 trajectories. On the other hand, RCM for the individual actors often have the image of first of all still being waste. 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 conservative design choices (e.g. according to UK National Audit Office 2001 on modernizing construction cited in Brady et al., 2005), potentially

MINERALS & ENERGY VOL 22 NOS 34 2007

153

A. Blum and S. Stutzriemer

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 applicable regulations. 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 shortage 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 in favour 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.

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 discrimination against RCM in calls for tenders that are not neutral concerning specified product use. There are also cases reported where single municipalities explicitly excluded the use of RCM. In accordance with the theoretical model, representatives 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 concerning 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 mentioned above, especially concerning the risk of harmful substances being washed out into the groundwater. 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 standards and quality assurance schemes. A first step is existing standards for RCM giving clear specifications 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. concerning storage) has to be complied with. In addition,

QUALITATIVE INTERVIEW BASED STUDY

To gain more detailed insight into perspectives, attitudes and motivations of different actors an approach 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 recycling 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 materials, construction industry, and clients. However, the first results showed that the first two groups could in fact be considered as one, because these business areas in practice are closely linked together. Altogether, 15 intensive qualitative interviews 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 generalizations in statistical terms, but helped to gain insight also into more hidden motivations of the participants by allowing frank statements. The main criteria for the choice of participating cities were size, geological and political particularities. The

154

MINERALS & ENERGY VOL 22 NOS 34 2007

Recycled Construction Minerals for Urban Use in Germany

participants from the CD & W industry complained 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 of equivalent value to new materials. However, they are occasionally criticized for permitting comparably high threshold values for harmful substances. For example, the regulations in Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemberg permit 250 mg/l for sulphates 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 suppliers of 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 implemented, 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 to overcome 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 recently enacted or amended regulations for waste management 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 recycling company 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 mentioned by participants from the RCM industry results 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 competing 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 in natural mineral resources the smaller difference in the prices of natural and recycled construction materials together with the mentioned reservations 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 overdimensioned 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 construction industry as well as public budgets, construction 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 networks are more personal and knowing each other helps

MINERALS & ENERGY VOL 22 NOS 34 2007

155

A. Blum and S. Stutzriemer

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 institutionalization, 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 substitution rate 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 evaluation was 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 environmental (!) 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 concerning the specification of the materials with respect to the potential elution of harmful substances. Obviously, uncertainties of actors due to missing consistent standards for an approval 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 of mineral resources is not so much an issue for

practitioners as it is from a political or scientific perspective. Against this background and to support nextgeneration issues of sustainable construction, that might for instance follow the implementation of the above-cited European strategies on resources and 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 natural mineral resources, it might also be necessary to consider subsidies for the support of the RCM market, at least in the form of public actors and administrations being prepared to eventually accept higher costs for the use of RCM. This leads to another conclusion on the stage of public communication, 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 change the 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, for public demolition and deconstruction projects, to cooperate only with deconstruction and recycling companies that have a quality management implemented. Furthermore, on the occasion of the publication of the fourth monitoring report of the association for a recycling construction economy (Arbeitsgemeinschaft/KWTBau, 2005), representatives from the political system and from private construction and recycling industries agreed that the voluntary self-commitment on increasing recycling rates should be continued and also new federal regulations should make the use of RCM easier and more clear. Thus, there are still some actors who productively disturb the consolidated pattern of action, with a target to close the mineral cycle to more than 70% of recycling and to more than 9% of substitution of new mineral construction materials consumption. If we 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 reusable construction material taken out every day, while

156

MINERALS & ENERGY VOL 22 NOS 34 2007

Recycled Construction Minerals for Urban Use in Germany

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 in Europe.

References
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 Bauabfa lle Erhebung 2002. Berlin: KWTBau th (4 monitoring report on construction and demolition waste, 2002 survey). Beschorner, T., et al. (2005) Institutionalisierung von Nachhaltigkeit -- Eine vergleichende Untersuchung der organisationalen Bedurfnisfelder Bauen & Wohnen, Mobilita und Information & t Kommunikation. Marburg: Metropolis (Institutionalization of sustainability a comparative analysis of the organisational fields construction 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 of ecological action). Al

Finkenstein, C. (2002) Stoffstrome und Fla cheninanspruchnahme des Bauens und Wohnens. Studienarbeit IOER. Dresden: IOER (Material flows and land consumption for building and housing). Gesetz zur Forderung der Kreislaufwirtschaft und Sicherung der umweltvertra glichen Beseitigung von Abfa llen 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 Proceedings. 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 interdisziplina ren Forschungsgruppe. Umweltpsychologie 7 (2), pp. 114133 (Target group specific models for the analysis of environmentally 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 Sta dte. 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 an rezyklierten 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 Abfa llen auf Deponien uber Tage und zur Anderung der Gewerbeabfallverordnung 2005 (DepVerwV 2005) (Landfilling ordinance; short title). Westphal, C., Turner, J. (2004) Strategies for Developing Shrinking Cities and Towns - Examples from Germany and Britain. IOER Dresden,

MINERALS & ENERGY VOL 22 NOS 34 2007

157

A. Blum and S. Stutzriemer

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: IOW (Time-strategies of ecological innovation policy).

Anndreas Blum & Sylke Stutzriemer Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional Development (IOER) Department of Housing and Sustainable Construction Weberplatz 1, 01217 Dresden, Germany E-mail: a.blum@ioer.de

158

MINERALS & ENERGY VOL 22 NOS 34 2007