Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Encouraging recycled construction materials in new buildings Karoubi, Shirin 2016

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
310-Karoubi_Shirin_Recycled_construction_2016.pdf [ 17.41MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 310-1.0342794.json
JSON-LD: 310-1.0342794-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 310-1.0342794-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 310-1.0342794-rdf.json
Turtle: 310-1.0342794-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 310-1.0342794-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 310-1.0342794-source.json
Full Text
310-1.0342794-fulltext.txt
Citation
310-1.0342794.ris

Full Text

ENCOURAGING RECYCLED CONSTRUCTION  MATERIALS IN NEW BUILDINGSbySHIRIN KAROUBIB.A., The University of Toronto, 2012A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTS (PLANNING)inTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESSchool of Community and Regional PlanningWe accept this project as conformingto the required standard.............................................................................................................................................................THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAApril 2016© Shirin Karoubi, 2016Encouraging Recycled Building Materials in New BuildingsShirin Karoubi 2016B r a d   B a d e l tJ o h n   F i s c h e rM a r i a n n e   H e d b e r gA n d r e w   M a r rE l l i o t t  J .   M i c h a e lD a r r e n   R a e  M a g e d   S e n b e l N i c o l e   S t e g l i c hK a r e n   S t o r r y  A d i t y a   V a l i a t h a n  P i l l a i J u s t i n   W i e b eThank you for taking the time to help me complete my research.3Acknowledgments4(1) General overview     ..............................................................................               5-13 (1.1) Introduction .......................................................................                 5-7(1.2) Background & Importance       ..........................................                7-13      (2) Provincial regulations      ......................................................................             14-16      (3) Methodology      ....................................................................................              17-18      (4) Interview Findings       ...........................................................................            19-26       (4.1) Bans (Metro Vancouver)      .....................................................            19-21       (4.2) Green demolition (City of Vancouver)     ..............................           21-23        (4.3) Economy promoting policies (Massachusetts) ...................          23-25       (4.4) Voluntary actions (Sweden)      .............................................          25-26      (5) Cost and Availability     ..........................................................................           27-31        (5.1) Assumptions and Limitations       ............................................                 28        (5.2) Cost Comparison     ..................................................................          28-31      (6) Conclusion         ........................................................................................        32 -35      (7) Works Cited       ........................................................................................        36-39           Appendix        .........................................................................................              40Table of Contents5General Overview (1.1) Introduction This report examines the relative effectiveness of different government regulations (national, provincial, and municipal) that encourage demolition and construction waste recycling, and the use of recycled material in new buildings. To address this question, specifi c policies within Vancouver, Massachusetts, and Sweden were selected and analyzed. Additionally, this paper looks at the the current costs of using, and the availability of recycled materials for construction of new buildings in the City of Vancouver. This report is divided into 6 sections: (1) an overview of the importance of recycling construction and demolition (C&D) waste; (2) current provincial C&D waste regulations; (3) methodology; (4) interview fi ndings; (5) cost and availability of materials in Vancouver; and (6) concluding statements.  The amount of waste that the world is generating is increasing. The World Bank (2012) issued a report on the amount of municipal solid waste that is being generated 6worldwide. Based on 2010 data, per capita, we are producing 1.19 Kg of waste a day. The report projected that this will increase to 1.42 Kg per day by 2025. Taking into account population increase, this could amount to 6,069,705 tonnes of waste per day, globally. Wealthier countries produce more waste, on average, than poor countries by almost 2Kg, per capita. Before the Second World War, Nigel Whitely observed the changes in American consumption patterns and the shift from consumption of necessity to consumption out of desire. Aggressive marketing came into play and high consumerism was a result. For example, in 1946 6000 television sets were made compared to 7,000,000 in 1953 (Whiteley, 1987). Over consumption and the idea of disposable products can be seen in packaging of foods, cellphones, cleaning products, and many more. More products are made to be disposable or harder to repair. Annie, Leonard, Director of Greenpeace, has made education on electronic waste a key part of her work and has argued that most electronics are now made simply to be thrown away quickly. By making electronics more difficult to repair, new purchases are encouraged  (Cobbing & Dowdall, 2014). This throw away culture is not only limited to goods, it can be seen in the construction industry. In Toronto new high-rise buildings have been dubbed “throw away condos” by journalists because of their short life expectancy of 15-25 years (Colbert, 2015). These buildings are made mostly out of glass and are already experiencing problems. In 2011, a lawsuit was filed against the developer Concord due to water seeping through the glass of a nine-year old building (Charney Lawyers, 2016).  Records of how much C&D waste is produced is limited because it is handled privately. Additionally, the definition of C&D waste varies by jurisdiction and legislation, which also limits tracking of how much C&D waste is generated. In 2010, an estimated 4,007,000 tonnes of C&D waste was generated in Canada, 3,353,700 tonnes (84%) was sent to landfills and the remaining 653,300 tonnes (16%) was diverted (Perry & VanderPol, 2014). This number does not include waste that was shipped to international landfills and 7ocean dumping (Perry & VanderPol, 2014). According to Environment Canada (2014), Canadian landfills are reaching capacity. The New Westminster construction and demolition waste facility is operating at full capacity, receiving 500 tonnes of C&D waste a day (Lovgreen, 2016). Additionally, it is becoming increasingly difficult to create new landfills because of undesirability and potential health risks. In addition to the pushback that comes with landfills, there are substantial environmental risks. As an example, 25% of total methane generated in Canada comes from landfills (Statistics Canada, 2013).   The definition of recycling in municipal legislation can have a significant impact on that municipality’s recycling rate and sustainability practices (Lave, Hendrickson, Conway-Schempf & McMichael, 1999). Lave et al. explain that the definition of recycling can be crafted to meet the goals that a city wants to reach. “The definition matters only because recycling goals have been specified. Note that the goal is not to increase recycling: it is to improve environmental quality and sustainability” (Lave et al., 1999, p. 945). The general understanding of recycling is what would have been garbage is once again reused into something that would have otherwise been created out of virgin material. There is some disagreement amongst scholars and practitioners as to where the boundaries of recycling can be drawn; some claim that waste-to-energy ‘count’ as recycling (Lave et al., 1999). For this paper, recycling is defined as the reuse of waste materials for original or new use through reclaiming it or reprocessing.  (1.2) Background & Importance The earth has a finite amount of resources to sustain life. Ideally, humans would be able to live within the limits of these resources and at a rate where these resources can replenish themselves. Currently we are living at a scale that requires the resources of 1.5 planets (Moore, 2015). It should be noted that regarding resource consumption, developed 8countries are increasing the world’s average consumption rates (Moore, 2015). It is no surprise then, the human population is consuming at a rate faster than Earth can keep up with.  Growing populations are occurring at the same time as billions of people around the world are increasing their standard of living, in most cases further increasing global consumption of resources. These resources need to be consumed at a sustainable rate and most importantly the buildings created from these resources need to remain in place for their usable life. A study on the life span of North American buildings found that 59% of the surveyed buildings were demolished not because of physical condition but for reasons that included area redevelopment, social undesirability, and it no longer being suitable for needs. Only 23.8% of the buildings that were demolished was because of it’s physical condition or due to lack of maintenance (O’Connor, 2004).The majority of the concrete buildings were demolished after 50 years, which is approximately 40 years shorter than the projected lifespan of the buildings (roughly 90 years) (O’Connor, 2004).   A similar but more extreme example of reduced building life span can be seen in China; 85% of pre-existing buildings were demolished to develop the current state of Beijing and as the city expands that number increases (Marco Polo, 2016). The economic expansion and urbanisation that China has seen over the last 30 years has lead to an increase in housing development (Yao, Luo & Wang, 2013).  Baoxing Qiu, Vice Minister of the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of China stated “There are approximately up to 2 billion meter squared of new buildings every year, which is equivalent to 40% of the consumption of cement and steel worldwide, while the actual lifespan of these buildings can only last for 25 - 30 years on average” (Qian, 2010). Liu et al. explains that the short life span of buildings seen in China is due to more external factors, such as the location of the building, neighbourhood characteristics, economic variables, and political variables rather than its physical condition (Liu, Xu, Zhang, & 9Zhang, 2014). The short life spans of these buildings account for a significant number of resources wasted through demolition.   Building structures hold a considerable amount of resources. Ideally buildings would be used for their entire useable life, however, when a building is demolished prematurely, as seen in the examples above,  the waste needs to be redefined as a resource instead of something that gets directed to landfills. This project looks more specifically at resources that would go into concrete, metals, timber, and drywall.Concrete Concrete is a combination of different types of aggregates (sand, gravel, and stone) and paste (water and cement). There are two major types of cement: Portland cement and blended cement. Portland cement has limestone, clay, shale, or other alumino-silicate. Blended cement is Portland cement with fly ash, crushed blast furnace slag, or silica fume (America’s Cement Manufacturers, 2016). Overall, concrete manufacturing produces 5% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions (Arachchige, Kawan, Tokheim, & Melaaen, 2013). Using demolition waste as a recycled aggregate reduces the amount of demolition waste, however the concrete would become more heterogeneous in structure and thus weaker. In many cases the more treated the aggregate, the better the quality, which could make the recycled aggregate a suitable replacement for natural virgin aggregate. Unfortunately using recycled aggregate is more expensive and thus is currently economically unfeasible.(Richardson, 2013). There is a range of 5-24% reduction in strength when using recycled concrete aggregates (Meyer, 2009). Cement production is what produces the most carbon emissions and unfortunately cannot be recycled (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2009).Metal The metals are mined for their respective ores, iron for steel and bauxite for aluminum. Once the ore is mined, the minerals (iron and bauxite) are removed and 10processed. Various other minerals and elements are added or removed depending on the specifi c purpose of the metal (Richardson 2013). Of steel end products 70% are recycled while the remaining 30% are lost to rusting. The time frame in which the metal is recycled back into a useable product is dependent on the use of the metal; it is 25 years for steel used in construction (Janke, Savov, Weddige & Schulz, 2010). However, similar to concrete, recycling metals can reduce their strength when compared to using virgin alloys. This is because there is a build-up of impurities that were originally added for its initial use. This is only a problem when using recycled steel for structural uses. Often this is remedied by mixing virgin alloys with the recycled alloys to gain strength (Worrell & Reuter, 2014).  Our planet clearly has a fi nite amount of resources and if we are consuming mineral reserves at a higher rate than we can supply them, then we are depleting our reserves. Figure 1 was taken from the US Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries (2011) and it shows a comparison of the expected years left for global iron and aluminum reserves in 1995 compared to 2010. Within the 15-year difference 80 of the expected years have11disappeared, which shows how quickly we are consuming our resources. This can be attributed to the economic boom of certain countries within the last few decades (Richardson, 2013). Wood Over 70% of people in the developed world live in a timber framed house. The over consumption of timber puts pressure on the world’s forests. Forest loss is happening at 13.7 million hectares a year (Richardson, 2013). Wood is a natural and easy material to reuse. Within low-rise buildings timber is often used for support. Timber from old buildings can be recycled and it is often recycled into chipboard. The only time timber can be used again as timber is if it is reused and not recycled. Reusing timber as is produces fewer emissions since the wood would not need to go through a recycling process. The demolition process poses challenges to the reuse of timber as it is susceptible to damage. Damage caused by holes from joints and nails affects one third of reclaimed timber, and at the most acceptable limits this reduced its strength by 10% (Richard, 2013).  Timber that has undergone treatment with creosote or chromated copper arsenate is considered to be hazardous waste. The main challenges to reclaiming timber are availability of the correct size and type for the specific use and recertification. Virgin timber is convenient to buy because it is consistent in type and size, however this is a supply issue; an industry that supports reclaimed timber can be encouraged through policy and regulation. Currently, much of the reclaimed timber is purchased by customers for specific, smaller projects as opposed to contractors who constantly build commercial projects.Drywall Drywall is also known as gypsum wall, sheet rock, wallboard, plasterboard, and gypboard. Drywall is made of gypsum, a mineral that takes the form of a soft rock. Gypsum is mined, crushed, calcinated (the water is removed), water is reintroduced (sometimes with soap to create a lighter board), then sandwiched between very thick dense paper. 12Gypsum has been used for sometime in construction, but the form has changed. Before the widespread use of drywall in the early 1900s, gypsum was used in the form of plaster that was layered on top of lathing materials (Thomas, Atkinson, & Mahoney, 2009). Lathing materials can be wood or metal but it involves a porous material where the plaster is then smoothed on in layers to create a wall. Drywall is considerably cheaper than plastering a wall. The cost difference between drywall and plastering is seen in labour; drywall can be simply screwed onto studs to create a wall whereas plasterboard needs to be smoothed on. Drywall can be recycled. The gypsum is recovered and crushed into a powder and sent to gypsum manufacturers, the paper in the board can also be recycled. Even though gypsum can be recycled, it is still sent to landfills. There is a lack of education and implementation around the proper disposal of gypsum. (CertainTeed representative, Personal correspondence, April 14, 2016).   In addition to depleting resources, C&D waste takes a large toll on landfills. In Metro Vancouver, 30% of its solid waste was C&D (Metro Vancouver, 2013). In an interview with an official from the City of Vancouver, they explained that the sheer space that demolition waste consumes is significant. C&D waste cannot be compacted like residential waste can. As discussed in the introduction, the landfill space could have been valuable cropland, or an area for development and urbanization. It is becoming increasingly difficult to create new landfills. There is strong opposition from community residents to place landfills near residential areas. In addition to neighbourhood resistance, there is also strict regulations (certain distances from schools, parks, etc.) and technical guidelines (a liner at the bottom of the landfill, drainage, etc.) from the Ministry of Environment (MOE) when opening and closing a landfill. There are also financial ordinances for the owner of the landfill. The owner of the landfill must have enough resources to close the landfill at any given moment. Landfill closures also detail monitoring regulations for at least 25 years after closure to ensure there is no contamination. After landfills have been closed down, some of 13the garbage will never settle or degrade and so the remaining part of the landfill is covered (with a combination of organics and plastic) and often used for recreational purposes (City of Vancouver official, Personal correspondence, January 28th, 2016). In terms of toxicity, each material has a different effect when in landfills. Drywall when wet and without oxygen releases sulfate, this can leach into groundwater and contaminate it (Innovative Waste Consulting Services, LLC, 2016). The dissolved sulfate can also be converted into hydrogen sulfide, this gas carries a “rotten egg” smell. Concrete does not break down, it will sit and continue to expand the size of landfills. Metals in landfills can also contaminate groundwater and soils by heavy metal release. Wood can also leach iron and magnesium into groundwater (Water Encyclopedia, 2016).14This section will give a brief outline of current provincial regulations for C&D waste in Canada, as well as non-profi t organizations that attempt to address C&D waste at a national level. The Construction Resource Initiatives Council (CRIC) is a non-profi t organization that functions under the lens of building resources and is striving towards a zero waste environment. The CRIC has created the ‘Mission 2030,’ which is a set of targets and milestones for waste divergence with a fi nal target of 100% recycled C&D waste by 2030. In terms of implementation the CRIC has no authority and is not a regulating body. To achieve these targets the CRIC has created steps that includes creating a network through industry pledges and communicating the need for C&D recycling (Construction Resources Initiative Council, 2016).In Ontario there are the 3R’s regulations (regulation 102/94, from the Ontario government), which were established in 1994. The 3R’s regulations require construction and demolition projects over 2000 square meters to prepare a waste audit report and waste reduction work plan. The required plans and audits do not have set targets and are not Provincial Regulations15required to obtain approval of the construction or demolition projects. In an interview with a representative of the Ministry, they explained that the Ministry of Environment’s Sector Compliance Branch or the abatement staff in district offices can do random checks for the audits or plans. The Sector Compliance Branch or the abatement staff deals with any violations of this regulation. In severe cases of violation the case is referred to the Investigations and Enforcement branch which can charge the violators through the court system.Additionally, there is currently legislation in the process of being approved in Ontario that encourages the use of recycled aggregates, Bill 56 Aggregate Recycling Promotion Act, 2014 (Legislative Assembly of Ontario, 2014).The action plan of Quebec’s Residual Materials Management Policy includes a target of reclaiming 80% of concrete, brick, and asphalt waste and sorting 70% of building construction, renovation, and demolition waste (Ministère du Développement durable, 2011).The Resource Recovery Fund Board Inc. of Nova Scotia (RRFB Nova Scotia) is a not-for-profit corporation that was established in 1996 under the Province of Nova Scotia’s Environment Act. RRFB Nova Scotia has a number of programs that incentivise waste divergence within municipalities. One of these programs involves issuing waste divergence credits to municipalities that successfully divert waste. These credits are not specifically for C&D waste but do include it. RRFB Nova Scotia owns and operates 78 recycling facilities in the province and allocates almost 70% of its revenues to waste diversion programs (RRFB Nova Scotia 2016). For example, in 2013 $4,357,759 was awarded to municipalities for divergence credits (RRFB Nova Scotia, 2013).The Province of Manitoba offers the Waste Reduction and Pollution Prevention (WRAPP) Fund, which issues grants of up to $25,000 to projects that involve “waste reduction, pollution prevention, and integrated waste management practices” (Manitoba, 162016). One of the program’s priority areas is C&D waste management. This program is available to “Municipal corporations, local governments, including Northern Affairs and First Nation communities, private and non-profit organizations and businesses, educational institutions, youth groups and community associations” (Manitoba, 2016). Throughout Canada there are also bans on certain materials in landfills. For example in Metro Vancouver gypsum drywall is banned (Metro Vancouver, 2016). The use of increasing tipping fees to discourage throwing out C&D waste by making it financially beneficial to recycle is also seen in Canada. In Calgary regular C&D waste is $80/tonne, but increases to $170/tonne for asphalt, brick, concrete, drywall, recyclable wood, and scrap metal (City of Calgary, 2016).17 The guiding research question for this report is: What policies are effective in encouraging the recycling of C&D material, promote the use of recycled C&D material in new buildings and why? In order to answer this question, I completed interviews with city offi cials and policy makers and regulators. The interviewees had direct involvement with the creation of the policy or the current regulation of the policy. I initially selected the policies and then contacted the corresponding policy makers and regulators. The interviews allowed me to access information that would not have been otherwise available. These interviews exposed how the policies were implemented, challenges that were faced and how they were dealt with, why they were successful, and why they were unsuccessful. I was able to understand why certain policies are more effective and how other policies can be strengthened. I compared the completed interviews with one another (where appropriate) to better understand the strengths and weaknesses between policies.  Methodology18 Prior to the interviews, I selected specific policies based on a number of factors: the governmental body that implemented it, location, and its focus on recycling economy promotion. For governmental body, I chose policies that were implemented at the municipal, state/provincial, and national level. For location, I found it best to use the local context and because this report is being done in Vancouver I chose policies implemented by the City of Vancouver and Metro Vancouver. Regarding policies implemented by the state/province, I wanted to go outside the Canadian context. Massachusetts was chosen because of the amount of bans and ordinances it has compared to other states (Northeast Recycling Council, 2016) and its focus on a recycling economy (MASSDep, 2011). Lastly for the national level, I chose Sweden because it reached the EU target of 70% recycled C&D waste and the voluntary involvement of the private sector (Bio by Deloitte, 2015). Limitations  Ideally I would have interviewed city officials who were involved in creating the policy, however some policies have been in effect for decades and as a result the individual who was involved in its creation is no longer available. In those situations, I interviewed city officials who are currently involved with regulating the policy. Additionally, some of the questions asked were opinion based or were not measurable; this made some of the data obtained subjective. Some of the questions asked also involved planning practices that were not documented and the answers therefore relied on the interviewee’s memory and/or assumptions.19(4.1) Bans (Metro Vancouver)      Material bans are one way of regulating what gets sent to landfi lls. Material bans infl uence what materials are recycled or used at all. This analysis looks at the gypsum material ban issued by Metro Vancouver in 1992. The planning process for material bans are slightly more straightforward as it is a more authoritative regulation. During an interview with a policy regulator, they explained that because the gypsum ban was the fi rst of its kind in British Columbia no other policies were looked at. Before the ban, Metro Vancouver tried to determine if there were any recycling outlets that gypsum can be taken to. In 1992 there was one local company, New West Gypsum, which primarily accepted used gypsum. In terms of consulting those who would be affected by the ban, consultation would have had been limited as there was no organized industry association for construction and demolition contractors (Metro Vancouver offi cial, Personal correspondence, January 15 2016). The policy was created and implemented within the year of 1992. This is very fast when compared to other material bans. The ban was established Interview Findings20so quickly because of three reasons: (1) Gypsum bans affect less people than other bans, like organics, which required comprehensive community engagement, (2) There was a clear and large environmental cost (see page 12), and (3) There were large operational costs for managing gypsum in the incinerator. When gypsum is burned hydrogen sulphide is created which is an acidic gas that is difficult to treat and needs to be scrubbed off. (Metro Vancouver official, Personal correspondence, January 15 2016) There were difficulties encountered with this ban in its early stages and more recently. In the early stages, there were challenges with illegal dumping. From the mid to late 90’s, companies were offering cheaper prices to take gypsum (when compared to New West Gypsum) and instead of recycling, they would store them in empty buildings or abandon them on clear land. Municipalities were left with the cost of cleaning up the illegal dumping. As a response, this is now much more regulated and strict rules are involved when opening a collection facility (Metro Vancouver official, Personal correspondence, January 15 2016). More recently, in late 2015, New West Gypsum was temporarily closed because Worksafe BC claimed that they were not safely handling gypsum-containing asbestos. New West Gypsum is still currently the only facility that accepts gypsum in British Columbia, this was a problem as the only alternative was to send the gypsum out of province to another facility, which is very costly. In early 2016 New West Gypsum reopened and can again accept gypsum (Metro Vancouver official, Personal correspondence, January 15 2016).There are little changes to ban regulations because of its straight forward nature. The only changes that affect the ban are changes in the price of tipping fees for gypsum.The effectiveness of the ban can be seen in a number of ways: monitoring levels of acidic gases in incinerator, presence of hydrogen sulfide gases in landfills, and the flow of gypsum that is brought into transfer stations (Metro Vancouver official, Personal correspondence, January 15 2016).From the information presented by Metro Vancouver, material bans are most 21successful when supported by collection facilities. During the temporary closure of New West Gypsum, there were no alternatives for gypsum disposal and the material ban was still in effect, this resulted in a excess of gypsum (Metro Vancouver official, Personal correspondence, January 15 2016). There is a need for more gypsum disposal facilities in British Columbia. In general, whenever material bans are considered there needs to be disposal or recycling facilities available to support it otherwise municipalities would need to step in.(4.2) Green demolition (City of Vancouver)The City of Vancouver introduced new requirements for demolition permits in June 2014. For homes built before 1940, 75% of its materials have to be recycled or reused and 90% if the home is classified as a character home. Recycling or reusing demolition material is very time consuming, in order to properly sort the materials and avoid damaging it the house needs to be taken apart piece by piece. Green demolition goes against the fast pace of development (City of Vancouver, 2014). This regulation was brought in for a number of reasons: ● As part of the Greenest City Action Plan goal 5, the City plans to reduce the solid waste created within the City of Vancouver going to the landfill or incinerator by 50% from 2008 levels; ● Metro Vancouver has outlined C&D waste divergence goals of 80% in their regional solid waste plan; ● Vancouver  recognized that wood was not being recycled or reused as much as other construction materials. (City of Vancouver official, Personal correspondence, February 24 2016)Most of the home affected by this ban 1-2 stories and they are mostly constructed from wood. Prior to its approval, the City did meet with stakeholders, recycling facilities, and contractors to assess its feasibility. Additionally, this bylaw was based off of the model 22developed by Metro Vancouver for green demolition (City of Vancouver official, Personal correspondence, February 24 2016).  In December 2015, the City modified the bylaw to include pre 1950 homes, which will take effect in 2017.  The City is planning for this bylaw to extend to all single-family homes by 2018 (City of Vancouver official, Personal correspondence, February 24 2016).  To ensure compliance, the city requires a reuse and recycling plan to be submitted prior to the issuance of the demolition permit, a compliance report after the process is complete, and a $15,000 deposit ($350 of which is non refundable) (City of Vancouver, 2014). It is important to note that in the City of Vancouver a building permit is issued after the demolition is completed. The compliance report involves a series of receipts and tracking information for where the material went, which the City then confirms. If the applicant is not in compliance with the City’s requirements then they will not receive all of the $15,000 deposit and the process to receive their building permit would be delayed. The amount of the deposit that is kept is based on how much of the home was recycled, if at all (City of Vancouver official, Personal correspondence, February 24 2016).  Overall there has been a high compliance rate; however, there were some difficulties encountered. In the first year of the regulation the City did not see as much salvage and reuse as it would have liked (City of Vancouver official, Personal correspondence, February 24 2016). To remedy this, In December 2015, the City modified the bylaw so that salvaged materials received 5 times the weight credit. Another difficulty seen by the city is a fluctuating market for recycling wood in the Vancouver area. Recycled wood is often chipped and used for biomass; however, when that market is saturated there is no place to recycle the wood. As well, the wood cannot be reused for construction purposes because it would need to be re-certified in order to be used structurally. Re-certifying wood is expensive and very inconvenient when virgin lumber is easily accessible. Unfortunately, the City cannot do anything to remedy the issue of wood recertification as lumber grading is a 23national system (City of Vancouver official, Personal correspondence, February 24 2016). Similarly to materials bans, green demolition regulations are effective, in part, because they are authoritative. Furthermore, these types of regulations are most effective when there is support from the market (e.g., recycling facilities, reuse options, etc.). Vancouver’s green demolition bylaw is still in its early stages; however, thus far there has been a high compliance rate and the City’s dedication to its success is evident through the constant changes that are being made to the bylaw to ensure that all single family homes become recycled or reused. (4.3) Economy promoting policies (Massachusetts)The State of Massachusetts has a progressive waste management plan that includes a considerable number of action items that promote a recycling economy. The plan was established in 1990 and is updated every 10 years. The most recent update resulted in the ‘Massachusetts 2010-2020 Solid Waste Master Plan: Pathway to Zero Waste.’ The C&D section of the plan outlines a goal of increasing the recycling rate for C&D materials to 50% by 2020 based on 2007, excluding asphalt, brick, and concrete (ABC), as those materials already have a high recycling rate. Accomplishing this goal would result in a recycling rate of 18% (DSM Environmental Services, 2008). The total number of C&D material recycled in 2010 was 33% (including ABC material). Even with ABC material, this is a significant increase as that is more than double the amount from 2007 (MASSDep, 2011).Overall, the plan asserts that the recycling and reuse of materials provides the economy with more job opportunities than using landfills or incinerators. This focus on economy promotion is seen throughout the plan’s action items, which aim to maximize the economic benefits of recycling and reuse of C&D waste through low interest loans and specific material promotion (MASSDep, 2011). The importance of collaboration is also expressed throughout the action items. Working with other state agencies to increase waste 24divergence is detailed throughout the plan. Additionally, working with the private industry (LEED, architects, engineers, etc.) is emphasized to promote a circular economy through the use of recycled building materials (MASSDep, 2011). During an interview with C&D waste policy regulators, they highlighted the importance of recycling economy promoting programs. These programs include: MassDevelopment Recycling Loan Fund- Allows businesses related to recycling or reuse to obtain a low interest loan for any business related purpose. These loans range from $50,000 - $500,000.MassDevelopment Tax Exempt Bonding for C&D Processing Facilities- Provides tax-free bonds for C&D Processing Facilities. The Operational Services Division Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program - Ensures that government buyers buy sustainable products. (State of Massachusetts official, Personal correspondence, March 25, 2016)These programs extend back to the 1990’s. Massachusetts is aware that for bans to function properly there needs to be an economy that supports it. Prior to implementing a ban, an assessment was done of the existing economy (State of Massachusetts official, Personal correspondence, March 25, 2016). The state has a Soild Waste Advisory committee and Construction and Demolition subcommittee. The Construction and Demolition Subcommittee includes representatives from the construction industry and from recycling facilities. The subcommittee meets frequently prior to the establishment of a new ban to analyse its feasibility (State of Massachusetts official, Personal correspondence, March 25, 2016). The Massachusetts Department of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM) is in charge of construction contracts for the state and has included a minimum required recycled material specification (State of Massachusetts official, Personal correspondence, March 25, 2016). The State is also attempting to have the Department of 25Transportation use recycled asphalt. The Department of Environmental Protection has also given out grants to help establish building materials reuse centers (State of Massachusetts official, Personal correspondence, March 25, 2016 ).The State has the following C&D material bans: ● Treated & Untreated Wood & Wood Waste, ● Ferrous & Non-Ferrous Metals, ● Clean Gypsum Wallboard, ● Asphalt ● Pavement, ● Brick, and ● Concrete.The material bans are also viewed as economy promoting policies as they ensure that recycling companies have feedstocks (State of Massachusetts official, Personal correspondence, March 25, 2016 ). Massachusetts is very proactive in trying to include C&D waste management practices where it has the authority. (4.4) Voluntary actions (Sweden)   In Sweden there are both legal restrictions and voluntary agreements set by the government and private industry. Swedish legislation requires an audit and demolition plan for all demolitions in Sweden; the results are presented and approved by local authorities (Sverises Byggindustrier representative, Personal correspondence, March 18, 2016). Waste management is regulated in the building code with guidance given by the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning.  As well, Chapter 15 of Sweden’s National Environmental code requires each municipality to create a Waste Management Plan. The Swedish Construction Federation (SCF) (Sverises Byggindustrier) develops guidelines for the private sector to promote standard practice in demolition and the handling of C&D 26waste. Sweden has already reached the EU goal of reusing or recycling 70% of C&D waste by 2020 (Sverises Byggindustrier representative, Personal correspondence, March 18 2016).  The SCF is an “industry and employers’ organization consisting of construction, installation, and specialist companies active in the Swedish construction sector” (Sveriges Byggindustrier, 2016). The organization has 3,243 companies as members, that all operate under the SCF’s sustainability goals, which aim to minimize environmental impacts (Sveriges Byggindustrier, 2016). The SCF has revised a set of guidelines for the management of C&D waste. These guidelines were originally introduced as a way to adhere to Swedish legislation on demolition requirements. The guidelines were made so that all stakeholders involved in the construction industry would have a consistent set of practices for C&D waste divergence. A large issue in Sweden was that there were different names for different waste factions making statistics difficult to compile and compare, these guidelines attempt to remedy this (Sverises Byggindustrier representative, Personal correspondence, March 18 2016). The guidelines detail the steps needed for waste divergence during construction and demolition, which include materials audits, waste management plans, and detailed instructions for materials. These guidelines allow for more transparency and increased accessibility of information. The guidelines are regularly revised to include best practices and emerging issues during practical application. The guidelines were created voluntarily by Kretsloppsrådet in 2007 and then taken over by the SCF. 27 This section looks at the availability and cost comparison of gypsum, concrete, wood and their recycled counter parts in the Vancouver area. This comparison was guided by a materials list (see Appendix 1) of a wood frame building in Vancouver, as well as price quotes from various suppliers in the region. Based on the materials provided, I called local retailers to price the material and its recycled counterpart, which gave me the cost comparison of the recycled material to the virgin material displayed in Figure 3. Figure 2 lists the retailers and price quotes obtained. This cost comparison is approximate and its intent is to give a preliminary idea of the cost difference and availability of materials currently in Vancouver. Limitations Because developments use a large quantity of materials, contractors often put out a Request for Proposal (RFP) and suppliers submit bids in order for the contractor to obtain the most competitive price. The price that is obtained through this process of solicitation is often 15-20% less than retail value (Contractor, Personal correspondence, April 15, Cost and Availability282016). Since a bidding process was not possible, this comparison is made at the retail level. It is important to note the prices obtained for the recycled materials is approximate due to the absence of a bidding process. This comparison does not take into account any externalities such as labour cost, disposal costs, aesthetic preference, or shipping costs. As well, availability was an issue when attempting to source more than one supplier. The issue of availability was encountered when pricing the recycled materials. For wood, only one supplier had a large selection of reclaimed timber and chipboard is not widely sold. For gypsum, only CertainTeed brand boards could be used as it holds the highest recycled content (see page 30) and the price of the board was consistent across multiple retailers. For concrete, there was only one supplier that sold the specific concrete needed with 100% recycled aggregates. Figure 3 highlights the difference seen in the cost of recycled material. This price comparison shows that for wood framed buildings using recycled materials would have a significant increase in overall cost. As mentioned in section 4.2, using recycled timber has many obstacles and this is represented in the price of recycled timber. However, for concrete framed buildings, there would be a minor price drop from non recycled to recycled concrete. Using both recycled gypsum and chipboard instead of plywood will bring down the overall cost of a building. As mentioned above, this comparison gives a preliminary idea of the current market in Vancouver, in order for jurisdictions to make systematic change in material availability and cost, greater detail and precision is needed which includes the externalities listed above. Additionally, a wide scale availability assessment throughout British Columbia would provide a better idea of what options local builders have.   29Timber/ per board footGypsum4’x 8’ sheetsConcrete/ per cubic meter Plywood vsChipboard/ 4’x 8’ sheets Non-RecycledTongue and Groove plywood vschipboard/4’x 8’ sheetsRecycled RetailerRetailer$191.9$0.84-  Bernco    ($185.80) - Ocean       ($198) -  Home depot     ($0.91) -  Dunbar Lumber    ($0.82) -  Coe Lumber        ($0.80)$184$5-  Green Stone     Ready Mix    ($184) -  Western   reclaimed timber    ($5)  -  Home depot     ($18.99) -  Dunbar Lumber    ($23.89) -  Windsor plywood        ($25.65)$22.84 $10.89-  Home depot    ($10.89) $27.21 -  Home depot     ($25.43) -  Dunbar Lumber    ($29.00)$16.97-  Home depot    ($16.97) $16.73  -  Home depot     ($17.04) -  Dunbar Lumber    ($16.41)$15.15 -  Home depot/      Certainteed   ($15.15) Figure 2 - Price Quotes for Recycled and Non-Recycled Materials 30Wood  As described in section 4.2, using reclaimed lumber is diffi cult to do because of the certifi cation restrictions. As well the more damaged it becomes during the demolition process the harder and more expensive it is to reclaim. Additionally, availability of the specifi c timber presents an issue. In the materials list provided pressure treated wood was needed, however that wood was not available for this comparison. The supplier does not pressure-treat their wood and it would have to be done by the buyer. The 495.23% increase, seen in the chart above, is representative of the process of restoring dimensional timber post demolition. However, because this increase is based on one supplier, this percentage cannot be broadly applied.  Chipboard or strand board was compared against exterior grade plywood and tongue and groove plywood. Chipboard is comprised out of recycled wood and is signifi cantly less expensive than plywood but there are not very many suppliers in the Vancouver area that Cost DifferenceTimberGypsum+495.23%-9.44 %Concrete -4.11 %ChipboardRecycled MaterialsFigure 3 - Cost comparison between recycled and non recycled material+44.34%31sell it.     Gypsum Unfortunately there are no gypsum boards that have 100% recycled content. There are limitations with recycling gypsum boards, currently in Vancouver the highest recycled gypsum content in a gypsum board is 28%, provided by CertainTeed. During the demolition stage, gypsum boards become contaminated with other materials on site. Even with bins specifically for gypsum disposal, the dirt and mud at the bottom of it increases the impurities in the board. In order to remove the impurities and contaminates, energy and water is needed. The more purified the gypsum board can become, the more resources are needed; thus the higher the recycling content, the more energy and water is needed to extract the gypsum from the used boards. This can become costly and at a certain point would result in lost revenue. There is however synthetic gypsum boards that are 99% pre-consumer recycled content (CertainTeed, 2015). This synthetic gypsum, which is also produced by CertainTeed, is a by-product of coal plants that produce the gypsum boards. While carbon plants themselves are highly problematic due to their large carbon and overall environmental footprint, the re-use of otherwise waste materials from them is a positive attempt at waste diversion.  Concrete  Currently, the City of Vancouver has set a 6 storey limit to wood framed buildings (City of Vancouver, 2014), any building higher than 6 storeys has significantly more concrete. This building code regulation needs to be taken into consideration when attempting to evaluate buildings over 6 storeys or low rise concrete framed building, which would have a different materials ratio. Concrete cannot be fully recycled, however there is the option to use recycled aggregates (see page 9). Currently in Vancouver there is a concrete mix supplier, Green Stone, which uses 100 recycled aggregates.32Conclusion Achieving real sustainability in buildings is clearly a major challenge. Like the defi nition of recycling, sustainability can also be subject to interpretation. There are organizations that promote reusing and reclaiming used materials. For example, the Habitat For Humanity ReStore sells donated building supplies, which can range from lumber to appliances. There are contractors that prioritize the reuse of materials in their projects. For example, Phoenix Commotion in Texas is a construction company that uses conventional and unconventional reclaimed and recycled materials in their buildings (Phoenix Commotion, 2016). Reusing and reclaiming material without further processing should be common practice because of the signifi cant environmental benefi ts; but it is clear that there are still many barriers to widespread re-use of construction and demolition materials. The limitations with reclaimed materials are availability, recertifi cation, and aesthetics. It is more convenient to use new materials. Reclaimed materials have to be available and have the specifi cations that is needed for certain purposes; if you are a contractor that is 33constantly developing  6+ storey buildings the process and time necessary to find reclaimed materials can be rather cumbersome, especially if you have a certain aesthetic and price consistency in mind. Ideally there would be an easily accessible database that lists the available materials in a region, unfortunately, this is not the case. It is difficult to encourage the private sector to use recycled building material based on environmental benefits alone. Governments, non-profits, and industry must commit to decreasing the cost, and increasing the availability, of reused or recycled materials as these are the benefits currently driving contractors to use new building materials.  Setting bans and applying fees to certain materials creates financial incentives and disincentives, but as already described above the bans can become problematic if there is not an economy to support it. More research into recycling technologies is needed, as well as a look into what is being disposed of and the minimum feed necessary for a recycling plant. Additionally, more alternative materials need to be available. Cross laminated timber (CLT) is one example of an alternative to concrete and research into new construction material that has less of an impact on this planet. Within Canada municipalities have limited power, and the economy promoting tactics used by Massachusetts would have to be implemented at the provincial level. . Making it financially beneficial to open recycling facilities within a province rather than a municipality would be ideal, as recycling facilities would be dispersed throughout the whole province rather than in the municipality. At the municipal level: bans, fees, and demolition requirements and regulations would be most beneficial. Demolition practices ultimately determine what is sent to landfills and what becomes reused. Although it was not seen in any examples above, changes to building codes that include the use of recycling materials would greatly impact the market for recycled materials. More recycling facilities in conjunction with municipal requirements and regulations could over time change the mindset of the private sector, as had been seen in Sweden. Making changes at the local level is far easier to accomplish. Municipalities would 34need to show the province that there is a need for more building material recycling facilities and that these recycling facilities would have a constant supply feed through established bans, and demolition and building code requirements. Figure 4 is a table that concludes this report with an outline of the barriers to the use of recycled C&D waste, solutions to these barriers, and the levels of government that can carry these solutions. Barriers Solutions Government ResponsibleAccessibility to reclaimed material and costIncrease suppliers Waste management at the demolition stageProvincial:        By encouraging a recycling          economy, increase in            suppliers can bring consistent        and competitive pricesMunicipal:        Reducing the labour and        energy in restoring/ recycling        materials through demolition        requirements allows for more        accessible pricing of recycled        or reclaimed materials  Accessibility to recycled materialIncrease suppliers Increase recycling facilities Provincial:       Interventions, subsidies, and       grants can promote a        recycling economy drawing       in more facilities and thus       more material suppliers  Figure 4 - Barriers and Solutions to Recycled C&D Waste35Barriers Solutions Government responsibleDemandBuilding code alterationMaterial bansMunicipal:      Requiring buildings to have         recycled construction material       will increase the demand for       it and help promote its          economy       Banning certain materials in       landfi lls produces the supply       for recycling facilities       Banning certain materials in      new buildings produces a       demand for alternative       materials.       Using this method,       municipalities can incentivise        the use of more sustainable       materials36America’s Cement Manufacturers. (2016). Cements. Cement.org. Retrieved 24 April 2016, from http://www.cement.org/cement-concrete-basics/concrete-materials/cementsArachchige, U., Kawan, D., Tokheim, L., & Melaaen, M. (2013). http://www.ijmo.org/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=show&catid=41&id=360. IJMO, 3(6), 535-540. http://dx.doi.org/10.7763/ijmo.2013.v3.336Bio by Deloitte,. (2015). Construction and Demolition Waste Management in SWEDEN. Deloitte. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/deliverables/CDW_Sweden_Factsheet_Final.pdfCBC News. (2011). Throw-away buildings: Toronto’s glass condos. CBC. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/throw-away-buildings-toronto-s-glass-condos-1.1073319Charney Lawyers. “Matrix Class Action”. Charneylawyers.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.City of Calgary. (2016). The City of Calgary - Landfi ll rates. Calgary.ca. Retrieved 14 April 2016, from http://www.calgary.ca/UEP/WRS/Pages/Landfi ll-information/Landfi ll-Rates.aspxCity of Vancouver,. (2014). BY-LAW NO. 10908. Vancouver: City of Vancouver.CertainTeed,. (2015). CertainTeed Type X Gypsum Board. CertainTeed. Retrieved from http://www.Works  Cited37certainteed.com/resources/CTG_TypeX_EPD_Seattle_Vancouver.pdfCobbing, M., & Dowdall, T. (2014). Green Gadgets: Designing the future. Amsterdam: Greenpeace International.Cochrane, K. (2000). Reconciling sustainability, economic efficiency and equity in fisheries: the one that got away?. Fish And Fisheries, 1(1), 3-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-2979.2000.00003.xColbert, S. (2015). Glass falls from two downtown buildings, injuring pedestrians. Toronto Star. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/04/14/glass-falls-from-king-west-condo-building-injures-man.htmlConstruction Resources Initiative Council. (2016). Cricouncil.com. Retrieved 13 April 2016, from http://www.cricouncil.com/ DSM Environmental Services,. (2008). 2007 Massachusetts Construction and Demolition Debris Industry Study (pp. 4-5). Boston: MassDep. Retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/recycle/reduce/06-thru-l/07cdstdy.pdfEnvironment Canada (2014). Chapter 8 - Construction, Renovation and Demolition Waste - The Environmentally Responsible Construction and Renovation Handbook - Real Property - PWGSC. Tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca. Retrieved13 April 2016, from http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/biens-property/gd-env-cnstrctn/page-8-eng.htmlHoornweg, D., & Bhada-Tata, P. (2012). WHAT A WASTE: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. Washington: World Bank. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/336387-1334852610766/What_a_Waste2012_Final.pdfInnovative Waste Consulting Services, LLC,. (2016). Best Management Practices to Prevent and Control Hydrogen Sulfide and Reduced Sulfur Compound Emissions at Landfills That Dispose of Gypsum Drywall. Cincinnati: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. Retrieved from http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/34/document/guidance/bmp%20guide%202014.pdfJanke, D., Savov, L., Weddige, H., & Schulz, E. (2010). Scrap-Based Steel Production and Recycling of Steel. MATERIALI IN TEHNOLOGIJE, 34(6).Lave, L., Hendrickson, C., Conway-Schempf, N., & McMichael, F. (1999). Municipal Solid Waste Recycling Issues. J. Environ. Eng., 125(10), 944-949. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9372(1999)125:10(944)Legislative Assembly of Ontario,. (2014). Bill 56, Aggregate Recycling Promotion Act. Ottawa: Legislative Assembly of Ontario.Liu, G., Xu, K., Zhang, X., & Zhang, G. (2014). Factors influencing the service lifespan of buildings: An improved hedonic model. Habitat International, 43, 274-282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.04.009Lovgreen, T. (2016). Construction waste puts Metro Vancouver recycling facilities at capacity. CBC. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/british-columbia/construction-demolition-waste-overflow-recycling-facilities-1.3678389 Manitoba. (2016). Retrieved 15 April 2016, from https://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/pollutionprevention/wrapp/wrappfund.htmlMarco Polo (2016). Episode: 3  [Marco Polo]. Al Jazeera international38MASSDep,. (2011). 2010 Annual C&D Report Data Summary (p. 7). Boston: MASSDep. Retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/recycle/reduce/06-thru-l/10cdhf.pdfMinistère du Développement durable,. (2011). Québec Residual Materials Management Policy – 2011–2015 Action Plan. Quebec City: Ministère du Développement durable.Metro Vancouver. (2016). Banned Materials. Metrovancouver.org. Retrieved 14 April 2016, from http://www.metrovancouver.org/se44rvices/solid-waste/bylaws-regulations/banned-materials/Pages/default.aspxMetro Vancouver,. (2013). Recycling and Solid Waste Management (p. A-1). Metro Vancouver: Metro Vancouver. Retrieved from http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solid-waste/SolidWastePublications/2013_Solid_Waste_Management_Annual_Summary.pdfMeyer, C. (2009). The greening of the concrete industry. Cement And Concrete Composites, 31(8), 601-605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2008.12.010Moore, J. (2015). Ecological Footprints and Lifestyle Archetypes: Exploring Dimensions of Consumption and the Transformation Needed to Achieve Urban Sustainability. Sustainability, 7(4), 4747-4763. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su7044747Northeast Recycling Council,. (2016). Summary of U.S. State and Municipal C&D Regulations and Requirments. Baltimore: NERC. Retrieved from https://nerc.org/about-nerc/overviewO’Connor, J. (2004). Survey on actual service lives for North American buildings. In Wood frame Housing Durability and Disaster Issues conference (p. 8). Vancouver: Forintek Can a da Corp. Retrieved from http://cwc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/DurabilityService_Life_E.pdfPerry, G., & VanderPol, M. (2014). Characterization & Management of Construction, Renovation & Demolition Waste in Canada. Presentation, 2014 Recycling Council of Alberta Conference.Phoenix Commotion. (2016). Home - Phoenix Commotion. Phoenix Commotion. Retrieved 18 April 2016, from http://www.phoenixcommotion.com/Qian, W. (2010). Short-lived buildings create huge waste. China Daily. Retrieved from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-04/06/content_9687545.htmRichardson, A. (2013). Reuse of Materials and Byproducts in Construction. Green Energy And Technology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5376-4RRFB Nova Scotia,. (2013). Re-Imagination (p. 34). RRFB Nova Scotia. Retrieved from http://putwasteinitsplace.ca/uploads/file/reports/RRFB_AR_2013.pdfRRFB Nova Scotia. (2016). RRFB : put waste in its place - Our Partnerships. Putwasteinitsplace.ca. Retrieved 15 April 2016, from http://putwasteinitsplace.ca/our-partnerships.asp#.VxEjueYrLEYStatistics Canada. (2013). EnviroStats: Recycling in Canada. Statcan.gc.ca. Retrieved 13 April 2016, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-x/2007001/article/10174-eng.htmSveriges Byggindustrier. (2016). Sveriges Byggindustrier. Presentation, Stockholm. Thomas, P., Atkinson, A., & Mahoney, W. (2009). Construction field guide. Anaheim, CA: BNi Building News.39USA Gypsum -Importance of Drywall Recycling. (2016). Usagypsum.com. Retrieved 13 April 2016, from http://www.usagypsum.com/recyclingimportance.aspxWater Encyclopedia. (2016). Landfills: Impact on Groundwater - types, system, source, oxygen, human.Waterencyclopedia.com. Retrieved 13 April 2016, from http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/La-Mi/Landfills-Impact-on-Groundwater.htmlWHITELEY, N. (1987). Toward a Throw-Away Culture. Consumerism, ‘Style Obsolescence’ and Cultural Theory in the 1950s and 1960s. Oxford Art Journal, 10(2), 3-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxartj/10.2.3World Business Council for Sustainable Development,. (2009). Recycling Concrete Executive summary. Conches-Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from http://www.wbcsdcement.org/pdf/CSI-RecyclingConcrete-Summary.pdfWorrell, E. & Reuter, M. (2014). Handbook of recycling. Waltham, Mass.: Elsevier.Yao, S., Luo, D., & Wang, J. (2013). Housing Development and Urbanisation in China. The World Economy, 37(3), 481-500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/twec.12105408' 10' 12' 14' 16' 18' 20' 22' 24' 26' 28'2x4 3,619 29531.0 BFM220 1792.20 BFM15,266 8,810 3,873 4,652 845 209311. BFM2x6 5,391 64688.8 BFM610 7317.2 BFM6,769 11,233 740 1,266 419 39 184334. BFM2x8 205 336 253 174 42 4 4 15149.7 BFM116 88 44 3788.18 BFM2x10 18 20 66 29 36 26 46 4 4 22 26 8426.88 BFM22 243 248 191 34 51 26 20 18136.2 BFM2x14 53 7 1791.50 BFM5,854 sheets4,296 sheets22 sheets34 sheetsMPa 30Wood92.25 PET 104.25 PETD.Fir #2 & BtrD.Fir #2 & Btr - Pressure TreatedSPF#2 & BtrD.Fir #2 & BtrD.Fir #2 & Btr - Pressure TreatedSPF#2 & BtrSPF#2 & Btr - Pressure TreatedSPF#2 & BtrSPF#2 & Btr - Pressure TreatedSPF#2 & BtrSPF#2 & Btrplywood sheathing1/2" exterior grade5/8" T&G3/4" plywood1" plywoodConcrete3,057 cubic metersDrywall314,014 sf5/8" type XAppendix 1

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.310.1-0342794/manifest

Comment

Related Items