Strategies of Extended Producer Responsibility for Buildings

Buildings use large amounts of materials and produce much waste. Some building materials are recycled, but most become waste. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies require producers to be responsible for their products after their useful life. The basic drivers of EPR are reduced pollution and resource and energy use over a product’s life cycle. For buildings, EPR provides an opportunity to divert additional waste away from landfills and into reuse and recycling. Energy shortages and pollution prevention are concerns at regional and global levels, while material shortages occur in some regions. EPR can be achieved through regulatory, economic, or information instruments. Product takeback (PTB) is a regulatory instrument that requires producers to take back products at the end of their useful life and reuse or recycle them. This paper finds that PTB policies are not feasible for entire buildings, but many building materials and components are candidates for reuse and recycling. Using recycled materials may save energy, reduce virgin material use, and prevent pollution. Economic instruments can also be used to promote EPR for buildings, while information instruments are not as effective.

[1]  C Muller.  REQUIREMENTS ON CONCRETE FOR FUTURE RECYCLING , 1998 .

[2]  Casper Boks,et al.  European end-of-life systems for electrical and electronic equipment , 1999, Proceedings First International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing.

[3]  L. Macaskie,et al.  Microbially-enhanced chemisorption of heavy metals : A method for the bioremediation of solutions containing long-lived isotopes of neptunium and plutonium , 1998 .

[4]  Carola Hanisch,et al.  Is extended producer responsibility effective? , 2000, Environmental science & technology.

[5]  Geoffrey M. Levy.  Packaging, Policy and the Environment , 1999 .

[6]  Barbara C. Lippiatt,et al.  Selecting Cost-Effective Green Building Products: BEES Approach , 1999 .

[7]  Arpad Horvath,et al.  Economic Input–Output Models for Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment , 1998 .

[8]  Lester B. Lave,et al.  NEW MARKETS FOR OLD MATERIALS , 1996 .

[9]  Thomas Kelly,et al.  CRUSHED CEMENT CONCRETE SUBSTITUTION FOR CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATES - A MATERIALS FLOW ANALYSIS , 1998 .

[10]  K Lundstroem.  Recycling of concrete pavements , 1992 .

[11]  L.-G. Scheidt,et al.  Collecting electronic waste in Europe: a Sony view , 1999, Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment (Cat. No.99CH36357).

[12]  Bette K. Fishbein.  Carpet take‐back: EPR American style , 2000 .

[13]  Robert J. Klee,et al.  Getting serious about sustainability. , 2002, Environmental science & technology.

[14]  Emergency Response,et al.  Characterization of building-related construction and demolition debris in the United States , 1998 .

[15]  H.-J. Lueckefett,et al.  A global perspective on environmentally related product legislation and regulations , 1997, Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. ISEE-1997.

[16]  Robert Steuteville,et al.  Food residues become community asset , 1992 .

[17]  David J. Williams,et al.  European environmental legislation in electronics and its potential impact on Far Eastern suppliers , 1998, Proceedings of 2nd Electronics Packaging Technology Conference (Cat. No.98EX235).