Skip to main content

Indicators to Measure the Management Performance of End-of-Life Gypsum: From Deconstruction to Production of Recycled Gypsum


The management of the end-of-life (EoL) stage of a product directly affect the destination of EoL products. In the construction sector, EoL processes such as building deconstruction or conventional demolition commonly determine whether the material flows cycle is closed. In this context, increased knowledge on the EoL processes is considered vital for enabling stakeholders to make better informed decisions on each process. Pertinent parameters and key performance indicators may assist in this task, through the acquisition of relevant data that measure progress against targets. This paper focuses on EoL gypsum, a non-inert material appropriate for closed-loop recycling. In particular, a set of performance indicators are developed with the aim to increase the amount of gypsum waste capable of being recycled. At the same time, the production of quality recycled gypsum (RG) is prioritized. To this end, monitoring parameters were first defined and combined in the form of monitoring indicators. Such indicators were subsequently used in five pilot projects (from building deconstruction to production of recycled gypsum) set in four national contexts: Belgium, France, Germany and the United Kingdom. After data collection and analysis, 17 best practice indicators are identified out of the initial indicators, which recognize and encourage best practices associated to the recycling route, from a technical, environmental, social and economic perspective. The ideal conditions to produce RG from EoL gypsum are then formulated.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5


  1. According to the applicable Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC). The agreed guidance criteria in the framework of the GtoG Life + project can be found in the report “DB3. Guidance document with criteria for acceptance of secondary gypsum for recycling” [11].


  1. European Commission: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Closing the loop—An EU action plan for the Circular Economy. (2015)

  2. Velis, C.A.: Circular economy and global secondary material supply chains. Editor. Waste Manag. Res. 33, 389–391 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Accorsi, R., Manzini, R., Pini, C., Penazzi, S.: On the design of closed-loop networks for product life cycle management: economic, environmental and geography considerations. J. Transp. Geogr. 48, 121–134 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. European Commission: Service Contract on Management of Construction and Demolition Waste—SR1 (2011)

  5. Eurostat: Generation of Waste, NACE_R2: Construction. Total waste (2012)

  6. The Commission of the European Communities: Commission Decision of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes persuant to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 74/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste persuan to Article 1(4) of C. Off. J. Eur. Union, European union (2000)

  7. Jiménez Rivero, A., Sathre, R., García Navarro, J.: Life cycle energy and material flow implications of gypsum plasterboard recycling in the European Union. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 108, 171–181 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union: Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives,

  9. Eurostat - Prodcom: NACE Rev. 2. Statistics on the production of manufactured goods, total volume annual (2013)

  10. Jiménez Rivero, A., De Guzmán Báez, A., García Navarro, J.: Gypsum waste: differences across ten European countries. Int. J. Sustain. Policy Pract. 11, 1–9 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  11. GtoG Project LIFE11 ENV/BE/001039: DB3: Guidance document with criteria for acceptance of secondary gypsum for recycling. (2015)

  12. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): EN 15804:2012+A1:2013. Sustainability of construction works. Environmental product declarations. Core rules for the product category of construction products (2013)

  13. García Navarro, J., Maestro Martínez, L., Huete Fuertes, R., García Martínez, A.: Establecimiento de indicadores de sostenibilidad para entornos degradados: el Valle minero de Laciana (León, España). Inf. la Construcción. 61, 51–70 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. USAID: Selecting Performance Indicators. Supplemental reference to the Automated Directive System (ADS) Chapter 203. (2010)

  15. Toller, S., Carlsson, A., Wadeskog, A., Miliutenko, S., Finnveden, G.: Indicators for environmental monitoring of the Swedish building and real estate management sector. Build. Res. Inf. 41, 146–155 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dimoudi, A., Tompa, C.: Energy and environmental indicators related to construction of office buildings. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 53, 86–95 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Srinivasan, R.S., Ingwersen, W., Trucco, C., Ries, R., Campbell, D.: Comparison of energy-based indicators used in life cycle assessment tools for buildings. Build. Environ. 79, 138–151 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Villoria Sáez, P., del Río Merino, M., Porras-Amores, C., San-Antonio González, A.: Assessing the accumulation of construction waste generation during residential building construction works. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 93, 67–74 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mália, M., de Brito, J., Pinheiro, M.D., Bravo, M.: Construction and demolition waste indicators. Waste Manag. Res. 31, 241–255 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ortiz, O., Pasqualino, J.C., Castells, F.: Environmental performance of construction waste: comparing three scenarios from a case study in Catalonia. Spain. Waste Manag. 30, 646–654 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Yuan, H.: Key indicators for assessing the effectiveness of waste management in construction projects. Ecol. Indic. 24, 476–484 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Akinade, O.O., Oyedele, L.O., Bilal, M., Ajayi, S.O., Owolabi, H.A., Alaka, H.A., Bello, S.A.: Waste minimisation through deconstruction: A BIM based Deconstructability Assessment Score (BIM-DAS). Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 105, 167–176 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. GtoG project LIFE11 ENV/BE/001039: DA1: Inventory of current practices. (2013)

  24. GtoG project LIFE11 ENV/BE/001039: DC1. Report on best practice indicators for deconstruction, recycling and reincorporation. (2015)

  25. GtoG Project: Life + Gypsum to Gypsum (GtoG) project “From production to recycling: a circular economy for the European Gypsum Industry with the Demolition and Recycling Industry,”

  26. Coelho, A., de Brito, J.: Economic analysis of conventional versus selective demolition—A case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55, 382–392 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. GtoG project LIFE11 ENV/BE/001039: DB1. European Handbook on best practices in deconstruction techniques. (2015)

  28. GtoG project LIFE11 ENV/BE/001039: DB4: Report of Production Process Parameters, (2015)

  29. GtoG project LIFE11 ENV/BE/001039: DC2: Protocol of action B2.2: Quality criteria for recycled gypsum, technical and toxicological parameters. (2015)

  30. CIB International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction: Barriers for Deconstruction and Reuse/Recycling of Construction Materials. CIB Publication 397 (2014)

  31. Delgado, L., Sofia-Catarino, A., Eder, P., Litten, D., Luo, Z., Villanueva, A.: End of waste criteria. Final Report. (2009)

  32. The Council of the European Union: Council Decision of 19 December 2002 establishing criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Article 16 of and Annex to Directive 1999/31/EC (2003/33/EC). Off. J. Eur. Communities. L 11/27 – 11/49 (2003)

  33. OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration. US Department of Labor: Hydrogen Sulfide OSHA FactSheet. DSG 10/2005,

  34. WRAP and Environmental Resources Management Ltd (ERM): Technical Report: Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard. (2008)

  35. GtoG project LIFE11 ENV/BE/001039: DA2: Inventory of best practices. Gypsum to Gypsum project LIFE11 ENV/BE/001039, (2015)

  36. WRAP, BSI: PAS 109:2013. Specification for the production of reprocessed gypsum from waste plasterboard. (2013)

  37. Roskill: Gypsum and Anhydrite: Global Industry Markets and Outlook (2014)

  38. Ecoinvent: Ecoinvent v2.2 Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) database, Gypsum, mineral, at mine/CH S. (2012)

  39. ITB EPD: Environmental Product Declaration Gypsum plasterboard. No 025/2014 (2014)

  40. Bundesverband der Gipsindustrie e.V.: Recycled gypsum (RC-gypsum). Initial test for recycling plants, quality management, quality requirements and analysis methods. (2013)

  41. European Commission: Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste (2015)

  42. Hjelmar, O., Van Der Sloot, H.A., Comans, R.N.J., Wahlström, M.: EoW criteria for waste-derived aggregates. Waste Biomass Valoriz. 4, 809–819 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. European Environment Agency: Specific CO2 emissions per tonne-km and per mode of transport in Europe, 1995–2011—European Environment Agency (EEA),

  44. International Energy Agency: Worldwide Trends in Energy Use and Efficiency. Key Insights from IEA Indicator Analysis. IEA Publications, Paris (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  45. European Environment Agency (EEA): Trends in energy GHG emission factors and % renewable electricity (EU-27),

  46. Deloitte: Construction and demolition waste management in United Kingdom. V3-December 2015. (2015)

  47. Suárez, S., Roca, X., Gasso, S.: Product-specific life cycle assessment of recycled gypsum as a replacement for natural gypsum in ordinary Portland cement: application to the Spanish context. J. Clean. Prod. 117, 150–159 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This study was drafted with results obtained under the framework of the GtoG project “From production to recycling: a circular economy for the European Gypsum Industry with the demolition and recycling Industry”, supported by the European Commission—DG Environment through the Life + programme; under contract number LIFE11 ENV/BE/001039.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Jiménez-Rivero.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jiménez-Rivero, A., García-Navarro, J. Indicators to Measure the Management Performance of End-of-Life Gypsum: From Deconstruction to Production of Recycled Gypsum. Waste Biomass Valor 7, 913–927 (2016).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Secondary material
  • Quality
  • Indicators
  • Circular economy
  • Urban mining
  • Plasterboard