From demolition debris to building material: what construction hubs need to make high-diversity reuse work.

Construction still runs on a take-make-dispose model, consuming around half of all materials extracted in the European Union and producing more than a third of its waste. Groningen shows the problem in concentrated form. Induced earthquakes have led to the demolition of more than 3,300 buildings since 2012, and the tremors continue, so the province produces a steady stream of debris rather than a single post-disaster surge. Most of it is still downcycled or discarded, even though a predictable flow should be easier to reuse than a sudden one.

The EaSiCon project develops a digital twin that gives a real-time virtual representation of construction processes and their connected supply chains, supporting tactical and operational planning to improve efficiency and sustainability. This article presents research into the return flow of demolition materials in rural regions, which examines how construction consolidation centres, known as bouwhubs, can turn a diverse stream of debris back into usable material. It draws on interviews with hub operators, their clients, recycling firms and a government agency.

Cataloguing is solved, checking is not

Digital material passports have become standard practice among large contractors, and reusable items are catalogued in shared registries, often before demolition begins. The problem sits one step further along. Only a minority of firms verify what the passport claims. Incoming loads are counted and inspected for visible damage, but rated properties such as insulation value are not, and returned boards often arrive without a batch number.

That gap is what keeps reused material from being trusted, because buyers who cannot verify quality buy new. Validation has to grow alongside cataloguing, and a hub can do most of it on arrival with modest equipment:

• a handheld moisture meter for reclaimed timber
• a rebound hammer for concrete and stone
• a thermal probe and heat-flow meter for insulation
• recorded pass or fail thresholds for each batch
• a trained technician checking a sample of every load
• results written straight into the material passport

The volumes only add up at a hub

On-site separation into dedicated streams works, and durable materials such as stone and timber are already popular for reuse. What single projects cannot supply is volume. One demolition site rarely produces enough of any one material to justify its own logistics, so small loads go to waste for want of anywhere to aggregate them. A hub that buffers material from several sites solves that, and hub locations are now being mapped nationally to coordinate regional supply.

Aggregation also widens what is worth recovering. Mid-value streams such as insulation perform better than expected once checked, so a hub can sell certified reuse insulation instead of sending it for crushing.

Nobody has agreed who pays

Coordination between parties is widespread and informal. Every organisation interviewed works with partners on hub logistics and digital marketplaces, and none has a standardised cost-sharing agreement. The recurring question is who pays for the hub when everybody benefits from it. Rates are set project by project, so an operator cannot forecast revenue and a partner will not commit beyond one project. A short consortium charter resolves most of this. It sets out who covers equipment, labour and permitting costs, defines a handling charge per tonne, and fixes how resale revenue is split.

Rules that change at the municipal boundary

Policy fragmentation is the barrier almost everyone names. Permitting rules differ between neighbouring municipalities, no regulation or subsidy targets circular demolition specifically, and tenders awarding points for circular performance still go to the lowest bid. Subsidies produce pilots that stop when the funding does.

Binding demand is what changes practice. Zurich and Berlin require a minimum share of recycled aggregate in publicly funded concrete, and the Dutch Betonakkoord commits the sector to fully high-value concrete recycling by 2030. A comparable regional step is to require a fixed share of the material value in publicly funded projects to come from certified reuse streams.

Conclusion and recommendations

The building blocks are already in place. Passports are generated, sorting protocols work, hubs are running. What is missing sits in the joints between them.

Three things would move it forward. Verify material as it enters the hub, so passport data carries weight with buyers. Put cost-sharing in writing before a hub starts operating. And create predictable demand through procurement requirements, so investment in validation and capacity has something to earn back. Together these turn demolition debris from a disposal cost into a dependable supply of building material.

For more information, please contact:

Ragnar Klabbers

Ivo Agricola

Kees Jan Roodbergen

Michael Dienstknecht

Jeroen Laarman