*3.1. Construction Waste Management in Colombia*

The management of waste generated by construction activity in Colombia is shown in Figure 1 (solid lines). Note that this type of waste does not undergo any type of treatment and is typically sent to a final disposal site. This has created environmental and logistical problems due to the large volume of waste, which reduces the lifespan of landfills.

Some of the main problems in the management of CDW in Colombia [31] are: construction starting without having prepared the integral management of the CDW, no waste separation at the source, few real waste treatment technologies available, low demand for CDW processed materials, poor logistics in CDW management, and a lack of education and awareness around the proper management of CDW. Because of this, in 2017, the standards for the management of CDW and public clearance services in Colombia were updated (resolution 472) to regulate CDW use and recovery. Since CDW is classified as special, waste disposal companies do not collect it, which means that it is often disposed of in a

non-proper way [32]. The law also establishes that the public administration is responsible for generating the required mechanisms and having spaces for their execution. Each city must therefore carry out studies and plans to educate the community and manage CDW (PGIRS). Such plans are expected to control and monitor CDW, generate strategies, and implement actions that lead to good waste management. Unfortunately, so far, the reality is quite far from the plans of PGIRS. The evolution of CDW management is shown in Figure 1 (dashed line). In Colombia, the comprehensive management of construction and demolition waste is governed by several standards [31]: Resolution 541 of 1994 "By means of which the loading, unloading, transport, storage and final disposal of rubble, materials, elements, concrete and loose aggregates of construction, demolition, organic layer, soil and excavation subsoil is regulated" [33]; Decree 948 of 1995 "Regulations in relation to the prevention and control of atmospheric pollution and protection of air quality" [34]; National Decree 1713 of 2002 Article 44 "Collection of rubble. It is the responsibility of the producers of rubble to arrange its collection, transport, and disposal in authorized dumps. The Municipality or District and the company that provides the cleaning service are responsible for coordinating these activities within the framework of the programs established in the PGIRS plans [35], which is also regulated by Law 1259 of 2008 by means of which the application of the environmental directive is established in the national territory against the violators of the rules of cleanliness, cleaning and collection of rubble" [36]; Decree 2981 of 2013 "By which the provision of the public cleaning service is regulated" [37]; and Resolution 472 of 2017 "By which the comprehensive management of waste generated in construction and demolition (CDW) activities is regulated and other provisions are issued" [38]. *Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 20

**Figure 1.** CDW cycle in Colombia. **Figure 1.** CDW cycle in Colombia.

#### Some of the main problems in the management of CDW in Colombia [31] are: con-*3.2. CDW Quantification*

struction starting without having prepared the integral management of the CDW, no waste separation at the source, few real waste treatment technologies available, low demand for CDW processed materials, poor logistics in CDW management, and a lack of education and awareness around the proper management of CDW. Because of this, in 2017, the standards for the management of CDW and public clearance services in Colom-The process to select the appropriate methodology is shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows results from the quantification method used to calculate the waste generation rate based on the construction area and the aforementioned factors. The amount of construction and demolition waste generated was recorded from 2008 to 2017 for the cities of Bogotá and Medellín in Colombia, as well as Colombia as a whole.

bia were updated (resolution 472) to regulate CDW use and recovery. Since CDW is classified as special, waste disposal companies do not collect it, which means that it is often disposed of in a non-proper way [32]. The law also establishes that the public administration is responsible for generating the required mechanisms and having spaces for their execution. Each city must therefore carry out studies and plans to educate the community and manage CDW (PGIRS). Such plans are expected to control and monitor CDW, gener-Considering the information available from the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development and the Institute of Environmental Studies, it was found that by 2011, the main cities in the country (12 of Colombia's 32 cities) had generated 22 million tons of CDW. In the year 2015, the city of Bogota generated approximately 8 million tons and the city of Medellin generated approximately 2.2 million tons [31]. These data serve as a reference value to compare against the new data obtained in this investigation.

ate strategies, and implement actions that lead to good waste management. Unfortunately, so far, the reality is quite far from the plans of PGIRS. The evolution of CDW management is shown in Figure 1 (dashed line). In Colombia, the comprehensive management of construction and demolition waste is governed by several standards [31]: Resolution Figure 3a shows the amount of CDW generated in the city of Medellín. It can be seen that when using Factors 1, 2, and 4, it is above the reference value, which is 2.2 million tons for the year 2015. In contrast, when using Factor 3, the CDW generated is close to the reference value.

541 of 1994 "By means of which the loading, unloading, transport, storage and final disposal of rubble, materials, elements, concrete and loose aggregates of construction, demolition, organic layer, soil and excavation subsoil is regulated" [33]; Decree 948 of 1995 "Regulations in relation to the prevention and control of atmospheric pollution and protection of air quality" [34]; National Decree 1713 of 2002 Article 44 "Collection of rubble.

disposal in authorized dumps. The Municipality or District and the company that provides the cleaning service are responsible for coordinating these activities within the framework of the programs established in the PGIRS plans [35], which is also regulated by Law 1259 of 2008 by means of which the application of the environmental directive is established in the national territory against the violators of the rules of cleanliness, cleaning and collection of rubble" [36]; Decree 2981 of 2013 "By which the provision of the public cleaning service is regulated" [37]; and Resolution 472 of 2017 "By which the comprehensive management of waste generated in construction and demolition (CDW) activ-

The process to select the appropriate methodology is shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows results from the quantification method used to calculate the waste generation rate based on the construction area and the aforementioned factors. The amount of construction and demolition waste generated was recorded from 2008 to 2017 for the cities of Bo-

ities is regulated and other provisions are issued" [38].

gotá and Medellín in Colombia, as well as Colombia as a whole.

*3.2. CDW Quantification* 

**Figure 2.** Selection of the quantification methodology. **Figure 2.** Selection of the quantification methodology. **Figure 2.** Selection of the quantification methodology.

**Figure 3.** Amount of CDW generated in (**a**) Medellín, (**b**) Bogotá, and (**c**) Colombia as a whole. **Figure 3.** Amount of CDW generated in (**a**) Medellín, (**b**) Bogotá, and (**c**) Colombia as a whole. **Figure 3.** Amount of CDW generated in (**a**) Medellín, (**b**) Bogotá, and (**c**) Colombia as a whole.

The CDW generated in the city of Bogota is shown in Figure 3b. It can be observed that when using Factor 4, the value of CDW generated is the closest to the reference value, which is 8 million tons for the year 2015. When using Factors 1 and 2, the CDW generated is above the reference value, and when using Factor 3, it is below the reference value. that when using Factor 4, the value of CDW generated is the closest to the reference value, which is 8 million tons for the year 2015. When using Factors 1 and 2, the CDW generated is above the reference value, and when using Factor 3, it is below the reference value. This behavior also happens for the CDW generated in Colombia, which can be evi-

Considering the information available from the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development and the Institute of Environmental Studies, it was found that by 2011, the main cities in the country (12 of Colombia's 32 cities) had generated 22 million tons of CDW. In the year 2015, the city of Bogota generated approximately 8 million tons and the city of Medellin generated approximately 2.2 million tons [31]. These data serve as a reference value to compare against the new data obtained in this investigation.

Figure 3a shows the amount of CDW generated in the city of Medellín. It can be seen that when using Factors 1, 2, and 4, it is above the reference value, which is 2.2 million tons for the year 2015. In contrast, when using Factor 3, the CDW generated is close to the

The CDW generated in the city of Bogota is shown in Figure 3b. It can be observed

*Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 20

This behavior also happens for the CDW generated in Colombia, which can be evidenced in Figure 3c. It is clear that when using Factor 4, the CDW is the closest to the reference value, which is 22 million tons for the year 2015. When using Factors 1 and 2, the CDW generated is above the reference value, and when using Factor 3, it is below the reference value. denced in Figure 3c. It is clear that when using Factor 4, the CDW is the closest to the reference value, which is 22 million tons for the year 2015. When using Factors 1 and 2, the CDW generated is above the reference value, and when using Factor 3, it is below the reference value. In general, it should be noted that the reference values were only obtained from le-

In general, it should be noted that the reference values were only obtained from legally reported CDW, which is certainly below the real data as illegal CDW disposal is not registered. In addition, the reference value does not include all 32 Colombian cities due to the lack of information in some parts of the country. Furthermore, Factor 3, which is based on the Fatta model, assumes that for every 1000 m<sup>2</sup> of construction, 50 m<sup>3</sup> of CDW is generated; in reality, more m<sup>3</sup> of CDW is generated, meaning that the results obtained are below the reference values. As a result of the aforementioned issues, this research focuses on Factor 1. gally reported CDW, which is certainly below the real data as illegal CDW disposal is not registered. In addition, the reference value does not include all 32 Colombian cities due to the lack of information in some parts of the country. Furthermore, Factor 3, which is based on the Fatta model, assumes that for every 1000m2 of construction, 50 m3 of CDW is generated; in reality, more m3 of CDW is generated, meaning that the results obtained are below the reference values. As a result of the aforementioned issues, this research focuses on Factor 1.

#### *3.3. CDW Characterization in Colombia* 3.3.1. X-ray Diffraction (XRD) *3.3. CDW Characterization in Colombia* 3.3.1. X-ray Diffraction (XRD)

reference value.

Figure 4 shows the morphologies of some CDW samples obtained from La Pradera landfill without any type of treatment. Figure 4a shows CDW with combined powders of concrete and red clay products, Figure 4b shows mostly bricks, Figure 4c shows CDW mainly composed of concrete but with some red clay products, and Figure 4d shows mostly clean concrete waste. Figure 4 shows the morphologies of some CDW samples obtained from La Pradera landfill without any type of treatment. Figure 4a shows CDW with combined powders of concrete and red clay products, Figure 4b shows mostly bricks, Figure 4c shows CDW mainly composed of concrete but with some red clay products, and Figure 4d shows mostly clean concrete waste.

**Figure 4.** Samples obtained from the La Pradera waste dump.

The results of the XRD analysis obtained from the construction and demolition waste samples are shown in Figure 5. The main phases found are calcium oxide, iron oxide, magnesium oxide, feldspar (AlKSi3O8), Albite, anorthite, ettringite, portlandite, silicate and hydrated calcium calcite and gypsum. These phases are consistent with those found in bricks, tiles, ceramics, and concrete. It can also be seen that the same phases are found in the four diffractograms. Only the intensity of the peaks changes.

The results of the XRD analysis obtained from the construction and demolition waste samples are shown in Figure 5. The main phases found are calcium oxide, iron oxide, magnesium oxide, feldspar (AlKSi3O8), Albite, anorthite, ettringite, portlandite, silicate and hydrated calcium calcite and gypsum. These phases are consistent with those found in bricks, tiles, ceramics, and concrete. It can also be seen that the same phases are found

**Figure 5.** X-ray diffractogram of CDW in Colombia. **Figure 5.** X-ray diffractogram of CDW in Colombia.

**Figure 4.** Samples obtained from the La Pradera waste dump.

in the four diffractograms. Only the intensity of the peaks changes.

#### 3.3.2. Comparison of CDW Composition 3.3.2. Comparison of CDW Composition

Considering the results of X-ray diffraction data and the information available in the literature, the composition of the CDW generated in Colombia was compared with that generated in other countries. Figure 6 shows the composition of the CDW generated in Colombia. Waste classified as others contributes 38%, concrete contributes 28%, brick 22%, ceramic 8%, and mortar 4% [39]. In addition, it can be seen that China has the highest percentage of metallic materials, which are insignificant in the United States, Norway, and Colombia. In all countries, inert waste, which includes concrete, mortar, brick, and ceramics, makes the following contributions: 85% in Kuwait, 84% in Norway, 77% in the United States, 91% in Spain, 96% in Portugal, 87% in China [40], and 60% in Colombia. The difference in these values is due to the variety of construction structures and materials used in the different countries, mainly due to the difference in climates, cultures, and types of construction. Considering the results of X-ray diffraction data and the information available in the literature, the composition of the CDW generated in Colombia was compared with that generated in other countries. Figure 6 shows the composition of the CDW generated in Colombia. Waste classified as others contributes 38%, concrete contributes 28%, brick 22%, ceramic 8%, and mortar 4% [39]. In addition, it can be seen that China has the highest percentage of metallic materials, which are insignificant in the United States, Norway, and Colombia. In all countries, inert waste, which includes concrete, mortar, brick, and ceramics, makes the following contributions: 85% in Kuwait, 84% in Norway, 77% in the United States, 91% in Spain, 96% in Portugal, 87% in China [40], and 60% in Colombia. The difference in these values is due to the variety of construction structures and materials used in the different countries, mainly due to the difference in climates, cultures, and types of construction. *Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20

**Figure 6.** Composition of CDW production in different countries. **Figure 6.** Composition of CDW production in different countries.

#### *3.4. Econometric Analysis 3.4. Econometric Analysis*

#### 3.4.1. Correlation Analysis 3.4.1. Correlation Analysis

In order to carry out this study, it had to be discovered which factors were related and which were the most appropriate to estimate the generation of CDW in Colombia. Figure 7 compares the construction and demolition waste with the population, gray cement production, and gross domestic product (GDP) from construction in Colombia. In In order to carry out this study, it had to be discovered which factors were related and which were the most appropriate to estimate the generation of CDW in Colombia. Figure 7 compares the construction and demolition waste with the population, gray cement

Figure 7a, it can be seen that the population has an increasing linear growth through the years, while the amount of CDW increases or decreases. This shows that, in general, the

have the same trend as the CDW generation. Figure 7c reveals the GDP from construction, which shows that GDP decreases or increases with a similar trend to the generation of CDW. The flow of CDW and GDP from construction was determined through time and is presented in Figure 8a. The flow of GDP from construction can be seen to increase with time, while the flow of CDW (waste generated) decreases in the periods 2008–2009, 2009– 2010, and 2013–2014, which is due to a decrease in areas being built on during this time. Figure 8b shows the correlation between the flow of CDW and the flow of GDP from construction, giving a value of 0.7104, indicating that the model estimates fit quite well.

production, and gross domestic product (GDP) from construction in Colombia. In Figure 7a, it can be seen that the population has an increasing linear growth through the years, while the amount of CDW increases or decreases. This shows that, in general, the population growth does not significantly affect the amount of CDW generated annually. Figure 7b shows that cement production varies over the years, but this variation does not have the same trend as the CDW generation. Figure 7c reveals the GDP from construction, which shows that GDP decreases or increases with a similar trend to the generation of CDW. The flow of CDW and GDP from construction was determined through time and is presented in Figure 8a. The flow of GDP from construction can be seen to increase with time, while the flow of CDW (waste generated) decreases in the periods 2008–2009, 2009–2010, and 2013–2014, which is due to a decrease in areas being built on during this time. Figure 8b shows the correlation between the flow of CDW and the flow of GDP from construction, giving a value of 0.7104, indicating that the model estimates fit quite well. *Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 20

**Figure 7.** Comparison of the amount of CDW generated with (**a**) population, (**b**) gray cement production, and (**c**) GDP from construction in Colombia. **Figure 7.** Comparison of the amount of CDW generated with (**a**) population, (**b**) gray cement production, and (**c**) GDP from construction in Colombia.

**Figure 8.** Flows of CDW and GDP from construction in Colombia: (**a**) evolution over time and (**b**) correlation between flows. **Figure 8.** Flows of CDW and GDP from construction in Colombia: (**a**) evolution over time and (**b**) correlation between flows.

3.4.2. Filters for Cyclic Components

3.4.2. Filters for Cyclic Components The Hodrick–Prescott filter was originally designed to decompose the series of GDP values into long-term growth and a cyclical component. In the context of CDWs, the soft part can be interpreted as the long-term seasonal component or trend and the volatile part as the stochastic component [41]. The Baxter–King filter consists of a linear filter that elim-The Hodrick–Prescott filter was originally designed to decompose the series of GDP values into long-term growth and a cyclical component. In the context of CDWs, the soft part can be interpreted as the long-term seasonal component or trend and the volatile part as the stochastic component [41]. The Baxter–King filter consists of a linear filter that eliminates very slow or low frequency movements (trend) and high frequency components (irregular), while retaining the intermediate components (cycle) [42].

inates very slow or low frequency movements (trend) and high frequency components (irregular), while retaining the intermediate components (cycle) [42]. The linear component of the Hodrick–Prescott filter for the CDWs generated in Co-The linear component of the Hodrick–Prescott filter for the CDWs generated in Colombia and the GDP from construction are shown in Figure 9a,b, respectively, while the cyclical component obtained by the Hodrick–Prescott and Baxter–King filter is shown in Figure 10a,b, respectively, for both the CDW generated and the GDP from construction.

lombia and the GDP from construction are shown in Figure 9a,b, respectively, while the cyclical component obtained by the Hodrick–Prescott and Baxter–King filter is shown in Figure 10a,b, respectively, for both the CDW generated and the GDP from construction.

**Figure 9. Figure 9.**Hodrick–Prescott filter: ( Hodrick–Prescott filter: (**a**) amount of CDW and ( **a**) amount of CDW and (**b**) GDP from construction. **b**) GDP from construction.

In both Figure 10a,b, it can be observed that the CDW cycle has three changes over time. The first corresponds to the period from 2008 to 2012. The reason this period is below the CWD trend is due to a decrease in planning permission granted for construction, in addition to the implementation of laws 1295 and 1333 that refer to environmental penalty fees (comparendos) and environmental sanctioning, respectively. The second change corresponds to the 2012–2016 period. This is above the trend due to the increase in the number of areas granted planning permission for housing construction. The decrease in 2013 was mainly due to the number of areas granted permission for buildings and housing of social interest. The third change corresponds to the 2016–2017 period. The CDW is below the trend line due to the implementation of Decree 1077, which regulates the housing, city, and land sectors with respect to special waste, and due to resolution 472, that requires the comprehensive management of waste generated by construction and demolition activities.

The cycle of GDP from construction shows three changes over time. The first corresponds to the period from 2008 to 2009, which is below the trend. Here, the decrease is due to the financial crisis that caused a collapse in the United States economy. The resulting increase in inflation and rise in interest rates reduced the purchasing power and decelerated loans in the construction sector. Planning approval for construction therefore decreased. It can also be seen that in 2009, there is growth, which is due to the increase in public works and a reduced inflation rate. The second change corresponds to the period from 2009 to

2015. Although the CDW is above the trendline, a decrease is observed due to the delay in the approval times of environmental licenses, which were required before any building work could begin. In 2014, another decrease is seen due to the fall in housing construction. The third change comprises the period from 2016 to 2017, which is below the trendline. *Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 20

**Figure 10.** Cyclic components obtained by Hodrick–Prescott and Baxter–King filters from (**a**) CDW and (**b**) GDP from construction. **Figure 10.** Cyclic components obtained by Hodrick–Prescott and Baxter–King filters from (**a**) CDW and (**b**) GDP from construction.

#### In both Figure 10a,b, it can be observed that the CDW cycle has three changes over *3.5. Information Available in other Countries*

time. The first corresponds to the period from 2008 to 2012. The reason this period is below 3.5.1. CDW in the Latin American framework

the CWD trend is due to a decrease in planning permission granted for construction, in addition to the implementation of laws 1295 and 1333 that refer to environmental penalty The information available on the management and generation of CDW in some Latin American countries is summarized below:

fees (comparendos) and environmental sanctioning, respectively. The second change cor-• Argentina

responds to the 2012–2016 period. This is above the trend due to the increase in the number of areas granted planning permission for housing construction. The decrease in 2013 was mainly due to the number of areas granted permission for buildings and housing of social interest. The third change corresponds to the 2016–2017 period. The CDW is below the trend line due to the implementation of Decree 1077, which regulates the housing, city, and land sectors with respect to special waste, and due to resolution 472, that requires the comprehensive management of waste generated by construction and demolition activities. The cycle of GDP from construction shows three changes over time. The first corresponds to the period from 2008 to 2009, which is below the trend. Here, the decrease is In general, there are problems with waste management. The Secretariat of Environment and Sustainable Development (SA and DS), dependent on the Ministry of Health and Environment, has designed the National Strategy for Urban Solid Waste (ENGIRSU). The mission of this strategy is to comprehensively manage waste, reduce the disposal of waste in open dumps, and increase its disposal in landfills designed, built, and operated in an appropriate way in a program that transfers, recovers, recycles, and finally disposes of urban solid waste and CDW [43]. To promote better management of CDW in Argentina, incentives are granted to companies who recover or reuse materials in order to mitigate the impact on the environment [44].

• Bolivia

The 2011 Solid Waste Management Diagnosis established that at a national level, there is no adequate management of this type of waste. CDW is deposited in public areas, rivers, streams, vacant lots or along the entrance roads to dumps. Despite the existence of local ordinances and regulations, the corresponding actions are not carried out correctly. Recently, in the main cities of the country, service companies, through municipal ordinances, have been regulating the collection and final disposal of construction waste [45].

• Brazil

The Brazilian model establishes in its Resolution CONAMA No. 307/2002 [46] all actions that must be carried out to minimize the generation of waste, and the technical aspects of its treatment, transport, and final disposal. Waste material is classified to obtain the maximum possible separation, in order to minimize transportation costs and to contribute to recycling and reuse of materials, thus reducing the burden on the environment.

Due to this resolution, Brazil became the first country in Latin America to have a recycling plant for CDW, through Resolution 307 created by CONAMA in 2002, which specifically establishes the guidelines for the management of construction waste; from there, municipalities such as Sao Pablo, Salvador, and others have taken better actions to maximize the recycling of CDW.

• Chile

The Environment Committee of the Chilean Chamber of Construction, the company signatories of the APL (Clean Production Agreement), together with the support of a Development Project (PROFO) of the Production Development Corporation (CORFO) [47], created the company Regeneradora de Materiales de la Construcción S.A (REGEMAC) [48] in the year 2000, which developed a monitoring system for 100% of waste collected. This describes the life cycle of the waste, from its origin to its final disposal. In the metropolitan region, there are places designated by SEREMI for the disposal of rubble and inert materials to ensure this waste is properly disposed of.

• Costa Rica

Costa Rica is developing a comprehensive solution for the management of CDWs, guiding the government and private sectors to promote the reduction of waste, the recovery of materials, the use of energy, and the treatment of waste, as well as promoting competitiveness and environmentally friendly behavior in the private sector [49].

• Ecuador

In Ecuador, it has been established that the Municipal Decentralized Autonomous Governments are directly responsible for the management of their solid waste. However, very little management actually takes place since most municipalities have created units to provide the service under the hierarchical dependency of the hygiene directorates, while other municipalities manage waste through the municipal police stations, which have a weak institutional image and do not have administrative or financial autonomy [50].

• Mexico

CDW management presents serious deficiencies because few entities have adequate infrastructure for waste management. Only in the Federal District were recycling plants identified as being in operation. Although most of the CDW generated in small construction projects is removed by private cargo vehicles, just over 5% is transported by municipal solid waste (MSW) collection vehicles, and it is estimated that about 10% of waste is disposed of on conservation land and public roads. In the case of public and private works, it is estimated that 67% of their waste is transported by private cargo vehicles. Only 20% is disposed of in authorized sites, and only 3% is recycled. The rest is used for land releveling and taken to landfills [51]. Most of the CDW is deposited in abandoned properties and public roads; another part is deposited in landfills, where, due to its characteristics and volume, its useful life is short. Only a small part of the waste is deposited in sites specifically designed for this purpose. Just four states in the republic have authorized final disposal sites, including Mexico City, the State of Mexico, Guanajuato, and Baja California [52].

• Panama

There is no specific regulation for the management of CDW; therefore, its management is at the discretion of the project owner or contractor. The final disposal of CDW is carried out in public roads, public drainage systems (sewerage), vacant lots, and riverbanks and streams, and close to the limits of protected areas, natural parks, and mangroves. It is also disposed of in clandestine dumps and landfills for neighborhoods and road infrastructure projects. The National Council of Private Companies and the National Cleaner Production Center in Panama proposes regulations for the proper management and use of CDWs, promoting a culture wherein waste is separated from the source and classified as well as other important initiatives for the proper management of CDW [53].

• Peru

It is the obligation and responsibility of the related institutions to coordinate ways to reduce CDW, and its reuse, storage, collection, commercialization, transport, treatment, transfer, and final disposal. The projects included in the National System for Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA) must formulate a waste management plan including technical and administrative procedures [54]. Because in Peru there are few waste dumps for the final disposal of CDW, a large amount of construction waste is dumped into the sea and onto riverbanks without prior treatment [55].

• Dominican Republic

The Dominican Republic does not have specific regulations for the treatment of CDW. This waste is generally managed irregularly and deposited in makeshift places, including sidewalks, wetlands, parks, and riverbanks, without permits. Since there is no coherent national policy for the management of CDW, companies who generate it are responsible for its disposal. The legislation issued by the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources regulates the operation of landfills [56].
