Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 402–413 | Cite as

Potential resources of post-consumer wood waste in Poland

  • Ewa Ratajczak
  • Aleksandra Szostak
  • Gabriela Bidzińska
  • Magdalena Herbeć


This article presents the results of studies, whose aim was to determine the volume of post-consumer wood waste resources in Poland and propose a calculation method. The methodical approach applied is based on the concept of life cycle of final wood products, including a system of indices describing rotation of these products and their average useful life. The study revealed that in 2013 potential amount of post-consumer wood waste in Poland was 6.5 million m3, which was 17% of wood removals and approximately 19% of consumption (the amount of processed wood originating from Polish forests). The post-consumer wood resources were composed of waste from worn-out final wood products predominantly made of: sawnwood (approximately 83%), wood-based materials (9%), and roundwood (8%). This waste can potentially be created in many sectors of the economy, while construction is the primary producer (64% of the hypothetical volume of post-consumer wood waste resources). When considered by product types, the largest base of post-consumer wood waste consisted of worn-out wooden windows and doors (15%).


Wood waste resources Post-consumer wood Post-consumer wood waste LCA of wood products 



The article presents the results of research carried out within a project entitled “Recycling of used wood in Germany and Poland” (; and executed within the framework of Polish–German cooperation for sustainable development. The project was financed by the National Centre for Research and Development in Poland and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research.


  1. 1.
    Sakai S, Yoshida H, Hirai Y et al (2011) J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 13: 86. doi: 10.1007/s10163-011-0009-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rosik-Dulewska Cz (2011) Podstawy gospodarki odpadami. Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Praktyczny poradnik (2013) Gospodarka odpadami w przedsiębiorstwie. Państwowa Agencja Rozwoju Przedsiębiorczości, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Väntsi O, Kärki T (2014) J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 16: 62. doi: 10.1007/s10163-013-0170-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wróblewska H, Schroeter-Zakrzewska A, Głuchowska K, Wolna-Maruwka A, Kleiber T (2014) Application of post-consumer wood composts in canna lily (Canna x generalis L. H. Bailey) cultivation. Drewno 191:5–25Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klimczewski M, Nicewicz D (2013) Properties of selected HDF pulp with recovered fibres added. Drewno 189:80–100Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    NL Agency (2013) Competition in wood waste: inventory of policies and markets. Ministry of Economic Affairs, Ultrecht. %202013.pdfGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mantau U et al (2010) EUwood—Real potential for changes in growth and use of EU forests. Methodology report, Hamburg.
  9. 9.
    Steierer F (2010) UNECE-FAO. Current wood resources availability and demands. National and regional wood resource balances EU/EFTA countries. Geneva Timber For Study Papers 51:12–16Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Erlandsson M, Sundquist J (2014) Environmental consequences of different recycling alternatives for wood waste. A report to a Nordic cooperation project on the EC recovery target for construction and demolition waste (CDW). Swedish Environmental Research Institute.
  11. 11.
    Ratajczak E, Szostak A, Bidzińska G (2003) Drewno poużytkowe w Polsce. Wydawnictwo Instytutu Technologii Drewna, Poznań. ISBN: 83-915727-2-2 (summary in english)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ratajczak E, Szostak A, Bidzińska G, Herbeć M (2015) Recykling drewna poużytkowego w Niemczech i Polsce. Podzadanie 2.2. Potencjał drewna poużytkowego w Polsce. Instytut Technologii Drewna, PoznańGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mantau U (2012) Wood flows in Europe (EU27). Project report, Celle.
  14. 14.
    Falk B (1997) Wood recycling. Opportunities for the wood waste resource. Fores Prod J 6:17–22Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Werner F, Althaus H-J, Richter K (2002) Post-consumer wood in environmental decision-support tools. Schweizeriche Zeitschrift für Forstwesen 3:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tolvik Consulting Ltd (2011). Residual Waste in the UK. Briefing Report.
  17. 17.
    Searle S, Malins Ch (2013) Availability of cellulosic residues and wastes in the EU. International Council on Clean Transportation, Washington.
  18. 18.
    European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development (2010) Good practice guidance in the sustainable mobilization of wood in Europe, European Union.
  19. 19.
    Frühwald A (2003) Wood Industry in Europe—Main Trends. Drewno 169:73–90Google Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Ratajczak E, Szostak A, Bidzińska G (2006) Budownictwo podstawowym użytkownikiem materiałów i wyrobów drzewnych. Drewno 175:5–24 (summary in english)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ratajczak E, Szostak A, Bidzińska G (2006) Zużycie materiałów drzewnych w gospodarce. Wydawnictwo Instytutu Technologii Drewna, Poznań. ISBN: 93-915727-7-3 (summary in english)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ratajczak E, Bidzińska G, Szostak A, Herbeć M (2015) Resorces of postconsumer wood waste originating from the construction sector in Poland. Resour Conserv Recycl 97:93–99. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ratajczak E (2013) Sektor leśno-drzewny w zielonej gospodarce. Wydawnictwo Instytutu Technologii Drewna, Poznań. ISBN: 978-83-932284-7-8 (summary in english)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Szostak A, Ratajczak E (2004) Zasoby przemysłowych i poużytkowych odpadów drzewnych w Polsce i ich zagospodarowanie. Gospodarka Materiałowa i Logistyka 11:7–12Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bidzińska G, Szostak A, Herbeć M, Ratajczak E (2013) Opracowanie metody szacowania zasobów drewna poużytkowego pochodzącego z sektora budowlanego w Polsce. Instytut Technologii Drewna, PoznańGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ewa Ratajczak
    • 1
  • Aleksandra Szostak
    • 1
  • Gabriela Bidzińska
    • 1
  • Magdalena Herbeć
    • 1
  1. 1.Wood Technology InstitutePoznanPoland

Personalised recommendations