Legal Aspects which Implement Good Practice Measures in the Management of Construction and Demolition Waste

The construction industry, one of the most important ones in the development of a country, generates unavoidable impacts on the environment. The social demand towards greater respect for the environment is a high and general outcry. Therefore, the construction industry needs to reduce the impact it produces. Proper waste management is not enough; we must take a further step in environmental management, where new measures need to be introduced for the prevention at source, such as good practices to promote recycling. Following the amendment of the legal frame applicable to Construction and Demolition Waste (C&D waste), important developments have been incorporated in European and International laws, aiming to promote the culture of reusing and recycling. This change of mindset, that is progressively taking place in society, is allowing for the consideration of C&D waste no longer as an unusable waste, but as a reusable material. The main objective of the work presented in this paper is to enhance C&D waste management systems through the development of preventive measures during the construction process. These measures concern all the agents intervening in the construction process as only the personal implication of all of them can ensure an efficient management of the C&D waste generated. Finally, a model based on preventive measures achieves organizational cohesion between the different stages of the construction process, as well as promoting the conservation of raw materials through the use and waste minimization. All of these in order to achieve a C&D waste management system, whose primary goal is zero waste generation

Territory and the governmentalisation of social reproduction: parliamentary enclosure and spatial rationalities in the transition from feudalism to capitalism

Recent applications of Foucauldian categories in geography, spatial history and the history of town planning have opened up interesting new perspectives, with respect to both the evolution of spatial knowledge and the genealogy of territorial techniques and their relation to larger socio-political projects, that would be enriched if combined with other discursive traditions. This article proposes to conceptualise English parliamentary enclosureea favourite episode for Marxist historiography, frequently read in a strictly materialist fashioneas a precedent of a new form of sociospatial governmentality, a political technology that inaugurates a strategic manipulation of territory for social change on the threshold between feudal and capitalist spatial rationalities. I analyse the sociospatial dimensions of parliamentary enclosure’s technical and legal innovations and compare them to the forms of communal self-regulation of land use customs and everyday regionalisations that preceded it. Through a systematic, replicable mechanism of reterritorialisation, enclosure acts normalised spatial regulations, blurred regional differences in the social organisation of agriculture and erased the modes of autonomous social reproduction linked to common land. Their exercise of dispossession of material resources, social capital and community representations is interpreted therefore as an inaugural logic that would pervade the emergent spatial rationality later known as planning.

Territory and the governmentalisation of social reproduction: parliamentary enclosure and spatial rationalities in the transition from feudalism to capitalism

Recent applications of Foucauldian categories in geography, spatial history and the history of town planning have opened up interesting new perspectives, with respect to both the evolution of spatial knowledge and the genealogy of territorial techniques and their relation to larger socio-political projects, that would be enriched if combined with other discursive traditions. This article proposes to conceptualise English parliamentary enclosureea favourite episode for Marxist historiography, frequently read in a strictly materialist fashioneas a precedent of a new form of sociospatial governmentality, a political technology that inaugurates a strategic manipulation of territory for social change on the threshold between feudal and capitalist spatial rationalities. I analyse the sociospatial dimensions of parliamentary enclosure’s technical and legal innovations and compare them to the forms of communal self-regulation of land use customs and everyday regionalisations that preceded it. Through a systematic, replicable mechanism of reterritorialisation, enclosure acts normalised spatial regulations, blurred regional differences in the social organisation of agriculture and erased the modes of autonomous social reproduction linked to common land. Their exercise of dispossession of material resources, social capital and community representations is interpreted therefore as an inaugural logic that would pervade the emergent spatial rationality later known as planning.