{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018152696209289908, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003203416978109984, 'mean_word_length': 5.839416058394161, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Extended Producer Responsibility in the Australian Construction Industry

With the COVID-19 outbreak across the world, policymakers and authorities have realised that they cannot solve the emerging issues using conventional policies and practices. COVID-19 has severely affected many industries, including construction and demolition (C&D) waste management and C&D waste resource recovery sector. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and schemes alike are policy instruments that prevent waste generation and promote a circular economy in the construction industry. These schemes are long adopted in various countries for different waste streams. EPR policy development and implementation, particularly for C&D waste, is still at an early stage in Australia. This study aims to review the Australian regulatory environment and practice to identify barriers and enablers towards successful policy development and implementation of C&D waste-related EPR. This study is based on secondary data that are publicly available. The document analysis was conducted to identify the level of regulatory and other stakeholders support in Australia. Following three rounds of examination of sources and applying multiple selection criteria, 59 different sources were reviewed in total. The results showed that there is widespread support among different stakeholders to develop EPR and expand the existing regulation to other materials. The barriers were cost and time implications for EPR policy establishment and enforcement, diversity of stakeholders involved, construction product lifecycle, responsibility of manufacturers, complexity in implantation of EPR regulations, modification inbuilt facilities and health and safety issues. Recommendations are made to alleviate these challenges. The outcome of this study could serve as a guideline for designing effective EPR policies.