Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Construction and demolition wastes (CDW) have increasingly serious problems in environmental, social,
Received 1 March 2013 and economic realms. There is no coherent framework for utilization of these wastes which are disposed
Received in revised form 8 September 2013 both legally and illegally. This harms the environment, contributes to the increase of energy consumption,
Accepted 27 October 2013
and depletes finite landfills resources. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the impacts of two alternatives
for the management of CDW, recycling and disposing. The evaluation is carried out through developing
Keywords:
a dynamic model with aid STELLA software by conducting the following steps: (1) quantifying the total
Construction and demolition wastes (CDW)
cost incurred to mitigate the impacts of CDW landfills and uncollected waste on the environment and
Environmental and economic impact
assessment
human health; (2) quantifying the total avoided emissions and saved energy by recycling waste; (3)
Pollutant emissions estimating total external cost saved by recycling waste and; (4) providing a decision support tool that
Waste recycling helps in re-thinking about waste disposal. The proposed evaluation methodology allows activating the
Global warming potential (GWP) stringent regulations that restrict waste disposal and developing incentives to encourage constructors
System dynamics modeling to recycle their wastes. The research findings show that recycling CDW leads to significant reductions in
emissions, energy use, global warming potential (GWP), and conserves landfills space when compared
to disposal of wastes in landfills. Furthermore, the cost of mitigating the impact of disposal is extremely
high. Therefore, it is necessary to recycle construction and demolition wastes.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.10.015
42 M. Marzouk, S. Azab / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 41–49
including asthma, and reduced lung function growth rate in chil- approach for all basic variables underlying the evaluation of the
dren. Sensitive groups, including seniors, people with heart or lung two alternatives during the lifetime of landfills. It outperforms pre-
disease, children and infants are the most vulnerable to the harmful vious studies which focus on assessing the two alternatives without
effects of air pollution. taking into account the dynamic nature and relationships between
On the other hand, CDW recycling technique has recently variables.
attracted the attention of many researchers due to its economic Plenty of studies have been carried out to model CDW manage-
and environmental benefits. In economic terms, plenty of studies ment using system dynamics, but they did not take into account the
have been conducted on the economic situation of CDW recycling dynamic nature of the CDW disposal and interactions among major
plants such as (Coelho and de Brito, 2013a; Zhao et al., 2010). Both variables affecting on evaluation of economic and environmental
of these studies confirmed the economic feasibility of recycling effects of the CDW disposal as two important aspects of sustaina-
CDW, but with different results due to the conditions of each study. bility. This research is an attempt to provide the stakeholders of
Coelho and de Brito (2013a) conducted a study on a large-scale Egyptian construction sector with an empirical study that consid-
recycling plant in Portugal to evaluate the economic viability of ers all variables that influence the CDW. Also, this study helps in
the plant for serving a densely populated urban area. This study mitigating the risks associated with CDW disposal and illustrates
concluded that despite the absence of regulatory government pol- the benefits of recycling of construction wastes.
icy the initial investment required for recycling may be high, but
there is a high profit potential for CDW recycling with the return of
2. Theory and calculations
invested capital in around two years. Zhao et al. (2010) developed a
study of the situation in Chongqing in China to assess the economic
System dynamics is an approach for studying and managing
viability of the implementation of fixed recycling CDW plant facil-
complex feedback systems and is specially created to deal with
ities and mobile recycling stations and compared it with recycling
large-scale and complex systems (Yuan et al., 2012). A system is
centers (mobile stations) in the Netherlands to find out successful
a group of interacting or interdependent entities forming an inte-
factors for recycling centers. This study has concluded that fixed
grated whole system dynamics modeling (Cheng, 2012). It was
and mobile recycling centers with used equipment have higher
originated by Professor Jay W. Forrester of the Massachusetts Insti-
economy viability than centers with new equipment and that is
tute of Technology during the mid-1950s (Forrester, 1987). It has
due to their ability to achieve a higher profit margin in contrast to
been widely used in different applications for understanding differ-
the second case. Also, the revenue increases owing to the location
ent economic, social, business, agricultural, and ecological systems.
advantage (e.g. mobile stations) and the recycling cost decreases
It deals with internal feedback loops and time delay that affect the
with the economy of scale (e.g. fixed centers). This study has also
behavior of the entire system. It has the ability to understand the
suggested the use of economic and political instruments to face the
relation between the behavior of system over time and its underly-
investment risks.
ing structure and decision rule. Simulation helps explore “what-if”
Regarding the environmental concerns from recycling plants,
scenarios and policy tests in something that is like a laboratory set-
several studies have been conducted to evaluate the environmen-
ting, which causes confidence in particular strategies and policies to
tal impacts from CDW recycling plants. Coelho and de Brito (2013b)
increase (Richardson and Otto, 2008). As a result, “system dynam-
conducted a study using life cycle assessment of CDW recycling
ics is often used as a methodology for improving the soundness
plant with a capacity of 350 ton/h and 60-year operating lifespan.
and effectiveness of the decision-making process. It has become a
This study has focused on the evaluation of two impacts of recycling
popular technique for modeling construction project management”
plant, namely the primary energy consumption and CO2 eq emis-
(Hao et al., 2007).
sions. The main conclusion of this study is that recycled materials
always have significant environmental benefits where the avoided
impacts of CO2 eq emissions are always higher than the gener- 3. System dynamics applications in CDW
ated impacts and energy savings exceed the energy consumed
during the operating lifespan. F.I.R. (2005) pointed out for sev- A big number of research works have utilized system dynam-
eral studies conducted to assess the environmental impacts from ics modeling in waste management. Wager and Hilty (2002) have
recycling building materials using life cycle assessment approach developed system dynamics model for waste management to sup-
from extraction to recovery or disposal of landfills. The first study port the assessment of the flow of materials, energy and costs
is presented for assessing the greenhouse gases generated from of regional waste management with regard to their ecological
primary and recycled aggregate. The study has concluded that the and economic impacts. Chaerul et al. (2008) studied hospital
recycled aggregate was more environmentally useful than most waste management using system dynamics approach to capture
of primary aggregate. The second study is presented for evalu- its dynamic nature. The behavior of the waste management sys-
ating environmental impacts of production of 1 ton of concrete tem depends on several factors including the changing nature of
through comparing two different scenarios, which are landfill- various systemic factors and the feedback generated by a dynamic
ing and recycling. According to this study, the second scenario and continuous interaction. Sliwa (1994) conducted a study on
(recycling) is more environmentally friendly. municipal solid waste management in Pueblo using the system
In order to overcome the above-listed growing problems caused dynamics approach. The study has tried to bridge the gap between
by CDW disposal, it is important to consider a recycling solu- traditional approaches so as to solve the public administration
tion. Recycling allows utilizing wastes as raw materials in some problems. Lang et al. (2002) developed a systematic methodology
other ways. This paper proposes the use of system dynamics for natural and human resources optimization for waste manage-
methodology to compare between two alternatives of CDW man- ment to achieve sustainable development using system dynamics
agement techniques; recycling and landfill disposal. This model modeling.
is capable of: (1) measuring the total emissions from the CDW Several studies have been published for CDW management
landfilling and associated costs incurred to mitigate the impacts (Yuan, 2012; Hao et al., 2007; Rong, 2004; Hsiao et al., 2002;
from these emissions; (2) predicting the total damage costs of dis- Zhao et al., 2011; Yuan et al., 2011). Yuan (2012) carried out a
posed waste and from uncollected wastes; and (3) quantifying the quantitative study to evaluate the social performance on construc-
total avoided emissions and the energy saved by waste recycling. tion waste management using system dynamics. Many indicators
The novelty of this research lies in adopting a system dynamics have been used to assess the social impacts of CDW. Hao et al.
M. Marzouk, S. Azab / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 41–49 43
an effective tool for encouraging or forcing contractors to adopt validation tests are conducted in the developed model as described
environmentally friendly construction practices. below.
Some of the causal loop relationships in loop 6 are the same as
in loop R5; the only difference is the effect of emissions polluting 4.4.1. Boundary-adequacy test
the air, not the effect of GHGs emissions. In feedback loop R7; it can This test is concerned with whether the level of detailed vari-
be observed that conducting more recycling for CWD leads to the ables contained in the model is appropriate to the research purpose
reduction of the emissions polluting the air. The total damage costs or not. Meanwhile, it assures that the model includes all rele-
from emissions of landfills are consequently reduced since CDW in vant structure relationships and parameters by examining all the
landfill is less. Also, the total costs from disposal and uncollected variables that have been embodied in stock-flow diagram. After
waste are reduced. As a result, the economic gains will be increased examining all variables in the system dynamics model, it was found
by conducting more recycling and high economic gains will lead to that each of these variables is fundamental for research purpose
further recycling. Feedback loop R8 is the same loop R7 except that so as to evaluate the environmental and economic performances
the effect of emissions polluting the air is replaced by the effect of associated with the disposal and recycle of CDW.
GHGs emissions.
4.4.2. Structure verification test
The purpose of this test is to check whether the model struc-
4.3. Model formulation
ture is consistent with relevant descriptive knowledge of the
system being modeled. The structural verification is important
Based on the causal loop diagram, all the key variables that
in the overall validation process (Qudrat-Ullah and Seong, 2010).
affect the choice of CDW management techniques alternatives are
The information included in the structure and all cause-and-effect
identified. The conceptual causal loop diagram is converted to a
chains of the causal loop diagram (shown in Fig. 2) is based on var-
quantitative model to facilitate the running of the model. To this
ious literatures in this domain. As such, the structure of that model
end, the causal loop diagram is converted into a stock-flow diagram
is logical and closely represent the real life system.
using STELLA software. Fig. 3 depicts stock-flow diagram of the
model. Detailed descriptions of the model variables are included
4.4.3. Dimension consistency test
in Appendix 1.
This test ensures the consistency of variable dimensions of each
mathematical equation in the model. STELLA software has the pos-
4.4. Model validation sibility of dimension checking after defining the measurement units
of all the variables. Consequently, the model has been validated
Building confidence in the model is achieved through conduct- for dimensional consistency. The variable “AAPMERE” (shown in
ing some tests after identifying and defining all variables and Fig. 4), for instance, is defined using Eq. (1):
functions (Sterman 2000). This ensures the accuracy of the model
AAPMERE (t) = AAPMERE (t − dt) + (APMERE) ∗ dt (1)
for reflecting the real-world in a meaningful way (Richardson and
Pugh, 1981). Qudrat-Ullah and Seong (2010) listed five tests that This equation is used to calculate the total avoided PM Emis-
are used for structural validation of a system dynamics model. The sions through construction and demolition waste recycling. It is
M. Marzouk, S. Azab / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 41–49 45
Fig. 3. A stock-flow diagram for assessing the economic and environmental impacts of CDW.
Table 1
Population growth rate in Egypt 2000–2025 (Awad and Zohary, 2005).
worth noting that the variable dimensions on the left-hand side are contractors’ incentive increases to conduct more CDW recycling
consistent with the variables dimensions on the right-hand side. which increases REW compared to the initial value of ULC (see
Fig. 5a). In case of low unit landfill charge (L.E.6.11), most wastes
4.4.4. Parameter verification test are disposed either legally or illegally. This result reflects the natu-
The purpose of this test is to check whether the parameters in ral attitude of contractors, where costs represent high priority with
the model correspond conceptually and numerically to real life. The the absence of incentives for recycling and/or contract clauses that
parameter values of the proposed model are taken from real cases force contractors to recycle CDW.
conducted in literature. For illustration, Tables 1 and 2 include some
of the parameters, their values and the source. Table 2
Model variables and their respective values.
4.50E+07 5.00E+07
Unit Landfilling Charge (ULC)=6.11 Recycled CDW (REW)
4.00E+07 4.50E+07
Disposed CDW in Landfill (DWLF)
3.50E+07 Unit Landfilling Charge (ULC)=58 4.00E+07
Uncollected CDW (UCOW)
3.00E+07 3.50E+07
Tons
3.00E+07
2.50E+07
2.50E+07
Tons
2.00E+07
2.00E+07
1.50E+07
1.50E+07
1.00E+07 1.00E+07
5.00E+06 5.00E+06
0.00E+00 0.00E+00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-5.00E+06
Years Years
a) Unit landfilling charge impact on the quantity of recycled from CDW b) Quantities of recycled, landfilled and uncollected CDW over simulation time
4.50E+07 2.00E+12
Released GHGs Emissions from Landfills for the same
4.00E+07 quanty of waste recycled (RGHGELF) 1.80E+12 Saved Energy from Avoiding Landfilling (SEALF)
1.20E+12
2.50E+07
1.00E+12
2.00E+07 8.00E+11
1.50E+07 6.00E+11
1.00E+07 4.00E+11
5.00E+06 2.00E+11
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Years
Years
c) Effect of recycling and landfills on global warming potential d) Amount of Consumed Energy and Saved Energy over simulation time
2.50E+12
8.00E+13
2.00E+12
6.00E+13
L.E.
L.E.
1.50E+12
4.00E+13
1.00E+12
5.00E+11 2.00E+13
0.00E+00 0.00E+00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Years Years
e) Economic burden from waste disposal over simulation time f) Economic benefits of waste recycling
5. Results and discussion ton and this represents the largest amount of waste, which leads to
diminishing landfill space rapidly and causes ambient air pollution
After conducting the validation tests, the model is simulated that is so dangerous to human health. The amount of uncol-
over a total period of 20 years, which corresponds to the total lected wastes (UCOW) is 35.2 million ton over a simulation time
life time of CDW landfills. In case of enforcement methodology which is much greater than the amount of recycled wastes. This is
to benefit from construction and demolition waste by recycling attributed to the absence of enforcing strict laws and regulations
instead of disposal (without implementing government policies), that prevent illegal dumping for the preservation the environ-
the proportion of recycled materials is influenced by contractors’ ment.
perceptions where cost has higher priority than environment. Thus, Fig. 5c depicts the comparison between the simulation of the
the percentage of recycled material is influenced by the unit landfill effect of GHGs emissions released from landfills and the impact of
charge. Fig. 5b depicts the projection of the amount of CDW that is: the recycling process on global warming potential (GWP). The fig-
(1) disposed in landfills; (2) uncollected; and (3) recycled. It should ure shows the effect of disposed waste on GWP through the amount
be noted that the amount of waste recycled (REW) in the first of GHGs emissions (CO2 eq) released from landfills (RGHGELF)
year is only 20% of the total collected waste that is approximately and the effect of the recycling process by estimating the over-
32 thousand ton and over the simulated time (20 years). A total all avoided GHGs emissions by CDW Recycling (OAGHGER) that
of 12.3 million ton of materials will be recycled from a huge is equal to the total avoided emissions from landfilling and the
amount of CDW that is generated annually (4.5 million tons/year). avoided emissions from eliminating the need for the upstream
This quantity is considered very little compared to the quantities phase. It should be noted that GHGs emissions (CO2 eq) released
dumped in landfills annually and uncollected wastes. The total from landfills increases significantly during its operations and even
disposed waste in landfills (DWLF) over a lifetime is 49.2 million after closure. This leads to an increase in GWP which increases
M. Marzouk, S. Azab / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 41–49 47
emissions in the atmosphere from 228.52 ton in the first run on should be considered to encourage recycling of CDW in Egypt. These
simulation to 10.45 million ton over 20 years. In contrast, in waste recommendations are:
recycling processes, the concentration of GHGs emissions gradually
decreases (avoided emissions increase) over time and this leads • The establishment of recycling centers for construction and
to a reduction in the chance of global warming from 914 ton in demolition wastes.
first year of simulation to 41.8 million ton at the end of simulation • Developing incentive programs to encourage contractors to recy-
(2024). cle their wastes.
Fig. 5d shows the effect of disposed waste in landfills and • Activating strict regulations and laws to prevent illegal dumping.
recycling process in energy consumption. The relationship between • Forcing contractors to conduct a comprehensive system for man-
SEALF (Saved Energy from Avoiding LandFills) and the lifetime of aging waste in any construction/demolition project under the
landfills is depicted in the figure. It shows that the energy con- supervision of the authorities and impose fines in case of not
sumption by landfilling for the same recycled quantity ranges from complying with the system.
1.37 million KBTU (Kilo British Thermal Units) to 62.69 billion KBTU
at the end of the simulation run. These huge losses from energy 6. Conclusions
consumption can be maintained by conducting a recycling process
on CDW. The results from simulation indicate that by conducting Construction and demolition wastes represent a considerable
recycling on the same quantity, OSERE (Overall Saved Energy due amount that influences sustainable development aspects with
to Recycling) ranges from 21.94 million KBTU to 1003 billion KBTU. respect to environmental, economic, and social concerns. This
It is a fact that recycling reduces the need for the upstream phase. paper has presented some developments in a system dynamics
Also, when materials are recycled, this replaces part of the inputs model to evaluate the economic and environmental impacts, tak-
that would be produced from raw material, skipping some stages ing into account two alternatives: recycled wastes and disposed
of the production chain or replacing some stages which lead to less wastes. This research is an empirical study that uses a system
energy-consumption. dynamics methodology of the CDW management sector by devel-
Fig. 5e depicts the impact of not handling the CDW in an oping a dynamic model capable of studying the behavior of landfill
appropriate manner on the economy. A large amount of money process on both the short and long run and its impacts on the envi-
will be incurred by the government to: (1) eliminate the damage ronment and economy. It helps the involved CDW management to
that results from landfills emissions whether in air ambient or on examine the interaction among variables affecting of the impacts of
human health; (2) reduce the dangers of wastes that are not col- landfill and recycling process as an alternative for disposal waste
lected for the surrounding environment and human health; and on two major aspects of sustainability, namely the environment
(3) construct new landfills or dumpsites to accommodate extra and economy. These assessments take into account the different
quantities of CDW. The unit cost to construct a small landfills pollutant emissions resulting from disposal in landfills throughout
is approximately 1154 L.E./m3 (165.58 $/m3 ) and this accommo- their lifetime, emissions avoided by recycling, and the impact of
dates less than 10,000 ton/year. A medium landfill costs 692 L.E./m3 uncollected waste. The major variables affecting the environmen-
(99.29 $/m3 ) and this accommodates from 10,000 to 100,000 ton tal and economic assessment are identified and the relationships
per year. As for a large landfill, it costs 462 L.E./m3 (66.29 $/m3 ) among these variables are described through a causal loop diagram.
and accommodates more than 100,000 ton/year (BDA Group, 2009). The interaction among variables is examined through STELLA soft-
The result of having limited data relevant to the total landfills ware. The results from simulation show that waste disposal is not
capacity in Egypt is that the case considers the total occupied a viable solution to manage CDW. Therefore, regulations should be
capacity from Landfills to the end of 2024 is equal to the cur- activated to promote recycling as an alternative for the disposal of
rent capacity of landfills. The total cost incurred from the state CDW. If recycling is conducted on the same quantity of the disposed
to mitigate the damage resulting from disposal and uncollected material in landfills would offer more benefits for environmental
waste (TCMDDUCOW) increases significantly each year from L.E. and economic aspects.
79.6 million ($11.42 million) to L.E. 3322.3 billion ($476.69 billion) As for the case of Egypt, it would be a substitution for primary
at the end of the simulation run (i.e., considering a time span of raw materials which are estimated to be 12.3 million ton by 2024.
20 years). This leads to the preservation of natural resources and limited
Fig. 5f displays the effect of activating recycling on the state’s landfills space. Also, recycling would reduce the costs required to
economics by estimating TBRE (total benefits of CDW recycling). mitigate air pollution for L.E. 112,636.8 billion ($16,161.35 billion)
Recycling twenty percent from the total waste generated annually over 20 years of simulation time. The simulation results also proved
would reduce costs (which are paid to reduce the impact of total the advantages of recycling technique: (a) it conserves the energy
emissions under study due to landfilling) of L.E. 2.4 billion ($344.36 needed for disposing wastes and the upstream; (b) it conserves
million) which will be L.E. 112,636.8 billion ($16,161.35 billion) 20 landfills space; (c) it reduces emissions of GHGs; and (d) it reduces
years later. the costs incurred to mitigate air pollution. The research proves
The last step in the procedure of the simulation model devel- that the cost incurred to reduce the dangers to the environment
opment is policy formation after conducting the first four steps and human health due to uncollected waste and waste landfilling is
described earlier (problem identification, dynamic hypothesis, extremely high. Therefore, recycling of CDW ensures a sustainable
model formulation, and model validation). Some recommendations environment and economy.
48 M. Marzouk, S. Azab / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 41–49
Appendix 1.