Abstract
In the case of building demolition, the construction industry increasingly prioritizes sustainable waste management and environmental protection. Life cycle assessment (LCA) was used to assess two scenarios to evaluate the environmental impacts of four methods (demolition, transport, recycling, and landfills). To conduct an Attributional LCA, the SimaPro software suite and Ecoinvent v.3 Life Cycle Inventory database were applied. LCA showed that construction and demolition (CDW) management has major environmental effects on global warming, fine particulate matter formation, human carcinogenic toxicity, and human non-carcinogenic toxicity. The results indicate the beneficial environmental impact of two waste management scenarios. The extent to which recycling waste from building demolition can benefit the environment is dependent on the type of material being recycled. Copper recycling can reduce the building industry’s environmental impact. Human non-carcinogenic toxicity is the most important and beneficial factor. Previous research has largely neglected this stage. The findings indicated that environmental conditions have a significance impact and, accordingly, the optimal scenario. This study provides stakeholders with a road map for making informed decisions regarding the application of CDW management. It suggests that LCA studies should take multiple indicators into account, and sensitivity and uncertainty analyses were performed to evaluate the accuracy of the results.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- CDW:
-
Construction and demolition waste
- LCA:
-
Life Cycle Assessment
- LCIA:
-
Life Cycle Impact Assessment
- ISO:
-
International Organization of Standardization
- CCH:
-
Global warming, Human health
- CCT:
-
Global warming, Terrestrial ecosystems
- CCF:
-
Global warming, Freshwater ecosystems
- OD:
-
Stratospheric ozone depletion
- IR:
-
Ionizing radiation
- OFH:
-
Ozone formation, Human health
- PMF:
-
Fine particulate matter formation
- OFT:
-
Ozone formation, Terrestrial ecosystems
- TA:
-
Terrestrial acidification
- FE:
-
Freshwater eutrophication
- ME:
-
Marine eutrophication
- TET:
-
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
- FET:
-
Freshwater ecotoxicity
- MET:
-
Marine ecotoxicity
- HT:
-
Human carcinogenic toxicity
- HTN:
-
Human non-carcinogenic toxicity
- LU:
-
Land use
- MRD:
-
Mineral resource scarcity
- FD:
-
Fossil resource scarcity
- WDH:
-
Water consumption, Human health
- WDT:
-
Water consumption, Terrestrial ecosystem
- WDA:
-
Water consumption, Aquatic ecosystems
- HH:
-
Human health
- ED:
-
Ecosystems
- RA:
-
Resources
References
Abdoli, M. A., Rezaei, M., & Hasanian, H. (2016). Integrated solid waste management in megacities. Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 2(3), 289–298.
Abduli, M. A., Naghib, A., Yonesi, M., & Akbari, A. (2011). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of solid waste management strategies in Tehran: Landfill and composting plus landfill. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 178, 487–498.
Ajayi, S. O., Oyedele, L. O., Akinade, O. O., Bilal, M., Owolabi, H. A., Alaka, H. A., & Kadiri, K. O. (2016). Reducing waste to landfill: A need for cultural change in the UK construction industry. Journal of Building Engineering, 5, 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2015.12.007
Banias, G. F., Karkanias, C., Batsioula, M., Melas, L. D., Malamakis, A. E., Geroliolios, D., Skoutida, S., & Spiliotis, X. (2022). Environmental assessment of alternative strategies for the management of construction and demolition waste: A life cycle approach. Sustainability, 14(15), 9674.
Bisinella, V., Götze, R., Conradsen, K., Damgaard, A., Christensen, T. H., & Astrup, T. F. (2017). Importance of waste composition for life cycle assessment of waste management solutions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 1180–1191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.013
Björkman, B., & Samuelsson, C. (2014). Chapter 6 - Recycling of Steel (E. Worrell & M. A. B. T.-H. of R. Reuter (eds.); pp. 65–83). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-396459-5.00006-4
Bovea, M. D., & Powell, J. C. (2016). Developments in life cycle assessment applied to evaluate the environmental performance of construction and demolition wastes. Waste Management, 50, 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.01.036
Braga, A. M., Silvestre, J. D., & de Brito, J. (2017). Compared environmental and economic impact from cradle to gate of concrete with natural and recycled coarse aggregates. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 529–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.057
Butera, S., Christensen, T. H., & Astrup, T. F. (2015). Life cycle assessment of construction and demolition waste management. Waste Management, 44, 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.07.011
Chen, K., Wang, J., Yu, B., Wu, H., & Zhang, J. (2021). Critical evaluation of construction and demolition waste and associated environmental impacts: A scientometric analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 287, 125071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125071
Clavreul, J. (2013). LCA of waste management systems: Development of tools for modeling and uncertainty analysis.
Clavreul, J., Guyonnet, D., & Christensen, T. H. (2012). Quantifying uncertainty in LCA-modelling of waste management systems. Waste Management, 32(12), 2482–2495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.07.008
Dahlbo, H., Bachér, J., Lähtinen, K., Jouttijärvi, T., Suoheimo, P., Mattila, T., Sironen, S., Myllymaa, T., & Saramäki, K. (2015). Construction and demolition waste management – a holistic evaluation of environmental performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.073
Devaki, H., & Shanmugapriya, S. (2022). LCA on construction and demolition waste management approaches: A review. Materials Today: Proceedings, 65, 764–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.03.286
Ecoinvent. (2023). Ecoinvent. https://ecoinvent.org/
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M. Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A., Pennington, D., & Suh, S. (2009). Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018
Ghodrat, M., Rhamdhani, M. A., Brooks, G., Rashidi, M., & Samali, B. (2017). A thermodynamic-based life cycle assessment of precious metal recycling out of waste printed circuit board through secondary copper smelting. Environmental Development, 24, 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2017.07.001
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J., & Van Zelm, R. (2009). ReCiPe 2008. A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises Harmonised Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level, 1, 1–126.
Haider, H., AlMarshod, S. Y., AlSaleem, S. S., Ali, A. A. M., Alinizzi, M., Alresheedi, M. T., & Shafiquzzaman, M. (2022). Life cycle assessment of construction and demolition waste management in riyadh, Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(12), 7382.
Hauschild, M. Z., Rosenbaum, R. K., & Olsen, S. I. (2018). Life cycle assessment. Springer.
Heijungs, R. (2022). Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis in Life Cycle Assessment.
Heijungs, R. (2010). Sensitivity coefficients for matrix-based LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(5), 511–520.
Hossain, M. U., Wu, Z., & Poon, C. S. (2017). Comparative environmental evaluation of construction waste management through different waste sorting systems in Hong Kong. Waste Management, 69, 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.043
ISO. (2006b). ISO 14044. https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html
ISO. (2006a). ISO 14040. https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html
Jain, P., Powell, J., & Tolaymat, T. (2015). Methodology to estimate the, quantity composition, and management of construction and demolition, debris in the United States. US Environmental Protection Agency.
Jain, S., Singhal, S., & Jain, N. K. (2021). Construction and demolition waste (C&DW) in India: Generation rate and implications of C&DW recycling. International Journal of Construction Management, 21(3), 261–270.
Jain, S., Singhal, S., & Pandey, S. (2020). Environmental life cycle assessment of construction and demolition waste recycling: A case of urban India. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 155, 104642.
Johnson, M. P., & Schaltegger, S. (2016). Two decades of sustainability management tools for SMEs: How far have we come? Journal of Small Business Management, 54(2), 481–505.
Li, J., Eheliyagoda, D., Geng, Y., Yang, Z., & Zeng, X. (2022). Examining the influence of copper recycling on prospective resource supply and carbon emission reduction. Fundamental Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fmre.2022.09.022
Li, J., Liang, J., Zuo, J., & Guo, H. (2020). Environmental impact assessment of mobile recycling of demolition waste in Shenzhen. China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 263, 121371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121371
Lockrey, S., Verghese, K., Crossin, E., & Nguyen, H. (2018). Concrete recycling life cycle flows and performance from construction and demolition waste in Hanoi. Journal of Cleaner Production, 179, 593–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.271
López Ruiz, L. A., Roca Ramón, X., & Gassó Domingo, S. (2020). The circular economy in the construction and demolition waste sector – A review and an integrative model approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 248, 119238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119238
Google Maps. (2016). Iran-Mashhad. https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3134976,59.5853312,13z?entry=ttu
Marrero, M., Puerto, M., Rivero-Camacho, C., Freire-Guerrero, A., & Solís-Guzmán, J. (2017). Assessing the economic impact and ecological footprint of construction and demolition waste during the urbanization of rural land. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 117, 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.10.020
Menegaki, M., & Damigos, D. (2018). A review on current situation and challenges of construction and demolition waste management. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, 13, 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2018.02.010
Molayzahedi SM, Abdoli MA (2022). A new sustainable approach to integrated solid waste management in Shiraz, Iran. In Pollution 8(1): 303–314. https://doi.org/10.22059/POLL.2021.330183.1175
Neo, E. R. K., Soo, G. C. Y., Tan, D. Z. L., Cady, K., Tong, K. T., & Low, J. S. C. (2021). Life cycle assessment of plastic waste end-of-life for India and Indonesia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 174, 105774–105798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105774
Ortiz, O., Pasqualino, J. C., & Castells, F. (2010). Environmental performance of construction waste: Comparing three scenarios from a case study in Catalonia. Spain. Waste Management, 30(4), 646–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.11.013
Qiao, L., Tang, Y., Li, Y., Liu, M., Yuan, X., Wang, Q., & Ma, Q. (2022). Life cycle assessment of three typical recycled products from construction and demolition waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 376, 134139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134139
Quéheille, E., Ventura, A., Saiyouri, N., & Taillandier, F. (2022). A Life cycle assessment model of end-of-life scenarios for building deconstruction and waste management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 339, 130694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130694
Rosado, L. P., Vitale, P., Penteado, C. S. G., & Arena, U. (2019). Life cycle assessment of construction and demolition waste management in a large area of São Paulo State, Brazil. Waste Management, 85, 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.01.011
Samuelsson, C., & Björkman, B. (2014). Chapter 7 - Copper Recycling (E. Worrell & M. A. B. T.-H. of R. Reuter (eds.); pp. 85–94). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-396459-5.00007-6
Schmidt, J. H., Thrane, M., Merciai, S., & Dalgaard, R. (2011). Inventory of country specific electricity in LCA: consequential and attributional scenarios. Methodology report v2.
Silva, R. V., de Brito, J., & Dhir, R. K. (2017). Availability and processing of recycled aggregates within the construction and demolition supply chain: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 598–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.070
SimaPro. (2016). SimaPro. https://simapro.com/
Suárez Silgado, S. S., Calderon Valdiviezo, L. J., & Mahecha Vanegas, L. F. (2021). Application of life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology and economic evaluation for construction and demolition waste: A Colombian case study. Earth Sciences Research Journal, 25(3), 341–351.
Tam, V. W. Y., Soomro, M., & Evangelista, A. C. J. (2018). A review of recycled aggregate in concrete applications (2000–2017). Construction and Building Materials, 172, 272–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.240
Vitale, P., Arena, N., Di Gregorio, F., & Arena, U. (2017). Life cycle assessment of the end-of-life phase of a residential building. Waste Management, 60, 311–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.002
Wang, J., Wei, J., Liu, Z., Huang, C., & Du, X. (2022). Life cycle assessment of building demolition waste based on building information modeling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 178, 106095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.106095
Wang, J., Wu, H., Duan, H., Zillante, G., Zuo, J., & Yuan, H. (2018a). Combining life cycle assessment and building information modelling to account for carbon emission of building demolition waste: A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 3154–3166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.087
Wang, T., Wang, J., Wu, P., Wang, J., He, Q., & Wang, X. (2018b). Estimating the environmental costs and benefits of demolition waste using life cycle assessment and willingness-to-pay: A case study in Shenzhen. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.168
Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., & Weidema, B. (2016). The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): Overview and methodology. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(9), 1218–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8
Wu, H., Zuo, J., Zillante, G., Wang, J., & Yuan, H. (2019). Status quo and future directions of construction and demolition waste research: A critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 240, 118163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118163
Zhang, W., Li, Z., Dong, S., Qian, P., Ye, S., Hu, S., **a, B., & Wang, C. (2021). Analyzing the environmental impact of copper-based mixed waste recycling-a LCA case study in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 284, 125256–125298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125256
Funding
No funding was received for this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
No conflict of interest exists.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A: The details of unit processes included in the system boundary
Source: (Ecoinvent, 2023; SimaPro, 2016).
Appendix B: Uncertainty analysis for input parameters in modeling CDW management of a demolition, b transport, c processing, and d disposal
Appendix C: Environmental indicators in The ReCiPe method. Source (Goedkoop et al., 2009)
Abbreviation signs | Impact category | Unit | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
CC | Global warming | DALY species.yr | Global warming has had a detrimental effect on human health, terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, resulting in malnutrition, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory problems, natural disasters, elevated temperatures, decreased water supply, and the decline of land species |
OD | Stratospheric ozone depletion | DALY | Stratospheric ozone depletion, which has caused a thinning of the ozone layer, has had detrimental effects on human health, such as an increased risk of skin cancer and cataract |
IR | Ionizing radiation | DALY | Ionizing radiation is a type of radiation that carries enough energy to disrupt atoms, resulting in potential health risks such as fatal cancer, non-fatal cancer, and severe hereditary effects |
OFH | Ozone formation, Human health | DALY | Ozone is not emitted directly into the atmosphere, yet it is created through photochemical reactions of NOx and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) |
PMF | Fine particulate matter formation | DALY | Fine particulate matter formation is a major contributor to air pollution, posing a serious risk to human health. Common pollutants include sulfur dioxide (SO2), ammonia (NH3), nitrous oxides (NOx), and particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) |
OFT | Ozone formation, Terrestrial ecosystems | species.yr | Ozone formation and its effects on terrestrial ecosystems may have detrimental consequences on both terrestrial plant life and aquatic ecosystems |
TA | Terrestrial acidification | species.yr | Terrestrial acidification is the process of raising acidity levels in soil and water, caused by an influx of compounds such as sulfates, nitrates, and phosphates |
FE | Freshwater eutrophication | species.yr | Freshwater eutrophication is an overabundance of nutrients in a body of water, resulting in an overgrowth of aquatic plants and a decrease in water quality. These nutrients can come from sources such as manure, fertilizer, and wastewater treatment plants |
ME | Marine eutrophication | species.yr | Marine eutrophication, caused by an increase in nutrients such as manure N, fertilizer N, and N from STP, can lead to excessive plant and algae growth, ultimately damaging the marine environment |
TET | Terrestrial ecotoxicity | species.yr | Terrestrial ecotoxicity refers to the detrimental impacts of chemicals and other pollutants on the environment and its inhabitants. These toxins may affect the ecosystem’s habitat, biodiversity, and wildlife’s health |
FET | Freshwater ecotoxicity | species.yr | Freshwater ecotoxicity is the harmful effect of pollutants on aquatic ecosystems |
MET | Marine ecotoxicity | species.yr | Marine ecotoxicity refers to the detrimental impacts of pollutants on marine ecosystems and organisms |
HT | Human carcinogenic toxicity | DALY | Human carcinogenic toxicity is the potential for a substance to cause cancer in humans |
HTN | Human non-carcinogenic toxicity | DALY | Human non-carcinogenic toxicity is a type of toxicity that does not cause cancer in humans |
LU | Land use | species.yr | Land use is the management or change of natural environments for human use and benefit, such as for occupancy and transportation |
MRD | Mineral resource scarcity | USD2013 | Mineral resource scarcity is the lack of availability of minerals due to their finite nature |
FD | Fossil resource scarcity | USD2013 | Fossil resource scarcity refers to the decreasing availability of fossil fuels due to their finite nature |
WD | Water consumption | DALY species.yr | The consumption of water can have a significant negative impact on human health, terrestrial ecosystems and aquatic ecosystems |
Appendix D: Characterization, normalization, and weighting impacts for the analysis impact categories for four cases (C1: demolition, C2: transport, C3: processing, and C4: disposal)
Unit | C1 (Demolition) | C2 (Transport) | C3 (Processing) | C4 (Disposal) | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CCH | DALY | 2.20E−06 | 4.19E−06 | 2.98E−06 | 3.66E−06 | |
Pt | 9.28E−05 | 1.76E−04 | 1.25E−04 | 1.54E−04 | 5.49E−04 | |
% | 9.55 | 18.15 | 12.90 | 15.85 | 56.451 | |
CCT | species.yr | 6.65E−09 | 1.26E−08 | 8.99E−09 | 1.10E−08 | |
Pt | 9.29E−06 | 1.77E−05 | 1.26E−05 | 1.54E−05 | 5.49E−05 | |
% | 0.96 | 1.82 | 1.29 | 1.59 | 5.649 | |
CCF | species.yr | 1.82E−13 | 3.45E−13 | 2.45E−13 | 3.02E−13 | |
Pt | 2.54E−10 | 4.82E−10 | 3.43E−10 | 4.21E−10 | 1.50E−09 | |
% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
OD | DALY | 4.29E−10 | 8.09E−10 | 3.69E−09 | 1.25E−09 | |
Pt | 1.81E−08 | 3.41E−08 | 1.55E−07 | 5.28E−08 | 2.60E−07 | |
% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.027 | |
IR | DALY | 9.05E−10 | 6.86E−10 | 5.44E−09 | 6.79E−10 | |
Pt | 3.81E−08 | 2.89E−08 | 2.29E−07 | 2.86E−08 | 3.25E−07 | |
% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.033 | |
OFH | DALY | 4.60E−09 | 2.83E−08 | −5.67E−09 | 3.61E−08 | |
Pt | 1.94E−07 | 1.19E−06 | −2.39E−07 | 1.52E−06 | 2.66E−06 | |
% | 0.02 | 0.12 | −0.02 | 0.16 | 0.274 | |
PMF | DALY | 2.25E−06 | 4.63E−06 | −5.26E−06 | 6.50E−06 | |
Pt | 9.48E−05 | 1.95E−04 | −2.22E−04 | 2.74E−04 | 3.42E−04 | |
% | 9.76 | 20.07 | −22.80 | 28.15 | 35.173 | |
OFT | species.yr | 6.75E−10 | 4.07E−09 | −7.93E−10 | 5.21E−09 | |
Pt | 9.43E−07 | 5.68E−06 | −1.11E−06 | 7.27E−06 | 1.28E−05 | |
% | 0.10 | 0.58 | −0.11 | 0.75 | 1.316 | |
TA | species.yr | 1.60E−09 | 3.66E−09 | −1.41E−09 | 4.56E−09 | |
Pt | 2.23E−06 | 5.12E−06 | −1.97E−06 | 6.37E−06 | 1.17E−05 | |
% | 0.23 | 0.53 | −0.20 | 0.66 | 1.208 | |
FE | species.yr | 5.37E−10 | 2.35E−10 | −2.99E−08 | 2.10E−10 | |
Pt | 7.50E−07 | 3.29E−07 | −4.17E−05 | 2.93E−07 | −4.03E−05 | |
% | 0.08 | 0.03 | −4.29 | 0.03 | −4.150 | |
ME | species.yr | 8.52E−14 | 4.81E−14 | −4.06E−13 | 2.11E−13 | |
Pt | 1.19E−10 | 6.71E−11 | −5.67E−10 | 2.94E−10 | −8.69E−11 | |
% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
TET | species.yr | 1.33E−10 | 6.70E−10 | −1.79E−09 | 6.50E−11 | |
Pt | 1.85E−07 | 9.35E−07 | −2.50E−06 | 9.07E−08 | −1.29E−06 | |
% | 0.02 | 0.10 | −0.26 | 0.01 | −0.132 | |
FET | species.yr | 6.52E−11 | 4.50E−11 | −5.45E−09 | 1.29E−10 | |
Pt | 9.10E−08 | 6.28E−08 | −7.61E−06 | 1.80E−07 | −7.28E−06 | |
% | 0.01 | 0.01 | −0.78 | 0.02 | −0.749 | |
MET | species.yr | 1.43E−11 | 1.24E−11 | −1.16E−09 | 2.45E−11 | |
Pt | 2.00E−08 | 1.73E−08 | −1.62E−06 | 3.42E−08 | −1.55E−06 | |
% | 0.00 | 0.00 | −0.17 | 0.00 | −0.160 | |
HT | DALY | 1.19E−06 | 3.21E−07 | 1.54E−05 | 2.89E−07 | |
Pt | 5.00E−05 | 1.35E−05 | 6.49E−04 | 1.22E−05 | 7.25E−04 | |
% | 5.14 | 1.39 | 66.82 | 1.25 | 74.599 | |
HTN | DALY | 6.70E−07 | 6.28E−07 | −6.55E−05 | 2.45E−07 | |
Pt | 2.82E−05 | 2.64E−05 | −2.76E−03 | 1.03E−05 | −2.69E−03 | |
% | 2.90 | 2.72 | −283.74 | 1.06 | −277.057 | |
LU | species.yr | 4.86E−10 | 1.65E−09 | 6.32E−10 | 5.32E−09 | |
Pt | 6.79E−07 | 2.30E−06 | 8.82E−07 | 7.43E−06 | 1.13E−05 | |
% | 0.07 | 0.24 | 0.09 | 0.76 | 1.162 | |
MRD | USD2013 | 6.44E−03 | 1.88E−03 | −1.64E−01 | 1.88E−03 | |
Pt | 2.30E−07 | 6.73E−08 | −5.85E−06 | 6.71E−08 | −5.48E−06 | |
% | 0.01 | 0.00 | −0.30 | 0.00 | −0.282 | |
FD | USD2013 | 2.85E−01 | 6.79E−01 | 9.71E−01 | 7.35E−01 | |
Pt | 1.02E−05 | 2.42E−05 | 3.47E−05 | 2.62E−05 | 9.53E−05 | |
% | 0.52 | 1.25 | 1.78 | 1.35 | 4.904 | |
WDH | DALY | 3.69E−08 | 2.40E−08 | 1.75E−07 | 9.74E−08 | |
Pt | 1.55E−06 | 1.01E−06 | 7.36E−06 | 4.10E−06 | 1.40E−05 | |
% | 0.16 | 0.10 | 0.76 | 0.42 | 1.443 | |
WDT | species.yr | 2.14E−10 | 1.47E−10 | 1.07E−09 | 5.93E−10 | |
Pt | 2.98E−07 | 2.05E−07 | 1.49E−06 | 8.28E−07 | 2.82E−06 | |
% | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0.09 | 0.290 | |
WDA | species.yr | 1.07E−14 | 7.64E−15 | 4.94E−14 | 2.73E−14 | |
Pt | 1.50E−11 | 1.07E−11 | 6.90E−11 | 3.82E−11 | 1.33E−10 | |
% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.000 | |
Total | ||||||
Pt | 2.93E−04 | 4.70E−04 | −2.21E−03 | 5.20E−04 | −9.27E−04 | |
% | 29.563016 | 47.137562 | −228.84921 | 52.148633 | −100 | |
Appendix E: Sensitivity analysis for input parameters in modeling CDW management, especially for C1: Demolition and C3: Processing
Sij = ((y2−y1)/y1) × 10 | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CDWM | C1 | C3 | ||||||||||
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | Building machine | Plastic | Container | Electricity | Recycle of Aluminum | Recycle of Gravel | Recycle of Steel | Recycle of Wood | |
CCH | 0.17 | 0.32 | 0.23 | 0.28 | 0.15 | 0.36 | 0.13 | 0.24 | 0.45 | 0.26 | 0.39 | 0.1 |
CCT | 0.17 | 0.32 | 0.23 | 0.28 | 0.15 | 0.36 | 0.13 | 0.24 | 0.45 | 0.26 | 0.39 | 0.1 |
CCF | 0.17 | 0.32 | 0.23 | 0.28 | 0.15 | 0.36 | 0.13 | 0.24 | 0.45 | 0.26 | 0.39 | 0.1 |
OD | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.13 | 0.24 | 0.14 | 0.37 | 0.21 | 0.29 | 0.98 | 0.09 |
IR | 0.12 | 0.09 | 0.71 | 0.09 | 0.19 | 0.41 | 0.17 | 0.12 | 0.6 | 0.03 | 0.41 | 0.02 |
OFH | 0.07 | 0.45 | 0.09 | 0.57 | 0.16 | 0.37 | 0.15 | 0.21 | 0.74 | 1.19 | 0.72 | 0.22 |
PMF | 0.28 | 0.57 | 0.65 | 0.8 | 0.18 | 0.34 | 0.18 | 0.17 | 0.95 | 0.56 | 2.29 | 0.23 |
OFT | 0.07 | 0.44 | 0.09 | 0.57 | 0.16 | 0.38 | 0.15 | 0.21 | 0.64 | 1.05 | 0.49 | 0.21 |
TA | 0.19 | 0.44 | 0.17 | 0.54 | 0.14 | 0.37 | 0.15 | 0.24 | 1.54 | 1.17 | 1.36 | 0.34 |
FE | 0.02 | 0.01 | 1.03 | 0.01 | 0.24 | 0.32 | 0.26 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 1.07 | 0.02 |
ME | 1.37 | 0.77 | 6.52 | 3.38 | 0.17 | 0.33 | 0.29 | 0.03 | 0.23 | 0.04 | 0.74 | 0.08 |
TET | 0.14 | 0.73 | 1.94 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.26 | 0.32 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.11 | 1.06 | 0.05 |
FET | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.05 | 0.02 | 0.2 | 0.23 | 0.34 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.01 | 0.03 |
MET | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.05 | 0.02 | 0.19 | 0.23 | 0.34 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 1.02 | 0.02 |
HT | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.9 | 0.02 | 0.32 | 0.1 | 0.36 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0 | 1.02 | 0.01 |
HTN | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.02 | 0 | 0.18 | 0.23 | 0.34 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 1.01 | 0.02 |
LU | 0.06 | 0.2 | 0.08 | 0.66 | 0.09 | 0.29 | 0.32 | 0.01 | 0.4 | 0.14 | 0.45 | 0.3 |
MRD | 0.04 | 0.01 | 1.07 | 0.01 | 0.34 | 0.08 | 0.35 | 0.01 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 1.09 | 0.07 |
FD | 0.11 | 0.25 | 0.36 | 0.28 | 0.07 | 0.52 | 0.06 | 0.28 | 0.01 | 1.47 | 2.16 | 0.3 |
WDH | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.52 | 0.29 | 0.15 | 0.52 | 0.13 | 0.1 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.94 | 0.05 |
WDT | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.53 | 0.29 | 0.15 | 0.55 | 0.14 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.93 | 0.05 |
WDA | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.52 | 0.29 | 0.18 | 0.55 | 0.16 | 0 | 0.16 | 0.04 | 0.82 | 0.06 |
Total | 0.3 | 0.47 | 2.29 | 0.52 | 0.19 | 0.3 | 0.21 | 0.16 | 0.1 | 0.06 | 1.13 | 0.03 |
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Zakerhosseini, A., Abdoli, M.A., Molayzahedi, S.M. et al. Life cycle assessment of construction and demolition waste management: a case study of Mashhad, Iran. Environ Dev Sustain (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03703-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03703-1