4.7 Article

A bi-level environmental impact assessment framework for comparing construction and demolition waste management strategies

Journal

WASTE MANAGEMENT
Volume 77, Issue -, Pages 401-412

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.024

Keywords

Concrete; Construction and demolition waste; Landfill; LCA; Recycled aggregate; Waste management

Funding

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) [1551018]
  2. Emerging Frontiers & Multidisciplinary Activities
  3. Directorate For Engineering [1551018] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Several pioneering life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have been conducted in the past to assess the environmental impact of specific methods for managing mineral construction and demolition waste (MCDW), such as recycling the waste for use in concrete. Those studies focus on comparing the use of recycled MCDW and that of virgin components to produce materials or systems that serve specified functions. Often, the approaches adopted by the studies do not account for the potential environmental consequence of avoiding the existing or alternative waste management practices. The present work focuses on how product systems need to be defined in recycling LCA studies and what processes need to be within the system boundaries. A bi-level LCA framework is presented for modelling alternative waste management approaches in which the impacts are measured and compared at two scales of strategy and decision-making. Different functional units are defined for each level, all of which correspond to the same flow of MCDW in a cascade of product systems. For the sole purpose of demonstrating how the framework is implemented an illustrative example is presented, based on real data and a number of simplifying assumptions, which compares the impacts of a number of potential MCDW management strategies in New York City. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available