Cochran, K M (2006) Construction and demolition debris recycling: Methods, markets, and policy. PhD thesis, University of Florida, USA.
Abstract
Construction and demolition (C&D) debris is generated from the construction, renovation, or demolition of a structure. This waste stream has become a concern across the United States. Recycling is often seen as a solution, but questions remain regarding the size of the debris stream, market availability for recycled waste materials, the environmental impacts from management methods, and how to encourage recycling. A materials flow analysis was performed to estimate the amount of C&D debris generated from the amount of construction materials consumed each year. It found that approximately 0.8–1.3 x 109 Mg were generated in 2002. While this type of estimate accounts for materials consumed, current assumptions used may result in larger amounts than the amount actually generated. The size and location of recycled C&D debris materials markets were investigated to determine if C&D debris recycling programs across the US are possible. Sufficient market capacity exists for concrete and wood, but there is not sufficient market for asphalt shingles and drywall faces competition from other materials. A life cycle assessment approach was used to compare environmental impacts from the various methods of C&D debris management, including disposal, recycling, and incineration. Recycling was found to be the most beneficial method of management for concrete, drywall, and asphalt shingles when comparing global warming potential, human toxicity potential, acidification potential, and abiotic depletion potential. The best management method for wood was incineration. Policies that encourage C&D debris recycling around the country were compared. All local policies were successful, with degrees of success and costs greatly dependent on regional characteristics. State recycling goals, however, had little impact on increasing recycling. Finally, a case study was performed for waste concrete in Florida to determine the amount that is generated (40–61 x 10 6 Mg), the market availability, the management option with the fewest environmental impacts, and the best policy to encourage concrete recycling. Sufficient market exists to recycle all concrete in Florida. Recycling was found to have the fewest environmental impacts in most areas of the state. Policies that required contractors to recycle a percentage of their waste stream were the best for Florida.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Townsend, T |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | competition; life cycle; markets; policy; recycling; renovation; United States; case study; market; environmental impact |
| Index terms: | recycle, United States, global warming, life cycle assessment, construction and demolition, face, competition, environmental impact, management method, stream, program, materials flow, waste material, case study, life cycle, recycling, wood, renovation, depletion, construction material, option, estimate, markets |
| Subjects: | psychology, building materials, environmental resource management, environmental science, economic analysis, financial and cost management, data collection methods, waste management, environmental impact, value management, climate science, market analysis, decision analysis, renovation and retrofit, management, traditional and composite building materials, software systems, Geography, water management, material science and engineering |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Geographical Context, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Construction Materials, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here