Reis, Daniel da Costa (2020) Material flow and resource efficiency in the construction industry. PhD thesis, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
The construction industry is responsible for consuming more than 50% of all resources extracted worldwide, exerting a significant environmental pressure. Maintaining or increasing production levels and while reducing environmental pressure is a challenge and is also foreseen by the Sustainable Development Goals. Although construction industry has opportunities to decouple growth and environmental impacts, these opportunities are often missed, especially in developing countries which are expected to take the lead of natural resources consumption. To promote decoupling and sustainability in the construction industry, it is necessary indicators that allow quantifying the environmental performance of products, establishing goals and monitoring progress. This study aims to develop a set of indicators to quantify the use of resources in a simple and accessible way for small and medium-sized companies, helping professionals and managers to engage in strategies to increase resource efficiency and dematerialization. The research method starts evaluating the economic sectors and classified them as belonging to the foreground or background system from the perspective of construction industry. Foreground sectors are those controlled or influenced by the construction industry and are defined based on the production share consumed by the construction value chain; while the background sectors are those that has a low market-share and less sensitive to inventory data and to collaborate with industry procedures or even public policies. Within the several sectors, cement-based materials are stand out since as a market-share above 60% (by mass). For this sector, a Material Flow Analysis (MFA) was conducted to quantify the main activities that influence the resource efficiency and the dematerialization potential between industry and on-site mix production. Finally, using the concepts of MFA and considering a life cycle perspective, a set of indicators was developed - material intensity and efficiency, circularity, and waste generation rate - to quantify the use of materials. These indicators can be used in different scales (construction designers, material producers, builders, developers) and for several industrial sectors. Since they are simple to understand and easy to measure, it allows developing of benchmarking and ranking designs, facilities, and firms according to the best practices.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | John, Vanderley Moacyr |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | dematerialization; industrial ecology; mass balance; material footprint; resource efficiency |
| Index terms: | builder, decoupling, strategy, developing country, manager, benchmarking, consumption, public policy, material flow analysis, environmental impact, natural resource, ecology, designer, waste generation, circularity, life cycle, environmental performance, inventory, value chain, efficiency, material intensity, construction industry, sustainable development goal, resource efficiency, monitoring, best practice |
| Subjects: | business, profession, value management, control systems, systems engineering, industry analysis, performance management, management, performance measurement, value chain strategy, material properties and characteristics, public policy, environmental resource management, environmental science, practitioner, environmental impact, sustainable materials, consumer economics, sustainability assessment, material science and engineering, development economics, inventory management, sustainable design |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Construction Materials, Business Strategy, Governance, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, International Construction, Site Management, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Sustainability, Quality Management, Supply Chain Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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