Modelling and Optimizing Resource Management and Environmental Benefit of Construction and Demolition Waste: A Case Study in China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. System Dynamics
- (a)
- CDW resource treatment is inherently a dynamic system based on time variation, which is fully consistent with the premise of using system dynamics models.
- (b)
- The structure of the construction waste resource treatment system contains various types of variables, such as “flow”, “rate”, “auxiliary “, and “product level (level)”, which facilitate modeling.
- (c)
- The SD model can be simulated and analyzed to arrive at a reasonable range of values, and dynamic simulations can be conducted to vividly identify the trend of each product in the simulation process; then, the environmental and economic impact of the CDW system can be analyzed.
3.1.1. Causal Relationship Diagram
3.1.2. Stock and Flow Diagram
3.2. Multi-Objective Programming
3.3. Data Sources
3.3.1. Estimation of the CDW Generation
3.3.2. Variable Equations and Parameter Settings in the Model
4. Results
4.1. Basic Parameter Settings
4.2. Model Test
- (1)
- Intuitiveness test
- (2)
- Sensitivity test
- (3)
- Extreme conditions test
4.3. Policy Analysis
4.3.1. Fines Policy
4.3.2. Subsidy Policy
4.3.3. Charge Policy
4.3.4. Portfolio Policy
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Variable | Unit | Equations |
---|---|---|
Illegal Dumping Reduction Rate | t/year | CDW Reduction × Illegal Dumping Ratio × Adjustment Coefficient of Reduction Ratio |
GHG Emissions Reduction Rate | kg/year | Unit GHG Emissions of Landfill × CDW Reduction × Adjustment Coefficient of Reduction Ratio |
Landfill Reduction Rate | t/year | CDW Reduction × Landfill Ratio × Adjustment Coefficient of Landfill Ratio |
Energy Consumption Saving Rate | kg/year | CDW Reduction × Unit Energy Consumption of Landfill × Adjustment Coefficient of Energy Consumption |
Generation Growth | t/year | (Construction Area × Generation Rate of Construction Solid Waste + Demolition Area × Generation Rate of Demolition Solid Waste + Decoration Area × Generation Rate of Decoration Solid Waste) × Adjustment Coefficient of Growth Ratio |
Generation Reduction | t/year | CDW Generation × Reduced Ratio × Adjustment Coefficient of Reduction Ratio |
Illegal Dumping Growth | t/year | CDW Generation × Illegal Dumping Ratio × Adjustment Coefficient of Illegal Dumping Ratio |
Recycling Growth | t/year | Total Classification × Recycling Ratio × Adjustment Coefficient of Recycling Ratio |
Landfill Growth | t/year | Total Classification × Landfill Ratio × Adjustment Coefficient of Landfill Ratio |
Classification Growth | t/year | CDW Generation × Classification Ratio × Adjustment Coefficient of Classification Ratio |
Variable | Unit | Equations | Data Sources |
---|---|---|---|
Impact of Saving Land Occupation | CNY | Total Reduction of Illegal Dumping × Unit Environmental Cost of Illegal Dumping | |
Impact of GHG Emissions Reduction | CNY | Total Reduction of GHG Emissions × Unit Environmental Cost of GHG Emissions | |
Impact of Saving Landfill Volume | CNY | Total Reduction of Landfill × Unit Environmental Cost of Landfill | |
Impact of Saving Energy Consumption | CNY | Total Savings in Energy Consumption × Unit Environmental Cost of Energy Consumption | |
Environmental Benefit | CNY | Impact of GHG Emissions Reduction + Impact of Saving Landfill Volume + Impact of Saving Energy Consumption + Impact of Saving Land Occupation + Environmental Impact of Recycling | |
Illegal Dumping Cost | CNY/t | Probability of Receiving Punishment × Fine + Unit Cost of Illegal Dumping + Transportation Cost 1 | |
Impact of Illegal Dumping | DMNL | 1/EXP (1 − Restriction of Illegal Dumping) | [67] |
Recycling Cost | CNY/t | Adjustment Coefficient of Mature Recyclable Market × Mature Recyclable Market × Unit Cost of Recycling-Subsidy-Unit Profit from Recycled Waste + Transportation Cost 2 | |
Environmental Impact of Recycling | CNY | Total Recycling × Unit Environmental Benefit of Recycling | |
Landfill Cost | CNY/t | Charge + Unit Cost of Landfill + Transportation Cost 3 | |
Classification Cost | CNY/t | Unit Cost of Classification + Transportation Cost 4 | |
Effectiveness of Regulation Implementation | DMNL | Feasibility × Government Supervision | |
Impact of Landfill | DMNL | 1/EXP (1 − Limitation of Landfill) | [67] |
Reduced Ratio | DMNL | Awareness of Reduction × Impact of Design Stage | |
Government Supervision | DMNL | Restriction of Generation × 0.15 + Impact of Recycling × 0.15 + Impact of Landfill × 0.3 + Impact of Illegal Dumping × 0.3 + Impact of Environmental Benefit × 0.1 | |
Impact of Recycling | DMNL | LN (Drivers of Recycling + 1) | [67] |
Variable | Unit | Values | Data Sources |
---|---|---|---|
Impact of Environmental Benefit | DMNL | WITH LOOKUP (Environmental Benefit, ([(0, 0)–(1 × 1011,1)], (0, 0.01), (3.47 × 106, 0.05), (1.45 × 107, 0.1), (6.86 × 107, 0.15), (1.84 × 108, 0.2), (3.86 × 108, 0.25), (7.04 × 108, 0.3), (1.49 × 109, 0.35), (2.8 × 109, 0.4), (3.82 × 109, 0.42), (4.7 × 109, 0.45), (7.21 × 109, 0.5), (1.04 × 1010, 0.55), (1.43 × 1010, 0.6), (1.9 × 1010, 0.65), (2.45 × 1010, 0.7), (3.09 × 1010, 0.75), (4.64 × 1010 × 1010, 0.82), (5.54 × 1010, 0.84), (6.53 × 1010, 0.85), (8 × 1010, 0.87), (9.5 × 1010, 0.89))) | |
Illegal Dumping Ratio | DMNL | WITH LOOKUP (Illegal Dumping Cost, ([(40, 0)–(1000, 0.01)], (40, 0.01), (80, 0.0082), (120, 0.006), (150, 0.004), (180, 0.003), (210, 0.0028), (240, 0.0027), (280, 0.0026), (320, 0.0025), (360, 0.0024), (900, 0.002), (1000, 0.0019))) | [74,75] |
Recycling Ratio | DMNL | WITH LOOKUP (Recycling Cost, ([(−120, 0)–(80, 1)], (−120, 0.9), (−100, 0.86), (−60, 0.8), (−40, 0.75), (−30, 0.71), (−20, 0.66), (0, 0.5), (10, 0.4), (20, 0.3), (30, 0.2), (40, 0.15), (50, 0.1))) | [76] |
Landfill Ratio | DMNL | WITH LOOKUP (Landfill Cost, ([(5, 0)–(1100, 0.92)], (5, 0.91), (30, 0.81), (70, 0.6), (110, 0.4), (190, 0.25), (230, 0.2), (270, 0.15), (300, 0.1), (1100, 0.01))) | [74,76] |
Classification Ratio | DMNL | WITH LOOKUP (Classification Cost, ([(0, 0)–(120, 1)], (20, 0.88), (40, 0.7), (60, 0.66), (80, 0.5), (90, 0.4), (120, 0.1))) | |
Feasibility | DMNL | WITH LOOKUP (Charge, ([(0, 0)–(1000, 1)], (0, 0.1), (20, 0.2), (40, 0.5), (60, 0.7), (80, 0.8), (120, 0.65), (160, 0.6), (200, 0.5), (240, 0.3), (1000, 0.01))) | [67,74] |
Restriction of Illegal Dumping | DMNL | WITH LOOKUP(Total Illegal Dumping, ([(0, 0)–(2 × 107, 1)], (0, 0), (100,000, 0.4), (1.1 × 106, 0.6673), (2.1 × 106, 0.7516), (3.1 × 106, 0.802), (4.1 × 106, 0.8356), (5.1 × 106, 0.8602), (6.1 × 106, 0.8811), (7.1 × 106, 0.8971), (8.1 × 106, 0.9097), (9.1 × 106, 0.9199), (1.01 × 107, 0.9282), (1.11 × 107, 0.9351), (1.21 × 107, 0.9411), (1.31 × 107, 0.9461), (1.4 × 107, 0.95), (2 × 107, 0.955))) | |
Limitation of Landfill | DMNL | WITH LOOKUP(Total Landfill, ([(0, 0)–(1 × 1010, 1)], (0, 0), (1 × 106, 0.2), (2.2 × 106, 0.43), (7.5 × 107, 0.64), (1.5 × 108, 0.74), (3 × 108, 0.79), (4.5 × 108, 0.83), (6 × 108, 0.86), (7.5 × 108, 0.89), (9 × 108, 0.91), (1.1 × 109, 0.92), (1.3 × 109, 0.925), (1.5 × 109, 0.933), (1.7 × 109, 0.9403), (1.9 × 109, 0.946), (2 × 109, 0.9509), (2.1 × 109, 0.9551), (2.89 × 109, 0.957), (3.5 × 109, 0.96), (7.5 × 109, 0.965), (8.9 × 109, 0.969))) | |
Drivers of Recycling | DMNL | WITH LOOKUP(Total Recycling, ([(0, 0)–(1 × 1010, 1.05)], (0, 0.01), (500,000, 0.99), (7.5 × 107, 1.0007), (1.5 × 108, 1.002), (3 × 108, 1.003), (4.5 × 108, 1.004), (9 × 108, 1.005), (1.1 × 109, 1.007), (1.3 × 109, 1.008), (1.5 × 109, 1.009), (1.7 × 109, 1.01), (1.9 × 109, 1.011), (2.5 × 109, 1.012), (3.5 × 109, 1.013), (4.5 × 109, 1.013), (9 × 109, 1.015))) | [67,74] |
Restriction of Generation | DMNL | WITH LOOKUP(CDW Generation, ([(0, 0)–(3 × 108, 1.1)], (0, 0.01), (1 × 106, 1), (2.1 × 106, 1.01), (4 × 106, 1.022), (6 × 106, 1.032), (9 × 106, 1.045), (1.5 × 107, 1.055), (2.1 × 107, 1.062), (3.1 × 107, 1.068), (4.1 × 107, 1.072), (5.3 × 107, 1.078), (6 × 107, 1.08), (1.1 × 108, 1.083), (1.5 × 108, 1.085), (3 × 108, 1.089))) | [67,74] |
Awareness of Reduction | DMNL | WITH LOOKUP (Government Supervision, ([(0, 0)–(1, 1)], (0.01, 0.001), (0.05, 0.01), (0.1, 0.03), (0.15, 0.06), (0.2, 0.09), (0.25, 0.12), (0.3, 0.15), (0.35, 0.19), (0.4, 0.22), (0.45, 0.25), (0.5, 0.26), (1, 0.3))) | |
Construction Area | m2 | WITH LOOKUP(Time,([(2010, 2 × 107)–(2030, 8 × 107)], (2010, 2.00848 × 107), (2011, 2.43403 × 107), (2012, 2.96864 × 107), (2013, 3.79534 × 107), (2014, 4.53227 × 107), (2015, 5.27222 × 107), (2016, 5.3781 × 107), (2017, 5.10227 × 107), (2018, 5.1575 × 107), (2019, 5.73482 × 107), (2020, 6.75774 × 107), (2021, 7.32736 × 107), (2022, 7.11506 × 107), (2023, 7.43587 × 107), (2024, 7.126 × 107), (2025, 6.47388 × 107), (2026, 6.19152 × 107), (2027, 6.31285 × 107), (2028, 6.75133 × 107), (2029, 7.17587 × 107), (2030, 7.86344 × 107))) | Statistical yearbook |
Demolition Area | m2 | WITH LOOKUP(Time,([(2010, 2 × 106)–(2030, 8 × 106)], (2010, 2.00848 × 106), (2011, 2.43403 × 106), (2012, 2.96864 × 106), (2013, 3.79534 × 106), (2014, 4.53227 × 106), (2015, 5.27222 × 106), (2016, 5.3781 × 106), (2017, 5.10227 × 106), (2018, 5.1575 × 106), (2019, 5.73482 × 106), (2020, 6.75774 × 106), (2021, 7.32736 × 106), (2022, 7.11506 × 106), (2023, 7.43587 × 106), (2024, 7.12589 × 106), (2025, 6.47388 × 106), (2026, 6.19153 × 106), (2027, 6.31285 × 106), (2028, 6.75133 × 106), (2029, 7.17587 × 106), (2030, 7.863 × 106))) | Statistical yearbook |
Decoration Area | m2 | WITH LOOKUP(Time,([(2010, 6 × 106)–(2030, 2.2 × 107)], (2010, 7.3952 × 106), (2011, 6.7753 × 106), (2012, 7.1249 × 106), (2013, 1.03526 × 107), (2014, 9.1917 × 106), (2015, 9.3796 × 106), (2016, 1.2008 × 107), (2017, 1.65767 × 107), (2018, 1.73153 × 107), (2019, 1.74447 × 107), (2020, 1.99963 × 107), (2021, 2.18678 × 107), (2022, 1.89181 × 107), (2023, 1.73708 × 107), (2024, 1.65687 × 107), (2025, 1.78171 × 107), (2026, 1.61562 × 107), (2027, 1.26192 × 107), (2028, 1.92203 × 107), (2029, 1.3559 × 107), (2030, 2.10065 × 107))) | Statistical yearbook |
Variable | Unit | Values | Data Sources |
---|---|---|---|
Probability of Receiving Punishment | DMNL | IF THEN ELSE (Effectiveness of Regulation Implementation ≥ 0.9, 0.8, IF THEN ELSE (Effectiveness of Regulation Implementation ≥ 0.8, 0.7, IF THEN ELSE (Effectiveness of Regulation Implementation ≥ 0.7, 0.6, IF THEN ELSE (Effectiveness of Regulation Implementation ≥ 0.6, 0.5, IF THEN ELSE (Effectiveness of Regulation Implementation ≥ 0.5, 0.45, IF THEN ELSE (Effectiveness of Regulation Implementation ≥ 0.4, 0.35, IF THEN ELSE (Effectiveness of Regulation Implementation ≥ 0.3, 0.3, 0.25))))))) | [67,74] |
Impact of Design Stage | DMNL | IF THEN ELSE (Effectiveness of Regulation Implementation≥ 0.9, 0.75, IF THEN ELSE (Effectiveness of Regulation Implementation ≥ 0.8, 0.7, IF THEN ELSE (Effectiveness of Regulation Implementation ≥ 0.7, 0.6, IF THEN ELSE (Effectiveness of Regulation Implementation ≥ 0.6, 0.5, IF THEN ELSE (Effectiveness of Regulation Implementation ≥ 0.5, 0.4, IF THEN ELSE (Effectiveness of Regulation Implementation ≥ 0.4, 0.3,0.1)))))) | [67] |
Mature Recyclable Market | DMNL | IF THEN ELSE (Effectiveness of Regulation Implementation ≥ 0.9, 0.85, IF THEN ELSE (Effectiveness of Regulation Implementation ≥ 0.8, 0.8, IF THEN ELSE (Effectiveness of Regulation Implementation ≥ 0.7, 0.75, IF THEN ELSE (Effectiveness of Regulation Implementation ≥ 0.6, 0.7, IF THEN ELSE (Effectiveness of Regulation Implementation ≥ 0.5, 0.55, IF THEN ELSE (Effectiveness of Regulation Implementation ≥ 0.4, 0.45, IF THEN ELSE (Effectiveness of Regulation Implementation ≥ 0.3, 0.25, IF THEN ELSE (Effectiveness of Regulation Implementation ≥ 0.2, 0.15, 0.1)))))))) | [67,74] |
Variable | Unit | Values | Data Sources |
---|---|---|---|
Unit Environmental Cost of Illegal Dumping | CNY/t | 10.88 | [68] |
Unit Environmental Cost of GHG Emissions | CNY/kg CO2eq | 0.14 | [68] |
Unit Environmental Cost of Landfill | CNY/t | 12.04 | [68] |
Unit Environmental Cost of Energy Consumption | CNY/kg | 12.04 | [68] |
Unit GHG Emissions of Landfill | kg CO2eq/t | 90.718 | [69,76] |
Unit Energy Consumption of Landfill | kg/t | 3.5 | [76] |
Unit Cost of Illegal Dumping | CNY/t | 80 | [76] |
Unit Cost of Recycling | CNY/t | 80 | [69] |
Unit Cost of Landfill | CNY/t | 30 | [76] |
Unit Cost of Classification | CNY/t | 20 | [76] |
Unit Profit from Recycled Waste | CNY/t | 20 | [76] |
Unit Environmental Benefit of Recycling | CNY/t | 1.21 | [68] |
Transportation Cost 1 | CNY/t | 0 | |
Transportation Cost 2 | CNY/t | 0 | |
Transportation Cost 3 | CNY/t | 0 | |
Transportation Cost 4 | CNY/t | 0 |
Variable | Unit | Equations |
---|---|---|
CDW Generation | t | INTEG (Generation Growth-Generation Reduction, 398,6047) |
Total Illegal Dumping | t | INTEG (Illegal Dumping Growth, 119,582) |
Total Recycling | t | INTEG (Recycling Growth, 518,186) |
Total Landfill | t | INTEG (Landfill Growth, 3,348,279) |
Total Classification | t | INTEG (Classification Growth, 3,866,465) |
CDW Reduction | t | INTEG (Generation Reduction, 0) |
Total Reduction of GHG Emissions | kg CO2eq | INTEG (GHG Emissions Reduction Rate, 0) |
Total Reduction of Illegal Dumping | t | INTEG (Illegal Dumping Reduction Rate, 0) |
Total Reduction of Landfill | t | INTEG (Landfill Reduction Rate, 0) |
Total Savings in Energy Consumption | kg | INTEG (Energy Consumption Saving Rate, 0) |
References
- Ragossnig, A.M. Construction and demolition waste—Major challenges ahead! Waste Manag. Res. 2020, 38, 345–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, Y.; Yin, Y.; Li, B.; He, K.; Wang, X. Post-failure behavior analysis of the Shenzhen 12.20 CDW landfill landslide. Waste Manag. 2019, 83, 171–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duan, H.B.; Li, J.H. Construction and demolition waste management: China’s lessons. Waste Manag. Res. 2016, 34, 397–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabirifar, K.; Mojtahedi, M.; Wang, C.; Tam, V.W.Y. Construction and demolition waste management contributing factors coupled with reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies for effective waste management: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 263, 121265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lockrey, S.; Verghese, K.; Crossin, E.; Hung, N. Concrete recycling life cycle flows and performance from construction and demolition waste in Hanoi. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 179, 593–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hahladakis, J.N.; Purnell, P.; Aljabri, H. Assessing the role and use of recycled aggregates in the sustainable management of construction and demolition waste via a mini-review and a case study. Waste Manag. Res. 2020, 38, 460–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colangelo, F.; Forcina, A.; Farina, I.; Petrillo, A. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Different Kinds of Concrete Containing Waste for Sustainable Construction. Buildings 2018, 8, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bach, Q.V.; Fu, J.X.; Turn, S. Construction and Demolition Waste-Derived Feedstock: Fuel Characterization of a Potential Resource for Sustainable Aviation Fuels Production. Front. Energy Res. 2021, 9, 711808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomez-Meijide, B.; Perez, I. Effects of the use of construction and demolition waste aggregates in cold asphalt mixtures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 51, 267–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Massoudinejad, M.; Amanidaz, N.; Santos, R.M.; Bakhshoodeh, R. Use of municipal, agricultural, industrial, construction and demolition waste in thermal and sound building insulation materials: A review article. J. Environ. Health Sci. 2019, 17, 1227–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vieira, C.S.; Pereira, P.M. Use of recycled construction and demolition materials in geotechnical applications: A review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 103, 192–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holman, D.B.; Hao, X.Y.; Topp, E.; Yang, H.E.; Alexander, T.W. Effect of Co-Composting Cattle Manure with Construction and Demolition Waste on the Archaeal, Bacterial, and Fungal Microbiota, and on Antimicrobial Resistance Determinants. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0157539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Islam, R.; Nazifa, T.H.; Yuniarto, A.; Uddin, A.S.M.S.; Salmiati, S.; Shahid, S. An empirical study of construction and demolition waste generation and implication of recycling. Waste Manag. 2019, 95, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ginga, C.P.; Ongpeng, J.M.C.; Daly, M.K.M. Circular Economy on Construction and Demolition Waste: A Literature Review on Material Recovery and Production. Materials 2020, 13, 2970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Siregar, A.M.; Kustiani, I. Contractors’ Perception on Construction Waste Management Case Study in the City of Bandar Lampung. In Proceedings of the International Conference Research Collaboration of Environmental Science, Surabaya, Indonesia, 12 March 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Kostyshak, M.; Lunyakov, M. Improvement of the Material and Transport Component of the System of Construction Waste Management. In Proceedings of the Energy Management of Municipal Transportation Facilities and Transport (Emmft 2017), Khabarovsk, Russia, 10–13 April 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Manukhina, L.; Ivanova, I. Management of Construction and Demolition Wastes as Secondary Building Resources. In Proceedings of the Energy Management of Municipal Transportation Facilities and Transport (Emmft 2017), Khabarovsk, Russia, 10–13 April 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Araiza-Aguilar, J.A.; Gutierrez-Palacios, C.; Rojas-Valencia, M.N.; Najera-Aguilar, H.A.; Gutierrez-Hernandez, R.F.; Aguilar-Vera, R.A. Selection of Sites for the Treatment and the Final Disposal of Construction and Demolition Waste, Using Two Approaches: An Analysis for Mexico City. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J. Construction and demolition waste management in Korea: Recycled aggregate and its application. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2021, 23, 2223–2234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spisakova, M.; Mesaros, P.; Mandicak, T. Construction Waste Audit in the Framework of Sustainable Waste Management in Construction Projects-Case Study. Buildings 2021, 11, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galvez-Martos, J.L.; Styles, D.; Schoenberger, H.; Zeschmar-Lahl, B. Construction and demolition waste best management practice in Europe. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 136, 166–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, A.C.; Husin, N.I.; Zainol, H.; Tharim, A.H.A.; Ismail, N.A.; Ab Wahid, A.M. The Construction Solid Waste Minimization Practices among Malaysian Contractors. In Proceedings of the Building Surveying, Facilities Management and Engineering Conference (Bsfmec 2014), Perak, Malaysia, 27 August 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Mercante, I.T.; Bovea, M.D.; Ibáñez-Forés, V.; Arena, A.P. Life cycle assessment of construction and demolition waste management systems: A Spanish case study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2011, 17, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carcel-Carrasco, J.; Penalvo-Lopez, E.; Pascual-Guillamon, M.; Salas-Vicente, F. An Overview about the Current Situation on C&D Waste Management in Italy: Achievements and Challenges. Buildings 2021, 11, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menegaki, M.; Damigos, D. A review on current situation and challenges of construction and demolition waste management. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. 2018, 13, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiao, L.; Liu, D.D.; Yuan, X.L.; Wang, Q.S.; Ma, Q. Generation and Prediction of Construction and Demolition Waste Using Exponential Smoothing Method: A Case Study of Shandong Province, China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Z.; Fan, H.; Liu, G. Forecasting Construction and Demolition Waste Using Gene Expression Programming. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2015, 29, 4014059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, Z.; Shi, M.; Lu, C.; Wu, Z.; Chong, D.; Gong, W. Predicting Renovation Waste Generation Based on Grey System Theory: A Case Study of Shenzhen. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cha, G.W.; Moon, H.J.; Kim, Y.M.; Hong, W.H.; Hwang, J.H.; Park, W.J.; Kim, Y.C. Development of a Prediction Model for Demolition Waste Generation Using a Random Forest Algorithm Based on Small DataSets. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Al-Salem, S.M.; Al-Nasser, A.; Al-Dhafeeri, A.T. Multi-variable regression analysis for the solid waste generation in the State of Kuwait. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2018, 119, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coskuner, G.; Jassim, M.S.; Zontul, M.; Karateke, S. Application of artificial intelligence neural network modeling to predict the generation of domestic, commercial and construction wastes. Waste Manag. Res. 2021, 39, 499–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akanbi, L.A.; Oyedele, A.O.; Oyedele, L.O.; Salami, R.O. Deep learning model for Demolition Waste Prediction in a circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 274, 122843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.-M.; Sun, H.-H.; Guo, R.; Wang, D.; Yu, H.; Do Rosario Alves, D.; Hong, W.-M. Prediction of China’s Industrial Solid Waste Generation Based on the PCA-NARBP Model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dias, A.B.; Pacheco, J.N.; Silvestre, J.D.; Martins, I.M.; de Brito, J. Environmental and Economic Life Cycle Assessment of Recycled Coarse Aggregates: A Portuguese Case Study. Materials 2021, 14, 5452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, D.; Huang, L. The State of the Art of Material Flow Analysis Research Based on Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling and Disposal. Buildings 2019, 9, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turkyilmaz, A.; Guney, M.; Karaca, F.; Bagdatkyzy, Z.; Sandybayeva, A.; Sirenova, G. A Comprehensive Construction and Demolition Waste Management Model using PESTEL and 3R for Construction Companies Operating in Central Asia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aidonis, D. Multiobjective Mathematical Programming Model for the Optimization of End-of-Life Buildings’ Deconstruction and Demolition Processes. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ansari, M.; Ehrampoush, M.H. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of construction and demolition waste in Yazd city, Iran. Data Brief 2018, 21, 2622–2626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thongkamsuk, P.; Sudasna, K.; Tondee, T. Waste Generated in High-Rise Buildings Construction: A Current Situation in Thailand, 2017. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Alternative Energy In Developing Countries and Emerging Economies, Bangkok, Thailand, 25–26 May 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Zheng, L.; Wu, H.; Zhang, H.; Duan, H.; Wang, J.; Jiang, W.; Dong, B.; Liu, G.; Zuo, J.; Song, Q. Characterizing the generation and flows of construction and demolition waste in China. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 136, 405–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gou, Z.; Lau, S.S.-Y.; Prasad, D. Market Readiness and Policy Implications for Green Buildings: Case Study from Hong Kong. J. Green Build. 2013, 8, 162–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Z.; Yu, A.T.W.; Wang, H.; Wei, Y.; Huo, X. Driving Factors For Construction Waste Minimization: Empirical Studies in Hong Kong and Shenzhen. J. Green Build. 2019, 14, 155–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forrester, J.W. Principles of Systems; Wright-Allen Press: Lawrence, KS, USA, 1968. [Google Scholar]
- Xiong, Y.; Li, J.; Jiang, D. Optimization research on supply and demand system for water resources in the Chang-Zhu-Tan urban agglomeration. J. Geogr. Sci. 2015, 25, 1357–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Procter, A.; Bassi, A.; Kolling, J.; Cox, L.; Flanders, N.; Tanners, N.; Araujo, R. The effectiveness of Light Rail transit in achieving regional CO2 emissions targets is linked to building energy use: Insights from system dynamics modeling. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2017, 19, 1459–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, G.; Duan, K.; Zuo, J.; Yang, J.; Wen, S. System Dynamics Model and Simulation of Employee Work-Family Conflict in the Construction Industry. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tatari, O.; Castro-Lacouture, D.; Skibniewski, M.J. Performance evaluation of construction enterprise resource planning systems. J. Manag. Eng. 2008, 24, 198–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, T.; Zhang, M.-g.; Song, J.; Zhao, Y. Multi-agent evolutionary game of process safety culture in Chinese chemical industry based on system dynamics. Syst. Eng. 2022, 25, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thirupathi, R.M.; Vinodh, S.; Dhanasekaran, S. Application of system dynamics modelling for a sustainable manufacturing system of an Indian automotive component manufacturing organisation: A case study. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2019, 21, 1055–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, H.; Dong, S.; Li, F. A System Dynamics Approach to Eco-Industry System Effects and Trends. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2019, 28, 1469–1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, Y.; Li, T.; Song, Y. System Dynamics Study on Pathways to Sharpen Shipbuilding Competitiveness in China. J. Coast. Res. 2019, 97, 42–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ram, V.G.; Kalidindi, S.N. Estimation of construction and demolition waste using waste generation rates in Chennai, India. Waste Manag. Res. 2017, 35, 610–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cochran, K.M.; Townsend, T.G. Estimating construction and demolition debris generation using a materials flow analysis approach. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 2247–2254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, Y.-C.; Hong, W.-H.; Park, J.-W.; Cha, G.-W. An estimation framework for building information modeling (BIM)-based demolition waste by type. Waste Manag. Res. 2017, 35, 1285–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernardo, M.; Gomes, M.C.; de Brito, J. Demolition waste generation for development of a regional management chain model. Waste Manag. 2016, 49, 156–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, N.; Zheng, L.; Duan, H.; Yin, F.; Li, J.; Niu, Y. Differences of methods to quantify construction and demolition waste for less-developed but fast-growing countries: China as a case study. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2019, 26, 25513–25525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villoria Saez, P.; del Rio Merino, M.; Porras-Amores, C. Estimation of construction and demolition waste volume generation in new residential buildings in Spain. Waste Manag. Res. 2012, 30, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, H.; Duan, H.; Zheng, L.; Wang, J.; Niu, Y.; Zhang, G. Demolition waste generation and recycling potentials in a rapidly developing flagship megacity of South China: Prospective scenarios and implications. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 113, 1007–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Carvalho Teixeira, E.; Gonzalez, M.A.S.; Heineck, L.F.M.; Kern, A.P.; Bueno, G.M. Modelling waste generated during construction of buildings using regression analysis. Waste Manag. Res. 2020, 38, 857–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vilventhan, A.; Ram, V.G.; Sugumaran, S. Value stream mapping for identification and assessment of material waste in construction: A case study. Waste Manag. Res. 2019, 37, 815–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Malia, M.; de Brito, J.; Pinheiro, M.D.; Bravo, M. Construction and demolition waste indicators. Waste Manag. Res. 2013, 31, 241–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, J.; Ding, Z.; Mi, X.; Wang, J. A model for estimating construction waste generation index for building project in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2013, 74, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakchan, A.; Faust, K.M. Construction waste generation estimates of institutional building projects: Leveraging waste hauling tickets. Waste Manag. 2019, 87, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mah, C.M.; Fujiwara, T.; Ho, C.S. Construction and demolition waste generation rates for high-rise buildings in Malaysia. Waste Manag. Res. 2016, 34, 1224–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Chen, L.; Hu, R.; Ren, Z.; He, Y.; Liu, D.; Zhou, Z. An empirical study on waste generation rates at different stages of construction projects in China. Waste Manag. Res. 2020, 38, 433–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, W.; Ren, H.; Rotter, V.S. A system dynamics model for evaluating the alternative of type in construction and demolition waste recycling center—The case of Chongqing, China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 933–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, S.; Liu, X.; Yan, G. Dynamic analysis of construction and demolition waste management model based on system dynamics and grey model approach. Clean Technol. Environ. 2018, 20, 2089–2107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, T.; Wang, J.; Wu, P.; Wang, J.; He, Q.; Wang, X. Estimating the environmental costs and benefits of demolition waste using life cycle assessment and willingness-to-pay: A case study in Shenzhen. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marzouk, M.; Azab, S. Environmental and economic impact assessment of construction and demolition waste disposal using system dynamics. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 82, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Chang, X.; Chen, Z.; Zhong, Y.; Fan, T. Impact of subsidy policies on recycling and remanufacturing using system dynamics methodology: A case of auto parts in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 74, 161–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, Y.; Zheng, H.; Huang, Y.; Li, X. Considering Consumers’ Green Preferences and Government Subsidies in the Decision Making of the Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Supply Chain: A Stackelberg Game Approach. Buildings 2022, 12, 832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaubroeck, T.; Gibon, T.; Igos, E.; Benetto, E. Sustainability assessment of circular economy over time: Modelling of finite and variable loops & impact distribution among related products. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 168, 150319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schrijvers, D.L.; Loubet, P.; Sonnemann, G. Developing a systematic framework for consistent allocation in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 976–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, H.; Wang, J. A system dynamics model for determining the waste disposal charging fee in construction. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2014, 237, 988–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Li, Z.; Tam, V.W.Y. Identifying best design strategies for construction waste minimization. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 92, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, Z.; Yi, G.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Huang, T. A system dynamics-based environmental performance simulation of construction waste reduction management in China. Waste Manag. 2016, 51, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
References | Geographic Location | Generation Rate | Unit | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Construction | Demolition | Decoration | |||
[57] | Spain | 0.075 | m3/m2 | ||
[58] | Shenzhen (China) | 0.800 | m3/m2 | ||
[59] | Porto Alegre (Brazil) | 0.151 | m3/m2 | ||
[60] | Chennai (India) | 0.066 | t/m2 | ||
[61] | Europe | 0.018~0.040 | 0.401~0.840 | 0.019~0.191 | t/m2 |
[62] | Shenzhen (China) | 0.041 | t/m2 | ||
[13] | Bangladesh | 0.064 | 1.615 | t/m2 | |
[63] | Texas (USA) | 0.069 | t/m2 | ||
[64] | Malaysia | 0.033~0.099 | 1.043 | t/m2 | |
[65] | China | 0.033 | t/m2 | ||
Total range | 0.018~0.099 | 0.401~1.615 | 0.019~0.191 | t/m2 | |
This study | China | 0.059 | 1.008 | 0.105 | t/m2 |
Fine Policy | Total Illegal Dumping/t | Rate of Change/% | Cumulative Rate of Change/% |
---|---|---|---|
F = 0 | 12,542,400 | ||
F = 150 | 9,420,700 | 24.89 | 24.89 |
F = 300 | 5,931,770 | 37.03 | 52.71 |
F = 350 | 5,300,640 | 10.64 | 57.74 |
F = 400 | 4,669,410 | 11.91 | 62.77 |
F = 450 | 4,543,150 | 2.70 | 63.78 |
Subsidy Policy | Total Recycling/t | Rate of Change/% | Cumulative Rate of Change/% |
---|---|---|---|
S = 0 | 4,534,140,000 | ||
S = 10 | 5,097,030,000 | 12.41 | 12.41 |
S = 20 | 5,462,150,000 | 7.16 | 20.47 |
S = 30 | 5,743,600,000 | 5.15 | 26.67 |
S = 40 | 5,933,760,000 | 3.31 | 30.87 |
S = 100 | 6,724,860,000 | 13.33 | 48.32 |
Charging Policy | Total Landfill Volume/t | Rate of Change/% | Environmental Benefit/yuan | Rate of Change/% |
---|---|---|---|---|
C = 0 | 6,164,360,000 | 23,024,900,000 | ||
C = 40 | 4,337,240,000 | 29.64 | 33,425,500,000 | 45.17 |
C = 80 | 2,220,230,000 | 48.81 | 55,870,100,000 | 67.15 |
C = 120 | 2,017,740,000 | 9.12 | 45,990,600,000 | −17.68 |
C = 160 | 1,653,330,000 | 18.06 | 40,606,900,000 | −11.71 |
C = 200 | 1,469,710,000 | 11.11 | 29,407,000,000 | −27.58 |
C = 240 | 1,145,420,000 | 22.06 | 20,675,500,000 | −29.69 |
C = 1000 | 139,551,000 | 87.82 | 20,445,700,000 | −1.11 |
Portfolio Policy | Environmental Benefit/yuan | Total Illegal Dumping/t | Total Landfill/t | Total Recycling/t |
---|---|---|---|---|
FSC = (300, 40, 80) | 56,147,700,000 | 2,818,030 | 2,272,620,000 | 3,086,310,000 |
FSC = (350, 40, 80) | 56,140,600,000 | 2,746,160 | 2,272,760,000 | 3,086,500,000 |
FSC = (300, 30, 80) | 55,524,900,000 | 2,818,110 | 2,272,660,000 | 2,573,150,000 |
FSC = (350, 30, 80) | 55,517,800,000 | 2,746,230 | 2,272,800,000 | 2,573,310,000 |
FSC = (300, 40, 40) | 34,184,600,000 | 4,316,180 | 4,402,110,000 | 5,081,940,000 |
FSC = (350, 40, 40) | 34,166,800,000 | 4,040,830 | 4,402,540,000 | 5,082,430,000 |
FSC = (300, 30, 40) | 33,626,500,000 | 4,316,240 | 4,402,140,000 | 4,621,920,000 |
FSC = (350, 30, 40) | 33,608,600,000 | 4,040,890 | 4,402,570,000 | 4,622,370,000 |
FSC = (0, 0, 0) | 23,024,900,000 | 12,542,400 | 6,164,360,000 | 4,533,810,000 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sun, H.; Liu, H.; Tian, J.; Guo, R.; Xu, Q.; Yao, L.; Hong, W.; Li, H.; Zhu, C. Modelling and Optimizing Resource Management and Environmental Benefit of Construction and Demolition Waste: A Case Study in China. Buildings 2022, 12, 1361. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12091361
Sun H, Liu H, Tian J, Guo R, Xu Q, Yao L, Hong W, Li H, Zhu C. Modelling and Optimizing Resource Management and Environmental Benefit of Construction and Demolition Waste: A Case Study in China. Buildings. 2022; 12(9):1361. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12091361
Chicago/Turabian StyleSun, Honghao, Hongmei Liu, Junjie Tian, Rong Guo, Qian Xu, Lu Yao, Weimin Hong, Haiyan Li, and Chenhui Zhu. 2022. "Modelling and Optimizing Resource Management and Environmental Benefit of Construction and Demolition Waste: A Case Study in China" Buildings 12, no. 9: 1361. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12091361