IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jecstr/v7y2018i1d10.1186_s40008-018-0112-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mixed-unit hybrid life cycle assessment applied to the recycling of construction materials

Author

Listed:
  • Soo Huey Teh

    (University of New South Wales)

  • Thomas Wiedmann

    (University of New South Wales
    The University of Sydney)

  • Stephen Moore

    (University of New South Wales)

Abstract

The construction industry contributes around 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, 40% of depletion of natural resources, and 25% of wastes globally. To reduce these impacts, construction industries can adopt low-carbon alternatives for construction materials and waste minimisation strategies, including the recycling of construction and demolition waste. However, a comprehensive understanding of the full life cycle carbon profile of low-carbon and recyclable construction materials is required to accurately assess the efficacy of decarbonisation strategies in the built environment. Despite recent progress in hybrid life cycle assessment (hybrid LCA) methods, some weaknesses remain with respect to the inherent uncertainty relating to price variations and aggregated sectors that are unable to provide detailed waste-specific information in hybrid LCA. Furthermore, attributional, hybrid LCA for a functional unit does not reflect the actual, economy-wide physical flows of materials in a real economy. In this study, a mixed-unit hybrid LCA approach based on a combination of process life cycle inventory, input–output, and material flow data is used to model the economy-wide potential use of recycled construction materials in Australia. A comparison between methods of life cycle emissions of geopolymer concrete revealed that the mixed-unit hybrid LCA approach produced a more accurate and Australian-specific result. The usefulness of the proposed mixed-unit IO model is demonstrated through quantifying the cradle-to-gate embodied emissions of recycled construction materials and by-products utilised in concrete and steel sectors in Australia. The results yield a 1% reduction when recycled concrete aggregate completely replaces natural aggregate in both ordinary Portland cement and geopolymer concrete. Greenhouse gas emissions reduction of 30% is quantified for geopolymer concrete using recycled concrete aggregate compared with ordinary Portland cement concrete utilising natural aggregate and 43% is estimated for electric arc furnace route using iron and steel scrap compared with basic oxygen furnace route. The method merges physical and monetary units of industrial systems related to low-carbon alternatives and recycled construction materials to enable the calculations of embodied carbon with improved accuracy. The results of this study can help inform decarbonisation strategies in the built environment sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Soo Huey Teh & Thomas Wiedmann & Stephen Moore, 2018. "Mixed-unit hybrid life cycle assessment applied to the recycling of construction materials," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 7(1), pages 1-25, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jecstr:v:7:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1186_s40008-018-0112-4
    DOI: 10.1186/s40008-018-0112-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s40008-018-0112-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s40008-018-0112-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Wiedmann, 2017. "On the decomposition of total impact multipliers in a supply and use framework," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Sai Liang & Tianzhu Zhang, 2013. "Investigating Reasons for Differences in the Results of Environmental, Physical, and Hybrid Input‐Output Models," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 17(3), pages 432-439, June.
    3. Walter R. Stahel, 2016. "The circular economy," Nature, Nature, vol. 531(7595), pages 435-438, March.
    4. Suh, Sangwon, 2006. "Reply: Downstream cut-offs in integrated hybrid life-cycle assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 7-12, August.
    5. Aleix Altimiras-Martin, 2014. "Analysing The Structure Of The Economy Using Physical Input-Output Tables," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 463-485, December.
    6. Bullard, Clark W. & Herendeen, Robert A., 1975. "The energy cost of goods and services," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 268-278, December.
    7. Peters, Glen P. & Hertwich, Edgar G., 2006. "A comment on "Functions, commodities and environmental impacts in an ecological-economic model"," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 1-6, August.
    8. Taelim Choi & Randall W. Jackson & Nancey Green Leigh & Christa D. Jensen, 2011. "A Baseline Input—Output Model with Environmental Accounts (IOEA) Applied to E-Waste Recycling," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 34(1), pages 3-33, January.
    9. Weisz, Helga & Duchin, Faye, 2006. "Physical and monetary input-output analysis: What makes the difference?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 534-541, May.
    10. Stefan Giljum & Klaus Hubacek, 2004. "Alternative Approaches of Physical Input-Output Analysis to Estimate Primary Material Inputs of Production and Consumption Activities," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 301-310.
    11. Jacob Fry & Manfred Lenzen & Damien Giurco & Stefan Pauliuk, 2016. "An Australian Multi-Regional Waste Supply-Use Framework," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 20(6), pages 1295-1305, December.
    12. Christian Reynolds & Julia Piantadosi & John Boland, 2014. "A Waste Supply-Use Analysis of Australian Waste Flows," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 3(1), pages 1-16, December.
    13. Suh, Sangwon, 2004. "Functions, commodities and environmental impacts in an ecological-economic model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 451-467, April.
    14. Dixit, Manish K., 2017. "Embodied energy analysis of building materials: An improved IO-based hybrid method using sectoral disaggregation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 46-58.
    15. Guillaume Majeau-Bettez & Richard Wood & Edgar G. Hertwich & Anders Hammer Strømman, 2016. "When Do Allocations and Constructs Respect Material, Energy, Financial, and Production Balances in LCA and EEIO?," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 20(1), pages 67-84, February.
    16. Reid Bailey & Bert Bras & Janet K. Allen, 2004. "Applying Ecological Input‐Output Flow Analysis to Material Flows in Industrial Systems: Part II: Flow Metrics," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 8(1‐2), pages 69-91, January.
    17. Manfred Lenzen & Christian John Reynolds, 2014. "A Supply-Use Approach to Waste Input-Output Analysis," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 18(2), pages 212-226, April.
    18. Nakamura, Shinichiro & Kondo, Yasushi, 2006. "A waste input-output life-cycle cost analysis of the recycling of end-of-life electrical home appliances," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 494-506, May.
    19. Hoekstra, Rutger & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2006. "Constructing physical input-output tables for environmental modeling and accounting: Framework and illustrations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 375-393, September.
    20. Reid Bailey & Janet K. Allen & Bert Bras, 2004. "Applying Ecological Input‐Output Flow Analysis to Material Flows in Industrial Systems: Part I: Tracing Flows," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 8(1‐2), pages 45-68, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Qinghui Zhou & Haoshi Liu & Yuhang Qiu & Wuchao Zheng, 2022. "Object Detection for Construction Waste Based on an Improved YOLOv5 Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Dominik Kryzia & Marta Kuta & Dominika Matuszewska & Piotr Olczak, 2020. "Analysis of the Potential for Gas Micro-Cogeneration Development in Poland Using the Monte Carlo Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-24, June.
    3. Man Yu & Thomas Wiedmann, 2018. "Implementing hybrid LCA routines in an input–output virtual laboratory," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 7(1), pages 1-24, December.
    4. Mohamed Rabie & Mohammad R. Irshidat & Nasser Al-Nuaimi, 2022. "Ambient and Heat-Cured Geopolymer Composites: Mix Design Optimization and Life Cycle Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, April.
    5. Héctor Hernández & Felipe Ossio & Michael Silva, 2023. "Assessment of Sustainability and Efficiency Metrics in Modern Methods of Construction: A Case Study Using a Life Cycle Assessment Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-25, April.
    6. Edgar Battand Towa Kouokam & Vanessa Zeller & Wouter Achten, 2019. "Input-output models and waste management analysis: A critical review," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/359535, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. Shahjadi Hisan Farjana & Tatenda Miriam Mungombe & Hasith Madhumahda Kahanda Gamage & Anmol Sarfraj Rajwani & Olubukola Tokede & Mahmud Ashraf, 2023. "Circulating the E-Waste Recovery from the Construction and Demolition Industries: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-20, August.
    8. Guanru Wang & Dariusz Krzywda & Sergey Kondrashev & Lubov Vorona-Slivinskaya, 2021. "Recycling and Upcycling in the Practice of Waste Management of Construction Giants," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, January.
    9. Muhandiramge Nimashi Navodana Rodrigo & Srinath Perera & Sepani Senaratne & Xiaohua Jin, 2021. "Review of Supply Chain Based Embodied Carbon Estimating Method: A Case Study Based Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-20, August.
    10. Maxime Agez & Richard Wood & Manuele Margni & Anders H. Strømman & Réjean Samson & Guillaume Majeau‐Bettez, 2020. "Hybridization of complete PLCA and MRIO databases for a comprehensive product system coverage," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(4), pages 774-790, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Edgar Battand Towa Kouokam & Vanessa Zeller & Wouter Achten, 2019. "Input-output models and waste management analysis: A critical review," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/359535, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    2. Glenn A. Aguilar-Hernandez & Carlos Pablo Sigüenza-Sanchez & Franco Donati & João F. D. Rodrigues & Arnold Tukker, 2018. "Assessing circularity interventions: a review of EEIOA-based studies," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 7(1), pages 1-24, December.
    3. Hanspeter Wieland & Stefan Giljum & Nina Eisenmenger & Dominik Wiedenhofer & Martin Bruckner & Anke Schaffartzik & Anne Owen, 2020. "Supply versus use designs of environmental extensions in input–output analysis: Conceptual and empirical implications for the case of energy," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(3), pages 548-563, June.
    4. Cholapat Jongdeepaisal & Seigo Nasu, 2018. "Economic Impact Evaluation of a Biomass Power Plant Using a Technical Coefficient Pre-Adjustment in Hybrid Input-Output Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-11, March.
    5. Heun, Matthew Kuperus & Owen, Anne & Brockway, Paul E., 2018. "A physical supply-use table framework for energy analysis on the energy conversion chain," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C), pages 1134-1162.
    6. Xin, Li & Feng, Kuishuang & Siu, Yim Ling & Hubacek, Klaus, 2015. "Challenges faced when energy meets water: CO2 and water implications of power generation in inner Mongolia of China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 419-430.
    7. Soo Huey Teh & Thomas Wiedmann, 2018. "Decomposition of integrated hybrid life cycle inventories by origin and final-stage inputs," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 7(1), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Zhang, Yan & Zheng, Hongmei & Fath, Brian D., 2014. "Analysis of the energy metabolism of urban socioeconomic sectors and the associated carbon footprints: Model development and a case study for Beijing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 540-551.
    9. Anke Schaffartzik & Dominik Wiedenhofer & Nina Eisenmenger, 2015. "Raw Material Equivalents: The Challenges of Accounting for Sustainability in a Globalized World," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-26, April.
    10. Hanspeter Wieland & Manfred Lenzen & Arne Geschke & Jacob Fry & Dominik Wiedenhofer & Nina Eisenmenger & Johannes Schenk & Stefan Giljum, 2022. "The PIOLab: Building global physical input–output tables in a virtual laboratory," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(3), pages 683-703, June.
    11. Bösch, Matthias & Jochem, Dominik & Weimar, Holger & Dieter, Matthias, 2015. "Physical input-output accounting of the wood and paper flow in Germany," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 99-109.
    12. Man Yu & Thomas Wiedmann, 2018. "Implementing hybrid LCA routines in an input–output virtual laboratory," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 7(1), pages 1-24, December.
    13. Dilekli, Naci & Cazcarro, Ignacio, 2019. "Testing the SDG targets on water and sanitation using the world trade model with a waste, wastewater, and recycling framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Zhang, Yan & Zheng, Hongmei & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Ecological network analysis of an industrial symbiosis system: A case study of the Shandong Lubei eco-industrial park," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 306(C), pages 174-184.
    15. Vanessa Zeller & Edgar Battand Towa Kouokam & Marc Degrez & Wouter Achten, 2019. "Urban waste flows and their potential for a circular economy model at city-region level," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/278528, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    16. Malik, Arunima & Lenzen, Manfred & Ely, Rômulo Neves & Dietzenbacher, Erik, 2014. "Simulating the impact of new industries on the economy: The case of biorefining in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 84-93.
    17. He, He & Reynolds, Christian John & Li, Linyang & Boland, John, 2019. "Assessing net energy consumption of Australian economy from 2004–05 to 2014–15: Environmentally-extended input-output analysis, structural decomposition analysis, and linkage analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 240(C), pages 766-777.
    18. Liz Wachs & Shweta Singh, 2018. "A modular bottom-up approach for constructing physical input–output tables (PIOTs) based on process engineering models," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 7(1), pages 1-24, December.
    19. Wiedmann, Thomas & Wilting, Harry C. & Lenzen, Manfred & Lutter, Stephan & Palm, Viveka, 2011. "Quo Vadis MRIO? Methodological, data and institutional requirements for multi-region input-output analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1937-1945, September.
    20. Bruckner, Martin & Fischer, Günther & Tramberend, Sylvia & Giljum, Stefan, 2015. "Measuring telecouplings in the global land system: A review and comparative evaluation of land footprint accounting methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 11-21.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jecstr:v:7:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1186_s40008-018-0112-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.