Environmental assessment of construction waste prevention: A case study in a social housing project in Southeast Brazil

Beatriz Leão Evangelista de Lara, Carmenlucia Santos Giordano Penteado
{"title":"Environmental assessment of construction waste prevention: A case study in a social housing project in Southeast Brazil","authors":"Beatriz Leão Evangelista de Lara,&nbsp;Carmenlucia Santos Giordano Penteado","doi":"10.1016/j.clwas.2024.100145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study analyzed construction waste prevention measures applied to a social housing project, with life cycle assessment (LCA), by three scenarios: base case scenario (BCS) – a single family house built with masonry blocks; prevention scenario 1 (PS1) – BCS assuming a theoretical optimization in materials consumption; prevention scenario 2 (PS2) – a house built with cast-in-situ concrete walls. The prevention scenarios showed waste reductions of 4% (PS1) and 36% (PS2). The environmental impacts have been evaluated by using CML baseline v.3.05; the impact categories were selected according to the EN 15.978:2011: global warming potential (GWP), acidification (AP), eutrophication (EP), ozone layer depletion (ODP), photochemical ozone formation (POF), abiotic depletion (AD), and abiotic depletion – fossil fuels (ADF). The PS1 reduced environmental impacts by 5% whereas PS2 increased by 15%, compared with BCS. The most critical construction steps for BCS and PS1 were coating and superstructure, whereas for PS2 were superstructure and painting. The materials extraction and production stage represent about 90% of the total impacts. The most critical materials for BCS and PS1 were concrete, cement, and steel, whereas for PS2 those were concrete, steel, and paint. The most relevant categories for the three scenarios analyzed were GWP, ADF, and AP. The waste management stage was irrelevant in generating impacts, contributing for less than 1% of the total impacts. These results highlight that despite reducing waste generation, prevention does not necessarily reduce the overall impacts of the edification, and therefore, the materials and construction methods used are especially relevant.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100256,"journal":{"name":"Cleaner Waste Systems","volume":"8 ","pages":"Article 100145"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772912524000174/pdfft?md5=25e6c11c29ebb3efa0a116fec77ba874&pid=1-s2.0-S2772912524000174-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleaner Waste Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772912524000174","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study analyzed construction waste prevention measures applied to a social housing project, with life cycle assessment (LCA), by three scenarios: base case scenario (BCS) – a single family house built with masonry blocks; prevention scenario 1 (PS1) – BCS assuming a theoretical optimization in materials consumption; prevention scenario 2 (PS2) – a house built with cast-in-situ concrete walls. The prevention scenarios showed waste reductions of 4% (PS1) and 36% (PS2). The environmental impacts have been evaluated by using CML baseline v.3.05; the impact categories were selected according to the EN 15.978:2011: global warming potential (GWP), acidification (AP), eutrophication (EP), ozone layer depletion (ODP), photochemical ozone formation (POF), abiotic depletion (AD), and abiotic depletion – fossil fuels (ADF). The PS1 reduced environmental impacts by 5% whereas PS2 increased by 15%, compared with BCS. The most critical construction steps for BCS and PS1 were coating and superstructure, whereas for PS2 were superstructure and painting. The materials extraction and production stage represent about 90% of the total impacts. The most critical materials for BCS and PS1 were concrete, cement, and steel, whereas for PS2 those were concrete, steel, and paint. The most relevant categories for the three scenarios analyzed were GWP, ADF, and AP. The waste management stage was irrelevant in generating impacts, contributing for less than 1% of the total impacts. These results highlight that despite reducing waste generation, prevention does not necessarily reduce the overall impacts of the edification, and therefore, the materials and construction methods used are especially relevant.

防止建筑垃圾产生的环境评估:巴西东南部社会住房项目案例研究
本研究通过生命周期评估(LCA)分析了应用于社会住房项目的建筑垃圾预防措施,包括三种方案:基础方案(BCS)--使用砖石砌块建造的单户住宅;预防方案 1(PS1)--假定材料消耗理论上优化的基础方案;预防方案 2(PS2)--使用现浇混凝土墙建造的住宅。这些预防方案分别减少了 4% (PS1)和 36% (PS2)的废物。使用 CML baseline v.3.05 对环境影响进行了评估;根据 EN 15.978:2011 选择了影响类别:全球升温潜能值 (GWP)、酸化 (AP)、富营养化 (EP)、臭氧层破坏 (ODP)、光化学臭氧形成 (POF)、非生物损耗 (AD) 和非生物损耗 - 化石燃料 (ADF)。与 BCS 相比,PS1 对环境的影响减少了 5%,而 PS2 则增加了 15%。BCS 和 PS1 最关键的施工步骤是涂层和上层建筑,而 PS2 则是上层建筑和喷漆。材料开采和生产阶段约占总影响的 90%。对 BCS 和 PS1 来说,最关键的材料是混凝土、水泥和钢材,而对 PS2 来说,最关键的材料是混凝土、钢材和油漆。在分析的三种方案中,最相关的类别是 GWP、ADF 和 AP。废物管理阶段产生的影响无关紧要,只占总影响的不到 1%。这些结果突显出,尽管减少了废物的产生,但预防并不一定会减少教育的总体影响,因此,所使用的材料和施工方法尤为重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信