Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 41–49

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Environmental and economic impact assessment of construction and

demolition waste disposal using system dynamics
Mohamed Marzouk ∗ , Shimaa Azab
Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Egypt

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Construction and demolition wastes (CDW) have increasingly serious problems in environmental, social,
Received 1 March 2013 and economic realms. There is no coherent framework for utilization of these wastes which are disposed
Received in revised form 8 September 2013 both legally and illegally. This harms the environment, contributes to the increase of energy consumption,
Accepted 27 October 2013
and depletes finite landfills resources. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the impacts of two alternatives
for the management of CDW, recycling and disposing. The evaluation is carried out through developing
Keywords:
a dynamic model with aid STELLA software by conducting the following steps: (1) quantifying the total
Construction and demolition wastes (CDW)
cost incurred to mitigate the impacts of CDW landfills and uncollected waste on the environment and
Environmental and economic impact
assessment
human health; (2) quantifying the total avoided emissions and saved energy by recycling waste; (3)
Pollutant emissions estimating total external cost saved by recycling waste and; (4) providing a decision support tool that
Waste recycling helps in re-thinking about waste disposal. The proposed evaluation methodology allows activating the
Global warming potential (GWP) stringent regulations that restrict waste disposal and developing incentives to encourage constructors
System dynamics modeling to recycle their wastes. The research findings show that recycling CDW leads to significant reductions in
emissions, energy use, global warming potential (GWP), and conserves landfills space when compared
to disposal of wastes in landfills. Furthermore, the cost of mitigating the impact of disposal is extremely
high. Therefore, it is necessary to recycle construction and demolition wastes.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction depleted building materials; (3) the increase in contamination from

The construction/demolition industry is considered one of the
largest producers of solid wastes globally. The huge amount of con-
struction and demolition wastes (CDW) has been generated from
increasing the building of new structures, renovation, rebuilding,
repair, demolition works, and infrastructure development projects.
Large quantities of construction and demolition wastes (CDW)
cause harmful effects on the environment if they are not managed
in proper manner. As such, these huge amounts of wastes need to
be properly managed. The current situation of waste management
in Egypt lies in disposed waste either legally or illegally and there
is no coherent framework for making the most of these wastes. It
is very important to give priority to the environment in addition to
conventional project objectives, such as cost, duration, quality and
safety (Liyin et al., 2006). Thinking about waste management from
a limited perspective gives rise to some economic concerns. This is
because a large amount of money is spent on dumping the waste in
landfills and mitigating the effects of dumping on the environment.
The environmental problems include: (1) diminishing landfill space
due to incremental quantities of these disposed wastes in it; (2) the
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +202 35678442.
E-mail address: mm marzouk@yahoo.com (M. Marzouk).
landfills that lead to serious negative health effects; (4) damage to
the environment; and (5) the increase in energy consumption for
transportation and manufacturing new materials instead of those
materials dumped and which require energy production. The later
problem is attributed to the loss of embodied energy of the disposed
wastes that can be used to produce new construction materials. It
is worth noting that CDW recycling saves the embodied energy in
waste materials by the replacement of virgin raw materials with
recycled materials (Roussat et al., 2009). Therefore, energy savings
are often the driving force behind emissions savings (Choate et al.,
2005).
CDW are adding to the phenomenon of global warming. Hot-
ter temperatures due to Global Warming Potential (GWP) lead to
increased weather extremes including heat waves and worsening
of air quality. Epidemiological studies of deaths during the heat
waves refer to the fact that a substantial portion of the mortal-
ity might be attributed to elevated ozone and particulate levels
that occurred during the heat waves (American lung Association,
2004). The California Air Resources Board indicated that the health
effects of increasing concentrations of particulate matter and ozone
are: 6500 premature deaths, 4000 hospital admissions for respira-
tory disease, 3000 hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease,
350,000 asthma attacks, 2000 asthma-related emergency room
visits, elevated school absences due to respiratory conditions,

0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.10.015
42 M. Marzouk, S. Azab / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 41–49
including asthma, and reduced lung function growth rate in chil-
dren. Sensitive groups, including seniors, people with heart or lung
disease, children and infants are the most vulnerable to the harmful
effects of air pollution.
On the other hand, CDW recycling technique has recently
attracted the attention of many researchers due to its economic
and environmental benefits. In economic terms, plenty of studies
have been conducted on the economic situation of CDW recycling
plants such as (Coelho and de Brito, 2013a; Zhao et al., 2010). Both
of these studies confirmed the economic feasibility of recycling
CDW, but with different results due to the conditions of each study.
Coelho and de Brito (2013a) conducted a study on a large-scale
recycling plant in Portugal to evaluate the economic viability of
the plant for serving a densely populated urban area. This study
concluded that despite the absence of regulatory government pol-
icy the initial investment required for recycling may be high, but
there is a high profit potential for CDW recycling with the return of
invested capital in around two years. Zhao et al. (2010) developed a
study of the situation in Chongqing in China to assess the economic
viability of the implementation of fixed recycling CDW plant facil-
ities and mobile recycling stations and compared it with recycling
centers (mobile stations) in the Netherlands to find out successful
factors for recycling centers. This study has concluded that fixed
and mobile recycling centers with used equipment have higher
economy viability than centers with new equipment and that is
due to their ability to achieve a higher profit margin in contrast to
the second case. Also, the revenue increases owing to the location
advantage (e.g. mobile stations) and the recycling cost decreases
with the economy of scale (e.g. fixed centers). This study has also
suggested the use of economic and political instruments to face the
investment risks.
Regarding the environmental concerns from recycling plants,
several studies have been conducted to evaluate the environmen-
tal impacts from CDW recycling plants. Coelho and de Brito (2013b)
conducted a study using life cycle assessment of CDW recycling
plant with a capacity of 350 ton/h and 60-year operating lifespan.
This study has focused on the evaluation of two impacts of recycling
plant, namely the primary energy consumption and CO2 eq emis-
sions. The main conclusion of this study is that recycled materials
always have significant environmental benefits where the avoided
impacts of CO2 eq emissions are always higher than the gener-
ated impacts and energy savings exceed the energy consumed
during the operating lifespan. F.I.R. (2005) pointed out for sev-
eral studies conducted to assess the environmental impacts from
recycling building materials using life cycle assessment approach
from extraction to recovery or disposal of landfills. The first study
is presented for assessing the greenhouse gases generated from
primary and recycled aggregate. The study has concluded that the
recycled aggregate was more environmentally useful than most
of primary aggregate. The second study is presented for evalu-
ating environmental impacts of production of 1 ton of concrete
through comparing two different scenarios, which are landfill-
ing and recycling. According to this study, the second scenario
(recycling) is more environmentally friendly.
In order to overcome the above-listed growing problems caused
by CDW disposal, it is important to consider a recycling solu-
tion. Recycling allows utilizing wastes as raw materials in some
other ways. This paper proposes the use of system dynamics
methodology to compare between two alternatives of CDW man-
agement techniques; recycling and landfill disposal. This model
is capable of: (1) measuring the total emissions from the CDW
landfilling and associated costs incurred to mitigate the impacts
from these emissions; (2) predicting the total damage costs of dis-
posed waste and from uncollected wastes; and (3) quantifying the
total avoided emissions and the energy saved by waste recycling.
The novelty of this research lies in adopting a system dynamics
approach for all basic variables underlying the evaluation of the
two alternatives during the lifetime of landfills. It outperforms pre-
vious studies which focus on assessing the two alternatives without
taking into account the dynamic nature and relationships between
variables.
Plenty of studies have been carried out to model CDW manage-
ment using system dynamics, but they did not take into account the
dynamic nature of the CDW disposal and interactions among major
variables affecting on evaluation of economic and environmental
effects of the CDW disposal as two important aspects of sustaina-
bility. This research is an attempt to provide the stakeholders of
Egyptian construction sector with an empirical study that consid-
ers all variables that influence the CDW. Also, this study helps in
mitigating the risks associated with CDW disposal and illustrates
the benefits of recycling of construction wastes.
2. Theory and calculations
System dynamics is an approach for studying and managing
complex feedback systems and is specially created to deal with
large-scale and complex systems (Yuan et al., 2012). A system is
a group of interacting or interdependent entities forming an inte-
grated whole system dynamics modeling (Cheng, 2012). It was
originated by Professor Jay W. Forrester of the Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology during the mid-1950s (Forrester, 1987). It has
been widely used in different applications for understanding differ-
ent economic, social, business, agricultural, and ecological systems.
It deals with internal feedback loops and time delay that affect the
behavior of the entire system. It has the ability to understand the
relation between the behavior of system over time and its underly-
ing structure and decision rule. Simulation helps explore “what-if”
scenarios and policy tests in something that is like a laboratory set-
ting, which causes confidence in particular strategies and policies to
increase (Richardson and Otto, 2008). As a result, “system dynam-
ics is often used as a methodology for improving the soundness
and effectiveness of the decision-making process. It has become a
popular technique for modeling construction project management”
(Hao et al., 2007).
3. System dynamics applications in CDW
A big number of research works have utilized system dynam-
ics modeling in waste management. Wager and Hilty (2002) have
developed system dynamics model for waste management to sup-
port the assessment of the flow of materials, energy and costs
of regional waste management with regard to their ecological
and economic impacts. Chaerul et al. (2008) studied hospital
waste management using system dynamics approach to capture
its dynamic nature. The behavior of the waste management sys-
tem depends on several factors including the changing nature of
various systemic factors and the feedback generated by a dynamic
and continuous interaction. Sliwa (1994) conducted a study on
municipal solid waste management in Pueblo using the system
dynamics approach. The study has tried to bridge the gap between
traditional approaches so as to solve the public administration
problems. Lang et al. (2002) developed a systematic methodology
for natural and human resources optimization for waste manage-
ment to achieve sustainable development using system dynamics
modeling.
Several studies have been published for CDW management
(Yuan, 2012; Hao et al., 2007; Rong, 2004; Hsiao et al., 2002;
Zhao et al., 2011; Yuan et al., 2011). Yuan (2012) carried out a
quantitative study to evaluate the social performance on construc-
tion waste management using system dynamics. Many indicators
have been used to assess the social impacts of CDW. Hao et al.
 M. Marzouk, S. Azab / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 41–49 43

4.1. Problem identification

1) Problem
Identification To simulate the long-term impacts of CDW recycling and land-
filling on the aspects of cost and environment, all essential variables
that affect the system are considered. The variables rates used in the
5) Policy 2) Dynamic
Formulation
model have been collected from various published literature and
Hypothesis
through surveying the Egyptian market. The time horizon should
be long enough to show the impact of CDW recycling and disposal
and describe its symptoms. Therefore, it should extend far back in
history. Also, it should extend far enough into the future to capture
4) Model the delayed and indirect effect of potential policies (Sterman 2000).
Validation 3) Model formulation
Rong (2004) recommended the service life of the waste treat-
ment/disposal facility that is usually 20–30 years. Therefore, the
time horizon in the proposed system dynamics model is selected
Fig. 1. System dynamics model procedure for CDW.
to be 20 years (i.e., from 2004 to 2024).

(2007) conducted a study on managing construction and demo-

4.2. Dynamic hypothesis
lition waste. The study showed that system dynamics is able to
interrelate the sub-systems and provide better understanding of
Evaluating economic and environmental impacts of CDW man-
the dynamic interactions and interdependencies of the key areas of
agement alternatives on the long-run requires examining the major
the CDW management process. Rong (2004) used system dynam-
variables effect on the assessment. This is done by using a tool
ics approach and analytical hierarchy processing an effort to model
that is capable of visualizing relationships of variables and feed-
sustainable waste management techniques. Hsiao et al. (2002) con-
back effects of the system. The structure of the system dynamics
ducted a study on simulating materials flow of concrete waste
model is portrayed by a causal loop diagram, which is formulated
from construction and demolition wastes. Also, Zhao et al. (2011)
by VENSIM software as shown in Fig. 2. The developed causal loop
developed a study using system dynamics computer model to eval-
diagram comprises eight loops (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, and R8)
uate alternatives in CDW recycling centers under different policy
in total; all loops are reinforcing (positive loops). The interactions
and economic environments. Yuan et al. (2011) developed system
among different loops decide the system’s final behavior.
dynamics model for analyzing the cost-benefit for CDW manage-
Feedback loop R1 shows the relationship between CDW
ment. An economic instrument is developed as an effective tool
recycling and energy consumption saving where CDW recycling
for encouraging or forcing contractors to conduct environmentally
leads to an increase in energy consumption savings. On the other
friendly construction practices. Previous studies did not take into
hand, when savings in energy consumption from recycling increase,
account the need for assessment of economic and environmental
it leads to conduct more recycling. This relationship, as a natural
effects of CDW disposal as two important aspects of sustainability.
result of the recycling process, reduces the need for the upstream
Also, they did not model the different pollutant emissions resulting
phase. When using recycled materials, this replaces part of the
from disposal in landfills throughout their lifetime from a dynamic
inputs that would be produced from raw material, skipping some
point of view.
stages of the production chain or replaces some stages which lead
To simulate a system dynamics model, computer support is
to less energy-consumption (Pimenteira et al., 2004).
needed. There are several existing computer packages such as
Feedback loop R2 shows that the recycling process helps in
DYNAMO, IThink/STELLA, Matlab, Powersim and Vensim. STELLA
reducing emissions polluting the air ambient (e.g. NOX, SO2, PM,
is one of the most popular system dynamics software packages
and CO emissions) which leads to better human health. As a result,
which are an effective simulation tool for system dynamics mod-
all emissions polluting the air will be reduced when more recycling
eling released by High Performance Systems Inc. (HPS, 1997). This
takes place instead of landfilling, where the total reductions in
software was selected for supporting the analysis in this study.
emissions is equal to the avoided emissions from landfilling plus
The basic building blocks of STELLA are stock; flow; converter;
the avoided emissions from reducing the need for the upstream
and connector. A stock variable (represented by rectangles) is a
phase. Energy savings are often the driving force behind emissions
noun and represents something that accumulates. A flow (repre-
savings (Choate et al., 2005). Consequently, the amount of recycled
sented by valves) is an activity that changes the magnitude of a
waste will be increased due to the total reduction in pollutants
stock by filling and draining. The converter (represented by circle)
emissions.
can be used to modify an activity for its ability to define external
By referring to feedback loop R3, it can be observed that the
inputs to the model. The connector (represented by simple arrow)
amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions is reduced by
is able to connect model elements (Shiflet and Shiflet, 2006; Zhao
increasing recycling. This in turn leads to reducing the chance of
et al., 2011).
causing global warming potential. Consequently, the amount of
recycled waste will be increased due to the reduction in the GWP
4. Development of system dynamics model phenomenon. The causal loop relationships in loop 4 are the same
as in loop R2; the only difference is the effect of GHGs emissions
The objective of this research is to provide a dynamic model instead of emissions polluting the air. Some of the causal loop rela-
by conducting an empirical study using system dynamics method- tionships in loop R5 are the same as in loop R4; the difference
ology to capture the dynamic nature of two alternatives for CDW is that the total reduction in emissions from landfills leads to an
management which are waste recycling and disposal. The proposed increase in the total saved damage cost through mitigating the
model is able to simulate the long-term behavior of each alterna- effect of these emissions on environment, air ambient, as well as
tive in two main aspects of cost and environmental impacts. To they eliminate the negative effect on human health. This has posi-
achieve this objective, a simulation model is developed by follow- tive effects on economic gains. Consequently, if economic gains are
ing the procedure shown in Fig. 1. The description of the proposed high, then, contractors are keen to have incentives of having more
procedure is detailed in below sub-sections. recycling (Yuan et al., 2011). Economic instrument is perceived as
44 M. Marzouk, S. Azab / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 41–49

Waste Generation Collection Private Costs Of

Percentage of
Per Capita Rate Unit Landfills
C&D Waste that
Not Collected +
+
Extra Funds for
- New Landfills
+ Occupation Of
Waste Existing landfill
Landfill Space
Collection + capacity
Total Damage Costs
+ + + From Emissions of
+ C&D Waste Emissions polluting Landfills
Uncollected waste + +
Generation Waste Disposal + the air + +
+
+
-
Total Cost from
Population -
Unit landfill Energy + disposal &
Census Charge consumption saving + Damage Costs Of uncollected waste
Emissions
+ + Greenhouse gas
- + R7 +
- emissions
-Total Reductions in
+ R4
+ Emissions By Recycling
Recycling Ratio R1
Unit Environmental Global warming Unit Damage
cost due to R3 R2 Cost Of Air
+ + - R8
uncollected waste Population R6 + Emissions
Growth Rate Waste Recycling
Total damage cost
+ + Avoided By Recycling
R5 +
+ Damage Costs from
ECONOMIC
GHG Emissions
GAINS -
+
+ Unit Damage
+ Environmental Cost due Cost of GHG
to Uncollected Waste Emissions.

Fig. 2. Causal loop structure of the proposed model.

an effective tool for encouraging or forcing contractors to adopt
environmentally friendly construction practices.
Some of the causal loop relationships in loop 6 are the same as
in loop R5; the only difference is the effect of emissions polluting
the air, not the effect of GHGs emissions. In feedback loop R7; it can
be observed that conducting more recycling for CWD leads to the
reduction of the emissions polluting the air. The total damage costs
from emissions of landfills are consequently reduced since CDW in
landfill is less. Also, the total costs from disposal and uncollected
waste are reduced. As a result, the economic gains will be increased
by conducting more recycling and high economic gains will lead to
further recycling. Feedback loop R8 is the same loop R7 except that
the effect of emissions polluting the air is replaced by the effect of
GHGs emissions.
4.3. Model formulation
Based on the causal loop diagram, all the key variables that
affect the choice of CDW management techniques alternatives are
identified. The conceptual causal loop diagram is converted to a
quantitative model to facilitate the running of the model. To this
end, the causal loop diagram is converted into a stock-flow diagram
using STELLA software. Fig. 3 depicts stock-flow diagram of the
model. Detailed descriptions of the model variables are included
in Appendix 1.
4.4. Model validation
Building confidence in the model is achieved through conduct-
ing some tests after identifying and defining all variables and
functions (Sterman 2000). This ensures the accuracy of the model
for reflecting the real-world in a meaningful way (Richardson and
Pugh, 1981). Qudrat-Ullah and Seong (2010) listed five tests that
are used for structural validation of a system dynamics model. The
validation tests are conducted in the developed model as described
below.
4.4.1. Boundary-adequacy test
This test is concerned with whether the level of detailed vari-
ables contained in the model is appropriate to the research purpose
or not. Meanwhile, it assures that the model includes all rele-
vant structure relationships and parameters by examining all the
variables that have been embodied in stock-flow diagram. After
examining all variables in the system dynamics model, it was found
that each of these variables is fundamental for research purpose
so as to evaluate the environmental and economic performances
associated with the disposal and recycle of CDW.
4.4.2. Structure verification test
The purpose of this test is to check whether the model struc-
ture is consistent with relevant descriptive knowledge of the
system being modeled. The structural verification is important
in the overall validation process (Qudrat-Ullah and Seong, 2010).
The information included in the structure and all cause-and-effect
chains of the causal loop diagram (shown in Fig. 2) is based on var-
ious literatures in this domain. As such, the structure of that model
is logical and closely represent the real life system.
4.4.3. Dimension consistency test
This test ensures the consistency of variable dimensions of each
mathematical equation in the model. STELLA software has the pos-
sibility of dimension checking after defining the measurement units
of all the variables. Consequently, the model has been validated
for dimensional consistency. The variable “AAPMERE” (shown in
Fig. 4), for instance, is defined using Eq. (1):
AAPMERE (t) = AAPMERE (t − dt) + (APMERE) ∗ dt (1)
This equation is used to calculate the total avoided PM Emis-
sions through construction and demolition waste recycling. It is
 M. Marzouk, S. Azab / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 41–49 45

Fig. 3. A stock-flow diagram for assessing the economic and environmental impacts of CDW.

Equ AAPMERE (t) = AAPMERE (t - dt) + (APMERE) * dt

Dim Ton = Ton + Ton* Ton/Ton

Fig. 4. Dimension consistency test on one of the model variables.

Table 1
Population growth rate in Egypt 2000–2025 (Awad and Zohary, 2005).

Period 2000–2005 2005–2010 2010–2015 2015–2020 2020–2025

Population growth rate (%) 1.91 1.83 1.67 1.46 1.28

worth noting that the variable dimensions on the left-hand side are
consistent with the variables dimensions on the right-hand side.
4.4.4. Parameter verification test
The purpose of this test is to check whether the parameters in
the model correspond conceptually and numerically to real life. The
parameter values of the proposed model are taken from real cases
conducted in literature. For illustration, Tables 1 and 2 include some
of the parameters, their values and the source.
contractors’ incentive increases to conduct more CDW recycling
which increases REW compared to the initial value of ULC (see
Fig. 5a). In case of low unit landfill charge (L.E.6.11), most wastes
are disposed either legally or illegally. This result reflects the natu-
ral attitude of contractors, where costs represent high priority with
the absence of incentives for recycling and/or contract clauses that
force contractors to recycle CDW.
Table 2
Model variables and their respective values.

4.4.5. Extreme conditions test Model variables Values Source

This test examines the behavior of the model by assigning NOX emissions from recycling 1 ton from CDW −2 ton Levis
extreme values for the model variables. Extreme values for specific GWP (CO2 eq) emissions from recycling 1 ton −600 Ibs (2008)
variables are compared with the reference behavior of the princi- from CDW
pled model. To clarify the purpose of the test, the variable ULC (Unit Energy used for recycling 1 ton from CDW −9000 kBtu
GWP emissions from processing 1 ton of CDW 200 Ibs
Landfilling Charge) is taken as an example for the test. The impact in a Landfill
of ULC on REW (the quantity of recycled from CDW) over time is Energy used for Processing 1 ton of CDW in a 600 kBtu
examined by changing the value of ULC from L.E. 6.11 ($0.88) to L.E. landfill
58 ($8.32) and monitoring how the value of REW influences model Unit land losses from landfills space by CDW 0.6 M3 /ton F.I.R. (2005)
landfilling
behavior. The findings show that in case of higher landfill charge,
46 M. Marzouk, S. Azab / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 41–49

4.50E+07 5.00E+07
Unit Landfilling Charge (ULC)=6.11 Recycled CDW (REW)
4.00E+07 4.50E+07
Disposed CDW in Landfill (DWLF)
3.50E+07 Unit Landfilling Charge (ULC)=58 4.00E+07
Uncollected CDW (UCOW)
3.00E+07 3.50E+07

Tons
3.00E+07
2.50E+07
2.50E+07
Tons

2.00E+07
2.00E+07
1.50E+07
1.50E+07
1.00E+07 1.00E+07
5.00E+06 5.00E+06
0.00E+00 0.00E+00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-5.00E+06
Years Years
a) Unit landfilling charge impact on the quantity of recycled from CDW b) Quantities of recycled, landfilled and uncollected CDW over simulation time

4.50E+07 2.00E+12
Released GHGs Emissions from Landfills for the same
4.00E+07 quanty of waste recycled (RGHGELF) 1.80E+12 Saved Energy from Avoiding Landfilling (SEALF)

Kilo Brish Thermal Units (KBTU)

Overall Avoided GHGs Emissions by CDW Recycling 1.60E+12 Overall Saved Energy by Recycling (OSERE)
3.50E+07 (OAGHGER)
1.40E+12
3.00E+07
Tons CO2eq

1.20E+12
2.50E+07
1.00E+12
2.00E+07 8.00E+11
1.50E+07 6.00E+11
1.00E+07 4.00E+11

5.00E+06 2.00E+11
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Years
Years
c) Effect of recycling and landfills on global warming potential d) Amount of Consumed Energy and Saved Energy over simulation time

ed Waste (TCMDDUCOW) 1.20E+14

3.50E+12
Total Costs incurred to Migate the Damage from
Total Benefits of CDW Recycling (TBRE)
3.00E+12 Disposal and Uncollect 1.00E+14

2.50E+12
8.00E+13
2.00E+12
6.00E+13
L.E.
L.E.

1.50E+12
4.00E+13
1.00E+12

5.00E+11 2.00E+13

0.00E+00 0.00E+00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Years Years
e) Economic burden from waste disposal over simulation time f) Economic benefits of waste recycling

Fig. 5. System dynamics model outputs.

5. Results and discussion ton and this represents the largest amount of waste, which leads to
diminishing landfill space rapidly and causes ambient air pollution
After conducting the validation tests, the model is simulated that is so dangerous to human health. The amount of uncol-
over a total period of 20 years, which corresponds to the total lected wastes (UCOW) is 35.2 million ton over a simulation time
life time of CDW landfills. In case of enforcement methodology which is much greater than the amount of recycled wastes. This is
to benefit from construction and demolition waste by recycling attributed to the absence of enforcing strict laws and regulations
instead of disposal (without implementing government policies), that prevent illegal dumping for the preservation the environ-
the proportion of recycled materials is influenced by contractors’ ment.
perceptions where cost has higher priority than environment. Thus, Fig. 5c depicts the comparison between the simulation of the
the percentage of recycled material is influenced by the unit landfill effect of GHGs emissions released from landfills and the impact of
charge. Fig. 5b depicts the projection of the amount of CDW that is: the recycling process on global warming potential (GWP). The fig-
(1) disposed in landfills; (2) uncollected; and (3) recycled. It should ure shows the effect of disposed waste on GWP through the amount
be noted that the amount of waste recycled (REW) in the first of GHGs emissions (CO2 eq) released from landfills (RGHGELF)
year is only 20% of the total collected waste that is approximately and the effect of the recycling process by estimating the over-
32 thousand ton and over the simulated time (20 years). A total all avoided GHGs emissions by CDW Recycling (OAGHGER) that
of 12.3 million ton of materials will be recycled from a huge is equal to the total avoided emissions from landfilling and the
amount of CDW that is generated annually (4.5 million tons/year). avoided emissions from eliminating the need for the upstream
This quantity is considered very little compared to the quantities phase. It should be noted that GHGs emissions (CO2 eq) released
dumped in landfills annually and uncollected wastes. The total from landfills increases significantly during its operations and even
disposed waste in landfills (DWLF) over a lifetime is 49.2 million after closure. This leads to an increase in GWP which increases
 M. Marzouk, S. Azab / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 41–49
emissions in the atmosphere from 228.52 ton in the first run on
simulation to 10.45 million ton over 20 years. In contrast, in waste
recycling processes, the concentration of GHGs emissions gradually
decreases (avoided emissions increase) over time and this leads
to a reduction in the chance of global warming from 914 ton in
first year of simulation to 41.8 million ton at the end of simulation
(2024).
Fig. 5d shows the effect of disposed waste in landfills and
recycling process in energy consumption. The relationship between
SEALF (Saved Energy from Avoiding LandFills) and the lifetime of
landfills is depicted in the figure. It shows that the energy con-
sumption by landfilling for the same recycled quantity ranges from
1.37 million KBTU (Kilo British Thermal Units) to 62.69 billion KBTU
at the end of the simulation run. These huge losses from energy
consumption can be maintained by conducting a recycling process
on CDW. The results from simulation indicate that by conducting
recycling on the same quantity, OSERE (Overall Saved Energy due
to Recycling) ranges from 21.94 million KBTU to 1003 billion KBTU.
It is a fact that recycling reduces the need for the upstream phase.
Also, when materials are recycled, this replaces part of the inputs
that would be produced from raw material, skipping some stages
of the production chain or replacing some stages which lead to less
energy-consumption.
Fig. 5e depicts the impact of not handling the CDW in an
appropriate manner on the economy. A large amount of money
will be incurred by the government to: (1) eliminate the damage
that results from landfills emissions whether in air ambient or on
human health; (2) reduce the dangers of wastes that are not col-
lected for the surrounding environment and human health; and
(3) construct new landfills or dumpsites to accommodate extra
quantities of CDW. The unit cost to construct a small landfills
is approximately 1154 L.E./m3 (165.58 $/m3 ) and this accommo-
dates less than 10,000 ton/year. A medium landfill costs 692 L.E./m3
(99.29 $/m3 ) and this accommodates from 10,000 to 100,000 ton
per year. As for a large landfill, it costs 462 L.E./m3 (66.29 $/m3 )
and accommodates more than 100,000 ton/year (BDA Group, 2009).
The result of having limited data relevant to the total landfills
capacity in Egypt is that the case considers the total occupied
capacity from Landfills to the end of 2024 is equal to the cur-
rent capacity of landfills. The total cost incurred from the state
to mitigate the damage resulting from disposal and uncollected
waste (TCMDDUCOW) increases significantly each year from L.E.
79.6 million ($11.42 million) to L.E. 3322.3 billion ($476.69 billion)
at the end of the simulation run (i.e., considering a time span of
20 years).
Fig. 5f displays the effect of activating recycling on the state’s
economics by estimating TBRE (total benefits of CDW recycling).
Recycling twenty percent from the total waste generated annually
would reduce costs (which are paid to reduce the impact of total
emissions under study due to landfilling) of L.E. 2.4 billion ($344.36
million) which will be L.E. 112,636.8 billion ($16,161.35 billion) 20
years later.
The last step in the procedure of the simulation model devel-
opment is policy formation after conducting the first four steps
described earlier (problem identification, dynamic hypothesis,
model formulation, and model validation). Some recommendations
47
should be considered to encourage recycling of CDW in Egypt. These
recommendations are:
• The establishment of recycling centers for construction and
demolition wastes.
• Developing incentive programs to encourage contractors to recy-
cle their wastes.
• Activating strict regulations and laws to prevent illegal dumping.
• Forcing contractors to conduct a comprehensive system for man-
aging waste in any construction/demolition project under the
supervision of the authorities and impose fines in case of not
complying with the system.
6. Conclusions
Construction and demolition wastes represent a considerable
amount that influences sustainable development aspects with
respect to environmental, economic, and social concerns. This
paper has presented some developments in a system dynamics
model to evaluate the economic and environmental impacts, tak-
ing into account two alternatives: recycled wastes and disposed
wastes. This research is an empirical study that uses a system
dynamics methodology of the CDW management sector by devel-
oping a dynamic model capable of studying the behavior of landfill
process on both the short and long run and its impacts on the envi-
ronment and economy. It helps the involved CDW management to
examine the interaction among variables affecting of the impacts of
landfill and recycling process as an alternative for disposal waste
on two major aspects of sustainability, namely the environment
and economy. These assessments take into account the different
pollutant emissions resulting from disposal in landfills throughout
their lifetime, emissions avoided by recycling, and the impact of
uncollected waste. The major variables affecting the environmen-
tal and economic assessment are identified and the relationships
among these variables are described through a causal loop diagram.
The interaction among variables is examined through STELLA soft-
ware. The results from simulation show that waste disposal is not
a viable solution to manage CDW. Therefore, regulations should be
activated to promote recycling as an alternative for the disposal of
CDW. If recycling is conducted on the same quantity of the disposed
material in landfills would offer more benefits for environmental
and economic aspects.
As for the case of Egypt, it would be a substitution for primary
raw materials which are estimated to be 12.3 million ton by 2024.
This leads to the preservation of natural resources and limited
landfills space. Also, recycling would reduce the costs required to
mitigate air pollution for L.E. 112,636.8 billion ($16,161.35 billion)
over 20 years of simulation time. The simulation results also proved
the advantages of recycling technique: (a) it conserves the energy
needed for disposing wastes and the upstream; (b) it conserves
landfills space; (c) it reduces emissions of GHGs; and (d) it reduces
the costs incurred to mitigate air pollution. The research proves
that the cost incurred to reduce the dangers to the environment
and human health due to uncollected waste and waste landfilling is
extremely high. Therefore, recycling of CDW ensures a sustainable
environment and economy.
48 M. Marzouk, S. Azab / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 41–49

Appendix 1.

Model variables description

No. Abbreviation Variable name Unit

1 AACOERE Accumulated Avoided CO Emission by Recycling Ton

2 AAGHGERE Accumulated Avoided GHGs Emissions by C&D WASTE Recycling Ton
3 AANOXEWRE Accumulated Avoided NOX Emission from C&D Waste Recycling Ton
4 AAPMERE Accumulated Avoided PM Emissions by Recycling Ton
5 AASO2ERE Accumulated Avoided SO2 Emission by Recycling Ton
6 ACOERRE Avoided CO Emissions Rate by CDW Recycling Ton/ton
7 ACOERE Avoided CO Emissions by CDW Recycling Ton/year
8 AECLF Accumulated Energy Consumption by Landfilling KBTU
9 AGHGEPLF Accumulated Produced GHGs (CO2 eq) Emissions by landfilling Ton
10 AGHGERE Avoided GHGs Emissions from CDW Recycling Ton/year
11 ANOXEWRE Avoided NOX Emissions by CDW Recycling Ton/year
12 ANOXERRE Avoided NOX Emissions Rate by CDW Recycling Ton/ton
13 APMERE Avoided PM Emissions by CDW Recycling Ton/year
14 APMERRE Avoided PM Emissions Rate by CDW Recycling Ton/ton
15 ASERE Accumulated Saved Energy from CDW Recycling KBTU
16 ASO2ERRE Avoided SO2 Emissions Rate by CDW Recycling Ton/ton
17 ASO2ERE Avoided SO2 Emissions by CDW Recycling Ton/year
18 CLF Capacity of Landfills M3
19 COERAD CO Emissions Reducing from Avoided Disposal Ton/year
20 COW Collected CDW Ton
21 COELF CO Emissions by landfilling Ton/year
22 COERLF Co Emissions Rate from Landfills Ton/ton
23 DWLF Disposed CDW in Landfills Ton
24 ECUCOW Environmental Cost due to Uncollected Waste L.E.
25 EFCNLF Extra Funds for the Construction of New Landfills to accommodate excess CDW L.E.
26 IERLF Increased Energy Rate from Landfilling KBTU/ton
27 ELCNLF Economic Losses from Construction New landfills L.E.
28 ESADLF Energy Saving from Avoiding Disposal CDW in landfills KBTU/year
29 ESRE Energy Saving of CDW Recycling KBTU/year
30 ESRRE Energy Saving Rate by CDW Recycling KBTU/ton
31 GHGSER GHGs Saved Emissions Rate Ton/ton
32 GW Generated Waste Ton
33 GWP Global Warming Potential Ton
34 GHGERAD GHGs Emissions Reducing from Avoiding Disposal Ton/year
35 GHGELF GHGs Emissions from Landfilling Ton/year
36 GHGEIR GHGs Emissions Increasing Rate Ton/ton
37 IECEY Increasing Energy Consumption Each Year from Landfills KBTU/year
38 IRUPCLF Increasing Rate of Unit private Cost of Landfills %
39 IUPCLF Increasing Unit Private Cost of Landfills L.E./year
40 LLWLF Land losses from waste landfilled M3 /year
41 NOXELF NOX Emissions by landfilling Ton/year
42 NOXERLF NOX Emissions Rate from landfills Ton/ton
43 NOXERAD NOX Emissions Reducing from Avoided Disposal Ton/year
44 OACOER Overall Avoided CO Emissions by CDW Recycling Ton
45 OAGHGER Overall Avoided GHGs Emissions by CDW Recycling Ton
46 OANOXERE Overall Avoided NOX Emissions by CDW Recycling Ton
47 OAPMER Overall Avoided PM Emissions by CDW Recycling Ton
48 OASO2ERE Overall Avoided SO2 Emissions by CDW Recycling Ton
49 OSERE Overall Saved Energy by CDW Recycling KBTU
50 PCE Population Census in Egypt (2004) Capita
51 PGR Population Growth Rate /year
52 PG Population Growth Capita/year
53 PMELF PM Emissions from landfilling Ton/year
54 PMERLF PM Emissions Rate from Landfills Ton/ton
55 PMERAD PM Emissions Reducing from Avoided Disposal Ton/year
56 PWNC Percentage of CDW that Not Collected /year
57 PWRE Percentage of CDW Recycling %
58 PWDL Percentage of CDW disposed in Landfills %
59 RCOELF Released CO Emissions from Landfills for the same quantity of waste recycled Ton
60 REW Recycled CDW Ton
61 RGHGELF Released GHGs Emissions from Landfills for the same quantity of waste recycled Ton
62 RNOXELF Released NOX Emissions from Landfills for the same quantity of waste recycled Ton
63 RPMELF Released PM Emissions from Landfills for the same quantity of waste recycled Ton
64 RSO2ELF Released SO2 Emissions from Landfills for the same quantity of waste recycled Ton
65 SEALF Saved Energy from Avoiding Landfilling Ton
66 SO2ELF SO2 Emissions from Landfilling Ton/year
67 SO2RLF SO2 Emissions Rate from Landfills Ton/ton
68 SO2ERAD SO2 Emissions Reduced from Avoiding Disposal Ton
69 TBRE Total Benefits of CDW Recycling L.E.
70 TCMDDUCOW Total Costs Incurred to Mitigate the Damage from Waste Disposal and Uncollected Waste L.E.
71 TRCOELF Total Released CO Emissions from landfills Ton
72 TDCLFE Total Damage costs from Landfills’ Emissions L.E.
73 TDCGHGE Total Damage cost of GHGs (CO2 eq) Emissions L.E.
 M. Marzouk, S. Azab / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 41–49 49

No. Abbreviation Variable name Unit

74 TDCCOE Total Damage Cost of CO Emissions L.E.

75 TDCPM E Total Damage Cost of PM Emissions L.E.
76 TDCNOXE Total Damage Cost of NOX Emissions L.E.
77 TDCSO2E Total Damage Cost of SO2 Emissions L.E.
78 TRNOXELF Total Released NOX Emissions from landfills Ton
79 TOCWLF Total Occupied Capacity from C&D waste Landfills M3
80 TRPMELF Total Released PM Emissions from Landfills Ton
81 TRSO2ELF Total Released SO2 Emissions from Landfills Ton
82 UCOW Uncollected CDW Ton
83 UDCNOXE Unit Damage Cost of NOX Emissions L.E/ton
84 UDCSO2E Unit Damage Cost of SO2 Emissions L.E./ton
85 UDCCOE Unit Damage Cost of CO Emissions L.E./ton
86 UDCGHGE Unit Damage cost of GHGs Emissions L.E./ton
87 UECUCOW Unit Environmental Cost due to Uncollected CDW L.E./ton
88 ULC Unit Landfilling Charge L.E./ton
89 ULLF Unit Land losses from landfills M3 /ton
90 UPCLF Unit Private Costs of Landfills L.E./M3
91 WCOR Rate of CDW Collecting Ton/year
92 WCO CDW Collecting Ton/year
93 WCOR Rate of CDW Collecting /year
94 WGPC Waste Generation per capita Ton/capita/year
95 WG Waste Generating Ton/year
96 WNC CDW that is Not Collected Ton/year
97 WRE CDW Recycling Ton/year
98 WTLF CDW Transported to Landfills Ton/year
a
KBTU is one thousand of British thermal units.

References Liyin S, Hong Y, Griffith A. Improving environmental performance by means of

American lung Association of California. Air Quality and Health Impacts of Green-
house Gas Emissions and Global Warming [Internet]; 2004 June [cited 2012
September 1[, Available from: http://www.californialung.org
Awad A, Zohary A. The end of Egypt population growth in the 21st century: chal-
lenges and aspirations. In: The 35th annual conference on population and
development issues current situation & aspirations; 20–22 December; 2005.
p. 3.
BDA Group Economics and Environment. The full cost of landfill disposal in Australia.
Australia: Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts; 2009
July. p. 1–78.
Chaerul M, Tanaka M, Shekdar AV. A system dynamics approach for hospital waste
management. Waste Management 2008;28(2):442–9.
Cheng Y. Thoughts on reconstruction of financial control system in Chinese listed
companies in perspective of systems theory. International Journal of Business
Administration: Sciedu Press 2012;3(4):67–71.
Choate A, Pederson L, Scharfenberg J, Ferland H. Waste management and energy
savings: benefits by the numbers [Internet]. Washington, DC: U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency; 2005 September 4 [cited 2012 August 30], Avail-
able from: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/Energy
%20Savings.pdf
Coelho A, de Brito J. Economic viability analysis of a construction and demolition
waste recycling plant in Portugal – Part I: location, materials, technology and
economic analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 2013a;39:338–52.
Coelho A, de Brito J. Environmental analysis of a construction and demolition waste
recycling plant in Portugal – Part II: environmental sensitivity analysis. Waste
Management 2013b;33:147–61.
F.I.R. Information document on the effects of C&DW recycling. Europe: DGEnviron-
ment; 2005.
Forrester JW. Lessons from System Dynamics Modeling. System Dynamics Review
1987;3(2):136–49.
Hao JL, Hills MJ, Huang T. A simulation model using system dynamic method for
construction and demolition waste management in Hong Kong. Construction
Innovation: Information, Process, Management 2007;7(1):7–21.
HPS (High Performance Systems, Inc. ). Ithink Technical Documentation. High Per-
formance Systems, Inc; 1997.
Hsiao TY, Huang YT, Yu YH, Wernick IK. Modeling materials flow of waste con-
crete from construction and demolition wastes in Taiwan. Resources Policy
2002;28(1/2):39–47.
Lang DJ, Binder C, Stäubli B, Schleiss K, Scholz RW. A systemic approach to optimise
waste management using system dynamics as an analytical tool – the case of
bio-waste. In: European Conference: The future of waste management; 2002.
Levis J. A Life-Cycle Analysis of Alternatives for the Management of Waste Hot-
Mix Asphalt, Commercial Food Waste, and Construction and Demolition Waste.
Master thesis. Raleigh, North Carolina, US: North Carolina State University; 2008.
empowerment of contractors. Management of Environmental Quality: An Inter-
national Journal 2006;17(3):242–57.
Pimenteira CAP, Pereira AS, Oliveira LB, Rosa LP, Reis MM, Henriques RM. Energy
conservation and CO2 emission reductions due to recycling in Brazil. Waste
Management 2004;24:889–97.
Qudrat-Ullah H, Seong BS. How to do structural validity of a system dynamics
type simulation model: the case of an energy policy model. Energy Policy
2010;38(5):2216–24.
Richardson GP, Otto P. Application of system dynamics in marketing: editorial. Jour-
nal of Business Research 2008;61(11):1099–101.
Richardson GP, Pugh AL. Introduction to system dynamics modeling with DYNAMO.
Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press; 1981.
Rong L. Using System Dynamics in Decision Support for Sustainable Waste
Management. Master thesis. Singapore: National University of Singapore;
2004.
Roussat N, Dujet C, Méhu J. Choosing a sustainable demolition waste man-
agement strategy using multicriteria decision analysis. Waste Management
2009;29(1):12–20.
Shiflet AB, Shiflet GW. System Dynamics Tool: STELLA Version 9 Tutorial 1, Intro-
duction to computational science: modeling and simulation for the sciences.
Princeton University Press; 2006. p. 1–20.
Sliwa k. Solid Waste Management in Puebla. A system Dynamic Approach. In:
International System Dynamic Conference. Social and Public Policy; 1994.
p. 117–25.
Sterman JD. Business dynamics system thinking and modeling for a complex world,
vol. 3. London: McGraw-Hill; 2000. p. 83–133.
Wager P, Hilty LM. A simulation system for waste management – from system
dynamics modeling to decision support. In: Rizzoli AE, Jakeman AJ, editors.
Proc. iEMSs 2002, integrated assessment and decision support, Lugano; 2002. p.
174–9.
Yuan H. A model for evaluating the social performance of construction waste man-
agement. Waste Management 2012;32(3):1218–28.
Yuan HP, Shen LY, Hao JL, Lu WS. A model for cost-benefit analysis of construc-
tion and demolition waste management throughout the waste chain. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 2011;55(6):604–12.
Yuan H, Chini AR, Lu Y, Shen L. A dynamic model for assessing the effect of manage-
ment strategies on the reduction of construction and demolition waste. Waste
Management 2012;32(3):521–31.
Zhao W, Leeftink RB, Rotter VS. Evaluation of the economic feasibility for the
recycling of construction and demolition waste in China – the case of Chongqing.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2010;54(6):377–89.
Zhao W, Ren H, Rotter VS. A system dynamics model for evaluating the alter-
native of type in construction and demolition waste recycling center – the
case of Chongqing: China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2011;55(11):
933–44.