Sustainable Cities and Society 23 (2016) 7893

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society

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

Estimating the sustainability returns of recycling construction waste

from building projects
Mohamed Ibrahim Mohamed Ibrahim a,b,
a
b

Department of Architecture, University of MassachusettsAmherst, Fine Arts Center, Presidents Drive, Amherst, MA 01003, USA
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Menouya University, Gamal Abd-Elnaser St., Shibin El-Kom, Menouya, Egypt

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 13 November 2015
Received in revised form 6 March 2016
Accepted 8 March 2016
Available online 11 March 2016
Keywords:
Sustainable building
Construction waste management
Recycling returns

a b s t r a c t
The focus of this study is incorporating construction sectors within the concept of sustainable building,
which essentially concerns resource management as well as waste management. It is evident that building
construction is one of the largest consuming activities of non-renewable resources and natural materials
worldwide. Simultaneously, enormous amounts of construction and demolition waste are generated as
construction works expand to meet the increasing demand. This is not only considered an economic loss,
but also an accelerating environmental threat. Therefore, it has become crucial for construction waste
management to evolve away from the long practiced traditional methodology, which has been proven
economically and ecologically inefcient, toward sustainable alternatives that prioritize waste recovery
over disposal. Within this context, this study addresses the management of construction waste by selecting case studies of actual construction projects and scrutinizing their waste management data. The study
took place at the University of MassachusettsAmherst, where all selected projects conform to the U.S.
Green Building Council standards. Thus, the study works on estimating the nancial and environmental
returns attained by recycling construction waste from such projects. By utilizing the results from the data
analysis, the study eventually sets a statistical paradigm with eld-based values for typical construction
projects to be followed as a guide, indicating how much cost can be saved, and how much landll volume
can be relieved when material waste is recycled. Thereby, the study serves to enhance the sustainable
management of construction waste by maximizing the returns of construction waste recovery.
2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Construction sectors are considered the greatest worldwide
consumers of resources, whether raw materials or energy, besides
being among the major producers of carbon-polluting emissions
(UNEP Division of Technology, Industry, and Economics, 2003). In
addition, construction and demolition waste accounts for a large
share in the total municipal waste of developed countries, while it
grows to constitute the largest share in most of developing ones.
Such waste is conventionally disposed of in landlls, which represents a major loss of resources. Furthermore, those conventional
methods of disposal ultimately result in the saturation of landll capacities, which increases the load on the environment and
arouses worries about further ecological threats and health hazards. This leads to the concept of recycling as a crucial element

Correspondence address: Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering,

Menouya University, Gamal Abd-Elnaser St., Shibin El-Kom, Menouya, Egypt.
E-mail address: mo ibrahim@hotmail.com
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.03.005
2210-6707/ 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

for establishing sustainable development in construction sectors.

Managing construction and demolition waste by recovery do not
only conserve landll space and reduce the environmental impacts
of manufacturing new materials, but it also reduces the overall
expenses of building projects through avoiding high purchase and
disposal costs (EPA, 2000).
In the United States, several institutions supported by local governments have acquired the experience and the methodology to
develop policies, sustainability guides and demonstration projects
for more sustainable management of construction and demolition
waste. Massachusetts has specically presented several leading
green building initiatives with particular regard to construction
waste management. The University of MassachusettsAmherst,
where this study was performed for post-doctoral research, is a
prominent state institution with a campus classied as Green.
Thus, the study addresses the sustainable management of construction waste by selecting actual construction projects on UMass
campus as case studies, and scrutinizing their waste management
data. All selected projects conform to the U.S. Green Building Council standards and were also granted LEED (Leadership in Energy

M.I.M. Ibrahim / Sustainable Cities and Society 23 (2016) 7893

and Environmental Design) awards for new buildings. Thereby, the

research utilizes these cases to set up a guiding model for similar
building projects in order to enhance the sustainable management
of construction waste by maximizing the returns of waste recovery.

79

imposes multiple economic and ecological threats. Thus, the concept of construction and demolition waste management has been
progressing toward sustainable alternatives that concern: Waste
Reduction, Waste Reuse, and Waste Recycling, leaving disposal as
the last option.

1.1. Objectives
2.2. Recovery options for resource efciency
This study works on estimating the prospective nancial and
environmental returns attained by recycling construction waste
from building projects. It aims to set a statistical paradigm with
eld-based values for typical construction projects to be followed
as a guide. Such a guide is meant to indicate how much cost can be
saved, and how much landll volume can be relieved when material
waste of construction projects is recycled. Furthermore, the utilization of these research ndings is expected to serve the following
broader goals:
Decreasing the loss of materials, thereby reducing the costs of
building construction, operation and maintenance due to the economic return of resource optimal use.
Reducing the negative effects of building activities on the environment by limiting the accumulation of waste, and maintaining
the base of resources.
Promoting the practice of sustainable development and activating its applications within construction sectors by emphasizing
its economic and ecological benets.
1.2. Methodology
The research plan is generally based on an inductive analytical
approach, while it applies quantitative research methods to process
the data from the studied cases through the following stages:
Literature review on sustainable management of construction
waste.
Rationale of the case study.
Statistical analysis of data.
Setting up a model for the estimation of recycling savings.
2. Backgroundsustainable management of construction
waste
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris is waste material
that is produced in the process of construction, renovation, or
demolition of structures. Components of construction and demolition waste typically include concrete, asphalt, wood, metals,
gypsum wallboard, and roong (EPA, 1998). This is in addition to
other structural materials as well as a variety of secondary materials such as those used for insulation or other types of installations.
However, material sorts and ratios vary considerably in the waste
streams of construction and demolition projects due to factors like
project type, location, structural system, and most of all, regional
material availability (The Center for Sustainable Systems, 2005a).

Among the elements of resource efciency (alongside material

manufacturing considerations) is the proactive process of preventing waste materials from entering air, land, or water. Within
this approach, waste can be reduced or eliminated at the source,
thereby avoiding the prospect of waste handling while reducing the demand on natural resources (The Center for Sustainable
Systems, 2005b). Having been already generated, waste can be processed for the purpose of recovery to preserve its value, which
makes waste recovery the best management method for construction and demolition waste. However, the efciency of construction
waste recycling is most directly affected by elements like existing
impediments, recycling feasibility, and expected benets which are
explained subsequently.
2.2.1. Recycling impediments
In some cases, recycling is not the chosen method of management by waste generators for various reasons, including economics,
convenience of mechanisms, and markets, as well as prevalent
mindsets and behavioral tendencies. Government agencies interested in promoting recycling of waste for the greater environmental
benet often introduce legislations (in the form of specic regulations or policies) which are meant to overcome those barriers. Such
legislations usually come together with a set of other strategies
like providing market incentives for recycling activities, increasing disposal restrictions, and enforcing a recycling percentage on
projects as part of Green Building requirements, as well as providing education and spreading awareness in this regard (Cochran,
Henry, Dubey, & Townsend, 2007).
2.2.2. Recycling feasibility
Some factors are primarily considered by waste and project
managers before implementing any recycling plan to ensure that
the recycling program for their project is both nancially and
methodologically feasible. Those factors include (Dolan, Lampo, &
Dearborn, 1999):

2.1. Construction waste management alternatives

Waste quantity and composition.

Specic materials targeted for recycling and the design of programs intended to recover them.
Expected effectiveness of participation in the program.
Types of additional operations required to prepare the recovered
materials for marketing.
Overall costs of waste handling, collection, and processing.
Financial and logistical risks and uncertainties associated with
the proposed recycling program.
Availability of markets for recovered materials, prevailing prices,
price volatility, and the potential effect of market development
programs.

Construction and demolition waste is managed in a variety of

ways, ranging from disposal in landlls or combustion facilities
to waste recovery options. The traditional and still most common
management method is land-lling, whether at permitted landlls
or unpermitted inert debris sites (EPA, 1998). This conventional
approach of disposal results in the depletion of material resources,
as well as the energy and cost spent in material manufacturing.
Moreover, the option of land-lling associates with additional disposal costs and is liable to the expiration of landll capacities, which

2.2.3. Recycling benets

Numerous benets can be acquired by promoting the recycling
of construction and demolition waste. While recycling building
materials conserve resources by diverting them from landlls, this
diversion of bulky and difcult-to-handle waste from the municipal
solid waste stream increases the operating life for local landlls, and
results in fewer associated environmental impacts such as groundwater contamination. Furthermore, construction and demolition
waste generators (contractors, dealers, and owners) can expect

80

M.I.M. Ibrahim / Sustainable Cities and Society 23 (2016) 7893

lower material and disposal costs in the long term. With the development of new markets for their debris, waste generators may
also have new sources of revenue. On the other hand, the cost
of purchasing salvaged materials is generally lower than that of
comparable new products (Dolan et al., 1999). Therefore, waste
recovery is considered economically and ecologically the most
benecial approach for the management of construction and demolition waste.

2.3. Efciency maximization of recycling programs

Recycling rates achieved by construction projects may vary considerably according to the previously mentioned impediments and
feasibility factors. Yet, on any project site, there are certain key
practices that can be regarded for the maximization of recycling
efciency. Among the most important practices is targeting specic waste streams that offer signicant potential cost savings and
environmental benets which can be referred to as Waste Recovery Quick Wins. By implementing three to four of these Waste
Recovery Quick Wins, there is high potential to increase overall
recycling rates of construction waste by more than 20% compared
to the standard performance. However, this highly relies on site
specic parameters such as (WRAP, 2007):
Amount of generated material types in relation to the total waste
quantity.
Capacity of waste segregation whether on or off site.
Availability of appropriate reprocessing facilities.
Transportation distances to these facilities.

2.4.2. Local recycling policies and markets for recycled

construction waste
All states primarily regulate handling construction and demolition waste, while each state has different laws, so construction
and demolition debris is typically managed by disposal, recycling,
or incineration. In most local policies, recycling is being pursued
as a more realistic method for managing already-generated construction and demolition waste than the conventional practice
of disposal. Within this context, most local policies have been
found successful with degrees of success, while recycling costs are
greatly dependent on regional characteristics, market availabilities,
and state recycling goals. Generally, concrete, wood, drywall, and
asphalt roong shingles represent the largest fractions (2099%)
of construction and demolition debris (by weight) in the U.S. and
have the greatest recycling potential. Metals and cardboard also
represent a large portion of construction and demolition debris
(241%); however, an extensive existing recycling system is already
in place for these materials. Therefore, concrete, wood, drywall, and
asphalt shingles should be targeted more for recycling programs.
Out of those four major construction and demolition materials, concrete has the largest market and is also the waste material most
generated. Wood has the second largest market, but it also faces
substantial competition from other recycled wood sources. Drywall
and asphalt shingles face the largest market shortage. However, it
is worth to consider signicant variations between states due to
the local facts of material generation and market demands.
3. Rationale of the case study

In addition, factors such as on-site space constraints, time

allowance, and project type further inuence the choice of waste
types to be targeted. It is also important to note that rates of waste
segregation for different materials on construction sites almost
directly correlates with the rate of material recovery (WRAP, 2007).
Thereby, the efciency of recycling programs can be enhanced by
increasing the segregation of waste types on site, especially as some
construction materials already have high levels of segregation and
recyclability (70%) across all construction types [Table 1].

Many local and state governments in the U.S. have been promoting construction waste recycling as part of their Green Building
approach. Massachusetts is considered one of the leading states
in creating, developing, and implementing multiple initiatives for
building sustainability. As a state university, the University of Massachusetts (UMass)Amherst reects the states approach through
its commitment to improving building practices on its campus.
Such commitment comes in response to the recent bundle of directives, ordinances, and executive orders issued by the Common
Wealth of Massachusetts for clean energy, environmental quality,
and efcient building.

2.4. Construction waste management in the U.S.

3.1. Existing regulations for construction waste management

Based on previous research work concerning construction and

demolition waste management in the United States, an overview
on material consumption, waste generation, recycling policies, and
market availability could be given in the following (Cochran, 2006).

On the United States national level, The Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is the major federal statute
that addresses hazardous and solid wastes, as it establishes a distinct hierarchy of strategies favoring source reduction, reuse, and
recycling over incineration and landll disposal. RCRA Subtitle D
requests that states produce solid waste management plans. As
a result, some municipalities prohibit landll disposal of certain
constituents of construction and demolition waste, while supporting the development of recycling businesses (The Center for
Sustainable Systems, 2005b). On the other hand, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been working continuously
with many state and local governments to divert construction
and demolition waste away from landll disposal by promoting
Green Building strategies. In response, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) in its Beyond 2000
Solid Waste Master Plan committed Massachusetts to a goal of 88%
reduction of construction and demolition waste by 2010. To help
achieve that goal, in 2006, MassDEP placed a disposal and transfer ban on recoverable construction materials including asphalt
paving, brick, concrete, metal and wood (EPA, 2014a). At the level of
UMass campus in Amherst, the framework that governs construction waste management for campus building projects comprises

2.4.1. Consumption of building materials and construction waste

generation
The major construction materials in the U.S. are concrete, wood,
metal, drywall and other gypsum products, brick and other clay
products, asphalt concrete, and asphalt roong materials. In general, concrete is the most consumed material as it represents three
times that of asphalt concrete and 16 times that of wood; the second
and third most consumed construction materials. The U.S. consumption of construction materials was estimated by an average
of 2.02 billion tons per year according to data projection from 2000
to 2010. Despite the fact that actual amounts of construction and
demolition debris generated in the U.S. could not be determined
accurately for a variety of reasons, the total generated amount was
estimated between 0.80 and 1.30 billion tons per year (depending on the calculation approach), according to data projection from
2000 to 2010.

M.I.M. Ibrahim / Sustainable Cities and Society 23 (2016) 7893

81

Table 1
Standard, good, and best recovery rates for construction waste materials (WRAP, 2007).
Material

Standard practice recovery (%)

Good practice quick win (%)

Best practice recovery (%)

Timber
Metals
Plasterboard
Packaging
Ceramics/masonry
Concrete
Inert
Plastics
Miscellaneous
Electrical equipment
Furniture
Insulation
Cement
Liquids and oils
Hazardous

57
95
30
60
75
75
75
60
12
Limited information
0-15
12
Limited information
100
50

90
100
90
85
85
95
95
80
50
70
25
50
75
100
Limited information

95
100
95
95
100
100
100
95
75
95
50
75
95
100
Limited information

three main sets of regulations; the UMass Green Building Guidelines, UMass Policy, and Massachusetts Policy for Construction
Waste Management, which are described in the following.
3.1.1. UMass green building guidelines
As part of its methodology to acquire LEED awards for campus
building projects, the UMass Green Building Committee (established in 2010) created its own Green Building Guidelines in 2011.
These Green Building Guidelines were designed to establish priority and feasibility levels for each LEED requirement based on
the environmental realities, missions and goals of UMass. Among
the 29 prioritized LEED credits, UMass Green Building Guidelines
dene Credit 2 (Construction Waste Management) under the category of Materials and Resources as a high priority credit, compelling
projects to meet a minimum target of 75% overall recycling rate
(Spade & Wulsin, 2013).
3.1.2. UMass policy for construction waste management
The UMass document Construction Waste Management and
Disposal Section 017419 Division 1 of 8 claries UMass policy
for construction waste management of campus projects, including
contracting conditions, as well as administrative and procedural
requirements. As regulated by the document, project teams are
compelled to submit an integrated waste management plan that
guarantee the achievement of 75% as a minimum overall recycling
rate. The policy also demonstrates a framework for the implementation of the waste management plan, indicating specications of
recycling and disposal procedures, in addition to environmental
protection measures. Finally, all submittals are listed thoroughly
including reports, calculations, records and permits, besides LEED
submittals (UMass, 2012).
3.1.3. Massachusetts policy for construction waste management
Massachusetts policy for construction waste management is
found in the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, its regulatory
document 310 CMR 19.00 and its sections. In addition to waste
bans, it addresses solid waste management by regulating the collection, storage, transfer, processing, treatment, disposal, use, and
reuse of solid waste in the state, including construction and demolition debris. The document denes waste types, landll types,
disposal and recovery facilities, and all associated operations and
measures. It also claries responsibilities, required performance,
and necessary submittals for every party involved, including owners, contractors, haulers, operators, and inspectors. Moreover, the
policy regulates the establishment and operation of waste management facilities, indicating standards, authorization permits,
exemptions and penalties of violation, and enforcing a minimum
overall recycling requirement of 25% (aside from waste bans).

Finally, the policy species rules for the benecial use of processed waste with regard to safety and environmental protection
(MassDEP, 2014).

3.2. Project selection

UMass campus is Green as evidenced by its 2011 Gold Rating
in Sustainability Leadership from the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE)s Sustainability
Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS). UMass was one
of 27 research universities to receive this distinction in the United
States (Small, 2012). Moreover, a Governors Executive Order was
signed in 2008, which included the provision that all state buildings
be certied under the LEED rating system. Since then, all new building projects on UMass campus have been compliant with Green
Building standards and have all registered for LEED, achieving LEED
Silver or better (Spade & Wulsin, 2013). Therefore, it was convenient to select the case studies from campus construction projects,
where waste management data could be accessible. The primary
selection focused on the most recent construction projects (of a
single building), while projects of concrete/steel based structures
were exclusively considered for their representation of typical construction types of public buildings. Out of recently listed campus
construction projects, six matching projects were found, of which
three were still under construction, while the other three were
recently completed [Table 2].
By consulting campus ofcials on data availability and accessibility for the listed projects, the selection was brought down to
three projects:
The New Academic Classroom Building (completed during the
conduct of this research).
The Marching Band Building.
The New Police Station.

Contact was established with each project manager of the

selected projects, facilitated by the project assigned Green Building
researcher. The projects data was found at the UMass Department
of Facility Planning where project records were saved and could be
accessed through an internal network.

3.3. Project highlights and data availability

Data for each of the selected projects has been re-arranged in a
standard database which includes:

82

M.I.M. Ibrahim / Sustainable Cities and Society 23 (2016) 7893

Table 2
UMass LEED Building Projects (as of April 2014) (UMass Department of Facility Planning, 2014).
Under Construction Projects

Completed Projects

Name

Size (square
feet)

LEED Rating

Start- End
Dates

Budget
Million ($)

Name

Size (square
feet)

LEED Rating

Start-End
Dates

Budget
Million ($)

New Academic
Classroom Building

171,575

Silver

85.0

Gold

Silver

15,000

Gold

April
2010August
2013
April
2010June
2011

156.5

N/A

McGuirk Stadium &

Football Champions
Center

55,000

Silver

March
2013June
2014

N/A

New Life
Sciences
Laboratories
George N.
Parks
Minuteman
Marching
Band Building
New UMass
Police Station

310,000

Basketball Champions
Center

March
2012June
2014
August
2013August
2014

27,250

Gold

Project Size
(square feet)

Total Material Input Cost

($)

20.0

February
2010February
2011

6.5

7.0

Percent Recycled Content

(%)

Fig. 1. Main Variables Involved in the Analysis of Material Input Data.

Projects material specications, which identify quantities and

values of the input building materials, including those of recycled
contents.
Construction waste data, which indicate the generated waste
streams by type and quantity.
Waste management methods, which identify waste handling by
recovery or disposal (recycling or land-lling) with associated
information about the commissioned facilities and management
costs.
The studied projects and their data availability are viewed in the
following [Tables 35 ].
4. Statistical analysis of data
In order to achieve its goal and conclude the results, the research
follows a quantitative analysis of the acquired numerical data. The
statistical processing of data occurs in two different stages: analysis
of material input data and analysis of material waste output data.
4.1. Analysis of material input data
This analysis is meant to investigate the relationship between
project size, total material input cost, and the percent value of recycled content in the material input for the three projects [Fig. 1].
Numerical values for the discussed variables have been directly
covered by the data acquired for the studied projects, while the
relationship between the two specic variables: Material Cost (in
relation to project size) and Recycled Content was examined for
the three projects as shown in the following [Table 6]. By drawing
a trend line between material cost in respect to size (cost/oor area)
on one hand and the percentage of recycled content on the other,
a declining curve was found best to represent this inverse proportional relationship, with a Correlation of Determination R2 = 0.87
[Fig. 2]. This inverse relationship conrms that as the percent value
of recycled content increases in a projects material input, the overall cost of the projects material input decreases. Thus, it is proven
more economical to increase the utilization of recycled content in
the material input of future construction projects.

Fig. 2. Relationship between Material Cost in Respect to Project Size and Percentage
of Recycled Content for the Studied Projects.

land-lling according to eld-based values. Such returns are either

environmental or economic. Therefore, the rst part of the analysis
investigates the environmental returns represented in the reduction of emission rates through material waste recycling, while the
second part of the analysis thoroughly calculates the economic
returns represented in nancial savings.
4.2.1. Emission reduction by material waste recycling
This analysis was conducted by using the web-based calculator of the online conversion tool WARM (Waste Reduction Model)
which was created by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The tool is designed to calculate emission reductions by
material recycling according to material type and quantity (EPA,
2014c). Thereby, the analysis was run according to the following
procedures:

4.2. Analysis of material waste output data

Quantities of materials were entered in tons by material type

according to the data from the projects waste management
reports (Allied Waste Industries, 2011; Waste Management Inc.,
2011, 2014). The data was then automatically converted to emission units of metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E).
The analysis was set so the baseline scenario would be land-lling
all project waste, while the alternative scenario would represent the actual waste management scenario, with the attained
recycling percentage (landll diversion) as stated in the waste
management report. The total difference between the two scenarios in GHG (Green House Gas) emissions is then concluded.
A negative value indicates an emission reduction whereas a positive value indicates an increase.

The statistical analysis of waste output data works to estimate

the returns acquired by material recycling as opposed to waste

Thus, the calculations of emission reduction for the studied

projects could be executed as shown in the following [Tables 79 ].

Table 3
The Marching Band Building.
Project Contractor: Eastern General Contractors

Waste Contractor: Allied Waste Industries

Data Investigated

Availability

Project material specications

(including specications of
recycled content)

Available: spreadsheet of
project material specications

Material waste quantities

Available: project waste

management nal report

Waste management methods

(recycling and disposal), with
associated documents by the
facility of destination

Available: project waste

management nal report

Management costs and unit

prices for each material type

Available: invoices by the

waste management contractor

M.I.M. Ibrahim / Sustainable Cities and Society 23 (2016) 7893

Exterior views of the building (UMass Green Building

Subcommittee, 2010a)

Ground level master plan (Kuhn Riddle Architects, 2011)

Streams by which waste was managed (waste types)

Co-mingled (mixed miscellaneous waste of different types, whether glass, wood, plastic, rubbish, scrap metals and possibly some rubble)
Concrete (referred to as aggregates of concrete and possibly masonry)
Metal (mostly steel and possibly aluminum)
Drywall gypsum

83

84

Table 4
The New Police Station.
Project Contractor: CTA Construction Co.

Waste Contractor: Waste Management (WM)

Data Investigated

Availability

Project material specications

(including specications of
recycled content)

Available: spreadsheet of
project material specications

Material waste quantities

Available: project waste

management nal report

Waste management methods

(recycling and disposal), with
associated documents by the
facility of destination

Available: project waste

management nal report

Management costs and unit

prices for each material type

Unavailable: invoices were not

submitted to UMass by the
waste contractor

Ground level master plan (Caolo & Bieneik Associates Inc., 2009)

Streams by which waste was managed (waste types)

Asphalt
Concrete
Masonry
Metal (mostly steel and possibly aluminum)
Drywall gypsum
Wood
Cardboard
Co-mingled (mixed miscellaneous waste of different types)

Notes

Since unit prices for each waste type could not be retrieved, data from the Marching Band project was utilized since
both projects were built and nished simultaneously.

M.I.M. Ibrahim / Sustainable Cities and Society 23 (2016) 7893

Exterior views of the building (UMass Green Building Subcommittee,

2010b)

Table 5
The New Academic Classroom Building.
Project Contractor: Barr & Barr (The Builders)

Waste Contractor: Waste Management (WM)

Data Investigated

Availability

Project material specications

(including specications of
recycled content)

Available: spreadsheet of
project material specications

Material waste quantities

Available: project waste

management nal report

Waste management methods

(recycling and disposal), with
associated documents by the
facility of destination

Available: project waste

management nal report

Management costs and unit

prices for each material type

Unavailable: (no cost specics

since waste was all mixed)

M.I.M. Ibrahim / Sustainable Cities and Society 23 (2016) 7893

Exterior views of the building (UMass Green Building Subcommittee, 2013)

Ground level master plan (Stantec Inc., 2013)

Streams by which waste was managed (waste types)

All waste of this project was treated as co-mingled

Notes

When there is no waste separation on site, it is the job of the waste management contractor to remove, sort, and
process the waste at the management facility

85

86

M.I.M. Ibrahim / Sustainable Cities and Society 23 (2016) 7893

Table 6
Project size (broken down to oor area), total material cost, and recycled content for the three projects [Barr & Barr (The Builders), 2014; CTA Construction Co., 2011; Eastern
General Contractors, 2011].
Project

Project size
(square feet)

Number of Floors

Average Floor Area

(square feet)

Total Cost of
Materials ($)

Recycled
Content%

Cost/Floor Area
($/square feet)

The Marching Band Building

The New Police Station
The New Academic Classroom Building

15,000
27,250
171,575

2
3
5

7500.00
9083.33
34,315.00

1,131,120.90
1,917,299.70
13,489,567.00

25.12
20.22
17.83

150.82
211.08
393.11

Table 7
Green house gas emissions from the waste management of the Marching Band Building.
The Marching Band Building
Material

Baseline Scenario
Tons Recycled

Alternative Scenario
Tons Land-lled

Total MTCO2E

Mixed Metals
0
1
0
0
65
24
Mixed Recyclables
0
24
1
Concrete
0
10
0
Drywall
GHG Emissions from Baseline Waste Management Scenario (MTCO2E)
GHG Emissions from Alternative Waste Management Scenario (MTCO2E)
Total Change in GHG Emissions: (MTCO2E)

Change (AltBase) MTCO2E

Tons Recycled

Tons Land-lled

Total MTCO2E

1
50
24
10
25
141
165

0
15
0
0

4
136
0
0

5
160
1
1

Table 8
Green house gas emissions from the waste management of the New Police Station.
The New Police Station
Material

Baseline Scenario
Tons Recycled

Alternative Scenario
Tons Land-lled

Total MTCO2E

Lumber
0
51
50
Mixed Paper
0
0
0
0
6
0
Mixed Metals
Mixed Recyclables
0
85
32
0
146
6
Concrete
0
10
0
Asphalt
Drywall
0
6
0
GHG Emissions from Baseline Waste Management Scenario (MTCO2E)
GHG Emissions from Alternative Waste Management Scenario (MTCO2E)
Total Change in GHG Emissions: (MTCO2E)

Change (AltBase) MTCO2E

Tons Recycled

Tons Land-lled

Total MTCO2E

51
0
6
51
146
10
6
12
284
273

0
0
0
35
0
0
0

124
1
27
130
1
1
0

Tons Recycled

Tons Land-lled

Total MTCO2E

696
322
1903
2225

169

1903

75
1
27
162
7
1
0

Table 9
Green house gas emissions from the waste management of the New Academic Classroom Building.
The New Academic Classroom Building
Material

Baseline Scenario
Tons Recycled

Change(Alt Base) MTCO2E

Alternative Scenario
Tons Land-lled

Total MTCO2E

Mixed Recyclables
0
865
322
GHG Emissions from Baseline Waste Management Scenario (MTCO2E)
GHG Emissions from Alternative Waste Management Scenario (MTCO2E)
Total Change in GHG Emissions: (MTCO2E)

The Green House Gas Equivalencies Calculator developed by the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is another online tool
that is designed to generate approximate equivalencies of familiar
quantum for GHG emission inputs (EPA, 2014b).
The tool was used to estimate the equivalency of each
projects GHG emission reduction by simply entering the previously
obtained reduction value of carbon dioxide in metric tons as shown
in the following [Table 10].

4.2.2. Financial savings by material waste recycling

This is meant to investigate two signicant relationships:

2225

The relationship between the total cost of waste management on

one hand and the cost of waste recycling versus land-lling on
the other in order to calculate savings.
The variables involved at this stage can be identied in the following [Fig. 3].

4.2.2.1. Rationale of calculation. The following basic equations

were derived to dene the relationships between the discussed
variables, leading to the calculation of savings.
Total waste quantity as a function of project size:

The relationship between project size and the generated waste

quantity.

Waste Quantity = f (Project Size)

M.I.M. Ibrahim / Sustainable Cities and Society 23 (2016) 7893

87

Table 10
Green house gas emission equivalencies for reduction rates achieved by recycling projects waste.
Project

GHG Emission Reduction Accomplished by

Material Waste Recycling (MTCO2E)

Equivalent to Annual GHG Emissions from

The Marching Band Building

The New Police Station
The New Academic Classroom Building

165
273
2225

35 Passenger vehicles
58 Passenger vehicles
468Passenger vehicles

Project Size
(square feet)

Total Quantity of Waste

(tons)

Total Cost of Waste Management

($)
Savings
($)

Recycled Waste
(%)

Unit Price for Recycling

($/ton)

Leading to

Land-filled Waste
(%)
Unit Price for Land-filling
($/ton)

Landfill Diversion
(tons)

Fig. 3. Variables involved in calculation of nancial savings attained by material waste recycling.
Note: There are other variables involved in the economics of construction waste recycling that could indirectly affect the acquired savings. However, those factors that are not
included in this analysis were dismissed for their inconsistency or subjectivity. For instance, labor cost was not considered as an independent variable due to how uctuant
it could be depending on labor hour rates, whether at state or private project sites. This is also the case for other secondary variables like gas prices for waste transportation,
tax variation, and other market-inuenced factors. Those were all considered as embedded values in the capital unit price for waste recycling/land-lling as provided in the
billing information by the processing facility. Those unit prices, which the research cost analysis is built on, were provided at the time of conducting the research (2014) and
some of them go back to 20112012 (time of project construction). Such values are subject to market changes over the years.

Total cost of waste as a function of total waste quantity (including

both recycled and land-lled):
Cost of Waste Management = Waste Quantity [(% Recycled
Waste) (Recycling Unit Price) + (% Land-lled Waste) (Land-lling
Unit Price)]
Hence,
Cost of Waste Management = f (Project Size) [(% Recycled Waste)
(Recycling Unit Price) + (% Land-lled Waste) (Land-lling Unit
Price)]
To calculate savings for a certain project in case of achieving a
recycling percentage (X%) versus land-lling (1X%):
Savings = [Cost of 100% Land-lled Waste] [Cost of X% Recycled
Waste + Cost of (1X%) Land-lled Waste]
To calculate landll diversion for a certain project in case of
achieving a recycling percentage:
Landll Diversion = (Waste Quantity) (% Recycled Waste)
Since the total waste quantity is a function of project size, then:
Landll Diversion = f (Project Size) (% Recycled Waste)
Numerical values for the variables discussed above have been
directly covered by the waste data acquired for the studied projects
(Allied Waste Industries, 2011; Waste Management Inc., 2011,
2014), except the unit price for recycling ($/ton), and unit price for
land-lling ($/ton), which both had to be concluded from the management cost data (as will be shown subsequently). On the other
hand, by utilizing the fully complete data attained in the waste
report of the Marching Band Building and the associated invoices
(which indicate every waste load by weight, material type, and
billing price) (Allied Waste Industries, 2011), the following key facts
could also be noted:
The complete waste report identies material quantities by type,
which were diverted from land-lling by recycling (co-mingled,
concrete, metal, gypsum, etc.). In addition, it identies the quantity of waste that could not be diverted and was land-lled.
The complete billing information associated to the waste report
lists all the bills that were charged for waste handling over the

course of the project construction. The listing comprises every

waste load going off site, indicating the quantity in tons and the
due cost in dollars.
As identied in the invoices and veried by the waste report,
the service trucks that were used to haul the waste off site were
standard triple axel loading trucks with a size of 15 cubic yards.
Every truck load is referred to (in both the waste report and the
annexed invoices) by a ticket/reference number and a date. Moreover, the waste report indicates the destination to which every
load was moved (the appropriate handling facility).
From the given billing information, every charged ticket (truck
load) has a at fee (basic service charge) and a variable fee that
corresponds with the tonnage of waste (how many tons there are
in a truck load) [Table 11], in addition to a combined fuel recovery
fee for every set of trucks.
Such information was essential for the calculation of the two
required variables: the unit price for waste recycling and the unit
price for waste land-lling, which is explained in the following.
4.2.2.2. Conclusion of the unit price for material waste recycling. For
every material type of waste, numerical data of each truck load has
been identied separately. Then, the following terms were calculated according to the equations below:
Average Truck Load (tons) = sum of all truck loads (tons)/number
of trucks
Cost per Ton for a given truck ($/ton) = [at fee ($) + variable fee
($)]/truck load (tons)
Fuel Recovery Charge per Ton ($/ton) = charge of fuel recovery
for a given set of trucks ($)/the sum of the same given truck loads
(tons)
By running all the Cost per Ton values for all the given trucks
of a certain material type [Table 12], an arithmetic average of a
terminal value was derived to represent the average cost per ton
for recycling the concerned material type.
Similarly, by running all the values of Fuel Recovery Charge
per Ton, an arithmetic average of a terminal value was derived to
represent the average charge of fuel recovery per ton [Table 13].

88

M.I.M. Ibrahim / Sustainable Cities and Society 23 (2016) 7893

Table 11
Flat and variable fees for recycling each material type.
Material Type

Flat Fee ($)

Variable Fee per Ton ($/ton)

Co-mingled
Gypsum/Drywall
Steel/Metal
Concrete/Masonry/Asphalt
Wood
Cardboard

220.00
220.00
0.00
350.00
220.00
220.00

78.00
89.00
75.90
0.00
75.00
70.00

Table 12
Cost per ton based on truck load tonnage, at fees, and variable fees of waste types as demonstrated in invoices (Allied Waste Industries, 2011).
Material Type

Ticket Number

Flat Fee ($)

Truck Load (tons)

Variable Fee ($)

Cost per Ton ($/ton)

Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Fuel Recovery Fee
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Gypsum/Drywall
Fuel Recovery Fee
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Gypsum/Drywall
Mixed
Fuel Recovery Fee
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Fuel Recovery Fee
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Concrete
Fuel Recovery Fee
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Concrete
Fuel Recovery Fee
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Concrete
Fuel Recovery Fee
Metal
Mixed
Fuel Recovery Fee
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Fuel Recovery Fee
Mixed
Mixed
Fuel Recovery Fee

51036
51645
51989
52687

220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00

1.03
1.47
1.96
2.24

291.59
227.66
190.24
176.21

48068
48593
48916
49318
49751
50428
48400

220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00

1.61
1.27
1.99
2.13
3.28
1.43
3.19

45720
46822
47540
45719
46823

220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00

2.07
1.85
1.53
3.81
3.08

43439
43806
44836

220.00
220.00
220.00

3.28
3.55
2.51

41191
41723
42314
42619
41657

220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
350.06

1.79
1.71
1.62
3.29
7.91

38705
38922
39258
39396
39798
40843

220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
350.06

1.41
0.56
0.61
0.86
0.59
1.31
7.91

36360
36971
37926
38657
37927

220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
350.06

1.60
1.42
1.30
1.79
7.91

34919

0.00
220.00

1.07
1.60

31155
31743
32615

220.00
220.00
220.00

1.81
1.02
2.40

28937
29995

220.00
220.00

1.34
1.25

80.34
114.66
152.88
174.72
28.05
125.58
99.06
155.22
166.14
255.84
111.54
283.91
54.74
161.46
144.30
119.34
339.09
274.12
42.77
255.84
276.90
195.78
27.78
139.62
133.38
126.36
256.62
35.00 (for separation)
77.50
109.98
43.68
47.58
67.08
46.02
102.18
0.00
107.01
124.8
110.76
101.40
139.62
35.00 (for separation)
69.69
81.21
124.80
18.14
141.18
79.56
187.2
21.35
104.52
97.50
12.84

Table 13
Calculation of fuel recovery charge per ton for recycling each of the material types.
Number of Fuel Recovery Occurrences

10

Total Tonnage of Waste

Tonnage/Fuel Charge Entry
Total Charges Spent on Fuel
Fuel Recovery Fee per Ton

99.76 tons
9.98 tons/entry
423.59$
4.25$/ton

214.65
251.23
188.55
181.29
145.07
231.85
157.97
184.28
196.92
221.79
146.74
160.43
145.07
139.97
165.65
200.91
206.65
213.80
144.87
48.70
234.03
470.86
438.66
333.81
450.88
245.94
44.27
215.50
232.93
247.23
200.91
48.70
75.90
215.50
199.55
293.69
169.67
242.18
254.00

Thereby, the average total unit price for recycling each

material type could be concluded by summing the average
cost per ton and the average fuel charge as indicated below
[Table 14].
The Average Unit Price for Recycling ($/ton) = the average cost
per ton ($/ton) + the average fuel charge per ton ($/ton)

M.I.M. Ibrahim / Sustainable Cities and Society 23 (2016) 7893

89

Table 14
Average Truck Load and Ultimate Average Unit Price for Recycling Each Waste Type.
Material Type

Flat Fee ($)

Variable Fee per

Ton ($/ton)

Average Truck Load

(tons)

Average Cost
($/ton)

Average Unit Price of Recycling

($/ton)(including fuel charges)

Co-mingled
Wood
Cardboard
Gypsum/Drywall
Concrete/Masonry/Asphalt
Steel/Metal

220.00
220.00
220.00
220.00
350.00
0.00

78.00
75.00
70.00
89.00
0.00
75.90

1.77
1.77
1.77
3.5
7.91
1.07

202.16
199.30
194.30
151.86
44.28
76.00

206.41
203.55
198.55
156.11
48.53
71.75

Note: The average truck load for wood and cardboard as well as the basic service at fee was based on the standard average truck load of co-mingled waste, since there were
no records of wood/cardboard waste streams included in the waste report of the Marching Band Building. On the other hand, while the waste report of the New Police Station
Building had wood and cardboard as material waste streams, a detailed listing of all truck loads and billing prices (invoices) was not available among the project documents.
Thus, the variable fee per ton for recycling wood and cardboard (which was necessary to calculate the average total cost per ton) was found online among a listing of common
recycling charges for different material types by recycling facilities in Massachusetts (OLR, 2010). Accordingly, the fee of recycling one ton of wood was approximately $75,
while that of recycling one ton of cardboard was approximately $70. Those values were used to substitute for the variable fee per ton in order to conclude an average unit
price for the recycling of both materials.

Table 15
Conclusion of the ultimate average unit price for land-lling co-mingled waste.
Material Type

Application

Flat Fee ($)

Variable Fee per Ton ($/ton)

Average Truck Load (tons)

Average Unit Price of Land-lling ($/ton)(including fuel

charges)

Co-mingled

Land-lling

220.00

85.00

1.77

213.45

4.2.2.3. Conclusion of the unit price for waste land-lling. In the case
of landll disposal, waste is regarded as co-mingled (same basic
charges apply as a at fee). Yet, the variable fee per ton for waste
land-lling was found to be $85.00/ton (Allied Waste Industries,
2011). Since the same average truck load of co-mingled waste
and fuel recovery charges were also applicable, the average total
unit price for land-lling could be concluded as explained below
[Table 15].
Cost of Land-lling a standard truck load of co-mingled
waste = at fee + [(variable fee per ton) (average truck load in tons)].
Thereby,
The Average Unit Price for Land-lling ($/ton) = [cost of landlling a truck load ($)/average truck load (tons)] + the average fuel
charge per ton ($/ton)
4.2.2.4. Calculation of savings for the studied projects. Based on the
previously discussed analysis of waste data, potential savings could
be calculated according to the recycling rates (total of X%) achieved
by each project [Tables 1618 ].
Savings = [Cost of 100% Land-lled Waste] [Cost of X% Recycled
Waste + (1X%) Land-lled Waste]
Thereby,
Savings = [(Total Quantity of Waste) (Land-lling Unit
Price)] Sum(allmaterials) [(Recycled Quantity) (Recycling Unit
Price) + (Land-lled Quantity) (Land-lling Unit Price)]
As shown in the calculations, for each material type, the ratio
of savings attained by recycling in relation to the cost of landlling varies according to the unit price associated [Fig. 4]. While
the unit price for land-lling is generally the most expensive
($213.45), the unit price for recycling co-mingled waste comes next
($206.42), achieving the lowest ratio of savings (less than 3.30%,
which is the maximum possible rate). Following that are: wood,
cardboard, gypsum/drywall, asphalt/concrete/masonry, and nally
steel/metal which has the lowest recycling unit price ($71.75) and
the highest ratio of savings (133.61%).
Therefore, in order to elevate the saving rates for any project,
the quantity of waste that is recycled as co-mingled should be
minimized due to the low savings value it generates (contrary to
the practice followed in the case of the New Academic Classroom
Building). This signies waste sorting and the recycling of separate
streams as a principal requirement to maximize savings. Furthermore, a trend line between the two variables (recycling savings

Fig. 4. Ratio of savings acquired by recycling to cost of land-lling for each material
type.

Fig. 5. Relationship between recycling savings and percentage of co-mingled waste

for the studied projects.

and the percentage of co-mingled waste in the waste composition for each project) afrms their inverse proportional relationship
[Fig. 5]. A linear trend best describes this inverse relationship,
with a regression line of a Correlation of Determination R2 = 0.998

90

M.I.M. Ibrahim / Sustainable Cities and Society 23 (2016) 7893

Table 16
Calculation of savings for the waste recycling rates (total of 85.20%) achieved by the Marching Band Building.
The Marching Band Building
Material Type

Unit Price ($/ton)

Quantity
according to
Waste Report
(tons)

Actual
Recycling
Percentage
Landll
Diversion (%)

Cost in case
of
Land-lling
100% Waste
($)

Actual Cost of Actual Cost of Savings

Land-lling
Recycling
Attained by
Actual
Waste ($)
Waste ($)
Recycling
Rates ($)

Ratio of Savings
Attained by
Actual Recycling
Rates to the Cost
of Land-lling All
Waste (%)

23.72
10.08
1.02
64.94
0.00
0.00
99.76 tons

100.00
100.00
100.00
77.27
0.00
0.00
85.20%

5,063.03
2,151.58
217.72
13,861.44
0.00
0.00
$21,293.80

0.00
0.00
0.00
3150.52
0.00
0.00
$3150.52

77.26
26.86
133.62
2.55
0.00
0.00
24.11%

Land-lling Recycling
Asphalt/Concrete/Masonry 213.45
Gypsum/Drywall
Metal/Steel
Mixed
Wood
Cardboard
Total

48.53
156.11
71.75
206.41
203.55
198.55

1151.13
1573.59
73.19
10,357.65
0.00
0.00
$13,009.18

3911.90
577.99
290.91
353.27
0.00
0.00
$5134.07

Table 17
Calculation of savings for the waste recycling rates (total of 88.59%) achieved by the New Police Station.
The New Police Station
Material Type

Unit Price ($/ton)

Quantity
according to
Waste Report
(tons)

Actual
Recycling
Percentage
Landll
Diversion (%)

Cost in case
of
Land-lling
100% Waste
($)

Actual Cost of Actual Cost of Savings

Land-lling
Recycling
Attained by
Waste ($)
Actual
Waste ($)
Recycling
Rates ($)

Ratio of Savings
Attained by
Actual Recycling
Rates to the Cost
of Land-lling All
Waste (%)

155.73
6.23
6.16
85.34
50.58
0.24
304.28 tons

100.00
100.00
100.00
59.32
100.00
100.00
88.59%

33,240.57
1329.794
1314.852
18,215.82
10,796.3
51.228
$64,948.57

0.00
0.00
0.00
7410.98
0.00
0.00
$7410.98

Land-lling Recycling
Asphalt/Concrete/Masonry 213.45
Gypsum/Drywall
Metal/Steel
Mixed
Wood
Cardboard
Total

48.53
156.11
71.75
206.41
203.55
198.55

7557.577
972.5653
441.98
10,448.47
10,295.56
47.652
$28,879.84

25,682.99
357.23
1756.83
356.37
500.74
3.58
$28,657.74

77.26
26.86
133.61
1.96
4.64
6.98
44.12%

Table 18
Calculation of savings for the waste recycling rates (total of 80.44%) achieved by the New Academic Classroom Building.
The New Academic Classroom Building
Material Type

Asphalt/Concrete/Masonry
Gypsum/Drywall
Metal/Steel
Mixed
Wood
Cardboard
Total

Unit Price ($/ton)

Land-lling

Recycling

213.45

48.53
156.11
71.75
206.41
203.55
198.55

Quantity
according to
Waste Report
(tons)

Actual
Recycling
Percentage
Landll
Diversion (%)

Cost in case
of
Land-lling
100% Waste
($)

Actual Cost of
Land-lling
Waste ($)

Actual Cost of
Recycling
Waste ($)

Savings
Attained by
Actual
Recycling
Rates ($)

Ratio of Savings
Attained by
Actual Recycling
Rates to the Cost
of Land-lling All
Waste (%)

0.00
0.00
0.00
864.89
0.00
0.00
864.89 tons

0.00
0.00
0.00
80.44
0.00
0.00
80.44%

0.00
0.00
0.00
184,610.77
0.00
0.00
$184,610.77

0.00
0.00
0.00
36,111.47
0.00
0.00
$36,111.47

0.00
0.00
0.00
143,601.50
0.00
0.00
$143,601.50

0.00
0.00
0.00
4897.80
0.00
0.00
$4897.80

0.00
0.00
0.00
2.65
0.00
0.00
2.65%

(which indicates how well the trend line represents the correlation
between the data points).
5. Setting up a model to estimate recycling savings for
other projects
In order to build such a model, two more steps were essential
for data fulllment.
First, the total quantity of waste generated by other projects
needed to be determined as a function of project size (so waste
quantity could be substituted for, as a numerical value in proportion to a given project size): Waste Quantity = f (Project Size).

Second, to calculate recycling savings versus the cost of waste

land-lling, a unied unit price was needed to serve as a substitute for the diverse unit prices of all different material types (an
average replacement to sum all material recycling unit prices). By
deriving one unied unit price for material recycling, the calculation would be simplied enough to directly predict an overall
approximation of potential savings as indicated in the equation:

Recycling Savings = [(Waste Quantity) (Unit Price for Landlling)] [(Waste Quantity) (Unied Unit Price for Recycling)]

M.I.M. Ibrahim / Sustainable Cities and Society 23 (2016) 7893

91

Table 19
Project size (broken down to oor area) and total waste quantity for the three projects.
Project

Size (square feet)

Number of Floors

Area per Floor (square feet)

Total Generated Waste (tons)

The Marching Band Building

The New Police Station
The New Academic Classroom Building

15,000
27,250
171,575

2
3
5

7500.00
9083.33
34,315.00

99.76
304.28
864.89

Average Proportional Unit Price ($) = (Average Proportion) (Original Recycling Unit Price)
Unied Recycling Unit Price ($) = Sum(allmaterials) Average Proportional Unit Price
According to the conducted analysis, recycling savings could be
approximately estimated for other typical projects based on the
prerequisite variables of project size and number of oors. Such
estimation may theoretically occur between any of the three principal scenarios: land-lling waste, recycling waste as co-mingled,
or recycling waste as separate streams. The following simplied
model demonstrates the calculation of savings for each of those
three main scenarios [Table 22].
Fig. 6. Relationship between project size (broken down to oor area) and quantity
of generated waste for the studied projects.

5.1. Estimation of waste quantities generated by other projects

Having the statistics of the given case studies to serve as historic
data for other projects, waste quantities generated by projects of
the same construction type could be estimated through the relationship between the two variables: project size and total waste
quantity. This relationship was examined for the three projects of
study as shown in the following [Table 19].
By drawing a trend line between the two variables: project area
per oor and total quantity of generated waste [Fig. 6], it was found
that a linear trend would be the most adequate to represent this
directly proportional relationship, where Y = 0.025X, achieving a
Correlation of Determination R2 = 0.96 (which indicates how well
the trend line represents the correlation between the data points).
Thereby, an approximate estimation of the waste quantity generated by other projects of the same type can be derived through
the following calculation:
Total Waste Quantity = 0.025 (Project Floor Area)
For example, a similar project with the size of 60,000 square feet
and consisting of four oors is expected to generate approximately
0.025 (60,000/4) = 375.00 tons of construction waste.

5.2. Estimation of recycling savings for other similar projects

Data from two projects, the Marching Band Building and the
New Police Station, were utilized to develop a unied unit price for
material recycling. Since they both managed their waste as separate
streams and identied waste by material types, the numerical data
demonstrated in these projects waste reports was used to calculate an average proportional weight for every material in relation
to the total quantity of generated waste. By deriving an average
proportion for each material type in the composition of waste
alongside the previously acquired recycling unit price for each, an
overall unied unit price for material recycling could be concluded
as explained subsequently [Tables 20 and 21].
For every material type, an average proportion was calculated
as the arithmetic average of the two percent values given in the
two projects data. An average proportional unit price as well as a
terminal unied unit price could then be derived.

6. Results
The analysis of material input data for the studied projects found
the relationship between total material cost and the percent
value of recycled content to be inversely proportional (the cost of
building materials decreased when the percent value of recycled
content increased). This proves it more economical to increase the
inclusion of recycled content in projects material specications.
The analysis of material waste output data used the online tool
developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to calculate emission reduction rates accomplished by construction waste recycling for the studied projects: the Marching
Band Building, the New Police Station, and the New Academic
Classroom Building. Those reduction rates were respectively
equivalent to the annual emissions from: 35, 58, and 468 passenger vehicles.
The fully complete data attained in the waste report of the
Marching Band Building project and the associated invoices were
utilized to conclude the average unit prices for material waste
recycling by type including at fees, variable fees, and fuel
charges. The same methodology was also used to infer a unit price
for waste land-lling.
Financial savings were calculated for the three projects based on
the quantities indicated in their waste reports and the concluded
unit prices: Savings = [(Total Quantity of Waste) (Land-lling Unit
Price)] Sum(allmaterials) [(Recycled Quantity) (Recycling Unit
Price) + (Land-lled Quantity) (Land-lling Unit Price)].
The ratio of savings attained by the accomplished recycling rates
to the cost of waste land-lling for the three projects, the Marching Band Building, the New Police Station, and the New Academic
Classroom Building, were about 24%, 44%, and 3% respectively.
The ratio of savings acquired by recycling was the lowest for co-mingled waste, then increased progressively for
separate material types, from wood through cardboard, gypsum/drywall, asphalt/concrete/masonry, and nally metal/steel
which acquired the highest ratio of savings.
The relationship between the percentage of co-mingled waste in
the composition of the total generated waste and the ratio of recycling savings was found to be inversely proportional (recycling
savings notably increased as the quantity of co-mingled waste
decreased in the waste stream).
Utilizing the data of the given projects, a numerical formula
was inferred to approximately estimate the quantity of poten-

92

M.I.M. Ibrahim / Sustainable Cities and Society 23 (2016) 7893

Table 20
Material proportion in the composition of waste generated by the Marching Band Building and the New Police Station.
Project

Material Type

Total

Mixed

Wood

Cardboard

Gypsum/Drywall

Concrete/Masonry/Asphalt

Steel/Metal

Marching Band Building

Quantity (tons)
Proportion (%)

64.94
59.04

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

10.08
11.86

23.72
27.90

1.02
1.20

99.76
100%

New Police Station

Quantity (tons)
Proportion (%)

85.34
18.78

50.58
18.76

0.24
0.09

6.23
2.31

155.73
57.77

6.16
2.29

304.28
100%

Table 21
Calculation of an overall unied unit price for material recycling.
Proportion and Unit Price

Material Type
Mixed

Marching Band Building

Proportion (%)
Proportion (%)
New Police Station
Average Proportion%
Original Recycling Unit Price ($)
Average Proportional Unit Price ($)
Unied Recycling Unit Price

Wood

59.04
0.00
18.78
18.76
38.91
9.38
206.41
203.55
80.31
19.09
Sum = $130.09

Cardboard

Gypsum/Drywall

Concrete/Masonry/Asphalt

Steel/Metal

0.00
0.09
0.04
198.55
0.08

11.86
2.31
7.09
156.11
11.07

27.90
57.77
42.84
48.53
20.79

1.20
2.29
1.74
71.75
1.25

Table 22
Simple calculation sheet to estimate overall recycling savings for similar projects.
Basic Data
Project Size (square feet)

Number of Floors

Unit Price for

Land-lling ($)

Unit Price for Recycling as

Co-mingled ($)

Unied Unit Price for Recycling

Separate Streams ($)

Variable Input

Variable Input

213.45

206.41

130.09
Results

Calculations
Expected Quantity of Generated Waste
Scenario A Cost of Land-lling All Waste (No Savings)
Scenario B Potential Savings in Case of Recycling All as
Co-mingled
Scenario C Potential Savings in Case of Recycling Separate
Streams

Quantity = 0.025 Project Size/Number of Floors = 0.025 Project Floor Area

Cost = Quantity Unit Price for Land-lling = Quantity 213.45
Savings = [Quantity Unit Price for Land-lling] [Quantity Unit Price for Recycling as
Co-mingled] = [213.45 206.41] Quantity = 7.04 Quantity
Savings = [Quantity Unit Price for Land-lling] [Quantity Unied Unit Price for Recycling
Separate Streams] = [213.45 130.09] Quantit = 83.36 Quantity

(tons)
$
$
$

Note: For the prospect of future market changes, the unit price values given in the proposed model must be constantly updated in the future by following the same statistical
methodology, as demonstrated previously throughout the research, in order to validate the results.

tially generated waste in relation to project size for other similar

projects: Total Waste Quantity = 0.025 (Project Floor Area).
The given data was also used to infer a unied average unit price
for recycling various material streams. This value was calculated
in respect to the average proportional weight of each material
type in the composition of the total generated waste, and the
individual unit price associated to it.
Recycling savings could be approximately estimated for other
typical projects through the prerequisite variables (project
size, land-ll unit price, and unied-recycling unit price):
Savings = [Waste Quantity: (0.025 Project Floor Area) Unit
Price for Land-lling] [Waste Quantity: (0.025 Project Floor
Area) Unied Unit Price for Recycling].
A simplied model was set up for similar projects to calculate
recycling savings for either or all of three scenarios: land-lling
waste, recycling waste as co-mingled, and recycling waste as separate streams. This is accomplished by simply substituting the
values for the unit price related to each scenario, taking into
consideration the prospect of market changes.

7. Conclusions
As proven in the results of the statistical analysis, the benets of
construction waste recycling could be highly enhanced through:

Incorporating higher percentages of recycled content in the material input of new projects since this relatively lowers the overall
cost of building materials (as long as all specications are met
and all regulatory codes are respected).
Considering recycling as the most sustainable option for construction waste management, not only for its economic revenues,
but also for the resulting environmental benets which include
but are not limited to saving landll volume and the signicant
reduction of Green House Gas emissions.
Minimizing the quantity of co-mingled waste in the composition
of total generated waste (as it has the lowest saving value) by
inciting and regulating waste separation on site. This, in turn,
maximizes single-stream waste recycling, which is much more
protable.
Availing the derived statistical model to quantify the prospective
waste for a given project size, approximate the overall cost of
waste management, and estimate potential recycling savings.
References
Allied Waste Industries (2011). Waste management report of UMass Marching Band
Building Project (including LEED New Construction NC 2.2 submittal for materials
and resourcesMR credit 2.1/2.2: construction waste management). Chicopee,
Massachusetts, USA.
Barr & Barr (The Builders) (2014). Material value report of UMass New Academic
Classroom Building Project (including LEED New Construction NC 2.2 submittal for
materials and resourcesMR credit 4.1/4.2: recycled content). Springeld,
Massachusetts, USA.

M.I.M. Ibrahim / Sustainable Cities and Society 23 (2016) 7893

CTA Construction Co. (2011). Material value report of UMass New Police Station
Project (including LEED New Construction NC 2.2 submittal for materials and
resourcesMR credit 4.1/4.2: recycled content). Waltham, Massachusetts, USA.
Caolo & Bieneik Associates Inc. (2009). Architectural drawings of UMass New Police
Station Project. Chicopee, Massachusetts, USA.
Cochran, K., Henry, S., Dubey, B., & Townsend, T. (2007). Government policies for
increasing the recycling of construction and demolition debris. USA: Department
of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida.
Cochran, K. (2006). Construction and demolition debris recycling: methods, markets,
and policy. USA: The Graduate School of the University of Florida.
Dolan, P., Lampo, R., & Dearborn, J. (1999). Concepts for reuse and recycling of
construction and demolition wastetechnical report 97/58. USA: Construction
Engineering Research Laboratories, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
EPA. (1998). Ofce of solid waste. Characterization of building-related construction
and demolition debris in the United States. USA: The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
EPA. (2000). Ofce of solid waste and emergency response. Building savings: strategies
for waste reduction of construction and demolition debris from buildings. USA:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
EPA. (2014a). Construction and demolition debrissolid waste in New England. USA:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [April 2nd, 2014]. http://
www.epa.gov/region1/solidwaste/cnd/
EPA. (2014b). Green house gas equivalencies calculatoronline tool. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [last update: April 16th, 2014]. http://
www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html
EPA. (2014c). Waste Reduction Model (WARM)online tool. The U.S Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) [last update: August 27th, 2014]. http://epa.gov/
epawaste/conserve/tools/warm/index.html
Eastern General Contractors (2011). Material value report of UMass Marching Band
Building Project (including LEED New Construction NC 2.2 submittal for materials
and resourcesMR credit 4.1/4.2: recycled content). Chicopee, Massachusetts,
USA.
Kuhn Riddle Architects (2011). Architectural drawings of UMass Marching Band
Building Project. Amherst, Massachusetts, USA.
MassDEP. (2014). Solid waste management310 CMR: code of Massachusetts
Regulations. USA: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(MassDEP).
OLR. (2010). Solid waste managementrecycling and disposal feesreport.
Connecticut, USA: Ofce of Legislative Research (OLR) [last update: March
12th, 2010]. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-r-0107.htm

93

Small, E. (2012). Climate action plan 2.0, UMass Amherst sustainability initiativea
vision for 2020 & roadmap towards carbon neutrality. Amherst, USA: The
University of Massachusetts.
Spade, K., & Wulsin, L. (2013). Green Building Guidelines2013 Update. Amherst,
USA: The University of Massachusetts.
Stantec Inc. (2013). Architectural drawings of UMass New Academic Classroom
Building Project. Northampton, Massachusetts, USA.
The Center for Sustainable Systems. (2005a). Construction and demolition (C&D)
recyclingrecycling and reuse of building materials moduleunit B. USA:
University of Michigan.
The Center for Sustainable Systems. (2005b). Waste preventionrecycling and reuse
of building materials moduleunit A. USA: University of Michigan.
UMass Department of Facility Planning. (2014). Campus LEED Projects reportApril
2014 update. Amherst, USA: The University of Massachusetts.
UMass Green Building Subcommittee. (2010a). Campus brochure of the Marching
Band Building Project. Amherst, USA: The University of Massachusetts.
UMass Green Building Subcommittee. (2010b). Campus brochure of the New Police
Station Project. Amherst, USA: The University of Massachusetts.
UMass Green Building Subcommittee. (2013). Campus brochure of the New Academic
Classroom Building Project. Amherst, USA: The University of Massachusetts.
UMass. (2012). Construction waste management and disposal, section 017419
division 1 of 8 December update. Amherst, Massachusetts, USA: The University
of Massachusetts.
UNEP Division of Technology, Industry, and Economics. (2003). Sustainable building
and construction: facts and gures, Vol. 26, No. 2, industry and environment a
quarterly review. United Nations Environmental Programme
(AprilSeptember).
WRAP. (2007). Waste recovery quick winsimproving recovery rates without
increasing costs. UK: Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP).
Waste Management Inc. (2011). Waste management report of UMass New Police
Station Project (including LEED New Construction NC 2.2 submittal for materials
and resourcesMR credit 2.1/2.2: construction waste management). Wilbraham,
Massachusetts, USA.
Waste Management Inc. (2014). Waste management report of UMass New Academic
Classroom Building Project (including LEED New Construction NC 2.2 submittal for
materials and resourcesMR credit 2.1/2.2: construction waste management).
Wilbraham, Massachusetts, USA.