Matching Items (4)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

157200-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

The built environment is responsible for a significant portion of global waste generation.

Construction and demolition (C&D) waste requires significant landfill areas and costs

billions of dollars. New business models that reduce this waste may prove to be financially

beneficial and generally more sustainable. One such model is referred to as the “Circular

Economy”

The built environment is responsible for a significant portion of global waste generation.

Construction and demolition (C&D) waste requires significant landfill areas and costs

billions of dollars. New business models that reduce this waste may prove to be financially

beneficial and generally more sustainable. One such model is referred to as the “Circular

Economy” (CE), which promotes the efficient use of materials to minimize waste

generation and raw material consumption. CE is achieved by maximizing the life of

materials and components and by reclaiming the typically wasted value at the end of their

life. This thesis identifies the potential opportunities for using CE in the built environment.

It first calculates the magnitude of C&D waste and its main streams, highlights the top

C&D materials based on weight and value using data from various regions, identifies the

top C&D materials’ current recycling and reuse rates, and finally estimates a potential

financial benefit of $3.7 billion from redirecting C&D waste using the CE concept in the

United States.

ContributorsAldaaja, Mohammad (Author) / El Asmar, Mounir (Thesis advisor) / Buch, Rajesh (Committee member) / Kaloush, Kamil (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
134315-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Sustainable Materials Management and Circular Economy are both frameworks for considering the way we interact with the world's resources. Different organizations and institutions across the world have adopted one philosophy or the other. To some, there seems to be little overlap of the two, and to others, they are perceived

Sustainable Materials Management and Circular Economy are both frameworks for considering the way we interact with the world's resources. Different organizations and institutions across the world have adopted one philosophy or the other. To some, there seems to be little overlap of the two, and to others, they are perceived as being interchangeable. This paper evaluates Sustainable Materials Management (SMM) and Circular Economy (CE) individually and in comparison to see how truly different these frameworks are from one another. This comparison is then extended into a theoretical walk-through of an SMM treatment of concrete pavement in contrast with a CE treatment. With concrete being a ubiquitous in the world's buildings and roads, as well as being a major constituent of Construction & Demolition waste generated, its analysis is applicable to a significant portion of the world's material flow. The ultimate test of differentiation between SMM and CE would ask: 1) If SMM principles guided action, would the outcomes be aligned with or at odds with CE principles? and conversely 2) If CE principles guided action, would the outcomes be aligned with or at odds with SMM principles? Using concrete pavement as an example, this paper seeks to determine whether or not Sustainable Materials Management and Circular Economy are simply different roads leading to the same destination.
ContributorsAbdul-Quadir, Anisa (Author) / Kelman, Candice (Thesis director) / Buch, Rajesh (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-05
148164-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

Waste pickers are the victims of harsh economic and social factors that have hurt many developing countries and billions of people around the world. Due to the rise of industrialization since the 19th century, waste and disposable resources have been discarded around the world to provide more resources, products, and

Waste pickers are the victims of harsh economic and social factors that have hurt many developing countries and billions of people around the world. Due to the rise of industrialization since the 19th century, waste and disposable resources have been discarded around the world to provide more resources, products, and services to wealthy countries. This has put developing countries in a precarious position where people have had very few economic opportunities besides taking on the role of waste pickers, who not only face physical health consequences due to the work they do but also face exclusion from society due to the negative views of waste pickers. Many people view waste pickers as scavengers and people who survive off of doing dirty work, which creates tensions between waste pickers and others in society. This even leads to many countries outlawing waste picking and has led to the brutal treatment of waste pickers throughout the world and has even led to thousands of waste pickers being killed by anti-waste picker groups and law enforcement organizations in many countries. <br/> Waste pickers are often at the bottom of supply-chains as they take resources that have been used and discarded, and provide them to recyclers, waste management organizations, and others who are able to turn these resources into usable materials again. Waste pickers do not have many opportunities to rise above the situation they are in as waste picking has become the only option for many people who need to provide for themselves and their families. They are not compensated very well for the work they do, which also contributes to the situation where waste pickers are forced into a position of severe health risks, backlash from society and governments, not being able to seek better opportunities due to a lack of earning potential, and not being connected with end-users. Now is the time to create new business models that solve these large problems in our global society and create a sustainable way to ensure that waste pickers are treated properly around the world.

ContributorsKidd, Isabella Joy (Co-author) / Kapps, Jack (Co-author) / Urbina-Bernal, Alejandro (Thesis director) / Byrne, Jared (Committee member) / Marseille, Alicia (Committee member) / Jordan, Amanda (Committee member) / Dean, W.P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Morrison School of Agribusiness (Contributor) / Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics (Contributor) / Department of Finance (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05
158631-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
ABSTRACT

Historically, Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) guided companies to make better decisions to improve the environmental impacts of their products. However, as new Circular Economy (CE) tools emerge, the usefulness of LCA in assessing linear products grow more and more obsolete. Research Question: How do LCA-based tools account for reuse/multiple life

ABSTRACT

Historically, Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) guided companies to make better decisions to improve the environmental impacts of their products. However, as new Circular Economy (CE) tools emerge, the usefulness of LCA in assessing linear products grow more and more obsolete. Research Question: How do LCA-based tools account for reuse/multiple life cycles of products verses CE-based tools?

The Kaiteki Innovation Framework (KIF) was used to address the question of circularity of two packaging materials using an Environmental LCA to populate its 12 CE dimensions. Any gaps were evaluated with 2 LCA- based and 2 CE-based tools to see which could address the leftover CE dimensions.

Results showed that to complete the KIF template, LCA data required one of the LCA-based tools: Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) and both CE-based tools: Circular Transition Indicators (CTI) and Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) to supplement gaps in the KIF. The LCA addressed 5 of the KIF dimensions: Innovation Category Name, Description, GHG Impact, Other Environmental Impacts, and Value Chain Position. 3 analytical tools addressed 5 more:: Effect on Circularity, Social Impacts, Enabling Technologies, Tier 2 and 3 Requirements, and Value Chain Synergies. None of the tools could address the KIF Dimensions: State of Development or Scale Requirements. All in all, the KIF required both LCA-based and CE-based tools to cover social and socio-economic impacts from a cradle-to-cradle perspective with multiple circular loops in mind. These results can help in the research and development of innovative, circular products that can lead to a more environmentally preferred future.
ContributorsDe Los Santos, Andrew John (Author) / Seager, Thomas (Thesis advisor) / Dooley, Kevin (Committee member) / Buch, Rajesh (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2020