| | Eco-efficiency and performance strategies in construction and |
| | 4,81 | | MB | demolition waste recycling systems |
| | 206 | | stron |
| | 3962 | | ID | Norwegian University of Science and Technology |
| | 2005 | | rok |
| | Contents |
| | Abstract i |
| | Acknowledgements iii |
| | Contents v |
| | List of ¯gures ix |
| | List of tables xi |
| | 1 Introduction 1 |
| | 1.1 Background 1 |
| | 1.2 Research goal and questions . 2 |
| | 1.2.1 The core goal of this Ph.D. thesis 4 |
| | 1.3 Multidisciplinary approach . 5 |
| | 1.4 Scope and positioning 6 |
| | 1.5 Structure of this thesis 7 |
| | 2 Theory 9 |
| | 2.1 The Industrial Ecology foundation for this work 10 |
| | 2.1.1 Human impact on natural ecosystems . 14 |
| | 2.1.2 System dynamics . 15 |
| | 2.1.3 Self-organizing holarctic open (SOHO) systems 17 |
| | 2.1.4 Industrial systems - the technosphere . 21 |
| | 2.2 Systems engineering . 22 |
| | 2.2.1 Systems Engineering Management Process . 24 |
| | 2.2.2 Systems Engineering Technical Process 24 |
| | 2.3 Environmental impact 26 |
| | 2.3.1 Life Cycle Assessment, LCA . 26 |
| | 2.3.2 The Eco-indicator 99 method of Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) . 31 |
| | 2.3.3 System boundaries and allocation between co-products 33 |
| | 2.3.4 Eco-eficiency . 35 |
| | 2.3.5 Recycling systems 38 |
| | 2.4 Organizations, technology and change . 41 |
| | 2.4.1 Organizational learning . 42 |
| | 2.4.2 Systems thinking . 44 |
| | 2.4.3 Actor network theory 46 |
| | 2.4.4 Policy success in terms of Industrial Ecology- the analytical framework 49 |
| | 2.5 The Construction and Demolition waste handling system 52 |
| | 2.5.1 Laws and Regulations concerning C&D waste . 53 |
| | 2.5.2 Measures of e®ectiveness . 54 |
| | 2.5.3 Economic activities in the C&D waste systems 55 |
| | 2.5.4 Environmental impact from C&D waste systems . 56 |
| | 3 Methods 63 |
| | 3.1 Systems engineering approach 64 |
| | 3.2 Understanding the system 65 |
| | 3.2.1 Collecting information and data 66 |
| | 3.2.2 Interviews . 66 |
| | 3.2.3 Describing the system as an actor network . 68 |
| | 3.2.4 Measuring e®ectiveness . 70 |
| | 3.3 Calculations and modeling 72 |
| | 3.3.1 Projection of future waste generation 72 |
| | 3.3.2 Waste handling and environmental impact . 78 |
| | 3.3.3 Economic data 80 |
| | 3.3.4 Sensitivity analysis 81 |
| | 3.3.5 Eco-Eficiency in recycling systems . 82 |
| | 4 Results 87 |
| | 4.1 Case 1: The \Copenhagen system" . 88 |
| | 4.1.1 Application of policy instruments 89 |
| | 4.1.2 Facilitating changes in target group behavior . 90 |
| | 4.1.3 Shifting focus . 91 |
| | 4.1.4 Knowledge and motivation . 92 |
| | 4.1.5 Policy instrument . 94 |
| | 4.2 Case 2: The \Oslo system" . 95 |
| | 4.2.1 Application of policy instruments 95 |
| | 4.2.2 Facilitating creation and transfer ofknowledge among stakeholders 97 |
| | 4.2.3 Programme impact 98 |
| | 4.3 Case 3: Long term C&D waste handling strategies 102 |
| | 4.3.1 Projection of future C&D waste 102 |
| | 4.3.2 Eco-eficiency and waste management optimization 104 |
| | 4.4 Recycling and transport distances . 109 |
| | 5 Analysis and synthesis 111 |
| | 5.1 Actor network, policies and organizational learning 111 |
| | 5.1.1 The actor network and organizational learning 112 |
| | 5.1.2 Policies 115 |
| | 5.1.3 About \lock-ins" . 119 |
| | 5.2 Waste projection . 122 |
| | 5.3 Eco-eficiency . 123 |
| | 5.3.1 Recycling of renewable versus non-renewable materials 124 |
| | 5.3.2 Eco-eficiency and the recycling targets of NAP 2005 . 125 |
| | 6 Conclusion and recommendations 127 |
| | 6.1 Conclusion 128 |
| | 6.2 Recommendations . . 128 |
| | 7 Suggested future work 131 |
| | References 133 |
| | A Terminology and de¯nitions I |
| | B Interview Guide V |
| | C Paper 1 VII |
| | D Paper 2 XXV |