Environmental Impact Assessment Review 87 (2021) 106543

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

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

Circular economy application for a Green Stadium construction towards

sustainable FIFA world cup Qatar 2022™
Abathar Al-Hamrani a, Doyoon Kim b, Murat Kucukvar c, *, Nuri Cihat Onat d
a
Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Qatar University, Qatar
b
Senior Sustainability Expert, Qatar Foundation, Doha, Qatar
c
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar
d
Qatar Transportation and Traffic Safety Center, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The construction industry is responsible for a significant amount of raw material consumption and environmental
Recycled concrete footprints. Therefore, sustainable construction became a hot topic, which strives to reduce material consumption,
Circular economy limit constructional waste disposal, and decrease contribution to climate change. In line with Qatar’s commit­
Carbon footprint
ment to organizing a sustainable FIFA World Cup in 2022, this study aims to conduct an environmental life cycle
Life cycle sustainability assessment
Sustainable construction
assessment (LCA) for the construction of the Education City Stadium. The work presented here provides the first
FIFA world cup 2022™ empirical LCA for analyzing the environmental and economic impacts of circular economy application in a World
Cup stadium. In this research, the cyclopean concrete (CYC) methodology was utilized, which incorporate the
site excavated boulders with the concrete mix to cast the under-raft foundation of the stadium. This approach
was compared to the conventional concrete (CC) casting approach to assess the extent to which the newly
developed methodology can reduce the environmental and economic burdens. The obtained results have shown a
32% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions when adapting the CYC approach. Thus, the CYC holds a strong
promise to achieve the required structural behavior with a low-cost alternative material from existing waste
products in Qatar and a lower environmental impact than the CC.

1. Introduction with the environmental burdens caused by mega sports events. In 1994,
the Lillehammer Winter Olympic Games was the first mega-event or­
As the world’s largest liquefied natural gas producer, Qatar has ganization that aimed to apply sustainable and environmental practices
gained international recognition because of its substantial endowment (Paradise, 2016). Afterward, the International Olympic Committee in
in petroleum and natural gas reserves. As a result, having an opportunity 1996 declared to include the environmental impact assessment as a
to hold the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™ event will have a long-term mandatory requirement throughout the life cycle of the future Olympic
positive impact on the country’s legacy. As it has been witnessed in Games (Dolles and Söderman, 2010; Gold and Gold, 2013; Talavera
other countries that have hosted such an event before, the FIFA orga­ et al., 2019). For FWC events, the environmental concerns were first
nization aims to cut the overall environmental impacts of FIFA World addressed in the 2006 FWC held in Germany, which integrated the green
Cups (FWC) on both the hosting country as well as the surrounding re­ values under five main areas: water, waste, energy, transportation, and
gions (Death, 2011). climate change neutrality (Talavera et al., 2019). After that, the 2010
Over the past century, policymakers were increasingly concerned FWC in South Africa sought to launch an initiative towards mitigating

Abbreviations: FWC, FIFA World Cup; GHG, Greenhouse gases; SC, Sustainable construction; CDW, Construction and demolition waste; CE, Circular economy;
SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals; LCA, Life Cycle Assessment; FA, Fly ash; SCDL, Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy; CC, Conventional concrete; CYC,
Cyclopean concrete; ECS, Education City Stadium; EFs, Emission factors; GWP, Global warming potential; PC, Portland cement; N2O, Nitrous oxide; CH4, Methane;
RCA, Recycled coarse aggregates; RAC, Recycled aggregate concrete; VB, Volume of excavated boulders; FE, Fuel efficiency; CFR, Consumed fuel in rock excavation;
CFD, Consumed fuel in concrete discharging; CFT, Consumed fuel in transportation processes; ER, Excavation rate; CV, Concrete volume; DR, Discharging rate of
concrete; D, Distance per trip; T, Time per trip; CF, Consumed fuel; C, Cost; Q, Quantity consumed; P, Unit price.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Kucukvar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106543
Received 2 October 2020; Received in revised form 29 November 2020; Accepted 19 December 2020
Available online 6 January 2021
0195-9255/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Al-Hamrani et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 87 (2021) 106543

the environmental impacts called “Green Goal 2010”, which entails ambitions for environmental protection and economic growth (Lieder
some innovative projects ranging from recycling and waste management and Rashid, 2016).
to city beautifications and biodiversity protection (Death, 2011). How­ In light of the rapid urbanization and industrialization, practical
ever, because South Africa was a developing country that suffers from solutions are needed by the governments to convert local construction
social inequalities and poverty, the organizers allocated more focus on waste - which is produced from the excavation and demolition of old
the social and economic aspects than the environmental aspect such as buildings - into usable products that can be utilized in the construction
job creation and national economic boost (Ermolaeva and Lind, 2020). of residential, roads, and infrastructure projects. Ossa et al. (2016)
To some extent, the 2014 FWC in Brazil had a similar experience to the studied the feasibility of construction and demolition waste (CDW) ag­
2010 FWC in South Africa due to multiple indexes of high poverty and gregates to pave the hot asphalt urban roads and reported their suit­
widespread corruption (Malhado and Rothfuss, 2013). When Russia was ability in percentages up to 20%. Moreover, several authors
selected to host the 2018 FWC, a comprehensive stakeholder analysis (Bhattacharyya, 2011; Ceia et al., 2016; Majhi et al., 2018; Manzi et al.,
was conducted and a sustainability strategy was built since 2013 based 2020; Nepomuceno and Vila, 2014) indicated that up to 30% replace­
on the triple bottom lines (TBL) namely, social, economic, and envi­ ment of natural coarse aggregates with recycled coarse aggregates, the
ronmental (Ermolaeva and Lind, 2020). Hence, environmental sustain­ concrete properties were hardly affected and the concrete was efficiently
ability is a fundamental pillar of Qatar’s vision and commitment as the used.
host country for the next FWC event. While the safe disposal of fly ash (FA) continues to pose challenges
around the world, Yu et al. (2018) has developed a green concrete
2. Literature review methodology in which not less than 80% of cement is replaced with FA
for low targeted compressive strength of 30 MPa. Their methodology
2.1. Sustainable construction and circular economy revealed a 70% reduction in CO2 emissions, a 60% reduction in the
embodied energy, and a 35% reduction in the material cost. Recently,
The construction sector is among the most prominent sectors that Czop and Lazniewska-Piekarczyk (2020) presented an ecological
contribute to a major share of the environmental impact (Kucukvar and friendly construction method that was aiming at reducing the CO2
Tatari, 2012, 2013; Onat et al., 2014). For example, owing to its alter­ emissions produced from the cement industry by replacing 30% of
able properties and versatility, concrete has been estimated to be the cement with the slag obtained from the municipal solid waste
most used material in the construction sector (Tatari and Kucukvar, incineration.
2011, 2012; Hill and Bowen, 1997). Annually, massive amounts of As a response to the remarkable benefits of SC and CE, Qatar has paid
concrete exceeding 6 billion metric tons are produced worldwide (Marie great attention to the use of innovative technologies for material savings
and Quiasrawi, 2012; Tafheem et al., 2011), which results in huge CO2 and energy to reduce impacts on the natural environment. For instance,
emissions and raw materials consumption. Alhorr and Elsarrag (2015) the Qatar Construction Specifications manual (Qatar Construction
reported that the construction and building sector is responsible for 1/3 Specifications, 2014) has adopted the Global Sustainability Assessment
of the total GHG emissions, and it was classified as the second largest System (GSAS) as part of the building code to meet the minimum
CO2 emitter (Ürge-Vorsatz and Novikova, 2008). Thus, this necessitates environmental performance. Moreover, it considers the recycling of
the importance of adopting environmentally friendly strategies that materials from demolished buildings and roads as of interest to Qatar.
contribute to meet the needs of the growing population of human so­ According to Zeyad Hayajneh (2017), it was mentioned that around
cieties, maintain the health of the planet, and ensure the ability of future 170,000 seats of the 2022 FWC Stadiums will be donated to countries in
generations to grow (Onat and Kucukvar, 2020; Onat et al., 2014; need of sporting infrastructure after the 2022 FWC event.
Kucukvar et al., 2014b).
Nowadays, there is a worldwide progressive thrive towards the 2.2. Environmental life cycle assessment
implementation of sustainable construction (SC) practices in various
construction industries (Ametepey et al., 2015). Achieving the SC The life-cycle assessment (LCA) method is particularly used in
environment is based on an endeavor that applies the three pillars of assessing the environmental impacts associated with all stages of a
sustainability; environmental, economic, and social; on the compre­ product’s life (Singh et al., 2011; Tatari et al., 2012). Furthermore, the
hensive construction process, starting from the extraction of raw mate­ LCA is a four-stage assessing tool, which begins in the first stage by
rials, and ending with the deconstruction of the resultant waste identifying the purpose and scope of the work, illustrates the system
(Kucukvar et al., 2014a; Shafii et al., 2006; Tan et al., 2011). According boundaries, and defining the functional unit of analysis; the second stage
to Kibert (1994), the SC concept encompasses six principles under which involves data collection and establishing the energy flows for each life
an SC environment can be accomplished: 1) minimizing resource con­ stage of the product; the third stage includes the categorization of
sumption, 2) maximizing the reuse of resources, 3) using recyclable or environmental impacts (impact categories) and sorting the environ­
renewable resources, 4) protecting the natural environment, 5) creating mental problems in their relative impact categories; in the fourth stage,
an eco-friendly non-toxic environment, 6) keeping track of quality in the the quantified data are interpreted and evaluated so that the best
built environment. alternative can be selected (Sen et al., 2019, 2020; Singh et al., 2011).
On the other hand, the linear economy model is one of the greatest There is a large and growing body of literature that has employed the
challenges worldwide, which has serious negative repercussions on the LCA in performance evaluation of construction practices (Bovea and
economic, social, and environmental aspects of life. This model works Powell, 2016; Carpenter et al., 2007; Colangelo et al., 2018; De Schepper
based on extract, manufacture, use, and dispose of waste, while the et al., 2014; Ding et al., 2016; Horvath, 2004; Ingrao et al., 2016; Knoeri
circular economy (CE) model attempts to end this cycle by replacing the et al., 2013; Singh et al., 2011; Tsai et al., 2014; Varun et al., 2012). For
“waste disposal” component with “reuse”(Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; example, Horvath (2004) developed an LCA framework, which draws on
Kirchherr et al., 2017; Korhonen et al., 2018; Smol et al., 2015). This the environmental and economic impacts of using recycled material in
indicates that the CE is a methodology that strives to keep a further value highway construction. A comparative LCA by Knoeri et al. (2013) was
of a product upon reaching the end of its life, eliminating waste, and performed between partially recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) and
motivating the regeneration of resources (Smol et al., 2015). As an conventional concrete (CC). The LCA results exhibited a 30% reduction
example, Assefa and Ambler (2017) stated that if 10% of the institu­ in the environmental impacts, which was mainly attributed to the
tional and commercial buildings in Canada are to be repurposed without avoidance of CDW dumping in landfills and to the recovered steel scrap.
the need for new construction, 165 megatons of CO2-eq emissions to the An attempt by De Schepper et al. (2014) was carried to produce
atmosphere will be prevented. Also, CE is a solution that harmonizes completely recyclable concrete (CRC). The environmental benefits of

2
A. Al-Hamrani et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 87 (2021) 106543

CRC were then quantified through an LCA analysis, which showed a 1) Performing a detailed comparative environmental LCA of CYC and
significant reduction in the total carbon footprint. Kucukvar et al. (2014) CC starting from the manufacturing and transportation processes and
also build a hybrid LCA model to quantify all of the economy-wide ending with disposing of or reuse.
supply-chain impacts of three construction waste management strate­ 2) Investigating the efficiency of the developed method in reducing
gies such as recycling, landfilling, and incineration. Their findings resource consumption, preventing unnecessary transport emissions,
showed that only the recycling of construction materials provided pos­ minimizing waste generation, and saving costs.
itive environmental footprint savings in terms of carbon, energy, and 3) Show Qatar’s commitment to organizing and building environmen­
water footprints Ding et al. (2016) performed a closed-loop LCA on RAC tally friendly facilities to host the first edition of the FWC in the
in China to measure the environmental influence of aggregate produc­ Middle East and the Arab world.
tion, cement content, transportation, and landfilling. The transportation
activities along with the cement proportions were observed to be the top 3. Methods
two contributors to energy consumption and CO2 emissions.
More recently, Colangelo et al. (2018) conducted an LCA on four The approach to empirical LCA research adopted for this study is
recycled concrete mixes, i.e., blast furnace slag, incinerator ashes, CDW, summarized in a step-by-step manner in Fig. 1. More details about data
and marble sludge, and found that the blast furnace slag had the least collection and analysis of materials for each stage of the system life cycle
environmental impact. Data from several resources have confirmed the are also presented in Section 3.
fact that cement material is responsible for 6–7% of the world’s total
CO2 emissions (Andrew, 2017; Karsan and Hoseini, 2015; NRMCA, 3.1. Case study
2008; Tafheem et al., 2011). Therefore, Wang et al. (2017) have studied
the LCA for concrete, where cement was partially replaced with FA. The ECS project is one of the FIFA 2022 WC stadiums that will host
Their results revealed that the use of FA has saved costs and reduced matches until the quarter-finals stage of the tournament. Before the
environmental and social burdens. Another holistic approach was fol­ general contractor company was awarded the design and build contract
lowed by Ansah et al. (2020), who incorporated Building Information for the construction of the ECS project, the site was already excavated by
Modelling, LCA, and Life Cycle Cost to provide useful guidelines in another contractor. While the project’s specifications for foundation and
selecting the greenest and economic façade systems for a low-cost resi­ substructure preparation recommended the areas under raft slab to be
dential building in Ghana. backfilled up to the foundation stratum, these areas were found to be
lower than anticipated due to over-excavation by the previous
2.3. Novelty and research objectives contractor. Hence, to fulfill this requirement, the general contractor in
cooperation with SCDL has developed the CYC method, which employs
Qatar is currently witnessing major prosperity in the field of con­ the site excavated boulders as one of the concrete ingredients.
struction, and worldwide, there is a growing trend towards SC appli­ Around 45,000m3 of soil and boulders have been excavated on the
cations. In line with this, the Supreme Committee for Delivery and site. Boulders were then cut in specific sizes of 200 mm to 400 mm
Legacy (SCDL), who is responsible for planning and delivery of the 2022 diameter to fulfill the requirements and to be used for CYC application.
FWC Qatar, decided on implementing the cyclopean concrete (CYC) With the help of a wheel loader/excavator and a screening bucket, the
methodology by embedding the site excavated boulders as concrete is boulders were selected by size and then washed. Moreover, point load
deposited rather than the conventional concrete (CC) methodology to tests were performed on the selected specimen to investigate their
fill the under-raft foundation of the 2022 FWC Education City Stadium strength characteristics. Also, full safety control measures were applied
(ECS). Based on the available literature, no existing work has been found on the site and the procedures of the approved method of statement for
which exploit the site excavated boulders as a filling material for the the application of CYC fill were carefully followed. After the completion
under raft foundation of the same construction site without the need to of the whole casting of the CYC fill, load-bearing capacity and coring
excavate and bring boulders from remote locations. Therefore, to ensure was performed and tested by a 3rd party approved laboratory. While the
the feasibility of the CYC method as an environmentally friendly CYC methodology was adopted in the construction project of ESC sta­
methodology, the following objectives need to be determined as follow: dium to reduce the environmental life cycle impact of concrete, the main
question that needs an answer is does the followed method supports
Qatar National Vision 2030 on the environmental and economic levels
and helps to achieve an environmentally friendly FWC event with

Step One Step Two Step Three

1.Describe the case

Define system boundary Collect life cycle
study and identify
and functional unit inventory data
research questions

Step Six Step Five

Step Four

Visualization and Quantify the total Obtain data for emission

Interpretation of results environmental footprints factors from ecoinvent
and cost v3.6 and unit prices

Fig. 1. Steps for conducting a comparative LCA between CYC and CC.

3
A. Al-Hamrani et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 87 (2021) 106543

reduced CO2 emissions? Then, the activities with major sources of impacts were identified,
which include the production process of concrete, the transportation
3.2. System boundaries processes, the excavation processes, the pumping and casting of con­
crete, and the cleaning processes. The production phase encompasses
Before data collection, the system boundaries were defined for CYC the manufacturing processes of all concrete ingredients and their
and CC as shown in Fig. 2a, and Fig. 2b, respectively. As illustrated in resultant impacts until they exit from the factory. The transportation
Fig. 2a and b, the definition of system boundaries for this LCA study processes phase considers the fuel consumed during the transportation
begins by specifying the input parameters on which the environmental processes of concrete from the plant to the construction site through the
and economic performance of either type of concrete will be evaluated. mixer and pump trucks. Meanwhile, the fuel consumed during the
These parameters included: excavation and transportation of the site excavated boulders to the
location of the under-raft foundation was considered in the excavation
1) Raw materials needed for reinforced concrete production such as phase. The phase of casting concrete considers the fuel consumed during
cement, sand, aggregates, boulders, and reinforcement. the discharging of concrete from the pump trucks into the recommended
2) Water needed for concrete mixing and for cleaning concrete mixer locations in the site. The final phase considers the amount of water
and concrete pump trucks. consumed during the cleaning of concrete mixer and pump trucks. As
3) Diesel to be consumed by machines on-site and for transporting can be depicted from Fig. 2a and Fig. 2b that the excavated boulders
construction materials. were embedded in concrete to produce CYC for the under-raft founda­
tion, while they were disposed into landfills in the CC case. After

Fig. 2. System boundaries (a) Cyclopean concrete (b) Conventional concrete.

4
A. Al-Hamrani et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 87 (2021) 106543

analyzing the consumed amount of the input parameters in the defined Table 2
boundary system, the associated outputs were calculated based on the CO2-eq emission factors for concrete making materials.
greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions to air (CO2, N2O,and CH4), the RC ingredients Emission factor Unit Reference
disposed of boulders, and the total financial cost.
PC 0.8 kg CO2-eq/kg Ecoinvent v3.6
Coarse Aggregates 0.04 kg CO2-eq/kg Ecoinvent v3.6
3.3. Functional unit Sharp sand 0.004 kg CO2-eq/kg Ecoinvent v3.6
Reinforcing bars 1.31 kg CO2-eq/kg Qatar Steel (2017)

The functional unit in this study was defined as the zone under the
raft foundation of the ESC FWC stadium, which constituted a total vol­
ume of 18,000 m3. Within this study, a comparison between two con­ Table 3
crete methodologies such as CYC and the CC will be conducted in terms Fuel efficiency for heavy machinery in the site.
of environmental and economic impacts to fill that zone. It is worth Truck type FE
noting here that the CYC methodology differs from the CC one by the Hammer excavator 32.52 l/h
embedment of boulders to fill some of the required volumes before the Front-wheel loader 16.43 l/h
addition of concrete, while there is no difference in the concrete prop­ Concrete mixer Empty truck: 0.714 l/km
erties used for both cases, and hence the unit price of concrete in­ Loaded truck: 0.84 l/km
11.13 l/h
gredients will be same.
Concrete pump 0.3 l/km
26.6 l/h
3.4. Life cycle inventory data Tipper truck 0.368 l/km

After identifying the system boundaries, data regarding concrete mix

To estimate the GHG emissions liberated by fuel consumption of the
proportions, and prices for both types of concrete were gathered from
construction equipment, the EF for the consumed fuel was calculated
the contractor as shown in Table 1. The total concrete volume used for
according to Yan et al. (2010) by utilizing Eq. (1):
CC was 18,000m3, while 13,637m3 of concrete plus 6500m3 of boulders
were used for CYC. To account for CO2 emissions released from the FueljEF=EFof CO2 forfuelj+EFof CH4 forfuelj×GWPof CH4
production of each concrete ingredients, the emission factors (EFs) for +EFof N2 Oforfuelj×GWPof N2 O (1)
Portland cement (PC), coarse aggregates, and sharp sand were obtained
from the Ecoinvent v3.6 database, which is recognized as one of the where GWP is referred to as global warming potential.
most consistent and largest life cycle inventory databases (Treyer and Hence, for diesel fuel the GHG EF is = 2.69 + 0.0239 × 25
+
1000
Bauer, 2016). Furthermore, the EF for the reinforcing bars was obtained 0.0074 × 298
= 2.7kg CO2 − eq/liter Data related to the EF of CO2, the
1000
from Qatar Steel’s 7th annual sustainability report in (2017). These EFs, and GWPs of CH4 and N2O were obtained from (International En­
factors are listed in Table 2 with a measuring unit of kg CO2-eq/kg. The ergy Agency, 2018). It is worth mentioning that the diesel cost per liter
CO2-eq is referred to as CO2 equivalents and it was used to incorporate was 0.55$ according to WOQOD company (2019), which is the sole
the global warming effect of nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) distributor of fuels in Qatar.
emitted during each production activity. To evaluate the environmental and economic performance for CYC
Besides, the fuel efficiency (FE) associated with different heavy and CC, the detailed calculations are presented, respectively, in Table 4
machinery trucks, that were utilized in the excavation, transportation, and Table 5. In these tables, the main activities were listed in order, then
and disposal processes were determined from the trucks located in the all sub-activities were identified under them with their environmental
construction site. As shown in Table 3, the fuel efficiency was deter­ and economic impacts. The environmental impact of each concrete type
mined in terms of either liter/km or liter/h units, so that the consumed was evaluated in terms of CO2-eq emissions that resulted during the
amount of diesel in liters for each truck can be calculated based on the entire life of the product. Whereas the economic impact was evaluated
traveled distance or the queuing time, respectively. The queuing time in based on the consumed raw materials such as PC, coarse aggregates,
this study represents the time needed for excavating rocks or discharging sharp sand, reinforcing steel, diesel fuel, and water. The detailed cal­
a unit volume of concrete. It is important to note that the distance of the culations in Table 4 and Table 5 were carried as follows:
site from the concrete plant and the dumping site was 40 km and 50 km,
respectively. Furthermore, the time needed for the front wheel loader to 1- Calculate the CO2-eq emissions for each concrete ingredient based on
transport the excavated boulders to the destination was estimated to last Eq. (2):
≥12 min, whereas the cleaning time for concrete mixer and concrete
pump trucks were estimated to last ≥5 and ≥ 12 min, respectively. CO2 − eq emissions = Q × EF (2)

where Q is the quantity of each concrete ingredient and EF is the

Table 1
Concrete mix proportions and quantities used for: i) CC concrete; ii) CYC
emission factor presented in Table 2 for each material.
concrete.
2- Assign each truck to the corresponding activity and select its fuel
Ingredients CC CYC Price Reference
efficiency as determined in Table 3
PC 5762 4365 60.42 (Public Works Authority 3- Calculate the CO2-eq emissions for each activity, excluding the
tons tons ($/ton) (Ashghal), 2020)
emissions released during the manufacturing processes of RC in­
Coarse 21,606 16,366 20.6 (Public Works Authority
Aggregates tons tons ($/ton) (Ashghal), 2020) gredients, as in Eq. (3):
Sharp sand 10,803 8183 9.61 (Public Works Authority eq
tons tons ($/ton) (Ashghal), 2020) CO2 − eq emissions = CF (liters) × 2.7 kg CO2 − (3)
Water 3168.75 2400.21 5 ($/m3) (Qatar General
liter
m3 m3 Electricity and Water
Corporation, 2020)
where CF is the consumed fuel.
Excavated – 6500 m3 – –
boulders 4- Calculate the consumed fuel for transportation processes of concrete
Total concrete 18,000 13,637 and boulders (CFT) as in Eq. (4):
volume (m3) m3 m3

5
A. Al-Hamrani et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 87 (2021) 106543

Table 4 Table 4 (continued )

CO2-e emissions and total cost obtained from the CYC production. Activity Truck type/ Amount of diesel/ CO2-eq emissions
Activity Truck type/ Amount of diesel/ CO2-eq emissions concrete concrete ingredients (kg CO2-eq)
concrete concrete ingredients (kg CO2-eq) ingredients consumed
ingredients consumed
times × 2 way) =
Excavation/rock Hammer Hammer Excavator 5871.7 l × 2.7 kg 1080 l
breaking excavators fuel consumption: CO2-eq/l = Concrete mixer Concrete Number of Trips 1265 l × 2.7 kg
32.52 l/h 15,853.59 kg CO2- to pump mixer (loads): 13,637 m3/ 8 CO2-eq/l = 3415.5
Breaking of Rocks: ≥ eq m3 (capacity) = 1705 kg CO2-eq
6 m3/h. x 6 Discharging Rate
equipment = 36 m3/h (concrete): ≥2 m3/
Excavation fuel min
Consumption: (6500 Queuing Time: 8m3 /
m3 / 36 m3/h) x 2m3 = 4 × 1705 =
32.52 l/ h = 5871.7 l 6820 min
Transport Front-wheel Front-wheel loader 7574.23 l × 2.7 kg Mixer truck fuel
excavated loader fuel consumption: CO2-eq/l = 20,450 consumption: 11.13 l/
boulders to 16.43 l/h. kg CO2-eq h
the slab Trips: 6500 m3 / (4.7 Queuing Total Fuel
m3 bucket capacity x Consumption:
0.60 yield loss) = = [(6820 mins / 60
2305 mins.] x 11.13 =
Duration: ≥12 min / 1265 l
trip Concrete Concrete Concrete pump truck 9576 l × 2.7 kg
= (2305 / 60 mins.) x pouring pump discharge rate: 38 m3/ CO2-eq/l =
≥ 12 min = 461 h h 25,855.2 kg CO2-eq
Transport fuel Concrete pump truck
consumption: 461 h. x fuel consumption: 0.7
16.43 l/h. = 7574.23 l l/m3 (26.6 l per hour)
Producing RC Portland PC = 4365 tons PC = 4,365,000 kg Concrete pouring
ingredients Cement (PC) Coarse Aggregates = × 0.8 kg CO2-eq/kg duration: 13,637 / 38
Coarse 16,366 tons = 3,492,000 kg = 359 h
aggregates Sharp sand = 8183 CO2-eq Number of Casting
Sharp sand tons Coarse aggregates (Pouring): 359 h. / 8
Water Water = 2400.21 m3 = 16,366,000 × h. operation = 45
Reinforcing Reinforcing steel = 0.04 kg CO2-eq/kg Pouring of Concrete
steel (13,637 m3/1000) x = 654,640 kg CO2- Fuel Consumption:
115 kg/m3 (Rafts) = eq (45 × 26.6) x 8 h =
1568.26 tons Sharp sand = 9576 l
8,183,000 kg × Cleaning Concrete Mixer Truck Cleaning 1581.3 l × 2.7 kg
0.004 kg CO2-eq/ mixer time: ≥5 min CO2-eq/l =
kg = 32,732 kg = 1705 × 5 = 8525 4269.51 kg CO2-eq
CO2-eq min
Reinforcing steel = Mixer truck fuel
1,568,260 kg × consumption: 11.13 l/
1.31 kg CO2-eq/kg h
= 2,054,420.6 kg Cleaning Fuel
CO2-eq Consumption = 8525
Concrete mixer/ Concrete Distance from the 105,318 l × 2.7 kg min/60 min × 11.13
pump mixer concrete plant: 40 km CO2-eq/l = l/h = 1581.3 l
transportation Number of Trips 284,358.6 kg CO2- Water consumption
(loads): 13,637 m3/ 8 eq (liters):
m3 (capacity) = 1705 Concrete Mixer:
Mixer Truck Fuel ≥200 l × 1705 =
efficiency for empty 341,000 l
truck: 0.714 l/km Concrete Concrete pump truck 199.5 l × 2.7 kg
Mixer Truck Fuel pump cleaning time: ≥10 CO2-eq/l = 538.65
efficiency for loaded min kg CO2-eq
truck: 0.84 l/km Cleaning Fuel
Travel & Return Trip Consumption = [(45
Average fuel × 10 min) / 60 mins]
efficiency per trip: x 26.6 l/h = 199.5 l
0.77 l/km Water consumption
Mixer Truck Fuel (liters):
Consumption per trip: Concrete Pump Truck:
(40 × 2 km) x (0.77 l/ ≥250 l × 45 = 11,250
km) = 61.77 l l
Mixer Truck Costs: Total emissions:
Transportation: 1705 Diesel cost = 0.55 6,591,449.65 kg
trips × 61.77 = $/liter x 132,465.73 l CO2-eq
105,318 l = 72,856.15 $
Concrete Pump Truck Fuel 1080 l × 2.7 kg PC cost = 4365 tons
pump Efficiency: ≥30 l/100 CO2-eq/l = 2916 kg × 60.42 $/ton =
km = 0.3 l/km CO2-eq 263,733.3 $
Pump Truck Coarse aggregate cost
Transportation: [(0.3 = 16,366 tons × 20.6
l/km x 40 km)] x (45 $/ton = 337,139.6 $
Sharp sand cost =
(continued on next page)

6
A. Al-Hamrani et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 87 (2021) 106543

Table 4 (continued ) Table 5

Activity Truck type/ Amount of diesel/ CO2-eq emissions
CO2-e emissions and total cost obtained from the CC production.
concrete concrete ingredients (kg CO2-eq) Activity Truck type Amount of fuel kg CO2-eq
ingredients consumed consumed (Liters)
8183 tons × 9.61 Excavation/ Hammer Hammer Excavator 5871.7 l × 2.7 kg
$/ton = 78,638.63 $ rock breaking excavators fuel consumption: CO2-eq/l =
Reinforcing steel cost 32.52 l/h 15,853.59 kg CO2-
= 1568.26 tons × Breaking of Rocks: ≥ 6 eq
587.75 $/ton = m3/h. x 6 equipment
921,744.82 $ = 36 m3/h
Excavation fuel
Consumption: (6500
( ) ( )
km liter m3 / 36 m3/h) x 32.52
CFT = No.of trips × D × FE (4) l/ h = 5871.7 l
trip km
Loading of Excavator Excavator Truck Fuel 5242.90 l × 2.7 kg
excavated Consumption: 32.52 l CO2-eq/l =
where D is the distance per trip and FE is fuel efficiency. boulders to per hour 14,155.83 kg CO2-
trucks Bucket capacity: 1.68 eq
5- Calculate the consumed fuel for rocks excavation (CFR) and the m3 (40% for yield loss
consumed fuel for concrete discharging (CFD) processes according to consideration)
Number of buckets:
Eq. (5) and Eq. (6), respectively:
6500 m3 / (1.68 m3/
( ) bucket x 0.40) = 9673
VB(m3 ) liter
CFR = ( ) × FE (5) buckets
m3 hour Loading duration:
ER hour
(≥1-min (per bucket)
x 9673) / 60 min =
( ) 161.22 h
CV(m3 ) liter
CFD = ( ) × FE (6) Loading Fuel
m3
hour Consumption: 161.22
DR hour
× 32.52 = 5242.90 l
Truck trip for Tipper truck Tipper Truck 10,881.95 l × 2.7 kg
where VB is the volume of excavated boulders, ER is the excavation rate, boulders Capacity: 22 m3 CO2-eq/l =
CV is the concrete volume, and DR is the discharging rate of concrete. disposal Number of Trips: 29,381.27 kg CO2-
6500 m3 / 22 m3 = eq
296 trips
6- Calculate the cost (C) of each raw material based on Eq. (7): Distance from
dumping site: 50 km
C = Q×P (7) Tipper Truck Fuel
efficiency (Km per
where Q is the quantity of each concrete ingredient and P is the unit liter): 2.7201
price of materials presented in Table 1. Disposal Fuel
Consumption: [(50
km × 2)/(2.7201 km/
4. Results and discussion l)] x 296 = 10,881.95 l
Producing RC Portland PC = 5762 tons PC = 5,762,000 kg
Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 are showing the percentage contribution of different ingredients Cement (PC) Coarse Aggregates = × 0.8 kg CO2-eq/kg
activities to the overall fuel consumption and CO2-eq emissions, Coarse 21,606 tons = 4,609,600 kg
aggregates Sharp sand = 10,803 CO2-eq
respectively. In general, Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b clearly show that both
Sharp sand tons Coarse aggregates
concrete types are following the same trend in terms of the highest Reinforcing Water = 3168.75 m3 = 21,606,000 kg ×
environmental impact activity. Around 80% of the consumed diesel fuel steel Reinforcing steel = 0.04 kg CO2-eq/kg
was due to the transportation processes of concrete mixers and concrete (18,000 m3/1000) x = 864,240 kg CO2-
pump trucks from the plant to the construction site. This major contri­ 115 kg/m3 (Rafts) = eq
2070.6 tons Sharp sand =
bution may be explained by the fact that the distance from the concrete 10,803,000 kg ×
plant to the construction site was 40 km, and that the CYC and the CC 0.004 kg CO2-eq/kg
with quantities of 13,637 m3 and 18,000 m3, respectively were trans­ = 43,212 kg CO2-eq
ported through an 8 m3 concrete mixer truck, which requires 1705 and Reinforcing steel =
2,070,600 kg ×
2251 trips to completely transport the required amount of concrete as
1.31 kg CO2-eq/kg
illustrated in the detailed calculations of Table 4 and Table 5. This was = 2,712,486 kg
followed by 7% of fuel consumption assigned to the pump truck during CO2-eq
the pouring of concrete activity. While the excavation and loading of Concrete mixer/ Concrete Distance from the 139,044 l × 2.7 kg
boulders to trucks activities in combination constituted around 6% and pump mixer concrete plant: 40 km CO2-eq/l =
transportation Mixer Truck Fuel 375,418.8 kg CO2-
11% of the consumed fuel in the CC and CYC cases, respectively, the rest efficiency for empty eq
of the activities including concrete transfer from concrete mixer truck to truck (Km per liter):
pump truck and the subsequent cleaning activity of both trucks repre­ 1.40
sented the least contribution with 2% of fuel consumption for both cases. Mixer Truck Fuel
efficiency for loaded
The most interesting finding was that the activity of transporting the
truck (Km per liter):
excavated boulders for disposal into landfills contributed to the total 1.19
consumed fuel in the CC case by 6%, while it has no contribution in the Travel & Return Trip
CYC case since such activity was avoided. As calculated in Table 5, this Average fuel
has prevented additional transport distance of tripper trucks, which efficiency per trip (Km
per liter): 1.295
comprises 296 trips to the dumping site that is 50 km away from the
(continued on next page)
construction site, and as a result, 10,881.95 l and 29,381.27 kg of fuel

7
A. Al-Hamrani et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 87 (2021) 106543

Table 5 (continued ) Table 5 (continued )

Activity Truck type Amount of fuel kg CO2-eq Activity Truck type Amount of fuel kg CO2-eq
consumed (Liters) consumed (Liters)

Mixer Truck Fuel $/liter x 173,159.40 l Total emissions:

Consumption per trip: = 95,237.67 $ 8,712,922.33 kg
(40 × 2) / 1.295 = PC cost = 5762 tons × CO2-eq
61.77 l 60.42 $/ton =
Number of Trips 348,140.04 $
(loads): 18,000 m3/ 8 Coarse aggregate cost
m3 (capacity) = 2251 = 21,606 tons × 20.6
Mixer Truck $/ton = 445,083 $
Transportation: 2251 Sharp sand cost =
trips × 61.77 = 10,803 tons × 9.61
139,044 l $/ton = 103,816.83 $
Concrete Pump Truck Fuel 1416 l × 2.7 kg CO2- Reinforcing steel cost
pump Efficiency: ≥30 l/100 eq/l = 3823.2 kg = 2070.6 tons ×
km =0.3 l/km CO2-eq 587.75 $/ton =
Pump Truck 1,216,995.15 $
Transportation: [(0.3
l/km x 40 km)] x (59
trips × 2 way) = 1416 consumption and CO2-eq emissions were saved, respectively.
l Looking at Fig. 4 from an overall perspective, it can be concluded
Concrete mixer Concrete Discharging Rate 1670.24 l × 2.7 kg
to pump mixer (concrete): ≥ 2m3/ CO2-eq/l = 4509.65
that most CO2-eq emissions were emitted in the stage of manufacturing
min kg CO2-eq reinforced concrete ingredients, which corresponds to 94.45% and
Queuing Time: 8m3 / 94.57% for the CC and CYC cases, respectively. Closer inspection of
2m3 = 4 × 2251 = Table 4 and Table 5 highlighted that around 53% of the total emissions
9004 min
were attributed exclusively to PC production, while around 41.6% of
Mixer truck fuel
consumption: 11.13 l/ emissions were attributed to the rest of the ingredients. Yazdanbakhsh
h et al. (2018) also reported that most of the climate change potency was
Queuing Total Fuel due to the production of cement. The significant emissions released from
Consumption: PC production are associated with the high energy consumed in the
= [(9004 mins / 60
mins.] x 11.13 =
cement kiln, wherein raw materials are melted at high temperatures
1670.24 l between 1400 and 1650 ◦ C to transfer them into cement clinker
Concrete Concrete Concrete pump truck 12,555.2 l × 2.7 kg (Mamlouk and Zaniewski, 2011). Besides, these significant emissions
pouring pump truck discharge rate: 38 m3/ CO2-eq/l = are associated with the limestone decomposition process, which de­
h 33,899.04 kg CO2-
composes CaCO3 into CaO + CO2 (Andrew, 2017). According to Flower
Concrete pump truck eq
fuel consumption: 0.7 and Sanjayan (2007), 0.5 tons of CO2 is released in this process for each
l/m3 (26.6 l per hour) ton of CaO. On the other hand, the transportation processes of concrete
Concrete pouring and boulders revealed a much lower contribution to the total emission
duration: 18,005 / 38 with approximately 5%, whereas rock breaking, boulders disposal,
= 473.82 h
Number of Casting
concrete pouring, and truck cleaning activities have shown very minor
(Pouring): 473.52 h. / emissions within 1% of the total CO2-eq emissions.
8 h. operation = 59 A similar finding was also reported by Yan et al. (2010) and the re­
Pouring of Concrete searchers concluded that the 82–87% of total carbon footprints were due
Fuel Consumption:
to the embodied GHG emissions resulted from the construction of
(59 × 26.6) x 8 h =
12,555.2 l building materials, while only 6–8% and 6–9% of emissions have
Cleaning Concrete Mixer Truck Cleaning 2087.64 l × 2.7 kg resulted from the transportation processes of building materials and the
mixer time: ≥5 min × 2251 CO2-eq/l = 5636.63 energy consumed by the construction equipment, respectively.
= 11,255 min kg CO2-eq Fig. 5 provides an overview comparison between the two concrete
Cleaning Fuel
Consumption =
types and illustrates the savings induced by applying the CYC method­
(11,255 min / 60 min) ology. In this section, the analyzed results will be discussed based on raw
X 11.12911 l/h = materials consumption, fuel consumption, water consumption, CO2-eq
2087.636 emissions, and total cost. What stands out from Fig. 5 is that the CYC
Water consumption
construction method has presented several striking benefits over the CC
(liters):
Concrete Mixer: ≥200 one. Firstly, as shown in Fig. 5a, there is a clear trend of decreasing raw
l × 2251 = 450,200 l materials consumption, where the PC, sharp sand, coarse aggregates,
Concrete Concrete pump truck 261.6 l × 2.7 kg and reinforcing bar consumption was reduced by 1397 tons, 2620 tons,
pump cleaning time: ≥10 CO2-eq/l = 706.32 5240 tons, and 502 tons, respectively. This reduction in raw materials is
min kg CO2-eq
Cleaning Fuel
related to the addition of 6500 m3 of boulders while adopting the CYC
Consumption = [(59 method, which has filled part of the zone under-raft foundation. Sec­
× 10) / 60 mins] x ondly, the disposal of 6500 m3 of the site excavated boulders into
26.6 = 261.6 l landfills was avoided, and hence this methodology has created a cleaner
Water consumption
environment and has removed part of the environmental burden that
(liters):
Concrete Pump Truck: would be incurred while adopting the CC construction method. Thirdly,
≥250 l × 59 = 14,750 the single most striking observation to emerge from the data comparison
l in Fig. 5b is the 40,695 l savings of diesel fuel, which corresponds to 110
Costs: tons of CO2-eq.
Diesel cost = 0.55
Therefore, adding this benefit to the reduced consumption of raw

8
A. Al-Hamrani et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 87 (2021) 106543

5. Conclusions and recommendations

The present study aimed to evaluate the environmental and eco­

nomic benefits of utilizing the site excavated boulders in CYC. This
research presented the first empirical LCA for environmental analysis of
the green stadium constructed for the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar.
Qatar is committed to developing a World Cup event with reduced CO2-
eq emissions and therefore the SCDL aims to design, construct, and
sustainably operate its stadiums. This research provided a holistic
a) CC
approach by revealing the environmental, resource utilization, and cost
benefits of green design construction for Qatar which demonstrated the
following outcomes:

• The CYC approach has shown a substantial payoff to the Qatari

construction sector and contributes to make Qatar a front-runner in
applying the research results for constructing sustainable concrete
structures. Also, it would advance knowledge in terms of relevance
and importance of the projected results to the problems in the area of
sustainable construction and eco-friendly practices using site exca­
Excavaon/ rock breaking Loading boulders to trucks
vated boulders.
• Based on the LCA results, the highest CO2-eq emissions were due to
Transport excavated boulders to the slab Truck trip for boulders disposal
Concrete mixer/pump transportaon Concrete mixer to pump concrete ingredients production, which accounts for 94% of the total
Concrete pouring Cleaning emissions for both approaches the CYC and the CC, wherein 53% of
them were due to cement production and 41.6% were for the rest of
the ingredients. This was followed by approximately 5% of emissions
that emerged from the transportation process and only 1% of emis­
sions emerged from excavating, pouring, and cleaning processes.
• With the CYC approach, the raw materials consumption was signif­
icantly reduced, and the 6500m3 excavated boulders were efficiently
utilized in constructing the under-raft foundation of the stadium. As
a result, this action has prevented their disposal into landfills and
prevented landfilling areas from expansion. The CYC methodology
reported outstanding environmental and economic benefits over the
b) CYC CC methodology, where 3122 tons of CO2-eq were reduced and
53,5159 $ were saved, respectively.
• The CYC will generate a research culture in Qatar at many different
levels. The CYC holds a strong promise to improve knowledge on the
structural behavior of concrete made with a low-cost alternative
recycled material from existing industrial waste products in Qatar.
Besides, it will improve accepting of the concept of sustainable
concrete structures for the next generations of civil engineers. This
will lead to the development of local advanced expertise in this
Excavation/ rock breaking Loading boulders to trucks important field and thus provides the local industry with the requi­
Transport excavated boulders to the slab Truck trip for boulders disposal site technical skills.
Concrete mixer/pump transportation Concrete mixer to pump
The CYC shall consist of concrete containing large embedded stones.
Concrete pouring Cleaning The total volume of stones shall not be greater than 40% of the total
volume of the zone in which it is placed (United Nations Developing
Fig. 3. Percentage contribution to fuel consumption by activity (%) a) CC
Programme, 2015). The CYC shall be used only in heavy footings,
b) CYC.
massive piers, gravity walls, and gravity abutments. To avoid any
damage to the form of the partially set adjacent concrete, the large
materials has significantly reduced the CO2-eq emissions by 32.2%,
stones shall be carefully placed-not dropped. Also, when embedded in
which accounts for 2122 tons of CO2-eq as shown in Fig. 5c. Fourthly,
concrete, each stone shall be surrounded by at least 150 mm of concrete
from the reported data in Fig. 5d, it is apparent that the total amount of
(Japan International Cooperation Agency, 2010). Although the CYC
water used for cleaning concrete mixer and pump trucks and producing
methodology is applied, the contractors should also be cautious about
the concrete mix has dropped by 43% and 32%, respectively. Based on
their uses. In CYC, the rubble stones should only be selected if they are of
the above analysis, it was noticed that adopting the CYC method has
suitable quality, durable and sound, and free from cracks, seams, and
saved 53,5159 $ which is equivalent to a 32% reduction in the total cost
other structural defects. It shall be free from weathered, worn, or
(Fig. 5e). Overall, these results indicate that the CYC approach will allow
rounded surfaces. If a stone was found to be weathered, then it should be
the research community in Qatar to take active roles in this emerging
rejected. The stone shall be kept free from oil, or dirt that may cause
research topic, and importantly will partially solve a significant envi­
improper adhesion of the surrounding mortar. Besides, the rubble stones
ronmental concern from land-filling the large quantities of waste con­
must be uniformly distributed along the foundation and not concen­
struction materials produced every year.
trated at one side so that no weak zones exist which are filled with
mortar only (Japan International Cooperation Agency, 2010).
Another possible environmentally friendly methodology is to
partially replace the natural coarse aggregates with recycled coarse

9
A. Al-Hamrani et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 87 (2021) 106543

a) CC b) CYC

Producing RC ingredients Producing RC ingredients

Transportation activities Transportation activities
Remaining activities Remaining activities

Fig. 4. Percentage contribution to total carbon footprints by activity (%) a) CC b) CYC.

CC

CYC

Net Saving

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

a) Material use (tons)
Portland Cement Sharp Sand Coarse Aggregate Reinforcement

CC CC

CYC CYC

Net saving Net saving

0 50,000 1,00,000 1,50,000 2,00,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

b) Energy use (liters fuel) c) Carbon footprint (tons CO2-eq)

CC CC

CYC CYC

Net saving Net saving

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

0 10,00,000 20,00,000
d) Water consumption (m3)
Water for concrete Water for cleaning e) Cost ($)

Fig. 5. Conventional Concrete vs. Cyclopean Concrete performance (a) material use (tons) (b) energy use (liters of fuel) (c) carbon footprint (tons CO2-eq) (d) water
consumption (m3) (e) cost ($).

aggregates from demolished buildings. Moreover, the Portland cement This research presented the first empirical LCA method for under­
could be partially replaced with industrial by-products such as fly ash to standing the environmental impacts of a circular economy application in
reduce cement consumption and as a result, mitigate the massive CO2-eq the FIFA World Cup Stadium construction in Qatar. The proposed
emissions released during the production process of Portland cement. method can provide vital insights for decision-makers towards achieving

10
A. Al-Hamrani et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 87 (2021) 106543

an environmentally friendly event using circularity principles in design Death, C., 2011. “Greening” the 2010 FIFA world cup: environmental sustainability and
the mega-event in South Africa. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 13 (2), 99–117. https://doi.
and construction. For future work, the researchers also propose to
org/10.1080/1523908X.2011.572656.
conduct a detailed LCA on the 2022 FIFA World Cup Ras Abu Aboud Ding, T., Xiao, J., Tam, V.W.Y., 2016. A closed-loop life cycle assessment of recycled
Stadium, which is a container stadium and will be entirely dismantled aggregate concrete utilization in China. Waste Manag. 56, 367–375. https://doi.org/
and reused after 2022. Conducting such a study on this unprecedented 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.031.
Dolles, H., Söderman, S., 2010. Addressing ecology and sustainability in mega-sporting
stadium in the history of World Cups would reveal the potential benefits events: the 2006 football world cup in Germany. J. Manag. Organ. 16 (4), 587–600.
of CE from a modular construction perspective. https://doi.org/10.5172/jmo.2010.16.4.587.
Furthermore, the authors propose to extend the existing LCA model Dong, Y.H., Ng, S.T., 2016. A modeling framework to evaluate sustainability of building
construction based on LCSA. Int. J. Life Cycle Sust. Assessm. 555–568. https://doi.
using the advanced life cycle sustainability assessment framework in org/10.1007/s11367-016-1044-6.
which social, economic, and environmental impacts of green stadiums Ermolaeva, P., Lind, A., 2020. Mega-event simulacrum: critical reflections on the
can be analyzed. For future work, the authors strongly recommend the sustainability legacies of the world cup 2018 for the Russian host cities. Probl. Post-
Communism 00 (00), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2020.1791185.
inclusion of the triple bottom line aspects of sustainability using a Flower, D.J.M., Sanjayan, J.G., 2007. Green house gas emissions due to concrete
global, multiregional hybrid LCA method in which regional and global manufacture. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12 (5), 282–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/
life cycle sustainability impacts of construction projects can be esti­ s11367-007-0327-3.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M.P., Hultink, E.J., 2017. The circular economy
mated (Onat et al., 2019, 2020). In this way, the policymakers will be – a new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 143, 757–768. https://doi.org/
able to assess not only the carbon footprint reduction potential of cir­ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.
cular economy applications in construction but also other benefits such Gold, J.R., Gold, M.M., 2013. “Bring it under the legacy umbrella”: Olympic host cities
and the changing fortunes of the sustainability agenda. Sustainability (Switzerland)
as life cycle cost minimization, job creation, increased economic value-
5 (8), 3526–3542. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5083526.
added, and reduced human health impacts and work-related injuries/ Hill, R.C., Bowen, P.A., 1997. Sustainable construction: principles and a framework for
fatalities. Integration of social LCA into the process-based LCA will also attainment. Constr. Manag. Econ. 15 (3), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/
help decision-makers to evaluate the socioeconomic benefits of circu­ 014461997372971.
Horvath, A., 2004. A life-cycle analysis model and decision-support tool for selecting
larity in construction management. Recent applications of using hybrid recycled versus virgin materials for highway applications. In: University of California
life cycle environmental and social sustainability models in sustainable at Berkeley (issue 23). http://www.rmrc.unh.edu/Research/past/P23/P23Final.pdf.
construction are available in the literature (Dong and Ng, 2016; Onat Ingrao, C., Scrucca, F., Tricase, C., Asdrubali, F., 2016. A comparative life cycle
assessment of external wall-compositions for cleaner construction solutions in
et al., 2014; Zheng et al., 2019). buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 124, 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.02.112.
International Energy Agency, 2018. Emission Factors Greenhouse Gas Invent. 40 (6),
Declaration of Competing Interest 590–615.
Japan International Cooperation Agency, 2010. Concrete Works-Rubble or Cyclopean
Concrete. JICA. https://openjicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/11600046_03.pdf.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
Karsan, K.R., Hoseini, A.G., 2015. Investigating the effectiveness of using green concrete
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence towards promotion of sustainable built. Universiti Putra Malaysia 8 (3), 49–59. htt
the work reported in this paper. p://www.frsb.upm.edu.my/dokumen/FKRSE1_49-59.pdf.
Kibert, C.J., 1994. Establishing principles and a model for sustainable construction. In:
Proceedings of First International Conference of CIB TG 16 on Sustainable
Acknowledgements Construction (issue table I, pp. 3–12).
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., Hekkert, M., 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: an
analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127 (April), 221–232. https://
Open Access funding provided by the Qatar National Library
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005.
Knoeri, C., Sanyé-Mengual, E., Althaus, H.J., 2013. Comparative LCA of recycled and
References conventional concrete for structural applications. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (5),
909–918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0544-2.
Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A., Birkie, S.E., 2018. Circular economy as an
Alhorr, Y., Elsarrag, E., 2015. Climate change mitigation through energy benchmarking
essentially contested concept. J. Clean. Prod. 175, 544–552. https://doi.org/
in the GCC green buildings codes. Buildings 5 (2), 700–714. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.111.
10.3390/buildings5020700.
Kucukvar, M., Gumus, S., Egilmez, G., Tatari, O., 2014a. Ranking the sustainability
Ametepey, O., Aigbavboa, C., Ansah, K., 2015. Barriers to successful implementation of
performance of pavements: An intuitionistic fuzzy decision making method.
sustainable construction in the Ghanaian construction industry. Proc. Manuf. 3,
Automation in Construction 40, 33–43.
1682–1689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.988.
Kucukvar, M., Noori, M., Egilmez, G., Tatari, O., 2014b. Stochastic decision modeling for
Andrew, R.M., 2017. Global CO2 emissions from cement production. Earth Syst. Sci. Data
sustainable pavement designs. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 19
Discussions 195–217. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2017-77.
(6), 1185–1199.
Ansah, M.K., Chen, X., Yang, H., Lu, L., Lam, P.T.I., 2020. An integrated life cycle
Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., 2012. Ecologically based hybrid life cycle analysis of
assessment of different façade systems for a typical residential building in Ghana.
continuously reinforced concrete;. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Sustain. Cities Soc. 53 (June 2019), 101974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Environment 17 (1), 86–90.
scs.2019.101974.
Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., 2013. Towards a triple bottom-line sustainability assessment of
Assefa, G., Ambler, C., 2017. To demolish or not to demolish: life cycle consideration of
the US construction industry. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 18
repurposing buildings. Sustain. Cities Soc. 28, 146–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
(5), 958–972.
scs.2016.09.011.
Lieder, M., Rashid, A., 2016. Towards circular economy implementation: a
Bhattacharyya, M.C.R.S.K., 2011. Influence of field recycled coarse aggregate on
comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. J. Clean. Prod. 115,
properties of concrete Bureau of Indian Standards. Mater. Struct. 205–220. https://
36–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042.
doi.org/10.1617/s11527-010-9620-x.
Majhi, R.K., Nayak, A.N., Mukharjee, B.B., 2018. Development of sustainable concrete
Bovea, M.D., Powell, J.C., 2016. Developments in life cycle assessment applied to
using recycled coarse aggregate and ground granulated blast furnace slag. Constr.
evaluate the environmental performance of construction and demolition wastes.
Build. Mater. 159, 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.10.118.
Waste Manag. 50, 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.01.036.
Malhado, A.C.M., Rothfuss, R., 2013. Transporting 2014 FIFA world cup to
Carpenter, A.C., Gardner, K.H., Fopiano, J., Benson, C.H., Edil, T.B., 2007. Life cycle
sustainability: exploring residents’ and tourists’ attitudes and behaviours. J. Policy
based risk assessment of recycled materials in roadway construction. Waste Manag.
Res. Tourism Leisure Events 5 (3), 252–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/
27 (10), 1458–1464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.03.007.
19407963.2013.801159.
Ceia, F., Raposo, J., Guerra, M., Júlio, E., Brito, J.De., 2016. Shear strength of recycled
Mamlouk, M.S., Zaniewski, J.P., 2011. Materials for Civil and Construction Engineers.
aggregate concrete to natural aggregate concrete interfaces. Constr. Build. Mater.
Manzi, S., Mazzotti, C., Bignozzi, M.C., 2020. Self-compacting concrete with recycled
109, 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.002.
concrete aggregate : study of the long-term properties. Constr. Build. Mater. 157
Colangelo, F., Forcina, A., Farina, I., Petrillo, A., 2018. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of
(2017), 582–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.09.129.
different kinds of concrete containing waste for sustainable construction. Buildings 8
Marie, I., Quiasrawi, H., 2012. Closed-loop recycling of recycled concrete aggregates.
(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8050070.
J. Clean. Prod. 37, 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.020.
Czop, M., Lazniewska-Piekarczyk, B., 2020. Use of slag from the combustion of solid
Nepomuceno, M.C.S., Vila, M.F.C., 2014. Permeability properties of self-compacting
municipal waste as a partial replacement of cement in mortar and concrete.
concrete with coarse recycled aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 51, 113–120.
Materials 13 (7), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13071593.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.10.061.
De Schepper, M., Van den Heede, P., Van Driessche, I., De Belie, N., 2014. Life cycle
NRMCA, 2008. Concrete CO 2 fact sheet. In: National Ready Mixed Concrete Association,
assessment of completely recyclable concrete. Materials 7 (8), 6010–6027. https://
2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2010.10.007.
doi.org/10.3390/ma7086010.

11
A. Al-Hamrani et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 87 (2021) 106543

Onat, N.C., Aboushaqrah, N.N., Kucukvar, M., Tarlochan, F., Hamouda, A.M., 2020. Talavera, A.M., Al-Ghamdi, S.G., Koç, M., 2019. Sustainability in mega-events: beyond
From sustainability assessment to sustainability management for policy Qatar 2022. Sustainability (Switzerland) 11 (22). https://doi.org/10.3390/
development: The case for electric vehicles. Energy Conversion and Management su11226407.
216, 112937. Tan, Y., Shen, L., Yao, H., 2011. Sustainable construction practice and contractors’
Onat, N.C., Kucukvar, M., 2020. Carbon footprint of construction industry: A global competitiveness: a preliminary study. Habitat Int. 35 (2), 225–230. https://doi.org/
review and supply chain analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 124, 10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.09.008.
109783. Tatari, O., Kucukvar, M., 2012. Eco-efficiency of construction materials: data
Onat, N.C., Kucukvar, M., Aboushaqrah, N.N., Jabbar, R., 2019. How sustainable is envelopment analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 138
electric mobility? A comprehensive sustainability assessment approach for the case (6), 733–741.
of Qatar. Applied Energy 250, 461–477. Tatari, O., Kucukvar, M., 2011. Cost premium prediction of certified green buildings: A
Onat, N.C., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., 2014. Integrating triple bottom line input-output neural network approach. Building and Environment 46 (5), 1081–1086.
analysis into life cycle sustainability assessment framework: the case for US Treyer, K., Bauer, C., 2016. Life cycle inventories of electricity generation and power
buildings. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19 (8), 1488–1505. https://doi.org/10.1007/ supply in version 3 of the ecoinvent database—part I: electricity generation. The
s11367-014-0753-y. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 21 (9), 1236–1254.
Ossa, A., García, J.L., Botero, E., 2016. Use of recycled construction and demolition Tsai, W.H., Yang, C.H., Chang, J.C., Lee, H.L., 2014. An activity-based costing decision
waste (CDW) aggregates: a sustainable alternative for the pavement construction model for life cycle assessment in green building projects. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 238 (2),
industry. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 607–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.03.024.
jclepro.2016.06.088. United Nations Developing Programme, 2015. Provision of Civil Works for the
Paradise, S., 2016. Lillehammer 1994 Set The Standard For Sustainable Winter Games Installation of Water Networks in KAMED EL Loz-LEB/CO ITB/190/15. UNDP,
(1). https://nieveyalgomas.blogspot.com/2014/05/lilleh pp. 1–52. https://www.ungm.org/Public/Notice/39356.
ammer-1994-set-standard-for.html#:~:text=When. Lillehammer was awarded the, Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Novikova, A., 2008. Potentials and costs of carbon dioxide mitigation
Green Games%22 by President Samaranch.&text=NOCs%3A 67. in the world’s buildings. Energy Policy 36 (2), 642–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Public Works Authority(Ashghal), 2020. http://www.ashghal.gov.qa/ar/Services/Pa enpol.2007.10.009.
ges/PriceList.aspx?category=2. Varun, Sharma, A., Shree, V., Nautiyal, H., 2012. Life cycle environmental assessment of
Qatar Construction Specifications, 2014. Concrete Structures Requirements. QCS. an educational building in northern India: a case study. Sustain. Cities Soc. 4 (1),
Qatar General Electricity & Water Corporation, 2020. https://www.km.qa/Pages/defa 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2012.03.002.
ult.aspx. Wang, J., Wang, Y., Sun, Y., Tingley, D.D., Zhang, Y., 2017. Life cycle sustainability
Sen, B., Kucukvar, M., Onat, N.C., Tatari, O., 2020. Life cycle sustainability assessment of assessment of fly ash concrete structures. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 80 (May),
autonomous heavy-duty trucks. Journal of Industrial Ecology 24 (1), 149–164. 1162–1174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.232.
Sen, B., Onat, N.C., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., 2019. Material footprint of electric vehicles: Yan, H., Shen, Q., Fan, L.C.H., Wang, Y., Zhang, L., 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions in
A multiregional life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 209, building construction: a case study of one Peking in Hong Kong. Build. Environ. 45
1033–1043. (4), 949–955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.09.014.
Shafii, F., Arman Ali, Z., Othman, M.Z., 2006. Achieving sustainable construction in the Yazdanbakhsh, A., Bank, L. C, Baez, T., Wernick, I., 2018. Comparative LCA of concrete
developing countries southeast asia. Proc. 6th Asia-Pacific Struct. Eng. Construct. with natural and recycled coarse aggregate in the new York City area. Int. J. Life
Conf. (APSEC 2006) 1 (September 2006), 5–6. Cycle Assess. 1163–1173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1360-5.
Singh, A., Berghorn, G., Joshi, S., Syal, M., 2011. Review of life-cycle assessment Yu, J., Mishra, D.K., Leung, C.K.Y., 2018. Very high volume fly ash green concrete for
applications in building construction. J. Archit. Eng. 17 (1), 15–23. https://doi.org/ applications in India. Waste Manag. Res. 36 (6), 520–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/
10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000026. 0734242X18770241.
Smol, M., Kulczycka, J., Henclik, A., Gorazda, K., Wzorek, Z., 2015. The possible use of Zeyad Hayajneh, A., 2017. Football and sustainability in the desert, Qatar 2022 green
sewage sludge ash (SSA) in the construction industry as a way towards a circular world Cup’s stadiums: legal perspective. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. 55 (1450–2267), 475–493.
economy. J. Clean. Prod. 95, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.051. Zheng, X., Easa, S.M., Yang, Z., Ji, T., Jiang, Z., 2019. Life-cycle sustainability assessment
Tafheem, Z., Khusru, S., Nasrin, S., 2011. Environmental Impact of Green Concrete in of pavement maintenance alternatives: methodology and case study. J. Clean. Prod.
Practice ICMERE2011-PI-069 (December). 213, 659–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.227.

12