Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Usep Surahman is a lecturer in the Faculty of Technology and Vocational Education, Indonesia University of Education, Bandung,
Indonesia. Osamu Higashi and Tetsu Kubota are associate professors in the Graduate School for International Development and
Cooperation, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.
Embodied energy and CO2 emissions of
building materials for residential buildings
in Jakarta and Bandung, Indonesia
Usep Surahman, Dr Osamu Higashi, Dr Tetsu Kubota, Dr
[Indonesia University of Education] [Hiroshima University] [Hiroshima University]
ABSTRACT
The objective of this study is to evaluate the current building material stock and future demolition
waste for urban houses using a material-flow analysis in Jakarta and Bandung. Their embodied energy and
CO2 emissions are also analyzed by using an input-output analysis method. The actual on-site building
measurements were conducted in Jakarta (2012) and Bandung (2011), focusing on unplanned houses, to
obtain building material inventory data. A total of 297 and 247 houses were investigated in Jakarta and
Bandung, respectively. These houses were generally classified into the following three categories: simple
(45%), medium (39%) and luxurious houses (16%). The results show that overall, the averaged material
quantity per m2 used for the houses is 2.14 ton/m
2 in Jakarta and 2.06 ton/m
2 in Bandung. Two scenarios
with zero and maximum reuse/recycling rates were designed to predict future demolition waste and
embodied energy/CO2 emissions of building materials in Jakarta. Closed- and open-loop material flows
were applied. The maximum reuse/recycling rates not only decrease material waste (0.93-1.22 ton/m2) but
also their embodied energy (16.8-151.1 GJ) and CO2 emissions (1.6-14.9 ton CO2-eq). In contrast, the
minimum reuse/recycling rates increase environmental burden, and the expansion of unplanned houses is
anticipated to cause further urban sprawls and drastic land-use changes by 2020.
INTRODUCTION
One of the obstacles to analyze embodied energy and CO2 emissions of building materials in
developing countries such as in Indonesia is considered to be relatively poor data availability of life cycle
building materials from material input to material output (waste) including construction and demolition
waste (C&D). The majority of urban housing stocks in Indonesia are unplanned houses. These houses are
not designed and constructed in a formal way. Therefore, there is a serious lack of building material
inventory data which are required for the analysis of material flow and their embodied energy/CO2
emissions.
This study analyzes flow of building materials and their embodied energy/CO2 emissions for urban
houses in Indonesia, focusing on unplanned houses, through the material-flow analysis and the input-
output (I-O) analysis methods. The actual on-site building measurements were conducted in Jakarta (2012)
and Bandung (2011), to investigate building material inventory. The current status of material stock was
evaluated. Further, life-cycle material flows, focusing on demolition waste and their embodied energy/CO2
emissions of urban houses are predicted in different scenarios with various reuse/recycling rates.
30th INTERNATIONAL PLEA CONFERENCE16-18 December 2014, CEPT University, Ahmedabad
1
METHODOLOGY
Case study cities and houses
Jakarta and Bandung were selected as case study cities. Jakarta, the capital city, had a population of
9.99 million in 2012 (Jakarta, 2013) while that of Bandung had 2.45 million as of 2012 (Bandung, 2013).
Both cities experience hot and humid tropical climates. However, the monthly average temperature in
Bandung (22.9-23.9 ºC) is not as high as Jakarta (27.1-28.9 ºC) because of its relatively high altitude. On
average, Bandung and Jakarta are located at 791 and 7 m above the sea level, respectively.
In most of the major cities in Indonesia, unplanned houses called ‘Kampungs’ account for the largest
proportion of the existing housing stocks. These dwellings settled in unplanned and overcrowded urban
villages without being provided with basic urban infrastructure and services properly. These unplanned
houses accounted for about 74% of the total housing stocks in Jakarta as of 2012 (Jakarta, 2013) and about
89% in the case of Bandung (Bandung, 2013). Moreover, these unplanned houses can be further classified
into three house categories based on its construction cost and lot size, namely simple, medium, and
luxurious houses (Figure 1) having a lifespan of 20, 35, and 50 years, respectively (SNI, 1989).
A total of 297 and 247 residential buildings were investigated in Jakarta and Bandung, respectively
(see Table 1). As shown, the average household size is about 4-5 persons with a small variation between
the three categories for both cities. The monthly average household income was also investigated by a
multiple-choice question. As expected, the average income increases with house category from simple to
luxurious houses. In general, the average income in Jakarta is slightly higher than that of Bandung. The
total floor area also increases with house category in both of the cities. The major building materials used
are found to be almost the same in both cities among the above three house categories, though slight
differences can be seen in terms of materials for floor and roof.
Current material stock in urban residential buildings
The limitations of data for building, economy and environment in Indonesia make it difficult to
clarify the current material stock in urban residential buildings, and to design and implement concrete
policies to deal with the issues of C&D waste management. In this study, firstly, we attempt to evaluate a)
the current building material stock in urban residential buildings in Jakarta and Bandung at the city level
respectively, b) the future demolition waste in unplanned urban houses, and c) the future urban expansion
due to demolition of unplanned houses in both of the cities, based on the survey results.
The mathematical equations used to estimate the current material stock for urban houses are
described as follows. In this analysis, it is assumed that 1) the number of housing stocks are equal with the
number of households determined by number of populations and household size, 2) the income
distribution in urban settlement areas of Jakarta and Bandung is the same as the status of whole Jakarta
city assuming that low, middle and high income people live in simple, medium and luxurious houses,
respectively.
∑∑
( )
Figure 1 Views of sample residential buildings. (a) Simple house; (b) Medium house; (c)
Luxurious house
(c) (b)
(2)
(1)
(a)
30th INTERNATIONAL PLEA CONFERENCE 16-18 December 2014, CEPT University, Ahmedabad
2
Where, TS: current total material stock of urban houses (kg), Si,j: stock of material i, included in the
house type j (kg/house), subscript i: materials shown in Table 3, subscript j: house type (simple, medium
and luxurious) shown in Figure 1, and Hj: number of house type j, i: the density of material i (kg/m3)
shown in Table 3, PIi,j: volume of primary material i input for each type of house for production activities
(m3), MIi,j: maintenance volume of material i for each type of house (m
3), : share of population living in
urban houses among the total population (Jakarta: 0.74; Bandung: 0.89), j: current income distribution
(low income (living in simple houses): 0.75, medium income (living in medium houses): 0.20, high
income (living in luxurious houses): 0.05) (Mizuho, 2010), TP: total population in 2012, : averaged
household size for each type of houses, SAi,j: stock of material i per unit gross floor area in house type j
(kg/m2), Fj: averaged gross floor area in house type j (m
2).
The mathematical equations used to estimate demolition waste from unplanned houses until 2020 are
described as follows. In this analysis, we only focus on the demolition waste, generated from the current
material stock, estimated by Equation (1). It is assumed that 1) the predicted population of Jakarta and
Bandung would be 11.6 and 2.9 million in 2020 (UN, 2011), 2) the share of each type of houses in
unplanned residential buildings will be changed in proportion to the significant change in income level;
4% for high, 73% for medium and 23% for low income class (JETRO, 2011), 3) the medium and luxurious
houses will not be demolished until 2020, based on the assumption of 2) and buildings’ life-spans (i.e.
medium houses: 35 years, luxurious houses: 50 years), 4) zero reuse/recycling rates of each material.
∑
(1)
(3)
(4)
Table 1 Brief profile of sample houses in Jakarta and Bandung Jakarta Bandung
Simple Medium Luxurious Simple Medium Luxurious
Sample size (unplanned/planned)
125 (125/0)
115 (75/40)
57 (29/28)
120 (120/0)
99 (99/0)
28 (28/0)
Household size (persons) 4.3 4.5 5.3 4.7 4.7 5.6 Household income (%) < 100 (USD) 100-500 501-1000 >1000
4.8
76.8 16.8
1.6
1.7
59.1 31.3
7.9
1.8
19.2 38.6 40.4
10.0 75.8 14.2 0.0
0.0 58.6 38.4
3.0
0.0
7.1 57.2 35.7
Total floor area (%) <50 (m2) 50 - 99 100 - 300 > 300
71.2 20.0
8.8 0.0
9.6
51.3 36.5
2.6
0.0 0.0
84.2 15.8
50.8 39.2 10.0 0.0
6.1
34.3 58.6 1.0
0.0 3.6 64.3 32.1
Major building materials (%) Structure Concrete 100 100 100 100 100 100 Foundation Stonene 76 37 22 36 30 13
Concrete 24 53 78 64 70 87 Floor Cement 80 0 0 75 0 0 Ceramic 20 100 100 25 100 100 Walls Clay brick 100 100 100 98 100 97 Con-block 0 0 0 2 0 3 Roof Clay roof 48 79 0 74 94 0 Concrete roof 0 0 97 0 0 100 Zinc roof 6 1 0 14 1 0
Asbestos roof 46 20 3 12 5 0
Source: Building material inventory surveys in Jakarta (2012) and Bandung (2011)
(5)
(6)
30th INTERNATIONAL PLEA CONFERENCE 16-18 December 2014, CEPT University, Ahmedabad
3
Where, TW: total demolition waste from unplanned residential buildings until 2020 (kg), Wi,simple:
demolition waste of material i from a simple house (kg) (equal with material stock of simple houses),
simple: demolition ratio of simple houses by 2020, Si,simple: stock of material i, included in a simple house
(kg), : income distribution of low income group in 2020 (0.23), WAi,simple: demolition waste i per unit
gross floor area in a simple house (kg/m2), Fsimple: average gross floor area of a simple house (m
2).
The mathematical equations used to estimate the urban expansion caused by the demolition of
unplanned simple houses and the transformation from these simple houses to larger medium houses by
2020 are described as follows. In this analysis, it is assumed that all the demolished simple houses will be
reconstructed to be medium houses in the same cities.
( )
Where, FE: future urban expansion by 2020 (m2), Fmedium: average gross floor area of a medium house
(m2).
Flow of materials and their embodied energy/CO2 emissions for each type of houses
Secondly, this paper analyzes the per-floor area flow of building materials and their embodied
energy/CO2 emissions for each of the house categories by taking Jakarta for example. Embodied
energy/CO2 emissions of building materials generally includes energy for productions in several phases,
including material extraction, production, construction, maintenance, and demolition phases. However,
construction and demolition phases were not considered in this paper due to the data unavailability.
The design records such as building drawings are required for the analysis of embodied energy of
building materials. These data were available for most of the planned houses and unplanned luxurious
houses only. The other houses including most of the unplanned simple and medium houses were not
constructed in the formal way (normally constructed by non-professional neighbors) and therefore the
required design records could not be obtained. Thus, the actual on-site measurements by using laser-
distance meters and tape measures were conducted for unplanned simple and medium houses in order to
acquire the data.
Since it was impossible to trace all the production processes for most of the building materials due to
the data unavailability, this study adopted the I-O analysis-based method to calculate the embodied energy
of materials and estimate their CO2 emissions, which consistently followed the method described by
Nansai et al. (2002). The latest Indonesian nationwide I-O table published in 2005 (Indonesia, 2005)
consisting of 175 x 175 sectors was used for calculating the embodied energy/CO2 emissions, which was
measured in the form of primary energy. The detailed procedures of the embodied energy/CO2 emissions
were described in the previous paper (Surahman & Kubota, 2012).
In this analysis, we assess the effects of policy of promoting reused and recycled material use
through a scenario analysis. The first scenario (Scenario 1) assumes that both recycling and reuse rates are
set to be zero (minimum) and the second scenario (Scenario 2) is designed under the assumption that both
reuse and recycling rates for respective building materials are increased to the maximum values (see Table
2). The effects of the promotion of reused and recycled building materials use are evaluated through the
comparison between two scenarios. The per-house material stock and demolition waste for respective
house categories are estimated based on the following equations.
( )
(9)
(10)
(7)
(8)
30th INTERNATIONAL PLEA CONFERENCE 16-18 December 2014, CEPT University, Ahmedabad
4
[ ( -
-
) ( -
- )]
Where, Wi,j: demolition waste of material i from a house type j
(kg/house), Si,j: stock of material i, included in a house type j
(kg/house), RUi,j: reuse ratio of material i, applied to a house
type j (as shown in Table 2), RCi,j: recycle ratio of material i,
applied to a house type j (as shown in Table 2), TRi,j: treatment
ratio of material i, applied to a house type j (assumed to be
zero), WAi,j: demolition waste i per unit gross floor area of a
house type j (kg/m2), Fj: average gross floor area of a house type
j (m2),
: Stock of virgin material i in a house type j
(kg/house), : reuse ratio of primary input (construction),
: recycle ratio of primary input (construction),
: reuse
ratio of maintenance, : recycle ratio of maintenance. The
potential reuse/recycling rates of building materials were studied
from some references as shown in Table 2.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Current building material stock
This section discusses the current total material stock and
future demolition waste in urban houses at the city level in Jakarta and Bandung. The current building
material stocks in urban houses in two cities in 2012 were calculated utilizing Equations (1)-(4). Table 3
shows the composition of the current building material input, including those for maintenance, in the two
cities. As shown, overall, the average material quantity per m2
is 2.14 ton/m2 in Jakarta and 2.06 ton/m
2 in
Bandung. The average material quantity slightly varies among the different house categories in Jakarta and
Bandung: 2.26 and 1.88; 2.06 and 2.23, and 2.05 and 2.26 ton/m2 for simple, medium and luxurious
houses, respectively. Overall, stone accounts for the largest percentage in Jakarta and Bandung (32% and
31%), followed by sand (31% and 30%), clay brick (19% and 19%), cement (8% and 8%), etc. The current
total material stock in urban houses of Jakarta is measured at 232.0 million ton, while that of Bandung was
77.2 million ton. The difference between the two cities is mainly due to the number of houses difference.
Future demolition waste from unplanned residential buildings until 2020
If both reuse and recycling ratios are assumed to be zero, then the total demolition waste of
unplanned houses (i.e. only simple houses) in Jakarta is found to be 41.5 million ton/m2 until 2020 and all
of them go to the landfills (Equations (5)-(7)). Meanwhile, the corresponding amount of waste in Bandung
is predicted to be lower (12.6 million ton/m2) due to less households of simple houses. This scenario will
cause the waste to landfills would be very huge, thus results in the overload in the landfills. As a
consequence, this scenario anticipates that both Jakarta and Bandung would be forced to construct new
landfills to deal with the increased waste in the near future.
Urban sprawl caused by the transformation from simple houses into medium houses
The future demolition of unplanned houses and the transformation of these houses to the larger
medium houses by 2020 would cause the further urban expansions in both of the cities: at least, the
additional area of 20.0 km2 is required for the new constructions in Jakarta while the area of 5.7 km
2 is
required in Bandung (Equation (8)). These expansions would accelerate urban sprawls.
Scenario analysis: Policy effects of promoting reused/recycled materials use on reduction of building
waste and embodied energy/CO2 emissions
(11)
Table 2 Potential reuse and recycling
rates
Materials Potential rate (%)
Reuse Recycling
Soil 100a 0a
Stone 100a 0a
Clay brick 10a 90a Concrete brick 0a 0a
Cement 0 0
Sand 0 0
Steel 0a 100a Ceramic tile 0a 0a
Clear glass 100a 100a
Wood 50a 50a
Gypsum 0b 100b
Paint 0 0
Clay roof 100a 100a
Concrete roof 100a 0a
Asbestos roof 0c 100c Zinc roof 10d 90d
a:(Addis, 2006) b:(Lund-Nielsen, 2014)
c:(CDRA, 2014)
d:(Zinc sheet roofing, 2014)
b
30th INTERNATIONAL PLEA CONFERENCE 16-18 December 2014, CEPT University, Ahmedabad
5
Scenario 1; zero reuse and recycling rates. The following section analyze the flow of building
materials per-house for each of the house categories by taking Jakarta for example. As described before,
we assess the effects of policy of promoting reused and recycled material use through scenario analysis.
In this scenario (Scenario 1), the zero reuse/recycling rates are applied to all building materials used for a
house. Figure 2 shows the results of flow analysis for average material input and output of urban houses
in Jakarta utilizing zero reuse/recycling rates for whole sample as example. As shown, the total average
material inputs including those for maintenance for whole sample (‘B’ in the Figure 2) are derived from
Table 3. A few materials are imported such as ceramics (37.5 kg/m2) in the case of luxurious houses.
There is no materials reused/recycled for other buildings/products (‘E’ and ‘F’) in this scenario. Thus, all
materials go to the landfills (‘G’). Equations (9)-(10) were used to calculate demolition waste for each of
the house categories. The total average waste to landfills is larger than the average material input due to
additional waste of soil derived from the surplus soil extracted in the construction phase (‘C’), accounting
for 2,931.1, 2,521.3, 2,371.5 and 2,665.1 kg/m2 for simple, medium and luxurious houses as well as whole
sample. Overall, mortar accounts for the largest material waste (23%), followed by soil (20%), stone
foundation (17%), concrete (16%), clay brick (15%), etc.
Scenario 2; maximum reuse and recycling rates. In this scenario (Scenario 2), we apply the
maximum potential for reuse/recycling rates (see Table 2). Figure 3 shows the results of flow analysis of
building material input and output for urban houses in Jakarta in Scenario 2 for whole sample. As shown,
the total average material input including those for maintenance for respective houses in Jakarta are still
the same as those in the Scenario 1 (‘B’ in the Figure 3). However, some materials (589.9 kg/m2) were
reused for other buildings (‘E’), including stone (77%), wood (11%), clay brick (7%), etc. Meanwhile,
several materials (464.0 kg/m2) are recycled (‘F’), including clay bricks (79%), wood (13%), steel (6%),
gypsum (1.5%) and zinc roof (0.5%). There is no material composted/burned (‘I’). The rest of materials
(soil, mortar, concrete, ceramic and asbestos) are assumed to be reclaimed to other products or
infrastructure (‘H’). The total waste used for reclamation accounts for 1,715.3, 1,596.3, 1,412.0 and
1,611.1 kg/m2 for simple, medium and luxurious houses as well as whole sample. Overall, mortar accounts
for the largest percentage (39%) followed by soil (32%), concrete (27%), and ceramic tile and asbestos
(2%). These materials can not be reused/recycled for other building constructions due to difficulty of
separation from mixed materials. Thus, it was found that closed-loop material flow is not enough to fully
reclaim building materials and eliminatebuilding material waste to the landfills. Nevertheless, these
materials can be reused/recycled by crushing them and used to reclaim for infrastructure such as road and
building site. In this case, the total waste to the landfills would become zero.
Figure 4 shows the average material waste of respective houses for both scenarios. As shown
maximizing reuse/recycling rates would decrease the average material waste dramatically by 41%, 37%
and 40% for simple, medium and luxurious houses, respectively.
Table 3 Current building material inventory
Materials Density
(kg/m3)*
Simple houses Medium houses Luxurious houses Whole sample
Jakarta Bandung Jakarta Bandung Jakarta Bandung Jakarta Bandung
1. Stone 1,450 729.8 623.1 696.5 682.6 529.0 603.9 678.4 644.7 2. Clay brick 950 494.9 371.7 309.2 414.0 413.3 451.2 407.4 397.7 3. Concrete brick 2,300 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6
4. Cement 1,506 142.9 118.8 175.7 185.0 187.4 227.2 164.1 157.6 5. Sand 1,400 717.5 561.0 623.1 674.4 583.8 740.2 655.3 626.8 6. Steel 7,750 16.6 17.3 36.6 37.7 30.5 34.0 27.0 27.4
7. Ceramic tile 2,500 30.8 15.5 33.9 34.2 59.5 77.4 37.5 30.0 8. Clear glass 2,579 0.8 1.2 0.8 1.3 1.3 6.2 0.9 1.8 9. Wood 705 105.0 143.1 131.0 161.5 159.8 43.2 125.6 139.2
10. Gypsum 1,100 0.0 0.3 7.0 1.3 23.0 24.4 7.1 3.4 11. Paint 700 2.0 1.6 5.4 4.4 10.0 12.4 4.9 4.0 12. Clay roof 2,300 16.6 20.7 40.9 30.2 0.0 0.0 22.8 22.2 13. Concrete roof 2,500 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.9 39.2 9.6 4.4 14. Asbestos roof 2,200 5.6 0.6 2.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 3.2 0.4
15. Zinc roof 3,330 1.2 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4
Total 2,263.7 1,883.2 2,062.3 2,227.0 2,047.8 2,259.3 2,144.3 2,063.6
*: (SNI, 1989)
(unit: kg/m2)
30th INTERNATIONAL PLEA CONFERENCE 16-18 December 2014, CEPT University, Ahmedabad
6
Embodied energy and CO2 emissions
Primary building material inputs were obtained by utilizing Equation (11) for analyzing their
embodied energy/CO2 emissions. The total embodied energy and CO2 emissions were estimated by
combining initial, maintenance and recycling embodied energy/CO2 emissions for respective houses
through previously explained I-O analysis-based method. The potential energy saving through recycling
was assumed about 50% of embodied energy/CO2 emissions (Thornmark, 2002). Figures 5-6 show the
total embodied energy/CO2 emissionsin the two scenarios (i.e. zero and maximum reuse/recycling rates).
The results indicate that the reused/recycled materials reduce not only material waste but also diminish
embodied energy/CO2 emissions. The maximum reuse/recycling ratesare expected to decrease embodied
energy by 16.8 (27%), 58.1 (28%), 151.1 (27%) and 58.6 (27%) GJ for simple, medium, luxurious and
whole houses, respectively (Figure 5). Meanwhile, the reduction patterns of embodied CO2 emissions are
similar with those of embodied energy (Figure 6).
The results of the above scenario analysis prove that the promotion of reuse/recycling are important
to ensure the building material stocks and to reduce not only material waste but also their embodied
energy/CO2 emissions.
CONCLUSIONS
This study analyzed flow of building materials and their embodied energy/CO2 emissions for urban
houses in Indonesia, focusing especially on unplanned houses. The actual on-site building measurements
were conducted in Jakarta (n=297) and Bandung (n=247) to investigate building material inventory.
Overall, the average material quantity per m2 was 2.14 ton/m
2 in Jakarta and 2.06 ton/m
2 in Bandung.
0 20 40 60
CO₂ emissions
(ton CO₂-eq)
0 200 400 600
Embodied energy (GJ)
0 1 2 3 4
Average material waste (ton/m²)
MortarSoilStoneClay brickConcreteWoodConcrete brickCementSandSteelCeramic tileClear glassGypsumPaintClay roofConcrete roofAsbestos roofZinc roof
Figure 2 Flow chart of average life cycle materials
for whole sample (scenario 1)
Figure 3 Flow chart of average life cycle materials for whole sample (scenario 2)
Figure 4 Average material waste
Figure 5 Embodied energy
Figure 6 CO2 emissions
(unit: kg/m2) (unit: kg/m
2)
A
(2,144.3) B
(2,144.3)
C(520.8)
B (2,144.3)
A (1,090.3)
C(520.8)
G (2,665.1)
H
(1,611.1)
F(464.05) F’(464.05)
E (589.95) E’ (589.95)
D (63.4)
D (63.4)
G
(0.0)
H (0.0)
I (0.0) I (0.0)
E (0.0) E’ (0.0)
F (0.0) F’ (0.0)
Raw extraction
Raw extraction Production Construction
Operation
Operation
Demolition
Demolition
A= primary material input C=soil E=E’=reused G=total landfill waste I=composting/burning B= total material input D=maintenance F=F’=recycled H=reclamation for infrastructure/other products
Average
Luxurious house
Medium house
Simple house
e
Scenario 1 (minimum reuse/recycling rates)
Scenario 2 (maximum reuse/recycling rates)
-41%
- 37%
-40%
-40% - 27%
- 27%
- 28%
- 27%
- 27%
- 27%
- 27%
- 28%
0 1 2 3 4
Average material waste (ton/m²)
Mortar Soil Stone Clay brick Concrete WoodConcrete brick Cement Sand Steel Ceramic tile Clear glassGypsum Paint Clay roof Concrete roof Asbestos roof Zinc roof
Production Construction
30th INTERNATIONAL PLEA CONFERENCE 16-18 December 2014, CEPT University, Ahmedabad
7
The average material quantity slightly varied among the different house categories in Jakarta/Bandung:
2.26/1.88, 2.06/2.23 and 2.05/2.26 ton/m2 for simple, medium and luxurious houses, respectively. On
average, the stone accounted for the largest percentage for all houses (32%/31%), followed by sand
(31%/30%), clay brick (19%/19%), cement (8%/8%), etc.
If both reuse and recycling rates are assumed to be zero, then the total demolition waste of unplanned
simple houses in Jakarta was found to be 41.5 million ton/m2 until 2020 and the corresponding waste
in Bandung is predicted to be lower (12.6 million ton/m2). All of them go to the landfills. Moreover,
the transformation of these simple houses to the larger medium houses by 2020 would cause further
urban expansion in both of the cities: at least, the additional area of 20.0 km2 is required for the new
construction in Jakarta, while the area of 5.7 km2 is required in Bandung.
A scenario analysis was conducted for Jakarta to assess the effects of policy of promoting reused and
recycled material use. The two scenarios with the zero and maximum reuse/recycling rates were
compared in the analysis. The results showed that maximizing reuse/recycling rates would decrease
the average material waste dramatically by 37% to 41%. The promotion of reuse/recycling were proved
to reduce embodied energy/CO2 emissions of building materials effectively (27% to 28%).
The lack of policies for promoting 3Rs (reduce, reuse and recycling) specifically target C&D waste
(Indonesia, 2008) at the national level is considered one of the crucial problems in Indonesia.
The increase in larger landed houses would directly result in the rapid horizontal expansions of the
cities, thus accelerates urban sprawls. Provision of mid-to-high-rise apartments to the growing middle
class in the cities would be one of the effective housing policies for already crowded Indonesian cities.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by a JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientist (B) (No. 23760551). We
also would like to thank Mr. Yohei Ito, Mr. Ari Wijaya, M.SI of Universitas Persada Indonesia, Dr.
Hanson E. Kusuma of Institut Teknologi Bandung and the students who kindly supported our survey.
REFERENCES
Addis, B. (2006). Building with Reclaimed Components and Materials. A Design Handbook for Reuse and Recycling. Earthscan publishing, London, UK.
Bandung. (2013). Bandung in Figures. Agency for the Centre of Statistic of West Java, Bandung. Construction and Demolition Recycling Association (CDRA). (2014). Asbestos in asphalt shingle. CDRA.
http://www.shinglerecycling.org/content/asbestos-asphalt-shingles. Accessed 5 March 2014.
Indonesia. (2005). Input-Output Table of Indonesia. Statistic Centre of Indonesia, Jakarta. Indonesia. (2008). Reuse and Recycling of Hazardous and Toxic Waste. The Act of the Republic of
Indonesia Number 2 year 2008. Ministry of Environment, Jakarta.
Jakarta. (2013). Jakarta in Figures. Statistical Centre of Jakarta, Jakarta. UN. 2011. World Urbanization Prospect. United Nation, New York.
JETRO. (2011). Market Investmen Attraction–Indonesia. Japan External Trade Organization, Japan. Lund-Nielsen. (2014). Gypsum recycling. Gypsum Recycling International.
http://www.gypsumrecycling.biz/6688-1_Whyrecycle/. Accessed 5 March 2014.
Mizuho Research Institute. (2010). Expanding middle class as centre for the biggest consuming market in ASEAN (in Japanese). Journal of Mizuho Research Institute, 65-102.
Nansai, K., Moriguchi, Y., Tohno, S. (2002). Embodied Energy and Emission Intensity Data for Japan
Using Input-Output Table (3EID)-Inventory Data for LCA-. National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan.
SNI. (1989). Imposition Planning Procedures for Houses and Buildings (in Bahasa Indonesia). SNI 03-
1727, Indonesia. Surahman, U. & Kubota, T. (2012). Development of simplified LCA model for residential buildings in
Indonesia. A pilot survey in Bandung. AIJ Journal of Technology and Design, 18 (40), 1003-1008. Zinc sheet roofing. (2014). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of zinc sheet roofing, Zinc for life fact sheet.
vailable in http://www.zinc.org/basics/zinc_recycling. Accessed 10 March 2014
Thornmark, C.(2002). A low energy building in a life cycle-its embodied energy, energy need operation and recycling potential. Building and Environment, 37, 429-435.
30th INTERNATIONAL PLEA CONFERENCE 16-18 December 2014, CEPT University, Ahmedabad
8
