MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6983287999

The Management of Mineral Mass Flows and Deposits and its Role in the Circular Economy: The status in the Netherlands with a brief look at Norway

2022· dissertation· en· W6983287999 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueDuo Research Archive (University of Oslo) · 2022
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueSustainable Industrial Ecology
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésContext (archaeology)Natural (archaeology)DemolitionNatural resourceSustainabilityQuarter (Canadian coin)
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Summary There are two problems with the current urban landscape that make it unsustainable for the future. These problems are 1) the problems of overuse and depletion of natural resources and 2) waste creation and management (Jones, 2021). The construction and demolition (C&D) industry is a large actor in this, as they are responsible for a third of the natural resources extraction (Adams, Osmani, Thorpe & Thornback, 2017) and a quarter of the solid waste generation worldwide (Benachio, Freitas & Tavares, 2019). Therefore, it is crucial to transform the current activities of the C&D industry to sustainable ones by the use of circular economies. The aim of this thesis is to put the situation in the Netherlands into context with Norway. The main research question followed in this thesis is: What is the status of the management of mineral mass flows and deposits in the Netherlands? This question is supplemented by a secondary research question, namely: How does the status of the Netherlands stand in context to Norway, and how and why has the difference between the countries come to be? The research in this thesis consists of a case study of the Netherlands, for which qualitative research methods were used. Seven respondents were interviewed for this study to obtain data. These respondents were representatives of waste processing companies, C&D companies, and the Dutch government. For the Norway part of the study, research data from the researcher’s supervisor obtained through personal communication was used, as well as public online data. This is a case study of the Netherlands, put into context to Norway. The theoretical concepts of urban metabolism, circular economies and institutions and policy formed the basis for the data collection and analysis. The empirical framework discusses three dimensions of this research. First, an extensive overview is given on the different kinds of mineral materials in the system, and how they are generally processed and disposed of. From the numbers given, it is apparent that the majority of mineral wastes are recycled in the Netherlands, and only a fraction ends up in landfills. For Norway, it seems that the recycling rate is much lower than the Netherlands. Second, the rules and policies implemented in the EU, the Netherlands and Norway concerning mineral wastes, landfilling and C&D practices are discussed. There are multiple policies implemented to encourage circular practices. However, the rules are still lacking, allowing non-circular and even illegal practices to take place. Third, circularity within the mineral sector is discussed. This includes both current circular practices taking place, but also what the barriers to achieving more circularity are. The Netherlands is quite far along on the road towards mineral circularity, compared to other countries, while Norway is severely lacking in that area. The first reason is geography. The Netherlands has a need for less landfilling and strict rules surrounding it because the country is small, limiting the amount of space available, and groundwater levels are high, risking drinking water contamination. Norway does not experience either of these problems. A second reason that was given, is that the Netherlands is not very rich in mineral materials, such as rock and gravel. Import of these materials is expensive, and recycling is often a cheaper option. Once again, this is not a problem for Norway. A third and last reason given, is that the Netherlands already has the required infrastructure and technology available for the processing and recycling of waste because of investments in the past, which Norway does not have. However, the main reason that seems to determine the difference between the two countries, is policy. The policies implemented in the Netherlands are quite strict and enforce a high percentage of recycling and reuse. The policies were made with inputs from relevant actors and have been developing since the late 20th century, resulting in effective and clear rules. Norwegian policies are lacking and allow for illegal landfilling activities to take place while not enforcing a high circularity rate, showing the importance of enlightened policy making over a long time span. This thesis highlights the problem areas when it comes to implementing a more circular mineral economy. The results could contribute to finding more circular solutions for mineral wastes, by identifying where circularity is lacking and what the barriers to achieving circularity are. The case of the Netherlands is a good case. However, the case is not easy to replicate in other countries such as Norway. Norway does not have the same investments into circularity as the Netherlands, and it will take a number of years and investments to achieve a similar level of circularity. The study has revealed a significant knowledge gap in the research on mineral wastes in Norway specifically.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,283
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,983

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,226
Écart entre enseignants0,214 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDuo Research Archive (University of Oslo)Même sujetSustainable Industrial EcologyTravaux en français237 207