An analysis of cost and duration for deconstruction and demolition of residential buildings in Massachusetts

Increased cost of landfilling can act as a reuse driver because it increases the disposal cost of CDW.

“Moreover, the increased cost of landfilling can act as a reuse driver because it increases the disposal cost of CDW (Dantata et al., 2005; Gorgolewski, 2008; Chileshe et al., 2016a; Chinda and Ammarapala, 2016).”

An attractive price for reused components increases revenue from resale of these components.

“and increases the revenue from the resale of these components (Dantata et al., 2005; da Rocha and Sattler, 2009; Dunant et al., 2017; Klang et al., 2003; Sea-Lim et al., 2018)”

Training operators for effective deconstruction is a factor driving reuse.

“Training operators for effective deconstruction (Dantata et al., 2005; Elias Özkan, 2012; Shaurette, 2006), availability of space for the storage of the reusable components after deconstruction (Rogers, 2011) and knowledge and experience in using reused components (Tingley et al., 2017), as well as proper separation of the reusable components after deconstruction (Ajayi et al., 2017; Ding et al.,”

Extra charges can yield a higher deconstruction cost when compared with demolition of the same building.

“These extra charges can yield a higher deconstruction cost (when compared with the demolition of the same building) (Chileshe et al., 2015; Dantata et al., 2005; Dunant et al., 2018; Rose and Stegemann, 2018; Tingley et al., 2017; Yeung et al., 2015)”

The time required for deconstruction and reuse, and the consequent project scheduling, is one of the main barriers to reuse.

“According to the reviewed articles, the time required for deconstruction and reuse, and the consequent project scheduling, is one of the main barriers to reuse (Dantata et al., 2005; Gorgolewski, 2008; Gorgolewski et al., 2008; MacKinnon, 2000; Shaurette, 2006 (among others)).”

The time required to deconstruct a 90 to 180 m2 building is three to five times higher than the time needed for demolition of the same building.

“Dantata et al. (2005) highlight that the time required to deconstruct a 90 to 180 m2 building is three to five times higher than the time needed for the demolition of the same building.”

Higher deconstruction costs can hinder its application and might elevate financial risks associated with deconstruction and reuse.

“According to the literature, higher deconstruction costs can hinder its application (Chileshe et al., 2015; Dantata et al., 2005, 2018, Rose and Stegemann, 2018, Yeung et al., 2015, Tatiya et al., 2017; Tingley et al., 2017) and might elevate the financial risks associated with deconstruction and reuse (Rameezdeen et al., 2016).”

If the productivity of the deconstruction team increases or the wages decrease or the disposal cost rises, the overall cost of deconstruction decreases, and it becomes a desirable option in Massachusetts.

“In a separate study, Dantata et al. (2005) suggest that if the productivity of the deconstruction team increases or the wages decrease or the disposal cost rises, the overall cost of deconstruction decreases, and it becomes a desirable option (in Massachusetts).”