## 6 Economic and Environmental Benefits of Agro-Wastes  
The integration of AWs into the construction industry provides multifaceted economic and environmental advantages. Particularly in developing countries, where resource affordability is a pressing issue, AWs offer a cost-effective alternative to conventional construction materials. For instance, concrete beams incorporating CSs can reduce production costs by 15-20% compared to traditional beams [26; 69]. Additionally, the cost benefits of AW materials, such as CSs and PO fuel Ash, are further detailed in Section 3 and Table 3, which highlight reductions in production costs for lightweight concrete. Additionally, adopting AWs in construction processes can lead to energy savings of up to 30%, potentially reducing fossil fuel consumption by millions of tons annually [6; 70]. Substituting AWs for cement could mitigate approximately 0.9 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per ton of cement produced [6; 77]. From an environmental perspective, the use of AWs addresses critical challenges in global waste management. With an estimated annual generation of 500 million tons of AW, utilizing even 10% of this amount could result in the recycling of 50 million tons of waste globally [71; 80]. Substituting AWs for cement could mitigate approximately 0.9 tonsof carbon dioxide emissions per ton of cement produced [6; 77], as detailed in Section 3 and Table 3. These environmental benefits are further supported by Section 4 and Table 6, which demonstrate reductions in carbon footprints and energy consumption in structural applications of RC beams incorporating AW materials. PO shell concrete, for example, exhibits 30% lower density compared to traditional lightweight concrete, enhancing energy efficiency in construction [70; 74]. Furthermore, thermal insulation properties of these materials have been shown to reduce building energy consumption by 20%, further minimizing carbon footprints and associated costs [6; 72]. Social and sustainability benefits are also evident. Recycling and processing AWs locally could increase rural employment opportunities by approximately 15%, driving economic growth in underprivileged regions [79; 91]. Materials like banana fibers and CSs, which are up to 80% recyclable, emerge as environmentally friendly alternatives to traditional aggregates. Moreover, AW-based construction materials reduce energy consumption by 10%, decreasing dependency on fossil fuels and encouraging a shift toward renewable energy sources [26; 70]. Despite these significant advantages, there remains a lack of detailed comparative economic analysis for AW materials, particularly in lightweight and RC applications. While Section 4 and Table 6 provide insights into the structural performance of RC beams with AW materials, further studies are needed to evaluate their cost-effectiveness and economic scalability in diverse construction scenarios. While theoretical studies highlight potential cost reductions and energy savings, comprehensive cost-benefit evaluations under diverse conditions are limited. For example, while CS concrete is reported to reduce production costs by 15-20% [26; 69], these claims often overlook the expenses associated with processing, transportation, and adaptation to existing construction methods. Additionally, regional disparities in the availability and quality of AWs can significantly influence their economic viability. To strengthen the case for AW adoption in construction, future research should focus on detailed life-cycle cost analyses, incorporating factors such as waste processing costs, logistical challenges, and long-term economic impacts. Establishing standardized metrics for evaluating economic trade-offs will be essential to validate and scale the use of AW materials globally. These considerations underscore the transformative potential of AWs.