C H A P T E R

15

Construction WasteMohamed Osmani

Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University LE11 3TU,

United Kingdom

W

O U T L I N E

1. Introduction 207

2. Concepts and Definitions 208

3. Construction Waste Composition andQuantification 209

4. Construction Waste Source Evaluation 209

5. Construction Waste Management andMinimisation Approaches 211

6. Construction Waste Management andMinimisation: The UK Context 212

207aste Doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-381475-3.10015-4

6.1. Construction Waste MinimisationDrivers 2

12 6.1.1. Environmental Drivers 212 6.1.2. Legislative Drivers 213 6.1.3. Economic Drivers 213 6.1.4. Business Drivers 214

6.2. Construction Waste MinimisationPractices 2

14

6.3. Construction Waste MinimisationBarriers and Incentives 2

15

7. Discussion and Conclusions 216

1. INTRODUCTION

The built environment consumes morenatural resources than necessary and thereforegenerates a large amount of waste. A study bythe World Resource Institute of material flowsin a number of industrialised countries showedthat one half to three quarters of the annualmaterial input to these societies was returnedto the environment as waste within 1 year [1].The international community started realising

that resources are finite and that nature can nolonger absorb the vast quantities of waste contin-ually released to it. Achieving ‘zero waste’ willbe a breakthrough strategy for a world in anenvironmental crisis; however, this is a highlychallenging target in construction, but involvingand committing all stakeholders to reduce wasteat source and developing efficient wastemanagement strategies by reusing and recyclingmaterials and components can take the industrycloser to the ‘zero waste’ vision, hence, moving

� 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

15. CONSTRUCTION WASTE208

frommyth to reality. The aim of this chapter is torethink construction waste management by re-engineering processes and practices to reduceconstruction waste at source. The chapter exam-ines the concept of waste and definitions,discusses construction waste quantification andsource evaluation, explores current thinking onconstruction waste research and appraises thecurrent construction waste management andminimisation status in the United Kingdom(UK) in terms of drivers and pressures forchange, design and onsite practices, and chal-lenges and enablers.

2. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS

Emerging sustainable thinking is redefiningthe concept of waste from a ‘by-product’ ofprocesses to missed opportunities to cut costsand improve performance. Koskela [2] wentfurther to argue that waste adds costs but doesnot add value. Similarly, Formoso et al. [3] classi-fied waste as ‘unavoidable’, for which the coststo reduce it are higher than the economyproduced, and ‘avoidable’, when the necessaryinvestment to manage the produced waste ishigher than the costs to prevent or reduce it.Therefore, the concept of waste should be lookedat in terms of activities that increase costs directlyor indirectly but do not add value to the project.

There is no generally accepted definition ofwaste. As a result, the European Council revisedthe Waste Framework Directive (WFD) inOctober 2008, which must be fully implementedwithin all European Union (EU) member statesby December 2010. The changes to the WFDcan be broadly separated into major and ‘sortingout’ measures. The major changes are aimed atencouraging the greater reuse and recycling ofwaste, whereas the sorting out measures areaimed at simplifying the fragmented legal frame-work that has regulated the waste sector to date.Significantly, the definition of ‘waste’ has beenclarified in the revised WFD through specific

II. WASTE S

articles that formally introduce the concepts of‘by-products’ and ‘end-of-waste’. The introduc-tion of a definition of by-products in Article 5(1) formally recognises the circumstances inwhich materials may fall outside the definitionof waste. This change is intended to reflect thereality that many by-products are reused beforeentering the waste stream. In the UnitedKingdom, a consultation process on draft guid-ance on the legal definition of waste and itsapplication was launched in January 2010, anda report summarising the consultation responsesand their guidance on the interpretation of thedefinition of waste is scheduled for publicationin July 2010 [4]. For the scope of this chapter,the following definitions are adopted:

• Waste is ‘any substance or object which theholder discards or intends or is required todiscard’ [5]. This definition applies to allwaste irrespective of whether it is destinedfor disposal or recovery operations.

• ‘Construction waste’ is a material or productwhich needs ‘to be transported elsewherefrom the construction site or used on the siteitself other than the intended specific purposeof the project due to damage, excess or non-use or which cannot be used due to non-compliance with the specifications, orwhich is a by-product of the constructionprocess’ [6].

• ‘Design waste’ is the waste arising fromconstruction sites owing directly or indirectlyto the design process.

• ‘Waste minimisation’ is the reduction ofwaste at source, (i.e. designing out waste) byunderstanding its root causes and re-engineering current processes and practicesto alleviate its generation.

• ‘Waste management’ is the process involvedin dealing with waste once it has arisen,including site planning, transportation,storage, material handling, onsite operation,segregation, reuse and recycling and finaldisposal.

TREAMS

CONSTRUCTION WASTE SOURCE EVALUATION 209

3. CONSTRUCTION WASTECOMPOSITION ANDQUANTIFICATION

It is difficult to give exact figures of construc-tion waste produced on a typical constructionsite, but it is estimated that it is as much as30% of the total weight of building materialsdelivered to a building site [7]. In the UnitedStates, around 170 million tonnes of construc-tion and demolition waste was generatedduring 2003, of which 48% was estimated to berecovered [8]. Chun Li et al. [9] related theproduction of construction waste to thedesigned facilities’ floor areas by stating thatmost buildings in the United States generatebetween 20 to 30 kg m2. In the EU, more than450 million tonnes of construction and demoli-tion waste is generated every year, which makesit the largest waste stream in quantitative terms,with the exception of mining and farm wastes[10]. At present, 75% of construction and demo-lition waste in the EU is being landfilled,although over 80% recycling rates have beenexceptionally achieved in countries such asGermany and the Netherlands [11]. In theUnited Kingdom, the disposal of constructionwaste accounts for more than 50% of overalllandfill volumes [12]. Furthermore, Guthrieet al. [13] reported that at least 10% of all mate-rials delivered to UK construction sites arewasted due to damage, loss and over-ordering.However, Fishbein [7] estimated this amount tobe as much as 30% of the total weight of buildingmaterials delivered to a building site. Equally,38% of solid waste in Hong Kong comes fromthe construction industry [14], and in 2006,about 40% of the available landfill capacity wasused to manage construction waste [15]. In addi-tion, Bossink and Brouwers [16] revealed that inthe Netherlands, each building material gener-ates between 1 to 10% waste of the amountpurchased resulting in an overall average of9% of purchased materials becoming waste.Pinto and Agopyan [17] went further to report

II. WASTE S

that, in Brazil, the construction project wasterate is 20 to 30% of the weight of the total sitebuilding materials.

In terms of weight, brick masonry andconcrete present by far the largest potential forrecycling in the building sector [18]. This hasbeen supported by the findings of comprehen-sive research conducted across the UnitedStates, the United Kingdom, China, Brazil,Korea and Hong Kong, which compared thetypes and volumes of construction waste inthese countries [19]. However, the types andcomposition of onsite wastes are highly vari-able, depending on the construction techniquesused. For example, ‘there will be very littlewaste concrete and timber forms for disposal ifpre-cast concrete elements are adopted’ [20].Guthrie and Mallett [21] split construction anddemolition waste into three categories asfollows: materials which are (1) potentially valu-able in construction and easily reused/recycled,including concrete, stone masonry, bricks, tiles/pipes, asphalt and soil; (2) not capable of beingdirectly recycled but may be recycled elsewhere,including timber, glass, paper, plastic, oils andmetal and (3) not easily recycled or whichpresent particular disposal issues, includingchemicals (i.e. paint, solvents), asbestos, plaster,water and aqueous solutions. Coventry et al.[22] identified seven different types of waste:bricks, blocks and mortar (33%); timber (27%);packaging (18%), dry lining (10%); metals(3%); special waste (1%) and other waste 10%.

4. CONSTRUCTION WASTESOURCE EVALUATION

There are a variety of different approaches tothe evaluation of the main origins, sources andcauses of construction waste. The extant of liter-ature reveals a number of construction wastegeneration sources, which can be broadly cate-gorised into 11 clusters. Table 15.1 shows thatconstruction waste is generated throughout the

TREAMS

TABLE 15.1 Origins and causes of construction waste (compiled from the main sources within the literature)

Origins of Waste Causes of Waste

Contractual • Waste client-driven/enforced.• Errors in contract documents.• Contract documents incomplete at commencement of construction.

Procurement • Lack of early stakeholders’ involvement.• Poor communication and coordination among parties and trades.• Lack of allocated responsibility for decision making.• Incomplete or insufficient procurement documentation.

Design • Design changes.• Design and detailing complexity.• Design and construction detail errors.• Inadequate/incoherent/incorrect specification.• Poor coordination and communication (late information, last minute client requirements,

slow drawing revision and distribution).

On-site Managementand Planning

• Lack of on-site waste management plans.• Improper planning for required quantities.• Delays in passing information on types and sizes of materials and components to be used.• Lack of on-site material control.• Lack of supervision.

Site Operation • Accidents due to negligence.• Unused materials and products.• Equipment malfunction.• Poor craftsmanship.• Use of wrong materials resulting in their disposal.• Time pressure.• Poor work ethics.

Transportation • Damage during transportation.• Difficulties for delivery vehicles accessing construction sites.• Insufficient protection during unloading.• Methods of unloading.

Material ordering • Ordering errors (i.e. ordering items not in compliance with specification).• Over allowances (i.e. difficulties to order small quantities).• Shipping and suppliers’ errors.

Material Storage • Inappropriate site storage space leading to damage or deterioration.• Improper storing methods.• Materials stored far away from point of application.

Materali Handling • Materials supplied in loose form.• On-site transportation methods from storage to the point of application.• Inadequate material handling.

Residual • Waste from application processes (i.e. over-preparation of mortar).• Off-cuts from cutting materials to length.• Waste from cutting uneconomical shapes.• Packaging.

Other • Weather.• Vandalism.• Theft.

15. CONSTRUCTION WASTE210

II. WASTE STREAMS

CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINIMISATION APPROACHES 211

project from inception to completion and thepre-construction stage has its considerable share. Arecent research on construction procurementsystems-relatedwaste sources showed that thesefall under four main themes: uncoordinatedearly involvement of project stakeholders, inef-fective project communication and coordination,unclear allocation of responsibilities and incon-sistent procurement documentation [23].Furthermore, it has been estimated that 33% ofwasted materials is due to architects failing todesign out waste [24]. However, constructionwaste minimisation through design is complexbecause buildings embody a large number ofmaterials and processes. Equally, Osmani et al.[25] reported that ‘waste accepted as inevitable’,‘poor defined responsibilities’ and ‘lack oftraining’ are major challenges facing architectsto design waste reduction measures in theirprojects. This is made more complex whenfurther waste is created directly or indirectly byother projects’ stakeholders, namely, clients,contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers.Nonetheless, there is a general consensus thatdesign changes during operation activities areone of the key origins of construction waste [16,26]. The main drivers for design variationsduring construction are lack of understandingthe underlying origins and causes, designchanges to meet client’s changing requirements,complex designs, lack of communicationbetween design and construction teams, lack ofdesign information, unforeseen ground condi-tions and long project duration.

5. CONSTRUCTION WASTEMANAGEMENT AND

MINIMISATION APPROACHES

Despite international governmental, indus-trial and academic efforts to develop wastereduction thinking in construction, uptake glob-ally is piecemeal. The current and ongoingresearch in the field of construction waste

II. WASTE S

management and minimisation can be broadlycategorised into the following 13 clusters:

1. construction waste quantification andsource evaluation;

2. procurement waste minimisation strategies;3. designing out waste;4. onsite construction waste sorting methods

and techniques;5. development of waste data collection

models, including flows of wastes andwaste management mapping, to help withthe handling of onsite waste;

6. development of onsite waste auditing andassessment tools;

7. impact of legislation on waste managementpractices;

8. improvements of onsite waste managementpractices;

9. reuse and recycle in construction;10. benefits of waste minimisation;11. waste minimisation manuals, including

guides for designers;12. attitudes towards construction waste

minimisation and13. comparative waste management studies.

Research reports, suchas thework ofCoventryet al. [22], aim to promote awareness in thebuilding construction industry about the benefitsof waste minimisation, including cost savings,and environmental issues and use of recycledand reclaimed materials. The ‘three Rs’ principleofwaste (reduction, reuse and recycle), otherwiseknown as the waste hierarchy, has been widelyadopted. Similarly, the impact of legislation,particularly the Landfill Tax, and its effects onthe behaviour and practices of the constructionindustry has resulted in a number of researchstudies. Furthermore, in the last few years,many waste minimisation and recycling guideshavebeenproduced suchasWaste andResourcesAction Programme (WRAP) [27]. These docu-ments give broad guidance for designers to adopta waste minimisation approach in their projects;however, the recommendations in these guides

TREAMS

15. CONSTRUCTION WASTE212

do not realistically relate waste to all parametersof the designers’ environment, including thecomplex design and construction process andthe supply chain. In addition, they do not specif-ically identify waste-stream components in rela-tion to their occurrence during the architecturaldesign stages. In addition, tools,models and tech-niques, such as SMARTWaste in the UnitedKingdom and WasteSpec in the United States,have been developed to help handle and bettermanage onsite waste generation and assess theassociated cost implications. These tools, whichfacilitate onsite auditing, waste managementandcost analysis, dealwithwaste thathas alreadybeen produced. Consequently, there is insuffi-cient effort andnostructuredapproach toaddresswaste at source, that is, ‘design waste’, to preventit from being generated at the first place.

6. CONSTRUCTION WASTEMANAGEMENT AND

MINIMISATION: THE UKCONTEXT

There are a number of existing data sources inthe United Kingdom that quote the amount ofmaterials and products used in constructionactivities, wasted, managed, recovered and land-filled; however, the resulting statistics vary interms of scope, methodology, reliability,

3229

13 12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Constructionand demolition

Mining andquarrying

Industrial Commercial House

Industrial sectors

Waste g

en

eratio

n (%

)

II. WASTE S

accessibility and frequency of updatability.As a result, available data is not robust enoughto provide benchmarks and baselines on wastegeneration which should inform the setting upof realistic targets for waste reduction and tomeasure improvements.

6.1. Construction Waste MinimisationDrivers

The key drivers for waste reduction in the UKconstruction industry could be broadly categor-ised into four main groups which are environ-mental, legislative, economic and business.

6.1.1. Environmental Drivers

As shown in Fig. 15.1, the construction anddemolition activities account for 32% of allwaste arisings in England, which makes it thelargest waste stream. This figure is substantiallyhigher if additional construction-related wastesfrom other sectors are added, namely, throughconstruction material product manufacturingprocesses in the industrial sector, and duringraw material excavation and production in themining and quarrying sector.

The UK construction, demolition, refurbish-ment and excavation activities produce around120 million tonnes of waste each year, includingan estimated 13 million tonnes of unused mate-rials [28]. Furthermore, it is responsible for

9

5

hold Dredgedmaterials

FIGURE 15.1 Estimated waste aris-ings in England by industrial sector(combined data from a number of UKgovernment sources, 2003e2007).

TREAMS

CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINIMISATION: THE UK CONTEXT 213

generating over 36 million tonnes of landfillwaste every year. It has been estimated thatUK landfill sites will be filled in as little as6 years, making it imperative to reduce andmanage waste. Public opinion in the UnitedKingdom has emphasised the difficulties of min-imising construction waste, but with Germanyrecycling over 80% of its construction wasteand Denmark over 90%, this is clearly a misper-ception. Fortunately, the situation is changing inthe United Kingdom, and there are a growingnumber of sustainable waste managementsolutions that can be used as examples of bestpractice. Indeed, the proportion of constructionand demolition waste recycled by crushersand screeners from 2001 to 2005 has increasedfrom 49 to 52%; however, the amount ofconstruction and demolition waste sent tolandfill has increased from 26 to 31% [29]. Thelatter indicates that there is a pressing needto reduce waste at all stages of constructionand divert it from landfill by considering thelong-term impacts of design, build and wastemanagement.

6.1.2. Legislative Drivers

The UK government has been using a combi-nation of regulation, economic instruments andvoluntary agreements to meet targets of ethical,social and environmental performance indriving the waste management agenda. Thegovernment’s Strategy for Sustainable Construc-tion, published in June 2008, calls for a stepchange in the sustainability of procurement,design and operation of all built assets to bedriven by innovation [28]. The aim of thestrategy is to improve the built environmentperformance with a focus on reducing carbonemissions and resource consumption in newbuildings. In encouraging the constructionindustry to drive its own resource efficiency pro-gramme, the strategy calls for zero constructionwaste to landfill by 2020 [30]. It also set a targetto halve the amount of construction, demolitionand excavation wastes going to landfill by 2012

II. WASTE S

in comparison with 2008 levels, as a result ofwaste reduction, reuse and recycling. This isa significant challenge for the industry. In addi-tion, existing waste-related legislation e espe-cially the Landfill Tax (£48 per tonne in 2010,which will make the current waste disposalmethods too costly for construction firms), theAggregates Levy (£2 per tonne for on the extrac-tion of aggregates) and Site Waste ManagementPlans (SWMPs) e should contribute to a transi-tion away from land-filling towards wastereduction, reuse and recycling. However, as yetthis does not appear to have seriously reducedthe amount of waste production, the UK govern-ment is likely to introduce other fiscal measuresand legislation in the future, which will push theconstruction industry towards a closed loopproduction system.

6.1.3. Economic Drivers

The construction industry in the UnitedKingdom spends more than £200 million onLandfill Tax each year. Waste typically costscompanies 4% of turnover with potentialsavings of 1% through the implementation ofa comprehensive waste minimisation pro-gramme. Furthermore, WRAP [27] estimatesthat £1.5 billion is wasted in materials that aredelivered to the site but unused. Construction-related businesses can take advantage ofgovernment funding to implement waste mini-misation practices. Indeed, from April 2005 toMarch 2008, the government granted £284million of Landfill Taxes to the BusinessResource Efficiency and Waste (BREW) pro-gramme. More than 65% of this funding wasapproved for waste management initiatives.

Waste minimisation financial benefits arerelated to the direct costs of both waste disposaland raw material purchase. However, the truecost of waste is estimated to be around 20 timesthe disposal of waste. A study by a major UKcontracting company revealed that that a typicalconstruction skip costs around £1343. Thisfigure is broken into £85 for skip hire (6.4% of

TREAMS

15. CONSTRUCTION WASTE214

cost), £163 for labour (12.1% of cost) and £1095of cost of wasted materials (81.5% of cost).Therefore, the financial cost of waste fora generic house (5 skips) is around £6715, ofwhich £5439 is attributed to the cost of dis-carded materials.

6.1.4. Business Drivers

For construction to improve its performancein this competitive age, it has become essentialthat sustainable practices, including waste min-imisation, are adopted and implemented.Indeed, clients are increasingly demanding forenhanced sustainable project performance andare exerting more influence on the industry toreduce onsite waste and cut costs. This is grad-ually becoming a necessary requirement forprocurement across the entire supply chain. Inresponse to such pressures, businesses are aban-doning their narrow theory of value in favour ofa broader approach, which not only seeksincreased economic value but also considerscorporate social responsibilities and stake-holders’ engagement and commitment.

6.2. Construction Waste MinimisationPractices

With increasing waste legislation and fiscalmeasures in the United Kingdom, research

0102030405060708090

100

Feas

ibilit

y st

udy

ofw

aste

est

imat

ion

Des

igni

ng fo

rde

cons

truct

ion

Spec

ifyin

gre

clai

med

/recy

cled

mat

eria

ls

Use

of s

tand

ard

dim

ensi

ons

and

units

Waste minimisation design strategi

Arch

itects' view

s (%

)

II. WASTE S

was thus undertaken by the author to explorecurrent waste minimisation practices and asso-ciated barriers in the UK construction industry.A questionnaire survey and follow up inter-views were used in this research as a methodof collecting data. The sampling frame wasconfined to the top 100 architectural practicesand contracting firms in the United Kingdom.

Architects were asked to rate the waste min-imisation practices that they employed duringdesign; their answers are shown in Fig. 15.2.

It is evident that very few attempts werebeing made to minimise waste during thedesign process; for example, more than 92% ofarchitects reported that they did not conducta feasibility study of waste estimation.However, around a third of the firms claimedthat they did use standard materials and prefab-ricated units frequently, to avoid cutting onsite.Most of the participating architects acknowl-edged that designing out waste is not beingimplemented at present; as one respondent putit, ‘waste reduction is rarely considered duringdaily life in an architect’s office’. However,respondents reported that lack of interest fromclients and ‘waste accepted as inevitable’ weretheir major concerns.

Similarly, contractors were asked to rateonsite waste management strategies; theiranswers are shown in Fig. 15.3. It is interesting

Use

of

pref

abric

ated

uni

ts

Avoi

danc

e of

late

varia

tions

in d

esig

n

es

Rarely usedFrequently used

FIGURE 15.2 Current waste mini-misation design strategies (architects’views).

TREAMS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Appropriatestorage ofmaterials

Provide easyaccess for

deliveryvehicles

Wastesegregation

Recycle wastematerials

Set wastereductiontargets

On-site reuseof wastematerials

Offsite reuseof wastematerials

Onsite waste management

Co

ntracto

rs' view

s (%

)

Rarely usedFrequently used

FIGURE 15.3 Currentonsite construction wastemanagement strategies(contactors’ views).

CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINIMISATION: THE UK CONTEXT 215

to note that, contrary to expectations, themajority of contractors indicated that theyused ‘appropriate storage of materials’ (88%)and ‘provided easy access for delivery vehicles’(77%) in most or all their projects. However, fewefforts were made to segregate and reuse mate-rials. Indeed, over 26% implemented onsitesegregation of non-hazardous waste, and about12 to 6%, respectively, reused onsite and offsitewaste materials in all their projects. However,

0

1

2

3

4

5

Lack of interestfrom clients

Poor definedindividual

responsibilities

Lack of training W

Barriers to construction waste minimisa

Arch

itects an

d co

ntracto

rs' view

s

(m

ean

valu

es)

Architects

II. WASTE S

half of the responding companies said theydid set waste reduction targets, which appearssomewhat contradictory.

6.3. Construction Waste MinimisationBarriers and Incentives

Architects and contractors were asked toidentify the most influential barriers and incen-tives relating to waste management, using

aste accepted asinevitable

tion

Contractors

FIGURE 15.4 Barriers to constructionwaste minimisation (architects and con-tactors’ views).

TREAMS

0

1

2

3

4

5

Wastemanagementpolicy in place

Legislation Training Financial rewards

Incentives to construction waste minimisation

Arc

hitects an

d co

ntracto

rs'

view

s (m

ean

valu

es)

Architects ContractorsFIGURE 15.5 Incentives to constructionwaste minimisation (architects and con-tactors’ views).

15. CONSTRUCTION WASTE216

a Likert scale of 1 to 5. Their responses areshown in Figs. 15.4 and 15.5, respectively.Figure 15.4 shows that the barrier of ‘wasteaccepted as inevitable’ was rated the highestmean importance rating by contractors, whilearchitects considered ‘lack of interest fromclients’ as the major constraint, followed closelyby ‘waste accepted as inevitable’ and ‘poordefined individual responsibilities’.

However, there was a greater degree ofconsistency in respondents’ views on majorincentives to waste minimisation practices,which is shown in Fig. 15.5. Both architectsand contractors ranked ‘financial rewards’and ‘legislation’ equally as the main incentivesthat could drive waste minimisation in theconstruction industry. Although there isa consensus that legislation can be effective inmaintaining the pressure in improving wasteminimisation, it was suggested that financialdrivers at project level e that is, allocated feesfor architects and reward performance againstagreed targets for contractors and throughgovernment initiatives, that is, tax incentives ewill have a far-reaching impact on waste reduc-tion practices. The latter was further emphasisedby one respondent who argued that ‘the govern-ment uses a penal systemwhen a reward systemwould help clients address the issue with moreenthusiasm’.

II. WASTE S

7. DISCUSSION ANDCONCLUSIONS

The current thinking of waste minimisationpractices is heavily focussed on the physicalminimisation of construction waste and identi-fication of site waste streams. Tools, modelsand techniques have been developed to helphandle and better manage onsite waste genera-tion. Although these tools facilitate auditing,assessment and benchmarking, their wastesource evaluation approach is curtailed andpiecemeal, as it fails to effectively address thecausative issues of waste productionthroughout all stages of a construction project.The challenge now is to provide a novel plat-form for the next generation of tools and tech-niques that will identify and resolve thefundamental causes and origins of constructionwaste. The basis for such an approach couldutilise Building Information Modelling (BIM)and related technologies, in particular VirtualPrototyping, to provide a platform for ‘virtual’waste evaluation which reviews and assessesthe severity of waste generation throughoutall stages of the construction project life cycle.Although BIM design methods are notcurrently as fully utilised in the constructionindustry as in other industries, there is generalrecognition that BIM adoption will become

TREAMS

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 217

more pronounced to demonstrate not only theentire building lifecycle but also assess andevaluate the environmental performance andimpacts of buildings. In addition, ‘Lean designthinking’ is emerging as a fundamentally andholistic new approach to create value by elimi-nating ‘design waste’. That said, a successfulmapping process of Lean principles couldonly be applied fully and effectively inconstruction by focusing on improving thewhole production, flow of materials and lifecycle information processes, hence movingfrom traditional practices and ‘going for lean’.

Construction waste minimisation can beviewed as a threat requiring ever-increasingexpenditure on end-of-pipe recycling toolsand technologies to meet ever-increasing legis-lation, or as an opportunity to cut costs andimprove performance. The choice should beobvious, but there is a need for a culturechange. Rethinking waste management inconstruction requires adopting ‘cyclic’ ratherthan ‘linear’ approach to design and construc-tion. This requires re-engineering current prac-tice to contribute to a cleaner environmentthrough efficient and cost effective sustainablewaste minimisation strategies. However, forwaste minimisation to be effective and self-sustaining, it is important that all stakeholdersalong the construction supply chain embracea more proactive approach in dealing withwaste. In recognition of the responsibility ofthe architectural profession, through its leadingrole in project management and a key player inthe construction industry, architects shouldmove beyond the concept of ‘eco-efficiency’through bolt-on environmental strategies andstrive to adopt ‘eco-effective’ practices byimplementing a holistic approach to designout waste, which will be reinforced in tenderdocuments and implemented during theconstruction stage, in addition to the captureand dissemination of lessons learnt to informconstruction waste reduction baselines andbenchmarking in future projects.

II. WASTE S

References

[1] C. Hutter, The Weight of Nations e Material OutflowsFrom Industrial Economies, World Resources Insti-tute, Washington, DC, 2000.

[2] L. Koskela, Application of New Production Theory inConstruction, Technical Report No.72, CIFE, StanfordUniversity, Stanford, CA, 1992.

[3] C.T. Formoso, E.L. Isatto, E.H. Hirota, Method forWaste Control in the Building Industry, In: Tomme-lein, I.D, Ballard G. eds., Proceedings of the SeventhAnnual Conference of the International Group forLean Construction (IGLC-7), Berkeley, CA, July 1999,325e334.

[4] DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs), Consultation on the Legal Definition ofWaste and Its Application, DEFRA, London, 2010.

[5] European Council, Waste Framework Directive(2008/98/EC), November 2008.

[6] E.R. Skoyles, J.R. Skoyles, Waste Prevention on Site,Mitchell, London, 1987.

[7] B.K. Fishbein, Building for the Future: Strategies toReduce Construction and Demolition Waste inMunicipal Projects, INFORM Publications, New York,1998.

[8] EPA, Construction and Demolition materialsAmounts, Office of Resource Conservation andRecovery (March 2009) 29. EPA530-R-09-002.

[9] P. Chun-Li, D.E. Scorpio, C.J. Kibert, Strategies forsuccessful construction and demolition waste recy-cling operations, Construction Management andEconomics 15 (1997) 49e58.

[10] EC (European Commission), Directorate-GeneralEnvironment, Directorate Industry and Environment,ENV.E.3-Waste Management, Management ofConstruction and Demolition Waste Working Docu-ment No. 1 (2000).

[11] M. Erlandsson, P. Levin, Environmental assessment ofrebuilding and possible performance improvementseffect on a national scale, Building and Environment40 (2005) 1459e1471.

[12] J. Ferguson, N. Kermode, C.L. Nash, W.A.J. Sketch,R.P. Huxford, Managing and Minimizing Construc-tion Waste: A Practical Guide, Institution of CivilEngineers, London, 1995.

[13] P. Guthrie, C. Woolveridge, S. Coventry, ManagingMaterials and Components on Site, The ConstructionIndustry Research and Information Association e

CIRIA, London, 1998.[14] Hong Kong Government Environmental Report 2006,

Environmental Protection Department, Hong Kong,2006.

[15] C.S. Poon, Reducing construction waste, WasteManagement 27 (2007) 1715e1716.

TREAMS

15. CONSTRUCTION WASTE218

[16] B.A.G. Bossink, H.J.H. Brouwers, Construction waste:quantification and source evaluation. Journal ofConstruction Engineering and Management, ASCE122 (1996) 55e60.

[17] T.P. Pinto, V. Agopyan, Construction Waste as RowMaterials for Low-Cost Construction Products, In:Kibert, C.J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the First Conferenceof CIB TG 16 on Sustainable Construction, Tampa, FL,1994, 335e342.

[18] R. Emmanuel, Estimating the environmental suit-ability of wall materials: preliminary results from SriLanka, Building and Environment 39 (2004)1253e1261.

[19] Z. Chen, H. Li, C.T.C. Wong, An application of bar-code system for reducing construction wastes, Auto-mation in Construction 11 (2002) 521e533.

[20] C.S. Poon, A.T.W. Yu, L.H. Ng, On-site sorting ofconstruction and demolition waste in Hong Kong,Resources, Conservation and Recycling 32 (2001)157e172.

[21] P. Guthrie, H. Mallett, Waste Minimisation andRecycling in Construction, CIRIA Special Publication122, CIRIA, London, 1995.

[22] S. Coventry, B. Shorter, M.M. Kingsley, DemonstratingWaste Minimisation Benefits in Construction, CIRIAC536, CIRIA, London, 2001.

[23] I.S.W. Gamage, M. Osmani, J. Glass, An InvestigationInto the Impact of Procurement Systems on Waste

II. WASTE S

Generation: The Contractors’ Perspective, Associationof Researchers in Construction Management(ARCOM), Nottingham, UK, September 2009.103e104.

[24] S. Innes, Developing tools for designing out wastepre-site and onsite. In: Proceedings of MinimisingConstruction Waste Conference: Developing ResourceEfficiency and Waste Minimisation in Design andConstruction, New Civil Engineer, London, UK,October 2004.

[25] M. Osmani, J. Glass, A.D. Price, Architect andcontractor attitudes towards waste minimisation,Waste and Resource Management 59 (2006) 65e72.

[26] M. Osmani, J. Glass, A.D. Price, Architects perspec-tives on construction waste minimisation by design,Waste Management 28 (2008) 1147e1158.

[27] WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme),Designing Out Waste, A Design Team Guide forBuilding, WRAP, Banbury, Oxon, 2009.

[28] WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme),Halving Construction Waste to Landfill by 2012,WRAP, Banbury, Oxon, 2007.

[29] DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs), Key Facts About: Waste and Recycling,DEFRA, London, 2006.

[30] DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs), Strategy for Sustainable Construction,DEFRA, London, 2008.

TREAMS