Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal

An analysis of factors influencing waste minimisation and use of recycled materials for
the construction of residential buildings
Graham J. Treloar Hani Gupta Peter E.D. Love Binh Nguyen
Article information:
To cite this document:
Graham J. Treloar Hani Gupta Peter E.D. Love Binh Nguyen, (2003),"An analysis of factors influencing
waste minimisation and use of recycled materials for the construction of residential buildings", Management
of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 14 Iss 1 pp. 134 - 145
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

Permanent link to this document:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14777830310460432
Downloaded on: 03 September 2016, At: 21:29 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 18 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3240 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(1998),"Minimizing waste on construction project sites", Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 182-188 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb021073
(2004),"Towards improved construction waste minimisation: a need for improved supply chain integration?",
Structural Survey, Vol. 22 Iss 1 pp. 20-29 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02630800410533285
(2001),"Recycling construction and demolition wastes – a UK perspective", Environmental Management
and Health, Vol. 12 Iss 2 pp. 146-157 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09566160110389898

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:216788 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-7835.htm

MEQ
14,1 An analysis of factors
influencing waste minimisation
134
and use of recycled materials
for the construction of
residential buildings
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

Graham J. Treloar
School of Architecture and Building, Deakin University, Geelong,
Victoria, Australia
Hani Gupta
School of Engineering and Technology, Deakin University, Geelong,
Victoria, Australia
Peter E.D. Love
School of Architecture and Building, Deakin University, Geelong,
Victoria, Australia
Binh Nguyen
School of Engineering and Technology, Deakin University, Geelong,
Victoria, Australia
Keywords Construction industry, Waste, Recycling, Costs, Energy, Australia
Abstract Residential building construction activities, whether it is new build, repair or maintenance,
consumes a large amount of natural resources. This has a negative impact on the environment in the
form depleting natural resources, increasing waste production and pollution. Previous research has
identified the benefits of preventing or reducing material waste, mainly in terms of the limited
available space for waste disposal, and escalating costs associated with landfills, waste management
and disposal and their impact on a building company’s profitability. There has however been little
development internationally of innovative waste management strategies aimed at reducing the
resource requirement of the construction process. The authors contend that embodied energy is a
useful indicator of resource value. Using data provided by a regional high-volume residential builder in
the State of Victoria, Australia, this paper identifies the various types of waste that are generated
from the construction of a typical standard house. It was found that in this particular case, wasted
amounts of materials were less than those found previously by others for cases in capital cities (5-10
per cent), suggesting that waste minimisation strategies are successfully being implemented. Cost and
embodied energy savings from using materials with recycled content are potentially more beneficial in
terms of embodied energy and resource depletion than waste minimisation strategies.

Management of Environmental
Quality: An International Journal Introduction
Vol. 14 No. 1, 2003
pp. 134-145
The residential building industry relies heavily on natural resources. None of
q MCB UP Limited the conventional raw materials used in the construction of houses are available
1477-7835
DOI 10.1108/14777830310460432 without causing some degree of environmental impact. Many materials are
 processed from low-grade ores, such as copper. Manufacturing may have Waste
undesirable side effects such as emission of pollutants into the atmosphere and minimisation
waterways. In addition, embodied energy (i.e. the energy consumed during
extraction, processing, manufacturing, and transportation at all stages,
Boustead and Hancock, 1979) is used in the manufacture of materials. There are
also other environmental impacts, such as natural habitat destruction.
Unfortunately, there is no universally applicable set of criteria available for
135
selecting environmental friendly building materials (Cole, 1998).
A number of researchers have highlighted the potential benefits in
preventing or reducing demolition and construction waste (e.g. Graham and
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

Smithers, 1996; Faniran and Caban, 1998; Thormark, 2000). By appreciating the
principles of handling and using materials on site, attitudes to prevent waste
can be developed and the construction process can be managed more efficiently
(Skoyles and Skoyles, 1985).
Embodied energy and natural resources are conserved when energy
intensive materials are used efficiently (Lawson, 1996). Embodied energy may
thus be a useful indicator of resource value. Some studies have focussed on the
recycling potential of construction waste and demolition materials, valuing
waste in terms of embodied energy (Thormark, 2000). Few studies, however,
have compared waste minimisation and recycling strategies in embodied
energy and cost terms.
Using data provided by a regional high-volume residential builder in the
State of Victoria, Australia, this paper identifies the various types of waste
generated during the construction of a typical house. This paper aims to
explore the relationships between the cost and embodied energy savings from
waste minimisation and recycling strategies using a case study.

Background
Much of the waste stream going to landfill consists of solid waste from the
construction and demolition of buildings. Waste minimisation strategies have
been popular for some time in the construction industry. This paper considers
the effect of these strategies on one case study. Sourcing materials with
recycled content in terms of embodied energy and cost is suggested as the next
phase of environmental management in construction.
Many studies measure waste from construction sites on the basis of either
volume or mass, to gauge the effect on disposal costs (Johnston and Minks,
1995; Graham and Smithers, 1996; Faniran and Caban, 1998). This does not
give the best appreciation of the problem in terms of the environment. The
savings from using materials with recycled content can be best measured in
terms of the environment by considering their embodied energy (Thormark,
2000). Embodied energy represents 10-40 times the annual operational energy
of most Australian residential buildings, depending upon building design,
climate construction systems, equipment type, fuel sources and building usage
 MEQ patterns. Each year in Australia, the embodied energy used in construction is
14,1 approximately equal to the annual operational energy of the built stock, and
together they make up 30-40 per cent of national energy use and greenhouse
gas emissions.
There are several problems with existing embodied energy analysis
methods, which include process analysis, input-output analysis and hybrid
136 analysis. Process analysis, while accurate for particular processes, often
ignores a large number of small to medium processes. Input-output analysis,
despite its many inherent errors, is used because of its unique property of
systemic completeness. Errors for process analysis data are approximately
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

^10 per cent (Boustead and Hancock, 1979), and for input-output data errors
are approximately ^50 per cent (Miller and Blair, 1985). Hybrid analysis
methods attempt to reduce the errors inherent in each of the two previous
methods. There are two types: one based on the process analysis framework
and the other based on the input-output framework. For the hybrid analysis
methods, errors vary between these rates, depending upon the mix of process
and input-output data.

Input-output analysis
An input-output table maps the flows of goods and services between
various sectors of an economy. A direct input-output table of technical
coefficients gives the amounts of goods and services required directly by
each sector. Input-output tables are most commonly available in economic
units. Direct energy intensities are typically calculated by summing the
products of the direct input-output coefficients describing sales by energy
supply sectors, national average energy tariffs and primary energy factors.
Indirect energy requirements for the manufacture of goods and services can
be traced manually through the direct input-output matrix. For example,
the energy required directly to make concrete can be multiplied by the
direct requirement for concrete by residential building. This embodied
energy path can be said to be one stage upstream from residential
building. The set of “first flows” is relatively easily extracted from the
direct input-output matrix (Patten and Higashi, 1995). Disaggregation of
further inputs upstream from stage 1 is possible, but tedious, because of
their increasing complexity. More conveniently, the Leontief inverse matrix,
ðI 2 AÞ21 , gives direct plus indirect requirements lumped together as one
number – the “total requirement” (Leontief, 1966). The system boundary is
effectively infinite.
Potential errors inherent to input-output analysis result from the
proportionality and homogeneity assumptions (Miller and Blair, 1985). The
proportionality assumption means that inputs to a sector are assumed to be
linearly proportional to its output. The homogeneity assumption means that
sector outputs are assumed to be proportional to price, regardless of the
 variation in each different product of the sector. Additional errors relate to the Waste
use of national average tariffs to translate economic flows into physical flows minimisation
in the form of energy (Peet and Baines, 1986).

Process analysis
Process analysis is defined broadly here as embodied energy analysis using
any other source of data than input-output tables. Process analysis is generally 137
more accurate than input-output analysis. The first step in a process analysis is
the measurement of all direct energy requirements of the main process, and the
output of the process, over a reasonable period of time. The second step is the
identification of inputs of other products required by the process over the same
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

period. The third step is the determination of the energy embodied in each
product required by the main process (Boustead and Hancock, 1979). Process
analyses rarely extend further than a few stages upstream and tend to ignore
inputs at each stage (Lave et al., 1995). Process analyses can be very accurate
for the precise system to which they relate, but sufficiently detailed systems are
rarely reported in the literature. The key to both this method’s success and its
failure is its focus on detail, giving accuracy but at the same time limiting
system boundary completeness.

Hybrid analysis
Hybrid analysis has been defined as the combination of process and input-
output data. There are two generic types: “process-based hybrid analysis” and
“input-output-based hybrid analysis”. Process-based hybrid analysis is the
most common hybrid analysis method, and involves the application of input-
output derived total energy intensities to a materials “inventory” collected
using process analysis. The system boundary of a process-based hybrid
analysis has similar limitations to a process analysis, except that the system
boundaries for basic material inputs are complete due to the application of
input-output derived total energy intensities (Bullard et al., 1978). Where the
direct energy intensity of a material is relatively small, the material inventory
is occasionally extended a further stage upstream. It is uncommon for this
practice to be comprehensive, and the selection of materials to disaggregate
tends to be intuitive (Lave et al., 1995). As with process analysis, inputs of
services and processes involving the assembly of basic materials into complex
products are typically neglected.
Input-output-based hybrid analysis, an innovative technique proposed by
Treloar (1997), and demonstrated in Treloar et al. (2001), requires firstly that
the input-output model to be disaggregated into mutually exclusive “energy
paths”. For example, one energy path is required directly to make cement used
in concrete, which is further used in construction. This does not include the
indirect energy embodied in the cement or the other concrete components and
processes – these are separate energy paths. Process analysis data is then
derived for energy paths, prioritised on the basis of their relative embodied
 MEQ energy value. The input-output energy path can then be deducted from the
14,1 input-output model and the process analysis version substituted without
disturbing the upstream processes, and without truncating the system
boundary of the original input-output model. If upstream or other processes are
important, process analysis data for them should also be derived. This method
approaches the problem of deciding which process analysis data to collect from
138 an informed basis.

Material waste in the construction industry

Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

The completeness and reliability of embodied energy analysis methods is

crucial to the validity of the application of embodied energy data to scenarios
such as waste minimisation. This also applies to the assessment of the direct
and indirect costs associated with recycling and disposal strategies. The
selection of one strategy over another could be determined by small variations
in the embodied energy and cost values.
Figure 1 shows the waste streams for construction and demolition
processes. The winning of raw materials is depicted on the left of the
diagram. The “manufacturing” stage refers to transformation of basic
materials into building materials and products, along with initial processing
stages (for example, metallic ore refining). There may be several transactions
between industries at this stage. The “construction” stage refers to the
assembly of materials and products to form the finished building. In the
“building use” stage, construction services may be used in facilities
management for maintenance and refurbishment of existing buildings. The
“demolition” stage refers to the final and total disassembly of the building.
The horizontal arrows depict the flow of materials with or without recycled
content. The curved arrows represent re-use or recycling processes, under
two categories:

Figure 1.
Flows of materials,
products and wastes for
construction and
demolition activities,
including closed and
open-loop recycling
 (1) closed loop recycling (i.e. within that industry or building life stages); Waste
and minimisation
(2) open-loop recycling (i.e. between industries or building life stages).
The use of recycled materials at any stage displaces requirements for new
materials, and may save considerable cost, natural resources and embodied
energy. The presence of a saving in each case depends on the reclamation and 139
recycling processes not requiring more financial, natural or energy resources
than are saved through the recycling effort, which is not necessarily always the
case (Boustead, 1996). It also requires that the reclamation costs be compared to
the costs in financial, resource and embodied energy terms for providing a
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

comparative product. In many cases, the recycled of a material may represent a

serious downgrading of use, therefore recycling processes including transport
and ancillary processes need to be efficient to ensure actual savings are
produced. Accounting of financial and resource requirements are relatively
straight forward compared to the embodied energy issue, as discussed above.

Research methodology
A standard house plan was used to demonstrate the financial and
environmental benefits of minimising waste and use of recycled materials in
comparison to their new counterparts. A list of materials quantities was
derived from a set of drawings that was obtained from the building company.
The materials were categorised into basic groups (for example, timber
products) instead of the usual categorisation in elements (for example, flooring).
Wastage rates were determined in consultation with the construction company
employees. Costs for the materials were sourced and embodied energy values
were determined in Australian dollars. The study was undertaken in 1999.
Costs for Victoria are comparable in other parts of Australia.
Material cost information was obtained from Cordell Pricing Guide (1999),
excluding installation and labour. Embodied energy data were derived using
the input-output-based hybrid analysis methods outlined in Treloar (1997).
Australian input-output data from 1992-1993 and process analysis data derived
in Australia industries from the mid-1990s were merged. All the embodied
energy data converted to primary energy terms, meaning that the quantities of
delivered fuels such as electricity had been converted to the quantities of
primary fuels such as coal used for their manufacture and provision to the
consumer. Table I lists the material costs and embodied energy rates used for
common building materials.
The wastage rates were applied to the material costs to find out the financial
value of the wasted materials. The wastage rates normally allowed for in the
contingency plan of common building materials given by the firms surveyed
are given in Table II.
The cost of the wasted materials was determined using equation (1). The
embodied energy of the wasted materials was determined using equation (2).
 MEQ
Material Unit Embodied energy rate (GJ/unit) Costs ($/unit)
14,1
10mm plasterboard m2 0.06 4
6mm glass m2 0.31 171
Acrylic paint m2 0.02 2
Aluminium foil m2 0.13 1.4
140 Bricks m2 0.88 31
Carpet m2 1.00 64
Ceramic tiles m2 0.34 50
Copper t 135.39 4212
Electrical products $ 0.01 various
m2
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

FC 4.5mm 0.18 7
Insulation R2.5 m2 0.16 9
Laminate m3 151.73 20,000
Medium density fibreboard (MDF) m3 16.00 2,000
Membrane m2 0.08 2
Metal products $ 0.01 various
Ready-mixed concrete 30MPa m3 3.87 88
Roof tiles m2 1.36 34
Table I. Sand m3 0.33 2
Material costs and Steel decking m2 0.37 31
embodied energy Timber hardwood m3 1.95 1,275
rates used for Timber softwood m3 3.41 1,439
common building Vinyl 3mm m2 0.26 33
materials Sources: As defined in the “Method” section

Materials Typical wastage rate (%)

Cement/concrete 5
Masonry/clay 5
Glass 3
Metals 10
Paint 5
Plaster 10
Table II. Plastics 10
Wastage rates used Timber 10
for common Services (equipment only) 0
building materials Sources: As defined in the “Method” section

Both equations without the wastage rates give the total quantities of materials
required (i.e. the total quantities of material required equalled the installed
quantities plus the wasted quantities):
X
E X
M
TOTALW S= ¼ ½Qem £ W em £ P m
; ð1Þ
e¼1 m¼1

where:
 TOTALW$ = the total cost of wasted materials;. Waste
Qem = the quantity of material, m, in element, e;. minimisation
Wem = the wastage rate (per cent) for material, m, used in element, e;
and
Pm = the cost of material, m. 141

X
E X
M
TOTALW EE ¼ ½Qem £ W em £ EE m
; ð2Þ
e¼1 m¼1
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

where:
TOTALWEE = the total embodied energy (EE) of wasted materials;
Qem = the quantity of material, m, in element, e;
Wem = the wastage rate (per cent) for material, m, used in element, e;
and
EEm = the embodied energy of material, m, including raw material
extraction, transportation, manufacturing, etc., but
excluding installation.
To model wasted fractions in terms of the total cost and embodied energy for
the house, a total had to be derived which was based on more than simply the
sum of the materials quantities as taken off the drawings. Estimates for the
processes not covered by the list of materials quantities were used to complete
the system boundary as follows:
.
$440/m2 for the small materials, labour, installation, services and
builder’s overheads (an estimate, based on previous experience); and
.
3.93GJ/m2 for the embodied energy of ignored processes (based on data
from Treloar et al., 2001, for a similar type and class of building).
Table III lists the material costs and embodied energy rates used for second
hand building materials or materials with recycled content, as the situation
allowed. Certain materials and situations did not allow consideration of
recycled materials, and these items remained as per the above method.

Results
The financial results showed that the cost of extra material ordered to cover the
wastage was 3.9 per cent of total cost for the house (Table IV). Most of the
wasted cost was in the wall, roof and floor elements, respectively. This result
was unexpectedly small, considering previous studies (for example, Faniran
and Caban, 1998; Graham and Smithers, 1996; Johnston and Minks, 1995). This
 MEQ
Material Unit Embodied energy rate (GJ/unit) Costs ($/unit)
14,1
10mm plasterboard m2 0.01 3.76
6mm glass m2 0.06 2.00
Aluminium foil m2 0.13 1.44
Bricks m2 0.09 20.00
142 Carpet m2 0.10 5.00
Electrical products $ 95 per cent saving typically 5-90 per cent savings
Table III. FC 4.5mm m2 0.04 2.00
Material costs and Medium density fibreboard (MDF) m3 4.80 1,000.00
embodied energy Roof tiles m2 0.27 10.00
Steel decking m2 0.07 8.01
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

rates used for

second-hand Timber hardwood m3 0.39 0.02
building materials Timber softwood m3 0.68 0.02
and materials with Vinyl 3mm m2 0.10 33.27
recycled content Sources: As defined in the “Method” section

Used materials ($/m2) Wasted materials ($/m2)

Floor 83.27 9.25

Roof 140.13 11.32
Walls 143.66 12.64
Fitments 17.41 1.27
Services 78.83 1.76
Table IV. Other costs 437.32 0.00
Cost breakdown by Total 900.61 (96.1%) 36.24 (3.9%)
element Note: Columns may not sum due to rounding

suggests that waste minimisation strategies that have been promoted in the
industry for some time are having a positive effect.
The embodied energy analysis showed that the energy embodied in the
extra materials ordered to cover wastage was 4.6 per cent of the total embodied
energy of the house (Table V). The order of important elements changed

Used materials (GJ/m2) Wasted materials (GJ/m2)

Floor 2.07 0.23

Roof 2.98 0.19
Walls 1.89 0.12
Fitments 0.12 0.01
Table V. Services 1.11 0.04
Embodied energy Other goods and services 3.93 0.00
breakdown by Total 12.11 (95.4%) 0.59 (4.6%)
element Note: Columns may not sum due to rounding
 somewhat from the financial analysis, but the results were otherwise similar in Waste
magnitude. Most of the wasted embodied energy was in the floor, roof and wall minimisation
elements, respectively. This change in order suggests that a change in priority
for waste minimisation strategies should be considered, so that time is devoted
to reducing waste for materials with high embodied energy, rather than those
that simply cost more (as suggested by Thormark, 2000).
For the embodied energy analysis, the proportion of process analysis data
143
relative to input-output data was 63 per cent. This is consistent with previous
applications of the input-output-based hybrid analysis method (Treloar et al.,
2001). This value is low because most of the process analysis data available
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

from industry is for processes thought to be the most important based on the
previous process-based hybrid analysis paradigm. Process analysis data for
non-traditional engineering and manufacturing processes thus needs to be
derived.
Figure 2 shows that the results for the scenario where materials with
recycled content were use in the initial construction of the building showed
more potential than the results for the wasted quantities given in Table IV and
Table V. The potential savings from the use of materials with recycled content
were 40 per cent in terms of cost and 70 per cent in terms of embodied energy.
In Figure 2, it is also show that the embodied energy savings were relatively
larger than the cost savings for the elements: services, walls, roof and to a
lesser extent floors. The embodied energy savings for the fitments element was
possibly closer to the cost savings because these items do not last as long and
consequently second hand items are less likely to be viable.

Discussion and conclusion

The research found that the wasted quantities of materials represented only
approximately 4 per cent of both the price of, and energy embodied in, the
building. This suggested that waste minimisation strategies are having a
positive effect. It also suggests that the potential for recycling construction

Figure 2.
Comparison of embodied
energy and cost savings
from using materials
with recycled content at
the initial
construction stage
 MEQ waste may be reducing, as further efficiencies are gained. There is now a
14,1 greater emphasis being placed upon the building industry to be environmental
friendly. The industry must consider the positive aspects of a waste
management plan and give it the same importance as other management plans.
However, the authors argue that a comprehensive waste and recycling
minimisation plan should be inclusive of all phases of the building life cycle,
144 and be in the context of the entire economy, considering closed and open-loop
recycling potential.
Waste management strategies have been suggested to reduce the waste at
the addressed sources. One of the steps of reducing waste is through the reuse
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

of second-hand materials and throughout the use of materials with recycled

content. Based on actual costs of second-hand materials and estimates of the
embodied energy savings, it was found that the cost savings could total 40 per
cent of the building price, while the embodied energy savings could be as high
as 70 per cent of the total embodied energy of the building. In countries with
cheaper labour, the savings could be even greater.
Other strategies worthy of consideration include sourcing of materials which
are optimal in total life cycle terms for the building, in terms of initial embodied
energy, long life, thermal performance, low maintenance and other performance
issues. At the whole building level, building maintenance seems to be the best
way to ensure that the total environmental impact of the built environment is
minimised. Thoughtful renovation, when eventually required, can improve
performance using low environmental impact materials which may have
recycled content from other industries. The retained materials can be
considered to be recycled in situ.
Other potentially beneficial strategies include communicating to
manufacturing industries that resource consumption, including embodied
energy, needs to be lowered. Waste minimisation in processes upstream from
construction needs to be modelled. As embodied energy of upstream processes
is more significant than energy used in the construction process itself, it can be
deduced that waste in upstream processes may also be more significant than
that directly resulting from the construction process.

References
Boustead, I. (1996), “LCA: an overview – the evolution of life-cycle assessment”, Proceedings of
the 1st National Conference on Life-Cycle Assessment, Melbourne, February 29-March 1,
p. 29.
Boustead, I. and Hancock, G.F. (1979), Handbook of Industrial Energy Analysis, Ellis Horwood
Limited, Chichester.
Bullard, C.W., Penner, P.S. and Pilati, D.A. (1978), “Net energy analysis: handbook for combining
process and input-output analysis”, Resources and Energy, Vol. 1, pp. 267-313.
Cole, R. (1998), “Emerging trends in building environmental assessment methods”, Building
Research and Information, Vol. 26, pp. 3-16.
 Cordell Pricing Guide (1999), Cordell Building Cost Guide: Residential, Cordell Building Waste
Publications, Melbourne.
Faniran, O.O. and Caban, G. (1998), “Minimising waste on construction project sites”,
minimisation
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 182-8.
Graham, P. and Smithers, G. (1996), “Construction waste minimisation for Australian residential
development”, Asia Pacific Journal of Building & Construction Management, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 14-19. 145
Johnston, H. and Minks, W.R. (1995), “Cost effective waste minimisation for construction
manager”, Cost Engineering, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 31-9.
Lave, L.B., Cobas-Flores, E., Hendrickson, C.T. and McMichael, F. (1995), “Life-cycle assessment:
using input-output analysis to estimate economy-wide discharges”, Environmental Science
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

and Technology, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 420A-6A.

Lawson, W.R. (1996), Building Materials, Energy and the Environment: Towards Ecologically
Sustainable Development, The Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Red Hill.
Leontief, W. (1966), Input-Output Economics, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Miller, R.E. and Blair, P.D. (1985), Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Patten, B.C. and Higashi, M. (1995), “First passage flows in ecological networks: measurement by
input-output flow analysis”, Ecological Modelling, Vol. 79, pp. 67-74.
Peet, N.J. and Baines, J.T. (1986), Energy Analysis: A Review of Theory and Applications,
New Zealand Energy Research and Development Committee, Auckland, Report No. 126, p. 56.
Skoyles, E.R. and Skoyles, J.R. (1985), Waste Prevention on Site, Mitchell’s Professional Library,
London.
Thormark, C. (2000), “Including recycling potential in energy use into the life cycle of buildings”,
Building Research and Information, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 176-83.
Treloar, G.J. (1997), “Extracting embodied energy paths from input-output tables: towards an
input-output-based hybrid energy analysis method”, Economic Systems Research, Vol. 9
No. 4, pp. 375-91.
Treloar, G.J., Love, P.E.D. and Holt, G. (2001), “Using national input-output data for embodied
energy analysis of individual residential buildings”, Construction, Management and
Economics, Vol. 19, pp. 49-61.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Vivian Tam, Weisheng Lu. 2016. Construction Waste Management Profiles, Practices, and Performance:
A Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis in Four Countries. Sustainability 8:2, 190. [CrossRef]
2. Olugbenga O. Akinade, Lukumon O. Oyedele, Kamran Munir, Muhammad Bilal, Saheed O. Ajayi,
Hakeem A. Owolabi, Hafiz A. Alaka, Sururah A. Bello. 2016. Evaluation criteria for construction
waste management tools: towards a holistic BIM framework. International Journal of Sustainable Building
Technology and Urban Development 7:1, 3-21. [CrossRef]
3. Weisheng Lu, Xi Chen, Daniel C.W. Ho, Hongdi Wang. 2016. Analysis of the construction waste
management performance in Hong Kong: the public and private sectors compared using big data. Journal
of Cleaner Production 112, 521-531. [CrossRef]
4. Malindu Sandanayake, Guomin Zhang, Sujeeva Setunge. 2016. Environmental emissions at foundation
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

construction stage of buildings – Two case studies. Building and Environment 95, 189-198. [CrossRef]
5. Bin Huang, Ke Xing, Stephen Pullen. 2015. Energy and carbon performance evaluation for buildings and
urban precincts: review and a new modelling concept. Journal of Cleaner Production . [CrossRef]
6. S. F. Seyyedalipour, D. Yousefi Kebria, M. Dehestani. 2015. Effects of recycled paperboard mill wastes on
the properties of non-load-bearing concrete. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
12:11, 3627-3634. [CrossRef]
7. F Abanda, A Oti, J TahDigitizing the Assessment of Embodied Energy and Carbon Footprint of Buildings
Using Emerging Building Information Modeling 303-330. [CrossRef]
8. Saheed O. Ajayi, Lukumon O. Oyedele, Muhammad Bilal, Olugbenga O. Akinade, Hafiz A. Alaka,
Hakeem A. Owolabi, Kabir O. Kadiri. 2015. Waste effectiveness of the construction industry:
Understanding the impediments and requisites for improvements. Resources, Conservation and Recycling
102, 101-112. [CrossRef]
9. H. Abanda, J.H.M. Tah, G. Elambo NkengEarth-block versus sandcrete-block houses 481-514.
[CrossRef]
10. S. Mandley, R. Harmsen, E. Worrell. 2015. Identifying the potential for resource and embodied energy
savings within the UK building sector. Energy and Buildings 86, 841-851. [CrossRef]
11. Lukumon O. Oyedele, Saheed O. Ajayi, Kabir O. Kadiri. 2014. Use of recycled products in
UK construction industry: An empirical investigation into critical impediments and strategies for
improvement. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 93, 23-31. [CrossRef]
12. Abanda F.Henry, Nkeng G.Elambo, Tah J.H.M., Ohandja E.N.Fabrice, Manjia M.Blanche. 2014.
Embodied Energy and CO₂ Analyses of Mud-brick and Cement-block Houses. AIMS Energy
2:1, 18-40. [CrossRef]
13. Mohamed Osmani. 2013. Design waste mapping: a project life cycle approach. Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineers - Waste and Resource Management 166:3, 114-127. [CrossRef]
14. Manish K. Dixit, Charles H. Culp, Jose L. Fernández-Solís. 2013. System boundary for embodied energy
in buildings: A conceptual model for definition. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 21, 153-164.
[CrossRef]
15. F.H. Abanda, J.H.M. Tah, F.K.T. Cheung. 2013. Mathematical modelling of embodied energy,
greenhouse gases, waste, time–cost parameters of building projects: A review. Building and Environment
59, 23-37. [CrossRef]
 16. K. Y. G. Kwok, C. Statz, B. Wade, Wai K. Oswald ChongCarbon Emissions Modeling for Green Buildings:
A Comprehensive Study of Calculations 118-126. [CrossRef]
17. Jingkuang Liu, Yousong Wang. 2012. WITHDRAWN: A case-study of critical success factors for
construction and demolition waste management: the pearl river delta region of china. Waste Management
. [CrossRef]
18. Lu Aye, T. Ngo, R.H. Crawford, R. Gammampila, P. Mendis. 2012. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions
and energy analysis of prefabricated reusable building modules. Energy and Buildings 47, 159-168.
[CrossRef]
19. Pim M. A. Polesie. 2012. Reducing the use of resources in medium-sized Swedish construction
enterprises: production managers’ views. Construction Management and Economics 30:3, 193-202.
[CrossRef]
20. Assem Al-Hajj, Karima Hamani. 2011. Material Waste in the UAE Construction Industry: Main Causes
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:29 03 September 2016 (PT)

and Minimization Practices. Architectural Engineering and Design Management 7:4, 221-235. [CrossRef]
21. Gayani KarunasenaSustainable Post-Disaster Waste Management: Construction and Demolition Debris
251-267. [CrossRef]
22. Weisheng Lu, Hongping Yuan. 2011. A framework for understanding waste management studies in
construction. Waste Management 31:6, 1252-1260. [CrossRef]
23. Weisheng Lu, Hongping Yuan, Jingru Li, Jane J.L. Hao, Xuming Mi, Zhikun Ding. 2011. An empirical
investigation of construction and demolition waste generation rates in Shenzhen city, South China. Waste
Management 31:4, 680-687. [CrossRef]
24. Weisheng Lu, Hongping Yuan. 2010. Exploring critical success factors for waste management in
construction projects of China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55:2, 201-208. [CrossRef]
25. Gayani Karunasena, Dilanthi Amaratunga, Richard Haigh, Irene Lill. 2009. Post disaster waste
management strategies in developing countries: Case of Sri Lanka. International Journal of Strategic
Property Management 13:2, 171-190. [CrossRef]
26. M. Osmani, J. Glass, A.D.F. Price. 2008. Architects’ perspectives on construction waste reduction by
design. Waste Management 28:7, 1147-1158. [CrossRef]
27. Andrew R.J. DaintyDepartment of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University,
Loughborough, Leicestershire, UK Richard J. BrookeDepartment of Civil and Building Engineering,
Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, UK. 2004. Towards improved construction
waste minimisation: a need for improved supply chain integration?. Structural Survey 22:1, 20-29.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]