Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 1–7

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Critical factors in effective construction waste minimization at the

design stage: A Shenzhen case study, China
Jiayuan Wang a , Zhengdao Li a , Vivian W.Y. Tam b,∗
a
College of Civil Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province 518060, China
b
University of Western Sydney, School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith NSW 2751, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Construction waste minimization at the design stage is a key strategy in effective waste reduction. How-
Received 11 March 2013 ever, it seems that few studies focus on exploratory factors that can significantly improve the design of
Received in revised form 29 October 2013 construction waste minimization. This paper addresses this research gap by presenting a set of critical
Accepted 4 November 2013
factors that inform and improve the practice of waste minimization design, particularly in the context of
Shenzhen, China. Nineteen potential factors which can influence effective waste minimization are pre-
Keywords:
sented based on related official guidelines, reports and literature. Top institutions in Shenzhen that have
Construction waste
received a Grade A building design certification were surveyed through a questionnaire. From this survey,
Minimization
Design stage
six critical factors are derived: (1) large-panel metal formworks, (2) prefabricated components, (3) fewer
Critical factor design modifications, (4) modular design, (5) waste reduction investment and (6) economic incentive.
China The applicability and significance of the identified critical factors for effectively designing waste minimi-
zation are also explored. These critical factors not only provide designers and project managers with a
useful set of criteria for effective design strategies to reduce construction waste, but also serve as valuable
references for the government to formulate related construction waste minimization regulations.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction with the construction waste minimization strategies at the design

Continuous development and urbanization of an old town
inevitably generates a large amount of construction waste from
construction and demolition activities. Such waste has a serious
effect on human life. For instance, in China, annual construction
waste accounts for about 40% of the total municipal waste (Li, 2007),
that is, more than 200 million tons, of which 100 million tons are
generated from new buildings (Huang and Xu, 2011). Construction
waste represents a large amount of construction material, which
is a waste of valuable natural resources. Moreover, it occupies a
large landfill area, which further diminishes scarce land resources.
It also contains toxic substances that endanger human health and
the surrounding environment (Li and Xu, 2007).
One of the best way to reduce the impact of waste on the envi-
ronment is simply to avoid producing waste (Ekanayake and Ofori,
2004; Yuan and Shen, 2011). Among the solutions, implementing
construction waste minimization at the design stage is com-
monly identified as a key strategy in effective waste minimization
(Baldwin et al., 2009), as this solution entails the consideration of
every single detail of the overall construction project ahead of oper-
ation, which therefore prevents unnecessary material waste. In line
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 02 4736 0105; fax: +61 02 4736 0833.
E-mail address: vivianwytam@gmail.com (V.W.Y. Tam).
stage proposed by Housing and Construction Bureau of Shenzhen
(2011), many local design institutions have taken actions to imple-
ment their strategies in the past several years. Practical experience
shows that no guidance is available as effective instructions and
development of related design strategies to reduce construction
waste at the design stage. To address such practical needs, this
study aims to identify a set of critical factors that can significantly
influence the effectiveness of construction waste minimization at
the design stage from a holistic perspective that spans architec-
tural technologies, architectural design, external mechanism and
aspects of the designer’s capacity and attitude.
These critical factors are identified based on certain urbaniza-
tion development practices in Shenzhen City, China. Shenzhen is
a major city in the south of Southern China’s Guangdong Province,
situated immediately north of Hong Kong, covering an area of about
2050 km2 including urban and rural areas, with a total popula-
tion of approximately 14 million in 2008. In 2012, the Chinese
National Housing and Urban–Rural Ministry listed Shenzhen as
the national pilot city for construction waste minimization and
comprehensive utilization. Shenzhen is the first city to implement
various construction waste minimization-related design guidelines
which require modular design and awareness of dimensional coor-
dination and standardization, (Housing and Construction Bureau of
Shenzhen, 2011). Shenzhen is also the first city to closely cooper-
ate with typical construction waste utilization institutions. In this

0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.11.003
2 J. Wang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 1–7

regard, Shenzhen is a typical microcosm of China if we focus on A questionnaire is designed for and answered by consulting
construction waste reduction-related issues, that is, if Shenzhen professionals to determine the soundness and significance of each
succeeds in exploring a new path to effective construction waste optional variable. Professionals are invited to rank the significance
minimization at the design stage, it may be used as a representative of each factor based on a five-point Likert scale, with 5 indicating
model which significantly drives national reform. the most significant and 1 indicating the least significant. Through
a calculation of the mean importance ratings based on the data
obtained from the survey, a statistical test of the mean for each vari-
2. Construction waste minimization at the design stage
able is conducted to determine if the variable is significant or not.
In-depth interviews are conducted to gather further information to
Construction waste minimization at the design phase minimizes
supplement the data gathered from the questionnaires.
waste generation in the construction process by refining architec-
tural design with the use of advanced architectural technologies
3.1. Identifying factors in effective construction waste
and reclaimed materials, thereby achieving resource conserva-
minimization
tion and environmental protection (Kun and Hong, 2010). Many
researchers have argued that a large amount of construction waste
Twenty factors in construction waste minimization at the design
is generated because of inappropriate consideration in the design
stage were identified through an intensive literature review using
phase (Ekanayake and Ofori, 2004; Kulathunga et al., 2006; Baldwin
important databases such as Scopus, ABI, EI compendexWeb and
et al., 2009). According to a case study published in (Tam et al.,
ISI Web of Knowledge. To ensure the adequacy and comprehen-
2007b), waste generation can be reduced by up to 100% by adapting
siveness of these variables, nine construction design professionals
prefabrication, which can save up to 84.7% of wastage. This strategy
from Shenzhen were invited for a preliminary study that consists of
compels construction waste designers to consider waste reduction
semi-structured interviews. The five respondents were two archi-
early in the design stage and throughout the design of construction
tects, two mechanical designers and one professor in architecture.
projects (Baldwin et al., 2009).
These professionals were carefully selected who have had at least
Previous research on construction waste minimization at the
20 years of experience in the construction industry, which ensures
design stage mainly involves four components: (i) reasons for
valuable discussions on the identification of a list of variables.
construction waste generation at the design stage, including pro-
After removing one controversial factor, 19 preliminary factors
visional design change as a result of customers’ request, designer’s
were determined. The resulting factors along with their sources
lack of experience, increased construction design requirements,
are shown in Table 1.
lack of necessary design information, inability to foresee actual
construction conditions, and policy change (Bossink and Brouwers,
3.2. Questionnaire survey
1996; Faniran and Caban, 1998; Keys et al., 2000; Yucesan
et al., 2002; Ekanayake and Ofori, 2004; Poon et al., 2004); (ii)
The initially identified 19 factors vary in their significance. Not
applications of new architectural technologies and methods of
all of them may be critical in effective construction waste minimi-
construction waste reduction in the design phase, including the
zation design. Therefore, a questionnaire is designed based on the
optimization of building design life to delay demolition waste,
list above to determine the adequacy and significance of each fac-
reduction of material loss by reasonable procurement planning,
tor. In this study, the questionnaire is adopted as an appropriate
dimensional coordination and standardization, applications of low-
quantitative data collection method. This method has been widely
waste construction technologies, and avoidance of late design
used in previous studies to derive critical success factors in differ-
modifications (Cheung, 1993; Moore, 1994; Ekanayake and Ofori,
ent contexts and can also reach a broader group of respondents (Lu
2004; Batayneh and Asi, 2007; Tam et al., 2007a; Baldwin et al.,
and Yuan, 2010; Wang et al., 2010; Shen et al., 2012).
2009); (iii) architect’s attitude toward construction waste minimi-
Construction waste minimization at the design stage is a rel-
zation (Turner, 1991; Faniran and Caban, 1998; Lingard et al., 2000;
atively new concept. Ordinary design institutions may not have
Teo and Loosemore, 2001; Poon et al., 2004; Kulathunga et al., 2006)
much experience in relation to this context. As such, the main
and (iv) obstructive factors in the implementation of construction
participants selected for the survey come from top companies
waste reduction in the design stage (Poon et al., 2001b; Osmani
whose buildings have been awarded a Grade A building design
et al., 2008a; Zhang et al., 2012b).
certification. They were invited to rank the significance of each
The references above show contributions of various studies
variable under five categories, namely, architectural technologies,
to the overall body of knowledge on construction waste minimi-
architectural design, external mechanism, designer’s capacity and
zation at the design stage. They also show that limited attention
designer’s behavior and attitude, on a five-point Likert scale, with
has been given to the identification of critical factors which influ-
5 indicating the most significant and 1 indicating the least sig-
ence the implementation of effective design for construction waste
nificant. Likert scales are widely used and considered suitable to
reduction. As effective design is, to a large extent, influenced and
measure the importance of factors (Wang et al., 2010). The respon-
determined by many variables involved in design practice, identify-
dents were provided space to suggest factors that were not covered
ing variables that are potentially significant to construction waste
in the questionnaire. They were also asked to provide their contact
minimization at the design stage is vitally important before archi-
information if they agreed to being interviewed.
tects and policymakers can understand how to implement efficient
The full survey was conducted in Shenzhen over a one-month
waste reduction measures in the early stages of a project.
period from June to July 2012. A total of 142 copies of the question-
naire, along with small gifts, were distributed by a survey team of
3. Research methodology four graduate students. Of this total, 86 responses were received,
which indicates a response rate of 60.6%. The questionnaire respon-
A hybrid research methodology is applied to identify a set of dents include structural designers (about 32%), architects (about
significant factors in construction waste minimization design. A 50%), mechanical designers (about 13%), and related project man-
preliminary list of factors from the literature is presented through agers (about 5%). Most of them received university or higher
semi-structured interviews with invited researchers and industry education (about 83%) and have more than five years of work-
practitioners who were asked to provide their comments. The final ing experience (about 75%). Overall, the selected subjects possess
list of optional variables is obtained from these interviews. profound professional knowledge and rich construction design
 J. Wang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 1–7 3

Table 1
Variables for construction waste minimization at the design stage.

Categories and variables Sources

Architectural technologies
Large panel metal formworks Poon et al. (2001a, 2002) and Chiang et al. (2006)
Steel scaffolding Poon et al. (2001a), Chiang et al. (2006) and Tam and Tam (2006)
Metal hoarding Poon et al. (2002, 2003) and Tam and Tam (2006)
Prefabricated components Poon et al. (2003), Tam et al. (2005), Chiang et al. (2006), Tam and Tam (2006), Tam et al.
(2006b) and Shen et al. (2009)

Architectural design
Design for hanging cradles Poon et al. (2002, 2003) and Zhang et al. (2012a)
Design for thinner internal walls and floor slabs Poon et al. (2003) and Zhang et al. (2012a)
Fewer design modifications Faniran and Caban (1998) and Ekanayake and Ofori (2004)
Design for recycled materials such as recycled aggregates Tam and Tam (2006), Esin and Cosgun (2007), Hao et al. (2008) and Tam et al. (2008)
Modular design Poon et al. (2002, 2003), Tam et al. (2002, 2006a), Tam and Tam (2006) and Tam (2009)

External mechanism
Construction waste regulation Karavezyris (2007) and Lu and Yuan (2011)
Waste reduction investment Chen et al. (2002)
Market-stimulating system Wang (2004)
Regulation implement supervision Wang (2004)

Designer’s capacities
Educational background Li (2009)
Work experience Senge (1994) and Ye (2010)

Designer’s behavior and attitude

Environmental awareness Liu (2008) and Tan (2011)
Design strategy training Tan (2011)
Economic incentive Chen et al. (2002) and Osmani et al. (2006)
Waste minimization culture within institutions Osmani et al. (2008b) and Yuan and Shen (2011)

experience. As such, their opinions can realistically reflect problems
related to construction waste minimization design. The demogra-
phy of the respondents is summarized in Table 3.
3.3. Data processing
A mean importance rating was used to calculate the importance
of each variable, as shown in Eq. (1)
n1 + 2n2 + 3n3 + 4n4 + 5n5
u=
n1 + n2 + n3 + n4 + n5
where u is the mean importance rating of a variable, and n1 , n2 ,
n3 , n4 , and n5 represent the number of respondents who rated the
variable as 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively.
A statistical test was also conducted on the mean importance
rating of each factor to determine whether the respondents con-
sider the variables significant or otherwise. The null hypothesis H0 :
u ≤ u0 was tested against the opposite hypothesis and H1 : u > u0 ,
where u0 is the population mean. The decision rule was to reject
H0 when the calculated t value was larger than t(n−1, a) , as shown in
Eq. (2).
x̄ − 0
t= √ > t(n−1, ˛)
Sx / n
where the random variable t(n−1, a) follows a t-distribution with
(n − 1) degrees of freedom, x̄ is the sample mean, Sx is the sample
standard deviation, n is the sample size, which is 86 in this study,
and u0 is the critical rating garnered by the factor considered the
most significant.
In this study, all the variables selected for statistical testing
were considered important factors in the relevant literature. Hence,
the statistical test sought to identify among them the “more” and
“most” critical factors. Therefore, u0 was fixed at 3, because, by
definition, ratings above 3 represent “more significant” and “most
significant” factors according to the scale. The significance level was
set at 0.05 following the conventional risk level. This value implies a
95% certainty that the result was not due to chance. The probability
of mistakenly rejecting the null hypothesis or committing a Type I
error was 5% and the probability of accepting the null hypothesis
when it was true was 95%.
The t values of the statistical test on the mean importance rat-
ings were calculated using Eq. (2). If the t value is larger than
t(85;0:05) = 1.6627 at the 95% confidence interval, the null hypoth-
esis that the factor was “less significant” or “not significant” was
rejected and the alternative hypothesis accepted. The variable was
then determined as a significant contributor in construction waste
minimization at the design stage. However, if the t value of the sta-
tistical test of the mean ratings is smaller than t(85;0:05) = 1.6627 at
(1)
the 95% confidence interval, the null hypothesis that the factor was
“less significant” or “not significant” was accepted.
4. In-depth interviews
After the critical factors were identified through the ques-
tionnaire survey, in-depth interviews were conducted to help
interpret and elaborate the collected data. Valuable regulatory and
operational suggestions, with the expectation of guiding the devel-
opment of design strategies for construction waste reduction, were
also contributed by some of the interviewees. A total of eight
respondents expressed interest in participating in the in-depth
(2)
interviews. Among the interviewees, three were structural design-
ers from the Design Institution of Shenzhen University, four were
architects from the Shenzhen Construction Science Research Insti-
tution and one was a supervisor from the Shenzhen Construction
Bureau. The interviews were conducted from August to September
2012, each with a duration of 20–30 min. These interviews mainly
aimed to gather further elaboration and explanation to the critical
factors. The data from the interviews were also cross-referenced
with the survey results to interpret constraint factors.
5. Results, analyses, and discussions
The mean importance ratings, standard ratings, and t values are
calculated from the survey results. The factors are ranked according
to the order of importance shown in Table 2.
4 J. Wang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 1–7

Table 2 Construction quality is heavily dependent on the technical skill

Survey results on mean importance ratings and hypothesis testing.
of on-site workers. In addition, construction activities have the
Variables U Rank S t value Sig highest number of accidental injuries and fatalities, and also cause
Architectural technologies disturbance and nuisance in the environment, such as noise, dust,
Large panel metal formworks 3.326 6 1.034 2.920 * muddy run-offs and a significant amount of waste (Jaillon et al.,
Steel scaffolding 3.023 19 1.029 0.210 2009). All these adverse impacts make the application of prefabri-
Metal hoarding 3.140 9 0.935 1.384 cated components necessary.
*
Prefabricated components 3.767 1 1.037 6.865
Prefabrication is a manufacturing process that generally takes
Architectural design place at a specialized facility where various materials are joined
Design for hanging cradles 3.047 16 1.217 0.355
to form a component part of the final installation (Sparksman,
Design for thinner internal 3.070 13 1.309 0.494
walls and floor slabs
1999). In the literature, the consensus is that adoption of pre-
Fewer Design modifications 3.512 3 1.003 4.731 * fabricated components in the construction project significantly
Design for recycled materials 3.093 12 1.343 0.642 reduces various construction waste (Tam et al., 2005, 2007a;
such as recycled aggregates Jaillon and Poon, 2008; Jaillon et al., 2009), such as timber boards
*
Modular design 3.419 5 0.901 4.311
from timber formworks, steel bars from reinforcement bars, bricks
External mechanism from brick and block work and in situ cement. The use of pre-
Construction waste regulation 3.116 11 0.975 1.106 fabrication reduces waste from timber formwork and concrete
*
Waste reduction investment 3.535 2 1.048 4.732
Market-stimulating system 3.058 15 0.925 0.583
works by about 74–87% and 51–60%, respectively (Tam et al.,
Regulation implement 3.070 14 0.837 0.773 2005). The orthodox that prefabrication in a factory environ-
supervision ment is more conducive to waste reduction compared to the
Designer’s capacity conventional construction method has also been shown by Lu
Educational background 3.151 8 1.203 1.165 and Yuan (2013), who found that the waste generation rate in
Work experience 3.163 7 1.105 1.367 the upstream processes of offsite prefabrication is around 2% by
Designer’s behavior and attitude weight. Prefabrication technologies, which companies in Hong
Environmental awareness 3.035 17 1.034 0.313 Kong and Japan have experimented with, should be promoted in
Design strategy training 3.140 10 1.031 1.255 Shenzhen as part of the construction waste minimization design
*
Economic incentive 3.442 4 1.069 3.832
practice.
Waste minimization culture 3.035 18 0.846 0.382
within institution
Interviewees indicated that compared with in situ traditional
*
construction, the applications of prefabricated components may
t-Value is larger than t(85,0.05) , which is 1.6627.
be more complex because of (1) the setting up of fabrication yard
and transportation, (2) vertical transportation on site, (3) workers’
training and (4) problems in connecting components. The solutions
According to survey results, six critical factors affect construc- suggested by some of the interviewees include considering early
tion waste minimization at the design stage, namely “large panel decisions in the design to allow sufficient time to set up prefab-
metal formworks”, “prefabricated components”, “fewer design rication yard molds, allowing repetition in the design to facilitate
modifications”, “modular design”, “waste reduction investment”, construction and fabrication in the factory, considering the dimen-
and “economic incentive”. The critical factors, along with the views sions of modules to allow transportation from the factory to the
of the practitioners revealed in the in-depth interviews, are dis- site and implementing a detailed design.
cussed in the section that follows.

5.1. Prefabricated components 5.2. Waste reduction investment

“Prefabricated components” received the highest mean impor- “Waste reduction investment” received the second highest
tance rating of 3.767 (see Table 2). The interviewees described mean importance rating of 3.535. Investment in construction waste
the current construction activities in Shenzhen as labor intensive management can help promote construction waste management
and highly dependent on in situ operational methods that involve practices, such as employing workers for on-site waste collection,
the use of timber formworks and a large amount of wet trades. sorting and handling, purchasing waste management equipment
and machines, developing and implementing waste management
plans, motivating practitioners to minimize construction waste
Table 3 and improving the operatives’ waste handling skills through voca-
Demography of the respondents. tional training (Yuan, 2013). By nature, construction is not an
Educational background Percentages of environment-friendly activity. Furthermore, economic benefit is
respondents (%) the priority target of various construction participants. As such,
Undergraduate 54 the participants have a low incentive to spontaneously pursue
Postgraduate or above 29 environmental performance without extra waste investment. This
Junior college 9 behavior is in line with the finding that rewards schemes moti-
High school 2
vate construction parties to increase their participation in waste
Work experience reduction schemes (Chen et al., 2002).
Less than 5 years 25 One of the interviewees suggested the government should
5–10 years 56
encourage a design organization’s environmental performance
11–15 years 13
More than 15 years 6 through a more targeted certificate that can comprehensively
assess the potential of design in waste minimization and through a
Type of designer
Structural design 32
bonus scheme, which also translates to extra waste investment. All
Architectural design 50 interviewees stated that investment is a critical factor that affects
Equipment design 13 the effectiveness of construction waste minimization at the design
Others 5 stage.
 J. Wang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 1–7
5.3. Fewer design modification
“Fewer design modification” received the third highest mean
importance rating of 3.512. Design modifications can generate an
enormous quantity of waste if they occur at a stage when the build-
ing is almost finished (Faniran and Caban, 1998; Poon et al., 2002),
because any modification at that time in the design may result in
part of the structure being taken apart and subsequent generation
of unsalvageable materials. The main causes of design modifica-
tions are last-minute client requirements, complex design, lack of
communication, and lack of design information (Poon et al., 2001a).
Given these complications, very few attempts are undertaken to
minimize waste at the design stage (Osmani et al., 2006). These
complications are probably the underlying barriers to the effective
implementation of waste minimization in the project design (Yuan,
2013).
Some of the interviewees provided valuable suggestions for the
avoidance of late design modifications, including considering in
advance the modifications that may occur at the construction stage,
ensuring effective communication among designers, contractors,
engineers and clients, allowing for flexibility in the design and
construction process to facilitate changes and preparing detailed
drawings and specifications at an early stage. Today’s software
technology, such as 3D images and animations, 3D simulations may
also help clarify a project.
5.4. Economic incentive
“Economic incentive” received the fourth highest mean impor-
tance rating of 3.442. Previous studies have shown that special
motivational and reward programs are effective and have been
considered as a performance-dependent monetary reward system
in the construction industry (McDonald, 1998; Merchant, 1997;
Coffey, 1999). Nevertheless, most design organizations find that
the returns gained from environmental design management are too
small. They do not see any short-term benefit from existing envi-
ronmental management and reward programs. Hence, enhanced
incentive schemes are necessary to motivate design organizations
to improve their environmental design performance.
In addition, although the interviewees concurred that waste
reduction must be addressed at its source and be considered
as early as the conceptualization stage, the current practices of
architects fail to make considerable progress in waste reduction
through design. The consensus among the interviewees is that
financial rewards are by far the key incentives to drive designers to
implement construction waste minimization at the design stage.
Moreover, the interviewees suggested rewarding and penalizing
project stakeholders, especially architects, for their waste minimi-
zation performance. This finding is also in line with the report by
Chen et al. (2002), who stated that rewarding and penalizing meth-
ods with regard to on-site material handling have been effectively
used in construction sites through the use of special motivational
and financial incentive programs.
5.5. Modular design
“Modular design” received the fifth highest mean importance
rating of 3.419. Modular construction accelerates construction,
improves quality, and reduces resources and waste (Hong et al.,
2011). This finding is supported by Poon et al. (2002), who stated
that modular construction and modular design can reduce the
generation of waste from construction because fabrication is con-
ducted in factories and is highly applicable in densely-populated
cities with high-rise buildings such as Hong Kong and Shenzhen.
For example, shear walls pose disincentives, such as high cost and
a large amount of cutting waste, because of the large number of
5
cutting and connections, and the difficulty in creating an opening in
such walls. To overcome these disincentives, using a framed modu-
lar wall is recommended as it allows easy installation of steel panels
in a short construction period with much less cutting and joining
work.
The interviewees also opined that to ensure effective modular
design, architects should consider not only the use of repetitive
design or modules to facilitate construction, but also the form
and dimensions appropriate to the manufacturing and assem-
bly purposes, including transportation from the factory to the
site.
5.6. Large panel metal formworks
“Large panel metal formworks” received the sixth highest mean
importance rating of 3.326. Timber formwork is commonly used
for the construction of cast in situ concrete structures in Shen-
zhen because of its versatility and ease of handling. However,
“formwork” is the work component considered the source of the
most waste. Suggestions obtained from the interviewees for form-
work waste reduction include considering early in the design
stage the construction method for formworks, such as their size,
handling and opportunities for reusing or recycling. These consid-
erations should be determinants of the design. They also pointed
out that designers should allow the use of metal formworks, such
as steel or aluminum, which are durable, recyclable as scrap and
reusable on site and on other sites for other projects (Poon et al.,
2002).
6. Conclusion
The consensus in some literature is that a substantial amount
of construction waste originates as a result of inadequate design
practice. However, despite this consensus, the literature suffers
from the lack of research on critical factors that can be used to guide
effective construction waste minimization at the design stage.
Effective construction waste minimization design is influenced and
determined by many factors in design practice. As such, identifying
and understanding all related variables that influence the effective-
ness of construction waste minimization is neither practical nor
necessary. Instead, a better route is to identify some critical factors
to help participants more focused and through which the use of
limited resources, such as money, manpower, time and manage-
ment efforts, can be maximized (Wang et al., 2010). Accordingly,
this study has attempted to fill these gaps from both academic and
practical perspectives.
In this study, through an examination of the literature and
through semi-structured interviews with various professionals, 19
factors under five categories were identified. These factors can
potentially affect construction waste minimization at the design
stage and they were ranked according to their importance rat-
ings based on a questionnaire survey. Six factors with a t value
above 1.6627 were perceived as the most significant in effective
construction waste minimization at the design stage. These factors
are “large panel metal formworks”, “prefabricated components”,
“fewer design modifications”, “modular design”, “waste reduction
investment” and “economic incentive”. These critical factors have
been shown to be reasonable and reliable through a series of statis-
tical analyses. The identified factors can be adopted to inform the
development of effective design strategies and reduce construction
waste, especially in the feasibility study and construction design
stages. Furthermore, the Shenzhen government is advised to for-
mulate related construction waste minimization regulations that
target the design stage by referring to the critical factors identified
in this study.
6 J. Wang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 1–7
This study has provided only the critical factors that guide con-
struction waste minimization at the design stage. Further studies
need to be conducted to identify critical factors that influence waste
minimization at other stages such as procurement and construc-
tion. In addition, further investigation may enhance the results
of this study if the interrelations of the identified factors and
the dynamic nature of the construction projects were considered.
Notably, this study is conducted in line with the particular con-
text of China, especially Shenzhen, which is a state-designated
experimental zone for reform in urban construction development
in China. Nevertheless, the findings can serve as useful references
for similar research attempts in other cities.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude to the two
anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.
References
Baldwin A, Poon CS, Shen LY, Austin S, Wong I. Designing out waste in high-rise res-
idential buildings: analysis of precasting methods and traditional construction.
Renewable Energy 2009;34:2067–73.
Batayneh MIM, Asi I. Use of selected waste materials in concrete mixes. Waste
Management 2007;27:1870–6.
Bossink B, Brouwers H. Construction waste: quantification and source evaluation.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 1996;122:55–60.
Chen Z, Li H, Wong CTC. An application of bar-code system for reducing construction
wastes. Automation in Construction 2002;11:521–33.
Cheung CM. Reduction of construction waste: final report. The Hong Kong Polytech-
nic University; 1993.
Chiang YH, Chan EHW, Lok LKL. Prefabrication and barriers to entry: a case study of
public housing and institutional buildings in Hong Kong. Habitat International
2006;30:482–99.
Coffey M. Cost-effective systems for solid waste management. Waterlines
1999;17:23–4.
Ekanayake LL, Ofori G. Building waste assessment score: design-based tool. Building
and Environment 2004;39:851–61.
Esin T, Cosgun N. A study conducted to reduce construction waste generation in
Turkey. Building and Environment 2007;42:1667–74.
Faniran OO, Caban G. Minimizing waste on construction project sites. Engineering
Construction and Architectural Management 1998;5:182–8.
Hao JL, Hills MJ, Tam VWY. The effectiveness of Hong Kong’s Construction
Waste Disposal Charging Scheme. Waste Management and Research 2008;26:
553–8.
Hong SG, Cho BH, Chung KS, Moon JH. Behavior of framed modular building sys-
tem with double skin steel panels. Journal of Constructional Steel Research
2011;67:936–46.
Housing and Construction Bureau of Shenzhen. Construction waste reduction tech-
nical specifications. Housing and Construction Bureau of Shenzhen, Chinese
Government; 2011.
Huang XS, Xu X. Legal regulation perspective of eco-efficiency construction waste
reduction and utilization. Urban Development Studies 2011;9:90–4.
Jaillon L, Poon CS. Sustainable construction aspects of using prefabrication in dense
urban environment: a Hong Kong case study. Construction Management and
Economics 2008;26:953–66.
Jaillon L, Poon CS, Chiang YH. Quantifying the waste reduction potential of using
prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong. Waste Management
2009;29:309–20.
Karavezyris S. Treatment of commercial, construction and demolition waste in North
Rhine-Westphalia: policy-making and operation options. Waste Management
and Research 2007;25:183–9.
Keys A, Baldwin A, Austin S. Designing to encourage waste minimisation in the
construction industry. In: Proceedings of CIBSE National Conference; 2000.
Kulathunga U, Amaratunga D, Heigh R, Rameezdeen R. Attitudes and per-
ceptions of construction workforce on construction waste in Sri Lanka.
Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 2006;17:
57–72.
Kun CW, Hong K. From British comparative investigation to look at the current
situation and the potential of our construction waste minimization design. Con-
struction Science 2010;6:4–9.
Li P. Comprehensive utilization of construction waste vigorously develop the circular
economy. SAR Practice and Theory 2007;6:84–91.
Li CH. Discussion architectural decoration specialist student architectural design
ability. Huzhou Vocational and Technical College Journal 2009;3:50–2.
Li W, Xu SH. The building junk status quo research. Construction Technology
2007;1:480–3.
Lingard H, Graham P, Smithers G. Employee perceptions of the solid waste man-
agement system operating in a large Australian contracting organization:
implications for company policy implementation. Construction Management
and Economics 2000;18:383–93.
Liu WM. Thinking of building waste recycling. China Building Materials Science and
Technology 2008;3:21–7.
Lu W, Yuan HP. Exploring critical success factors for waste management in con-
struction projects of China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2010;55:
201–8.
Lu W, Yuan HP. A framework of understanding waste management studies in con-
struction. Waste Management 2011;31:1252–60.
Lu W, Yuan HP. Investigating waste reduction potential in the upstream processes of
offshore prefabrication construction. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews
2013;28:804–11.
McDonald B. Implementing a waste management plan during the construction phase
of a project: a case study. Journal of Construction Management and Economics
1998;16:71–8.
Merchant KA. Modern management control systems: text and cases. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall; 1997.
Moore DR. Development of skill models as an aid to buildability in design, Building
the future: innovation in design, materials, and construction. Brighton: Insti-
tution of Structural Engineers, Building Research Establishment, Institution of
Structural Engineers, British Cement Association, Taywood Engineering, Taylor
& Francis; 1994.
Osmani M, Glass J, Price ADF. Architect and contractor attitudes to waste minimisa-
tion. Waste and Resource Management 2006;159:65–72.
Osmani M, Glass J, Price ADF. Architects’ perspectives on construction waste reduc-
tion by design. Waste Management 2008a;28:1147–58.
Osmani M, Glass J, Price ADF. Architects’ perspectives on construction waste reduc-
tion by design. Waste Management 2008b;28:1147–58.
Poon CS, Yu TW, Ng LH. A guide for managing and minimizing building and demo-
lition waste. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Department of Civil and
Structural Engineering; 2001a.
Poon CS, Yu TW, Ng LH. On-site sorting of construction and demolition waste in
Hong Kong. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2001b;32:157–72.
Poon CS, Jaillon L, Hong HPUD. A guide for minimizing construction and demolition
waste at the design stage. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Department
of Civil and Structural Engineering; 2002.
Poon CS, Yu ATW, Ng LH. Comparison of low-waste building technologies adopted
in public and private housing projects in Hong Kong. Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management 2003;10:88–98.
Poon CS, Yu ATW, Jaillon L. Reducing building waste at construction sites in Hong
Kong. Construction Management and Economics 2004;22:461–70.
Senge PM. The fifth discipline fieldbook: strategies and tools for building a learning
organization. Crown Business; 1994.
Shen LY, Tam VWY, Li CY. Benefit analysis on replacing in situ concreting with precast
slabs for temporary construction works in pursuing sustainable construction
practice. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2009;53:145–8.
Shen LY, Jiang S, Yuan HP. Critical indicators for assessing the contribution of infra-
structure projects to coordinated urban–rural development in China. Habitat
International 2012;36:237–46.
Sparksman G. Standardisation and pre-assembly: adding value to construction
projects. Construction Industry Research and Information Association; 1999.
Tam VWY. Comparing the implementation of concrete recycling in the Aus-
tralian and Japanese construction industries. Journal of Cleaner Production
2009;17:688–702.
Tam WYV, Tam CM. A review on the viable technology for construction waste
recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2006;47:209–21.
Tam CM, Tam VWY, Zeng SX. Environmental performance evaluation (EPE) for con-
struction. Building Research and Information 2002;30:349–61.
Tam CM, Tam WYV, Chan KWH, Ng CYW. Use of prefabrication to minimize con-
struction waste – a case study approach. International Journal of Construction
Management 2005;5:91–101.
Tam VWY, Tam CM, Zeng SX, Chan KK. Environmental performance mea-
surement indicators in construction. Building and Environment 2006a;41:
164–73.
Tam WYV, Tam CM, Chan WWJ, Ng CYW. Cutting construction wastes by
prefabrication. International Journal of Construction Management 2006b;6:
15–25.
Tam VWY, Tam CM, Zeng SX, Ng WCY. Towards adoption of prefabrication in con-
struction. Building and Environment 2007a;42:3642–54.
Tam WYV, Tam CM, Zeng SX. Towards adoption of prefabrication in construction.
Building and Environment 2007b;42:3642–54.
Tam VWY, Wang K, Tam CM. Assessing relationships among properties of demol-
ished concrete, recycled aggregate and recycled aggregate concrete using
regression analysis. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2008;152:703–14.
Tan CY. Construction waste minimization behavior. Xi’an University of Architecture
and Technology University; 2011.
Teo MMM, Loosemore M. A theory of waste behaviour in the construction industry.
Construction Management and Economics 2001;19:741–51.
Turner JC. Social influence. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Company; 1991.
Wang JY. Construction waste reduction management measures, vol. 21. Huazhong
University of Science and Technology; 2004. p. 26–8.
Wang JY, Yuan HP, Kang XP, Lu WS. Critical success factors for on-site sorting
of construction waste: a China study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling
2010;54:931–6.
Ye N. Training and training with a focus on architectural design capabilities.
Huazhong Architecture 2010;10:193–5.
 J. Wang et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 82 (2014) 1–7 7

Yuan HP. Key indicators for assessing the effectiveness of waste management in
construction projects. Ecological Indicators 2013;24:476–84.
Yuan HP, Shen LY. Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste
management. Waste Management 2011;31:670–9.
Yucesan E, Chen CH, Snowdon JL, Charnes JM, Chandrakanthi M, Hettiaratchi P. Opti-
mization of the waste management for construction projects using simulation.
CiteSeer; 2002.
Zhang X, Wu Y, Shen LY. Application of low-waste technologies for design and
construction: a case study in Hong Kong. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 2012a;16:2973–9.
Zhang X, Wu Y, Shen LY. Application of low waste technologies for design and
construction: a case study in Hong Kong. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
2012b;16:2973–9.