C H A P T E R

15
Construction Waste
Mohamed Osmani
Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University LE11 3TU,
United Kingdom

O U T L I N E

1. Introduction 207 6.1. Construction Waste Minimisation

Drivers 212
2. Concepts and Definitions 208
6.1.1. Environmental Drivers 212
3. Construction Waste Composition and 6.1.2. Legislative Drivers 213
Quantification 209 6.1.3. Economic Drivers 213
6.1.4. Business Drivers 214
4. Construction Waste Source Evaluation 209
6.2. Construction Waste Minimisation
5. Construction Waste Management and Practices 214
Minimisation Approaches 211 6.3. Construction Waste Minimisation
Barriers and Incentives 215
6. Construction Waste Management and
Minimisation: The UK Context 212 7. Discussion and Conclusions 216

1. INTRODUCTION that resources are finite and that nature can no

The built environment consumes more
natural resources than necessary and therefore
generates a large amount of waste. A study by
the World Resource Institute of material flows
in a number of industrialised countries showed
that one half to three quarters of the annual
material input to these societies was returned
to the environment as waste within 1 year [1].
The international community started realising
longer absorb the vast quantities of waste contin-
ually released to it. Achieving ‘zero waste’ will
be a breakthrough strategy for a world in an
environmental crisis; however, this is a highly
challenging target in construction, but involving
and committing all stakeholders to reduce waste
at source and developing efficient waste
management strategies by reusing and recycling
materials and components can take the industry
closer to the ‘zero waste’ vision, hence, moving

Waste Doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-381475-3.10015-4 207 Ó 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
208 15. CONSTRUCTION WASTE
from myth to reality. The aim of this chapter is to
rethink construction waste management by re-
engineering processes and practices to reduce
construction waste at source. The chapter exam-
ines the concept of waste and definitions,
discusses construction waste quantification and
source evaluation, explores current thinking on
construction waste research and appraises the
current construction waste management and
minimisation status in the United Kingdom
(UK) in terms of drivers and pressures for
change, design and onsite practices, and chal-
lenges and enablers.
2. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS
Emerging sustainable thinking is redefining
the concept of waste from a ‘by-product’ of
processes to missed opportunities to cut costs
and improve performance. Koskela [2] went
further to argue that waste adds costs but does
not add value. Similarly, Formoso et al. [3] classi-
fied waste as ‘unavoidable’, for which the costs
to reduce it are higher than the economy
produced, and ‘avoidable’, when the necessary
investment to manage the produced waste is
higher than the costs to prevent or reduce it.
Therefore, the concept of waste should be looked
at in terms of activities that increase costs directly
or indirectly but do not add value to the project.
There is no generally accepted definition of
waste. As a result, the European Council revised
the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) in
October 2008, which must be fully implemented
within all European Union (EU) member states
by December 2010. The changes to the WFD
can be broadly separated into major and ‘sorting
out’ measures. The major changes are aimed at
encouraging the greater reuse and recycling of
waste, whereas the sorting out measures are
aimed at simplifying the fragmented legal frame-
work that has regulated the waste sector to date.
Significantly, the definition of ‘waste’ has been
clarified in the revised WFD through specific
II. WASTE STREAMS
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 in
which materials may fall outside the definition
of waste. This change is intended to reflect the
reality that many by-products are reused before
entering the waste stream. In the United
Kingdom, a consultation process on draft guid-
ance on the legal definition of waste and its
application was launched in January 2010, and
a report summarising the consultation responses
and their guidance on the interpretation of the
definition of waste is scheduled for publication
in July 2010 [4]. For the scope of this chapter,
the following definitions are adopted:
• Waste is ‘any substance or object which the
holder discards or intends or is required to
discard’ [5]. This definition applies to all
waste irrespective of whether it is destined
for disposal or recovery operations.
• ‘Construction waste’ is a material or product
which needs ‘to be transported elsewhere
from the construction site or used on the site
itself other than the intended specific purpose
of the project due to damage, excess or non-
use or which cannot be used due to non-
compliance with the specifications, or
which is a by-product of the construction
process’ [6].
• ‘Design waste’ is the waste arising from
construction sites owing directly or indirectly
to the design process.
• ‘Waste minimisation’ is the reduction of
waste at source, (i.e. designing out waste) by
understanding its root causes and re-
engineering current processes and practices
to alleviate its generation.
• ‘Waste management’ is the process involved
in dealing with waste once it has arisen,
including site planning, transportation,
storage, material handling, onsite operation,
segregation, reuse and recycling and final
disposal.
 CONSTRUCTION WASTE SOURCE EVALUATION
3. CONSTRUCTION WASTE
COMPOSITION AND
QUANTIFICATION
It is difficult to give exact figures of construc-
tion waste produced on a typical construction
site, but it is estimated that it is as much as
30% of the total weight of building materials
delivered to a building site [7]. In the United
States, around 170 million tonnes of construc-
tion and demolition waste was generated
during 2003, of which 48% was estimated to be
recovered [8]. Chun Li et al. [9] related the
production of construction waste to the
designed facilities’ floor areas by stating that
most buildings in the United States generate
between 20 to 30 kg m2. In the EU, more than
450 million tonnes of construction and demoli-
tion waste is generated every year, which makes
it 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 been
exceptionally achieved in countries such as
Germany and the Netherlands [11]. In the
United Kingdom, the disposal of construction
waste accounts for more than 50% of overall
landfill volumes [12]. Furthermore, Guthrie
et al. [13] reported that at least 10% of all mate-
rials delivered to UK construction sites are
wasted due to damage, loss and over-ordering.
However, Fishbein [7] estimated this amount to
be as much as 30% of the total weight of building
materials delivered to a building site. Equally,
38% of solid waste in Hong Kong comes from
the construction industry [14], and in 2006,
about 40% of the available landfill capacity was
used to manage construction waste [15]. In addi-
tion, Bossink and Brouwers [16] revealed that in
the Netherlands, each building material gener-
ates between 1 to 10% waste of the amount
purchased resulting in an overall average of
9% of purchased materials becoming waste.
Pinto and Agopyan [17] went further to report
II. WASTE STREAMS
209
that, in Brazil, the construction project waste
rate is 20 to 30% of the weight of the total site
building materials.
In terms of weight, brick masonry and
concrete present by far the largest potential for
recycling in the building sector [18]. This has
been supported by the findings of comprehen-
sive research conducted across the United
States, the United Kingdom, China, Brazil,
Korea and Hong Kong, which compared the
types and volumes of construction waste in
these countries [19]. However, the types and
composition of onsite wastes are highly vari-
able, depending on the construction techniques
used. For example, ‘there will be very little
waste concrete and timber forms for disposal if
pre-cast concrete elements are adopted’ [20].
Guthrie and Mallett [21] split construction and
demolition waste into three categories as
follows: 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 being
directly recycled but may be recycled elsewhere,
including timber, glass, paper, plastic, oils and
metal and (3) not easily recycled or which
present particular disposal issues, including
chemicals (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 WASTE
SOURCE EVALUATION
There are a variety of different approaches to
the evaluation of the main origins, sources and
causes of construction waste. The extant of liter-
ature reveals a number of construction waste
generation sources, which can be broadly cate-
gorised into 11 clusters. Table 15.1 shows that
construction waste is generated throughout the
210 15. CONSTRUCTION WASTE

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 Management • Lack of on-site waste management plans.
and Planning • 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.

II. WASTE STREAMS

 CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINIMISATION APPROACHES
project from inception to completion and the pre-
construction stage has its considerable share. A
recent research on construction procurement
systems-related waste sources showed that these
fall under four main themes: uncoordinated
early 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% of
wasted materials is due to architects failing to
design out waste [24]. However, construction
waste minimisation through design is complex
because buildings embody a large number of
materials and processes. Equally, Osmani et al.
[25] reported that ‘waste accepted as inevitable’,
‘poor defined responsibilities’ and ‘lack of
training’ are major challenges facing architects
to design waste reduction measures in their
projects. This is made more complex when
further waste is created directly or indirectly by
other projects’ stakeholders, namely, clients,
contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers.
Nonetheless, there is a general consensus that
design changes during operation activities are
one of the key origins of construction waste [16,
26]. The main drivers for design variations
during construction are lack of understanding
the underlying origins and causes, design
changes to meet client’s changing requirements,
complex designs, lack of communication
between design and construction teams, lack of
design information, unforeseen ground condi-
tions and long project duration.
5. CONSTRUCTION WASTE
MANAGEMENT AND
MINIMISATION APPROACHES
Despite international governmental, indus-
trial and academic efforts to develop waste
reduction thinking in construction, uptake glob-
ally is piecemeal. The current and ongoing
research in the field of construction waste
II. WASTE STREAMS
211
management and minimisation can be broadly
categorised into the following 13 clusters:
1. construction waste quantification and
source 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 and
waste management mapping, to help with
the handling of onsite waste;
6. development of onsite waste auditing and
assessment tools;
7. impact of legislation on waste management
practices;
8. improvements of onsite waste management
practices;
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 and
13. comparative waste management studies.
Research reports, such as the work of Coventry
et al. [22], aim to promote awareness in the
building construction industry about the benefits
of waste minimisation, including cost savings,
and environmental issues and use of recycled
and reclaimed materials. The ‘three Rs’ principle
of waste (reduction, reuse and recycle), otherwise
known as the waste hierarchy, has been widely
adopted. Similarly, the impact of legislation,
particularly the Landfill Tax, and its effects on
the behaviour and practices of the construction
industry has resulted in a number of research
studies. Furthermore, in the last few years,
many waste minimisation and recycling guides
have been produced such as Waste and Resources
Action Programme (WRAP) [27]. These docu-
ments give broad guidance for designers to adopt
a waste minimisation approach in their projects;
however, the recommendations in these guides
212
do not realistically relate waste to all parameters
of the designers’ environment, including the
complex design and construction process and
the supply chain. In addition, they do not specif-
ically identify waste-stream components in rela-
tion to their occurrence during the architectural
design stages. In addition, tools, models and tech-
niques, such as SMARTWaste in the United
Kingdom and WasteSpec in the United States,
have been developed to help handle and better
manage onsite waste generation and assess the
associated cost implications. These tools, which
facilitate onsite auditing, waste management
and cost analysis, deal with waste that has already
been produced. Consequently, there is insuffi-
cient effort and no structured approach to address
waste at source, that is, ‘design waste’, to prevent
it from being generated at the first place.
6. CONSTRUCTION WASTE
MANAGEMENT AND
MINIMISATION: THE UK
CONTEXT
There are a number of existing data sources in
the United Kingdom that quote the amount of
materials and products used in construction
activities, wasted, managed, recovered and land-
filled; however, the resulting statistics vary in
terms of scope, methodology, reliability,
35
32
29
30
Waste generation (%)
25
20
15
10
5
0
Construction Mining and
and demolition quarrying
15. CONSTRUCTION WASTE
accessibility and frequency of updatability.
As a result, available data is not robust enough
to provide benchmarks and baselines on waste
generation which should inform the setting up
of realistic targets for waste reduction and to
measure improvements.
6.1. Construction Waste Minimisation
Drivers
The key drivers for waste reduction in the UK
construction 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 and
demolition activities account for 32% of all
waste arisings in England, which makes it the
largest waste stream. This figure is substantially
higher if additional construction-related wastes
from other sectors are added, namely, through
construction material product manufacturing
processes in the industrial sector, and during
raw material excavation and production in the
mining and quarrying sector.
The UK construction, demolition, refurbish-
ment and excavation activities produce around
120 million tonnes of waste each year, including
an estimated 13 million tonnes of unused mate-
rials [28]. Furthermore, it is responsible for
FIGURE 15.1 Estimated waste aris-
ings in England by industrial sector
(combined data from a number of UK
government sources, 2003e2007).
13 12
9
5
Industrial Commercial Household Dredged
materials
Industrial sectors
II. WASTE STREAMS
 CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINIMISATION: THE UK CONTEXT
generating over 36 million tonnes of landfill
waste every year. It has been estimated that
UK landfill sites will be filled in as little as
6 years, making it imperative to reduce and
manage waste. Public opinion in the United
Kingdom has emphasised the difficulties of min-
imising construction waste, but with Germany
recycling over 80% of its construction waste
and Denmark over 90%, this is clearly a misper-
ception. Fortunately, the situation is changing in
the United Kingdom, and there are a growing
number of sustainable waste management
solutions that can be used as examples of best
practice. Indeed, the proportion of construction
and demolition waste recycled by crushers
and screeners from 2001 to 2005 has increased
from 49 to 52%; however, the amount of
construction and demolition waste sent to
landfill has increased from 26 to 31% [29]. The
latter indicates that there is a pressing need
to reduce waste at all stages of construction
and divert it from landfill by considering the
long-term impacts of design, build and waste
management.
6.1.2. Legislative Drivers
The UK government has been using a combi-
nation of regulation, economic instruments and
voluntary agreements to meet targets of ethical,
social and environmental performance in
driving the waste management agenda. The
government’s Strategy for Sustainable Construc-
tion, published in June 2008, calls for a step
change in the sustainability of procurement,
design and operation of all built assets to be
driven by innovation [28]. The aim of the
strategy is to improve the built environment
performance with a focus on reducing carbon
emissions and resource consumption in new
buildings. In encouraging the construction
industry to drive its own resource efficiency pro-
gramme, the strategy calls for zero construction
waste to landfill by 2020 [30]. It also set a target
to halve the amount of construction, demolition
and excavation wastes going to landfill by 2012
II. WASTE STREAMS
213
in comparison with 2008 levels, as a result of
waste reduction, reuse and recycling. This is
a 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 disposal
methods too costly for construction firms), the
Aggregates Levy (£2 per tonne for on the extrac-
tion of aggregates) and Site Waste Management
Plans (SWMPs) e should contribute to a transi-
tion away from land-filling towards waste
reduction, reuse and recycling. However, as yet
this does not appear to have seriously reduced
the amount of waste production, the UK govern-
ment is likely to introduce other fiscal measures
and legislation in the future, which will push the
construction industry towards a closed loop
production system.
6.1.3. Economic Drivers
The construction industry in the United
Kingdom spends more than £200 million on
Landfill Tax each year. Waste typically costs
companies 4% of turnover with potential
savings of 1% through the implementation of
a comprehensive waste minimisation pro-
gramme. Furthermore, WRAP [27] estimates
that £1.5 billion is wasted in materials that are
delivered to the site but unused. Construction-
related businesses can take advantage of
government funding to implement waste mini-
misation practices. Indeed, from April 2005 to
March 2008, the government granted £284
million of Landfill Taxes to the Business
Resource Efficiency and Waste (BREW) pro-
gramme. More than 65% of this funding was
approved for waste management initiatives.
Waste minimisation financial benefits are
related to the direct costs of both waste disposal
and raw material purchase. However, the true
cost of waste is estimated to be around 20 times
the disposal of waste. A study by a major UK
contracting company revealed that that a typical
construction skip costs around £1343. This
figure is broken into £85 for skip hire (6.4% of
214 15. CONSTRUCTION WASTE

cost), £163 for labour (12.1% of cost) and £1095 was thus undertaken by the author to explore
of cost of wasted materials (81.5% of cost). current waste minimisation practices and asso-
Therefore, the financial cost of waste for ciated barriers in the UK construction industry.
a generic house (5 skips) is around £6715, of A questionnaire survey and follow up inter-
which £5439 is attributed to the cost of dis- views were used in this research as a method
carded materials. of collecting data. The sampling frame was
confined to the top 100 architectural practices
6.1.4. Business Drivers and contracting firms in the United Kingdom.
For construction to improve its performance Architects were asked to rate the waste min-
in this competitive age, it has become essential imisation practices that they employed during
that sustainable practices, including waste min- design; their answers are shown in Fig. 15.2.
imisation, are adopted and implemented. It is evident that very few attempts were
Indeed, clients are increasingly demanding for being made to minimise waste during the
enhanced sustainable project performance and design process; for example, more than 92% of
are exerting more influence on the industry to architects reported that they did not conduct
reduce onsite waste and cut costs. This is grad- a feasibility study of waste estimation.
ually becoming a necessary requirement for However, around a third of the firms claimed
procurement across the entire supply chain. In that they did use standard materials and prefab-
response to such pressures, businesses are aban- ricated units frequently, to avoid cutting onsite.
doning their narrow theory of value in favour of Most of the participating architects acknowl-
a broader approach, which not only seeks edged that designing out waste is not being
increased economic value but also considers implemented at present; as one respondent put
corporate social responsibilities and stake- it, ‘waste reduction is rarely considered during
holders’ engagement and commitment. daily life in an architect’s office’. However,
respondents reported that lack of interest from
6.2. Construction Waste Minimisation clients and ‘waste accepted as inevitable’ were
their major concerns.
Practices
Similarly, contractors were asked to rate
With increasing waste legislation and fiscal onsite waste management strategies; their
measures in the United Kingdom, research answers are shown in Fig. 15.3. It is interesting

100 FIGURE 15.2 Current waste mini-

Architects' views (%)

90 Rarely used misation design strategies (architects’

80 Frequently used
70
views).
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
deconstruction

reclaimed/recycled

Use of standard

prefabricated units

variations in design
dimensions and
Feasibility study of

Designing for
waste estimation

Avoidance of late
Specifying

materials

units

Use of

Waste minimisation design strategies

II. WASTE STREAMS

 CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINIMISATION: THE UK CONTEXT 215

100 FIGURE 15.3 Current

Rarely used onsite construction waste
90
management strategies
Frequently used
80 (contactors’ views).
Contractors' views (%)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Appropriate Provide easy Waste Recycle waste Set waste On-site reuse Offsite reuse
storage of access for segregation materials reduction of waste of waste
materials delivery targets materials materials
vehicles
Onsite waste management

to note that, contrary to expectations, the half of the responding companies said they
majority of contractors indicated that they did set waste reduction targets, which appears
used ‘appropriate storage of materials’ (88%) somewhat contradictory.
and ‘provided easy access for delivery vehicles’
(77%) in most or all their projects. However, few 6.3. Construction Waste Minimisation
efforts were made to segregate and reuse mate-
Barriers and Incentives
rials. Indeed, over 26% implemented onsite
segregation of non-hazardous waste, and about Architects and contractors were asked to
12 to 6%, respectively, reused onsite and offsite identify the most influential barriers and incen-
waste materials in all their projects. However, tives relating to waste management, using

FIGURE 15.4 Barriers to construction

Architects and contractors' views

5 waste minimisation (architects and con-

Architects Contractors tactors’ views).
4
(mean values)

0
Lack of interest Poor defined Lack of training Waste accepted as
from clients individual inevitable
responsibilities
Barriers to construction waste minimisation

II. WASTE STREAMS

216 15. CONSTRUCTION WASTE

Architects and contractors'

5 FIGURE 15.5 Incentives to construction
views (mean values) Architects Contractors waste minimisation (architects and con-
4 tactors’ views).

0
Waste Legislation Training Financial rewards
management
policy in place
Incentives to construction waste minimisation

a Likert scale of 1 to 5. Their responses are 7. DISCUSSION AND

shown in Figs. 15.4 and 15.5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS
Figure 15.4 shows that the barrier of ‘waste
accepted as inevitable’ was rated the highest The current thinking of waste minimisation
mean importance rating by contractors, while practices is heavily focussed on the physical
architects considered ‘lack of interest from minimisation of construction waste and identi-
clients’ as the major constraint, followed closely fication of site waste streams. Tools, models
by ‘waste accepted as inevitable’ and ‘poor and techniques have been developed to help
defined individual responsibilities’. handle and better manage onsite waste genera-
However, there was a greater degree of tion. Although these tools facilitate auditing,
consistency in respondents’ views on major assessment and benchmarking, their waste
incentives to waste minimisation practices, source evaluation approach is curtailed and
which is shown in Fig. 15.5. Both architects piecemeal, as it fails to effectively address the
and contractors ranked ‘financial rewards’ causative issues of waste production
and ‘legislation’ equally as the main incentives throughout all stages of a construction project.
that could drive waste minimisation in the The challenge now is to provide a novel plat-
construction industry. Although there is form for the next generation of tools and tech-
a consensus that legislation can be effective in niques that will identify and resolve the
maintaining the pressure in improving waste fundamental causes and origins of construction
minimisation, it was suggested that financial waste. The basis for such an approach could
drivers at project level e that is, allocated fees utilise Building Information Modelling (BIM)
for architects and reward performance against and related technologies, in particular Virtual
agreed targets for contractors and through Prototyping, to provide a platform for ‘virtual’
government initiatives, that is, tax incentives e waste evaluation which reviews and assesses
will have a far-reaching impact on waste reduc- the severity of waste generation throughout
tion practices. The latter was further emphasised all stages of the construction project life cycle.
by one respondent who argued that ‘the govern- Although BIM design methods are not
ment uses a penal system when a reward system currently as fully utilised in the construction
would help clients address the issue with more industry as in other industries, there is general
enthusiasm’. recognition that BIM adoption will become

II. WASTE STREAMS

 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
more pronounced to demonstrate not only the
entire building lifecycle but also assess and
evaluate the environmental performance and
impacts of buildings. In addition, ‘Lean design
thinking’ is emerging as a fundamentally and
holistic new approach to create value by elimi-
nating ‘design waste’. That said, a successful
mapping process of Lean principles could
only be applied fully and effectively in
construction by focusing on improving the
whole production, flow of materials and life
cycle information processes, hence moving
from traditional practices and ‘going for lean’.
Construction waste minimisation can be
viewed as a threat requiring ever-increasing
expenditure on end-of-pipe recycling tools
and technologies to meet ever-increasing legis-
lation, or as an opportunity to cut costs and
improve performance. The choice should be
obvious, but there is a need for a culture
change. Rethinking waste management in
construction requires adopting ‘cyclic’ rather
than ‘linear’ approach to design and construc-
tion. This requires re-engineering current prac-
tice to contribute to a cleaner environment
through efficient and cost effective sustainable
waste minimisation strategies. However, for
waste minimisation to be effective and self-
sustaining, it is important that all stakeholders
along the construction supply chain embrace
a more proactive approach in dealing with
waste. In recognition of the responsibility of
the architectural profession, through its leading
role in project management and a key player in
the construction industry, architects should
move beyond the concept of ‘eco-efficiency’
through bolt-on environmental strategies and
strive to adopt ‘eco-effective’ practices by
implementing a holistic approach to design
out waste, which will be reinforced in tender
documents and implemented during the
construction stage, in addition to the capture
and dissemination of lessons learnt to inform
construction waste reduction baselines and
benchmarking in future projects.
II. WASTE STREAMS
217
References
[1] C. Hutter, The Weight of Nations e Material Outflows
From Industrial Economies, World Resources Insti-
tute, Washington, DC, 2000.
[2] L. Koskela, Application of New Production Theory in
Construction, Technical Report No.72, CIFE, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA, 1992.
[3] C.T. Formoso, E.L. Isatto, E.H. Hirota, Method for
Waste Control in the Building Industry, In: Tomme-
lein, I.D, Ballard G. eds., Proceedings of the Seventh
Annual Conference of the International Group for
Lean Construction (IGLC-7), Berkeley, CA, July 1999,
325e334.
[4] DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs), Consultation on the Legal Definition of
Waste 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 to
Reduce Construction and Demolition Waste in
Municipal Projects, INFORM Publications, New York,
1998.
[8] EPA, Construction and Demolition materials
Amounts, Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery (March 2009) 29. EPA530-R-09-002.
[9] P. Chun-Li, D.E. Scorpio, C.J. Kibert, Strategies for
successful construction and demolition waste recy-
cling operations, Construction Management and
Economics 15 (1997) 49e58.
[10] EC (European Commission), Directorate-General
Environment, Directorate Industry and Environment,
ENV.E.3-Waste Management, Management of
Construction and Demolition Waste Working Docu-
ment No. 1 (2000).
[11] M. Erlandsson, P. Levin, Environmental assessment of
rebuilding and possible performance improvements
effect on a national scale, Building and Environment
40 (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 Civil
Engineers, London, 1995.
[13] P. Guthrie, C. Woolveridge, S. Coventry, Managing
Materials and Components on Site, The Construction
Industry 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, Waste
Management 27 (2007) 1715e1716.
218 15. CONSTRUCTION WASTE
[16] B.A.G. Bossink, H.J.H. Brouwers, Construction waste:
quantification and source evaluation. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE
122 (1996) 55e60.
[17] T.P. Pinto, V. Agopyan, Construction Waste as Row
Materials for Low-Cost Construction Products, In:
Kibert, C.J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the First Conference
of CIB TG 16 on Sustainable Construction, Tampa, FL,
1994, 335e342.
[18] R. Emmanuel, Estimating the environmental suit-
ability of wall materials: preliminary results from Sri
Lanka, 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 of
construction and demolition waste in Hong Kong,
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 32 (2001)
157e172.
[21] P. Guthrie, H. Mallett, Waste Minimisation and
Recycling in Construction, CIRIA Special Publication
122, CIRIA, London, 1995.
[22] S. Coventry, B. Shorter, M.M. Kingsley, Demonstrating
Waste Minimisation Benefits in Construction, CIRIA
C536, CIRIA, London, 2001.
[23] I.S.W. Gamage, M. Osmani, J. Glass, An Investigation
Into the Impact of Procurement Systems on Waste
II. WASTE STREAMS
Generation: The Contractors’ Perspective, Association
of Researchers in Construction Management
(ARCOM), Nottingham, UK, September 2009.
103e104.
[24] S. Innes, Developing tools for designing out waste
pre-site and onsite. In: Proceedings of Minimising
Construction Waste Conference: Developing Resource
Efficiency and Waste Minimisation in Design and
Construction, New Civil Engineer, London, UK,
October 2004.
[25] M. Osmani, J. Glass, A.D. Price, Architect and
contractor 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 for
Building, 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 and
Rural Affairs), Key Facts About: Waste and Recycling,
DEFRA, London, 2006.
[30] DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs), Strategy for Sustainable Construction,
DEFRA, London, 2008.