Towards improved construction waste minimisation: a need for improved supply chain integration?

Towards improvedconstruction wasteminimisation: a need forimproved supply chainintegration?

Andrew R.J. Dainty and

Richard J. Brooke

The authors

Andrew R.J. Dainty and Richard J. Brooke are based at the

Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough

University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, UK.

Keywords

Waste management, Waste minimisation,

Supply chain management

Abstract

In recent years, economic, political and social pressures to

adopt sustainable work practices have led to a renewed

emphasis on developing effective waste minimisation

measures for major construction projects. This research

explored the efficacy of measures used for minimising waste

in high profile UK-based projects. The case studies revealed a

diverse range of waste strategies, the broader applicability of

which was then explored via a questionnaire survey of waste

minimisation specialists. The most effective measures were

deemed to be those that fostered “waste minimisation

partnerships” throughout the supply chain. Questions

remain, however, as to whether the industry is culturally

prepared for the collaborative relationships necessary to

engender radical improvements in waste minimisation

performance.

Electronic access

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is

available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is

available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-080X.htm

Introduction

The construction industry is heavily reliant on

natural resources for virtually all of its core

materials (Treloar et al., 2003). A degree of

material loss is however, all too often seen as an

inevitable by-product of major construction

projects. Typical wastage rates within the

industry are as high as 10-15 per cent (McGrath

and Anderson, 2000) and within the UK, total

construction wastage is estimated at around

70 million tonnes per annum (DETR, 2000a).

This makes the industry the second largest

producer of controlled waste (CIRIA, 1995),

the vast majority of which is lost to landfill sites,

the industry’s most common waste disposal

technique (Mills et al., 1999). Ferguson et al.

(1995) suggest that over 50 per cent of all

landfill in the UK could comprise construction

waste.

The industry’s lamentable waste

management performance and its reliance on

landfill is of particular concern given that most

could either be exploited for its residual value or

avoided in the first place (Pinto and Agopyan,

1994; Teo and Loosemore, 2001). In response

to this, the Government has prioritised the

reduction of landfill through sustainable waste

management measures and “green” taxation

measures (Lawson et al., 2001). Such measures

are made cost-effective by reducing purchase

and removal costs and increasing income

through trading in secondary markets for

materials (Coventry et al., 2001). Some

companies have begun to find that they can gain

a competitive advantage from adopting effective

waste minimisation strategies on site (Graham

and Smithers, 1996). Indeed, there is a

developing argument to suggest that waste

management can act as a profit centre in its own

right ( Johnston and Mincks, 1995). Regardless

of whether this is the case or not, economic,

social and political pressures are likely to

continue to drive up the costs of waste disposal

over the next few years which will increase the

Structural Survey

Volume 22 · Number 1 · 2004 · pp. 20–29

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited · ISSN 0263-080X

DOI 10.1108/02630800410533285

The authors would like to express their thanks to the

participating organisations involved in the five case

study projects for providing access to relevant

participants and to the interview and questionnaire

respondents themselves for participating in this

research project.

20

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-080X.htm

importance of waste minimisation strategies in

the UK (Turner and Powell, 1991).

This paper set out to explore the waste

minimisation strategies utilised in high profile

construction projects and to refine transferable

framework measures capable of being

transferred to other major projects. The paper

begins with a review of the key requirements of

waste minimisation strategies within the

industry, before examining those utilised in five

high profile construction projects. Their general

applicability and effectiveness are then

established via a questionnaire survey of waste

management specialists and the results used to

identify those strategies likely to have a

significant impact on other construction

projects.

The attitudinal and legislative context forconstruction waste minimisation

There are two principal ways in which

construction landfill can be reduced; by

minimising the amount of waste generated

through source reduction, or by improving the

management of the waste produced on site

(McDonald and Smithers, 1998). In the 1990s,

a number of research studies explored how work

practices, processes and technologies contribute

to the generation of waste (Bossink and

Brouwers, 1996; McDonald and Smithers,

1998; Poon, 1997). More recently however,

attention has focused on the role that human

behaviour has to play in waste causation and

minimisation in the industry (Lingard et al.,

2000; Teo and Loosemore, 2001). These

studies have demonstrated that careful

consideration of waste issues, supported by

effective education of the workforce and robust

audit procedures, can result in radical

improvements to waste minimisation

performance. However, industry scepticism

towards the value of such measures remains,

with many contractors feeling that waste

management falls outside of their core

responsibilities (DETR, 2000b).

The reluctance to implement effective waste

management measures has prompted

governments to take an increasingly hard-line

on regulating the industry’s materials usage.

Legislation is currently a key driver in ensuring

sustainable waste management in many

countries (McGrath and Anderson, 2000;

Teo and Loosemore, 2001). The Environmental

Protection Act (EPA) (1990) Part II is the

primary legislativemeasure for controlling waste

regulation in the UK. Notably, the Duty of Care

legislation, introduced in April 1992, places the

responsibility for final and safe disposal of waste

materials on the waste producer (CIRIA, 1999).

This means that any person who imports,

produces, carries, keeps, treats or disposes of

controlled waste has responsibility for its correct

and legal disposal. Allied to this are the EU

Landfill Directive (99/31/EC) and the landfill

tax. These regulations aim to reduce the volume

of waste and increase recycling rates. The tax

provides an incentive to reduce the waste sent to

landfill sites and to increase the proportion of

waste that is managed and recycled more

effectively (McGrath and Anderson, 2000).

These provide clear financial drivers for

construction firms to adopt more effective waste

management techniques. Direct costs include

the financial implications of the landfill tax and

the expense of transporting wasted materials

away from sites, and the environmental costs

associated with waste disposal. Indirect costs are

often hidden in the production or transport of

the material, as well as those incurred during

their storage on site. Up to 25 per cent of the

waste produced on construction sites could be

minimised relatively easily, which could increase

profits by up to 2 per cent (DETR, 2000b).

Given the relatively low margins typically

achieved by the industry, environmentally

friendly building practices can therefore provide

competitive advantage for the firms that

embrace them (Ngowi, 2001).

The requirements of construction industrywaste minimisation strategies

Previous research on waste causality reveals that

it can arise at any stage of the process, from

inception, through to the design, construction

and operation of the built facility (Craven et al.,

1994; Faniran and Caban, 1998; Gavilan and

Bernold, 1994; Spivey, 1974). These studies

have also shown that the most significant

sources of construction waste relate to design

changes (usually stemming from

Towards improved construction waste minimisation

Andrew R.J. Dainty and Richard J. Brooke

Structural Survey

Volume 22 · Number 1 · 2004 · 20–29

21

over-specification, poor detailing, late

variations, changing materials previously

ordered and alterations to complete work),

leftover materials, waste from packaging and

non-reclaimable consumables, design/detailing

errors, poor storage and handling of materials

and insufficient protection of the completed

works. Pressures on cost and programme

delivery also lead to working practices that are

not conducive to conserving materials and

avoiding damage (Coventry et al., 2001).

It would seem that waste minimisation is often

considered a low priority in the strategic

planning of projects. Indeed, by the time that

construction commences, many of the

opportunities for waste reduction have already

elapsed, with the management team only being

able to control waste through reactive

minimisation measures.

Waste levels are clearly dependent upon the

attitudes of key individuals engaged with the

project (Faniran and Caban, 1998). Of all

supply chain participants, clients arguably have

the greatest influence over waste issues as they

have the authority to set the environmental

standards to which the project team must

comply. However, efforts to influence waste

management will be of little value if those

further down the supply chain do not buy-in to

more effective waste management practices

(Teo and Loosemore, 2001). Given the

fragmented nature of the construction value

chain, embedding a culture of waste

minimisation throughout the supply chain is

likely to represent a significant barrier to

integrated waste minimisation solutions.

Developing an understanding of how this is

being achieved on large and complex projects

should provide insights into the measures that

could be adopted to embed a culture of

sustainable working throughout the industry.

Methodology

In order to identify effective waste minimisation

strategies for major construction projects,

two distinct sets of research activities were

undertaken. First, a series of interviews were

held with key stakeholders engaged on five large

and complex construction projects based

throughout the UK. The projects ranged from

£25m to over £100m in value and included

commercial, healthcare, education, retail and

leisure-based schemes. All of the projects

aimed to achieve high building research

establishment’s environmental assessment

method (BREEAM) ratings. BREEAM uses

environmental weightings to analyse a

building’s performance, accounting for all

the environmental impacts of a building’s

materials, design, operation management and

use (BRE, 2001). Exploring the waste

minimisation methods used on projects seeking

to achieve high BREEAM scores ensured that

the techniques were at the leading edge of

industry attempts to manage waste more

effectively.

The informants were asked to describe the

policies that they were responsible for

implementing and who has responsibility for

their operation and performance. They were

asked to comment on their effectiveness and

how they could be improved in future projects.

A set of 16 waste minimisation measures were

eventually refined as part of this exercise. These

were incorporated into a postal questionnaire

survey designed to elicit broader industry

opinion on the waste practices identified and

to discern the efficacy of those identified.

Respondents were asked to score each waste

measures based on their “ease of

implementation” and “impact” against a

five-point Likert scale. Aggregating the

implementation and impact scores allowed the

various waste measures to be ranked in order of

effectiveness. Of 45 questionnaires distributed

to waste management specialists, 27 were

returned (a response rate of 60 per cent).

The respondents comprised a relatively

well-stratified sample of specialist waste

management practitioners with direct

responsibility for the implementation of

minimisation measures throughout the supply

chain.

Results

The study results are presented below. First, the

overt waste strategies adopted on the case study

projects are discussed, followed by an analysis of

the questionnaire responses from experts asked

to assess the efficacy of these techniques.



Structural Survey

Volume 22 · Number 1 · 2004 · 20–29

22

Waste minimisation measures adopted on

the case study projects

The interviews revealed a wide range of policies

and practices that had been initiated in an

attempt to reduce wastage levels on the five case

study projects. These are summarised as

follows.

Standardisation of design to improve buildability

and reduce the quantity of off-cuts

Standardisation has the potential to

dramatically reduce the current production of

construction waste. By designing room areas

and ceiling heights in multiples of standard

material sizes a substantial reduction in off-cuts

had been achieved.

Stock control measures to avoid the over ordering of

materials

Over-ordering of materials emerged as a

particularly significant area of site management

control leading to materials wastage. Tighter

stock control measures coupled to the careful

monitoring of on-site progress had helped to

reduce the amount of unnecessary waste.

Merely raising awareness of this issue amongst

site managers had demonstrably shown to

reduce waste levels in several of the case study

projects.

Improved education of the workforce

All of the informants agreed that the attitudes of

operatives accounted for a significant

proportion of on-site wastage. “Toolbox talks”

were a strategy used on most of the case study

projects to educate operatives in the benefits of

waste minimisation.

Supply chain alliances with suppliers/recycling

companies

This measure aimed at dealing with waste in the

most effective manner to reduce the impact

produced. Partnerships with suppliers had led

to excess materials being removed, reprocessed

and in some cases, reused. Such practices were

supported with financial incentives for waste

minimisation.

Provision of waste skips for specific materials

Centrally controlling skips for materials had

helped to promote a culture of material

segregation and recycling. Retaining

responsibility for waste management also

allowed the principal contractor to maintain

control over removal of waste and recovering

costs through recycling.

Just-in-time delivery strategy

Reducing the time that materials were stored on

site reduced the potential for damage from poor

handling and elements. Adopting a just-in-time

delivery strategy had eliminated long-term site

storage as well as reducing the potential for

over-ordering materials on several projects.

Dedicated specialist sub-contract package for on-site

waste management

On one project, logistics contractors had been

appointed to provide a waste management

service. Under this scheme, the specialist firm

then removed waste from these designated

areas, with timber, precious metals and organic

materials being separated for reuse. This

significantly reduced the waste sent to landfill,

provided the principal contractor with more

control over waste processes and devolved some

of the responsibility for managing waste to trade

contractors.

Contractual clauses to penalise poor waste

performance

All interviewees agreed that contractual

penalties were a good idea in principle. The

contracts included measurement benchmarks

linked to specific financial penalties for wasteful

work practices. By requiring each trade

contractor to provide monthly data on waste

disposal, this provided a transparent audit of

where waste was being generated in order that it

could be avoided on future projects.

Design management to prevent the over specification

of materials

Avoiding over specification was identified as

offering considerable scope for financial savings

on all of the case study projects. The

appointment of dedicated design managers with

a brief to minimise waste was seen as a proactive

and effective step in ensuring waste reduction.

Allowing more time for value engineering

design solutions was also seen as important for

more complex projects.

Additional tender premiums where waste initiatives

are to be implemented

Many construction companies cited initial

set-up costs as the main reason for not

implementing comprehensive waste



Structural Survey

Volume 22 · Number 1 · 2004 · 20–29

23

minimisation system. More companies may be

willing to invest in waste initiatives if financial

subsidies were provided as an incentive. One

client had invited tendering contractors to build

in a transparent sum to cover the costs of waste

minimisation strategies.

Waste auditing to monitor and record environmental

performance on-site

Information collected through auditing and

monitoring had been used both to monitor the

performance of on-site practices and to educate

the workforce on the benefits of waste

minimisation practices. Several case study

projects audited waste internally, and one had

adopted the BRE’s “site methodology to audit,

reduce and target waste” (SMARTWaste)

management system. This provided a detailed

reporting tool, and included actions to reduce

waste and establish the potential for cost savings

(BRE, 2004).

Increased use of off-site prefabrication to control

waste and damage

Prefabrication uses the factory environment to

provide greater control over construction

processes. This has shown to provide benefits in

work quality and this ideology can be

introduced to control waste and provide

tangible reductions in waste levels.

Prefabrication reduces the amount of on-site

damage, reducing re-work and waste. The

increased use of prefabricated components

demands the careful modularisation of the

building design, which had been successfully

applied to aspects of the case study projects.

On-site materials compactors

A study by one of the case study companies had

found that 60-70 per cent of full skips actually

comprised air voids. Although there is little

improvement in environmental performance

(as the same amount of material was still being

wasted), reducing the volume had led to

considerable savings in transport costs.

A materials compactor was therefore being

used for material to be sent to landfill.

Educate clients about measures to reduce waste levels

Most case study participants agreed that many

clients remain under informed about the

severity of construction waste or the potential

for the reuse and recycling of materials.

Education programmes were being used on

some projects to ensure that the client

understood the need for process and attitudinal

change and that would encourage them to

influence waste conscious design and

construction practices from the inception of

projects.

Supplier flexibility in providing smaller quantities of

materials

Providing smaller quantities of materials

reduced the needs for on-site storage and the

opportunities for damage to occur on-site.

Encouraging supplier flexibility in producing

materials to project specifications had led to

considerable savings on two of the case study

projects. The informants generally believed that

supplier flexibility was integral to waste

minimisation.

Environmental impact assessments of the scheme

during the design phase

One case study had shown the benefit of

conducting regular design and production

reviews where the waste minimisation strategies

were considered as a primary performance

criterion. This had been incorporated as part of

the design development process that ensured

that the building met the client’s criteria.

Questionnaire results

The questionnaire commenced with questions

on the respondents’ perceptions of the severity

and causality of construction waste, before the

respondents were asked to score the waste

minimisation measures identified from the

case study projects outlined earlier. The postal

questionnaire results are summarised below.

The severity and causality of construction

waste

Every respondent believed that construction

industry waste is currently excessive.

Although this finding underscores the

importance of developing new and more robust

waste minimisation strategies, only 11 per cent

of respondents believed that projects commit

sufficient resources to managing waste

minimisation. In addition, over 60 per cent

believed that more needed to be done to

improve waste minimisation across the industry

as a whole. In terms of the principal causes of



Structural Survey

Volume 22 · Number 1 · 2004 · 20–29

24

waste, over 80 per cent of respondents

suggested that poor site management was a

primary cause of construction waste.

Materials management, quality control, and

co-ordination of works were areas cited as

particularly significant. This suggests that a high

proportion of waste is caused by inadequate

measures by management compared to direct

on-site operations. Opinions were more varied

in terms of who should take responsibility for

minimising construction waste within the

construction supply chain. All stakeholders

were seen as having a role to play, including

clients, principal contractors, trade/specialist

subcontractors, suppliers and delivery firms.

This points to a need for supply chain solutions

to the industry’s waste problems.

Effectiveness of waste minimisation

measures

The respondents were asked to score a range of

waste minimisation measures against a five-

point Likert scale. Table I shows the mean

scores for both their ease of implementation and

their likely impact, along with an aggregated

total score for each measure. The results show

that all of the measures could have a positive

impact (indicated by a mean score of over 2.5 on

the Likert scale). This suggests that all have

merit in addressing waste issues in the

design/production processes and should yield

benefits as part of an overall waste minimisation

framework. However, there was a significant

distinction between the various measures when

viewed in relation to the mean scores given to

each measure. Figure 1 shows the distribution

of waste measures according to their scores on

the impact and ease of implementation

measures. Those above the higher line were seen

as being effective and relatively easy to

implement. They represent the favoured waste

minimisation solutions and comprise those

most likely to be utilised as part of a robust

waste minimisation strategy. Those below the

lower line were seen as more problematic to

utilise and having a lower overall impact.

The highest ranked strategy was “Supply

chain alliances with suppliers/recycling

companies”. Alliances do not necessarily reduce

the volume of waste, but should reduce the

amounts being sent to landfill. The second

and third ranked solutions were “Increased

off-site prefabrication to control waste and

damage” and “Standardisation of design to

improve buildability and reduce the quantity of

off-cuts”. These are examples of practices that

can have a direct impact on the levels of waste

produced. Specification of standard sizes

prevents waste from being created and therefore

remedial measures would be unnecessary.

The fourth ranked measure was “Stock control

measures to avoid the over ordering of

materials”. This suggestion incorporated the

use of more just in time and lean production

methods in order to reduce storage and excess

materials. At the other end of the scale, the

lowest ranked waste measure was surprisingly

the introduction of a Environmental impact

assessments of the scheme during the design phase.

The interviewees suggested that designers

would be unlikely to consider waste a high

enough priority to fundamentally alter design

concepts.

Discussion: the need for supply chainsolutions to waste management

Although these results are based on a small

sample of projects and industry opinion, they

reveal the types of techniques and solutions to

waste that are being utilised by the industry on

major, high profile projects. The sample of case

study projects provided a mixed picture as

regards current waste practices and

performance. Some projects were excellent in

their waste prevention and removal strategies,

whilst others had failed to make considerable

inroads to reduce the amounts of waste.

Nevertheless, the case studies showed that

where waste minimisation systems were

introduced, these were generally successful

providing that adequate financial and logistical

support was provided and that all participants

were committed to the project.

It was interesting to note that, contrary to the

inference within much of the waste

management literature, the case study projects

had well-developed strategies for dealing with

waste at all stages of the project lifecycle.

Indeed, the results suggest that a wide range of

minimisation techniques are currently utilised

in combination by large construction

organizations. The range and diversity of the

strategies demonstrate a high level of innovation



Structural Survey

Volume 22 · Number 1 · 2004 · 20–29

25

in attempting to reduce unnecessary wastage

from high profile projects. The questionnaire

results reveal that the measures used are

effective and generally easy to implement.

Case study projects also recorded a positive link

between good site waste management and

productivity, site safety and ultimately profit

margins.

The three most effective waste management

solutions are interesting insofar as they present

Table I Ranking of waste measures identified

Rank Potential waste measure Implementation Impact Average

1 Supply chain alliances with suppliers/recycling companies 3.6 3.9 3.8

2 Increased off-site prefabrication to control waste

and damage

3.5 3.9 3.7

3 Standardisation of design to improve buildability

and reduce the quantity of off-cuts

3.3 4.0 3.7

4 Stock control measures to avoid the

over ordering of materials

3.6 3.4 3.5

5 Improved education of the workforce 3.4 3.5 3.5

6 Provision of waste skips for specific

materials

3.4 3.5 3.5

7 Just-in-time delivery strategy 3.2 3.6 3.4

8 Dedicated site team or specialist sub-contract

package for on-site waste management

2.9 3.7 3.3

9 Contractual clauses to penalise for poor

waste performance

3.0 3.3 3.2

10 Design management to prevent the over

specification of materials

3.2 3.1 3.2

11 Additional tender premiums where waste initiatives

are to be implemented

3.3 3.0 3.2

12 Waste auditing to monitor and record

environmental performance on-site

3.3 2.9 3.1

13 On-site materials compactors 3.2 2.9 3.1

14 Educate clients about measures to reduce

waste levels

2.7 2.9 2.8

15 Supplier flexibility in providing small quantities

of materials

2.5 2.9 2.7

16 Environmental impact assessments of the scheme

during the design phase

2.8 2.5 2.7

Figure 1 Expert assessment of the waste management measures identified



Structural Survey

Volume 22 · Number 1 · 2004 · 20–29

26

supply chain solutions for managing

construction waste. The development of

alliances with suppliers and recycling companies

accords well with the current emphasis on

forming partnerships to improve performance.

Extending this to suppliers and secondary users

of waste materials seems logical and mutually

beneficial for all involved and represents a

relational attempt to minimise wastage. The

increased use of off-site fabrication to control

waste and damage represents a fundamental

shift towards bringing about an end to some

traditional on-site working practices. Again, it

seems logical that manufacturing in an off-site

environment should reduce the waste lost

on-site, and this represents a business process-

related attempt to minimise wastage. Finally,

the use of standardisation to improve

buildability and reduce the quantity of off-cuts

represents a product-oriented attempt to

address the waste issue. This is complementary

to the increased use of off-site fabrication in that

it involves designing out wasteful activities

within the construction process. It is interesting

to note that these measures were ranked more

highly than the espoused fundamental issue of

client involvement and workforce education.

Reasons as to why these issues were not more

prominent remain speculative, although they

may relate to the fact that main contractors,

designers and clients would rather mediate

waste through the sphere of influence provided

by their contractual control of their supply

chains.

It is noticeable that the three most popular

waste minimisation strategies attempted to

remove waste at source and deal with waste as it

is produced on-site. This reflects the fact that

there is scope to remove the waste throughout

the design and specification phases of a project

within what could be termed “waste

minimisation partnerships”. By working

together to integrate waste minimisation

strategies, project stakeholders could generate

considerable improvements in waste reduction.

Questions remain, however, as to whether the

industry is culturally prepared for the

collaborative relationships necessary to

engender radical improvements in waste

minimisation performance. It demands that all

stakeholders recognise the crucial importance of

reducing the industry’s contribution to landfill

and integrate their work practices to address the

situation.

Conclusions

The aim of this study was to evaluate a range of

waste minimisation practices currently being

used within large, technically complex

construction projects and to identify those with

the potential to be applied to other similarly

complex schemes. Contrary to expectations,

participants revealed the use of a fairly

sophisticated range of supply chain measures

for managing waste levels. Waste is being

reduced through the careful consideration of

the need for minimisation and better reuse of

materials in both the design and construction

phases. Whilst every project is different in

terms of volumes of waste produced, types of

waste, management of waste, and responsibility

for waste, there remain underlying principles of

effective waste management which can lead to

more appropriate solutions in most projects.

The findings reveal that the most effective

measures are those which seek to develop

alliances with suppliers and recycling

companies to remove materials from site more

efficiently, the increased use of off-site

fabrication to control waste and damage and

the greater standardisation of design to

improve buildability and reduce the quantity of

off-cuts.

Together, the solutions identified provided a

range of practical solutions to address the

challenges of reducing landfill disposal.

However, it is important to note that every

project is different in terms of the volumes of

waste produced, the types of waste generated,

the management practices used and the

apportionment of responsibility for waste

control. Thus, the research suggests that for

waste minimisation to be effective, each project

needs to consider these systems individually;

not all 16 waste measures will be practicable on

every project. Notwithstanding this, the waste

measures identified break down the complex

issue of waste management into a set of more

manageable generic processes, where

responsibility can be designated and parties

made accountable for implementing aspects of

the waste strategy.



Structural Survey

Volume 22 · Number 1 · 2004 · 20–29

27

Finally, it is important to note that any waste

strategy requires adequate management

resources to oversee and enforce its

implementation, which in turn requires that

contractors see the reduction of waste as a core

priority with tangible benefits for their business.

The challenge to the industry is how to embed

the types of waste minimisation schemes from

high profile projects such as those investigated

to the wider construction environment, where

waste minimisation may not be given such a

high priority. The main concern is to overcome

the widely held perception that waste is

inevitable, and to embed the importance of

waste reduction as a key performance criterion

throughout the supply chain. The solutions

identified are unlikely to be effective unless

implemented as part of an integrated

minimisation strategy. Each project stakeholder

must be involved and committed to waste

minimisation as part of an integrated supply

chain. Clients must demand better waste

performance from their principal contractors

who should communicate this to their

subcontractors and suppliers. Specialist trade

contractors must take on responsibility for

implementing trade waste measures suited to

their particular package in a way that integrates

them with other measures undertaken by other

project participants. It is clear that the more

specific the measures (and transparent the

accountability for their implementation), the

more significant the improvements are likely

to be.

References

Bossink, B.A.G. and Brouwers, H.J.H. (1996), “Constructionwaste: quantification and source evaluation”, Journalof Construction Engineering andManagement, Vol. 122No. 1, pp. 55-60.

BRE (2001), BREEAM Offices 2003: Design and ProcurementAssessment Checklist, available at: http://products.bre.co.uk/breeam/BREEAM_May2003/pdf%20documents/DPPredictionChecklist2003.pdf (viewed May 2003).

Building Research Establishment (2004), THE SMARTWasteeSYSTEM, available at: http://www.smartwaste.co.uk/(viewed January 2004).

Construction Industry Research and Information Association(1995), Waste Minimisation and Recycling inConstruction – A Review, CIRIA Special Publication122, London.

Construction Industry Research and Information Association(1999), Waste Minimisation and Recycling in

Construction – Boardroom Handbook, CIRIA SpecialPublication 135, 0-86017-320-8, London.

Coventry, S. et al. (2001), Demonstrating Waste MinimisationBenefits in Construction, CIRIA Publication C536,0-86017-536-7, London.

Craven, D.J., Okraglik, H.M. and Eilenberg, I.M. (1994),“Construction waste and a new design methodology”,in Kibert, C.J. (Ed.), Sustainable Construction, Centerfor Construction and Environment, Gainesville, FL,pp. 89-98.

Department of the Environment, Transport and theRegions (2000a), Building a Better Quality of Life –A Strategy for More Sustainable Construction, DETR,London.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions(2000b), Guide to Waste Reduction on ConstructionSites, DETR, M0007184NP, London.

Faniran, O.O. and Caban, G. (1998), “Minimising waste onconstruction project sites”, Engineering Constructionand Architectural Management 5, Vol. 2, p. 183.

Ferguson, J., Kermode, N., Nash, C.L., Sketch, W.A.J. andHuxford, R.P. (1995), Managing and MinimisingConstruction Waste – A Practical Guide, Institution ofCivil Engineers, London.

Gavilan, R.M. and Bernold, L.E. (1994), “Source evaluation ofsolid waste in building construction”, Journal ofConstruction Engineering and Management, Vol. 120No. 3, pp. 536-55.

Graham, P.M. and Smithers, G. (1996), “Construction wasteminimisation for Australian residential development”,Asia Pacific Construction Management Journal, Vol. 2,pp. 14-19.

Johnston, H. and Mincks, W.R. (1995), “Cost effective wasteminimization for construction managers”, CostEngineering, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 31-40.

Lawson, N., Douglas, I., Garvin, S., McGrath, C., Manning, D.and Vetterlein, J. (2001), “Recycling construction anddemolition wastes – a UK perspective”, EnvironmentalManagement and Health, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 146-57.

Lingard, H., Graham, P. and Smithers, G. (2000), “Employeeperceptions of the solid waste management systemoperating in a large Australian contractingorganization: implications for company policyimplementation”, Construction Management andEconomics, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 383-93.

McDonald, B. and Smithers, M. (1998), “Implementing awaste management plan during the construction phaseof a project: a case study”, Construction Managementand Economics, Vol. 16, pp. 71-8.

McGrath, C. and Anderson, M. (2000), “Waste minimisationon a construction site”, Building ResearchEstablishment Digest no. 447.

Mills, T.H., Showalter, E. and Jarman, D. (1999), “A costeffective waste management plan”, Cost Engineering,Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 35-43.

Ngowi, A.B. (2001), “Creating competitive advantage byusing environmental-friendly building processes”,Building and Environment, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 291-8.

Pinto, T. and Agopyan, V. (1994), “Construction wastes asraw materials for low cost construction products”,in Kibert, C.J. (Ed.), Sustainable Construction, Centre



Structural Survey

Volume 22 · Number 1 · 2004 · 20–29

28

for Construction and Environment, Gainesville, FL,pp. 335-42.

Poon, C.S. (1997), “Management and recycling of demolitionwaste in Hong Kong”, Waste Management andResearch, Vol. 15, pp. 561-72.

Spivey, D.A. (1974), “Construction solid waste”, ASCE Journalof the Construction Division, Vol. 100, pp. 501-6.

Teo, M.M.M. and Loosemore, M. (2001), “A theory of wastebehaviour in the construction industry”, ConstructionManagement and Economics, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 741-51.

Treloar, G.J., Guptar, H., Love, P.E.D. and Nguyen, B.(2003), “An analysis of factors influencingwaste minimisation and use of recycledmaterials for the construction of residentialbuildings”, Management of EnvironmentalQuality: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1,pp. 134-45.

Turner, R.K. and Powell, J. (1991), “Towards an integratedwaste management strategy”, EnvironmentalManagement and Health, Vol. 2 No. 1.



Structural Survey

Volume 22 · Number 1 · 2004 · 20–29

29

Documents

Towards improved construction waste minimisation: a need for improved supply chain integration?