Villoria Del Rio San Antonio Porras

8/13/2019 Villoria Del Rio San Antonio Porras

1/11

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 75 (2013) 5262

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

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

Best practice measures assessment for construction and demolition wastemanagement in building constructions

Paola Villoria Saez a,, Mercedes del Ro Merino a,1,Alicia San-Antonio Gonzleza,1, Csar Porras-Amores b

a Departamento de Construcciones Arquitectnicas y su Control, Escuela Universitaria de Arquitectura Tcnica, UniversidadPolitcnicade Madrid,

Avda. Juan de Herrera 6, 28040 Madrid, Spainb Departamento de Construcciny Vas Rurales, Escuela Tcnica Superior de Ingenieros Agrnomos, Universidad Politcnica deMadrid,

CiudadUniversitaria s/n, 28040Madrid, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 15 October 2012

Received in revised form 26 March 2013Accepted 27 March 2013

Keywords:

Construction and demolition waste

Waste management

Best practice measures

AssessmentStakeholders behaviour

a b s t r a c t

Currently the construction and demolition (C&D) waste collection system in Spain is managed in a decen-

tralized manner by each sub-contracted company. This lack of comprehensive strategy for C&D wastemanagement causes a confusing and sometimes individual attitude regarding the different measures for

C&D waste. Therefore effective waste management should be enforced. Construction stakeholders havewide range of best practices in C&D waste management that can be implemented, so they need to be

assessed for their effectiveness.The aim of this research study is to assist construction stakeholders in making a decision on C&D

waste management. This paper carries out a survey conducted among the construction agents in orderto evaluate the effectiveness of20 best practice measures regarding C&D waste management, identifying

the most suitable types ofbuilding constructions to implement these practices and also the advantagesand drawbacks oftheir performance in a building construction project.

Results ofthis study show that among the highly effective best practices are: the use ofindustrialized

systems and the contract ofsuppliers managing the waste. In addition, distributing small containers in

the work areas is also another high valued practice, although only 36% ofrespondents usually implementthis measure in their works.

2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The large-scale construction activities occurred in certaincountries of the European Union (EU) over the past decades haveproduced a vast amount of construction and demolition (C&D)waste. According to the European Commission statics, the total

volume of C&D waste generated in 2008 was around 890 mil-lion tonnes (European Commission, 2012). Although the activityhas now entered in a decline phase, due to the economic down-turn and the change in the productivity cycle, problems caused by

such waste, or rather, by its management need to be addressed andconsidered in depth (Braz De Melo et al., 2011).

Management carried out for the C&D waste is still far fromachieving the target for recycling established under the Waste

Framework Directive (WFD), which demands an overall target of70% for C&D waste to be recycled in the EU Countries by 2020(European Parliament, 2008). But in fact, only 50% of the C&D

Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 91 336 76 07.

E-mail address: [email protected](P. Villoria Saez).1 Tel.: +34 9133676 07.

waste generated in EU is recycled. However, this percentage isoverrated and not very accurate because not all countries follow

the same calculation methodology, and some countries considermineral wastes, such as soil and stones not containing hazardousmaterials in their ratios (Tojo and Fischer, 2011). The reasons forthissituation include, among others, a high cost of C&Dwaste man-

agement, low cost of natural resources landfill disposal and lack ofinterest by the clients for waste reduction or minimization.

In an attempt to correct the serious consequences this circum-stances produces, the Directive 2006/12/CE states that National

Waste Management Plansshould bedrawnup byEU State members(European Parliament, 2006). At the same time, several countriesaredeveloping specific laws to establish a legal frame forC&D wasteproduction and management, to encourage prevention, reuse and

recycling, ensuring that waste will be properly treated (Rodrguezet al., 2007). For the particular case of Spain, the Royal Decree (RD)105/2008 (Gobierno de Espana, 2008) proposes the inclusion anddevelopment of a waste management model for each construction

project which should include the drawing up of:

- A waste management report(WMR), developed duringthe design

phase of the project.

0921-3449/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.03.009
http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.03.009http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.03.009http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09213449http://www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrecmailto:[email protected]://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.03.009http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.03.009mailto:[email protected]://www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrechttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09213449http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.03.009


2/11

P. Villoria Saez et al. / Resources, Conservation andRecycling75 (2013) 5262 53

- A waste management plan (WMP), developed during the plan-

ning of the construction work.

These documentsshouldnecessarilyinclude a description of thebest practice (BP) measures of reuse, valorization or final disposalof the waste and the descriptions regarding storage, handling orany other managing operation of the C&D waste to be carried out

on the working site.

Moreover, this situation has not only worried EU governments,but it has been of great interest for worldwide researchers inthe field. According to Yuan and Shen (2011) special attention

to C&D waste management has been developed in recent years.Specific research within the construction sector has focused inboth, analysing the environmental impact of selective demolition(Coelho and de Brito, 2011a) and optimizing waste management

including quantifying methods of C&D waste generation, as Lu andYuan (2011) claim. Among these studies Fatta et al. (2003), Sols-Guzmn et al. (2009), Llamas (2011), Coelho and de Brito (2011b)and Villoria Sez et al. (2012) can be highlighted.

Furthermore, specific works on BPs in C&D waste managementhave also been of interest to many authors. Regarding these prac-tices, the study by Osmani et al. (2008) revealed architects assumethat waste is mainly produced during site operations and rarely

generated during the design stages. However, about one-third ofconstruction waste essentially arises from design decisions, as thisstudy stated.

Tam(2008) has researched the effectiveness of the implementa-tion of the existing waste management plan method in Hong Kong.In this study,the main benefitsgained inwastereductionand wasteseparation arethe proposed methods foron-site reuse of materials.

To that end, the use of prefabricated components is considered asthe major measure to encourage waste reduction.

In addition, Begum et al. (2009) stated that the majority of contractors do not practice source separation, source reduction,

reuse or recycling, at Malaysian construction sites. The results ofthe study showed as key factors: construction-related educationamong employees, contractor experience in construction works,

source reduction measures, etc. are the most significant factorsaffecting the contractors performance.

Other researchers have focused their analysis on causes influ-encing C&D waste management on site, e.g. Yuan et al. (2011) andWang et al. (2010). Both studieshave identified several critical suc-

cess factors forthe C&Dwastemanagement;i.e.the limited numberof areas in which results if satisfactory will ensure successfulcompetitive performance. Table 1 shows a summary of the mainstudies performed regarding C&D waste management.

Although research on C&D waste management in Asia has beenwidely conducted, little attention has been paid to BPs of C&Dwaste management in other geographic areas such as in the EU.Theknowledge of C&Dwaste management developedin onegeograph-

ical area is not easily adapted and applied to other areas without

considering their contextual differences (Lu and Yuan, 2010). Inthis sense, although the BPs analysed here are set in a Spanishcontext, the knowledge developed in this study will serve as an

important reference for effective C&D waste management and themethodology followed could be forwarded to other countries.

2. Aim

Although new measures encouraging C&D waste reduction and

correct management have been implemented by EU countries,according to de Guzmn Bez et al. (2012) study, Spanish profes-sionals are still reluctant to implement BPs in construction. Therange of practices that can be implemented is very broad and

not all are equally effective and efficient in reducing C&D waste

generation or improving its management (Begum et al., 2007).

Therefore, the agents involved in taking a decision on the C&D

waste management might have difficulties in opting for the moreeffective ones. For this reason, assessing such practices would helpagents in making more effective management decisions. Althoughthese BPs aim at C&D waste improvement, they can also have an

important role in reducing the environmental impact of buildings.However, in this sense, this article is limited to the assessment ofBP regarding C&D waste management and generation. Other bestpractices aiming at reducing the environmental impact such as

CO2 emissions, noise, wild life, water management, etc., have notbeen considered in this study.

Therefore, even though BPs regarding C&D waste managementhave been suggested and partially studied, the assessment of those

BPs according to the construction stakeholders together with esti-mating the type of construction where the implementation wouldbe easier is still a needed research to be performed.

The main goal of this article has hence been to identify themost

commonly used BPs and to assess their effectiveness, determiningadvantages and drawbacks, as well as analysing the most adequatebuilding construction type on which BPs be implemented. To thisend,a questionnaire has been performed to the stakeholders inter-

vening in the construction process.

3. Methodology

Based on theresearch survey study ofLu et al. (2008) to identifyseveral success factors in C&D waste, the research survey method-

ology presented here is used to identify the effectiveness of bestpractice measures. In this sense, the index value is used to measurethe weighted importance of each BP analysed. Therefore, the stepsused for identification of effective BPs for C&D waste management

are: (1)identifying a full set of selected BP; (2)conducting a surveyto investigate each BPs importance; and (3) calculating each indexvalue based on the survey data; and analyse the data obtained.

3.1. Selected best practices for C&Dwaste management

From the body of literature covering C&D waste managementthisstudyidentified a total of 20 BPsfor successful C&Dwasteman-agement; 7 of them regarding the design phase of theconstruction

process and 13 during the construction stage (Table 2).

3.2. Best practices questionnaire survey

Surveys are used as helpful scientific research tools to obtain

information of primary sources using well planned questionnairesaccomplishing reliable specific information. The questionnairemethodology offers a descriptive analysis data, which canbe statis-ticallytreatedto enhance thereliabilityof thesurvey analysis(Rojas

Tejada et al., 1998). Several statistical computer programmes canbe used to analyse the data obtained and to explain the existing

relationships between the different and multiple variables.In general, questionnaires are well accepted research methods,

widely used by researchers of the construction sector as experi-mental pilot studies(Table 1). In this study,an onlinequestionnairehas been considered as the most appropriate modality for the fol-

lowing reasons (Jackson, 2008):

- Efficiency: electronic mails are the most efficient tools usedbetween the stakeholders involved in the construction process.

- Confidentiality: due to the topic addressed, it has been neces-sary to ensure at all times the confidentiality of responses, andtherefore, the anonymity of the people questioned.

- Questionnaire length: this questionnaire survey provides greater

flexibility regarding other modalities,i.e. the respondent has time

to develop andreview their responses, as well as to consult before


3/11

54 P. Villoria Saez et al./ Resources, Conservation andRecycling75 (2013) 5262

Table 1

Previous studies regarding C&D waste management.

Author Year Country Methodology Major measures

Osmani et al. 2008 United K ingdom Postal q uestionnaire s urvey Design with standard dimensions and

prefabricated units

Design for deconstruction

Study of waste estimation

Tam 2008 Hong Kong Survey questionnaire and interviews Use of prefabricated materials

Purchase management

Education and trainingProper site layout planning

On-site waste recycling operation

Begum et al. 2009 Malaysia Survey questionnaire Education among employeesContractor experience

Source reduction measures

Reuse of materials

Waste disposal behaviours

Attitudes towards waste management

Lu and Yuan 2010 China Survey questionnaire and personal interviews Waste management regulations

Waste management system (WMS)

Awareness C&D WMLow-waste building technologies

Fewer design changes

Research and development in WM

Vocational training in WM

Wang etal. 2010 China Survey questionnaire and face-to-face interviews Workforce

Market for recycled material

Sorting out waste

Better managementSite space

Equipment for sorting waste

answering any questions. On the other hand, the survey carriedout to people with whom it is difficult to maintain a long tele-phone conversation or arrange a personal interview, as they are

too busy or not present.

Special attention needs to be paid on the questionnaire drawing

up, stating the aim of the questionnaire survey into relevant ques-tions as Bowling (2005) claims. The vast majority of the questionsasked in this survey are closed inquiries, as they are more efficientand facilitate the further data analysis.

The survey conducted to collect opinions of these BPs unfolds intwo parts. The first part was designed to collect information aboutrespondents, such as their experience, type of enterprise and train-ingin C&Dwaste topic.Determining these types of variables allows

obtaining groups for comparisons so as to interpret the differentanswers collected. In the second part, respondents were invited toevaluate the 20 BPs measures selected, in terms of their efficiencyand viability. For these questions, the grading scale used has been

the well-established. The level of importance was measured on a5-point scale, where 5 denoted very efficient, 4 efficient, 3 neutral,

2 inefficient, and 1 insignificant (Guyatt et al., 1987).The questionnaire was piloted in December 2011, followed by

the revision process made to its format and approved by a board ofexpert members in the construction sector. Finally, the full sur-vey was conducted in Madrid region from January to February

2012. The survey was issued in Madrids construction companiesin the market with more than 20 employees. According to Span-ish National Institute of Statistics, there were 401 constructioncompanies established in Madrid with these characteristics for the

year 2012 (INE, 2013). The survey sample consisted of a total of 82questionnaires distributed by e-mail to the construction agents inMadrid using Google Drive Software. The construction agents wererandomly selected from the target population.

During the survey period, the following measures were taken

to ensure a high response rate: e-mailing and phoning each

construction agent prior to the distribution of the surveys askingfor their acceptance in participating and sending reminders everytwo weeks.

Once the responses were received the following criteria wasused in order to select the valid responses:

- Incomplete surveys were removed from the study.- Do not know or unanswered results were deleted from the study.- Respondents giving a middle value (3) to the effectiveness of all

the BPsanalysed have been removed from the study because theyare not relevant for discriminating purposes.

Taking into account the previous criteria, a total of 58 validresponses have been obtained, reflecting a response rate of 70.73%.According to Lu and Yuan (2010) 68% of response is consideredsatisfactory; therefore the response rate for this survey is totally

valid.

3.3. Data calculation and analysis

To evaluate the relative effectiveness or importance of the BPsanalysed, an index value for each BP has been calculated using Eq.

(1).

Ix =

5y=1

NxyVy5

y=1Nxy

(x = 1,2,...;y = 1,2,3,4,5)

where:

- Ixis the index value of the BP measure effectiveness.- Vy is the mean value appointed by the agents of each BP (S1 = 1,

. . ., S5 =5).

- Nxy is the number of agents that chose the yth value (Vy) for the

xth best practice.


4/11


5/11


Table 3

Index value calculation foreach BP analysedin thedesign phase.

No. Best practices during the design stage %a Assessment (Me) Ix

D4 Use prefabricated or industrialized systems generating limited waste 40 4.00 3.846

D1 Plan soil remains to be used in the same construction site 68 4.00 3.808

D2 Provide a space in the work site for the correct management of the C&D waste 56 4.00 3.423

D6 Use constructive systems that favour segregation of their elements at the end of their useful life 28 3.00 3.231D7 Use materials with a high content of recycled material 8 3.00 3.154

D3 Detect the construction activities that can admit reusable materials from the construction 40 3.00 3.115

D5 Optimize designsectionsto reducethe amount of material used and, as a consequence, theC&Dwaste generation

36 3.00 2.769

None 4

Only design phase respondents results.a Percentage of respondents whichusuallyimplement BPs.Respondentsof the design phase can select morethan one BP,and therefore, the sumof percentagescan exceed

100%.

working at this stage and who can carry out BPs during the designof the building.

Moreover, to determine the BP implemented by the stakehol-ders in the construction phase, both agents design phase and

construction phase ones were asked to value the on-site BPs from1 to 5. In this case, the assessment of the two types of stakeholderswere of interest, because both of them have to determine the on-site BP in their compulsory managementdocuments theagentsin

the design phase determined BPs in the waste management reportand the agents in phase of execution in the Waste ManagementPlan.

4.2.1. BP assessment during the design phaseKnowing if the agents in design phase commonly use BPs in

their projects has been considered a main factor. Results showedthat stakeholders in the design phase commonly use BPs as to fore-cast the use of soil remains in the same site, and to establish aspace in the work site for the correct collection of the C&D waste

generated (Table 3).However, less than half of the respondents useprefabricated elements in their projects (40%) and even less thosewho use products with a high content of recycled material, despitebeing a measure that significantlyminimizesthe generation of C&D

waste according to the previous literature review studies analysedin Table 1 (Osmani et al., 2008; Lu and Yuan, 2010).

Ultimately,BPs usually implemented by theagentsin the designphase aim at the correct management of the C&D waste within the

construction site, as opposed to the ones aiming towards a mini-mization of their generation.

In addition to determining the usual BP implemented by theagents in the design phase, agents evaluated them regarding their

effectiveness and viability. From the mean valuation appointed bythe agents for each BP, the index value (Ix) has been reached usingEq. (1) (Table 3). In short, considering a space in the work site forthe C&D waste and the soilremains management, aswellas theuse

of prefabricated systems, can be highlighted with an Ixand medianexceeding 3.4 and 4 respectively. This means that these BPs tend to

be medium-high effective measures.In particular, the results showing the importance of using pre-

fabricated systems and the site space are in agreement with thestudies developed by Tam (2008) and Wang et al. (2010), respec-tively (Table 1). In addition, Although the use of prefabricated

systems in the construction works is a well-considered measure,it is only implemented regularly by 40% of respondents (Table 3).This might be due to the low acceptance dwellings built with pre-fabricated systems have in the Spanish society (Gmez Juregui,

2009). Spanish populationprefers homes with traditional elementssuch as bricks and onsite concrete, as opposed to the prefabricatedelements which generate less waste (Tam et al., 2007).

Furthermore,using constructionproducts with a high content of

recycled material is considered an average or acceptable measure

(Ix >3) and only 8% of the surveyed agents usually implement it

(Table 3). This fact is probably due to the lack of legislation set-ting out recommendations and technical specifications coveringthe valorizationof C&Dwasteto be used as alternative rawmaterialfor new construction products.

4.2.2. BP assessment during the constructionphaseRegarding BPs second category during the construction phase

Table 4 shows theresults of the common on site BPs according tothe surveyed stakeholders, which refers mainly to recruiting sup-

pliers to manage waste products (64%) and to plan the number ofcontainers and size needed for each activity (57%).

From the results, it is necessary to remark that only 50% ofrespondents claim to have carried out checks on the use of C&D

waste containers or registering and controlling the quantities ofwaste leaving the work site. Moreover, results on Table 4 showthat around 43% of construction agents do not practice source sep-aration.

Table4 shows theassessment performedby thesurveyedagentsand the index value obtained for each BP valued using Eq. (1).

In contrast with the key factors stated in Begum et al. (2009)study (Table 1), Spanish respondents highlighted with Ixgreater

than 4.0 the contracting of suppliers to manage their productswaste. This means that it tends to be a high effective measure.In addition, BP such as: on site segregation of each waste cate-gory, the distribution of small containers in working areas,periodic

checks and planning the number of containers required, are valuedas medium-high effective measures (Ix3.0).

In particular, the distribution of small containers in the workingareas is a well valued measure; however, only 36% of respondents

implemented this measure in their works habitually (Table 4). Fur-thermore, among the results, the stakeholders positively valued

Ix greater than 3.0 periodic controls of waste containers and ofthe generated C&D waste quantities, although only 50% of those

surveyed usually perform these checks (Table 4).Finally, a comparison between the index values obtained in this

studyandthepreviousonesstatedby LuandYuan(2010) and Wanget al.(2010) has been made. From the 20 BPanalysed in thepresent

article, only ten were considered by Lu and Yuan (2010) and Wanget al. (2010) where the same index value equation is used.

Results in Fig. 1 show that both, planning on-site segregation

for each waste category and using prefabricated or industrializedsystems, have slightly higher index values in Spain than China (Luand Wang, 2010). This can be due to the differences of the conven-tional construction systems and the categories of waste generated

in each region.In contrast, giving talks for operators in the field of waste man-

agement has been better valued in the Chinese studies, maybebecause of the cultural differences between both regions. More-

over, best practices O3, O12, D7 show similar index values to the

previous studies.


6/11


Table 4

Index value calculation foreach on site best practice analysed.

No. On site best practice %a Assessment (Me) Ix

O1 Contract suppliers managing their product waste 64 4.00 4.138

O6 Perform an on-site segregation of each waste category 43 4.00 3.638

O9 Distribute small containers in working areas 36 4.00 3.466

O4 Carry out periodic checks on the use of C&D waste containers 50 3.50 3.414O11 Buy materials avoiding unnecessary packaging 29 3.00 3.397

O2 Plan number and size of containers needed for each activity 57 4.00 3.397

O3 Register the quantities of C&D waste and control them 50 3.50 3.276O12 Plan coordination and review meetings about C&D waste 29 3.00 3.190

O8 Give talks for operators in the field of waste management 36 3.00 3.121

O7 Respect the instructions of the manufacturer in the collection of materials 39 3.00 3.103

O13 Use shredder machines or compactors at the worksite for the C&D waste 18 3.00 3.103

O5 Follow the project drawing designs to prevent carrying out unexpected chases or holes 46 2.75 2.759

O10 Reduce excess of ordered material to avoid fracture of the material at the worksite 32 3.00 2.741

Design and construction phase respondents results.a Percentage of respondentswhich usually implement theBP. Respondentscan select more than oneBP, and therefore, thesum of percentages canexceed 100%.

Fig. 1. Comparison between theindex values of theprevious literature andthe results obtained.

4.3. Implementation of BPmeasures regarding the type of

constructionwork

Nearly75.5%of respondents,both inthe designand constructionphase, consider the type of construction work as highly deter-minant when implementing BPs. In particular, respondents domore easily implement BP in construction works of detachedhouses and collective housing buildings in height of more than

120 homes, rather than other types of constructions, as shown inTable 5.

Unique construction works are the main answers described by

respondents in the other option. This is probably due to theirgreater economic margin, and because these projects are normallybuilt in the city outskirts where space enough can be provided fora correct collection and segregation of C&D waste (Table 5).

4.4. Advantages anddrawbacks of implementing Best Practices

Fig. 2 represents the value of the median for every possible

advantage of implementing BPs in the construction works. Valueswereestablished ina 5 point scale by all theagents surveyed (in the

design and construction phases): 1 indicated that the establishedoption does not improve the C&D waste management in the worksite, and 5 meant that the BP highly improves it.

Surveyed stakeholders pointed out that the main advantagesarising from the implementation of BPs in the companies are:improving the image of the company committed with the envi-ronment and enhancing the on-site C&D waste management, thesaving of raw materials and raising staff awareness. For the above

options, the median reached a value 4.In addition, respondents determined that the application of

BPs contributes to some extent (value of the median3.75), to

reduce the economic cost to obtain greater advantages in bids, andreduce legal sanctions. This result agrees with the Informe Entorno(Fundacin Entorno, 2009), which states that reducing legal sanc-tions in the construction sector is not considered a main driving

factor to adopt environmental policies.Finally, comparingthe results obtained in the design phase with

those in the construction phase (Fig. 2), the latter considers morefavourable the application of these BP,because probably the design

agents are unaware of how these can improve the waste manage-ment in the construction site, particularly reducing legal sanctions.

Table 5

Types of construction projects where BP is implemented with greater efficiency and viability.

Types of construction works Construction agentsa (%) Design agentsa (%)

Detached houses, semidetached houses and row houses 38 45

Collective housing buildings in height 120 homes 43 50Other 14 0

a

Respondents canselect more than oneanswer,and therefore, thesum of percentages canexceed 100%.


7/11


0 1 2 3 4 5

Improvement of the image company

Cost saving

Reduce legal sanctions

Improvement of C&D waste management

Raw materials saving

Raising staff awareness

Greater advantages in bids

Assessment (Me)

Design phase

Construction

phase

Fig. 2. Advantages of BP implementation.

On theother hand, when they were asked to provide their opin-ion on the major drawbacks in implementing BPs, all the answersobtained can be classified into the following factors:

- Economic:the extracosts fora greater vigilanceand control foritsimplementation due to lack of awarenessof agentsthat intervenein the process. Ultimately, the need of a person just dedicated toit.

- Time: more time devoted to sorting out waste, which conditionsthe work plan schedule.

- On site space: lack of space to locate the different types and vari-eties of waste containers.

- Increase of red tape: extra paperworki.e. filing control forms,andinspection reports.

5. Conclusions

The assessment performed in this paper implies a detailed

knowledge of the effectiveness and viability of each of BP stud-ied. The methodology provided can be applied to obtain newassessments for other particular areas with other index values,

representing their specific characteristics.From the analysis performed in this study the following conclu-

sions can be drawn:

- The drafting of regulations should be emphasized laying downtechnical recommendations for the use of new recycled materi-als in construction, as only 8% of the surveyed agents recognizedthe use of recycled materials, despite it being a measure that

significantly minimizes the C&D waste.- Through a series of analytical processes, this research identified

the following 3 effective BPs during the design stage: (1) the use

prefabricated or industrialized systems that generate little waste,(2) the planning for the earth remains to be used in the same

working site,and (3) the supply of a space in the work site for thecorrect management of the C&D waste.

- Moreover, 5 effective on site BPs have been identified: (1) con-tracting suppliers to manage their waste, (2) on-site sorting out

waste categories, (3) distributing small containers in the work-ing areas, (4) conducting regular checks on the use of C&D wastecontainers, and (5) buying materials bulk to avoid unnecessarypackaging. The distribution of small containers in the work areas

is the third best valued measure (Ix = 3.466), while only 36%of respondents implemented this measure commonly in theirworks.

- Detached house constructionsand collective housing buildingsin

height of more than 120 homes, are the two types of dwellingswhere it is easier to implement BPs rather than other types ofbuilding constructions.

- All together, the main advantages of implementing BPs are:

improving both the image of the company and the C&D wastemanagement on site, while saving raw materials and increasing

the awareness of the staff.

The BPs assessment developed in this paper, highlighting theireffectiveness as well as their advantages and drawbacks, can helpconstruction stakeholders to make a decision between the widerange of possible C&D waste measures, ensuring a sustainable

waste management procedure throughout the construction pro-cess and promoting zero waste generation buildings.

Acknowledgements

This paper is part of a research projectentitledC&D waste mini-mization in building construction works with the collaboration ofARPADA and CMS Construcciones. We are grateful to the contrac-

tors and their staff for giving support for the development of thisresearch.


8/11


Appendix A Survey Questionaire

A. Personal information

A1. Your work is done mainly during: (Please select one option)

a. The construction phaseb. The design phase

A2. Your activity mainly focuses on:(Please select one option)a. New build

b. Refurbishment or maintenance/repair

c. Demolitiond. Other, please specify:

A3. Please tell us the size of your company: (Please select one option)

a. 1-19employersb. 20-49 employers

c.50-249 employersd. >250 employers

A4. Please, rate your knowledge regarding construction waste management:

1- Very poor 2-Poor 3-Moderate 4-Quite well 5-Very high

B. Implementation of Best Practice Measuresin Design Phase (ONLY Design PhaseAgents)

B1. Which of the following best practice measures do you usually implement in your

projects? (Please select all relevant options)

Best Practice Measure

D1 Planning the soil remains to be used in the same construction siteD2 Provide a space in the work site for the correct management of the C&D waste.D3 Detect the construction activities that can admit reusable materials from the construction

itself.D4 Use prefabricated or industrialized systems that generate limited waste.D5 Optimize design sectionsto reduce the amount of material used, and as a consequence the C&D waste

generation

D6 Use constructive systems that favour segregation of their elements at the end of their usefullife.

D7 Use materials with a high content of recycled material.B2. Please rate the following best practice measures regarding their effectiveness, efficiencyandviability:

Best Practice measure

Rate1-

not at allefficient

2-slightly

3-Somewhat/moderate

4-quitewell

5-verywell

D 1Plan soil remains to be used in the same

construction siteD 2 Provide a space in the work site for the correct


9/11



Rate1-

not at allefficient

2-slightly

3-Somewhat/moderate

4-quitewell

5-verywell

management of the C&D waste.

D 3Detect the construction activities that can admitreusable materials from the construction.

D 4Use prefabricated or industrialized systems that

generate limited waste.

D 5

Optimize design sectionsto reduce the amount ofmaterial used, and asa consequence the C&D wastegeneration

D 6Use constructive systems that favour segregation

of their elements at the end of their useful life.

D 7Use materials with a high content of recycled

material.

C. Implementation of Best Practice Measuresin Construction PhaseC1. Which of the following best practice measures do you usually implement in your

projects? (Please select all relevant options)

Best Practice Measure

O1 Contract providers to manage their products waste.

O2 Plan number and size of containers needed for each activity.

O3 Register the quantities of C&D waste and control them.O4 Carry out periodic checks on the use of C&D waste containers

O5 Follow the project drawingsdesigns to prevent carrying out unexpected chases or holes.O6 Perform an on-site segregation of each waste category.

O7 Respect the instructions of the manufacturer in the collection of material.

O8 Give talks for operators in the field of waste management.

O9 Distribute small containers in working areas.

O10 Reduce excess of ordered material to avoid fracture of the material at the worksite.

O11 Buy materials avoiding unnecessary packaging.

O12 Plan coordination and review meetings about C&D waste.

O13 Use shredder machines or compactors in the worksite for the C&D waste.

No best practice measures are usually applied

C2. Please rate the following best practice measures regarding their effectiveness, efficiencyandviability in the construction site:


Rate1-

not at allefficient

2-slightly

3-Somewhat/moderate

4-quitewell

5-verywell

O1Contract providers to manage their products

waste.

O2Plan number and size of containers needed for

each activity.

O3Register the quantities of C&D waste and

control them.

O4Carry out periodic checks on the use of C&Dwaste containers

O5Follow the project drawingsdesigns to preventcarrying out unexpected chases or holes.

O6Perform an on-site segregation of each waste

category.O7 Respect the instructions of the manufacturer in


10/11



Rate1-

not at allefficient

2-slightly

3-

Somewhat/moderate

4-quitewell

5-verywell

the collection of material.

O8Give talks for operators in the field of wastemanagement.

O9 Distribute small containers in working areas.

O10Reduce excess ofordered material to avoidfracture of the material at the worksite.

O11 Buy materials avoiding unnecessary packaging.

O12Plan coordination and review meetings about

C&D waste.

O13Use shredder machines or compactors in the

worksite for the C&D waste.

D. Advantages and drawbacks of implementing Best Practices

D1.Do you thinkthe type of construction project is an important factor to consider whenimplementing best practice measures?

a) Yes. If so, where do you believe its easier to implement them? (Please select one

option)

i.Detached houses, semidetached houses an row homesii.Collective housing buildings in height 120 homes

vi. Other, please specify .b) No

D2.Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following:An advantagefor your company when implementing best practicemeasures in yourworks is.

Advantages

Rate

1-Strongly

Disagree

2-Disagree 3-Neither agree

or disagree

4-Agree 5-Stronglyagree

Greater advantages in bidsRaising staff awareness

Raw materials savings

Improvement of onsite C&D wastemanagement

Reduce legal sanctions

Improvement of the image of the

company

D3. The maindrawbacksfor your company when implementing best practicemeasures inyour works is.(Please explain briefly)

THANK YOU!

References

AudusI, Charles P, EvansS. Environmental good practice on site. 3rd edition UnitedKingdom: Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA);2010.

Begum RA, Siwar C, Pereira JJ, Jaafar AH. Implementation of waste management andminimisation in the construction industryof Malaysia. Resources, Conservationand Recycling 2007;51(1):190202.

Begum RA, Siwar C, Pereira JJ, Jaafar AH. Attitude and behavioral factors in wastemanagement in the construction industry of Malaysia. Resources, Conservationand Recycling 2009;55(12):125264.

Bowling A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on dataquality. Journal of Public Health 2005;27(3):28191.

Braz De Melo A, Goncalves AF, Martins IM. Construction and demolition wastegeneration and management in Lisbon (Portugal). Resources, Conservation and

Recycling 2011;53(6):3218.

Coelho A, de Brito J. Economic analysis of conventional versus selective demo-lition a case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2011a;55(3):38292.

Coelho A, de Brito J. Generation of construction and demolition waste in Portugal.Waste Management and Research 2011b;29(7):73950.

de GuzmnBezA, VilloriaSez P, delRo Merino M,Garca NavarroJ. Methodologyfor quantification of waste generated in Spanish railway construction works.Waste Management 2012;32(5):9204.

del Ro Merino M, Izquierdo Gracia PI, Saltoweis Azevedo I. Sustainable construc-tion:constructionand demolitionwaste reconsidered.Waste Management andResearch 2010;28(2):11829.

European Commission. Eurostat tatistics. Available: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/ ; 2012 [February last update].

European Parliament. Directive 2008/98/CE of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 19November 2008 on Waste andRepealing Cerain Directives. Official

Journal of the European Union; 2008.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/


11/11


European Parliament. Directive 2006/12/CE of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 5 April 2006 on Waste. Official Journal of theEuropean Union; 2006.

Fatta D, Papadopoulos A, Avramikos E, Sgourou E, Moustakas K, Kourmoussis F,Mentzis A, Loizidou M.Generation andmanagement of construction anddemo-lition waste in Greece an existing challenge. Resources, Conservation andRecycling 2003;40(1):8191.

Formoso CT, De Cesare C, Isatto EL. Material waste in building industry: maincauses and prevention. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management2002;128:316.

Fundacin Entorno. Informe sobre la gestin de la sostenibilidad en la empresaespanola. Espana; 2009.

Gobiernode Espana, Real Decreto 105/2008, de 1 de Febrero, por el quese RegulalaProduccin y Gestin de los Residuos de Construccin y Demolicin. Ministeriode la Presidencia, Boletn Oficial del Estado(BOE); 2008.

Gmez JureguiV. Habidite:viviendasmodulares industrializadas [Habidite:indus-trialized modular dwellings]. Informesde la Construccin 2009;61(513):3346.

Guyatt GH, Townsend M, Berman LB, Keller JL. A comparison of Likert and visualanalogue scales for measuring change in function. Journal of Chronic Diseases1987;40(12):112933.

INE Instituto Nacional de Estadstica (National Statistics Institute). http://www.ine.es/Last access: 24/04/2013.

Jackson SL. Research methods: a modular approach.CA, USA: Thomson Wadsworth,Belmont; 2008.

Llamas C. A model for quantifying construction waste in projects according to theEuropean waste list. Waste Management 2011;31(6):126176.

Lu W, Shen L, Yam MCH. Critical success factors for competitiveness of con-tractors: China study. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management2008;134:972.

Lu W, Yuan H. A framework for understanding waste management studies in con-struction. Waste Management 2011;31(6):125260.

Lu W, Yuan H. Exploring critical success factors for waste management in con-struction projects of China. Resources Conservation and Recycling 2010;55(2):2018.

Osmani M, Glass J, PriceADF. Architects perspectives on construction waste reduc-tion by design. Waste Management 2008;28(7):114758.

Poon C, Yu A, Ng L. On-site sorting of construction and demolition waste in HongKong. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2001;32(2):15772.

Rodrguez G, Alegre FJ, Martnez G. The contribution of environmental manage-ment systems to the management of construction and demolition waste: thecase of Autonomous Community of Madrid (Spain). Resources, Conservationand Recycling 2007;50(3):33449.

Rojas Tejada AJ,FernndezPradosJS, Prez MelndezC. Investigarmedianteencues-tas. Fundamentos tericos y aspectos prcticos. Madrid, Spain: Sntesis; 1998.

ShenLY,Tam VWY,Li CY.Benefitanalysison replacingin situconcretingwithprecastslabs for temporary construction works in pursuing sustainable constructionpractice. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2009;53(3):1458.

ShenQ, Liu G. Critical success factors for value management studies in construction.Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 2003;129:48591.

Sols-Guzmn J, Marrero M, Montes-Delgado MV, Ramrez-de-Arellano A. A Span-ish model for quantification and management of construction waste. WasteManagement 2009;29(9):25428.

TamVWY.On theeffectivenessin implementinga waste-management-planmethodin construction. Waste Management 2008;28(6):107280.

Tam VWY, Tam CM, Zeng SX, Ng WCY. Towards adoption of prefabrication in con-struction. Building and Environment 2007;42(10):364254.

Tojo N, Fischer C. Europe as a recycling society: European recycling policies inrelation to the actual recycling achieved. Copenhague, Denmark: EuropeanEnvironment Agency. European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption andProduction; 2011.

Villoria Sez P, Del Rio M, Porras-Amores C. Estimation of construction and demo-lition waste volume generation in new residential buildings in Spain. WasteManagement and Research 2012;30(2):13746.

Wang J, Yuan H, Kang X, Lu W. Critical success factors for on-site sorting ofconstruction waste: a China study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling2010;54(11):9316.

Yu an H, Shen L , Hao JJL , L u W. A model for costbenefit analysis of constructionand demolition waste management throughout the waste chain. Resources,Conservation and Recycling 2011;55(6):60412.

Yuan H, Shen L. Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste man-agement. Waste Management 2011;31(4):6709.

Villoria Del Rio San Antonio Porras

Documents

Transcript of Villoria Del Rio San Antonio Porras