Next Article in Journal
How Achieving the Millennium Development Goals Increases Subjective Well-Being in Developing Nations
Previous Article in Journal
Integrated Evaluation Method-Based Technical and Economic Factors for International Oil Exploration Projects
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Sustainability 2016, 8(2), 190; doi:10.3390/su8020190

Construction Waste Management Profiles, Practices, and Performance: A Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis in Four Countries

1
School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics and Institute for Infrastructure Engineering, Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith NSW 2751, Australia
2
Department of Real Estate and Construction, Faculty of Architecture, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong
3
Shenzhen Institute of Research and Innovation (SIRI), The University of Hong Kong, B402, Shenzhen Virtual University Park, Nanshan District, Shenzhen 518057, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Giuseppe Ioppolo and Marc A. Rosen
Received: 11 November 2015 / Revised: 16 February 2016 / Accepted: 18 February 2016 / Published: 22 February 2016
(This article belongs to the Section Economic, Business and Management Aspects of Sustainability)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [650 KB, uploaded 22 February 2016]   |  

Abstract

Construction waste management (CWM) has received worldwide attention for some time. As a result, a plethora of research, investigating a wide array of CWM issues such as their profiles, practices, and performance, has been reported in individual economies around the globe. However, a cross-jurisdictional comparison of these issues is limitedly presented in the literature despite its importance to benchmarking performance and identifying best CWM practices in the context of globalization whereby knowledge sharing has already transcended traditional country boundaries. The aim of this ex post facto research is to compare CWM profiles, practices, and performance in Australia, Europe (Europe refers to EU-27 member countries in the European Union, including Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Denmark, Great Britain, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Malta, Cyprus, Bulgaria, and Romania.), Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom at a national-level, with a view to facilitating CWM knowledge sharing internationally. It does so by triangulating empirical data collected from various national statistical yearbooks with research papers and professional reports on CWM in these economies. It is found that in producing one million (US) dollars’ work, construction contributes a volume of solid waste ranging from 28 to 121 tons among countries. Conscientious CWM practices can make a significant difference in reducing, reusing, or recycling construction waste, as evident in the large variation in the CWM performance. While it might be oversimplified to conclude that the best practices in one country can be applied in another, the research provides insightful references into sharing CWM knowledge across boundaries. View Full-Text
Keywords: construction waste; waste management; cross-jurisdictional analysis; Australia; Europe; Hong Kong; the United Kingdom construction waste; waste management; cross-jurisdictional analysis; Australia; Europe; Hong Kong; the United Kingdom
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Tam, V.W.-Y.; Lu, W. Construction Waste Management Profiles, Practices, and Performance: A Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis in Four Countries. Sustainability 2016, 8, 190.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Sustainability EISSN 2071-1050 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top