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
Open AccessArticle

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
Sustainability 2016, 8(2), 190; https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020190
Received: 11 November 2015 / Revised: 16 February 2016 / Accepted: 18 February 2016 / Published: 22 February 2016
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)
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
Show Figures

Figure 1

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.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop