Next Article in Journal
Highway Rest Area Truck Parking Occupancy Prediction Using Machine Learning: A Case Study from Poland
Previous Article in Journal
Influence of Moisture on the Shakedown Behavior of Fine Soils for Sustainable Railway Subballast Layers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Infrastructures
Volume 10
Issue 6
10.3390/infrastructures10060150
infrastructures-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Quantitative Evaluation of Sustainable Construction and Demolition Waste Management System Performance in South Africa

by
Ademilade Olubambi
1,2,*,
Opeoluwa Akinradewo
3,
Clinton Aigbavboa
4 and
Bolanle Ikotun
5
1
Department of Civil Engineering Science, University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park Campus, Johannesburg 2092, South Africa
2
Department of Construction Engineering, Triumphant College, Khomasdal Campus, Windhoek P.O. Box 6506, Namibia
3
Department of Quantity Surveying and Construction Management, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein 9301, South Africa
4
Centre of Excellence & Sustainable Human Settlement, Construction Research Centre, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2092, South Africa
5
Department of Civil, Environmental Engineering and Building Science, University of South Africa, Florida Campus, Johannesburg 1709, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Infrastructures 2025, 10(6), 150; https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures10060150
Submission received: 3 May 2025 / Revised: 9 June 2025 / Accepted: 12 June 2025 / Published: 18 June 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

In South Africa, inefficient resource utilization in waste management results in a preference for disposal and landfilling as the lowest tier within the waste management hierarchy. Through a methodical approach to waste management system performance evaluation, using sustainability indicators, this study assists the construction industry to precisely define the current state of its waste management practice. This study conducted a comprehensive literature analysis to choose metrics that meet sustainability standards. To illustrate sustainability considerations across all lifetime dimensions, a table with twenty-two indicators was created. To enable sustainable measurement utilizing the triple-line dimension, a model-material flow system with a life-cycle mapping was modified. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to extract data. At each phase of the building lifespan, the sustainability performance measurement was carried out and validated. The findings indicate that sustainability was quantified at 0.5150 during the planning and design phase, with 0.4125 interpreted as below-average performance score during the initiation and feasibility testing phase, and with 0.500 during procurement, 0.5137 during construction and execution phases, 0.5250 during performance monitoring, 0.5350 during post-construction, and 0.5050 during renovation all having an average performance score. The waste management systems’ overall cumulative sustainability performance was determined to be 0.5009. The overall performance of the current waste management systems is satisfactory, but require improvement. Therefore, the government can use this sustainability appraisal to adopt a top-level policy for a sustainable waste industry in South Africa as part of its growing pursuit of sustainable development.

1. Introduction

Due to the massive amount of waste generated annually by several construction activities, many people believe that the construction industry is wasteful. The construction industry is unquestionably a crucial, investment-driven, fundamental sector that supports the expansion of any economy [1,2,3]. The sector significantly boosts economic growth, as it employs the most labor across many countries [4]. The primary environmental impacts are attributed to waste produced from construction, demolition, remodeling, and related activities. Construction projects account for 12–16% of freshwater usage and 40% of energy consumption, with an additional 15% in overall resource utilization [5,6,7]
Globally, the rate of waste production is rising, mostly because of population expansion and urbanization; however, waste production is expected to double by 2050. Waste materials are generated both at the commencement of construction and throughout the building’s lifecycle. The construction sector has greatly increased South Africa’s GDP, according to several studies [8,9,10]. In 2020, the construction sector created 149 thousand jobs in the first quarter, while still using over 8% of the country’s labor force. The output of the sector contributes about 4% of the economy’s GDP [11]. Notwithstanding, the industry generates roughly 8–10 million tons of construction and demolition waste (C&DW) waste per annum and, taking cognizance of the dynamic forces and burdens of waste in the country, the waste products would increase to around 72 million tons in 2022. About 8.9 million tons, or around 11%, of the general waste during this period were recycled [12,13,14]. The volume of C&DW produced in the South African construction projects comprises material waste from building, often from constructions, demolitions, and renovations [15].
However, significant magnitudes of site clearance and excavation, which generate waste because of “Greenfield development” of residential, commercial, and industrial zones, are another construction activities [16]. The management of municipal waste which comprises C&DW has been inept and ill-financed in South Africa. A study by Nkosi and Muzenda [17] shows that crucial concerns in waste management include inadequate waste collection facilities, unlawful dumping, and unlicensed waste. But managing waste from construction, renovation and demolition has become key to improving the effectiveness of the construction systems in terms of economic value and sustainability [18,19,20]. Therefore, the major contribution to the total quantity of the impact of accumulative waste generation is in several practices that harm the environment and human health in several ways [21]. This study aims to understand the current performance of waste management systems in South Africa.

1.1. Overview of South Africa Waste Sector

According to Figure 1, waste comprises 25% masonry and bricks, 6% plastics and packaging, 6% wood, 4% glass, 14% metal waste, and 34% non-recyclable municipal waste in the South African construction sector [7]. From all indications, this waste composition will have doubled by 2025. This is a worrying status quo of C&DW in South Africa and poses a serious concern to the government; hence, the government has introduced several waste management procedures in recent times [22]. Notwithstanding, there are many effects of this waste on the environment, such as vibration disturbance, noise from construction equipment, global warming, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, etc. There is an argument that the rates of maximizing recyclability and reuse of material waste vary from one province or construction site to another [23,24]. Figure 1 illustrates the various material composition of C&DW in the South African construction industry; it indicates that construction and demolition constitute the highest contributor to waste production.
The government’s concern with waste control and supervision is aiming and working tirelessly at preventing environmental degradation and waste contamination to protect and maintain a sustainable development path [23]. However, the government made a viable waste management plan to reduce the amount of waste disposed of in landfills by 60% in 2020. Also, an advance plan for ‘zero-waste’ development will be in operation by 2022, but the practice of waste recovery and reuse has been in operation for many years in South Africa [24]. Also, advice to demolishers is to implement material recovery into their demolition plans and, even before any massive demolition action starts, some contractors agree with waste salvagers to allow for an on-site waste material recovery. Another characteristic execution of waste management systems comprises the utilization of reusable waste on-site or elsewhere; unusable waste is best in disposal landfills [25,26,27].
The use of debris for landfills, the conventional recovery of building materials in huge supplies, and secondary material recovery is an essential waste minimization strategy in South African construction projects [28]. Also, the sales of waste materials in secondary markets, and other non-building associated claims in construction projects are the recent status quo of the waste management practices in the country. In 2013, an effort towards sustainable development by balancing and broadening the social economic constraints created an unsatisfactory condition while protecting environmental resources with the required management of resources that are economically sound and desirable. Hence, the waste sector considers the utilization of resources and waste minimization wherever avoidance is not possible [27,29,30].

1.2. Utilization of Zero-Waste Management Approach

The growing economy, rising population and an increase in the rates of urbanization causes the institution and execution of operative waste management policies and programs to cope with the emerging waste challenges such as lack of management practices, deficiency of boundaries and restrictions on some appropriate landfills, inadequate recycling methods, insufficient waste information, absence of legislative enforcement, and minimization techniques [31]. This is the ultimate concern and agenda of the South African government; hence in a proactive reaction to this concern, the emphasis is on the prerequisite need for sustainable waste management, and this further suggests that tasks within the waste management hierarchical phases must undergo monitoring [32,33]. Waste diversion from landfills through minimization and avoidance is now in the nation’s policy, and ideas for a proactive course of action form the most reliable strategy [34].
This shows how sustainable C&DW management and the utilization of a zero-waste management hierarchy which stresses waste avoidance, minimization, and recycling to reduce the influences further downstream are extremely vital to its construction industry [35]. In maximizing opportunities in enriching the management of waste, it is essential to reevaluate the procedures for recycling and reusing waste materials with the other waste minimization approaches used. In 2018, the South Africa Waste Act delivered an all-inclusive method to regulate the management of waste in the country, because it embraces the globally recognized zero-waste hierarchy applicable to waste management [14]. As shown in Figure 2, the zero-waste management hierarchical diagram illustrates the design that can manage material processes to decrease the amount of harmful waste generated, as well as conserving and recovering all valuable resources, not burning or burying the waste [36]. The aim is both realistic and idealistic, because it guides the construction industry on how to follow sustainable material life cycles, where waste materials which are disposed of can be a resource with further usefulness. The zero-waste management concept, as mentioned in [30] began its implementation in 2018, to support a green economy.
The concepts introduce a way to conserve all resources using responsible production, reuse, recycling, and recovery of materials without burning or disposal on land and in water, which poses a menace to the environment or health [25]. Even though the zero-waste management strategy exists in South Africa, the major obstacle to achieving its aim is the inadequacy of waste for energy plants. Therefore, zero-waste implementation in construction is not a single, but an iterative, exercise, in which all the stakeholders need to play their role in targeting a systematic manner to recover all recyclables and recoverable energy, eliminating waste going to landfills and, likewise, recognizing the reality that prevention of waste, otherwise called avoidance, is of top significance in waste management values for achieving the aim of reducing the amount of waste generated [37,38]. The reduction of waste is achieved by implementing an efficient approach to reduce the waste at source, while some of this waste is reusable and more profitable material for further use, this enables the creation of reusable materials, reducing landfill waste. Also, energy or resource recovery through burning, i.e., incineration or biodegradation, adds to the utilization of resources found in waste, as well as saving raw materials [39].
The South African waste sector considers disposal, typically favored to eliminate waste and landfilling at sites, as the lowest tier in the waste management hierarchy, due to insufficient resource utilization within the waste. In South Africa, according to [40], the policy and framework for waste management were designed with attention drawn towards national legislation and how it influences the decisions of several waste management functions within the spheres of government, particularly in the last decade. Also, the policy and legislative direction shift is considered [41]. The South African Waste Act (SAWA) was implemented in several waste management policies and regulations. It presents every function of government establishments and the legislative mandates in key spheres of government [42,43]. This includes proof of the efficiency of the waste management systems. Also, with practical legislation in place, there is clarity of functions, responsibilities, lessons, and commitments. The South African strategy validates the country’s commitment to achieving efficient systems in the management of waste materials. While it does not have sufficient procedural and human resources in the waste management sector, there are prospects of constant improvement within the enabling legal framework and policy on waste management [44,45,46].
According to Nkosi and Muzenda [20], there is emphasis on future improvements grounded in crucial methodical elements that can activate higher efficiency in the waste management sector, and these emphases include waste management, legal contracts and policy implementation among crucial players within both the private and public sectors. Within the spheres of government, either district or local town, a clear contractual framework is essential, and it must ensure that a single authority remains publicly accountable for administering the waste management services [39]. Also, additional consideration when making waste management operations provincially means there will be better efficiency and transparency in waste management service delivery, which will safeguard resource mobilization [40,47], although the major obstacle in the province is the funding of services, based on the Municipal Systems Act (MSA). When two local municipalities perform the same function, that same function becomes elevated to the district and municipal level, but the same infrastructure grant funds are no longer allocated to the districts.
As a result, the provision of funds for such functions by the districts is a challenge. But a system where all revenue collected from waste management service provides a ring-fence towards improving the same service should be a requirement within government organizations [41]. According to Abioye and Rao [7], such a system will aid better-quality financial management, re-investment in waste facilities and infrastructure, improvement in financial accountability, and fair waste management service delivery.

1.3. The South Africa Waste Management Policy and Framework

The South African legal framework on waste management is one of the most progressive on the continent of Africa. There is a clear division of roles, responsibilities, and mandatory obligations. Also, the National Environmental Management Agency (NEMA) established the environmental legislative framework. This agency places considerable emphasis on the development of an integrated waste planning system, through the development of integrated waste management plans (IWMPs) by all spheres of government. Also, in most industries, the development of a waste management scheme before the commencement of construction activities is key, although in almost in all spheres the government is legally responsible for waste management in South Africa [42,48]. In 2011, it outlined the specific roles of all the spheres of government in the Municipal Waste Sector Plan (MWSP). The nation’s waste policy acts ensure those generating this waste conform to certain standard roles, tasks, and responsibilities [49].
In the waste sector, the purpose of the policy is to make the organization generate waste that has an actual system that embraces the management of waste generated. Also, the commitment towards sustainable development directed towards complementing and widening social-economic challenges encountered in creating an unequal society, while safeguarding the environmental resources, is an essential trait. This always requires the management of resources in an environmentally viable way [50,51]. Also, it gives attention to raw material usage, design of materials, resource effectiveness, and waste minimization where avoidance is impossible. However, economic development, a rising population, and growth in urban development demand an institution and the implementation of policies that can manage waste in its construction sector [52]. This makes every construction industry in the country under the obligation to optimize its waste management practices and adapt to, or even develop upon, the required specifications given by the government [53].

1.4. Requirement for Waste Management Performance Evaluation in South Africa

In South Africa, there are indications that the current C&DW management systems can be sustainable, but no novel study has proven it accurately. Therefore, there is a clear consensus on the need to develop tools for measuring and optimizing sustainability performances of the waste management system in South Africa. The systems need to combine the data from the provided raw values. These primary data sets, called “Sustainability Performance Indicators (SPIs),” show the system’s ability to sustain itself [54]. Nappi and Rozenfeld [55] characterize the SPI as a unique measuring instrument that aids in comprehending the operation, system, or organization’s performance. Veleva and Ellenbecker [56] found that the SPI often evaluates organizational performance. This assessment involves regularly achieving specific operational goals, measured against set values.
Thus, for every SPI, there must be metrics for its measurement. They are tools used for measuring performance and achievements within and outside the organization [37,56]. Measuring sustainability performance is crucial for organizations to track their progress towards environmental and social goals. It enables businesses to identify areas for improvement and make informed decisions to enhance their sustainability initiatives. Additionally, clear metrics help communicate achievements to stakeholders, building trust and demonstrating commitment to sustainable practices [57,58,59,60,61]. Furthermore, these metrics provide a standardized framework for comparing performance over time and across different construction and infrastructural development industries, fostering accountability and encouraging continuous improvement. By aligning metrics with broader sustainability goals, organizations can effectively integrate sustainability into their core strategies and operations [62,63,64,65].
Various efforts and methods have been developed to evaluate waste management system performance. Aboginije et al. [11] developed a sustainametric technique which can measure the lifecycle performance of waste management system systems, but does not use the three pillars of sustainability as a base line. However, the three pillars of sustainability—economic, social, and environmental—as well as the lifecycle performance of waste management systems was examined in this study, utilizing a quantitative methodology.

2. Methodology and Design

2.1. Study Region

South Africa is a country on the southernmost tip of the African continent which is characterized by some distinctive ecosystems comprising approximately 56 million people of diverse origins, cultures, languages, and religions. The country is bounded to the south by 2798 km of coastline in Southern Africa, broadening along the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean. The country is the 24th largest in the world, with Mafadi in the Drakensberg mountains at a height of 3450 m, which is the highest peak apart from the Prince Edward Islands. Similarly, South Africa lies between latitudes 220 and 350 South and longitudes 160 and 330 East. The interior of the country comprises an immense, in most places nearly flat, plateau, with an altitude of 1000–2100 m, which is the highest in the east. This slopes gently downwards towards the west and north, and slightly less conspicuously in the south-western direction. The plateau is surrounded by great escarpment in the east, with the highest stretch known as the ‘Drakensberg’ [66].
The country has a mixed economy and is the second largest in Africa. It also has a relatively high gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, low inflation, and high purchasing-power parity in comparison with other countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Figure 3 shows the map of the country divided into 9 provinces; each sequentially divided into 52 districts: 8 metropolitan areas and 44 districts. The districts are further subdivided into 250 local municipalities [67]. The local municipalities are responsible for providing basic services to the residents, such as water, sanitation, and electricity. The country’s economy is diverse, with sectors such as mining, agriculture, and manufacturing contributing significantly to its GDP. The construction industry contributes around 3% of the GDP, with residential and non-residential building projects being the primary contributors. The industry has experienced steady growth, driven by both public and private-sector investments [68,69,70].

2.2. Research Design and Approach

The procedures for collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and reporting data in research studies are known as research design. It is the overarching strategy for relating the relevant (and doable) empirical research to the conceptual research concerns. Stated differently, the study design establishes the process for gathering the necessary data, the techniques to be used for gathering and analyzing this data, and how all of this will contribute to the resolution of the research question [71,72,73,74]. Robson [75] explains that there are three types of study designs: explanatory, descriptive, and exploratory. Since every design has a distinct ultimate purpose, his classification system is based on the goal of the research field. Through a process of data collecting that allows the researcher to describe the situation more thoroughly than was possible without using this method, descriptive research aims to shed light on present concerns or problems [76]. In this study, a descriptive research approach was employed and the entire research approach used is divided into four (4) steps.
The first step identifies the relevant literature which assisted the collection of primary data used in selecting sustainability performance indicators. Although the majority of the literature-reviewed selections fall within the parameters of the primary research range, the first phase, i.e., planning, is a literature-review technique development carried out based on the study purpose and a set of predetermined inclusion sustainability criteria. The majority of SIs used in this study are generated via reviews of studies on the various evaluations of C&DW management systems. Executing the literature research processes, identifying crucial indicators, and selecting and testing in accordance with the sustainability criteria specified and created in the protocol are all included in the second phase [77,78,79]. As a result, certain sustainability indicators were cataloged and considered to have satisfied the sustainability standards. To provide a competent opinion on the degree to which the sector employs each sustainable measures, collection of data is necessary. This was achieved using a quantitative survey instrument, which is regarded as a supportive tool for this study because it allows C&DW sector experts to provide a clear and informative perspective.
Developing sustainability-based logic and visualizing the indications in the several tiple-bottom line dimensions constitute the second step. To demonstrate the sustainability-based reasoning that encompasses all aspects of sustainability taken into consideration in the scope of any construction project, a tri-bottom line environmental dimension was developed from the data gathered [80]. This shows the three vital components of sustainability, i.e., social, economic, and environmental aspects. In terms of the distribution of the indicators across the construction lifecycle phases, the number of indicators for each of the phases, from the initiation and feasibility testing, to renovation, is specified. However, some indicators cover over one phase, depicting the fact that it can be functional at the different phases. This embraces six (6) social and economic aspects and four (4) environmental and economic aspects, while one (1) covers the three aspects. In this study, the data collected was captured, extracted, and analyzed.
This study takes a decisive step to provide the SPI required to measure the performance of the waste management systems operated in South Africa. Thus, the sustainability measurement is aimed at supporting the decision-making mechanism to depict the current performance of the C&DW management systems while providing substantial information for planning future actions prioritized in any waste sector, but this measurement is solely classified as ‘dimensionless’, which means it is expressed as a relative measurement [32]. Also, there is relevant evidence and asymmetry between the number of the SPIs for each one of the triple bottom line dimensions and their combination in tri-dimensional indicators. Table 1 shows the illustration of the indicators and distribution across construction lifecycle phases, with the stages of progression in construction projects (from the initial to finish). The most dominant SPIs were selected, therefore, at the initiation and feasibility testing (IFT) phase, both economic and social, which is the principal aspect of sustainability measured. Also, we have SPI selection for planning and design (PAD), procurement (PCC), construction and execution (COE), performance and monitoring (PEM), renovation (REN), and post-construction (POC) phases.
It is true; lifecycle analysis (LCA) has always been a typical instrument used to back up decision-making in the sphere of waste control and management in several countries. It helps to describe sustainability and, besides this, to explore the impending environmental impact of waste material during its lifecycle [5]. Initially, the LCA method developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards have in mind the four phases: namely, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, input/output, impact categories, and interpretations [4]. In several studies, it is shown that LCA is a realistic tool for considering other areas to analyze or even test diverse alternatives. Through the analysis of both positive and negative environmental effects of all kinds of construction projects, it is a realistic sustainability measuring tool [9].
However, incorporating LCA in the construction sector has two perceptions: namely, building materials and construction progressions. These two elements further transmit to construction those phases which embrace pre-construction, construction, demolition and renovation phases. Furthermore, every one of the construction project lifecycle phases deliberately incorporates the waste management hierarchy using the 4Rs, i.e., reduce, recover, reuse, and recycle strategies. The LCA inventory, in contrast, covers both the input and output, which ultimately influences outcomes resulting from processed inventory data. The life cycle map was developed to describe the waste material flow system from the initial starting point to the finish [81,82,83]. Also, a sustainable approach to the waste flow system is often used to support the reuse, recycling, and reduction of materials, while disposal into landfills is extremely vital when materials cannot be reused or recycled [84,85,86,87].

2.3. Sample Size and Sampling Method

The simple random-sampling probability implementation method allows all respondents in the selected population to have an equal chance of being carefully chosen. The study makes use of a total number of 240 sample data being collected. This comprises experts involved in C&DW management within the country. Figure 4a,b shows the demography of the organizations and projects involved, by the respondents. The respondents are drawn from consultancy which make up 36.6%, contractual 31.0%, government/public 15.5% and private organizations 17.9%. However, projects which respondents are involved in include residentials 35.2%, schools 15.7%, civil works 11.9%, government offices 11.4%, road 10.2% etc. (See Figure 4a). The study involved construction experts knowledgeable about waste generation and management in South African projects. These professionals include construction engineers, architects, quantity surveyors, builders and project managers.

2.4. Ethical Considerations

For this study, ethical clearance was obtained from the University of Johannesburg’s (UJ) Ethics Committee before the beginning of data collection. Furthermore, it obtained informed consent from every participant drawn from professionals in the construction industry, confirming their consent to take part in the study. Participants were informed of the study’s goal and assured of the confidentiality of their responses. This included instructions on how to avoid disclosing personal information and how to protect participants from any risks or liabilities related to the study or response.

2.5. Data Analysis

In this study, a Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for extracting data. For the demographic factors, each was a group and given a code number (e.g., 1 and 2). The objective was achieved, which included determining the material composition of waste and the extent to which each sustainable measure is used in the South African construction industry. The respondents were put together within a range (i.e., Likert scale of 1 to 5), with the highest score indicating the sustainable measures being utilized to an extremely large extent [75]. To measure the internal consistency availability of the sample used, the Cronbach’s alpha value was calculated. Furthermore, an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was carried out using principal axis factoring, dividing the variables into 7 factorial components. Each cumulative variance in percentage was calculated, and the sum total of each construction lifecycle phase was determined.
Reuse and recycling save energy and natural resources, significantly reducing landfill waste and addressing environmental concerns [76]. The initial stage of construction often covers the planning and design phases and is considered extremely critical throughout a construction project life cycle. Designers such as civil engineers or architects frequently design buildings using guidance from the WRAP “design out waste” procedures [77,84]. In these procedures, detailed consideration is giving to standard sizes, densities, positioning, and height, to increase the process of waste minimization and, principally, to achieve significant cost savings in construction projects. But construction projects require recyclable or secondary building material incorporation into the design at the pre-construction phase. Similarly, addressing the problems of C&DW, the best practice for most designers is the expectation of an avoidance of waste during this phase, as it helps many to identify the primary problem associated with the design.
Also, regulations and laws with incentives to motivate professionals to adopt the use of the 4R (i.e., reduce, reuse, recycled and recovery) concept are vital [85,86]. Also, integrating the Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) has facilitated many professionals to reduce the amount of waste generated through construction and demolition works. According to Abidin [5], most tools used are the BREEAM standard, which delivers the creditable channel for diversion of C&DW from landfill up to about 75% weight and 60% in volume, which continually improves resource efficiency. Building Information Modelling (BIM) is used to achieve a sustainable approach to waste management in construction and demolition projects [87]. Likewise, the demolition phase, like the construction phase, is guided by sustainable principles to ensure recycling and maximization of reusing opportunities [16,54].
From the understanding of lifecycle impact (LCI), a conceptual framework which illustrates the waste material flow can be designed to comprehend waste management efficiency [7]. The usage of the LCA framework has its shortcomings in terms of uncertainties in a waste material flow system. It’s a valuable tool for assessing the sustainability of waste management systems. LCA can effectively analyze sustainable C&DW management systems within a set period, considering economic, social, and environmental factors. Therefore, the technology used in such a process frequently varies in several urban cities because waste management facilities are specific in those areas producing the largest amount of waste in South Africa. This is due to the varying needs and capacities of these facilities to handle different types of waste. Urban areas with higher population densities tend to produce more waste, requiring more advanced and specialized technology for efficient waste management.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Descriptive Results

A mean item-score ranking was used to evaluate respondents’ opinions on the performance of waste management systems. Table 2 shows the mean item-score ranking and the standard deviations. The Likert scale has five points (1–5), where (1) represents Strongly Disagreed, (2) represents Disagreed, (3) Neutral, (4) Agreed, and (5) Strongly Agreed. The result indicates that a reduction in price of recycled materials with the highest performance rate has a mean score (MS) of 3.94 and standard deviation (SD) of 0.830. The second most-rated indicator is the sustainable procurement method, with a mean score (MS) of 3.91 and standard deviation (SD) of 0.800. The third-highest rate is involvement of waste expertise on sites, with a mean score of 3.87 and standard deviation (SD) of 0.810.
Furthermore, the mid-performance rate indicates scores for “design and purchase of recyclable materials” (3.55), “awareness among clients and contractors” (3.54), and “selection of materials that maximize reusability” (3.52). Meanwhile, the implementation of building information modelling (BIM), imposing landfill fees, and sustainable contractual agreement, with mean scores of 3.42, 3.41 and 3.40, respectively, are the lowest in performance rating. However, SPI is utilized as the metric for the evaluation conducted.

3.2. Cluster Descriptions and Analysis

Cluster 1—Initiation and Feasibility Testing (IFT): This cluster comprises four variables. The result shows that avoidance of complex design and detailing cumulative variance was calculated as a 0.5710, reduction in the price of recycled materials, as 0.5246, and the sustainable procurement method as 0.4500, while the involvement of waste expertise is the least, with 0.5159. On average, cumulative variance was calculated as 0.5150. Cluster 2—Planning and Design Phase (PAD): in this cluster, economic and environmental aspects, which were the principal aspects of sustainability, were measured, comprising four variables. The result shows that avoidance of complex design and cumulative detailing was calculated as 0.5750, design and purchase of recyclable materials as 0.3000, and implementation of BIM as 0.2750, while the encouragement of resource conservation was 0.5000. On average, the cumulative variance was calculated as 0.4125.
Cluster 3—Procurement (PCC): The economic aspect is the primary aspect of sustainability measured. In this cluster, only one variable was indicated. The result shows that the design and purchase of cumulative recyclable materials was calculated as 0.500, while sustainable procurement methods were calculated as 0.4350. On average, the cumulative variance was calculated as 0.650. Cluster 4—Construction and Execution Phase (COE): this indicates that the economic, social and environmental aspects were measured. In this cluster, variables were indicated. The result shows that conservation of cumulative landfill was calculated as 0.4600, material reuse as 0.5450, and implementation of BIM as 0.5250, while waste avoidance was possible, and calculated at 0.5250. On average, the cumulative variance was calculated as 0.5137.
Cluster 5—The Performance and Monitoring (PEM): this indicates that both social and economic aspects of sustainability were measured. The results show that it calculated waste management involvement on sites as 0.5000, imposing landfills levy as 0.6250, and encouragement of resource conservation as 0.4500, while laws against incineration were calculated as 0.5250. The average cumulative variance was calculated as 0.5250. In these clusters, four variables were indicated. Cluster 6—The Post-Construction (POC): this cluster includes both social and economic aspects, where the predominant aspects of sustainability were measured, comprising three variables. The result shows that sustainable contractual agreement was calculated as 0.5450, development of resilience secondary materials market as 0.5250, and recovery of resources and energy, if possible, as 0.6450, while the reduction in the price of recycled materials was calculated as 0.4250. The average cumulative variance was calculated as 0.5350.
Cluster 7—(the last cluster), Renovation (REN): socio-economic aspects were considered indicating that awareness among clients and contractors was calculated as 0.5550, while involvement of waste-expertise sites was calculated as 0.4550. The average cumulative at this stage was 0.5050 where two variables were indicated. Table 3 shows the total variance and cumulative results. The component correlation matrix was employed to identify values exceeding 3.0, and the average percentage cumulative is 74.460 of the variables.

3.3. Data Reliability and Validity Test

Both theoretical and empirical evaluations were carried out to guarantee the reliability and validity of the data collecting method. The internal consistency and reliability of the questionnaire were evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which measures the internal consistency of a set of scales to show how closely linked the items are as a group. The sustainability performance-rating variables had a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.811, which shows that the data was highly valid and reliable. Furthermore, a Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test was employed to measure the sampling adequacy. A KMO of 0.786 obtained is deem adequate for the EFA. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity was carried out to indicate the statistical significance of the variables. Table 4 indicates the results of the KMO and Bartlett’s test.

3.4. Implication of Findings

This study uses a quantitative method in evaluating the performance of the waste management system applied in the South African waste sector. It examines waste collection efficiency, recycling rates, and landfill diversion percentages. Furthermore, the study analyzes sustainability indicators to provide a comprehensive assessment. These metrics help determine the overall sustainability and effectiveness of waste management practices. The results indicate that every sustainable waste management strategy is implemented to an average extent in the South African construction industry. Since the demand for sustainability is very high in South Africa, it is essential to continuously monitor and evaluate this waste management practices in the country, to ensure they align with long-term environmental goals. By doing so, the country can effectively balance economic growth with ecological preservation and foster a more resilient and resource-efficient future.
Government policies play a crucial role in shaping waste management practices by setting regulations and standards that guide the reduction, reuse, and recycling of waste. These policies also provide incentives for businesses and communities to adopt sustainable waste management practices, ensuring compliance through monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. Furthermore, governments may encourage innovation and investment in greener technologies by enacting efficient rules, which will ultimately help create a cleaner and more sustainable environment. This study revealed the performance at each stage of the construction projects. Nonetheless, there was a notable improvement in the waste industry’s social and economic sustainability. This shows how quickly people are becoming aware of the importance of sustainability in the building sector. The government’s landfill levy support is commendable, but further action is necessary.
It is crucial to implement strict regulations and incentives to encourage sustainable practices. This includes promoting the use of recycled materials, adopting energy-efficient technologies, and supporting green building certifications. Without these measures, progress towards a sustainable future in the building sector will remain slow and insufficient. Additionally, these regulations should include penalties for non-compliance to ensure accountability. Incentives such as tax breaks or grants can motivate companies to adopt eco-friendly practices. By prioritizing sustainability, the building sector can significantly reduce its environmental impact and contribute to a greener future.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

In the South African construction sector, the study calculated the total sustainability of the C&DW management systems as 50.09%, which is below standard in comparison with the benchmark of 100%. This suggests the entire C&DW management system’s performance is ‘average’. Thus, improvement can still be made to boost the sustainability of the system. This study confirms the status quo of the South Africa waste management practices as that of a system that requires optimization. The government’s increasing pursuit of sustainable development can use this sustainability appraisal to appropriate a top-level decision-making policy for a sustainable built environment in South Africa.
However, the three crucial components of sustainability, which are environmental, economic, and social aspects, were criteria which were considered in measuring the sustainability performance of C&DW management systems, because of their suitability. In conclusion, the magnificent prospect is more noticeable in the waste management sector in terms of job creation and opportunities, saving costs, and conserving natural resources when incorporating sustainable measures that need optimization in many developing countries, especially in the recycling and reusing of waste materials. Implementing advanced sorting technologies can enhance the efficiency of recycling processes. Also, promoting public awareness and education about the benefits of recycling can lead to increased participation and better waste segregation. Partnerships between governments and the private sector can also foster innovation and investment in sustainable waste management solutions. Furthermore, adopting circular economic principles can create a closed-loop system, minimize waste, and maximize resource utilization. This integrated approach not only addresses environmental concerns but also stimulates economic growth and promotes social well-being.
Future research may explore different methods for evaluating the effectiveness of sustainable waste management systems. Cost-benefit analyses and lifecycle assessments are two examples of these procedures. Researchers can obtain a more thorough grasp of the efficacy and efficiency of sustainable waste management strategies by utilizing a variety of evaluation tools. These tools can also help identify areas for improvement and optimize resource allocation. By integrating diverse evaluation methods, researchers can provide more comprehensive insights into the environmental, economic, and social impacts of waste management practices, ultimately supporting the development of more effective and sustainable solutions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.O.; methodology, A.O.; software, A.O.; validation, A.O., O.A. and C.A.; formal analysis, A.O.; investigation, A.O.; resources, O.A.; data curation, A.O.; writing—original draft preparation, A.O.; writing—review and editing, A.O.; visualization, A.O.; supervision, C.A. and B.I.; project administration, O.A.; funding acquisition, C.A. and B.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received funding from the National Research Foundation of South Africa (UID: 130423).

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgments

This research is part of the study sponsored by the National Research Foundation, South Africa.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

BREEAMBuilding Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method
BIMBuilding Information Modeling
C&DWConstruction and Demolition Waste
COEConstruction and Execution
GDPGross Domestic Product
IFTInitiation and Feasibility Testing
ISOInternational Organization for Standardization
IWMPIntegrated Waste Management Plans
LCALife-Cycle Assessment
LCILife-Cycle Analysis
MWSPMunicipal Waste Sector Plan
MSAMunicipal Systems Act
NEMANational Environmental Management Agency
PADPlanning and Design
PCCProcurement
PEMPerformance and Monitoring
POCPost Construction
RENRenovation
SAWASouth African Waste Act
SPISustainability Performance Index
SPSSStatistical Package for Social Sciences
WRAPWaste and Resources Action Programme

References

  1. Al-Ansary, M.S.; El-Haggar, S.M.; Taha, M.A. Proposed Guidelines for Construction Waste Management in Egypt for Sustainability of Construction Industry. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Construction Waste Management, Singapore, 10–12 June 2004; p. 221, in press. [Google Scholar]
  2. Aboginije, A.J. An Assessment of Construction and Demolition Waste Management Systems in the Nigerian Construction Industry. Master’s Dissertation, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  3. Abarca-Guerrero, L.; Maas, G.; Hogland, W. Solid waste management challenges for cities in developing countries. J. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 220–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Abdelhamid, M.S. Assessment of different construction and demolition waste management approaches. HBRC J. 2014, 10, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Almorza, D.; Brebbia, C. Waste Management and Environment; Boston Participation in Domestic Waste; WIT Press: Ashurst, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  6. Abidin, N.Z. Investigating the awareness and application of sustainable construction concept by Malaysian developers. Habitat Int. 2010, 34, 421–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Abioye, A.; Rao, B. Sustainable Approach to Managing Construction and Demolition Waste: An Opportunity or a New Challenge? J. Innov. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2015, 4, 10368–10378. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ginindza, B.; Muzenda, E. Community Perception on Waste Management and Minimization: A Case Study for Mogale City and Westonaria Municipalities. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Integrated Waste Management and Green Energy Engineering—‘ICIWMGEE’, Johannesburg, South Africa, 15–16 April 2013. [Google Scholar]
  9. Lee, S.; Chang, H.; Lee, J. Construction and demolition waste management and its impacts on the environment and human health: Moving forward sustainability enhancement. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2024, 115, 105855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Aboginije, A.; Aigbavboa, C.; Thwala, W.; Samuel, S. Determining the Impact of Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction practices on Green Building Projects in Gauteng Province, South Africa. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Conference of Industrial Engineering and Operational Management, Dubai, United Arab Emirate, 10–12 March 2020; pp. 2428–2437. [Google Scholar]
  11. Aboginije, A.; Aigbavboa, C.; Thwala, W. Modeling and usage of a sustainametric technique for measuring the life-cycle performance of a waste management system: A case study of South Africa. Front. Sustain. 2023, 3, 943635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. South African Government News Agency. Government Committed to Creating Jobs. Available online: https://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/government-committed-creating-jobs (accessed on 12 July 2024).
  13. Macozoma, D.S. Developing a Self-Sustaining Secondary Construction Materials Market in South Africa. Master’s Dissertation, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  14. Simelane, T.; Mohee, R. Future Directions of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Africa; Africa Institute of South Africa: Johannesburg, South Africa, 2012; Policy Briefing: No. 81. [Google Scholar]
  15. Mosidi, M. Key Areas in Waste Management: A South African Perspective, Integrated Waste Management; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2010; Volume II. [Google Scholar]
  16. Berge, S.; von Blottnitz, H. An estimate of construction and demolition waste quantities and composition expected in South Africa. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2022, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nkosi, N.; Muzenda, E.; Zvimba, J.; Pilusa, J. The Current Waste Generation and Management Trends in South Africa: A Review. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Integrated Waste management and Green Energy Engineering, Johannesburg, South Africa, 15–16 April 2013; pp. 303–308. [Google Scholar]
  18. South African Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). South Africa State of Waste Report; DEA: Pretoria, South Africa, 2018. Available online: http://sawic.environment.gov.za/?menu=346 (accessed on 12 July 2024).
  19. Muzenda, E.; Ntuli, F.; Pilusa, T.J. Waste management, strategies, and the situation in South Africa. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Chemical Engineering and Technology, Oslo, Norway, 13–14 August 2012; World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology: New York, NY, USA, 2012; Volume 68, pp. 309–312. [Google Scholar]
  20. Nkosi, N.; Muzenda, M. Waste Management Participants: A South African Perspective. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Medical Sciences and Chemical Engineering—ICMSCE, Bangkok, Thailand, 25–26 December 2013. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ajayi, S.O.; Oyedele, L.O.; Akinade, O.O.; Bilal, M.; Owolabi, H.O.; Alaka, H.A. Ineffectiveness of construction waste management strategies: Knowledge gap analysis. In Proceedings of the First International Conference of the CIB Middle East and North Africa Research Network (CIB-MENA 2014), Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirate, 14–16 December 2014; pp. 261–280. [Google Scholar]
  22. DST (Department of Science and Technology). A National Waste R&D and Innovation Roadmap for South Africa: Phase 1 Status Quo Assessment. In Current and Required Institutional Mechanisms to Support Waste Innovation; Department of Science and Technology: Pretoria, South Africa, 2012; Available online: http://wasteroadmap.co.za/download/report_support_waste_innovation.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2025).
  23. Serge, K.N. The role of community participation in solid waste management in Sub-Saharan Africa: A study of Orlando East, Johannesburg, South Africa. S. Afr. Geogr. J. 2020, 103, 223–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ragossnig, A.M. Construction and demolition waste—Major challenges ahead! Waste Manag. Res. 2020, 38, 345–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Aboginije, A.; Aigbavboa, C.; Thwala, W. A Holistic Assessment of Construction and Demolition Waste Management in the Nigerian Construction Projects. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chen, Z.; Feng, Q.; Yue, R.; Chen, Z.; Moselhi, O.; Soliman, A.; Hammad, A.; An, C. Construction, renovation, and demolition waste in landfill: A review of waste characteristics, environmental impacts, and mitigation measures. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 46509–46526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Arslan, H.; Cosgun, N.; Salgin, B. Chapter 14: Construction and Demolition Waste Management in Turkey. In Waste Management—An Integrated Vision; InTech Open: London, UK, 2016; pp. 312–332. [Google Scholar]
  28. Dlamini, B.R.; Rampedi, I.T.; Ifegbesan, A.P. Community resident’s opinions and perceptions on the effectiveness of waste management and recycling potential in the Umkhanyakude and Zululand District Municipalities in the KwaZulu-Natal Province of South Africa. J. Sustain. 2017, 9, 1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Baumgartner, R.J.; Ebner, D. Corporate sustainability strategies: Sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 18, 76–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lehmann, S. Urban Metabolism and the Zero Waste City: Transforming Cities through Sustainable Design and Behaviour Change. In Green Cities for Asia and the Pacific; Lindfield, M., Steinberg, F., Eds.; ADB Publication Unit: Manila, Philippines, 2012; Available online: http://www.adb.org/publications/greencities (accessed on 2 December 2024).
  31. Awasthi, A.K.; Cheela, V.S.; D’Adamo, I.; Iacovidou, E.; Islam, M.R.; Johnson, M.; Miller, T.R.; Parajuly, K.; Parchomenko, A.; Radhakrishan, L.; et al. Zero waste approach towards a sustainable waste management. Resour. Environ. Sustain. 2021, 3, 100014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Song, Q.; Li, J.; Zeng, X. Minimizing the increasing solid waste through zero waste strategy. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 104, 199–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bojan, R.; Neven, V.; Branka, I. Concept of sustainable waste management in the city of Zagreb: Towards the implementation of circular economy approaches. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2016, 67, 241–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Khurshid, Z.; Zubair, M.O.; Humaira, A. Comprehensive Review on the Development of Zero Waste Management. In Zero Waste Management Technologies; Bhat, R.A., Dar, G.H., Hajam, Y.A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  35. Zaman, A.; Ahsan, T. Zero-Waste: Reconsidering Waste Management for the Future; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  36. Begum, R.A.; Satari, S.K.; Pereira, J.J. Waste Generation and Recycling: Comparison of Conventional and Industrialized Building Systems. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 2010, 6, 383–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bevilacqua, M.; Ciarapica, F.E.; Giacchetta, G. Development of a sustainable product life cycle in manufacturing firms: A case study. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2007, 45, 4073–4098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bourne, M.; Neely, A.; Platts, K.; Mills, J. The success and failure of performance measurement initiatives: Perceptions of participating managers. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2002, 22, 1288–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kubanza, N.S.; Simatele, M.D. Sustainable solid waste management in developing countries: A study of institutional strengthening for solid waste management in Johannesburg, South Africa. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2019, 14, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. CSIR. The Situation of Waste Management and Pollution Control in South Africa; Prepared for the Department of Environment Affairs; CSIR: Pretoria, South Africa, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  41. DEAT—Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. White Paper on Integrated Pollution and Waste Management for South Africa; A Policy on Pollution Prevention, Waste Minimization, Impact Management, and Remediation. Government Gazette No. 20978, Notice No. 227; DEAT: Pretoria, South Africa, 2001.
  42. Godfrey, L.; Strydom, W.; Muswema, A.; Oelofse, S.; Roman, H.; Mange, M. The state of innovation in the South African Waste Sector. In Proceedings of the Solid Waste World Congress, ISWA 2014, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 8–10 September 2014; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  43. DEA. National Waste Management Strategy Report; Department of Environmental Affairs: Pretoria, South Africa, 2011.
  44. DEA. National Waste Information Baseline Report; Department of Environmental Affairs: Pretoria, South Africa, 2012.
  45. Sentime, K. The impact of legislative framework governing waste management and collection in South Africa. Afr. Geogr. Rev. 2014, 33, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Godfrey, L.; Oelofse, S. Historical review of waste management and recycling in South Africa. Resources 2017, 6, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Buchheim, R.K. Developing performance metrics for a design engineering department. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2000, 47, 309–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cheng, J.C.; Ma, L.Y. A BIM-based system for demolition and renovation waste estimation and planning. J. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 1539–1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Holden, E.; Linnerud, K.; Banister, D. The Imperatives of Sustainable Development. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 25, 213–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hirai, T. A balancing act between economic growth and sustainable development: Historical trajectory through the lens of development indicators. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 30, 1900–1910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Demirbas, A. Waste management, waste resource facilities, and waste conversion processes. Energy Convers. Manag. J. 2011, 52, 1280–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Faniran, O.O.; Caban, G. Minimizing Waste on Construction Project Sites. J. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 1998, 5, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Australian Government. Construction and Demolition Waste Guide-Recycling and Re-Use Across the Supply Chain; DSEWPaC: Canberra, Australia, 1997.
  54. Godfrey, L.; Nahman, A. Are Developing Countries Ready for First World Waste Policy Instruments? In Proceedings of the Sardinia Conference, Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, Cagliari, Italy, 1–5 October 2007; Available online: http://researchspace.csir.co.za/dspace/handle/10204/846 (accessed on 22 December 2024).
  55. Nappi, V.; Rozenfeld, H. Sustainability performance indicators for product life-cycle management. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress of Mechanical Engineering (COBEM), Ribeirão Preto, Brazil, 3–7 November 2013; ABCM: Riberia/Porto, Portugal, 2013; p. 4071. [Google Scholar]
  56. Veleva, V.; Ellenbecker, M. Indicators of sustainable production: Framework and methodology. J. Clean. Prod. 2001, 9, 519–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hawkins, R.G.; Shaw, H.S. The Practical Guide to Waste Management Law: With a List of Abbreviations; Thomas Telford Publishing: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  58. Jeffrey, C. Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling—A Literature Review; Inhabitant 2011; Dalhousie University’s Office of Sustainability: Halifax, NS, Canada, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kaza, S.; Yao, L.C.; Bhada-Tata, P.; Van Woerden, F. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  60. Kazerooni, M.A.; Abdullah, A.; Navazandeh, M.S.; Kamal, M.B.; Torshizi, F.; Taherkhani, R. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Recovery in Sustainable Waste Management. J. Adv. Mater. Res. 2012, 446–449, 937–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Keeble, J.J.; Topiol, S.; Berkeley, S. Using indicators to measure sustainability performance at a corporate and project level. J. Bus. Ethics 2003, 44, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kumar, S.; Smith, S.R.; Fowler, G.; Velis, C.; Kumar, S.J.; Arya, S.R.; Kumar, R.; Cheeseman, C. Challenges and opportunities associated with waste management in India. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2017, 4, 160764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. McCool, S.F.; Stankey, G.H. Indicators of sustainability: Challenges and opportunities at the interface of science and policy. Environ. Manag. 2004, 33, 294–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Nagapan, I.S.; Abul-Rahman, I.A.; Aziz, A.A. Construction Waste Management: Malaysian Perspective. Int. Conf. Civ. Environ. Eng. Sustain. 2012, 2, 299–309. [Google Scholar]
  65. Nahman, A.; Godfrey, L. Economic Instrument for Solid Waste Management in South Africa: Opportunities and Constraints. J. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 54, 521–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nyika, J.M.; Onyari, E.K.; Mishra, S.; Dinka, M.O. Waste Management in South Africa. In Sustainable Waste Management Challenges in Developing Countries; Pariatamby, A., Hamid, F.S., Bhatti, M., Eds.; IGI Global Scientific Publishing: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 327–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Republic of South Africa. National Environmental Management: Waste Amendment Act 26 of 2014; Government Gazette No. 36784, Notice No. 449; Republic of South Africa: Pretoria, South Africa, 2014.
  68. Marais, L.; Twala, C. Bloemfontein: The rise and fall of South Africa’s judicial capital. Afr. Geogr. Rev. 2020, 40, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wanda, E.M.M.; Nyoni, H.; Mamba, B.B.; Msagati, T.A.M. Occurrence of Emerging Micropollutants in Water Systems in Gauteng, Mpumalanga, and Northwest Provinces, South Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Widmer, R.; Lombard, R. E-Waste Assessment in South Africa: A Case Study of the Gauteng Province; EMPA Material Science and Technology: Dübendorf, Switzerland, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  71. Creswell, J.W. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 3rd ed.; Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  72. Creswell, J.W.; Creswell, J.D. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approach; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  73. Boru, T. Chapter Five: Research Design and Methodology. Ph.D. Thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa, 2018; p. 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Gray, D.E. Doing Research in Real World, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014; pp. 1–896. ISBN 152976551X/9781529765519. [Google Scholar]
  75. Robson, C. Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  76. Fox, W.; Bayat, M.S. A Guide to Managing Research; Juta Publications: Cape Town City, South Africa, 2007; p. 45. [Google Scholar]
  77. Srivastava, S.; Chini, A. Construction Materials and C&D Waste in India. In CIB W11 Construction—Material Stewardship; International Council of Building Research Studies and Documentation: Delft, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 72–76. [Google Scholar]
  78. Udawatta, N.; Zuo, J.; Chiveralls, K.; Zillante, G. Improving waste management in construction projects: An Australian study. Resour. Conserv. Recycling 2015, 101, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Formoso, C.T.; Soibelman, L.; De Cesare, C.; Isatto, E.L. Material Waste in Building Industry: Main Causes and Prevention. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2002, 128, 316–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Omotayo, O.O.; Akingbonmire, S.L.; Ikumapayi, S.M. Sustainable Application of Construction and Demolition Waste: A Review; Federal University of Tech: Akure, Nigeria, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  81. Waste Resources Action Plan. Achieving Good Practice Waste Minimization and Management: Guidance for Construction Clients, Design Teams, and Contractors. 2007. Available online: www.wrap.org.uk/construction (accessed on 3 October 2024).
  82. World Bank Group. Trends in Solid Waste Management. 2018. Available online: https://datatopics.worldbank.org/what-a-waste/trends_in_solid_waste_management.html (accessed on 3 October 2024).
  83. Yeheyis, M.; Hewage, K.; Alam, M.S.; Eskicioglu, C.; Sadiq, R. An overview of construction and demolition waste management in Canada: A life-cycle analysis approach to sustainability. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2013, 15, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Zorpas, A.A.; Lasaridi, K. Measuring waste prevention. J. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 1047–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. World Economic Outlook Database, April 2024 Edition. (South Africa); International Monetary Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 2024; Archived from the original on 16 April 2024. Retrieved 17 April 2024; Available online: www.imf.org (accessed on 7 December 2024).
  86. South Africa Fast Facts. SouthAfrica.info. April 2007. Archived from the Original on 19 July 2008. Retrieved 14 January 2025. Available online: http://southafrica.info/ (accessed on 7 December 2024).
  87. Olubambi, A.; Aigbavboa, C.; Ikotun, B. Conceptualizing a dynamic BIM-based waste management system in enabling net-zero cities. ICE-Waste Resour. Manag. 2025, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Infrastructures 10 00150 g001
Figure 1. Material composition of C&DW in the South African construction industry [17].
Figure 1. Material composition of C&DW in the South African construction industry [17].
Infrastructures 10 00150 g001
Infrastructures 10 00150 g002
Figure 2. Zero-waste management hierarchical diagram [30].
Figure 2. Zero-waste management hierarchical diagram [30].
Infrastructures 10 00150 g002
Infrastructures 10 00150 g003
Figure 3. Map of South Africa showing the provinces [69].
Figure 3. Map of South Africa showing the provinces [69].
Infrastructures 10 00150 g003
Infrastructures 10 00150 g004
Figure 4. (a) Number of projects in which respondents are involved; (b): Demography showing the organizations.
Figure 4. (a) Number of projects in which respondents are involved; (b): Demography showing the organizations.
Infrastructures 10 00150 g004
Table 1. Selection of indicators and distribution across construction lifecycle phases.
Table 1. Selection of indicators and distribution across construction lifecycle phases.
Sustainability Performance Indicators (SPIs)Triple Bottom Line DimensionConstruction Lifecycle PhasesSource
IFTPADPCCCOEPEMRENPOC
Waste avoidance where possibleEnvironmental, Economic ✓✓ [2,10,21,65]
Recovery of resources and energy if possibleEnvironmental✓ ✓ [11,23,78]
Imposing landfill levyEconomic, Social✓ ✓[67,79]
Material reuse as backfillsEnvironmental, Economic ✓✓✓ [5,6,26,79]
Encouragement of resources conservationEnvironmental, Economic✓ ✓✓✓ [31,34,36]
Awareness among clients and contractorsSocial✓ ✓[4,12,21]
Institutionalizing laws against incinerationEconomic, Social✓ ✓[26,52,79]
Waste-to-energy initiativesEnvironmental, Economic ✓✓ [11,23,38]
Implementation of BIMEnvironmental, Economic ✓ ✓✓ [4,49]
Design and purchase of recyclable materialsEconomic, Social ✓✓✓ [8,39,61]
Conservation of landfill sitesEnvironmental, Economic✓ ✓✓✓[17,67]
Selection of materials that maximize reusabilityEconomic ✓✓ [6,11,48]
Maximizing recycled materialsEconomic ✓✓✓ [10,17,25]
Reduction in price of recycled materialsEconomic ✓ ✓[66,69]
Sustainable contractual agreementEconomic ✓✓ [13,35,36]
Application of IWS systemsEnvironmental, Economic ✓ ✓ [29,32,64]
Avoidance of complex design and detailingEnvironmental, Economic ✓ ✓✓ [38,53,56]
Sustainable procurement methodsEconomic, Social✓ ✓ [10,35,36]
Functional legal frameworkEconomic, Social ✓ ✓[50,52,53]
Waste-expertise involvement on sitesSocial [2,4,28]
WRAP implementationEnvironmental, Economic ✓ ✓ [41,43,56]
Development of resilient secondary materials marketEconomic ✓ [5,17,35,36]
Table 2. Descriptive Analysis.
Table 2. Descriptive Analysis.
Sustainability Performance IndicatorsMean Score (MS)Standard Deviation (SD)Rankings
Reduction in price of recycled materials3.940.8301
Sustainable procurement methods3.910.8002
Waste-expertise involvement on sites3.870.8103
Material reuse as backfills3.760.7604
Development of resilient secondary material market3.660.7555
Conservation of landfill sites3.650.8006
Institutionalizing laws against incineration3.620.7567
Waste-to-energy initiatives3.60
3.59		0.8708
WRAP implementation3.570.7409
Design and purchase of recyclable materials3.550.75010
Awareness among clients and contractors3.540.73011
Selection of materials that maximize reusability3.520.77012
Maximizing recycled materials3.510.81013
Waste avoidance where possible3.500.82014
Encouragement of resource conservation3.490.79015
Application of IWS systems3.480.84016
Avoidance of complex design and detailing3.470.78017
Recovery of resources and energy, if possible3.450.87018
Functional legal framework3.440.78019
Implementation of BIM3.420.72020
Imposing landfill levy3.410.71021
Sustainable contractual agreement3.400.70222
Table 3. Explanation of the total variance and cumulative percentages.
Table 3. Explanation of the total variance and cumulative percentages.
FactorsInitial EigenvaluesExtraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total% VarianceCumulative %Total% VarianceCumulative %
16.36428.92828.9286.01627.34327.343
22.59911.81440.7422.31010.50037.843
32.0089.12649.8681.7097.76845.611
41.6927.69157.5591.3486.12951.740
51.5847.19964.7581.2295.84457.324
61.1055.02369.7800.8533.87761.201
71.0294.67974.4600.6923.14564.346
Table 4. KMO and Bartlett’s test.
Table 4. KMO and Bartlett’s test.
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.786
Approx. Chi-Square1554.928
Bartlett’s test of sphericityDf.324
Sig.0.000
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Olubambi, A.; Akinradewo, O.; Aigbavboa, C.; Ikotun, B. Quantitative Evaluation of Sustainable Construction and Demolition Waste Management System Performance in South Africa. Infrastructures 2025, 10, 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures10060150

AMA Style

Olubambi A, Akinradewo O, Aigbavboa C, Ikotun B. Quantitative Evaluation of Sustainable Construction and Demolition Waste Management System Performance in South Africa. Infrastructures. 2025; 10(6):150. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures10060150

Chicago/Turabian Style

Olubambi, Ademilade, Opeoluwa Akinradewo, Clinton Aigbavboa, and Bolanle Ikotun. 2025. "Quantitative Evaluation of Sustainable Construction and Demolition Waste Management System Performance in South Africa" Infrastructures 10, no. 6: 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures10060150

APA Style

Olubambi, A., Akinradewo, O., Aigbavboa, C., & Ikotun, B. (2025). Quantitative Evaluation of Sustainable Construction and Demolition Waste Management System Performance in South Africa. Infrastructures, 10(6), 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures10060150

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop