A STUDY OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT

PRACTICES BY CONSTRUCTION FIRMS IN NIGERIA

A PROJECT REPORT
Submitted by

ANAND SHUKLA 220101120007

SUNDRAM KUMARI 220101120013
MAYANK KUMAR 220101120015
KAUSHAL KUMAR 220101120020
AKHILESH YADAV 220101120027
in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree of

BACHELOR OF
TECHNOLOGY
in
COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

PARALAKHEMUNDI CAMPUS
CENTURION UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
ODISHA
DECEMBER 2023
DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
PARALAKHEMUNDI CAMPUS
 BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this project report “#A STUDY OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL WASTE
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES BY CONSTRUCTION FIRMS IN NIGERIA #” is the
bonafide work of “MAYANK KUMAR” who carried out the project work
under my supervision. This is to further certify to the best of my knowledge, that

this project has not been carried out earlier in this institute and the university.

SIGNATURE
SIGNATURE
(Mr M.VIJAY) (External)
Professor of Computer Science and Engineering

Certified that the above mentioned project has been duly carried out as per
the norms of the college and statutes of the university.

SIGNATURE
(Prof ,Debendra Maharana)

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT

Professor of Computer Science and Engg

DEPARTMENT SEAL
 DECLEARATION

I hereby declare that the project entitled “#A STUDY OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL

WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES BY CONSTRUCTION FIRMS IN NIGERIA #”

submitted for the “Minor Project” of 3rd semester B. Tech in Computer Science

and Engineering is my original work and the project has not formed the basis for

the award of any Degree / Diploma or any other similar titles in any other

University / Institute.

Name of the Student:

Signature of the Student:

Registration No:

Place:

Date:
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my profound and sincere gratitude to Mr M.VIJAY

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, SoET, paralakhemundi
Campus, who guided me into the intricacies of this project nonchalantly with
matchless magnanimity.
I thank Prof. Debendra Maharana , Head of the Dept. of Department of
Computer Science and Engineering, SoET, Bhubaneswar Campus and Prof.
Ashish Ranjan Dash, Dean, School of Engineering and Technology,
Bhubaneswar Campus for extending their support during Course of this
investigation.

I would be failing in my duty if I don’t acknowledge the cooperation

rendered during various stages of image interpretation by Mr M.VIJAY

I am highly grateful to Mr M.VIJAY who evinced keen interest and

invaluable support in the progress and successful completion of my project work.
I am indebted to Mr M.VIJAY for their constant encouragement, co-
operation and help. Words of gratitude are not enough to describe the
accommodation and fortitude which they have shown throughout my endeavor.

Name of the Student:

Signature of the Student:

Registration No:

Place:

Date:
*TABLE OF CONTENTS*

 CERTIFICATE

 DECLARATION

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

 LIST OF ACRONYMS

 LIST OF TABLES

 LISTS OF FIGURE
 *ABSTRACT*

1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................6
a. The Effect of Construction Activities

b. Sustainable Construction
c. Material Waste in Construction
d. Construction Waste Management
2. METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................

3. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION......................................................9

 3.1 table 1…………………………………………………….

 3.2 table 2……………………………………………………

 3.3 table 3…………………………………………………………

 3.4 table 4…………………………………………………………

 3.5 table 5………………………………………………………

 3.6 table 6…………………………………………………………

 3.7 table 7…………………………………………………………………

 3.8 table 8…………………………………………………………………

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ………………….

5. REFERENCES...................................................................... 24
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

#ALL THE BASIC STUDIES IN A

CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES BY CONSTRUCTION FIRMS IN NIGERIA #
a. INTRODUCTION

b. METHODOLOGY

c. FINDINGS

d. DISCUSSION

e. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

f. REFERENCES

4
 *INTRODUCTION*
A STUDY OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
BY CONSTRUCTION FIRMS IN NIGERIA is to access the existing
construction material waste management practices in Nigeria,to
identify the types and quantities of construction material waste
generated by construction firms and to evaluate the effectiveness
of current waste reduction and recycling initiatives.

5
 METHODOLOGY

 Possible waste disposal methods are recycling

,composing,incineration,landfills,bioremediation,waste to
energy,and waste minimization.

 As for waste management,it is the measures utilized to

manage waste in its entire life cycle,from waste generation to
disposal or recovery.

Recovery and Recycling

Resource recovery is the process by which materials are recovered after

being adequately treated. Recycling is a stage at which different
components of trash are recycled to produce new products, which not
only helps in saving energybut also lowers our greed of
consuming fresh raw materials for various purposes.

6
 #A STUDY OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES BY
CONSTRUCTION
FIRMS IN NIGERIA #

Abstract: Construction Waste Management is an

aspect of Sustainable Development, which is fuelled by
the growing concern for the effect of man’s activities
on the environment. The management of Construction
processes to reduce, reuse, recycle and effectively
dispose of wastes has a serious bearing on the final
cost, quality, time and impact of the project on the

7
environment. This research studied the practice of
Construction Material Waste Management by firms in
Nigeria by the use of structured questionnaires to senior
construction-professional personnel of construction firms.
The study found out that specific Government legislation on
wastes from construction sites were non-existent and that
the respondents considered other project goals of timely
project delivery, quality and cost as more important than
the impact of the project on the environment. Most
respondents displayed a poor understanding of waste
management and most companies did not have a policy on
Material Waste Management. The paper recommends that
the Nigerian Government puts in place legislation regarding
construction site waste management. Professional bodies
and academic

institutions in the country should seek to further educate

their members on the importance of effective material
waste management strategies.

Keywords: Construction Waste Management, Government

Legislation, Nigeria, Policy, Sustainable Development.

8
 INTRODUCTION

The building or construction industry involves different processes and

utilizes huge quantities of resources. These processes have severe
impacts on the environment which according to Horsley (2003), occur
over a variety of timescales from the extraction and processing of raw
materials used in construction, through the duration of the
construction.

process, the operation of the building, up to the eventual demolition of

the structure at the end of its operative life.

Construction activities have been known to generate large and diverse

quantities of waste. According to the US Green Building Council, (2001),
it accounts for up to 30% of total waste output in the United States
alone, put at about 136 million tons per annum. As a result, construction
and demolition waste management has become one of the major
environmental problems in many municipalities (Faniran and Caban,
1988; Kibert, 1994; Ferguson et al., 1995; Graham and Smithers, 1996;
Guthrie et al., 1999; Symonds, 1999; Lawson and Douglas, 2001, cited in
Poon et al, 2004).

In some more advanced countries, the concern for the effect of Man’s
endeavours on the environment and rising project costs has increased
the drive for the application of Construction Waste Management. There
has been a strong drive to ‘do more with less’ by reducing waste at all

9
stages of construction as identified by the ‘Rethinking Construction’ task
force in the UK (DETR, 2000). There is also a need to improve material
handling by contractors as the DETR also noted that about 13 million
tonnes of the estimated 70 million tonnes of construction and demolition
materials comprise of materials delivered to site and thrown away
unused.

The Effect of Construction Activities

Construction can be defined as the activity involving creation of physical

infrastructure, superstructure, housing and other related facilities
(Watuka and Aligula, 2003). The physical substance of a structure is an
assembly of materials from widely scattered sources. They undergo
different kinds and degrees of processing in large numbers of places,
require many types of handling over periods that vary greatly in length,
and use the services of a multitude of people organized into many
different sorts of business entity.

1
The Construction industry, while contributing to overall socio-economic
development of any country, is a major exploiter of natural non-
renewable resources and a polluter of the environment whereby it
contributes to the environmental degradation through resource
depletion, energy consumption air pollution and generation of waste in
the acquisition of raw materials (Watuka and Aligula, 2003).

Construction activities generate a large amount of waste compared to

other industries. In EC countries, about 200 to 300 million tons of
construction and demolition waste is produced annually, which translates
to roughly a 400 km2 area covered with demolition debris one meter high
(Pieterson and Fraay, 1998, cited in Elias-Ozkan and Duzgunes, 2002). In
the United States alone, about 136 million tonnes of construction waste
is generated (US Green Building Council, 2001).

1
 Sustainable Construction

According to Harman and Benjamin, (2004) the built environment is the

heart of any economy; providing the infrastructure necessary to enhance
productivity, but the manner in which it consumes natural resources
makes it responsible for some of the most serious local and global
environmental changes. Sustainable construction is an integrative and
holistic process of construction which aims to restore harmony between
the natural and the built environment (Agenda 21, 2001).

The California Integrated Waste Management Board (2003) described

Sustainable Construction as a whole building approach to design and
construction that saves or reduces resources in five categories: site,
water, energy, materials and environmental quality. Sustainable
construction, according to Watuka and Aligula (2003) can also be said to
be “the set of processes by which a profitable and competitive industry
delivers built assets: building structures, supporting infrastructure and
their immediate surroundings which:

i. Enhance the quality of life and offer customer satisfaction ii.

Offer flexibility and the potential to cater of user changes in the
future iii. Provide and support desirable natural and social
environments iv. Maximize the efficient use of resources
while minimizing wastage.”

1
 Material Waste in Construction

There are differing views held by researchers as to what constitutes

Construction waste. Cheung, (1993) stated that Construction Waste can
be defined as the byproduct generated and removed from construction,
renovation and demolition workplaces or sites of building and civil
engineering structures. According to Formoso, (1999), it should be
understood as any inefficiency that results in the use of equipment,

materials, labour, or capital in larger quantities than those considered

necessary in the production of a building. Shen et al,(2003) defined
building material wastages as the difference between the value of
materials delivered and accepted on site and those properly used as
specified and accurately measured in the work, after deducting the cost
savings of substituted materials transferred elsewhere, in which
unnecessary cost and time may be incurred by material wastages.

Serpell et al, (1995), cited in Alwi et al, (2003) asserted that Construction
Managers have to deal with many factors that may negatively affect the
construction process, producing different types of wastes. There are
several causes of material wastes which in most cases are dependent on
the type of construction methods employed, the specific materials in use,
and/or the stage of the construction itself. Waste can be generated by
mistakes, working out of sequence, redundant activity and movement,
delayed or premature inputs and products or services that do not meet
customer needs (Construction Industry Board, 1998).

1
Construction and Demolition waste is a complex waste stream, made up
of a wide variety of materials which are in the form of building debris,
rubble, earth, concrete, steel, timber, and mixed site clearance materials,
arising from various construction activities including land excavation or
formation, civil and building construction, site clearance, demolition
activities, roadwork, and building renovation. It also includes incidences
of wastages in labour and energy used in construction works. However,
material waste has been recognized as a major problem in the
construction industry that has important implications both for the
efficiency of the industry and for the environmental impact of
construction projects (Formoso et al, 2002). Most construction wastes
which were previously regarded as inert have been found to generate
harmful leachates which have negative effects on the environment
(Apotheker, 1992, cited in Lingard et al, 2000). As such, it is absolutely
imperative for the construction industry to adopt ecologically sound
planning and construction practices for the purpose of creating a healthy
and sustainable built environment (Poon et al, 2004).

1
 Construction Waste Management

The practice of waste management for construction activities has been

promoted with the aim of protecting the environment and therecognition
that wastes from construction and demolition works contribute
significantly to the polluted

environment (Shen et al, 2002, cited in Shen et al, 2004). This increasing
awareness of environmental impacts from construction wastes has led to
the development of waste management as an important function of
construction project management (Shen et al 2004).

There are several approaches to construction waste management. The

process of managing construction waste goes far beyond the disposal of
the wastes itself. It is an all-encompassing strategy to effectively utilize
construction resources, with the view to reducing the quantity of waste and
also utilizing the generated waste in the most effective manner. Themost
common approach to management of construction waste is dumping in
landfill sites. However, decreasing landfill space has led to increasing costs
of landfill disposal to the contractor (BIE, 1993, cited in Lingard et al, 2000).
Also, a relatively large amount of materials is being wasted because of poor
material control on building sites (Poon, et al, 2004). This has prompted the
need for alternatives for waste preventionand the initiatives to reduce,
reuse and or recycle waste produced whichare referred to as the three R’s
of construction waste management. A waste hierarchy has been widely
adopted as a guide for construction managers, in line with the principles of
sustainable construction. The Waste hierarchy suggests that:

1
 i) The most effective environmental solution may often be to reduce
the generation of waste.
ii) Where further reduction is not practicable, products and materials
can sometimes be re-used, either for the same or a different
purpose.
iii) Failing that, value should be recovered from waste, through
recycling, composting or energy recovery from waste. iv) Only if
none of these

solutions is appropriate should waste be disposed of, using the best

practicable environmental option.
(Source: Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions,2000)

According to Coventry and Guthrie, (1998), there are two fundamental

reasons for reducing, reusing and recycling waste: the economic
advantages, and the environmental advantages. The environmental
advantages include the minimization of the risk of immediate and future
environmental pollution and harm to human health while the economic
advantages include lower project costs, increased business patronage,
lower risk of litigation regarding wastes amongst others. In view of these
advantages and the negative impact of construction wastes on successful
project delivery, this paper identifies major causes of waste, the position
of construction firms and professionals in the Nigerian construction
industry on construction waste management and constraints to effective
site waste management such as policy and legislative issues.

1
 METHODOLOGY

The research work was carried out by administering a well structured

questionnaire to a sample of the population for the study. The population
was all professionals in the construction industry, i.e. Architects, Builders,
Engineers and Quantity Surveyors who were managing construction
projects at a senior cadre level in all categories of construction firms duly
registered with the corporate affairs commission in Nigeria.
Twenty-Seven (27) of the returned questionnaires were administered at
a conference on Sustainable Construction, while the other Thirty-Five
(35) were administered to professionals handling projects in large cities
like Kaduna, Lagos and Abuja.

The questionnaire was designed in such a manner to elicit responses that

could be easily analysed by the use of closed ended questions with
suggested answers on ordinal scales. In addition, the opinions of the
respondents were also sought with relevant open ended questions a
view to finding suitable recommendations on the findings of the
research. The questionnaire was used to gather information on the
respondents’ knowledge of Construction Waste Management, legislation
and the respondents’ company’s policy of waste management.

2
 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 120 questionnaires were administered for this survey, of which

62 were returned with valid responses. This showed a response rate of
51.6%. From the results of the analysis, it was observed that about 12.9%
of the respondents were of the opinion that no attention at all was paid
to construction waste management. About 77.4% felt it was fairly given
as much attention as other functions of a construction manager, while ly
9.7% opined that sufficient attention was paid to construction waste
management.

The research also showed that a fairly high percentage of the

respondents were able to identify the most appropriate description of
construction waste management from a list of options. From column 3 in
Table 1, it can be seen that 52.5% chose option 4 which encompassed
about all aspects of construction waste management. All other options
contained only some aspects of waste management. On the level of
wastes encountered on site, 61.3% of the respondents regarded the level
of waste generated on their sites as Moderate. Approximately twenty
three percent felt it was low while 12.9% regarded it as high. The
summary of these responses are presented into Table 1.

Table 1: Awareness on Construction Waste Management Issues

Understanding Waste Level Waste Management
Attention

2
 Option % Rank % Response %
1 0.0 Very 1.6 Surely 9.7
Low
2 14.8 Low 22.6 Fairly 77.4
3 26.2 Moderate 61.3 None 12.9
4 52.5 High 12.9
5 6.6 Very 1.6
High

Legend: 1 = Supervising workers thoroughly to reduce waste, 2 = Proper

material scheduling and handling to reduce waste, 3 = Proper disposal of
wastes in landfills and suitable areas, 4 = Efficient material handling and
reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal of wastes, 5 = Reduction and
disposal of construction wastes
Further analysis showed that the project goals of cost and quality were
considered by the respondents as most important; more important than
timely delivery of the project or minimizing the impact of construction on
the environment as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Level of Importance of Project Goals to Construction

Professionals
Factor 1 2 3 4 Mean Std.
(%) (%) (%) (%) Deviation
Cost 0.0 0.0 19.4 80.6 3.81 0.40
Quality 0.0 0.0 19.4 80.6 3.81 0.40
Time 0.0 0.0 40.3 59.7 3.60 0.49
Impact on 4.9 9.8 50.8 34.4 3.15 0.79
Environment

Legend: 1 = Indifferent, 2 = Not Important, 3 = Important, 4 = Very

Important

2
Many of the respondents showed a poor adoption of different methods
of managing construction wastes. The most widely adopted methods
were reusing and sale as scrap, largely due to the high use of timber in
construction and its high scrap value for uses such as firewood. This was
buttressed by the observation that only 42.6% were satisfied with the
methods of waste management on their sites. Roughly 20% were
neutralwhile 32.8% expressed that they were dissatisfied with their
methods.

The low level of adoption may be explained by the fact that respondents
showed a poor understanding of the benefits of an effective construction
waste management scheme. Majority felt lower project costs (69.4%)
and cleaner environment (66.1%) were the principal benefits of
construction waste management as shown in the table below. Other
factors such as increased business patronage and longer lifespan of
nonrenewable sources of materials were not widely thought to be
important (See Table 3 below).

Table 3: Benefits of Construction Waste Management

Response Cleaner Lower Longer Increased Other

Environment Project Lifespan Patronage
Costs of
Materials

2
Agreed 66.1 69.4 3.2 11.3 12.9
Neutral 33.9 30.6 96.8 88.7 87.1

Of the respondents who practised some form of waste management,

56.7% cited the reduction of the project cost reduction as the main
motivation, followed by concern for the environment of which 43.3%
attested to. Thirty percent cited conditions of contract, while other
factors such as legislation, client requirement and government incentives
had only 13.3%, 6.5% and 0% respectively. Table 4 below shows the
percentages and rankings of the various factors, while Table 5 shows the
percentages and ranking of some factors that hinder the practice of
waste management on site.

Table 4: Factors Influencing the Practice of Construction Waste

Management.

Factor Agree (%) Neutral Rank

(%)

Project procurement cost 56.7 43.3 1

reduction
Concern for the environment 43.3 56.7 2

Conditions of Contracts 30.0 70.0 3

Legislation 13.3 86.7 4
Client Requirement 6.5 93.5 5
Government incentives 0.0 100.0 6

2
Table 5: Factors Hindering the Practice of Construction Waste
Management

Factor Agree (%) Neutral Rank

(%)
Lack of awareness 46.7 53.3 1
Weakness in legislation 23.3 76.7 2
Insignificant cost of handling 20.0 80.0 3
waste
Waste not a problem on site 13.3 86.7 4
Other factors 10.0 90.0 5
Abundance of landfill 6.7 93.3 6

The general observation from the results of the analysis was that the
practice of waste management by construction firms in Nigeria is poor.
Seventy-two percent claimed they were not aware of any legislation on
construction wastes, and only 48.4% said they worked in companies with
policies on construction waste management. Seventytwo percent
claimed to be in a position to influence policy making in their
organisations but only 45.8% of them attested to have formulated one
(See Table 6).

2
 Table 6: Policy and Legislation Issues on Waste Management
Response Waste Company Influence Formulation
Legislation Waste on of
(No = 58) Management Policy Policy
Policy (No = (No = (No =
62) 62) 48)
% % % %
Yes 27.6 48.4 72.6 45.8
No 72.4 51.6 27.4 54.2

With respect to the causes of waste on site, several factors were

obtained from the work of Tam et al, (2003) and the respondents were
requested to rank from 1 through to 5 (i.e. from strongly disagree to
strongly agree as shown in the legend below the Table). The means for
each of the factors were computed and used to rank the factors with
respect to their significant contribution to waste generation. From the
results which are shown in Table 7 below, Poor supervision,
workmanship and storage facilities were regarded as the most common

waste on site, while equipment malfunction, weather and

causes of

forcemajor were the least common

2
.

Table 7: Causes of Waste on Construction Sites

Factors N Min Max Mean Std. Rank
Deviation
Poor Supervision 61 2 5 4.31 0.79 1
Poor 60 1 5 4.15 0.95 2
Workmanship
Poor Storage 61 1 5 4.08 0.80 3
Facilities
Improper 60 1 5 4.07 0.82 4
Handling
Improper Storage 59 1 5 4.05 0.99 5
Design Error 59 1 5 3.98 0.84 6
Design Changes 60 1 5 3.97 0.97 7
Human Error 61 1 5 3.75 1.03 8

3
Material 60 1 5 3.43 1.18 9
Deterioration
No Waste 59 1 5 3.37 1.24 10
Management
Personnel
Ordering Errors 58 1 5 3.36 1.00 11
Force Majeure 55 1 5 3.29 1.20 12
Weather 61 1 5 3.20 1.08 13
Equipment 60 1 5 2.83 1.25 14
Malfunction

Legend: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree,

5 = Strongly Agree

The research also attempted to find out factors which may impact on the
effectiveness of a solid construction waste management scheme and as
such, several factors adopted from the work of Lingard et al, (2000), were
included in the questionnaire and they were ranked according to their

3
perceived impact on waste management by the respondents. Table 8
shows the distribution of the responses, the means, standard deviation
and rank (based on mean) for each factor.

Table 8: Factors Which May Affect the Effectiveness of Solid Construction

Waste Management
Factors N Min Max Mean Std. Rank
Deviation
Management Support 57 2 4 3.74 0.55 1
for Waste
Management
Staff Knowledge of 57 2 4 3.68 0.57 2
Waste Management
Waste Minimization 55 2 5 3.56 0.69 3
Motivation
Material Storage 57 2 5 3.46 0.71 4
Practice

3
Estimating/Ordering 55 1 4 3.25 0.75 5
Practice
Recycling 56 1 4 3.20 1.02 6
Infrastructure
Design Issues 55 1 4 3.20 0.87 6
Sustainable 57 1 4 3.16 0.73 8
Development
Awareness
Material Supply Issues 56 1 5 3.14 0.80 9
Cost of New Materials 54 1 5 3.02 0.86 10
Against Recycled
Individual Value 56 1 4 3.00 0.76 11
Judgement
Waste Disposal Costs 55 1 5 2.91 0.99 12
Legend: 1 = No Impact, 2 = Minor Impact, 3 = Moderate Impact, 4 = High
Impact

It can be observed from the Table that managements’ support for waste
management initiatives, staff knowledge on waste management and

3
workers motivation to minimize waste were considered to have the
highest impacts, while waste disposal costs, the individuals’ (site worker)
value judgement and the comparative cost of new materials against
recycled materials were considered to have the lowest impacts of all the
factors.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The survey results show that the general practice of Solid Construction
Waste Management and site waste management as a whole is very
poor and has room for a lot of improvement. The construction
Professionals’ understanding of construction waste management was
found to be deficient, and the adoption and practice further hampered
by lack of sufficient legislation or Government incentives to encourage
the teachings of sustainable construction. The following
recommendations are made against the backdrop of the research
findings:

i. Educational institutions should include the teachings of sustainable

construction in the curriculum of professionals in the construction
industry. Also, professional bodies should use conferences and
workshops to educate practising professionals.
ii. Government should introduce specific legislation governing the
handling and disposal of construction wastes and follow up with
strict monitoring to ensure compliance.
iii. Incentive schemes should be set up by Government to reward firms
who embrace construction waste management wholly.

3
REFERENCES

Alwi, S., Hampson, K. and Mohammed, S., (2002), Waste in the

Indonesian Construction Projects, Proceedings of the CIB W107 1st
International Conference: Creating a Sustainable Construction Industry
in Developing Countries, 11 – 13 November, Stellenbosch, South
Africa.

CIB Publication 237 (2001) Agenda 21 for Sustainable Construction in

Developing Countries, First Discussion Document, Version 2
California Integrated Waste Management Board, (2003), Rebuilding
Green, http//:www.ciwmb.ca.gov/GreenBuilding/ pg 2 (Accessed 21-
06-2006)
Coventry, S. and Guthrie, P. (1998) Waste Minimisation and recycling in
construction – Design Manual CIRIA London
Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions, (2000), Building
a Better Quality of Life: A Strategy for More Sustainable Construction,
DETR, London
Elias-Ozkan S.R. and Duzgunnes, A. (2002) Recycling of Construction
Material and the Reuse of Building Components: An Overview,
Proceedings of the CIB W107 1st International Conference: Creating a
Sustainable Construction Industry in Developing Countries, 11 – 13
November, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Horsley A., France C. and Quartermass B., (2003), ‘Delivering Energy
Efficient Buildings: A Design Procedure to Demonstrate Environmental
and Economic Benefits’, Journal of Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 21, Pg 345

3
 Lingard, H, Graham, P. and Smithers, G. (2000) ‘Employee Perceptions of
the Solid Waste Management System Operating in a large Australian
Contracting Organisation: Implications for Company Policy
Implementation’, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 18,
pp 383.
Poon C. S., Ann T. W. and Jaillon L., (2004), ‘Reducing Building Waste at
Construction Sites in Hong Kong’ Construction Management &
Economics, vol. 22, issue 5, pp 461-470
Poon C. S, Wan Yu, A. T, Wong S. W and Cheung E. (2004), ‘Management
of Construction Waste in Public Housing Projects in Hong Kong’,
Journal of Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 22, Issue 5,
Pp 461-470
Shen, L. Y, Tam, V. W, Tam, C. M, and Drew, D, (2004), ‘Mapping
Approach for Examining Waste Management on Construction Sites’,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130, No. 4,
July/August 2004, pp. 472-481
Shen, L. Y., Tam, V. W. Y and Tam, C. M., (2002), Material Wastage in
Construction Activities – A Hong Kong Survey, Proceedings of the CIB

W107 1st International Conference: Creating a Sustainable

Construction Industry in Developing Countries, 11 – 13 November,
Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Watuka, J., and Aligula, E. M., (2002), Sustainable Construction Practices
in the Kenyan Construction Industry: The Need for a Facilitative
Regulatory Environment, Proceedings of the CIB W107 1st
International Conference: Creating a Sustainable Construction Industry
in Developing Countries, 11 – 13 November, Stellenbosch, South Africa

3
3