See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272750072

Waste generated in high-rise buildings construction: A quantification model

based on statistical multiple regression

Article  in  Waste Management · February 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.043 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

41 736

4 authors:

Andrea Parisi Kern Michele Ferreira Dias Morales

Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
57 PUBLICATIONS   183 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   47 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Marlova Piva Kulakowski Luciana Paulo Gomes

Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos
43 PUBLICATIONS   156 CITATIONS    49 PUBLICATIONS   358 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Investigation of thermal and acoustic performance in residential buildings View project

Development of a model to predict settlement in sanitary landfills View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrea Parisi Kern on 02 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Waste Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Waste generated in high-rise buildings construction: A quantification

model based on statistical multiple regression
Andrea Parisi Kern ⇑, Michele Ferreira Dias, Marlova Piva Kulakowski, Luciana Paulo Gomes
Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, Civil Engineering Post-Graduation Program, Av Unisinos, 950 Bairro Cristo Rei, São Leopoldo 93 022-000, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Reducing construction waste is becoming a key environmental issue in the construction industry. The
Received 9 October 2014 quantification of waste generation rates in the construction sector is an invaluable management tool
Accepted 30 January 2015 in supporting mitigation actions. However, the quantification of waste can be a difficult process because
Available online xxxx
of the specific characteristics and the wide range of materials used in different construction projects.
Large variations are observed in the methods used to predict the amount of waste generated because
Keywords: of the range of variables involved in construction processes and the different contexts in which these
Construction waste
methods are employed. This paper proposes a statistical model to determine the amount of waste gen-
Quantification of construction waste
Reduction of construction waste
erated in the construction of high-rise buildings by assessing the influence of design process and produc-
tion system, often mentioned as the major culprits behind the generation of waste in construction.
Multiple regression was used to conduct a case study based on multiple sources of data of eighteen
residential buildings. The resulting statistical model produced dependent (i.e. amount of waste generat-
ed) and independent variables associated with the design and the production system used. The best
regression model obtained from the sample data resulted in an adjusted R2 value of 0.694, which means
that it predicts approximately 69% of the factors involved in the generation of waste in similar construc-
tions. Most independent variables showed a low determination coefficient when assessed in isolation,
which emphasizes the importance of assessing their joint influence on the response (dependent) variable.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Yuan et al. (2012) highlight the role of government regulations:

Construction and demolition waste account for a large share of
all solid waste generated worldwide. The reduction of the high rate
of losses in construction sites, which includes waste materials and
debris, is one of the main challenges faced by this sector (Poon,
2007). Waste generation has different environmental perspectives:
firstly, it increases the consumption of construction materials, in
addition, if these materials are not properly managed, they may
create a soil and water contamination hazard (Agopyan and John,
2011).
The guidelines for waste management focus primarily on
eliminating the generation of waste (i.e. the adoption of processes
that do not produce waste). A secondary approach consists of reus-
ing, recycling, recovering and ultimately ensuring that the waste
produced is properly disposed (European Commission, 2008).
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 (51) 3590 8766.
E-mail addresses: apkern@unisinos.br (A. Parisi Kern), michelefdias@yahoo.com.
br (M. Ferreira Dias), marlovak@unisinos.br (M. Piva Kulakowski), lugomes@unsi-
nos.br (L. Paulo Gomes).
the introduction of higher charges for construction waste disposal
and recycling practices incentive a strong economic way for devel-
opers and contractors to implement measures to reduce construc-
tion waste.
In this context, some countries have reported promising results.
In the case of Japan, the amount of construction waste dropped
from 99 million tons to 77 million tons in a ten-year period
(1995–2005), while the recycling rate increased from 58% to 92%
in the same period (CIB, 2011). The Netherlands, Denmark, Ger-
many and the UK show construction waste recycling rates ranging
between 50% and 90% (Ângulo, 2005). According to Baldwin et al.
(2009), the government of Hong Kong will soon run out of landfill
spaces and public disposal areas and has recently introduced waste
disposal charges. A recent target set by the European Union is to
recover 70% of construction and demolition waste by weight by
2020 (European Commission, 2008). The Brazilian scenario is, how-
ever, very different. Firstly, government supervision is poor in spite
of recent progresses in regulations, secondly, investment in waste
recycling plants is very limited (Miranda et al., 2009). Moreover,
there is a lack of construction waste quantitative information, a

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.043
0956-053X/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Parisi Kern, A., et al. Waste generated in high-rise buildings construction: A quantification model based on statistical
multiple regression. Waste Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.043
2 A. Parisi Kern et al. / Waste Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
key parameter for the development of policies aimed at waste
reduction practices (Ângulo, 2005).
The reduction of waste generation is a complex process, since it
may require construction companies to adopt a new mindset and
change approaches. The understanding of how and where waste
is generated and the adoption of benchmarks can greatly con-
tribute to disseminate this new culture (Formoso et al., 2002).
The planning undertaken by construction companies to achieve
optimal waste management is an important strategy in improving
production processes and reducing waste generation (Saez et al.,
2012).
The quantification of waste generation can contribute to con-
trolling waste and provide a benchmark for reduction. However,
it can be a difficult task because of the specific characteristics
and the wide range of materials, construction system and design
features used in different construction projects. The occurrence
of waste for most materials is usually the result of a combination
of factors, rather than the product of a single isolated incident
(Formoso et al., 2002). Unsuitable construction methods, poorly
trained workers and not enough attention given to design supervi-
sion and management are frequently listed as the major culprits
behind the generation of waste in construction (Scheer et al.,
2007).
This study investigates how the generation of waste in the con-
struction of new high-rise residential buildings is affected by the
design characteristics and the production system, since both are
the two major sources of construction waste mentioned in the
literature.
The core research questions of the investigation consist of ‘‘what
are design and production main variable? how they influence the
waste generation during the production of high-rise residential build-
ings?’’ The main objective of this study is to propose a model to
estimate the generation of construction waste during the produc-
tion process of high-rise residential buildings through design and
production features.
1.1. Construction waste issues
According to Osmani (2011), construction waste issues have
been investigated by several authors, manly with a focus on the
sources, characterization and recycling. Most efforts have been
directed towards the wasted produced, while limited resources
are dedicated to studies aiming at eliminating waste generation
(i.e., reducing waste at source).
Although waste is actually produced when construction activ-
ities start, it is a result of the decisions taken in preproduction
stages. Thus, the design phase is a key step affecting the generation
of construction waste (Mália, 2013; Osmani, 2011). In this context,
several authors underscore the influence of design phase decisions
on the generation of waste during the production phase (Souza and
Deana, 2007; Osmani et al., 2008; Boehm, 2012; Keys and Baldwin,
2000). Osmani et al. (2008) and Formoso et al. (2002) suggest that
a considerable share of the waste produced can be predicted and
eliminated, and poor management of the phases prior to produc-
tion account for the most important causes of excessive waste pro-
duction. Poon (2007) points that all parties involved in the building
process should be also considered.
The present study investigates design and waste generation
from the architectural shape of the building, expressed in terms
of compactness of the building design. This design feature has been
associated with the cost and consumption of materials expressed
by a ‘compactness index’. Mascaró (2010) proposes an economic
index of compactness (EIC), which is an attempt to associate direct
costs (materials, equipment and labor) with the compactness
(shape) of the building. Larger external perimeters are associated
with larger façades and the need for more coatings and coverings,
Please cite this article in press as: Parisi Kern, A., et al. Waste generated in high-rise buildings construction: A quantification model based on statistical
multiple regression. Waste Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.043
which increases the potential for waste generation as more labor,
transportation and materials are required (Souza and Deana,
2007). Thus, the compactness of the design should be investigated
vis-à-vis waste generation and checked for with greater or lesser
material consumption.
The study also investigates production aspects related to waste
generation. Poon (2007) argues that recent studies have shown
that about 10% of construction waste is generated from the cutting
of building materials during the construction process.
In this context, Baldwin et al. (2009) state that prefabricating
building elements off-site in precast designs can effectively reduce
the generation of construction waste on site. Design standardiza-
tion is a pre-requisite criterion for precast operations and it is most
suitable for the design of high-rise residential buildings. From the
comparison of the waste generated in rise buildings with three dif-
ferent construction methods, Lachimpad et al. (2012) suggest that
Industrialized Building System is most efficient with a waste gen-
eration rate of 0.016 tons/m2 floor, while Mixed System presents
0.030 tons/m2 and the Conventional Construction 0.048 tons/m2.
The study conducted by Wang et al. (2014) shows six critical
production factors that influence waste generation: large-panel
metal formworks; prefabricated components; fewer design modifi-
cations; modular design, investment on waste reduction and eco-
nomic incentive.
However, according to Osmani (2013), designing out waste has
not been the main objective of architects and contractors in the
context of sustainable construction. Waste generation is still being
affected by a wide practice of not embedding waste reduction in
briefing and contractual documents. The author also reports the
lack of designers’ understanding of design waste origins, causes
and sources.
1.2. Construction waste quantification methods
Different methods and waste quantifying parameters are pre-
sented by several academic studies all over the world, i.e. Pinto,
1999 (Brazil); Katz and Baum, 2010 (Israel); Llatas, 2011 (Europe);
Bania et al., 2011 (Greece), Saez et al., 2012 (Spain).
In Brazil the research conducted by Pinto (1999) is of great
importance and triggered a series of subsequent studies to esti-
mate construction waste generated in different Brazilian cities.
The method is based on three indicators: construction waste from
new building; waste from renovations, extensions and demoli-
tions; and, waste from informal and irregular construction. The
waste generation rate proposed by this author is 150 kg/m2.
Katz and Baum (2010) propose a model to predict the flow of
waste in construction, from the beginning to the end of the produc-
tion phase of new buildings. Stages of construction are classified as
structural elements, structural elements and finishes early (con-
current) and final finishes. The total amount of waste generated
during the construction of residential buildings was estimated at
0.2 m3/m2 by those authors.
In Spain, Saez et al. (2012) have employed the method devel-
oped by Katz and Baum (2010) to quantify the RCD generated in
the construction of new residential buildings. Three measurements
are determined: the total volume of waste generated in construc-
tion; each type of waste generated locally; and, the waste volume
(m3) in relation with the building total area (m2).
Bania et al. (2011) present a web-based Decision Support Sys-
tem for the optimal management of construction and demolition
waste, based on the typical construction practices in Greece. This
tool estimates the generated quantities of 21 different waste
stream produced by two main processes (renovation and demoli-
tion) for four building types: residential, office, commercial and
industrial. With the use of mathematical programming, the tool
 A. Parisi Kern et al. / Waste Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 3

also provides the optimal end-of-life management alternative, tak-
ing into consideration both economic and environmental criteria.
Llatas (2011) proposes a model for quantifying construction
waste in projects according to the European waste list (EWL). It
is based on two main variables: (1) the amount of building/site-
work elements and the building materials and components, and,
(2) the transformations that these building materials and their
packaging experience throughout the construction process. As
main result, the model gives the quantity of waste expected in each
building/sitework element, as the addition of packaging waste,
remains and soil coded, according to the EWL.
In essence, large variations are observed in the methods, in
terms of study object, approach, parameters units and research
tools. This may be explained because of the range of variables
involved in construction processes and the different contexts in
which these methods have been employed. The use of waste gen-
eration rates in different scenarios may incur skewed results, and
Reixachal et al. (2000) highlight the importance that construction
companies develop specific studies on the matter.
2. Research method
To answer the research question and achieve the main objective
of the study, multiple regression analysis was used as research
method. This method enables the prediction values of one response
variables (dependent) through a set of explanatory variables (inde-
pendent), or assesses the effects of the explanatory variables as
predictor of response variables (Stevenson, 2001).
The research consisted of a case study based on multiple
sources of quantitative and qualitative data from the waste gener-
ated during the construction of buildings of different construction
companies. It investigates the effect of the architectural design and
the production and construction site features.
2.1. Sample characteristics
The study used data from eighteen buildings that were con-
structed between 2008 and 2013, which were labeled B1 to B18.
Due to the long production period of high-rise building of residen-
tial segment, and also considering the unavailability of waste infor-
mation respective to the production phases, it was chosen to
investigate the total amount of waste generated during the
production.
The buildings were built by ten different construction compa-
nies, labeled CCA to CCJ. These construction companies operate
in southern Brazil, mainly in the residential segment and have
been operating on the market for a period ranging from 7 to
60 years. Table 1 summarizes some information on these construc-
tion companies: experience, segment, output (total area built by
the company (m2) or the number of concluded buildings or apart-
ments) and their respective buildings of the sample (B1 to B18).
To investigate the influence of design on the generation of
waste, buildings with different floor plans were selected. All
buildings in the sample are high-rise residential constructions,
with 7–23 floors in total. Typically, the buildings include
underground floors (car parking) and ground floors (hall entrance),
followed by a series of identical apartment floors and a top floor
(roof, elevator equipment, water tank). The total area varies from
about 4000 up to 24,000 m2.
The most popular construction system used followed a tradi-
tional setting: structural elements built in reinforced concrete (pil-
lars, beams and slabs), masonry (internal and external walls) and
cement or ceramic external coatings (finishes). In terms of mason-
ry, three materials were used: ceramic bricks (different sizes),
ceramic block without pagination design, and ceramic block with
pagination design. Just one building was constructed by structural
masonry.
Fig. 1 shows the floor plans layout, and Table 2 presents areas,
number of floors, structure and walls features of the buildings of
the sample.
As construction waste management concern is still incipient in
Brazil, especially in the sense of waste reduction, according to the
architects and constructors information, no formal design and pro-
duction brief requirements or targets were adopted by the studied
construction companies.
2.2. Dependent variable
The amount of waste generated by each construction project
was informed by the construction firms, based on records of their
contracts with disposal services during the constructions phase. In
Brazil, construction waste is often dumped in local landfills.
Disposal companies were contacted by researchers to confirm
the capacity of the dumpsters used in each construction project,
which ranged from 4 to 6 m3. The total waste generated in each
studied building was used as the dependent variable and expressed
as volume capacity (m3).
2.3. Independent variables
The independent variables included the architectural design
and the production system, and were defined based on hypotheses
formulated from the literature review (Section 1.2), and from the
researchers’ insight, as follow:
 Design issues such as area, shape (compactness), floor repeata-
bility and amount of internal walls influence the waste amount;
together with.
 Production issues, such as construction system, site organiza-
tion and the practice of waste reuse in site.
2.3.1. Design variables
Design variables are related to architectural designs (quantita-
tive in nature) and were determined from the blueprint. Most vari-

Table 1
Description of construction companies.

Construction company Experience (years) Segment Output Respected buildings

CCA 65 Residential and commercial buildings 252.008 m2 B1. B2. B3. B4
CCB 33 Residential buildings 35 buildings B5
CCC 33 Residential buildings. horizontal condominium 150.729 m2 B6
CCD 17 Residential buildings 8 buildings B7
CCE 25 Residential buildings 5.000 m2 B17
CCF 29 Residential buildings 2.500 apartments B8. B9
CCG 51 Residential and commercial buildings 1.200.000 m2 B10. B11. B12. B13. B14
CCH 7 Residential buildings 9.000 m2 B15
CCI 32 Residential buildings. horizontal condominium 590.000 m2 B16
CCJ 20 Residential buildings 223.962 m2 B18

Please cite this article in press as: Parisi Kern, A., et al. Waste generated in high-rise buildings construction: A quantification model based on statistical
multiple regression. Waste Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.043
4 A. Parisi Kern et al. / Waste Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Identical floor plans (apartment floors) unscaled

B1 B7
B13

B8 B14
B2

B3 B9 B15

B4 B10 B16

B5 B11 B17

B12 B18
B6

Fig. 1. Floor plan layout of buildings in the study.

ables were determined in relation to the apartments floor plans
because of their repeatability in the buildings: variables related
to horizontal plan (mostly floor area), vertical plan (external walls
– compactness and internal walls), and to the number of floors. The
design variables are described as follows:
(1) ‘‘Total area’’: total constructed area of the building as speci-
fied in the blueprint (m2).
(2) ‘‘Apartment floor plan area’’: as specified in the floor plan
(m2).
(3) ‘‘Number of floors’’: the number of floors of the building,
including underground floors (parking), ground (facilities),
apartment floors, and top floors.
(4) ‘‘Apartment floors/number of floors’’: ratio between the
number of identical apartments floors and total number of
floors in the building, including underground, ground and
top floors.
(5) ‘‘EIC’’: Economic index of compactness of the floor plan:
p
EIC ¼ ð2 ðSfxpÞÞ=EPx100, where: ‘‘Sf’’ is the surface of the
floor of the building and ‘‘EP’’ is the economic perimeter of
the design, calculated by EP ¼ P þ E=2; where ‘‘P’’ is the
actual perimeter of the building and ‘‘E’’ is the number of
edges.
(6) ‘‘Wall density’’: the length of internal floor walls divided by
the apartment floor area (m/m2).
2.3.2. Production variables
Variables related to the production system are qualitative in
nature and needed to be expressed as numerical figures for statis-
tical analysis. Considering the fact that the buildings had been con-
cluded before the study has started and that these variables are
associated with the production phase and the construction site,
the researchers visited at least one construction site of each of
the ten construction companies during the production phase of

Please cite this article in press as: Parisi Kern, A., et al. Waste generated in high-rise buildings construction: A quantification model based on statistical
multiple regression. Waste Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.043
 A. Parisi Kern et al. / Waste Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 5

Table 2
Areas, number of floors, structure and walls features of the sample.

Sample Total area (m2) Apartment floor area (m2) Floors (#) Apartment floors (#) Structure Walls
B1 7994.53 321.90 21 17 Reinforced concrete Ceramic block. without pagination design
B2 14,297.00 509.23 23 19 Reinforced concrete Ceramic block. without pagination design
B3 9496.70 369.63 18 15 Reinforced concrete Ceramic brick
B4 12,684.08 429.04 20 17 Reinforced concrete Ceramic brick
B5 5776.96 360.65 12 9 Reinforced concrete Ceramic brick
B6 4326.08 564.95 7 5 Reinforced concrete Ceramic block. without pagination design
B7 6588.00 423.00 13 9 Reinforced concrete Ceramic brick
B8 7,619.94 346.80 17 14 Reinforced concrete Ceramic brick
B9 6856.52 399.77 16 13 Reinforced concrete Ceramic brick
B10 23,920.33 605.84 17 14 Reinforced concrete Ceramic block. with pagination design
B11 15,230.89 532.00 13 10 Reinforced concrete Ceramic block. with pagination design
B12 21,632.44 531.48 17 15 Reinforced concrete Ceramic block. with pagination design
B13 21,129.08 696.57 15 14 Reinforced concrete Ceramic block. with pagination design
B14 14,038.61 546.83 19 18 Reinforced concrete Ceramic block. with pagination design
B15 2700.00 230.51 11 9 Reinforced concrete Ceramic block. with pagination design
B16 8283.00 506.00 13 12 Structural masonry
B17 21,794.63 419.20 12 9 Reinforced concrete Ceramic brick
B18 7812.24 427.21 16 13 Reinforced concrete Ceramic brick

new buildings (production in process). This practice was adopted
to observe actual management practices, site organization and
construction process employed by these companies in situ. The
score was drawn from the perceptions of researchers (a mean of
the opinions of three research observers was considered).
The collected variables associated with production systems are:
(a) ‘‘Construction system’’: ranged from traditional production
systems to full industrial systems (scale from 1 to 3), based
on the following criteria. It was given 1 to traditional pro-
duction: reinforced concrete structure cast in site, no
masonry pagination, site steel cutting and bending, site mor-
tar production, few transportation equipment; 2 (intermedi-
ate industrialization): some industrialized items, such as
concrete elements pre-casted, industrialized steel cutting
and bending, industrialized mortar, masonry pagination
and some transportation equipment; 3 (industrialized
practices): higher use of industrialization practices, wide
application of transportation equipment, formal production
management practices (production planning, lean construc-
tion philosophy).
(b) ‘‘Site organization’’: ranged from sites with organization
problems to sites well organized (scale from 1 to 5), consid-
ering site aspects as cleanliness, security concerns, quality
and management tools. As those criteria encompasses many
aspects of construction sites and are subjective, the score
was assigned based on the perception of researchers: (1 –
serious organization problems (all aspects); 2 – organization
problems (some aspects); 3 – intermediated (problems in
some aspects); 4 – problems in few aspects; 5 – site organi-
zation and good practices (all aspects).
(c) ‘‘Waste reuse and recovery’’ (yes/no): yes, if the construction
company reuses waste in site as landfill in amounts corre-
sponding to 10–15% of the total waste.

Table 3
Amount of waste generated in the buildings.

Sample Dumpsters (units) Dumpster volume (m3) Amount of waste (m3) Sample Dumpsters (units) Dumpster volume (m3) Amount of waste (m3)
B1 235 6.00 1410.00 B10 488 4.00 1952.00
B2 315 6.00 1890.00 B11 297 4.00 1188.00
B3 140 6.00 840.00 B12 378 4.00 1512.00
B4 179 6.00 1074.00 B13 541 4.00 2164.00
B5 179 6.00 1074.00 B14 219 4.00 876.00
B6 218 4.00 872.00 B15 253 4.00 1012.00
B7 105 4.00 420.00 B16 178 4.0.0 712.00
B8 153 4.00 612.00 B17 233 5.00 1165.00
B9 184 4.00 736.00 B18 563 4.00 2252.00

Table 4
Design variables.

Sample ‘‘Apartm. floors/floors’’ ‘‘ECI’’ (%) ‘‘Wall density’’ (m/m2) Sample ‘‘Apartm. floors/floors’’ ‘‘ECI’’ (%) ‘‘Wall density’’ (m/m2)
B1 0.81 62.83 0.52 B10 0.82 51.77 0.28
B2 0.83 43.12 0.54 B11 0.77 60.17 0.20
B3 0.83 44.23 0.52 B12 0.88 58.31 0.20
B4 0.85 56.31 0.58 B13 0.93 55.69 0.26
B5 0.75 62.09 0.48 B14 0.78 51.93 0.25
B6 0.71 59.23 0.46 B15 0.82 57.91 0.43
B7 0.69 55.47 0.47 B16 0.92 41.05 0.48
B8 0.82 60.58 0.39 B17 0.75 61.74 0.52
B9 0.81 66.82 0.47 B18 0.81 72.27 0.42

Please cite this article in press as: Parisi Kern, A., et al. Waste generated in high-rise buildings construction: A quantification model based on statistical
multiple regression. Waste Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.043
6 A. Parisi Kern et al. / Waste Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

2.4. Statistical data treatment 3.2. Statistical analysis

The second stage of the study consisted of the treatment of data
collected using multiple linear regression in order to identify the
relationship between the dependent variable Y (waste generation)
and the independent variables X (design and production features).
All analyses were made using the IBM SPSS statistical software.
The central limit theorem was used: if the variable in the
population sample has normal distribution, the distribution of
the sample mean is also normal (Stevenson, 2001; Montgomery
et al., 2004).
To check for the normality of the dependent variable (Y), the
dataset was tested through data scatter plots. A box diagram (box-
plot) and Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk statistical tests
were used, as recommended for sample populations below 30
(Stevenson, 2001; Montgomery et al., 2004).
Afterwards, the variables that showed to influence the depen-
dent variable (Y) underwent regression analysis. The coefficients
of determination (R2), adjusted coefficients of determination
(adjusted R2) and correlation (r), analysis of variance (F) and tests
of the explanatory variables (t) were analyzed. In addition, the
waste data was checked for normality with Kolmogorov–Smirnov
and Shapiro–Wilk statistical tests, as well as graphs of the normal
probability of waste data.
3.2.1. Statistical analysis of dependent variable
Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk statistical tests were
used with the dependent variable (Y) to check whether multiple
linear regression could be used. This was followed by a test of
the hypothesis of data normality of the dependent variable. Results
are shown in Table 6.
According to the p-value = 0.142, the normality hypothesis of
the dependent variable was not rejected. The box plot shown in
Fig. 2 also indicates that there are no outliers in the sample.
Fig. 3 illustrates the normal distribution of the variable. This is
shown as the plots are close to each other and have random distri-
bution along the line (Fig. 3a). Fig. 3b shows the dispersion of the
data in relation to the horizontal line, where the random distribu-
tion indicates the normality of the sample.
3.2.2. Analysis of the independent variables
Dispersion graphs of some independent variables versus the
amount of waste were plotted to show cause-effect relationships.
Fig. 4 shows the dispersion graphs of the variables ‘‘number of
floors’’ and ‘‘apartment floor /floors’’ compared with ‘‘amount of
waste’’ (m3) respectively.

3. Results Table 6
Normality test of the dependent variable.
The results are presented in three parts. First, the values Kolmogorov–Smirnov Shapiro–Wilk
assigned to the variables of each sample are presented, followed
Statistical Df p-Value Statistical df p-Value
by the statistical analysis of the sample and the linear regression
model. Amount of waste 0.182 18 0.118 0.922 18 0.142

3.1. Values assigned to the sample

3000
3.1.1. Dependent variable (Y): amount of waste
The number of dumpsters collected during the construction of
each of the buildings is presented in Table 3, and the total amount
of waste was calculated considering the volume of dumpsters used 2000
by each construction company.

3.1.2. Independent variables (X): design and production features 1000

Table 4 shows the design (independent) variables related to the
following design features: the ratio between the number of apart-
ment floors and the number of floors, economic compactness index
(%) and the wall density (m/m2). 0
N = 18
Table 5 shows the production variables related to the construc-
tion system (1-traditional/3-industrialized); site organization Amount of waste (m³)
(1-serious organization problems/5-optimal organization); reuse Fig. 2. Box plot of the dependent variable.
of waste (yes/no).

Table 5
Production variables.

Sample ‘‘Construction System’’ ‘‘Site organization’’ ‘‘Waste reuse’’ Sample ‘‘Construction System’’ ‘‘Site organization’’ ‘‘Waste reuse’’
(1 to 3) (1 to 5) (1 to 3) (1 to 5)
B1 2 4 No B10 3 4 Yes
B2 2 4 No B11 3 4 Yes
B3 2 3 Yes B12 3 3 Yes
B4 2 3 Yes B13 3 4 Yes
B5 1 2 No B14 3 4 Yes
B6 1 5 No B15 1 4 No
B7 1 4 No B16 2 3 Yes
B8 1 3 Yes B17 2 3 No
B9 1 3 Yes B20 2 3 No

Please cite this article in press as: Parisi Kern, A., et al. Waste generated in high-rise buildings construction: A quantification model based on statistical
multiple regression. Waste Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.043
 A. Parisi Kern et al. / Waste Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 7

2,0 ,6

1,5
,4
1,0

,5
,2
0,0

-,5 0,0

-1,0
-,2
-1,5

-2,0 -,4
0 1000 2000 3000 0 1000 2000 3000
Observed values Observed values

Fig. 3. (a) Normal probability and (b) detrended Normal Q–Q Plot.

(a) (b)
2500 2500
Waste amount (m3)

Waste amount (m3)

R² = 0,0679 R² = 0,1503
2000 2000
1500 1500

1000 1000

500 500

0 0
5 10 15 20 25 0,6 0,65 0,7 0,75 0,8 0,85 0,9

Number of floors Storey/floors

Fig. 4. (a) Number of floors and (b) apartments floors (storey)/floors.

As Fig. 4 shows, an increase in the amount of waste can be seen ‘‘apartment floor plan area’’ in relation to ‘‘amount of waste ‘‘
as more floors are added and when the ‘‘apartment floors/floors’’ (m3), as follows.
ratio increases. As the figures above show, a small change in the amount of
Figs. 5 and 6 show the dispersion graphs for ‘‘economic waste can be observed as a result of a higher economic index of
index of compactness (EIC)’’, ‘‘wall density’’, ‘‘total area’’ and compactness. In addition, the amount of waste is reduced

(a) (b)
2500 R² = 0,0174
2500
Waste amount (m3)

2000 R² = 0,0852
Waste amount (m3)

2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
500 500

0 0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7
Economic Index of Compactness Wall density (m2/m)

Fig. 5. (a) Economic index of compactness and (b) wall density.

(a) (b)
2500 2500 R² = 0,1912
R² = 0,2891
Waste amount (m3)

Waste amount (m3)

2000 2000

1500 1500

1000 1000

500 500

0 0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 0,0 100,0 200,0 300,0 400,0 500,0 600,0 700,0 800,0
Total area (m2) Storey area (m2)

Fig. 6. (a) Total area and (b) apartment floor plan area (storey).

Please cite this article in press as: Parisi Kern, A., et al. Waste generated in high-rise buildings construction: A quantification model based on statistical
multiple regression. Waste Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.043
8 A. Parisi Kern et al. / Waste Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

when the density of the internal walls is reduced. The amount of

waste increases as the total area and the apartment floor area
increase.
Figs. 7–9 show dispersion graphs of the variables ‘‘number of
floors’’, ‘‘total area’’ and ‘‘number of apartment floor plan’’ com-
pared to the waste generation ratio that relates the amount of
waste to the built area (m3/m2).
It was observed that the amount of waste decreased as the area
and number of floors increased. This indicates that the use of
identical floor plans results in less waste generation because the
operation is improved as each floor is built, as the charts show.

0,4
R² = 0,0928
0,35
Waste generation (m3/m2)

0,3

0,25

0,2

0,15

0,1

0,05

0
5 10 15 20 25
Floors

Fig. 7. Waste generation and the number of floors.

0,4

0,35 R² = 0,3224
Waste generation (m3/m2)

0,3

0,25

0,2

0,15

0,1

0,05

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Total area (m2)

Fig. 8. Waste generation and the total area.

0,4
R² = 0,0884
0,35
Waste generation (m3/m2)

Independent variables – Pearson correlation.

0,3

0,25

0,2

0,15

0,1

0,05

0
0 5 10 15 20
Table 7

Storey

Fig. 9. Waste generation and number of apartment plan floor.

Please cite this article in press as: Parisi Kern, A., et al. Waste generated in high-rise buildings construction: A quantification model based on statistical
multiple regression. Waste Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.043
 A. Parisi Kern et al. / Waste Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 9

With respect to the dependent variable, most independent vari-
ables showed a low determination coefficient when assessed in
isolation which underscores the importance of assessing their joint
influence on the response (dependent) variable.
Another important procedure to check the relationship among
the variables is correlation analysis. It enables to check the degree
of correlation and its direction, which may be positive or negative,
as well as checking for multicollinearity: when two variables
explain the same phenomenon, this may cause a higher standard
deviation in the regression procedure. Table 7 shows Pearson cor-
relation values for the variables.
A higher positive correlation of 0.817 was observed for ‘‘total
area’’ versus ‘‘construction system’’ and a negative correlation of
0.656 was observed for ‘‘wall density’’ versus ‘‘construction
system’’. High correlations between ‘‘wall density’’, ‘‘construction
system’’ and ‘‘apartment floor plan area’’ indicate that some of the-
se variables may account for the same effect and may result in
multicollinearity.
Of all the design variables studied, ‘‘wall density’’ was shown to
have the lowest influence on the generation of waste. The high cor-
relation of this variable with ‘‘construction system’’ may indicate
that the effect of this feature may have been incorporated by the
‘‘construction system’’ variable.
The ‘‘apartment floor plan area’’ variable was not significant in
this model and showed a significant correlation with the ‘‘total
area’’ variable. This suggests that the effect of these variable
overlaps.
The ‘‘number of floors’’ and ‘‘site organization’’ variables did not
show strong correlations with other variables, which indicates that
they accounts for a single factor. However, both failed the indepen-
dent variables test t and were thus excluded from the analysis.
3.3. Regression analysis
After the normality of the dependent variable was confirmed
using regression analysis, various combinations of independent
variables was tested in order to find the best regression model
for a level of significance a = 0.05.
The best regression model (Eq. (1)) obtained from the sample
data resulted in an adjusted R2 value of 0.694, and all variables
passed the F test. The variables ‘‘apartment floor plan/floor’’,
‘‘EIC’’, ‘‘construction system’’ and ‘‘waste reuse’’ were significant
for a = 0.05. Eq. (1) shows the regression model.
Waste amount ¼ 5202:886 þ ð5138:519x\apartment floor=floors"Þ
þ ð1:411x\apartment floor plan area"Þ
þ ð22:968x\EIC"Þ
þ ð375:155  \construction system"Þ
þ ð783:296x\waste reuse"Þ þ e ð1Þ
In Table 8 the amount of waste of the eighteen buildings
informed by construction companies was compared with the
amount of waste calculated by the regression model presented in
this study.
The difference between the amount of waste calculated by the
regression model and the amount informed by construction com-
panies was less than 30% in 15 buildings (83.33% of the sample).
In five buildings, the difference was less than 5%. The biggest differ-
ence was observed in building B18 (+63.5%), and lowest in building
B13 (3.08%).
4. Discussion
This study proposes the use of multiple linear regression to ana-
lyze the amount of waste generated in 18 residential high-rise
building construction. The analyses was conducted from design
and production variables, since both are mentioned in the lit-
erature as the two major culprits of construction waste, however,
rarely considered by waste quantification methods, not in isola-
tion, either jointly.
The proposed design variables are quantitative, related to areas,
number of floors and compactness, an aspect widely associated to
cost by different authors (Souza and Deana, 2007; Mascaró, 2010).
The proposed production variables are subjective, and investigated
aspects mentioned by literature as prefabrication, modularization
and industrialization (Baldwin et al., 2009; Lachimpad et al.,
2012; Wang et al., 2014).
Among the tested variables, those that showed influence on
waste generation were ‘‘apartment floors/number of floors’’,
‘‘waste reuse and recovery’’, ‘‘floor plan compactness’’, ‘‘construc-
tion system’’ and ‘‘apartment floor plan area’’.
The set of these variables was able to predict approximately 69%
of the factors involved in the waste generation in high-rise residen-
tial buildings of the sample, since the statistical model presented
determination coefficient (R2) = 0.784 and the adjusted coefficient
of determination (adjusted R2) 0.694.

Table 8
Variables and amount estimated by the model versus amount provided by companies.

Sample Variables Waste amount (m3) Difference

(%)
Apartment floor/ Apartment floor plan ECI Construction System Waste Calculated regression Informed by construction
Floors area (m2) (%) (1 a 3) reuse model companies
B1 0.81 321.90 62.83 2 No 1.604.50 1.410.00 13.70
B2 0.83 509.23 43.12 2 No 1.501.20 1.890.00 20.57
B3 0.83 369.63 44.23 2 Yes 583.70 840.00 30.51
B4 0.85 429.04 56.31 2 Yes 1.030.50 1.074.00 4.05
B5 0.75 360.65 62.09 1 No 961.10 1.074.00 10.51
B6 0.71 564.95 59.23 1 No 1.000.20 872.00 14.70
B7 0.69 423.00 55.47 1 No 600.50 420.00 42.98
B8 0.82 346.80 60.58 1 Yes 501.40 612.00 18.08
B9 0.81 399.77 66.82 1 yes 662.90 736.00 9.93
B10 0.82 605.84 51.77 3 Yes 1.414.80 1.952.00 27.52
B11 0.77 532.00 60.17 3 Yes 1.224.60 1.188.00 3.08
B12 0.88 531.48 58.31 3 Yes 1.762.50 1.512.00 16.57
B13 0.93 696.57 55.69 3 Yes 2.197.10 2.164.00 1.53
B14 0.78 546.83 51.93 3 Yes 1.125.10 876.00 28.44
B15 0.82 230.51 57.91 1 No 1.031.90 1.012.00 1.97
B16 0.92 506.00 41.05 2 yes 1.164.10 712.00 63.50
B17 0.75 419.20 61.74 2 No 1.410.80 1.165.00 21.10
B18 0.81 427.21 72.27 2 No 1.985.20 2.252.00 11.85

Please cite this article in press as: Parisi Kern, A., et al. Waste generated in high-rise buildings construction: A quantification model based on statistical
multiple regression. Waste Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.043
10 A. Parisi Kern et al. / Waste Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
This result statistically proves the influence of these variables
on the generation of waste in vertical residential construction. This
statement was proved when the regression model was applied to
estimate the quantity of waste that would be generated in the
buildings sample production, in comparison with the quantity
informed by the construction firms (see Table 8).
Also, the use of the statistical linear regression suggests that the
variables act together. For example, when the variable ‘‘apartment
floor plan area’’ was removed the adjusted coefficient of determi-
nation (R2) was reduced, although this variable was not statistical-
ly significant at the significance level adopted.
This helps to explain the difficulty in estimating construction
waste, widely discussed in the literature (Osmani, 2011). The main
contribution of the research to existing knowledge is that the ana-
lysis of causes or variables that influence waste generation may not
be isolated. It is necessary a broader analysis of the characteristics
of a building, in terms of design and production. The causes are
many, from diverse backgrounds, and act together.
Although this understanding is discussed by authors such as
Formoso et al. (2002), the waste quantification methods rarely ana-
lyze issues related to design (except the area of the building) and to
the construction site (Pinto, 1999; Katz and Baum, 2010; Llatas,
2011; Bania et al., 2011; Saez et al., 2012). However both are men-
tioned with great influence on waste generation by literature.
The obtained results show that the statistical regression model
was effective on the estimation of the amount of waste generate in
concluded projects. For futures projects, it may be used with a pro-
active vantage to decision makers. It allows the simulation of vari-
ables, indicating design and production decisions influence on
waste generation decrease or increase.
5. Conclusion
Construction waste quantification is seen as a complex task
because of the specificity of each project. Rather than the product
of a single isolated incident, the generation of construction must be
understood as a combination of factors.
This study tested sources of waste generation mentioned by lit-
erature in terms of design and production features of 18 concluded
high-rise building through statistical regression model. For the
analyzed sample, results indicate that features as the repetition
of floors (apartment floors), compactness of the building, the prac-
tice of waste recycling in the construction site, the floor plan area
and the construction system adopted together were able to esti-
mate the amount of waste generate of almost 70% of the buildings
studied.
This means that it is important to consider a set of explanatory
variables, and the use of multiple linear regression as a data treat-
ment tool is feasible. It can be used by decision makers in a pro-ac-
tive way with the objective to predict the amount of construction
waste and to establish benchmark in order to reduce waste gen-
eration, the key and most effective step of waste management.
Acknowledgement
The authors thanks CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa) and
SINDUSCON/NH for the research funding. Also, all the construction
firms that contributed with information.
Please cite this article in press as: Parisi Kern, A., et al. Waste generated in high-rise buildings construction: A quantification model based on statistical
multiple regression. Waste Management (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.043
View publication stats
References
Ângulo, S.C., 2005. Caracterização de Agregados de Resíduos de Construção e
Demolição Reciclados e a Influência de suas Características no Comportamento
Mecânico dos Concretos. 2005. 149 f, Tese (Doutorado em Engenharia Civil) –
Escola Politécnica. Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.
Agopyan, V., John, V.M., 2011. O Desafio da Sustentabilidade na Construção Civil. In:
Goldenberg, J. (Ed.), Série Sustentabilidade, vol. 5. Blucher, São Paulo.
Baldwin, A., Poon, C., Shen, L., Austin, S., Wong, I., 2009. Designing out waste in high-
rise residential buildings: Analysis of precasting methods and traditional
construction. Renewable Energy 34, 2067–2073.
Bania, G.S., Achillas, C., Vlachokosta, C., Moussiopoulos, N., Papaioannou, I., 2011. A
web-based Decision Support System for the optimal management of
construction and demolition waste. Waste Manage. 31, 2497–2502.
Boehm, N.I., 2012. Taking action on construction waste: An analysis of construction
waste minimization practices and their barriers. In: Proceedings 2nd
Conference: People and Buildings held at Graduate Centre. London
Metropolitan University, London. UK, 18th September.
Conseil International du Bâtiment, CIB, 2011. Agenda XXI on Sustainable
Construction.
European Commission, 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC, de 18 de Novembro de 2008.
Waste Framework directive. Brussels, Belgium.
Formoso, C.T. et al., 2002. Material Waste in Building Industry: Main Causes and
Prevention. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, July/August.
Katz, A., Baum, H., 2010. A novel methodology to estimate the evolution of
construction waste in construction site. J. Waste Manage. 31 (2), 353–358.
Keys, A.; Baldwin, A., 2000. Designing to encourage waste minimisation in the
construction industry. Loughborough University’s Institutional Repository.
<http://hdl.handle.net/2134/4945>.
Lachimpad, S., Pereira, J.J., Taha, M.R., Mokhtar, M., 2012. Construction waste
minimisation comparing conventional and precast construction (Mixed System
and IBS) methods in high-rise buildings: A Malaysia case study. Resour.
Conserv. Recycling 68, 1–7.
Llatas, C., 2011. A model for quantifying construction waste in projects according to
the European waste list. Waste Manage. 31, 1261–1276.
Mália, M., 2013. Construction and demolition waste indicators. Waste Manage. Res.
31.
Mascaró, J.L., 2010. O custo das decisões arquitetônicas. 5ª edição. Porto Alegre.
Masquatro editora.
Miranda, L.F.R., et al., 2009. A reciclagem de resíduos de construção e demolição no
Brasil: 1986–2008. Ambiente Construído. Porto Alegre, v. 9, n. 1, pp. 57–71
(jan/mar).
Montgomery, D.C., Runger, G.C., Hubele, N.F., 2004. Estatística aplicada à
engenharia, second ed. LTC, São Paulo.
Osmani, M. et al., 2008. Architects’ perspectives on construction waste reduction by
design. Waste Manage. 28, 1147–1158.
Osmani, M., 2011. Construction Waste. In: Letcher, T.M., Vallero, D.A. (Eds.), Waste:
A Handbook for Management. Elsevier, pp. 207–218.
Osmani, M., 2013. Design waste mapping: a project life cycle approach. Waste
Resour. Manage. 166 (3), 114–127.
Pinto, T.P. 1999. Metodologia para a gestão diferenciada de resíduos sólidos da
construção urbana. 1999. 190 f, Tese (Doutorado em Engenharia Civil) - Escola
Politécnica. Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.
Poon, C.S., 2007. Reducing construction waste. Waste Manage. 27, 1715–1716.
Reixachal, F.M.; Barroso, J.M.G.; Cuscó A.S., 2000. Situación actual y perspectivas de
futuro de los residuos de la construcción. Plan de Gestión de Residuos en las
Obras de Construcción y Demolición. Programa Life. Cataluña: ITeC (Instituto de
Tecnología de la Construcción de Cataluña) Dirección general de
Medioambiente.
Saez, P.V. et al., 2012. Estimation of construction and demolition waste volume
generation in new residential buildings in Spain. Waste Manage. Res. 30 (2),
137–146.
Scheer, S. et al., 2007. The scenario and trends in the Brazilian IT construction
applications’ experience. ITCON Special Issue Construction Information
Technology in Emerging Economies, vol. 12, pp. 193–206.
Souza, U.E.L.; Deana, D.F., 2007. Levantamento do estado da arte: Consumo de
materiais. Documento 2.5. Projeto Tecnologias para construção habitacional
mais sustentável – Projeto Finep 2386/04, São Paulo.
Stevenson, W.J., 2001. Estatística aplicada à administração. Harbra, São Paulo.
Wang, J., Li, Z., Tam, V.W.Y., 2014. Critical factors in effective construction waste
minimization at the design stage: A Shenzhen case study. China. Resour.
Conserv. Recycling 82 (2014), 1–7.
Yuan, H. et al., 2012. A dynamic model for assessing the effects of management
strategies on the reduction of construction and demolition waste. Waste
Manage. 32, 521–531.