Waste Management 117 (2020) 32–41

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Waste generation, composition, and handling in building-related

construction and demolition in Hanoi, Vietnam
Ngoc Han Hoang a,⇑, Tomonori Ishigaki a, Rieko Kubota a, Ton Kien Tong b, Trung Thang Nguyen c,
Hoang Giang Nguyen b, Masato Yamada a, Ken Kawamoto b,d
a
National Institute for Environmental Studies, 16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8506, Japan
b
National University of Civil Engineering, 55 Giai Phong, Hai Ba Trung, Hanoi, Viet Nam
c
Institute of Strategy and Policy on Natural Resources and Environment, 479 Hoang Quoc Viet, Cau Giay, Hanoi, Viet Nam
d
Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Saitama University, Saitama 338-8570, Japan

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

Article history: This study conducted a survey at 15 building construction and demolition sites in Hanoi, Vietnam in
Received 11 March 2020 order to identify waste generation rates (WGR), composition, and current handling practices of construc-
Revised 26 June 2020 tion and demolition waste (CDW). Waste quantification based on CDW layout, image analysis to identify
Accepted 4 August 2020
CDW components, and face-to-face interviews with construction and demolition contractors to reveal
Available online 14 August 2020
CDW flows were performed. WGRs of 79.3 kg/m2 and 1,030 kg/m2 were determined in small- and
large-scale construction sites, respectively, whilst WGRs at small and large demolition sites were
Keywords:
610 kg/m2 and 318 kg/m2. The composition analysis identified soil, concrete, and brick as the major
Waste quantification
Waste generation rate
CDW components, consistent with building structures in Vietnam. The interviews discovered that merely
CDW handling 10% of total CDW flows was from recycled and reused CDW. Reuse and recycling rates were most signif-
Image analysis icant for metal and were lower (in descending order) for brick, concrete, and soil. These findings raise a
CDW recycling need for aggressive and integrated strategies to promote more sustainable CDW management in the
country, including the development of recycled CDW product standards, policies that facilitate recycling,
and more importantly, a sustainable business model for CDW recycling, for which future evaluations of
economic feasibility are of great importance.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Various policies and regulations promoting CDW reuse and

In the midst of an upward development trend, Vietnam has
been experiencing remarkable growth in its construction industry.
This unprecedented construction boom, however, results in a sig-
nificant amount of construction and demolition waste (CDW).
Reportedly only 1–2% of such waste is recycled (Nguyen, 2019).
The construction industry is responsible for 40% of total energy
and natural resources consumed by the global economy (Asif
et al., 2007), making unrestrained disposal of CDW a severe waste
of finite natural capital (Agamuthu, 2008). Therefore, CDW reuse
and recycling are regarded as promising means of reducing the ini-
tial consumption of natural resources and managing the amount of
land allocated for CDW dumping whilst eliminating CDW-caused
human health concerns and environmental pollution (Kofoworola
& Gheewala, 2009; Mah et al., 2016).
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hoang.ngoc.han@nies.go.jp (N.H. Hoang).
recycling have been observed worldwide. These include the Con-
struction Material Recycling Law enacted in Japan in 2000 (MoE,
2019) and the Construction Waste Disposal Charging Scheme im-
plemented in Hong Kong in 2005 (Hao et al., 2008). Vietnam has
likewise made significant moves in recent years towards better
CDW management (Nguyen et al., 2018), by issuing several
CDW-designated legal instruments such as Circular No. 08/2017/
TT-BXD on managing construction solid waste (Circular 08)
(MOC, 2017). The Amended National Strategy for Integrated Solid
Waste Management to 2025 with vision towards 2050 has also
set a 2025 target of 90% of CDW to be collected and treated, 60%
of which is to be reused or recycled (Government of Vietnam,
2018). Nonetheless, reliable data on CDW amounts generated is
essential in order to achieve these targets. Proper CDW quantifica-
tion, including identification of waste generation rates (WGR) and
waste composition, plays an important role in developing appro-
priate and effective approaches for CDW management (Bergsdal
et al., 2007; Katz & Baum, 2011; Nagapan et al., 2013).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.08.006
0956-053X/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 N.H. Hoang et al. / Waste Management 117 (2020) 32–41
Despite rising CDW-related concerns, current CDW manage-
ment activities are not well documented in Vietnam. To date,
there are no official exhaustive statistics on CDW generation
and handling practices including reuse, recycling and disposal
rates, creating constraints on developing an adequate CDW
management system (Hoang et al., 2020). Several studies on
CDW in Vietnam have been implemented, but these studies
either concentrated merely on handling practices of a certain
type of CDW (e.g. recycled aggregate concrete by Tong et al.
(2013)), or evaluated waste management practices of construc-
tion firms (i.e. Ling & Song Anh Nguyen (2013)). Lockrey et al.
(2016) estimated CDW generation in Hanoi based on its propor-
tion to total solid waste discharged, leading to considerable
uncertainty since the growth rate of CDW could differ from that
of solid waste.
This paper, therefore, serves the primary purpose of providing a
specific analysis for CDW quantification in Hanoi, resulting in the
development of WGRs for construction activities and a broad pic-
ture of current CDW handling practices, through a survey of 15
building construction and demolition sites. This study concentrates
only on Hanoi, Vietnam’s capital, given that the majority of
construction-related activities in the country during the last five
years have been implemented there (GSO, 2018).
The remainder of this paper demonstrates methods of data col-
lection, followed by the study’s empirical results and a discussion
thereof, and finally concludes with recommendations for further
research.
2. Previous studies in CDW characterization
2.1. CDW quantification
A wide range of studies has been implemented worldwide to
quantify CDW, especially in European countries (Wu et al.,
2014). In 1993 and 1994, Bossink and Brouwers (1996) identified
waste generation at five housing construction sites in the Nether-
lands by sorting and weighing, in cooperation with the building
contractors, the total amount of waste generated. Paola Villoria
Sáez and Osmani (2019) determined CDW amounts in 19 Euro-
pean nations in 2014 based on waste-related statistics in these
countries. In the USA, McGregor et al. (1993) discovered CDW
types and quantities by measuring waste at construction and
demolition sites, recycling facilities, and landfills, as well as con-
ducting phone surveys with contractors. Also in the States,
Cochran et al. (2007) determined regional CDW generation and
composition for residential and nonresidential buildings based
on floor area and WGRs identified in previous studies. Also quan-
tifying waste amount by floor area, Cha et al. (2020) calculated
WGRs by surveying the structures of 1034 buildings, including
their dimensions and shapes, allowing estimation of their com-
posite material amounts. Through consultation with construction
contractors, Treloar et al. (2003) discovered waste amounts gen-
erated from housing construction projects in Victoria, Australia.
CDW in Brazil was quantified in a study by Formoso et al.
(2002), who observed five construction sites during the course
of five months and calculated their amounts of CDW generation
from the difference between purchased material amounts and
existing inventories.
Whilst less significant in terms of quantity, a number of stud-
ies have also been conducted in Southeast Asia. Kofoworola and
Gheewala (2009) estimated the amount of CDW generated in
Thailand from 2002 and 2005 based on the number of construc-
tion areas and the WGR identified by the United States Air Force
in 2006. Nugroho et al. (2013) quantified CDW by volume in
Indonesia by making use of image analysis. Lau et al. (2008)
33
and Nagapan et al. (2013) estimated the CDW generation rate
and composition after surveying several construction sites in
Malaysia.
As Wu et al. (2014) stated in their review, CDW quantifica-
tion methods can be divided into five main groups, namely: gen-
eration rate calculation, lifetime analysis, classification system
accumulation, variables modelling, and site visit methods. Whilst
the first four methods allow estimation of CDW generation at
regional and national levels with relatively limited time and
labor, their accuracy is highly dependent on the WGRs chosen
or a comprehensive data set from the construction industry,
including finance, labor, material consumption factors, and so
on (Wu et al., 2014). Site survey methods, therefore, are crucial
for developing or verifying the generation rate before it is used
for further calculation of past, current or future CDW generation
in a particular country where construction databases are not
exhaustive.
2.2. Waste composition
Even though CDW widely refers to debris generated from such
activities as construction, demolition, and renovation, definitions
of what constitutes CDW vary from country to country (Asgari
et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2011). In general, CDW contains concrete,
brick, wood, metal, drywall, plastics, glass, and others (EPA,
2015; Paola Villoria Sáez & Osmani, 2019). In order to specify
CDW composition, studies have been carried out in various
nations. For example, Asgari et al. (2017) and Lu et al. (2011) iden-
tified CDW composition by manually sorting and weighing waste
onsite and in waste trucks. Lafayette et al. (2018) determined
CDW components based on building contractors’ records, which
were, however, only available at construction sites. Likewise,
P. Villoria Sáez et al. (2012) obtained bills of quantities of construc-
tion projects to find out the proportion of each CDW component.
Whilst providing reliable composition data, hand sorting generally
is time-consuming and costly, causes protracted interruption to
site operations, and raises health- and safety-related concerns
(Banta et al., 2003; Wagland et al., 2012). Using company records,
meanwhile, saves time but depends highly on the availability and
quality of these data.
Image analysis was developed in order to address the shortcom-
ings of previous composition analysis approaches. This technique’s
foundation is the visual distinguishable attributes of objects,
including their shape, pattern, gradation, size, and other features
(Califice et al., 2013; Paine & Kiser, 2012). The dot grid method,
as a type of image analysis, estimates waste composition based
on waste items’ coverage area, identified by the number of dots
superimposed on them in a photo of the waste (Peddireddy et al.,
2015; Wagland et al., 2012). Dots can be arranged in either a sys-
tematic or random manner with higher numbers of dots resulting
in more accurate composition data (Nowak et al., 1996). Identifica-
tion of waste composition by analyzing digital images has been
performed in waste-derived fuels (Peddireddy et al., 2015), mixed
waste (Stuart Thomas Wagland et al., 2013), and in sessile marine
organisms (Foster et al., 1991). Initial applications of this technique
in CDW quantification have also been witnessed in studies by
Nugroho et al. (2013).
3. Methodology
This study identified CDW characterization in Hanoi, Vietnam
through quantifying waste volume by its layout, identifying CDW
composition through image analysis, and determining CDW han-
dling practices through interviews at construction and demolition
sites. The methodological framework is shown in Fig. 1.
34 N.H. Hoang et al. / Waste Management 117 (2020) 32–41

Fig. 1. Methodological framework.

3.1. Survey site selection Table 2

Surveyed construction and demolition sites.

Five building construction and ten building demolition sites Site Total floor Duration Building function
were visited in Hanoi, Vietnam during the course of two months, area(m2) (day)
from December 2018 to January 2019. The sites were selected in Small construction sites (CS)
accordance with the following criteria: CS1 711 180 Private house
CS2 390 180 Private house
Large construction sites (CL)
a) Construction and demolition scale: Site selection ensured
CL1 31,500 548 Apartment
inclusions of both small-scale and large-scale buildings. CL2 43,450 750 Office and apartment
Building size thresholds followed the national classification CL3 34,200 780 Office and apartment
according to structure scale stipulated by the Ministry of Small demolition sites (DS)
DS1 1,500 10 Apartment
Construction of Vietnam (MOC) (2016, 2019) (Table 1).
DS2 8,000 20 School
Accordingly, construction and demolition projects falling DS3 1,200 3 Private house
into Class III and Class IV were considered small-scale sites, DS4 1,000 3 Canteen
whilst the rest were regarded as large-scale sites. Three DS5 3,000 7 School
large-scale sites were visited for both construction and DS6 1,400 5 Office
DS7 8,000 12 Office
demolition works. For small-scale sites, two construction
Large demolition sites (DL)
and seven demolition projects were surveyed. DL1 10,100 14 Apartment
b) Construction and demolition contractors and location: The DL2 18,000 32 Office and factory
investigated sites were selected from different districts DL3 20,000 138 Apartment
within Hanoi and involved different investors and contrac-
tors for the purpose of observing diverse practices or behav-
iors regarding CDW handling, including reuse, recycling, and
disposal. a) Image collection: Images were captured of three sides of
each waste stockpile/pile. Images were taken using an 18-
Table 2 summarizes the survey sites in accordance with their megapixel camera.
scale. b) Grid size identification: The original image was cropped into
A pilot survey was implemented at one demolition site and two sub-images, with an 11
11 dot grid superimposed after-
construction sites to refine the following survey methods before wards (Appendix 1. Processed image). The grid size was
the final survey was launched. determined so that it was within the original image frame
and its dot interval corresponded as much as possible to
3.2. CDW composition analysis the diameter of the biggest waste component identified in
the original image. This was to ensure that any particular
This study applied image analysis to determine CDW composi- waste component did not outweigh the others or take up
tion through three steps, namely (a) image collection, (b) grid size the whole image, which might lead to inaccuracies in the
identification, and (c) grid analysis. composition data. Following the identified grid size,

Table 1
Building classification according to structure (MOC, 2016, 2019).

Classification criterion Building class

Special I II III IV
Height (m) >200 >75–200 >28–75 >6–28 6
Story number >50 25–50 8–24 2–7 1
Total floor area (thousand m2) – >30 >10–30 1–10 <1
Largest span (m) >200 100–200 50-<100 15-<50 <15
Underground depth (m) – >18 6–18 <6 –
Basement number – 5 2–4 1 –
 N.H. Hoang et al. / Waste Management 117 (2020) 32–41
sub-images were created so that no overlap existed between
them, in order to avoid double counting. Sections outside of
the grid that could not be analyzed further were removed.
c) Grid analysis: Waste components were identified and
assigned colors manually.
The sum of dots of each color (ei) divided by total dot number
(E) indicates the proportion in volume of each CDW component
(Ci) in the stockpile/pile as described in Eq. (1).
ei
Ci ¼
100
E Table 3 illustrates the average WGRs of different CDW compo-
A laboratory analysis of waste composition was conducted to
validate the results of image analysis. Tested CDW components
included brick, concrete, metal, plastics, and wood pieces of vari-
ous sizes, ranging from 20 to 260 mm in diameter. The components
were selected and weighed prior to being mixed to create two
batches that were different in total mass. Therefore, the composi-
tion of each batch was identified before image analysis was carried
out. Each batch was mixed to form both pyramid (stockpile) and
rectangular (pile) shapes.
3.3. CDW quantification on site
Adopting a study performed by Lau et al. (2008), CDW at the
investigated sites was quantified based on its layout. CDW layout
was divided into pyramid-shaped stockpiles and rectangular-
shaped piles. The volume of stockpiled waste equals
(Length
Width
Height)/3 whilst that of piled waste equals
Length
Width
Height. Eq. (2) was applied for the purpose of
obtaining total CDW amount in weight:
X XV
W¼ Wi ¼
D
Ci
Bi
s
where W represents total CDW amount in weight (kg), Wi is the
weight of CDW component i, V is the CDW volume (m3); S is the
storage duration of CDW onsite (days); D is the duration of con-
struction and demolition in which CDW was generated (days)
(Table 2); Ci is the proportion of CDW component i in total CDW
composition (%); and Bi represents the bulk density of CDW compo-
nent i (kg/m3), which is adopted from Environment Protection
Authority Victoria (2018), Japan Federation of Construction
Contractors (JFCC) (2005), and Mália et al. (2013) (Appendix 2. Bulk
density of CDW components). For brick with some mortar attached,
the brick’s bulk density was applied.
The WGR of each CDW component was determined by dividing
its amount by the total floor area (Eq. (3)).
Wi
WGR ¼
A
where A is the total floor area (m2).
3.4. Identification of CDW handling practices
Face-to-face interviews using semi-structured questionnaires
were conducted with 18 site supervisors and contractors to iden-
tify CDW management activities at the survey sites. The question-
naires consisted of three main parts, which are (1) contractor/
investor information, which was treated with complete confiden-
tiality, (2) site information, including project location, total floor
area, number of floors/basements, and construction/demolition
duration; and (3) CDW generation and treatment. For construction
sites, information from the interviews was used to fill the data gap
on waste which could not be observed and measured through the
site visits. Based on salient points revealed in the interviews, CDW
handling practices were divided into seven main categories,
35
namely: (1) sale to recyclers (including direct selling or indirect
selling through middle men or scavengers), (2) reuse in other sites,
(3) reuse on-site, (4) CDW landfill disposal, (5) domestic waste
(DW) landfill disposal, (6) unofficial dumpsite disposal, and (7)
unknown.
4. Results
4.1. CDW generation rate
ð1Þ
nents that were identified through image analysis in the sites
investigated. Soil was the major waste component generated in
construction sites, whether large-scale (WGR: 852 kg/m2) or
small-scale (WGR: 71.8 kg/m2), whilst its amount was insignificant
in the demolition sites. Waste soil was discharged during excava-
tion processes for building foundations. The amount of excavated
soil was remarkable in the large-scale sites (which are high-rise
buildings), owing mainly to basements constructed for vehicle
parking and technical floors. Despite being not as quantitatively
large in amount as excavated soil, concrete and brick were preva-
lent in both construction and demolition sites. Their WGRs in the
demolition sites, however, outnumbered those in the construction
sites. For demolition, concrete’s WGR was on average double that
of brick. For construction sites, concrete’s WGR was six times
higher than that of brick. Concrete waste generated in the con-
struction projects consisted mainly of materials at the bottom of
concrete mix trucks’ pipes, whilst brick was wasted largely due
to careless handling by construction workers. Miscellaneous
CDW (others) included debris of glass, tile, rock, asbestos, etc.
The construction WGRs not only indicate construction materials
ð2Þ (just as the demolition WGRs do) but also reflect construction per-
formance in terms of both construction workers’ skills and man-
agement activities at construction sites (Lu et al., 2011; Zheng
et al., 2017). Since the large construction projects under investiga-
tion generated sustainably higher WGRs (1,030 kg/m2) than did the
small construction sites (79.3 kg/m2), it is possible to say that con-
struction workers tend to be less careful once there are many of
them and close supervision is limited.
Whilst the difference in WGRs between small construction sites
is small, it is greater between large construction sites (Appendix 3.
WGRs of the survey sites). This can be explained by variations in
the number of basements in large building projects, leading to
diverse amounts of soil excavated. Variations in WGRs among
demolition sites, in contrast, are due mostly to building functions.
To be more specific, non-residential buildings generate consider-
ably greater amounts of waste per floor area than residential ones,
ð3Þ as suggested by Ding and Xiao (2014), Mália et al. (2013), and EPA
(2015) in their studies in China, EU, and the US respectively. This
difference in waste generation between residential and non-
residential buildings can probably also explain the overall higher
WGR of small demolition sites than of larger ones, given that
non-residential projects accounted for over 70% of small demoli-
tion sites surveyed but only about 30% of the large demolition
category.
The WGRs of demolition projects in this study are in agreement
with previous studies (Table 4). The construction-related WGRs,
however, appear significantly higher, which can be attributed to
the inclusion of soil in this study. Whilst CDW is commonly agreed
to be waste generated from construction, demolition, and renova-
tion activities, what waste components constitute CDW vary by
country (Hoang et al., 2020). For instance, Vietnam documents soil
as a CDW component in their legal instruments (Government of
Vietnam, 2015), whereas Singapore separates this waste from
other CDW types (Building and Construction Authority of
36 N.H. Hoang et al. / Waste Management 117 (2020) 32–41

Table 3
Overall WGRs of construction and demolition works (kg/m2).

Waste type Small construction Large construction Small demolition Large demolition
Brick with mortar 0.370 11.0 180. 60.6
Concrete 2.88 62.8 353 204
Metal 2.05 2.66 46.5 38.4
Paper 0.445 26.0 0.422 3.16
Plastics 0.00825 10.1 2.17 3.00
Soil 71.8 852 5.02 0.000
Wood 0.0405 37.3 9.44 5.76
Others 1.66 25.5 12.3 3.04
Total 79.3 1,030 610. 318

Table 4
WGRs by country (kg/m2).

Country/Region WGR (kg/m2) Data year Source

Construction Demolition
Canada – 547 2008 Metro Vancouver (2008)
China 3.28 – 8.79 – 2010 Lu et al. (2011)
EU 10 – 135 195–1,640 Mália et al. (2013)
Malaysia 32.9 – 98.8 1040 2016 Mah et al. (2016)
Norway 29.4 575–1,100 2007 Bergsdal et al. (2007)
Spain 206 – 2009 Ortiz et al. (2010)
USA 21.2 – 21.4 244 – 711 2013 EPA (2015)
Vietnam 79.3 – 1,030 318 – 610 2019 This study

Singapore, 2008; National Environment Agency of Singapore,
2017). If soil is omitted from this investigation, WGRs of the con-
struction site surveyed will range from 7.46 kg/m2 to 175 kg/m2,
similar to other studies.
4.2. CDW composition
Table 5 reports composition data determined by image analysis
(IA comp.) and the actual composition (Actual comp.) of laboratory
simulations, as well as the correlation of these data sets using the
paired sample T-Test to evaluate the accuracy of image analysis
results, as suggested by Wagland et al. (2012). Differences between
image analysis composition and actual composition were experi-
enced in metal, plastics, and wood, which were over-counted in
the former. It is possible that CDW components that have high bulk
density such as concrete, brick fell to the bottom of waste piles or
stockpiles during the mixing process. Such lighter components as
metal, plastics, and wood, instead, stayed at the surface and there-
fore intersecting more dots in the image analysis. Nonetheless, the
paired T-Test indicated strong correlations between image analysis
and actual composition data, ranging from 0.994 (a = 0.001) to
0.999 (a < 0.001), implying the potential of this technique for iden-
tifying CDW composition.
Fig. 2 demonstrates the aggregated CDW composition (by
weight) at the survey sites determined by the image analysis tech-
nique. Weight was assigned to each site category to reflect its share
in total buildings nationwide provided by General Statistics Office
of Vietnam (GSO), of which the average ratio of large to small res-
idential buildings was 2.3% during the period between 2012 and
2016 (GSO, 2017). Accordingly, excavated soil accounted for the
highest proportion (42%) in total CDW composition, followed by
concrete and brick with mortar. These two waste components
were prevalent at all survey sites, making them the second and
third most major types of CDW composition (37% and 14%, respec-
tively). Soil, concrete, and brick altogether contributed to more
than 90% of total CDW, consistent with the CDW composition pub-
lished in the 2016 National State of Environment Report (MONRE,
2017).
Excluding excavated soil, 80% of the total CDW was composed
of concrete, brick, and metal. This is consistent with the apartment
and building proportion by structure in Vietnam; of which perma-
nent buildings account for almost 50% of total national buildings
(GSO, 2017), and this percentage can be even be higher in urban
areas. Permanent building structures, as defined in the Population
and Housing Census, consist of reinforced frames, concrete, and
brick (GSO, 2015). A similar finding was found in the research of
Ding and Xiao (2014), who found concrete and brick to be the
major waste components in Shanghai, where building structures
have mainly brick-concrete or reinforced concrete frames.
Bergsdal et al. (2007) revealed that wood was the second most

Table 5
Actual simulation composition data and composition provided by image analysis (%).

Batch 1 Batch 2
Actual comp. data IA comp. of pile IA comp.of stockpile Actual comp. data IA comp. of pile IA comp.of stockpile
Brick 20.7 17.8 25.9 21.4 19.6 24.9
Concrete 78.3 77.8 68.1 77.8 77.1 72.5
Metal 0.476 0.506 3.23 0.441 1.24 0.588
Plastics 0.181 2.54 1.98 0.167 1.73 1.66
Wood 0.309 1.36 0.705 0.287 0.347 0.358
Correlation 0.998 0.994 0.999 0.998
Sig. (a) 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000
 N.H. Hoang et al. / Waste Management 117 (2020) 32–41 37

Tile
Brick with mortar Paper 0.10%
Concrete 14% 0.89%
Metal Wood Asbestos
37%
4.9% 0.73% 0.09%

Gypsum PVC
0.71% 0.07%
Foam Plascs
0.22% 0.07%

Glass Others
Soil 0.18% 0.16%
42%

Fig. 2. Total CDW composition by weight.

common CDW component in Oslo, consistent with the popularity 100%

of wooden buildings in Norway given their ability to store heat
against significant temperature drops during winter and early 90%
spring (Almås et al., 2011; Perera et al., 2014). Ceramics reportedly
accounted for almost 45% of CDW generated in building-related 80%

activities in Galicia, Spain (Martínez Lage et al., 2010), in accor-

Percentage by weight (%)

70%
dance with the substantial application of ceramic flooring, wall
Unknown
coverings, and roofing (Medina et al., 2011). This survey finding 60%
Unofficial dumpsites
supports the conclusion of Zheng et al. (2017) that CDW composi-
DW landfill
tion is an important indicator that reflects building structures in 50%
CDW landfill
different nations.
40% Reuse on site
Considering each survey site, variation in composition among
Reuse in other sites
construction sites (Appendix 4. CDW composition in all survey 30%
Sell to recyclers
sites) is highly dependent on the contractors’ practices and levels
of awareness about waste management (Mokhtar et al., 2011; 20%
Yang et al., 2020). For instance, the excess share of concrete waste
in CL2 could be the consequence of changes in design, over- 10%

ordering of materials, or redone work because of construction

workers’ mistakes (Bekr, 2014; Enshassi et al., 2012). Differences
in construction techniques also result in different waste composi-
tion (Mah et al., 2016). As Kozlovská and Spišáková (2013) sug-
gested, application of modern methods of construction such as
pre-casting (pre-fabrication) can reduce the amount of concrete
waste generated by 18% compared with conventional methods.
Variation in composition among the investigated demolition sur-
vey sites, on the other hand, is most likely due to differences in
building structure. For example, whilst concrete waste is dominant
in reinforced-concrete buildings, its proportion is often lower than
brick and mortar in masonry-block and concrete-brick structures
(Cha et al., 2020; Mália et al., 2013).
4.3. CDW handling practices
Fig. 3 represents recycling practices at the investigated sites.
Interviews with site supervisors and contractors revealed that on
average, merely 10% of CDW generated at the survey sites were
reused and recycled whilst the rest (90%) were marked for disposal.
There was remarkably high on-site reuse of CDW in the small-scale
construction sites since excavated soil was used for levelling. In
contrast, soil excavated in the large construction projects was dis-
posed of at landfills due to cultural reasons. To explain, whilst
small buildings or houses are often constructed within a small area
of land, previous functions of which can be easily identified, large
buildings’ investors frequently have difficulty thoroughly tracking
0%
Small Large Small Large Overall
construcon construcon demolion demolion
Fig. 3. CDW flow in the survey sites.
this information about large land areas. If land is used for spiritual
purposes such as burial for dead bodies, it is believed to cause ‘‘bad
luck”. To avoid that, large construction sites commonly do not
make use of excavated soil on-site. Broken brick with mortar was
also reused for walling, contributing to the reuse on site rates of
3.8% and 96% at large and small construction sites, respectively.
Another form of CDW reuse was observed at the small demolition
sites where discharged mixtures of concrete, brick and mortar, etc.
were transported to other construction sites for backfilling.
Accounting for 5.8% of the CDW flow, trading of CDW for backfill-
ing is actively performed among the construction/demolition con-
tractors but is under no supervision or coordination of government
bodies. Prices of backfilling ranged from $US1.7/ton to $US3.4/ton.
Selling CDW for recycling was observed at all survey sites even
though this only accounted for 1.4% in the overall CDW flow. Recy-
cled CDW, including metal, wire, paper and so on, were sold either
directly to recyclers or through middlemen such as traders or scav-
engers. Prices of valuable CDW were dependent on buyers. On
average, metal was sold at about $US0.3/kg and wire were traded
at $US2.6/kg for copper. Classifying CDW for sale is the only form
of sorting at source that was observed at the investigated construc-
38 N.H. Hoang et al. / Waste Management 117 (2020) 32–41
tion and demolition projects. This process was simply economics-
driven; environmental protection was not yet of concern. Whereas
asbestos was found in several demolition sites, no extra handling
was performed for this hazardous waste. Pursuant to Circular No.
36/2015/TT-BTNMT of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Envi-
ronment of Vietnam (MONRE), CDW containing asbestos is consid-
ered hazardous waste that has to be strictly controlled during
storage, transportation, and treatment (Government of Vietnam,
2015; MONRE, 2015). Asbestos found in this study was instead
mixed with other CDWs for backfilling or disposal.
Differences in waste flows among the surveyed construction
and demolition sites are driven by diverse practices of the contrac-
tors as well as demand for CDW (Appendix 5. CDW flows in all sur-
vey sites). As an example, variation among the small demolition
sites in the percentage of reuse in other sites was probably caused
by the availability of projects requiring levelling or backfilling at
that time.
Breaking down the percentage of waste that was reused/recy-
cled in each site category (i.e. the amount of waste reused/recycled
per total amount of waste generated), among common CDW com-
ponents metal was recycled most (89% of metal waste was sold to
recyclers), followed by brick and concrete (41% and 19% respec-
tively were reused in other sites). Excavated soil had the lowest
recycling rate: 4.6% (4.5% for on-site reuse and 0.10% for reuse at
other sites).
By weight, 61% of overall CDW generated in the survey sites was
reportedly disposed of at the CDW landfills. Whilst insignificant,
CDW was found illegally mixed with and discarded as domestic
waste in the small-scale construction sites, accounting for 0.11%
of the waste disposed of in this site category. Besides, most respon-
dents were loath to provide exact CDW flows. Whilst the answer of
‘‘unknown” was often given at the construction sites, unverifiable
statements about CDW final destinations such as ‘‘the company
site” were provided by the demolition contractors, leading to a
share of 22% and 6.9% of unknown sources and unofficial dump-
sites, respectively, in the overall CDW flow. Circular 08, which
has come into effect since May 2017, requires construction projects
to provide detailed management plans for CDW discharged (MOC,
2017). The nearly 30% proportion of unclear CDW final destina-
tions, therefore, raises a question on how well this Circular is being
obeyed and enforced to ensure it is a practical procedure rather
than an on-paper scheme.
5. Discussion
Through the application of waste layout quantification and
image analysis, this study identified the CDW generation rates
per total floor areas and the CDW composition at 15 large- and
small-scale construction and demolition sites in Hanoi, Vietnam.
Excavated soil had the highest WGR among all CDW components.
This waste was mainly generated in construction sites. Concrete
and brick waste were the second and third most common CDW
components and prevalent in both construction and demolition
projects. The WGRs of other CDW components identified included
metal, wood, paper, plastics, gypsum, asbestos, etc. In total, the
WGRs of small- and large-scale construction sites were 79.3 and
1,030 kg/m2 while that of small- and large-scale demolition sites
were 610 and 318 kg/m2. The identified WGRs play an important
role in projecting total CDW generation at regional and local levels
(Islam et al., 2019; Lu et al., 2011) and therefore contributing to the
development of statistics-based schemes and projects on CDW
management (Hoang et al., 2020). This is a critical and practical
contribution of this research, given the deficiency of data on
CDW generation and handling in Vietnam.
Based on the face-to-face interviews at the survey sites, about
90% of CDW was not reused or recycled. This rate can even be more
alarming in rural areas or provincial cities where enforcement of
CDW management is less stringent. This implies a great waste bur-
den and land consumption for CDW dumping that the construction
industry has caused, as well as a dearth of proper attention paid to
CDW management in the country (Hussin et al., 2013). Considering
lessons learnt in Japan where proper implementation of the Con-
struction Material Recycling Law reportedly contributed to an
increase of about 33% in the CDW recycling rate (Akhtar &
Sarmah, 2018), stricter supervision and enforcement by the Viet-
namese government at both central and local levels are recom-
mended to ensure effectiveness of CDW reuse/recycling-oriented
policies such as Circular 08. It is also advisable to provide construc-
tion and demolition contractors and workers with training and
guidelines on proper CDW handling methods and construction/de-
molition techniques that allow more comprehensive on-site sort-
ing such as deconstruction (Dantata et al., 2005; Densley Tingley
& Davison, 2012). Given the shortage of CDW landfills in Vietnam,
the findings of this study also affirmed the prevalence of illegal
dumping of CDW in water bodies and on curbsides, etc. as reported
in the National State of Environment Report in 2016 (MONRE,
2017). It is very likely that the CDW that the interviewees reported
transporting to unknown or unclear final destinations was dumped
in such areas. The Hanoi master plan on solid waste disposal to
2030, vision towards 2050 forecasted that land allocation would
need to increase by over five times, from 74 to 409 ha in the next
30 years, in order to meet the demand for CDW and wastewater
sludge disposal (Government of Vietnam, 2014). Since land is a
finite resource, unless CDW reuse and recycling are strongly pro-
moted, illegal dumping will remain an alarming issue in Vietnam.
Not only potentially contributing to the estimation of national
CDW amount, the WGRs determined in this study also disclosed
inadequacies in current construction management practices in
Vietnam that result in a large amount of materials waste during
the construction process. This finding raises the need for construc-
tion managers and investors to put into place more sustainable
construction measures.
The composition analysis identified soil, concrete, and brick as
the major CDW components in Vietnam, consistent with the coun-
try’s building structures. Together, these waste components con-
tribute to approximately 90% of the total CDW stream, which is a
significant portion, making it worthwhile for waste managers or
policy makers to pay regulatory attention to them at the national
level when seeking strategies for more sustainable CDW manage-
ment or determining priorities in recycling programs.
Climate has long been a driving factor in building construction
and design (Branch & Saghez, 2013; Givoni, 1998; Loftness, 2005).
Stretching from North to South, Vietnam possesses three distinctive
climate zones with diverse temperature, humidity, and rainfall
ranges, making building structure, design, and materials remarkably
different from one zone to another (A.-T. Nguyen et al., 2011). This
study was conducted in Hanoi, located in the Red River Delta, the
north of Vietnam where the percentage of houses that were perma-
nent in 2018 was 92%, well exceeding that in the Central area (67%)
and the South area (21%) (GSO, 2019). Consequently, the CDW com-
position and WGRs discovered in this study can be dissimilar to
those in other regions of Vietnam. Accordingly, regardless of the
large number of survey sites, this research’s findings are probably
still not representative of all buildings throughout the country. Gen-
eralization of these findings to other parts of Vietnam or other coun-
tries, therefore, should be treated with caution.
This study employed bulk density data sourced from several
countries, making it an approximation only. Direct measurements
are recommended to provide more reliable and national waste
density data and thereby enhance the accuracy of the WGRs.
 N.H. Hoang et al. / Waste Management 117 (2020) 32–41
Even though a wide array of technologies for CDW recycling has
been developed worldwide (Rao et al., 2007), CDW recycling and
reuse rates remain insignificant in Vietnam, as discovered through
the interviews with the construction and demolition contractors.
Recycling of CDW to make recycled aggregates, concrete block,
concrete, and materials for road construction, etc., as Tam and
Tam (2006) stated, is potentially profitable. With the remarkable
accumulation of CDW estimated in this study, recycling would
generate great economic and environmental benefits. To promote
CDW recycling, however, it is of great importance that essential
perquisites be established, including a policy environment that
better facilitates CDW product recycling by developing quality
standards and encouraging green building procurement, and more
importantly, a sustainable business model that attracts CDW recy-
cling investors. The amount of CDW estimated in this study pro-
vided a valuable data on the supply side, i.e. material input, of
CDW recycling business. This study was not able to assess the
demand for recycled CDW products, however. Therefore, it is sug-
gested that future studies evaluate the economic feasibility of CDW
recycling in Vietnam.
6. Conclusion
This study determined the WGRs, composition, and handling
practices of CDW in Vietnam. Excavated soil had the highest
WGR in the surveyed construction sites whilst concrete and brick
were common in both construction and demolition sites. The most
popular demolition wastes were concrete, brick, and metal, consis-
tent with building structure in Vietnam. Asbestos, which is consid-
ered hazardous waste according to Vietnam regulations, was found
in the investigated demolition sites, where legally required treat-
ment of the said waste was not observed. The interviews with
the site supervisors and contractors revealed a limited rate of
10% of CDW reuse and recycling in Vietnam, raising a need for
aggressive methods to promote more sustainable CDW manage-
ment in the country. This study’s findings can be utilized to aid
CDW managers and policy makers in this regard by supporting
the determination of total CDW generation and which CDW needs
the most attention, as well as roughly identifying the potential of
supply materials for recycling facilities. However, future studies
are recommended to identify the bulk density of CDW in Vietnam
in order to increase the accuracy of WGR estimates. Research on
the demand for recycled CDW products is also necessary for eval-
uating the economic feasibility of CDW recycling in Vietnam.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported as a project of the Japan Science
and Technology Agency (JST) – Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA) on Science and Technology Research Partnership
for Sustainable Development (SATREPS) (No. JPMJSA1701). The
authors also would like to express their gratitude to Vietnam
Waste Planning Co., Ltd for their cooperation in conducting this
study.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.08.006.
39
References
Agamuthu, P., 2008. Challenges in sustainable management of construction and
demolition waste. Waste Manage. Res. 26, 491–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242X08100096.
Akhtar, A., Sarmah, A.K., 2018. Construction and demolition waste generation and
properties of recycled aggregate concrete: A global perspective. J. Cleaner Prod.
186, 262–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.085.
Almås, A.-J., Lisø, K.R., Hygen, H.O., Øyen, C.F., Thue, J.V., 2011. An approach to
impact assessments of buildings in a changing climate. Building Res.
Information 39 (3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09613218.2011.562025.
Asgari, A., Ghorbanian, T., Yousefi, N., Dadashzadeh, D., Khalili, F., Bagheri, A., Raei,
M., Mahvi, A.H., 2017. Quality and quantity of construction and demolition
waste in Tehran. J. Environ. Health Sci. Engineer 15 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/
s40201-017-0276-0.
Asif, M., Muneer, T., Kelley, R., 2007. Life cycle assessment: a case study of a
dwelling home in Scotland. Build. Environ. 42 (3), 1391–1394. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.11.023.
Banta, L., Cheng, K., Zaniewski, J., 2003. Estimation of limestone particle mass from
2D images. Powder Technol. 132 (2), 184–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-
5910(03)00061-5.
Bekr, G. A. (2014). Study of the Causes and Magnitude of Wastage of Materials on
Construction Sites in Jordan. Journal of Construction Engineering, 2014, 283298.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/283298. doi:10.1155/2014/
283298.
Bergsdal, H., Bohne, R.A., Brattebø, H., 2007. Projection of construction and
demolition waste in Norway. J. Ind. Ecol. 11 (3), 27–39. https://doi.org/
10.1162/jiec.2007.1149.
Bossink, B. A. G., & Brouwers, H. J. H. (1996). Construction Waste: Quantification and
Source Evaluation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122
(1), 55-60. Retrieved from https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%
290733-9364%281996%29122%3A1%2855%29. doi:doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9364(1996)122:1(55).
Branch, S., Saghez, I., 2013. The role of climate factors on designing and constructing
buildings (from urbanization architecture approach). Bull. Environ. Pharmacol.
Life Sci. 3 (1), 197–200.
Building and Construction Authority of Singapore. (2008). Sustainable Construction:
A Guide on the Use of Recycled Materials. Retrieved from Singapore:
Califice, A., Michel, F., Dislaire, G., Pirard, E., 2013. Influence of particle shape on size
distribution measurements by 3D and 2D image analyses and laser diffraction.
Powder Technol. 237, 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2013.01.003.
Cha, G.-W., Moon, H.J., Kim, Y.-C., Hong, W.-H., Jeon, G.-Y., Yoon, Y.R., Hwang, J.-H.,
2020. Evaluating recycling potential of demolition waste considering building
structure types: a study in South Korea. J. Cleaner Prod. 256, 120385. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120385.
Cochran, K., Townsend, T., Reinhart, D., Heck, H., 2007. Estimation of regional
building-related C&D debris generation and composition: Case study for
Florida, US Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0956053X06001449 Waste Manage. 27 (7), 921–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2006.03.023.
Dantata, N., Touran, A., Wang, J., 2005. An analysis of cost and duration for
deconstruction and demolition of residential buildings in Massachusetts
Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S092134490400148X Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 44 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2004.09.001.
Densley Tingley, D., Davison, B., 2012. Developing an LCA methodology to account
for the environmental benefits of design for deconstruction Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132312001643 Build.
Environ. 57, 387–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.06.005.
Ding, T., Xiao, J., 2014. Estimation of building-related construction and demolition
waste in Shanghai Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0956053X14003341 Waste Manage. 34 (11), 2327–2334. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.07.029.
Enshassi, A., Abdul-Aziz, A.-R., Abushaban, S., 2012. Analysis of contractors
performance in gaza strip construction projects. Int. J. Construction
Management 12 (2), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2012.10773191.
Environment Protection Authority Victoria. (2018). Waste Materials – Density Data.
Retrieved from https://www.epa.vic.gov.au/business-and-industry/lower-your-
impact/~/media/Files/bus/EREP/docs/wastematerials-densities-data.pdf.
EPA. (2015). Estimating 2003 Building-Related Construction and Demolition
Materials Amounts. Retrieved from USA.
Formoso, C. T., Soibelman, L., Cesare, C. D., & Isatto, E. L. (2002). Material Waste in
Building Industry: Main Causes and Prevention. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 128(4), 316-325. Retrieved from https://
ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9364%282002%29128%
3A4%28316%29. doi:doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2002)128:4(316).
Foster, M.S., Harrold, C., Hardin, D.D., 1991. Point vs. photo quadrat estimates of the
cover of sessile marine organisms. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 146 (2), 193–203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(91)90025-R.
Givoni, B., 1998. Climate considerations in building and urban design. John Wiley &
Sons.
Government of Vietnam. (2014). Decision No. 609/QD-TTg on approving the master
plan on solid waste disposal of Hanoi capital to 2030, vision towards 2050.
Vietnam.
40 N.H. Hoang et al. / Waste Management 117 (2020) 32–41
Government of Vietnam. (2015). Decree No. 38/2015/ND-CP on management of
waste and discarded materials. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Government of Vietnam. (2018). Decision No. 491/QD-TTg on approving
adjustments to National strategy for general management of solid waste to
2025 with vision towards 2050. Vietnam.
GSO. (2015). Population and Housing Census by April 1, 2014: Main findings.
Retrieved from Hanoi, Vietnam.
GSO. (2017). Statistical Yearbook of Vietnam 2017. Vietnam: Statistical Publishing
House.
GSO. (2018). Statistical Yearbook of Vietnam 2018. Vietnam: Statistical Publishing
House.
GSO. (2019). Percentage of households having house by type of house, by residence,
by region and by income quintile by items, years and types of house. Retrieved
June 10, 2020, from General Statistics Office of Vietnam http://www.gso.gov.vn/
default_en.aspx?tabid=783.
Hao, J.L., Hills, M.J., Tam, V.W.Y., 2008. The effectiveness of Hong Kong’s
construction waste disposal charging scheme. Waste Manage. Res. 26 (6),
553–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X07085345.
Hoang, N.H., Ishigaki, T., Kubota, R., Yamada, M., Kawamoto, K., 2020. A review of
construction and demolition waste management in Southeast Asia. J. Mater.
Cycles Waste Manage. 22 (2), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-019-
00914-5.
Hussin, J.M., Rahman, I.A., Memon, A.H., 2013. The way forward in sustainable
construction: issues and challenges. Int. J. Adv. Appl. Sci. 2 (1), 15–24. https://
doi.org/10.11591/ijaas.v2i1.1321.
Islam, R., Nazifa, T.H., Yuniarto, A., Shanawaz Uddin, A.S.M., Salmiati, S., Shahid, S.,
2019. An empirical study of construction and demolition waste generation and
implication of recycling. Waste Manage. 95, 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2019.05.049.
Japan Federation of Construction Contractors (JFCC). (2005). Waste bulk density.
Retrieved from https://www.nikkenren.com/kankyou.
Katz, A., Baum, H., 2011. A novel methodology to estimate the evolution of
construction waste in construction sites Retrieved from http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X10000176 Waste
Manage. 31 (2), 353–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.01.008.
Kofoworola, O.F., Gheewala, S.H., 2009. Estimation of construction waste generation
and management in Thailand Retrieved from http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X08002341 Waste
Manage. 29 (2), 731–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.07.004.
Kozlovská, M., Spišáková, M., 2013. Contruction waste generation across
construction project life-cycle. Organization, Technol. Management
Construction: An Int. J. 5 (1), 687–695.
Lafayette, K. P. V., Paz, D. H. F. d., Holanda, M. J. d. O., & Costa, L. A. R. d. C. (2018).
Analysis of generation and characterization of construction and demolition
waste on construction sites in the city of Recife, Brazil. Matéria (Rio de Janeiro),
23. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=
S1517-70762018000300422&nrm=iso.
Lau, H.H., Whyte, A., Law, P.L., 2008. Composition and characteristics of
construction waste generated by residential housing project. Int. J. Environ.
Res. 2 (3). https://doi.org/10.22059/IJER.2010.202.
Lockrey, S., Nguyen, H., Crossin, E., Verghese, K., 2016. Recycling the construction
and demolition waste in Vietnam: opportunities and challenges in practice. J.
Cleaner Prod. 133, 757–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.175.
Loftness, V., 2005. Architecture And Climate. In: Oliver, J.E. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
World Climatology. Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 63–77.
Lu, W., Yuan, H., Li, J., Hao, J.J., Mi, X., Ding, Z., 2011. An empirical investigation of
construction and demolition waste generation rates in Shenzhen city South
China. Waste Management 31 (4), 680–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2010.12.004.
Mah, C.M., Fujiwara, T., Ho, C.S., 2016. Construction and demolition waste
generation rates for high-rise buildings in Malaysia. Waste Manage. Res. 34
(12), 1224–1230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X16666944.
Mália, Miguel, de Brito, Jorge, Pinheiro, Manuel Duarte, Bravo, Miguel, 2013.
Construction and demolition waste indicators. Waste Manag Res 31 (3), 241–
255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X12471707.
Martínez Lage, I., Martínez Abella, F., Herrero, C.V., Ordóñez, J.L.P., 2010. Estimation
of the annual production and composition of C&D Debris in Galicia (Spain)
Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0956053X09005182 Waste Manage. 30 (4), 636–645. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2009.11.016.
McGregor, M., Washburn, H., Palermini, D., 1993. Characterization of construction
site waste: Final Report. METRO solid waste department, Portland, Oregon.
Medina, C., de Rojas, M.S., Frías, M., Juan, A., 2011. Using ceramic materials in
ecoefficient concrete and precast concrete products. Advances in Ceramics-
Electric and Magnetic Ceramics, Bioceramics, Ceramics and Environment:
IntechOpen.
Metro Vancouver. (2008). Demolition, Land Clearing and Construction Waste
Management Toolkit. Retrieved from Vancouver, Canada: http://www.
metrovancouver.org/services/solid-waste/SolidWastePublications/DLCToolkit.
pdf.
Ministry of Environment of Japan (MoE). (2019). Laws: Waste & Recycling. Law.
Retrieved from https://www.env.go.jp/en/laws/recycle/.
MOC, 2016. Circular No. 03/2016/TT-BXD on classification of construction works
and instructions on application to construction management. Vietnam.
MOC. (2017). Circular No. 08/2017/TT-BXD on Construction Solid Waste
Management. Vietnam.
MOC, 2019. Circular No. 07/2019/TT-BXD on amending, supplementing and
replacing a number of regulations of Circular No. 03/2016/TT-BXD dated
March 10, 2016 of Minister of Construction regulating classification of
construction works and instructions on application to construction
management. Vietnam.
Mokhtar, S.N., Mahmood, N.Z., Che Hassan, C.R., Masudi, A.F., Sulaiman, N.M., 2011.
Factors that contribute to the generation of construction waste at sites. Adv.
Mater. Res. 163–167, 4501–4507. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/
AMR.163-167.4501.
MONRE. (2015). Circular No. 36/2015/TT-BTNMT on management of hazadous
wastes. Hanoi, Vietnam.
MONRE. (2017). National State of Environment Report 2016. Retrieved from Hanoi,
Vietnam.
Nagapan, S., Rahman, I. A., Asmi, A., & Adnan, N. F. (2013). Study of Site’s
Construction Waste in Batu Pahat, Johor. Procedia Engineering, 53, 99-103.
Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187770581
3001343. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.02.015.
National Environment Agency of Singapore, 2017. Waste Statistics and Overall
Recycling. National, Singapore. Environment Agency Retrieved from https://
www.nea.gov.sg/our-services/waste-management/waste-statistics-and-
overall-recycling.
Nguyen, A.-T., Tran, Q.-B., Tran, D.-Q., Reiter, S., 2011. An investigation on climate
responsive design strategies of vernacular housing in Vietnam Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132311001211 Build.
Environ. 46 (10), 2088–2106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.04.019.
Nguyen, H. G. (2019). Current Situation and New Regulations on Construction and
Demolition Waste Management in Vietnam. Paper presented at the 2019
International Symposium on Construction and Demolition Waste Management,
Tokyo, Japan.
Nguyen, V.T., Tong, T.K., Dang, T.T.H., Tran, T.V.N., Nguyen, H.G., Nguyen, T.D.,
Kawamoto, K., 2018. Current status of construction and demolition waste
management in Vietnam: challenges and opportunities. Int. J. GEOMATE 15
(52), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.21660/2018.52.7194.
Nowak, D.J., Rowntree, R.A., McPherson, E.G., Sisinni, S.M., Kerkmann, E.R., Stevens,
J.C., 1996. Measuring and analyzing urban tree cover Retrieved from http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204696003246 Landscape
Urban Plann. 36 (1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(96)00324-6.
Nugroho, A., Tongthong, T., & Shin–ei, T. (2013). Measurement of the Construction
Waste Volume Based on Digital Images. International Journal of Civil &
Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS, 13(2), 35-41. doi:1310902-4848-
IJCEE-IJENS.
Ortiz, O., Pasqualino, J.C., Castells, F., 2010. Environmental performance of
construction waste: Comparing three scenarios from a case study in
Catalonia, Spain Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S0956053X09005005 Waste Manage. 30 (4), 646–654. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2009.11.013.
Paine, D. P., & Kiser, J. D. (2012). Principles of Stereoscopic Vision. In I. John Wiley &
Sons (Ed.), Aerial Photography and Image Interpretation (pp. 44-67).
Peddireddy, S., Longhurst, P.J., Wagland, S.T., 2015. Characterising the composition
of waste-derived fuels using a novel image analysis tool Retrieved from http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X15002007. Waste Manage.
40, 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.03.015.
Perera, D.W.U., Pfeiffer, C.F., Skeie, N.-O., 2014. Modelling the heat dynamics of a
residential building unit: Application to Norwegian buildings. Modeling
Identification Control 35 (1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.4173/mic.2014.1.4.
Rao, A., Jha, K.N., Misra, S., 2007. Use of aggregates from recycled construction and
demolition waste in concrete. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 50 (1), 71–81. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.05.010.
Tam, V.W.Y., Tam, C.M., 2006. A review on the viable technology for construction
waste recycling Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S0921344905001746 Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 47 (3), 209–221. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.12.002.
Tong, T.K., Le, T.T., Lu, V.P., 2013. Recycling construction demolition waste in the
world and in Vietnam. Paper presented at the The International Conference on
Sustainable Built Environment for Now and the Future.
Treloar, Graham J., Gupta, Hani, Love, Peter E.D., Nguyen, Binh, 2003. An analysis of
factors influencing waste minimisation and use of recycled materials for the
construction of residential buildings. Manage. Env. Quality 14 (1), 134–145.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14777830310460432.
Villoria Sáez, P., del Río Merino, M., Porras-Amores, C., 2012. Estimation of
construction and demolition waste volume generation in new residential
buildings in Spain. Waste Manag Res 30 (2), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242x11423955.
Villoria Sáez, P., Osmani, M., 2019. A diagnosis of construction and demolition waste
generation and recovery practice in the European Union Retrieved from http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619332706 J. Cleaner
Prod. 241,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118400 118400.
Wagland, S.T., Dudley, R., Naftaly, M., Longhurst, P.J., 2013. Determination of
renewable energy yield from mixed waste material from the use of novel image
analysis methods. Waste Manage. 33 (11), 2449–2456. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2013.06.021.
Wagland, S.T., Veltre, F., Longhurst, P.J., 2012. Development of an image-based
analysis method to determine the physical composition of a mixed waste
material Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0956053X11004259 Waste Manage. 32 (2), 245–248. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2011.09.019.
 N.H. Hoang et al. / Waste Management 117 (2020) 32–41 41

Wu, Z., Yu, A.T.W., Shen, L., Liu, G., 2014. Quantifying construction and demolition Yean Yng Ling, F., & Song Anh Nguyen, D. (2013). Strategies for construction waste
waste: An analytical review Retrieved from http:// management in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Built Environment Project and Asset
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X14002104 Waste Management, 3(1), 141-156. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-08-2012-0045.
Manage. 34 (9), 1683–1692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.010. Zheng, L., Wu, H., Zhang, H., Duan, H., Wang, J., Jiang, W., Song, Q., 2017.
Yang, B., Song, X., Yuan, H., Zuo, J., 2020. A model for investigating construction Characterizing the generation and flows of construction and demolition waste
workers’ waste reduction behaviors Retrieved from http:// in China Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620318886 J. Cleaner S0950061817300703 Constr. Build. Mater. 136, 405–413. https://doi.org/
Prod. 265,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121841 121841. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.01.055.