TJCM A 2056804 Proof-2-16

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/359605304
Barriers to improving construction and demolition waste management in

Bangladesh
Article in International Journal of Construction Management · March 2022

DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2022.2056804
CITATIONS READS
16 1,203
3 authors, including:
Mohammad Raquibul Hasan

Curtin University
17 PUBLICATIONS 86 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Raquibul Hasan on 03 April 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
1 https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2022.2056804
65
2 66
3 67
4
RESEARCH ARTICLE 68
5 69
6 Barriers to improving construction and demolition waste management 70
7 in Bangladesh 71
8 72
9 73
10
Md. Raquibul Hasana, Ayesha Siddikaa,b, Md. Samiul Islam Sagara and Bhadro Chandro Raya 74
11 a
Department of Civil Engineering, Pabna University of Science and Technology, Bangladesh; bSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 75
12 University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, NSW, Australia 76
13 77
14 78
15 ABSTRACT KEYWORDS 79
16 In Bangladesh, the minimisation of construction and demolition waste (CDW) generation is a demanding Attitudes; behaviour; 80
construction and demolition
17 need to alleviate the environmental burden. Various barriers limit the effective CDW management strat-
waste; waste 81
18 egies in this economy. Hence, this paper aims to explore the major obstacles to managing construction 82
management; Bangladesh
and demolition waste in Bangladesh. Major barriers identified in previous studies were selected through a
19 83
literature review, and a tentative question list was prepared. Afterwards, by the suggestion of four
20 experts, a structured questionnaire was designed to collect the respondents’ knowledge on CDW, impacts 84
21 of CDW and 19 barriers that hinder the effective implementation of CDW management. On-site visits and 85
22 face-to-face interviews were to collect research data. The results of the questionnaire survey were ana- 86
23 lysed using ranking analysis. The findings show that waste generation in construction and demolition 87
24 sites is different. Primary wastes generated in demolition sites are concrete and bricks, whereas in con- 88
25 struction sites, the percentage of concrete, timber, brick, metal, sand, etc., is high. This study also eval- 89
26 uated that female respondent, mainly field workers, have more knowledge about CDW management than 90
27 males. However, the number of female workers is few due to socio-cultural barriers. Based on the ranking 91
28 analysis, the four most significant barriers that were identified hindering the effective CDW management 92
are: ’Negligence and carefree attitude of workers’, ’Poor supervision’, ’Inadequate workers’ skill’, ’Space
29 93
lacking for on-site storage’. The current study contributes to the field by identifying and highlighting the
30 challenges to CDW management implementation in Bangladesh and providing remedial solutions to the 94
31 identified barriers. Furthermore, the results could be helpful to provide information for developing strat- 95
32 egies to improve CDW management strategies in Bangladesh. 96
33 97
34 98
35 99
36 100
37 Q1 Introduction et al. 2006). The unavailability of dumping sites to accommodate 101
38 the higher volumes of debris from construction sites is becoming 102
39 Construction and demolition waste (CDW) is defined as a mix- a severe problem (Kulatunga et al. 2006). For the lacking of 103
40 ture of surplus materials generated from the construction, reno- dumping sites, illegal dumping along roadsides of the local area 104
41 vation, and demolition activities, for example, site clearance, land is increasing. Consequently, the surrounding environment is pol- 105
42 excavation and roadwork, and demolition (Jin et al. 2017). luting, and toxin materials from this waste infiltrate soil and 106
43 Depending on chemical characteristics, CDW is divided into drinking water and threaten residents’ health (Nagapan et al. 107
44 inert and non-inert materials. Concrete, bricks, sub-soil are the 2012). Diminish landfill space, depletion of resources, consump- 108
45 common types of inert materials, and these are hardly participat- tion of energy and non-energy resources, global warming, 109
46 ing in chemical reactions under typical circumstances. In con- increased environmental pollution (including air, water, soil and 110
47 trast, rebar and wood are non-inert materials and are readily noise pollution) are the significant environmental impacts caused 111
48 involved in chemical reactions (Umar et al. 2017). by CDW (Akanbi et al. 2018; Chen et al. 2021; Siddika 112
49 The demand for houses and major infrastructure projects et al. 2021). 113
50 make the amount of construction waste getting increased The effective management of CDW can be a solution for this 114
51 (Nagapan et al. 2012; Siddika et al. 2019; Siddika et al. 2021). issue; however, the management of CDW is a problem suffered 115
52 Directly or indirectly, from constructing new structures and 116
worldwide. Though the developed countries are concerned about
53 demolition of old or renovated structures, a considerable amount 117
CDW, the developing countries face severe problems regarding
54 of CDW has been generated as unwanted materials (Fatemi 118
CDW generation and its management. Several barriers are con-
55 119
2012). It is estimated that the construction and demolition debris scientious of this problem. Therefore, the obstacles that hinder
56 120
is about 15-30% of all solid waste by weight, and it represents a the employment of CDW management in developing countries
57 121
significant component of municipal solid waste (Fatemi 2012). should be distinguished to resolve the issue (Ghoddousi et al.
58 122
59 Construction waste is also a cost to the environment that threat- 2015). Although, lower awareness of CDW management and less 123
60 ens its resilience. Due to the improper disposal method, inert pressure on land resources for construction waste disposal is cru- 124
61 and non-inert CDW ends up in landfills and increases the num- cial for this practice in the low and middle-income countries’ 125
62 ber of virgin materials used in construction projects (Kulatunga construction sector (Ofori 2012). Nevertheless, the management 126
63 127
64 CONTACT Raquibul Hasan raquibulh@yahoo.com Department of Civil Engineering, Pabna University of Science and Technology, Bangladesh 128
ß 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. R. HASAN ET AL.
129 of CDW in developing countries is still lagging behind Western Agency published Resolution in 2002, which demands that all 193
130 countries (Yuan 2017). local government bodies organise and carry out programs for the 194
131 Being a developing country, Bangladesh is also facing issues sustainable management of CDW (Mendon 2019). In mainland 195
132 regarding CDW generation and its management. As the con- China, the Administration of Urban Construction Garbage was 196
133 struction industry contributes 7.50% of the GDP promulgated in 2005 to promote local CDW control rules (J. Li 197
134 (Correspondence 2018; Financial Express Online Report 2018), et al. 2013). Australia produces high levels of CDW, and among 198
135 thus recently, there has been a strong demand for construction eight states, each has an independent CDW reduction process 199
136 activities, which has led to a construction boom. Various big (Newaz et al. 2020). NSW Environment Protection Authority set 200
137 construction projects such as educational institutions, industries, standards concerning waste inspection requirements, sorting, 201
138 powerplants, highways, bridges, etc., have already been started in storage, and transport that needs to be followed by every CDW 202
139 different cities of Bangladesh (Bss 2018). As a result, the CDW is facility (Newaz et al. 2020). Dubai municipality enforced the sus- 203
140 increasing, and for the lack of proper management high amount tainable construction concept to introduce the green building 204
141 of CDW can find everywhere in Bangladesh. It is estimated that initiative, and the projects have to earn a minimum number of 205
142 about 85-90% of the generated CDW is dumped in Bangladesh mandatory credits towards sustainable construction (El-Sayegh 206
143 (Islam et al. 2019). Inefficient CDW management is the main et al. 2021). 207
144 reason for the unauthorised dumping in Bangladesh. 208
145 Effective management of CDW can be a solution to minimise 209
146 waste generation. Also, by proper treatment, CDW has an excel- Low and Middle-Income countries scenario for the 210
147 lent possibility for producing valuable resources. Meanwhile, construction industry 211
148 some barriers are making CDW management difficult. The gross domestic products and employment are dependent on 212
149 Developing countries like Bangladesh are still lagging in identify- the construction industry in low and middle-income countries 213
150 ing such barriers. For improving CDW management, a deeper (Ngowi 2002). In developing countries, the construction technol- 214
151 understanding of barriers is necessary. ogies are not appropriate, and there is also a lack of qualified 215
152 Few studies are found in the literature regarding CDW man- equipment operators (Thomas 2002). Fabrication facilities, 216
153 agement implementation factors and proposing a solution for material handling and organisational structure are also inad- 217
154 improving the current situation in low and middle-income coun- equate in these countries (Thomas 2002). Construction waste 218
155 tries. Existing studies have shown that effective CDW manage- generation has become a significant concern as it affects its man- 219
156 ment can reduce CDW in different projects (Coelho and De agement efficiency (Formoso et al. 2002). 220
157 Brito 2013). Nonetheless, a survey regarding barriers to CDW In Peru, although construction waste management is regu- 221
158 management in a developing and overpopulated country like lated by general law to minimise, recover and dispose of CDW 222
159 Bangladesh is still not readily available. Hence the main objective properly, the scenario is the opposite, resulting from high waste 223
160 of this paper is to identify the key barriers to the implementation generation, zero recovery and improper disposal (Rondinel- 224
161 of effective CDW management in Bangladesh. This study also Oviedo 2021). CDW recycling is not practised in India, and it 225
162 intends to evaluate the percentage of construction and demoli- isn’t easy to quantify. About 12-15 million tonnes of CDW is 226
163 tion waste in different sites, inspect current CDW management generated per year in India. CDW in rural areas is also increas- 227
164 practices, and propose measures to improve its current practices. ing in comparison to urban areas. It is claimed that the infra- 228
165 This research starts with a brief overview of the challenges asso- structures of the rural regions consume approximately 40% of 229
166 ciated with implementing construction and demolition waste 230
total cement (Jain et al. 2021). Safety, health, and the environ-
167 management. It then introduces the data collecting and analysis 231
ment are often neglected on construction sites and rarely man-
168 methods used, including document analysis, semi-structured 232
aged in Palestine. In particular, there is a lack of safety rules and
169 interviews, questionnaires, and ranking analysis. Following that, 233
legislation. This situation has led to an increase in construction
170 analyses, discussions, and findings are presented; it is worth not- 234
site injuries (Enshassi et al. 2007). In Vietnam, the technological
171 235
ing that in this section, a framework incorporating major meas- development stage is relatively undeveloped, and the waste man-
172 236
ures for addressing the barriers to improving the performance of agement capability is also immature (Ling and Nguyen 2013).
173 237
construction and demolition waste management, which have Costa Rica is also facing the challenge to manage construction
174 238
been identified through the work of this paper, is also proposed and demolition waste (Abarca-Guerrero et al. 2017).
175 239
and interpreted. Finally, the article reaches a conclusion. This Study shows that the government can play an essential role in
176 240
research’s outcomes could aid both research and the decision- guiding and promoting contractor’s behaviour in CDW manage-
177 241
making and policy development of CDW management ment (Wu et al. 2017). Several researchers (Wu et al. 2017; Zhao
178 242
in Bangladesh. et al. 2008, 2010) proposed that besides governmental policy,
179 243
economic instruments (e.g. tax and subsidy for fostering the
180 244
recycling industry) and economic viability in business profitabil-
181 Review of literature 245
ity also influenced CDW recycling practice. Technical issues with
182 246
recycling CDWs, such as the quality of recycled concrete aggre-
183 Construction waste management practices in 247
gates and their applications and active participation of stakehold-
184 developed countries 248
ers (e.g. government, clients, contractors, suppliers, etc.), is
185 249
In the United Kingdom (UK), the code for sustainable houses essential for CDW management (X. Li 2008, 2009).
186 250
via on-site waste reduction, sorting and recycling is necessary In Bangladesh, construction waste management is not being
187 251
(Department for Communities and Local Government 2009). practised entirely because stakeholders in construction still do
188 252
Many laws have existed to manage CDW in Hong Kong (V. W. not attain sustainable construction waste management practices
189 253
Y. Tam and Tam 2008). For instance, a waste management plan (Ismam and Ismail 2014). As a result, a considerable amount of
190 254
191 has been mandatory for all building projects in Hong Kong since construction waste is effectually generated from inception to 255
192 2003 (Umar et al. 2017). The Brazilian Environmental Protection completion throughout the project (Islam et al. 2019). 256
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 3
257 321
258 322
259 323
260 324
261 325
262 326
263 327
264 328
265 329
266 330
267 331
268 332
269 333
270 334
271 Figure 1. Present CDW management practice in Bangladesh.
335
272 336
273 337
274 338
275 Bangladesh’s old landfills are almost reaching their capacity, and managerial barriers to implement and overcome CDW manage- 339
276 uncontrolled landfill sites are chosen for the CDW (Chowdhury ment practice (Brady et al. 2011; Camuffo et al. 2017; Enshassi 340
277 et al. 2016). Contamination is also dangerous because contami- et al. 2021; Hao et al. 2011; Olatunji 2008; Park and Tucker 341
278 nated construction waste in landfills is still common in develop- 2017; Small et al. 2017; C. M. Tam et al. 2005; Tsang et al. 2017; 342
279 ing countries like Bangladesh (Bossink and Brouwers 1996). Lack Udawatta et al. 2015a; Wirahadikusumah and Ario 2015; Zhou 343
280 of knowledge about construction waste management is a barrier 2016). The graphical representation managerial barrier is shown 344
281 to achieving sustainability. As a result, contractors or clients in Figure 2. 345
282 have to bear profit loss because of additional overhead costs and 346
283 delays and loss of efficiency due to extra time spent on cleaning 347
Financial barrier
284 (Skoyles and Skoyles 1987). Since subcontractors have to esti- 348
From the literature, the absence of markets for construction
285 mate the amount of cost and time for waste generation during 349
waste recycling products is one of the financial barriers that risk
286 bidding, subcontractors have often blamed construction waste 350
the effort for construction waste minimisation practices (Yuan
287 generation. It is high time to consider controlling the generation 351
et al. 2011). The study also reveals that the contractors consider
288 of CDW in different projects to achieve sustainable development 352
the project’s cost increase if they follow the construction waste
289 of CDW (Kareem et al. 2015). Figure 1 shows the present con- 353
290 management system. Also, the absence of economic penalisation 354
struction and demolition waste management practice
291 of inappropriate CDW management hampers the CDW reduc- 355
in Bangladesh.
292 tion practice. Workshop cost for CDW training for the project 356
293 people is identified as a financial barrier (Abubakar Muhammad 357
294 Barriers to implementing CDW management practices Bashir 2013). There is a perception among the workers of a pro- 358
295 ject that CDW management is not cost-effective and efficient. 359
Based on the literature, barriers to implementing reasonable Thus they do not find any financial befits from the waste reduc-
296 procedures to eliminate construction waste in low and middle- 360
297 tion activities. Also, the inflation of waste material prices due to 361
income countries can be categorised into six groups: manage- unsafe market conditions hinders workers’ willingness to separate
298 362
ment, financial, educational, socio-cultural, technical, and the material for recycling and reuse (Teo and Loosemore 2001).
299 363
governmental (Abubakar M. Bashir et al. 2015; Guerrero Figure 2 shows the financial barriers to improving
300 364
et al. 2013). CDW management.
301 365
302 366
303 Managerial Barrier 367
Educational and environmental barriers
304 An organisation’s top management plays a significant role in 368
Educational barriers are also hindering the improvement of con-
305 successfully implementing innovative strategies (Salem et al. 369
struction practices. Lack of education about environmental pollu-
306 2005; Small et al. 2017). Developing and implementing an effect- 370
tion and awareness programs is considered two major
307 ive plan and support to manage changes from implementation 371
educational barrier topics (Abarca-Guerrero et al. 2017). Some
308 are the factors for an organisation’s succession. Some challenges 372
other barriers include a lack of understanding of sustainable
309 are identified in several literature works related to the managerial 373
building education at the university level, inadequate waste han-
310 barrier. Weak project characterisation, insufficient resources, and 374
dling training for construction workers, clients’ unawareness
311 delayed materials delivery were some of the administrative issues 375
about sustainable housing and CDW impact on the environment.
312 376
obstructing effective CDW management (Olatunji 2008). The private and government sectors in low and middle-income
313 377
Moreover, a lack of adequate time for innovation and compre- countries are more concerned about the housing deficit than the
314 378
hensive implementation of the challenges hinder CDW manage- environmental impact. It is also threatening the implementation
315 379
ment (Brady et al. 2011; Zhou 2016). Additionally, lack of of CDW management. Designers play an essential role in mini-
316 380
communication among participants, lack of managerial commit- mising CDW; designers with limited knowledge of materials and
317 381
ment, lack of transparency, time pressure, delay in decision mak- construction methods may lead to design changes, rework, and
318 382
ing, absence of norms, lack of integration of operatives’ poor waste (Luangcharoenrat et al. 2019). A lack of technical skills is 383
319
320 procurement and poor management of materials are some of the another barrier to sustainable CDW management (Abubakar 384
385 449
386 450
387 451
388 452
389 453
390 454
391 455
392 456
393 457
394 458
395 459
396 460
397 461
398 462
399 463
400 464
401 465
402 466
403 467
404 Figure 2. Managerial and financial barriers of CDW management. 468
405 469
406 470
Muhammad Bashir 2013; Small et al. 2017). These barriers
407 Figure 3. Educational and Socio-cultural barriers of CDW management. 471
include insufficient knowledge of implementing eco-technologies,
408 472
secondary education for practitioners, and on-site operations on
409 473
waste reduction. Furthermore, on-site and off-site healthcare
410 474
waste handling training are necessary to prevent contamination
411 475
from hazardous waste (Manowong 2012; Yuan et al. 2011). The
412 476
educational barriers are listed in Figure 3. 477
413
414 478
415 Socio-cultural barriers 479
416 The socio-cultural barrier is a significant barrier to implementing 480
417 the CDW management system (Bygballe and Sw€ard 2014). Lack 481
418 of willingness to share ideas between clients and contractors is a 482
419 socio-cultural barrier, resulting in a behaviour in which clients 483
420 have a low demand for sustainable buildings (Mossman 2009). 484
421 Lack of communication between designers and clients is a socio- 485
422 486
cultural barrier, and this issue increases design errors, changes,
423 487
and reworks (Laovisutthichai et al. 2020). Many countries still
424 488
prefer in-situ construction rathe prefabrication technique (Yuan
425 489
et al. 2011). The absence of gender equality is also considered a
426 490
socio-cultural barrier; at present, this topic directly affects the Figure 4. Technical and governmental barriers of CDW management.
427 491
CDW management system because women are usually more
428 492
aware of construction waste pollution and can influence policies 2013), poor performance-measurement strategies, and the con-
429 493
and manage these issues (Teo and Loosemore 2001). Figure 3 494
430 struction industry’s fragmented nature (Abubakar M. Bashir
431 represents the socio-cultural barriers. 495
et al. 2015; Small et al. 2017). Lack of integrity of the production
432 chain, including clients, material suppliers, and subcontractors, is 496
433 Technical barriers also a technical barrier (Cano et al. 2015; Zhou 2016). The tech- 497
434 Technical barriers have a direct impact on the implementation of nical barriers that are hampering the CDW management are 498
435 CDW management in a project. It is related to the financial and shown in Figure 4. 499
436 managerial barrier, which can be helpful in CDW reduction 500
437 (Koskela 1992). Lack of waste disposal charge is a technical bar- 501
438 rier. Because illegal dumping has been widely reported in low Governmental barriers 502
439 503
and middle-income countries where government supervision on In low and middle-income countries, government negligence
440 504
waste disposal behaviours is not strict enough (Rameezdeen et al. attitudes and support concerning the CDW are barriers to CDW
441 505
2016). Imposing a higher disposal cost at the landfill can increase management (Abubakar M. Bashir et al. 2015; Cano et al. 2015).
442 506
the recycling of CDW materials, and people will accept recycling Inconsistency in making policies is also identified as a govern-
443 507
waste if there are proper guidelines for reusing aggregates (Del mental barrier, hampering waste reduction practice (Abubakar
444 508
Rıo Merino et al. 2010; Koskela 1992; Udawatta et al. 2015b). M. Bashir et al. 2015; Small et al. 2017). Unsteady prices of com-
445 509
Design-related technical barriers in construction projects also modities required in construction projects to improve safety
446 510
447 hinder CDW management. And these include incomplete designs (personal protective equipment, signs, boards, demarcations and 511
448 (Abubakar M. Bashir et al. 2015; Abubakar Muhammad Bashir alarms) can also prevent waste management (Abubakar M. 512
513 Bashir et al. 2015; Abubakar Muhammad Bashir 2013). of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and associated regulatory 577
514 Furthermore, the governmental policy also affects financial bar- papers and reports were examined, enabling the author to gain a 578
515 riers (inflation, professional wages and corruption practices) and comprehensive and sufficient understanding of CDW manage- 579
516 hamper CDW management (Abubakar Muhammad Bashir ment practices. A systematic literature review can gather all 580
517 2013). The listed governmental barriers are shown in Figure 4. research findings that meet certain criteria to answer a specific 581
518 research question (Snyder 2019). Therefore, this study undertook 582
519 a systematic review of the previous publications relating to CDW 583
520 Research methodology management. The document analysis helped study other econo- 584
521 In this study, some construction and demolition projects in mies’ construction and demolition waste management and lay 585
522 Pabna, Bangladesh, were investigated to find the CDW condi- down preliminary ideas on the many difficulties of improving 586
523 tions on those sites. The in-depth attempt of this study is to construction and demolition waste management. Therefore, the 587
524 uncover some of the critical barriers facing the improvements to document analysis was focused on informing and preparing a list 588
525 waste management practices in this municipality. of the obstacles to construction and demolition waste in 589
526 Bangladesh to improve the performance of CDW management. 590
527 Therefore, this analysis aims to generalise some obstacles to per- 591
528 Case study forming CDW management in Bangladesh. 592
529 Step 2: To better reflect Bangladesh’s actual CDW manage- 593
530 Pabna is a growing city in Bangladesh with a population of 594
ment practice, the constraints identified in step one were vali-
531 181,939 (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS)), 2018). Being an 595
dated and reinforced by industry practitioners and researchers
532 emerging city, construction and demolition work in this city also 596
increases with a significant amount of CDW. Construction and from Bangladesh during August and October 2020. Four semi-
533 structured interviews with two industry experts (contractor and 597
534 demolition waste management in this city is becoming a vital 598
issue because the local landfill fills with considerable waste. Also, engineer) and two researchers (Professor and Associate
535 Professor) were conducted. All of them have around ten years of 599
536 the local authority is not monitoring the waste management 600
facilities regularly. As a result of the lack of CDW management experience in this field. The interviewees were given the list dur-
537 ing the interview. Finally, based on the document analysis and 601
538 practice, the different construction and demolition sites produce 602
a massive amount of CDW. This study makes an effort to gain a interviews conducted in step one, a total of 19 barriers were
539 selected for further investigation. 603
540 greater understanding of waste management practices in 604
Pabna by: Step 3: After that, the questionnaire was designed based on
541 the identified obstacles to cover this research topic as much as 605
542 a. detailing the authentic C&D waste and waste management feasible. For the survey, ten construction and demolition projects 606
543 practices in Pabna, providing insight into the scale of the were chosen. After contact, only seven were showed their will- 607
544 waste produced and areas for the most significant potential ingness to associate in this research work. Among them, four is 608
545 for a waste generation; construction, and three is demolition sites. The selected seven 609
546 b. interviewing the persons (owners, engineers, builders, pro- sites were visited to interview a major portion of the respond- 610
547 ject managers, labours etc.) associated with the construc- ents. Questions were aimed to find the primary causes of waste 611
548 tion project. 612
generation, and barriers for efficient waste management strat-
549 613
egies were also included. The questionnaire was divided into two
550 614
sections: the first section was formulated to obtain general infor-
551 Method of data collection 615
mation about respondents; the second section contains the
552 616
The most efficient research approach for the research issue must abstract knowledge about CDW, 19 barriers affecting CDW
553 617
be used to get reliable and legitimate results. In construction management performance in Bangladesh and the impact of
554 618
research, there are three common approaches: qualitative, quanti- CDW on the environment.
555 619
tative, and mixed methodologies (Fellows and Liu 2015). The Purposive sampling is one of the most frequently recommended
556 620
mixed technique was adopted in this study to combine qualita- sample approaches for qualitative research that involves interviews
557 621
tive and quantitative data. Both qualitative and quantitative data (Bryman 2008). It is a method of selecting samples based on their
558 622
was collected to find the current approaches to construction relevance to the research question. (Denscombe 2010). For an
559 623
waste management in Bangladesh. Qualitative data was collected unknown target sample in a study, purposive sampling is an excel-
560 624
through normative bibliographic reviews, interviews, surveys at lent choice to be adopted (Enshassi et al. 2021). As the size of the
561 625
562
construction and demolition sites, and site visits. Quantitative target sample in this study was unknown, the ‘purposive sampling’ 626
data collection was carried out to provide statistical figures for method as nonprobability sampling was adopted.
563 627
the raw data collection. The collected data were processed, and Also, for a purposive sample, the sample size can be large 628
564
the status of CDW management at the local level was approxi- (>1,000 respondents), medium (100–999 respondents) or small 629
565
mated. Three steps are followed for the data collection process. (<100 respondents) (Battaglia 2008). The study population was 630
566
Step 1: At first, document analysis was carried out from the narrowed to those members who are directly or indirectly associ- 631
567
568 journal papers, conference presentations, and reports, as well as ated with the construction sector. In this study, for calculating 632
569 internet-sourced research information to investigate the research the sample size (n) in terms of the maximum error required (E), 633
570 question of the study- the current issues affecting CDW manage- the (Easterby-Smith et al. 2002) formula was applied, which is as 634
571 ment on Bangladeshi construction sites (Caldera et al. 2020; Esa follows. 635
572 et al. 2017; Ghoddousi et al. 2015; Guerrero et al. 2013; Ling and 636
2500
573 Nguyen 2013; Manowong 2012; Newaz et al. 2020; Othuman n¼ (i) 637
Mydin et al. 2014; Quinn and Smallwood 2018; Rameezdeen E2
574 638
575 et al. 2016; Rondinel-Oviedo 2021; Udawatta et al. 2015a; Yuan According to (Oyedolapo 2014), a smaller standard error can 639
576 et al. 2011). Publications from academic databases such as Web be achieved with a larger sample size. When the standard error 640
641 705
642 706
643 707
644 708
645 709
646 710
647 711
648 712
649 713
650 714
651 715
652 716
653 717
654 718
655 719
656 720
657 721
658 722
659 723
660 724
661 725
662 726
663 727
664 728
665 729
666 Figure 5. Flowchart for data collection and data analysis. 730
667 731
668 732
669 of the sample is reduced, the sample is considered to be more A five-point Likert scale was used in the questionnaire in the 733
670 representative. This study considered a < 5% standard error to second section to measure respondents’ opinions. This study 734
671 represent the sample. Thus, the sample size would be at least 100 indicates 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 numerical scales to enumerate the 735
672 respondents to meet this requirement. Therefore for the survey, obstacles encountered in CDW management. There were mul- 736
673 a total of 220 questionnaires were prepared, and finally, a total tiple items under each category, and survey participants were 737
674 of 180 responses were considered valid for data analysis. This asked to choose the numerical scale from "1" to "5", where "1" 738
675 gave a response rate of 88.3, which can be regarded as very good indicated "minor" of the described item, and "5" conveyed the 739
676 (Enshassi et al. 2021). The sample is considered as medium sam- option of "major". Survey participants who had no idea about a 740
677 ple size and resulted in an error of 3.53%. given question were also given the extra option of ’unsure’. 741
678 Both direct and indirect stakeholders associated with the During this site visit, a physical examination was also con- 742
679 construction and demolition industry were selected as the tar- 743
ducted to observe the present construction and demolition waste
680 geted respondents. The group of respondents included work- 744
generation. The current generation of different types of CDW
681 ers, contractors, recyclers, project owners, site engineers, 745
from the selected construction and demolition sites was eval-
682 supervisors (related/not related to project), managers, govern- 746
683 uated during the site visit. Figure 5 shows the flowchart of the 747
ment officials, residents living/working near construction and research methodology.
684 demolition sites were included as respondents. Participants, 748
685 including zero experience to over 16 years of experience in 749
686 construction and demolition projects, were selected as survey Method of data analysis 750
687 respondents. Initially, the study objectives were discussed with 751
688 the site managers to get permission for workers to participate For statistical tests, the survey sample should be like that it could 752
689 in the survey. The respondents were interviewed using a struc- be treated as a whole and thus appropriate for further analysis 753
690 tured questionnaire. Before giving the questionnaire, it was by the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software 754
691 field-tested and thoroughly explained to minimise misunder- (Version 20.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) (Yuan et al. 2011). 755
692 standing. Field workers who took part in the survey were pre- For determining the reliability of the five-point scale, Cronbach’s 756
693 coefficient alpha is mainly used, which has been used in the sur- 757
sent on-site and available for interviews during site visits.
694 vey by measuring the internal consistency among the factors 758
Local residents were randomly selected and were those who
695 (Yuan et al. 2011). The test result was 0.778, more significant 759
recently built their own houses or working in the area chosen
696 than 0.5, indicating that the five-point scale measurement was 760
for this study. Contractors and recyclers associated with the
697 reliable at the 5 per cent significance level (Yuan et al. 2011). 761
selected projects were chosen for the survey. In addition to
698 Statistical analysis techniques, including ranking analysis, was 762
the answers to the questions, the respondents were permitted
699 used to analyse sample data. The identified obstacles were exam- 763
to express their opinions and ideas and make proposals or
700 764
recommendations. This study used the face to the face ques- ined by ranking them according to mean values. It is worth
701 765
tionnaire survey. It helped to answer respondents’ questions highlighting that only those obstacles with mean values greater
702 766
and clarify immediately. Interviews and field questionnaires than 3.00 were recognised as critical to improving construction
703 767
704 were carried out on the construction sites. and demolition waste management performance. 768
769 Table 1. Selected sites for study. were found on-site regarding the percentage of waste material. 833
770 Site No Type of site Location Figure 6 indicates the percentage of wastage of materials in dif- 834
771 1 Construction Trafic Mor, Pabna ferent sites. 835
772 2 Construction Chapa Masjid, Pabna The portion of wastage materials in construction sites is more 836
3 Demolition Pabna Town hall
773 than in the demolition sites. In demolition sites, concrete and 837
4 Demolition Indira Road, Pabna
774 5 Construction Monsurabd Residential, Pabna
brick waste show a higher percentage of 38% and 27%. In con- 838
775 6 Demolition Square Road, Pabna trast, in construction sites, though concrete and brick waste 839
776 7 Construction Monsurabd Residential, Pabna show a higher rate about 8% and 10%, respectively, the number 840
777 of other materials such as cement plaster (4.5%), cement mortar 841
778 (5%), timber formwork (8%), sand (7%) and bamboo (6.5%) 842
Data analysis and result
779 waste are also found high. The results are notable as the most 843
780 Site observation common type of building construction in Pabna, namely 844
781 masonry construction, entails the top four waste-inducing mate- 845
782 In this study, some construction and demolition sites fo Pabna, rials: bricks, cement mortar, timber, and plaster. 846
783 Bangladesh, were visited to evaluate the wastage material in that 847
784 locations. At first, the sites were selected according to socioeco- 848
785 nomic categories, and it was observed that the construction Background of the respondents 849
786 activity was carried out in the high socioeconomic status area. 850
During this visit, observations and general conversations with During data collection, at first, the respondents’ background was
787 collected. The respondents were asked to provide information on 851
788 site management were noted. Observations were covered by pro- 852
ject types, waste types, waste handling methods, cost implica- position/profession, gender, education level, working experience,
789 project type and staff number. The literature review of this study 853
790 tions, education and human influence on waste management. 854
Details of the locations are shown in Table 1. suggested that gender inequality is considered a socio-cultural
791 barrier (Teo and Loosemore 2001); thus, the study also intended 855
792 to find the male and female ratio among the respondents. For 856
793 this reason, the gender of respondents was collected during the 857
Types of generated waste materials in the selected sites
794 survey. Thus the proportion of males and females in the con- 858
In general, a well-organised worksite is equipped with appropri-
795 struction industry were evaluated. In terms of occupation, the 859
ate staffing: labours, operators, supervisors, site engineers, and
796 large groups of respondents were personnel (Manager, engineer, 860
then it will yield higher productivity, hence, achieving higher
797 supervisor, worker) in construction sites (total 55%), residents 861
performance (Othuman Mydin et al. 2014). An interview with
798 (20.6%), and government officials (6.7%). Female respondents 862
the in-charge of each site was conducted to acquire information
799 were observed higher from residents, 32.4%, and from the 863
about the respective site, and observations were made while tour-
800 worker level, about 30%. Compared to males, the total number 864
ing the locations physically.
801 of female respondents was 16.7%, far below that of male 865
During construction site observations, it was noticed that an
802 respondents (83.3%). Therefore, this study also reveals that the 866
enormous amount of construction materials ended up as waste,
803 construction industry in Bangladesh is male-dominated, and the 867
including concrete, timber, brick, metal, sand, etc. The main
804 socio-cultural barrier is also higher, hindering the improvement 868
contributory factors of this cause include human and mechanical.
805 of CDW management. Table 2 shows the status of the survey 869
The primary cause of material wastage in the visited sites was
806 870
incorrect processing, misuse and improper preparation and han- respondents.
807 871
dling. It was also observed that the items like steel reinforcement This part provides the respondent’s high-level details, such as
808 872
which could increase the project cost was given more managerial working experience and job nature. These questions try to assess
809 873
attention on controlling wastage than other materials. Plastering, respondents’ understanding of the research topic. From the ques-
810 874
tiling, and scaffolding work were not conducted systematically; tionnaire survey, the respondents’ demographic information, the
811 875
thus, a significant amount of waste was produced from these type of project they were working on, and the total staff number
812 876
processes. Inert and non-inert waste on sites was gathered to the of the project were also collected. The surveys report the follow-
813 877
ground floor and mixed up without sorting. Then transported by ing general sample characteristics. Bakshan et al. (Bakshan et al.
814 878
trucks and disposed of at landfills. Metal was found the only 2017) identified that factors influencing workers’ behaviour
815 879
waste material that is usually recycled. For the lack of recycling towards construction waste management depended on work
816 880
value, concrete, wood and other materials were not recycled. experience and past experience in the construction sector. This
817 881
Therefore, most contractors (operatives) generally do not prac- study intended to assess whether the respondents had relevant
818 882
tice the reuse/recycling of these materials or on-site sorting. previous experience or not. The study’s survey (Table 3) eval-
819 883
In the demolition sites, builders and labourers were carried uated that about 45% of the respondents had experienced less
820 884
out the demolition works. Each demolition project was estimated than five years, only 8.3% of respondents have more than
821 885
to complete at different times, approximately six to ten weeks. 16 years of experience in construction; 18.9%, between
822 886
During site observation, it was found that, at first, the house’s 11–15 years; 27.8%, between 6-10 years. This data shows that
823 887
surrounding area was cleaned by a subcontractor to facilitate the most of the people associated with construction in Bangladesh
824 888
demolition purpose, and the first loads of waste were generated are less experienced, which is a barrier towards CDW manage-
825 889
from that process. The generated waste was collected in piles ment. However, studies suggested that the educational barrier
826 890
outside the house once demolition started. The items that could hinders the improvement of CDW management (Abarca-
827 891
be reused were stored inside the house. Recycling materials were Guerrero et al. 2017). Thus, the educational background of the
828 892
829 collected in one pile, and everything else was thrown into a respondents was necessary to evaluate how the level of know- 893
830 mixed pile of waste. It was observed that construction material ledge about CDW management varied with education and work- 894
831 choice is mainly dependent upon culture, tradition, and building ing experience. Therefore, this study also assessed the 895
832 design. The survey identified that 14 types of waste materials respondent’s level of education. Nearly 62.2% of the respondents 896
897 961
898 962
899 963
900 964
901 965
902 966
903 967
904 968
905 969
906 970
907 971
908 972
909 973
910 974
911 975
912 976
913 977
914 978
915 Figure 6. Graphical representation of the percentage of waste material in selected sites. 979
916 980
917 Table 2. Status of survey respondents. 981
918 Respondents 982
919 983
Male Female Overall
920 984
921 Involvement with the construction project Count % Count % Count % 985
922 Owner 3 75.0 1 25.0 4 2.2 986
923 Manager 7 100.0 0 0.0 7 3.9 987
Engineer 12 100.0 0 0.0 12 6.7
924 Supervisor 30 100.0 0 0.0 30 16.7 988
925 Worker 35 70.0 15 30.0 50 27.8 989
926 Local residents 25 67.6 12 32.4 37 20.6 990
927 Government officials 10 83.3 2 16.7 12 6.7 991
Recycler 15 100.0 0 0.0 15 8.3
928 992
Contractor 13 100.0 0 0.0 13 7.2
929 Total 150 83.3 30 16.7 180 100 993
930 994
931 995
932 Table 3. Information of the respondents and their project. 996
933 Variable Category Frequency Percentage (%) Cumulative percentage 997
934 Working experience (year) 0-5 81 45.0 45.0 998
935 6-10 50 27.8 72.8 999
11-15 34 18.9 91.7
936 1000
16 or above 15 8.3 100.0
937 Education level PhD 1 0.6 0.6 1001
938 Master 6 3.3 3.9 1002
939 Bachelor 30 16.7 20.6 1003
940 Diploma/ High school 31 17.2 37.8 1004
Junior school or below 112 62.2 100.0
941 Project type Residential 68 37.8 37.8 1005
942 Commercial 57 31.7 69.4 1006
943 Office 26 14.4 83.9 1007
944 Other (factory, school, hospital and hotel) 29 16.1 100.0 1008
Staff number 1-25 74 41.1 41.1
945 1009
26-50 65 36.1 77.2
946 51-75 27 15.0 92.2 1010
947 76-100 14 7.8 100.0 1011
948 1012
949 1013
950 1014
951 were junior school or below passed, about 17.2% of the respond- from the project having staff number 1-25, 36.1% were from 26- 1015
952 ents had a diploma degree, and around 20.6% had a bachelor or 50 (shown in Table 3). 1016
953 above education (Table 3). Therefore, the demographic informa- 1017
954 tion showed that most respondents working in this sector are 1018
955 uneducated. According to the literature review and the study’s Respondent’s level of knowledge on various aspects of CDW 1019
956 findings, it is one of the most critical barriers for CDW manage- 1020
ment. Most respondents worked in residential, commercial and Based on a set of factors about CDW, the respondents’ level of
957 1021
public projects, accounting for 37.8%, 31.7% and 14.4%, respect- knowledge about CDW was asked, ranging from very poor to
958 1022
ively. Table 3 shows that the respondents were from residential excellent. From the interview, it was observed that women have
959 1023
960 and commercial buildings. About 41.1% of the respondents were better knowledge than men. Though the percentage of female 1024
1025 1089
1026 1090
1027 1091
1028 1092
1029 1093
1030 1094
1031 1095
1032 1096
1033 1097
1034 1098
1035 1099
1036 1100
1037 1101
1038 1102
1039 1103
1040 1104
1041 1105
1042 1106
1043 1107
1044 1108
1045 1109
1046 Figure 7. Level of knowledge on various aspects of CDW management according to gender. 1110
1047 1111
1048 1112
1049 1113
1050 1114
1051 1115
1052 1116
1053 1117
1054 1118
1055 1119
1056 1120
1057 1121
1058 1122
1059 1123
1060 1124
1061 1125
1062 1126
Figure 8. Level of knowledge on various aspects of CDW management according to education.
1063 1127
1064 1128
1065 respondents was 16.6% among the total respondents, Figure 7 environmental and economic reasons and health and safety 1129
1066 shows that the female respondents answered and knew about the issues (Teo and Loosemore 2001). Waste has a significant contri- 1130
1067 various aspects of CDW management. During the interview, it bution to landfill suppression, and landfill resources conservation 1131
1068 was observed that average respondents have little knowledge of is badly needed (Ling and Nguyen 2013). Waste also involves 1132
1069 CDW and its management. And it varies with occupation and cost, waste transportation, handling, and disposing of signifi- 1133
1070 education level. Education is another factor that indicates that cantly impact profitability (Ling and Nguyen 2013). 1134
1071 the level of knowledge declines as education level decreases. When looking at waste management from a narrow perspective, 1135
1072 Figure 8 shows that the respondents having education of junior it can cause some economic difficulties (Marzouk and Azab 2014). 1136
1073 school or below have a little knowledge on the questions. From This is because a significant amount of money is spent on dumping 1137
1074 Figure 9, it is evident that managers, engineers and Govt. offi- waste in landfills and minimising the environmental consequences. 1138
1075 cials were educated respondents, and their level of knowledge is Among the environmental issues are: (1) shrinking landfill space as 1139
1076 also high. In contrast, other people related to the construction a result of increasing quantities of these disposed of wastes in it; (2) 1140
1077 industry, like owners, local residents, workers, contractors, and depleted building materials; (3) an increase in contamination from 1141
1078 recyclers, have little knowledge about CDW. Interestingly, most landfills that causes serious adverse health effects; (4) damage to the 1142
1079 respondents did not know about the current percentage of CDW environment; and (5) an increase in energy consumption for trans- 1143
1080 products; even the engineers, managers, and government officials portation and manufacturing new materials instead of those materi- 1144
1081 had an average idea about this question (as shown in Figure 10). als dumped, which necessitates the use of energy. Over a lifetime, 1145
1082 the total disposed waste in landfills represents an enormous amount 1146
1083 1147
of waste, which leads to diminishing landfill space rapidly and
1084 Respondents knowledge about the impact of waste on 1148
causes ambient air pollution that is so dangerous to human health.
1085 various aspects 1149
Sensitive groups, including seniors, people with heart or lung dis-
1086 1150
Generated waste from construction and demolition sites harms ease, children and infants, are the most vulnerable to the harmful
1087 1151
1088 the environment. Thus the reduction of CDW is essential for effects of air pollution (Marzouk and Azab 2014). 1152
1153 1217
1154 1218
1155 1219
1156 1220
1157 1221
1158 1222
1159 1223
1160 1224
1161 1225
1162 1226
1163 1227
1164 1228
1165 1229
1166 1230
1167 1231
1168 1232
1169 1233
1170 1234
1171 Figure 9. Level of knowledge on various aspects of CDW management according to occupation. 1235
1172 1236
1173 1237
1174 1238
1175 1239
1176 1240
1177 1241
1178 1242
1179 1243
1180 1244
1181 1245
1182 1246
1183 1247
1184 1248
1185 1249
1186 1250
1187 1251
1188 1252
1189 1253
1190 1254
1191 Figure 10. Level of knowledge about the current percentage of CDW products. 1255
1192 1256
1193 Five aspects were selected to find the respondents’ knowledge Obstacles to implementing CDW management 1257
1194 about the impact of waste they noticed. Table 4 presents the 1258
As a primary objective of this study, the interviews with the
1195 extent to which waste impacts five factors in terms of percentage 1259
respondents helped insight into the obstacles hindering the
1196 responses to a range of 1 (minor) to 5 (major) and MSs between 1260
improvements of CDW management in Pabna. From the inter-
1197 1.00 and 5.00. It is interesting to see that all the MSs are >3.00, 1261
views and physical observation, it was observed that some sig-
1198 which indicates that the impact of waste is significant, and the 1262
nificant barriers were deterring waste management in
1199 respondents, irrespective of their background, knew the effect 1263
construction sites. From the current market situation and intense
1200 that CDW causes. However, all five MSs are >3.2, suggesting 1264
competition, cost and time were identified as a source of con-
1201 that waste’s impact is too near major. Among the five factors 1265
cern. Project managers are having difficulty managing their C&D
1202 impact by the waste dumping locations was ranked first. Because 1266
projects due to the limited budgets and short durations of the
1203 almost every respondent observed that waste generated from 1267
projects that have been granted. Waste issues are always the last
1204 construction projects has a negative environmental impact and 1268
to be addressed and taken into consideration. At the client’s end,
1205 waste forms a significant contribution to landfills, and the land- 1269
they were observed to care more about the work progress than
1206 fill locations are full of waste. Also, the lackings of landfills to 1270
CDW management. This is because they are more concerned
1207 dump the waste is a significant contributor. The respondents 1271
with cost than CDW management.
1208 were also aware that the increasing concentrations of particulate 1272
Resistance to change is always an issue. Even if organisations
1209 matter from the CDW waste caused respiratory disease, includ- 1273
successfully overcome the investment problem, professionals who
1210 1274
ing asthma, reduced lung function and cardiovascular disease. have been in practice for a long period are found challenging to
1211 1275
Although waste dumping locations ranked first, it is followed convince people to change or accept new ideas unless they have
1212 1276
closely by health and safety at waste dumping areas, sites and been tested in practice and proven to be adequate for use by
1213 1277
pollution that it is creating and cost of disposal. Further findings themselves. Changes and new ideas are not readily accepted
1214 1278
include that 94.8% of the respondents believe that there needs to because of the limited time available for learning, testing, and
1215 1279
1216 be more done to prevent waste, with only 5.2% being unsure. demonstrating their suitability and functionality throughout the 1280
1281 Table 4. Impact of waste on various aspects. 1345

1282 Aspect Unsure Minor Near minor Contribution Near major Major MS Rank 1346
1283 Waste dumping locations 0 0 0 5.9 23.5 70.6 4.6 1 1347
1284 Health and safety at waste dumping locations 0 0 5.9 17.6 29.4 47.1 4.1 2 1348
Health and safety on site 0 5.9 5.9 5.9 47.1 35.3 4.0 3
1285 1349
Pollution 0 0 17.6 29.4 35.3 17.6 3.5 4
1286 Cost 0 11.8 11.8 17.6 58.8 0 3.2 5 1350
1287 1351
1288 1352
1289 Table 5. The extent to which factors contribute to CDW management. 1353
1290 Response (%) 1354
1291 Factor Unsure Minor Near minor Contribution Near major Major MS Rank 1355
1292 Careless attitude of workers 0 7.4 3.7 3.7 18.5 66.7 4.33 1 1356
1293 Poor supervision 0 0 11.1 7.4 48.1 33.3 4.04 2 1357
1294 Lack of workers’ skill 0 0 11.1 18.5 37.0 33.3 3.93 3 1358
1295 Space lacking for on-site storage 0 0 14.8 33.3 11.1 40.7 3.78 4 1359
Limitation of Recycling options 0.0 3.7 18.5 14.8 25.9 37.0 3.74 5
1296 1360
Insufficient site waste manager 3.7 11.1 3.7 22.2 37.0 22.2 3.44 6
1297 Negligence attitude of management 14.8 11.1 3.7 14.8 7.4 48.1 3.33 7 1361
1298 Problem of packaging 3.7 18.5 3.7 51.9 14.8 7.4 2.78 8 1362
1299 Rework 29.6 3.7 3.7 18.5 14.8 29.6 2.74 9 1363
1300 Faulty material handling 18.5 7.4 11.1 37.0 11.1 14.8 2.59 10 1364
Design change by client 0.0 40.7 18.5 3.7 22.2 14.8 2.52 11
1301 Errors in construction 25.9 11.1 11.1 14.8 25.9 11.1 2.37 12 1365
1302 Lack of waste management plan 40.7 3.7 3.7 18.5 18.5 14.8 2.15 13 1366
1303 Buildability problems 14.8 25.9 22.2 22.2 7.4 7.4 2.04 14 1367
1304 Inappropriate specification 29.6 14.8 14.8 7.4 29.6 3.7 2.04 15 1368
Design related errors 29.6 29.6 7.4 7.4 7.4 18.5 1.89 16
1305 1369
Lack of design process management 40.7 7.4 7.4 25.9 14.8 3.7 1.81 17
1306 Insufficient waste reduction plan 51.9 3.7 3.7 11.1 14.8 14.8 1.78 18 1370
1307 Theft and damage 25.9 18.5 40.7 11.1 3.7 0.0 1.48 19 1371
1308 1372
1309 1373
1310 construction project’s short lifespan and the need to complete it as the four least significant barriers affecting the improvement of 1374
1311 as quickly as possible. At the site, subcontractors and workers CDW management performance in Bangladesh. It is surprising 1375
1312 are unaware that they lead to waste generation and sometimes to see that the respondents answered ’Unsure’ for most of the 1376
1313 do not care. questions. As 62.2% of respondents did not have higher educa- 1377
1314 Outside of the project, the lack of government action to tion, thus they have pretty little knowledge about CDW manage- 1378
1315 enforce waste management laws serves as a barrier to waste man- ment. During asking questions, they mostly answered ’unsure’ 1379
1316 agement. It is needed to unify the CDW legislation throughout about the question. 1380
1317 the country, establish stringent controls, and obtain the partici- 1381
1318 pation of all government bodies in the implementation process. 1382
1319 Table 5 presents the extent to which the respondents were Discussion and recommendations 1383
1320 asked about the 19 factors contributing to material wastage. In the early part of the paper, this study discussed potential bar- 1384
1321 Responses were evaluated in percentage to a range of 1 (minor) riers hindering CDW management. This study also tries to 1385
1322 to 5 (major), and MSs were selected between 1.00 and 5.00. The observe the current CDW practice in Pabna, Bangladesh. A field 1386
1323 data having MSs> 3.00 indicates that these obstacles are critical survey was conducted to determine the CDW management 1387
1324 in hindering the effective improvement of construction and knowledge of the people associated with the construction and 1388
1325 demolition waste management performance in Bangladesh. demolition work and waste management. 1389
1326 Careless attitude of workers’ having a mean score of 4.33 ranked The following sub-sections describe the research’s findings, 1390
1327 it first out of 19 other factors. such as the construction industry’s cost-driven nature, construc- 1391
1328 The factors ranked second to seventh have MSs > 3.30 (con- 1392
tion project participants’ attitudes and behaviours towards waste
1329 tribution to near major/near major contribution). These are poor 1393
management, and ways to improve attitudes and behaviours
1330 supervision (MS ¼ 4.04), lack of workers’ skill (MS ¼ 3.93), 1394
towards waste management in construction projects to improve
1331 space lacking for on-site storage (MS ¼ 3.78), limitation of recy- 1395
current waste management practises.
1332 cling options (MS ¼ 3.74), insufficient site waste manager (MS 1396
1333 ¼ 3.44), negligence, and carefree management attitude (MS ¼ 1397
1334 3.33). The factors ranked eighth to fifteenth have MSs > 2.00 Construction industry’s cost-driven nature 1398
1335 (near minor contribution to contribution/contribution)- The interview result shows that financial interests influence most 1399
1336 improper packaging (MS ¼ 2.78), rework (MS ¼ 2.74), poor of the project’s decisions, and clients play a significant role in 1400
1337 material handling (MS ¼ 2.59), client design changes (MS ¼ CDW management practice. The construction business is a well- 1401
1338 2.52), construction related errors/omissions (MS ¼ 2.37), inad- organised industry that operates against environmental concerns. 1402
1339 1403
equate waste management plan (MS ¼ 2.15), buildability prob- Clients of a construction project are more concerned about the
1340 1404
lems (MS ¼ 2.04) and inappropriate specification (MS ¼ 2.04). value of money than the quality of work. Although there is a
1341 1405
In addition, design-related errors (MS ¼ 1.89), lack of design trend towards the environmentally friendly building, interviewees
1342 1406
process management (MS ¼ 1.81), Insufficient waste reduction stated that contractors are more likely to support techniques that
1343 1407
1344 plan (MS ¼ 1.78), theft and vandalism (MS ¼ 1.48) are regarded provide them with financial incentives. (Osmani et al. 2008) also 1408
1409 evaluated that clients’ interests constrain waste management competitive and profit-driven industry; if the issues associated 1473
1410 practices. Another important finding was that designers do not with costs and financial management can be minimised, it would 1474
1411 always consider waste minimisation in construction. (Osmani be a key for waste management practices. The respondents also 1475
1412 et al. 2008) also suggested that architects are less engaged in point to the significance of adopting a political economy, includ- 1476
1413 CDW minimisation. Contractors and subcontractors consider ing the environmental and ecological costs. 1477
1414 time as money; thus, they want to finish their work quickly, and All the respondents wanted to reduce the waste from the pro- 1478
1415 they do have not much interest in implementing waste manage- ject, and they suggested that it is difficult to achieve for the lack 1479
1416 ment practices. (Al-Sari et al. 2012) also suggested that economic of reuse and recycling of waste materials. It can be done by 1480
1417 considerations can involve local contractors in waste manage- changing the behaviours to reduce the waste stream and divert 1481
1418 ment practices. the materials and products to appropriate reuse and recycling 1482
1419 pathways. It will result in closure on material loops. This study 1483
1420 also suggests that the building owner has to do a lot to waste 1484
1421 Construction project participants’ attitudes and behaviours reduction, avoidance, and management, increasing building 1485
1422 towards waste management maintenance and service life. Also, they can make significant 1486
1423 The interview results show that the concept of CDW manage- decisions at the design, major refurbishment and demolition 1487
1424 ment varied with persons associated with the construction proj- phases. Since a considerable volume of waste is generated either 1488
1425 ects. Participants in the survey with and without prior from new building construction or refurbishment and fit-out, as 1489
1426 experience in CDW diversion had vastly varied opinions. a result, the demolition and construction stages are essential for 1490
1427 However, these persons are not very favourable for improving contractors and developers. Effective management and control 1491
1428 CDW management. This is an upsetting symbol, and measures on both waste sources can be minimised contract performance 1492
1429 need to be in place to promote environmentally friendly con- and time, quality and cost, risk management, particularly in light 1493
1430 struction practices further and improve industry practitioners’ of space and time constraints associated with refurbishment. The 1494
1431 levels of awareness. According to research findings, waste man- designer needs to align all parties to the design intent of waste 1495
1432 agement practices are restrained due to a lack of economic inter- minimisation to optimise the benefits. The designers have the 1496
1433 est, professional roles and less accountability of construction role of turning requirements explicit or implicit in the brief into 1497
1434 stakeholders. The result shows that workers’ careless attitude is effective entire life cycle strategies and, at least in capital con- 1498
1435 the main obstacle towards implementing CDW management struction stages, quantifiable outcomes and reporting require- 1499
1436 practice in Bangladesh. (Udawatta et al. 2015a) found that inad- ments. Therefore, the benefits of waste minimisation entail 1500
1437 equate experience and knowledge of workers hindered CDWM design finesse relating to a more informed relationship between 1501
1438 in Australia. (Liu et al. 2019) suggested that relevant knowledge good design and materials and products selection. It also 1502
1439 relating to recycling, green materials, and emission reduction improves the collaborative relationship between designers and 1503
1440 should be included in a community, high school or college edu- suppliers, which, in turn, greens the supply chain and minimises 1504
1441 cation to increase knowledge about CDW management. local impacts and compliance costs. 1505
1442 This study also evaluated that the respondents are more con- Sufficient support is the precondition for successfully imple- 1506
1443 cerned about the impact of waste dumped in the waste dumping menting Bangladesh’s construction and demolition waste man- 1507
1444 location. Municipal governments can promulgate local regula- agement. Adequate support will play a critical role in fostering 1508
1445 tions and policies suitable for their specific problems to over- construction waste management and environmental regulation. It 1509
1446 come this situation. In Australia, reinforcing legislation is seen to can develop a mature market and promulgate regulations to 1510
1447 enhance CDWM (Udawatta et al. 2015b). In Canada, provincial heighten practitioners’ awareness and sufficiently educate them. 1511
1448 and municipal governments regulate the CDWM, and most Proper education and heightened awareness among site employ- 1512
1449 municipalities have enacted by-laws to outlaw the landfilling of ees can improve site activity performance. Extra benefits from 1513
1450 specific CDW (Yeheyis et al. 2013). performing construction and demolition waste management can 1514
1451 be obtained in a mature market. Bangladesh’s construction and 1515
1452 demolition waste management performance will significantly 1516
Construction project participant’’ suggestions towards con-
1453 improve if all these strategies are implemented adequately. 1517
struction waste management
1454 1518
As previously stated, the majority of construction project partic-
1455 1519
ipants’ views do not support waste management procedures, and
1456 Conclusions 1520
it is critical to work on altering attitudes. Some respondents sug-
1457 1521
gested that enforcing legislation to make a change in waste man- In the present work, an attempt has been made to highlight sev-
1458 1522
agement practice is necessary. To change the attitudes and eral issues in CDW management in Bangladesh. First, from the
1459 1523
behaviours, legislation is needed for construction practitioners site visit, it was observed that the primary wastes generated are
1460 1524
towards waste management. Implementing waste reduction and concrete and bricks in demolition sites. Whereas in construction
1461 1525
management strategies has several benefits: cost savings, resource sites, concrete, brick, and other materials, generation is also high.
1462 1526
conservation, emissions and pollution prevention, and landfill The site observations also indicate that the percentage of waste
1463 1527
reduction. To achieve this improvement, professional activities, materials are related to wet works. The result suggests that fun-
1464 1528
purchasing decisions, and purchasing habits have to improve, damental change is necessary for the materials used to con-
1465 1529
and for this aspect, individuals’ understanding of waste should struct elements.
1466 1530
be increased. Following the economic self-interest approach This paper also presented the findings from a questionnaire
1467 1531
(Crocker and Lehmann 2013), interviewees emphasised that survey conducted in the study area, looking at the knowledge on
1468 1532
1469 incentives are essential to reducing construction waste. However, CDW, impacts of CDW and obstacles to improving construction 1533
1470 respondents also argued that social consciousness is necessary to and demolition waste management performance. It is observed 1534
1471 implement waste management in society, and it should start that the respondents’ level of knowledge about CDW manage- 1535
1472 from the grassroots level. The construction sector is a highly ment is deficient. Though the educated respondents have higher 1536
1537 knowledge about CDW and its management, the respondents, Battaglia PM. 2008. Nonprobability sampling. In: Encyclopedia of survey 1601
1538 like workers, supervisors, and contractors, lack knowledge about research methods. Sage Publications, Inc.; p. 523–526. Q3 1602
Bossink BAG, Brouwers HJH. 1996. Construction waste: Quantification and
1539 CDW management. A significant finding of this study is the gen- source evaluation. J Constr Eng Manage. 122(1):55–60. 1603
1540 der participation in the construction industry and the abstract Brady DA, Tzortzopoulos P, Rooke J. 2011. An examination of the barriers 1604
1541 knowledge gap between males and females working in this sec- to last planner implementation. 19th Annual Conference for Lean 1605
1542 tor. The study evaluated that females closely observe the CDW Construction. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/21078/. 1606
Bryman A. 2008. Social research methods. Oxford University Press. https://
1543 management system and have better knowledge than male par- 1607
1544 ticipants. Also, the less participation of females in this sector
books.google.com.bd/books?id=O7a2QAAACAAJ. Q4 1608
Bss R. 2018, August 26. Rajshahi Division: 39 mega projects underway. The
1545 hinders CDW management’s improvement. Ranking analysis was Daily Star. https://www.thedailystar.net/news/city/rajshahi-division-39- 1609
1546 used to identify the relative importance of the 19 obstacles dis- mega-projects-underway-1624531. 1610
1547 tinguished. The findings show that ’Negligence and carefree atti- Bygballe LE, Sw€ard A. 2014. Implementing lean construction: A practice per- 1611
spective. 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
1548 tude of workers’, ’Poor supervision’, ’Inadequate workers’ skill’, 1612
Construction: Understanding and Improving Project Based Production,
1549 and ’Space lacking for on-site storage’ are perceived as the four IGLC 2014. p. 3–14. 1613
1550 barriers of most importance. Caldera S, Ryley T, Zatyko N. 2020. Enablers and barriers for creating a 1614
1551 Though the developed countries are practising CDW manage- marketplace for construction and demolition waste: A systematic literature 1615
1552 ment, Bangladesh still lags in waste management as a developing review. Sustainability (Switzerland). 12(23):9931–9919. 1616
1553 Camuffo A, De Stefano F, Paolino C. 2017. Safety reloaded: Lean operations 1617
country. This study uncovered beneficial waste management and high involvement work practices for sustainable workplaces. J Bus
1554 practices that are not adopted in Bangladesh. Therefore, to gain Ethics. 143(2):245–259. 1618
1555 the maximum benefits, a change in the attitudes and perceptions Cano S, Delgado J, Botero L, Rubiano O. 2015. Barriers and success factors 1619
1556 of the construction workforce is vital for waste management in lean construction implementation-survey in pilot context. Proceedings 1620
1557 of IGLC 23 – 23rd Annual Conference of the International Group for 1621
practices. This research study is a foundation for future studies
1558 Lean Construction: Global Knowledge – Global Solutions. p. 631–641. 1622
about construction waste management resistance and a reference Chen K, Wang J, Yu B, Wu H, Zhang J. 2021. Critical evaluation of con-
1559 for construction companies or builders to establish their waste struction and demolition waste and associated environmental impacts: A
1623
1560 management plans and procedures. This study only covers a scientometric analysis. J Cleaner Prod. 287:125071. 1624
1561 small sample size of Bangladesh. Thus, further research is neces- Chowdhury FH, Raihan MT, Islam GMS, Ramiz F. 2016. Construction waste 1625
1562 sary to reproduce this study in other developing countries to add
management practice: Bangladesh perception. 3rd International 1626
1563 validity to the findings outlined in the present study. Future
Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering 2016, December. 1627
Coelho A, De Brito J. 2013. Economic viability analysis of a construction and
1564 studies should be extended by comparing the results with global demolition waste recycling plant in Portugal – Part I: Location, materials,
1628
1565 results or other geographical areas. technology and economic analysis. J Cleaner Prod. 39:338–352. 1629
1566 Correspondence S. 2018, September 30. Local construction firms grow from 1630
1567 strength to strength. The Daily Star. https://www.thedailystar.net/star- 1631
1568 Acknowledgements
infrastructure/news/local-construction-firms-grow-strength-strength-1640608. 1632
Crocker R, Lehmann S. 2013. Motivating change: Sustainable design and
1569 1633
behaviour in the built environment. In Motivating change: Sustainable
1570 The authors are very grateful to the anonymous reviewers and the 1634
design and behaviour in the built environment. Taylor and Francis. Q5
1571 editor for their constructive comments and suggestions, which have Del Rıo Merino M, Gracia PI, Azevedo ISW. 2010. Sustainable construction: 1635
1572 led to the article’s improvement. The authors are also thankful to Construction and demolition waste reconsidered. Waste Manage Res. 1636
1573 Dr. Ashish Kumer Saha for his valuable instructions and suggestions 28(2):118–129. 1637
Denscombe M. 2010. The Good Research Guide. 4th ed. Open University
1574 for improving this paper. 1638
1575
Press. Q6 1639
Department for Communities and Local Government. 2009. The code for
1576 sustainable homes. 1640
1577 Disclosure statement Easterby-Smith M, Thorpe R, Lowe A. 2002. Management research: An intro- 1641
1578 No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
duction. SAGE Publications. https://books.google.sm/books?id= 1642
1579 AuwJAQAAMAAJ. Q7 1643
El-Sayegh SM, Manjikian S, Ibrahim A, Abouelyousr A, Jabbour R. 2021.
1580 Risk identification and assessment in sustainable construction projects in 1644
1581 References the UAE. Int J Constr Manage. 21(4):327–336. 1645
1582 Enshassi A, Mayer PE, Mohamed S, El-Masri F. 2007. Perception of con- 1646
1583 Abarca-Guerrero L, Maas G, van Twillert H. 2017. Barriers and motivations struction managers towards safety in Palestine. Int J Constr Manage. 7(2): 1647
for construction waste reduction practices in Costa Rica. Resources. 6(4): 41–51.
1584 69. 1648
Enshassi A, Saleh N, Mohamed S. 2021. Barriers to the application of lean
1585 Akanbi LA, Oyedele LO, Akinade OO, Ajayi AO, Davila Delgado M, Bilal M, construction techniques concerning safety improvement in construction 1649
1586 Bello SA. 2018. Salvaging building materials in a circular economy: A projects. Int J Constr Manage. 21(10):1044–1017. 1650
1587 BIM-based whole-life performance estimator. Resour Conserv Recycl. Esa MR, Halog A, Rigamonti L. 2017. Developing strategies for managing 1651
1588 129(November 2017):175–186. construction and demolition wastes in Malaysia based on the concept of 1652
Al-Sari MI, Al-Khatib IA, Avraamides M, Fatta-Kassinos D. 2012. A study circular economy. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage. 19(3):1144–1154.
1589 1653
on the attitudes and behavioural influence of construction waste manage- Fatemi MN. 2012. Strategies to reduce construction and demolition (C&D)
1590 ment in occupied Palestinian territory. Waste Manage Res. 30(2):122–136. waste for sustainable building design in Dhaka: Role of architects. 1654
1591 Bakshan A, Srour I, Chehab G, El-Fadel M, Karaziwan J. 2017. Behavioral Proceedings of International Seminar on Architecture: Education, Practice 1655
1592 determinants towards enhancing construction waste management: A and Research 80(December). 1656
1593 Bayesian Network analysis. Resour Conserv Recycl. 117:274–284. Fellows R, Liu A. 2015. Research methods for construction. 4th ed. John 1657
1594 Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) 2018. District statistics. Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Q8 1658
Bashir AM, Suresh S, Oloke DA, Proverbs DG, Gameson R. 2015. Financial Express Online Report. 2018, April 15. Construction sector to
1595 Overcoming the challenges facing lean construction practice in the UK witness double digit growth. The Financial Express. https://thefinancialex-
1659
1596 Q2 contracting organizations. IJAEC. 4(1). press.com.bd/economy/construction-sector-to-witness-double-digit-growth- 1660
1597 Bashir AM. 2013. A framework for utilising lean construction strategies to 1523797433. 1661
1598 promote safety on construction sites. University of Wolverhampton. Formoso CT, Soibelman L, De Cesare C, Isatto EL. 2002. Material waste in 1662
1599 https://wlv.openrepository.com/bitstream/2436/297665/1/Bashir_ building industry: main causes and prevention. J Constr Eng Manage. 1663
PhDthesis2013.pdf. 128(4):316–325.
1600 1664
1665 Ghoddousi P, Nikmehr B, Hosseini MR. 2015. Barriers to construction and Osmani M, Glass J, Price ADF. 2008. Architects’ perspectives on construction 1729
demolition waste management in developing countries: Case of Iran. waste reduction by design. Waste Manage. 28(7):1147–1158.
1666 1730
IUnmaking Waste 2015 Conference, May, 1–9. file:///C:/Users/Raman/ Othuman Mydin MA, Khor JC, Sani NM. 2014. Approaches to construction
1667 Downloads/UMW2015waste-Iran2015-06-04_Final.pdf. waste management in Malaysia. MATEC Web of Conferences, 1731
1668 Guerrero LA, Maas G, Hogland W. 2013. Solid waste management challenges 17(September 2014). 1732
1669 for cities in developing countries. Waste Manage. 33(1):220–232. Oyedolapo O. 2014. Implementation of the lean approach in sustainable con- 1733
1670 Hao JL, Tam VWY, Yuan HP, Wang JY. 2011. Construction waste challenges struction: A conceptual framework, Lancashire, Central [PhD. thesis]. p. 1734
1671 in Hong Kong and Pearl River Delta Region. Int J Constr Manage. 11(1): 441. Q13 1735
37–47. Park J, Tucker R. 2017. Overcoming barriers to the reuse of construction
1672 Islam R, Nazifa TH, Yuniarto A, Shanawaz Uddin ASM, Salmiati S, Shahid waste material in Australia: a review of the literature. Int J Constr
1736
1673 S. 2019. An empirical study of construction and demolition waste gener- Manage. 17(3):228–237. 1737
1674 ation and implication of recycling. Waste Manage. 95:10–21. Quinn T, Smallwood JJ. 2018. Evaluation of construction waste: Management 1738
1675 Ismam JN, Ismail Z. 2014. Sustainable construction waste management stra- problems and solutions. Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium 1739
1676 tegic implementation model. WSEAS Trans Environ Dev. 10:48–59. on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate, 2016, 1740
Jain S, Singhal S, Jain NK. 2021. Construction and demolition waste 209889; p. 701–708.
1677 (C&DW) in India: Generation rate and implications of C&DW recycling. 1741
Rameezdeen R, Chileshe N, Hosseini MR, Lehmann S. 2016. A qualitative
1678 Int J Constr Manage. 21(3):261–270. examination of major barriers in implementation of reverse logistics
1742
1679 Jin R, Li B, Zhou T, Wanatowski D, Piroozfar P. 2017. An empirical study of within the South Australian construction sector. Int J Constr Manage. 1743
1680 perceptions towards construction and demolition waste recycling and 16(3):185–196. 1744
1681 reuse in China. Resour Conserv Recycl. 126:86–98. Rondinel-Oviedo DR. 2021. Construction and demolition waste management 1745
Kareem WA, Asa OA, Lawal MO. 2015. Resources conservation and waste
1682 management practices in construction industry. AJBMR. 4(7):20–31.
in developing countries: A diagnosis from 265 construction sites in the 1746
1683 Lima Metropolitan Area. Int J Constr Manage. 0(0):1–12. 1747
Koskela L. 1992. Application of the new production philosophy to construc- Salem O, Solomon J, Genaidy A, Luegring M. 2005. Site implementation and
1684 Q9 tion. Vol. TR072. assessment of lean construction techniques. Lean Constr J. 2(2):1–21. 1748
1685 Kulatunga U, Amaratunga D, Haigh R, Rameezdeen R. 2006. Attitudes and Siddika A, Amin MR, Rayhan MA, Islam MS, Mamun MA, Al, Alyousef R, 1749
1686 perceptions of construction workforce on construction waste in Sri Lanka. Mugahed Amran YH. 2021. Performance of sustainable green concrete 1750
Manage Environ Qual: An Int J. 17(1):57–72.
1687 Laovisutthichai V, Lu W, Bao Z. 2020. Design for construction waste mini-
incorporated with fly ash, rice husk ash, and stone dust. Acta Polytech. 1751
1688Q10 mization: Guidelines and practice. Archit Eng Des Manage. 1–20.
61(1):279–291. 1752
Siddika A, Hajimohammadi A, Mamun MA, Al Alyousef R, Ferdous W.
1689 Li J, Ding Z, Mi X, Wang J. 2013. A model for estimating construction waste
2021. Waste glass in cement and geopolymer concretes: A review on dur-
1753
1690 generation index for building project in China. Resour Conserv Recycl.
ability and challenges. Polymers. 13(13):2071. 1754
1691 74:20–26.
Siddika A, Mamun MA, Al, Alyousef R, Amran YHM, Aslani F, 1755
Li X. 2008. Recycling and reuse of waste concrete in China. Part I. Material
1692 behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete. Resour Conserv Recycl. 53(1-2):
Alabduljabbar H. 2019. Properties and utilizations of waste tire rubber in 1756
1693 36–44.
concrete: A review. Constr Build Mater. 224:711–731. 1757
1694 Li X. 2009. Recycling and reuse of waste concrete in China. Part II.
Skoyles E, Skoyles J. 1987. Waste prevention on site. BT Batsford Limited. Q14 1758
Small EP, Al Hamouri K, & A, Hamouri H. 2017. Examination of opportuni-
1695 Structural behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete and engineering appli-
ties for integration of lean principles in construction in Dubai. Proc Eng. 1759
1696 cations. Resour Conserv Recycl. 53(3):107–112.
196(June):616–621. 1760
Ling FYY, Nguyen DSA. 2013. Strategies for construction waste management
1697 in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Built Environ Proj Asset Manage. 3(1):
Snyder H. 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview 1761
1698 141–156.
and guidelines. Journal of Business Research. 104(March):333–339. 1762
1699 Liu J, Gong E, Wang D, Lai X, Zhu J. 2019. Attitudes and behaviour towards
Tam CM, Tam VWY, Chan JKW, Ng WCY. 2005. Use of prefabrication to 1763
minimize construction waste – A case study approach. Int J Constr
1700 construction waste minimisation: a comparative analysis between China 1764
Manage. 5(1):91–101.
1701 and the USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 26(14):13681–13690.
Tam VWY, Tam CM. 2008. Waste reduction through incentives: A case 1765
Luangcharoenrat C, Intrachooto S, Peansupap V, Sutthinarakorn W. 2019.
1702 study. Build Res Inform. 36(1):37–43. 1766
Factors influencing construction waste generation in building construc-
1703 tion: Thailand’s perspective. Sustainability (Switzerland). 11(13):3638.
Teo MMM, Loosemore M. 2001. A theory of waste behaviour in the con- 1767
1704 Manowong E. 2012. Investigating factors influencing construction waste man- struction industry. Constr Manage Econ. 19(7):741–751. 1768
Thomas HR. 2002. 2000 peurifoy lecture: Construction practices in develop-
1705 agement efforts in developing countries: An experience from Thailand. 1769
ing countries. J Constr Eng Manage. 128(1):1–7.
1706 Waste Manage Res. 30(1):56–71.
Tsang YT, Fung IWH, Tam VWY, Sing CP, Lu CT. 2017. Development of 1770
Marzouk M, Azab S. 2014. Environmental and economic impact assessment
1707 an accident modelling in the Hong Kong construction industry. Int J 1771
of construction and demolition waste disposal using system dynamics.
1708 Resour Conserv Recycl. 82:41–49. Constr Manage. 17(2):124–131. 1772
1709 Mendon V. 2019. Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Udawatta N, Zuo J, Chiveralls K, Zillante G. 2015a. Attitudinal and behav- 1773
1710 Natural Resources (IBAMA). https://www.preventionweb.net/organiza- ioural approaches to improving waste management on construction proj- 1774
ects in Australia: Benefits and limitations. Int J Constr Manage. 15(2):
1711 tions/17123. 1775
Mossman A. 2009. Why isn’t the UK construction industry going lean with 137–147.
1712 Udawatta N, Zuo J, Chiveralls K, Zillante G. 2015b. Improving waste man- 1776
1713Q11
gusto? Lean Constr J. 24–36.
Nagapan S, Rahman IA, Asmi A. 2012. Construction waste management: agement in construction projects: An Australian study. Resour Conserv 1777
1714 Malaysian perspective international conference on civil and environmental Recycl. 101:73–83. 1778
1715 engineering for sustainability. International Conference on Civil and Umar UA, Shafiq N, Malakahmad A, Nuruddin MF, Khamidi MF. 2017. A 1779
1716 Environmental Engineering for Sustainability, April. review on adoption of novel techniques in construction waste manage- 1780
Nagapan S, Rahman IA, Asmi A, Memon AH, Latif I. 2012. Issues on con- ment and policy. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage. 19(4):1361–1373.
1717 Wirahadikusumah RD, Ario D. 2015. A readiness assessment model for 1781
struction waste: The need for sustainable waste management. CHUSER
1718 2012–2012 IEEE Colloquium on Humanities, Science and Engineering Indonesian contractors in implementing sustainability principles. Int J 1782
1719 Research; p. 325–330. Constr Manage. 15(2):126–136. 1783
1720 Newaz MT, Davis P, Sher W, Simon L. 2020. Factors affecting construction Wu Z, Yu ATW, Shen L. 2017. Investigating the determinants of contractor’s 1784
1721 waste management streams in Australia. Int J Constr Manage. 0(0):1–9. construction and demolition waste management behavior in Mainland 1785
China. Waste Manag. 60:290–300.
1722 Ngowi A. 2002. Challenges facing construction industries in developing 1786
countries. Build Res Info. 30(3):149–151. Yeheyis M, Hewage K, Alam MS, Eskicioglu C, Sadiq R. 2013. An overview
1723 Ofori, G., editor. 2012. New perspectives on construction in developing coun- of construction and demolition waste management in Canada: A lifecycle 1787
1724 1788
Q12 tries. Routledge. analysis approach to sustainability. Clean Tech Environ Policy. 15(1):
1725 Olatunji JO. 2008. Lean -in- Nigerian construction: State, barriers, strategies 81–91. 1789
1726 and “Go-to-Gemba” approach. Proceedings of IGLC16: 16th Annual Yuan H. 2017. Barriers and countermeasures for managing construction and 1790
1727 Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, January demolition waste: A case of Shenzhen in China. J Cleaner Prod. 157: 1791
2008; p. 287–297. 84–93.
1728 1792
1793 Yuan H, Shen L, Wang J. 2011. Major obstacles to improving the perform- Zhao W, Leeftink RB, Rotter VS. 2010. Evaluation of the economic feasibility 1857
ance of waste management in China’s construction industry. Facilities. for the recycling of construction and demolition waste in China-The case
1794 29(5/6):224–242. of Chongqing. Resour Conserv Recycl. 54(6):377–389.
1858
1795 Zhao W, Leeftink RB, Rotter S. 2008. Construction and demolition waste Zhou B. 2016. Lean principles, practices, and impacts: A study on small 1859
1796 management in China: Analysis of economic instruments for solving a and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Ann Oper Res. 241(1-2): 1860
1797 growing problem. WIT Trans Ecol Environ. 109:471–480. 457–474. 1861
1798 1862
1799 1863
1800 1864
1801 1865
1802 1866
1803 1867
1804 1868
1805 1869
1806 1870
1807 1871
1808 1872
1809 1873
1810 1874
1811 1875
1812 1876
1813 1877
1814 1878
1815 1879
1816 1880
1817 1881
1818 1882
1819 1883
1820 1884
1821 1885
1822 1886
1823 1887
1824 1888
1825 1889
1826 1890
1827 1891
1828 1892
1829 1893
1830 1894
1831 1895
1832 1896
1833 1897
1834 1898
1835 1899
1836 1900
1837 1901
1838 1902
1839 1903
1840 1904
1841 1905
1842 1906
1843 1907
1844 1908
1845 1909
1846 1910
1847 1911
1848 1912
1849 1913
1850 1914
1851 1915
1852 1916
1853 1917
1854 1918
1855 1919
1856 1920
View publication stats

TJCM A 2056804 Proof-2-16

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TJCM A 2056804 Proof-2-16

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Barriers to improving construction and demolition waste management in

Article in International Journal of Construction Management · March 2022

Mohammad Raquibul Hasan

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1281 Table 4. Impact of waste on various aspects. 1345

View publication stats

You might also like