0$7(5,$/:$67$*(,1&216758&7,21$&7,9,7,(6

$+21*.21*6859(<

Authors:
Address:

E-mail address:
Keywords:

LY Shen1, VWY Tam2, CM Tam3, S Ho4

Department of Building & Real Estate, The Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
2
Department of Building & Construction City University of
Hong Kong 83, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong
1
tam.vivian@student.cityu.edu.hk
construction, construction waste, waste management,
project types, Hong Kong
1

ABSTRACT
Construction wastes have become the major source of solid wastes in Hong Kong where
construction and demolition activities generate thousands of tonnes of solid wastes every year.
The increasing generation of construction wastes has caused significant impacts to the
environment and aroused growing public concern in the local community. Thus, the
minimization of construction wastes has become a pressing issue. This paper investigates the
profile of waste generation from applying different types of building materials to different types
of construction projects. It is considered that the application of various building materials to
different types of projects has different impacts to the size of waste generation. Therefore, the
paper attempts to identify the relations between waste generation and the application of building
materials to different types of projects. Following this identification, proper methods are
proposed to mitigate the generation of wastes by adopting proper construction and
management methods, which allow the waste reduction from using building materials. Data
from the construction industry of Hong Kong are used for the analysis.

INTRODUCTION
Waste management for construction activities has been promoted with the aim of protecting the
environment and the recognition that wastes from construction and demolition works contribute
significantly to the polluted environment (Shen et al., 2002). The construction industry plays a
vital role in meeting the needs of society and enhancing the quality of life (Tse, 2001; Shen and
Tam, 2002). However, the responsibility for ensuring the construction activities and products in
consistent with environmental policies needs to be defined and good environmental practices
through reduction of wastes need to be improved (EPD, 2002). Normally, the best way to deal
with material wastes is not to create it in the first place (Snook et al., 1995; Gavilan and Bernold,
1994; EPD, 2002).
The environmental situation resulted from construction in Hong Kong has become a pressing
issue. According to the Environment Protection Department (EPD) (Chung, 2000), the
construction industry generated about 32,710 tonnes of construction wastes per year in 1998,
nearly 15% above the figure in 1997. Figure 1 shows the quantities of construction wastes
disposed of from 1991 to 2001. To manage such a huge quantity of construction wastes, the
Hong Kong government adopts a policy of disposing the waste to either land reclamation or
landfills. For decades, landfill has provided a convenient and cost-effective solution to the
wasteful practices of the industry (Mills et al., 1999). Ferguson et al. (1995) found that more
than 50% of the wastes deposited in a typical landfill in UK come from construction wastes.
According to Rogoff and Williams (1994), 29% of the solid-wastes in the USA are construction
wastes. Wong and Tanner (1997) pointed out that the landfills, originally expected to last 40 to
50 years, would be filled up by 2010, even if there are adequate outlets for construction
materials. All these investigations demonstrate that construction business is a large contributor
to waste generation and that there is significant potential for protecting the environment through
managing construction wastes properly. The paper targets for exploring the prevailing types of
construction projects in Hong Kong and investigating their relationship with the generation of
construction wastes; and suggesting recommendations in improving contractors waste
management based on the above findings.
1

Year

2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991

C&D material reused for land

reclamation
C&D waste disposed of at
landfills

5000

10000

15000

Quantity (x 1,000 tonnes)

Figure 1: Quantities of construction waste reused in reclamation and disposed of
landfills from 1991 to 2001 (Source: EPD, 2002)

INVESTIGATION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT IN CONSTRUCTION

PRACTICE
Building material wastages can be defined as the difference between the value of materials
delivered and accepted on site and those properly used as specified and accurately measured
in the work, after deducting the cost saving of substituted materials transferred elsewhere, in
which unnecessary cost and time may be incurred by materials wastage. Generally, wastages
of building materials can be divided into two types (Skoyles and Skoyles, 1987); one is direct
waste and the other is indirect waste. Skoyles and Skoyles (1987) defined direct waste as the
loss of those materials, which were damaged and could not be repaired and subsequently used,
or which were lost during the building process; indirect waste was distinguished from direct
waste because it normally represented only a monetary loss and the materials were not lost
physically. Such losses arise principally from substitution of materials, from use of materials in
excess of quantities allowable under the contract, and from errors. The failure to recognise and
record waste from these causes makes accounting for materials meaningless. Therefore, a
simple measure of waste on site would be the difference between that used as specified and
the quantity of material delivered to site as a percentage of such deliveries.
The economic and environmental benefits to be gained from waste minimisation and recycling
are enormous (Guthrie et al., 1999), since it will benefit both the environment and the
construction firms in terms of cost reduction. The economic benefits of waste minimisation and
recycling include the possibilities of selling specific waste materials and the removal from site of
other wastes at no charge or reduced cost, with a subsequent reduction in materials going to
landfill at a higher cost (Snook et al., 1995). Therefore, it can increase contractors
competitiveness through lower production costs and a better public image. However, very few
contractors have spent efforts in considering the environment and developing the concept of
recycling building materials (Lam, 1997). Because contractors rank timing as their top priority,
their effort is always focused on completing the project in the shortest time, rather than the
environment (Poon et al., 2001b). Their account books cannot reveal the potential savings
resulted from reduction in construction wastes. Managing building material waste can in fact
achieve higher construction productivity, save in time and improvement in safety (Chan and Ma,
1998; Gavilan and Bernold, 1994; Skoyles and Skoyles, 1987) while extra wastes take extra
time and resources for disposal that may slow down the construction progress. The major
causes of material wastage including concrete, steel reinforcement, formwork and brick/block,
are tabulated in Table 1 based on a survey to construction participants.

Construction Material
Concrete

Table 1: Causes of material wastage

Causes
Specification
Over-order
Exact quantity of concrete required is unknown per
pour due to deficiency in planning
Loss during concreting

Methods of placing; use of aged timber board

Steel Reinforcement

Cutting

Use of steel bars that size does not fit

Formwork

Cutting

Use of timber boards that size does not fit

Brick / Block

Cutting

Use of products that size does not fit

Damaged during
transportation

Unpacked supply

Concrete
Concrete is the most widely used material both for substructure and superstructure of buildings.
The wastage is mainly resulted from the mismatch between the quantity of concrete ordered
and that required in the case of ready mix concrete supply. The contractor may not know the
exact quantity because of imperfect planning, leading to over-ordering. Wastes are also resulted
project delays and unnecessary waste handling processes.

Reinforcement
Steel reinforcement bars are also common materials used. The main cause of wastage is
resulted from cutting. Damages during storage and rusting also form a major part of wastage.
Pre-bending in the factory could reduce cutting waste.

Formwork
Another major material used is timber board. The main causes of wastage are the natural
deterioration resulted from usage and cutting waste. Both are difficult to avoid. Among the
projects surveyed by the authors (see the following section), there is one construction site
bearing wastage of 20% in timber used for foundation works.

Brick and block

Bricks and blocks are the most common walling material. The main cause of waste is cutting.
Unpacked supply may increase wastage of broken damage because of the fragile nature of the
materials. Unused bricks left on site may end up in the trash skip ultimately.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A survey was conducted in October 2001 to April 2002 to collect the material wastage
information in relation to different types of projects. Seventeen contractors have been
interviewed with the details summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Details of the interviewed contractors

Company

Trades
materials
C R F

of

Project types

PBH

PH

Construction stage
CM

CP

Sub

Contract
sum

Super
150
millions
(M)
119M
5M
470M
600M
10M
418M
142M
43M
306M
260M
213M
63M
5M
90M
90M
18M

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Notes:
Trades of materials Concrete (C); Reinforcement (R); Formwork (F); Brick/block (B)
Project types Public housing (PBH); Private housing (PH); Commercial project (CM); Composite building projects
(CP); Industrial (I); Monastery (M); School (S)
Construction stage Substructure (Sub); Superstructure (Super)
From the seventeen contractors information, seven types of projects: public housing projects
(11.8%), private housing projects (52.8%), commercial projects (11.8%), composite building
projects (5.9%), industrial projects (5.9%), monastery projects (5.9%) and school projects
(5.9%) are identified.
Four types of materials, namely, concrete, reinforcement, formwork, and brick/block, varies with
types of projects are considered. The survey response of the trades of material wastages with
types of projects are shown in Table 3. Both substructure (42.3%) and superstructure (57.7%)
construction are considered in this survey. All contracts belong to building construction with
contract sums ranging from 5 to 418 millions.
Table 3: Material wastages and types of projects

Concrete
Reinforcement
Formwork
Brick/block

Public
housing
11.8%
12.5%
-

Private
housing
52.8%
56.1%
66.6%
55.5%

Commercial
11.8%
12.5%
16.7%
11.1%

Composite
building
5.9%
6.3%
11.1%

Industrial

Monastery

School

5.9%
6.3%
11.1%

5.9%
6.3%
16.7%
-

5.9%
11.1%

MATERIAL WASTAGE AMONG PROJECT TYPES

Table 4 and Table 5 summarize findings of the survey, which studying the material wastage
levels of various types of projects, the maximum and minimum levels of material wastage and
average levels of material wastage vary with different types of projects respectively. However,
no matter which types of projects it is, there is some unavoidable wastage, which are called as
natural wastage, such as cutting and so minimum wastage levels for materials need to be set.

Table 4: Maximum and minimum wastes among different types of projects

Concrete
Reinforcement
Formwork
Brick/Block
Max. Max-Min Min.
Max. Max-Min Min.
Max. Max-Min
Min.
Max. Max-Min Min.
Project
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
Public housing
3.49
13.56 10.08
2.96
5.45
2.48
Private housing
1.13
9.00
7.88
1.81
10.96
9.15
1.79
20.00 18.21
1.66
6.67
5.01
Private Commercial
4.35
4.98
0.64
3.09
5.00
1.91
5.00
5.13
0.13
5.02
5.02
0.00
Composite Bldg
6.67
6.94
0.28
5.00
5.11
0.11
6.92
6.92
0.00
Industrial
2.00
2.00
0.00
3.00
3.00
0.00
3.00
3.00
0.00
Monastery
5.00
5.00
0.00
4.29
5.00
0.71
10.00 15.00
5.00
School
8.70
8.70
0.00
3.33
3.33
0.00
Table 5: Average material wastage among different types of projects

Trades

Concrete
Reinforcement
Formwork
Brick/ Block

Public
Housing
%
5.99
3.95
-

Private
Housing
%
3.37
5.32
4.01
4.45

Private
Commercial
%
4.96
3.94
5.00
5.02

Types of projects
Composite
Building
Industrial
%
%
6.84
2.00
5.07
3.00
6.92
3.00

Monastery
%
5.00
4.37
11.11
-

School
%
8.70
3.33

Table 4 shows the lowest level of wastage in reinforcement bar is 1.91% in private commercial
projects, which indicates that it can hardly be further reduced and the value can be set as a
natural wastage for that particular item. For items with higher wastage levels than the natural
wastage, for examples, 18.21% of formwork wastage in private housing projects, there should
be more room to reduce the wastage levels. These items are called as potential wastage
items, which are expressed as the following formula:
Potential wastage items: Max. Min. wastage
The survey results show that a very high mean wastage level is noted for concrete, especially
for projects of public housing, composite building and school as shown in Table 5. The
promotion of using prefabrication can effectively reduce the wastage in concrete. The result also
shows that the wastage levels vary with different types of projects. For example, the
standardized designs of industrial building can reduce the wastage levels. The private housing
projects generate the highest wastage levels especially for steel reinforcement, which may
reflect the non-standardized building structures resulting in different sizes of formwork,
reinforcement, and brick/block-work that generate higher levels of material wastage.
Poon et al. (2001a) addressed the different wastages of materials in the trades of concrete,
reinforcement, formwork and masonry for private and public housing projects as shown in Table
6. The table shows that the wastage in formwork for private housing projects is much higher
than that for public housing projects.
Table 6: Percentage wastage of materials for various trades for private and public housing projects
(Source: Poon et al., 2001a)

Trade

Material

Concrete
Reinforcement
Formwork
Masonry

Concrete
Steel bars
Timber broad
Brick and block

Percentage wastage in private

housing
%
4-5
1-8
15
4-8

Percentage wastage in public

housing
%
3-5
1-8
5
6

Skoyles and Skoyles (1987) pointed out a problem that the natural level of material wastage
depends on the cost effectiveness of the approaches used to control it. Therefore, the cost of
reducing wastage directly related to the values of material saved; however, this relationship is
no longer linear. It shows that higher cost effectiveness can only be achieved at the initial stage,
and lower cost effectiveness happens at the later stages. Thus, the optimum level of material
saved should be identified before projects start. The optimum level should be the small
improvement cost in reducing wastage that brings about a large impact on materials saved and
5

increase in profits. It seems to be more effective to reduce the wastage for items bearing higher
levels of wastage, which have relatively larger room for wastage reduction. This approach is
important in determining where attention should be focused to maximize saving in material
wastage.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This paper demonstrates that the waste generation has direct link with subcontracting
arrangements. The survey results demonstrate that different types of construction projects have
different levels of waste generation. Private housing projects are found generating the highest
wastage levels when compared with other types of projects. The reason may be resulted from
the fact that the private housing projects normally are of non-standardized building structures.
As a result, different sizes and shapes of building components such as formwork, reinforcement
and brickwork are required that results in higher wastage levels.
Wastage minimization should be integrated into the construction processes and planned at the
tender stage. The selection of sub-contractors needs to consider their wastage reduction plan
as part of assessment criteria. Provision of waste reduction training to on-site staff is also
considered important in raising environmental awareness and helping site staff generating a
better working procedure to reduce generation of materials wastage. A waste control system is
suggested as part of site management functions, which collects waste generation data,
identifies the major areas of waste generation, analyses the causes for the waste generation,
produces solutions for mitigating waste and feedbacks the decision-making to the working staff
who work on those key areas. The waste control system can also present dynamic information
to the senior management who can coordinate among various subcontractors and departments
for implementing the system effectively.

REFERENCES
Chan, A.P.C. and Ma, T.Y.F. (1998), Materials wastage on commercial projects- a contractors
view, Proceedings of the Sixth East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structure Engineering &
Construction, 14-16 January, Taipei, Taiwan, 2, 1059-1064.
Chung, J.K.O. (2000), Monitoring of solid waste in Hong Kong 1998, Environment Protection
Department, Hong Kong Government.
EPD (2002), Environment Hong Kong 2002, Environment Protection Department, Hong Kong
Government.
Ferguson, J., Kermode, N., Nash, C. L., Sketch, W. A. J. and Huxford, R. P. (1995), Managing
and minimizing construction waste: a practical guide, Institution of Civil Engineers,
London.
Gavilan, R.M. and Bernold, L.E. (1994), Source Evaluation of Solid Waste in Building
Construction, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 120, 536-552.
Guthrie, P., Woolveridge, A.C. and Patel, V.S. (1999), Waste minimisation in construction: site
guide, London: Construction Industry Research and Information Association.
Lam, A.L.P. (1997), A Study of the Development of Environmental Management in Hong Kong
Construction Industry, BSc Thesis, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Mills, T.M., Showalter, E. and Jarman, D. (1999), A cost-effective waste management plan, Cost
Engineering, 41(3), 35-43.
Poon, C.S., Yu, T.W. and Ng, L.H. (2001a), A Guide for Managing and Minimizing Building and
Demolition Waste, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Poon, C.S., Yu, A.T.W. and Ng, L.H. (2001b), On-site sorting of construction and demolition
waste in Hong Kong, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 32, 157-172.
Rogoff, M. J. and Williams, J. F. (1994), Approaches to implementing solid waste recycling
facilities, Noyes, Park Ridge, NJ.
6

Shen, L. Y. and Tam, W. Y. Vivian (2002), Implementation of environmental management in

the Hong Kong construction industry, International Journal of Project Management 20(7),
535-543.
Shen, L. Y., Tam, W. Y. Vivian, Chan, C. W. Steven and Kong, S. Y. Joseph (2002), An
examination on the waste Management practice in the local construction site, Hong
Kong Surveyor 13(1), 39-48.
Skoyles, E.R. and Skoyles, J.R. (1987), Waste prevention on site, London: Mitchell.
Snook, K., Turner, A. and Ridout, R. (1995), Recycling waste from the construction site,
England: Chartered Institute of Building.
Tse, Y. C. Raymond (2001), The implementation of EMS in construction firms: case study in
Hong Kong, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 3(2), 177194.
Wong, A.Y.S. and Tanner, P.A. (1997), Monitoring environment pollution in Hong Kong: trends
and prospects, Elsevier Science 16(4), 180-190.