Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Quantifying construction and demolition waste: An analytical review Zezhou Wu a, Ann T.W. Yu a,⇑, Liyin Shen b, Guiwen Liu b a b

Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China Faculty of Construction Management and Real Estate, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 27 November 2013 Accepted 6 May 2014 Available online xxxx Keywords: Construction and demolition waste Quantification methodology Review

a b s t r a c t Quantifying construction and demolition (C&D) waste generation is regarded as a prerequisite for the implementation of successful waste management. In literature, various methods have been employed to quantify the C&D waste generation at both regional and project levels. However, an integrated review that systemically describes and analyses all the existing methods has yet to be conducted. To bridge this research gap, an analytical review is conducted. Fifty-seven papers are retrieved based on a set of rigorous procedures. The characteristics of the selected papers are classified according to the following criteria waste generation activity, estimation level and quantification methodology. Six categories of existing C&D waste quantification methodologies are identified, including site visit method, waste generation rate method, lifetime analysis method, classification system accumulation method, variables modelling method and other particular methods. A critical comparison of the identified methods is given according to their characteristics and implementation constraints. Moreover, a decision tree is proposed for aiding the selection of the most appropriate quantification method in different scenarios. Based on the analytical review, limitations of previous studies and recommendations of potential future research directions are further suggested. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The stream of construction and demolition (C&D) waste generally results from the construction, renovation and demolition of buildings, roads, bridges and other structures (Peng et al., 1997; Yuan and Shen, 2011). According to its generation phase, C&D waste can be divided into three categories: construction waste (CW), renovation waste (RW) and demolition waste (DW). Typical components in C&D waste are inert materials (e.g., concrete, bricks, etc.), which are generally believed have little damage to the environment (EPD, 2012). Therefore, C&D waste is considered having a ‘‘priority’’ to be recycled according to the EU Waste Strategy (Banias et al., 2011). However, there are also some hazardous components (e.g., asbestos, particulate matters, etc.) in this particular stream. If these components are not disposed of properly, negative impacts will be made on the environment. Consequently, how to establish an effective C&D waste management system, which is environmentally sound and economically feasible, is a global hot topic requiring comprehensive exploration and discussion. It has been acknowledged that proper quantification of C&D waste is of great importance for establishing an effective management system at both project level and regional level (Bergsdal ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 27665795; fax: +852 27645131. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.T.W. Yu).

et al., 2007; Li and Zhang, 2013; Yost and Halstead, 1996). Quantification at project level refers to forecast the C&D waste production in a particular project. It can help the project managers to adjust the material purchase schedule, to arrange the stockpiling on-site and to determine the potential waste recycling benefit and disposal cost. Quantification at regional level refers to estimate the total C&D generation of all projects in a specified region. The information of regional waste generation can assist decision-makers in making more realistic policies, determining the establishment of new waste facilities, and arranging labour and truck resources. In literature, numerous quantification methodologies have been proposed to quantify the C&D waste generation. However, a systematic review that analyses these methodologies and discusses their application scopes does not yet exist. It is essential for decision-makers to have a clear idea of the characteristics and implementation constraints of the alternative quantification methodologies before choosing an appropriate one. Therefore, a systematic review is of significance to bridge the gap. The objectives of this research are as follows:  To summarize the existing C&D waste quantification methodologies according to the designated criteria.  To give a critical comparison and to propose a relevance tree for guiding the stakeholders to select the most appropriate C&D waste quantification method.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.010 0956-053X/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Wu, Z., et al. Quantifying construction and demolition waste: An analytical review. Waste Management (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.010

2

Z. Wu et al. / Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

 To explore limitations of current research and provide recommendations for potential research directions. This paper starts with the background of C&D waste quantification, followed by a description of adopted research methodology and an overview of previous research. Then, C&D waste quantification methodologies are summarized and discussed according to three designated criteria. A critical comparison of the identified methods and a proposed decision tree are given for selecting an appropriate C&D quantification method. Finally, limitations of previous studies and recommendations of potential future research directions are suggested.

by the selected 49 papers were browsed manually, then the titles of potential related articles were aggregated into an Excel table to avoid duplication. After reviewing their abstracts, additional 8 papers were found, and a total of 57 papers was then subjucted to an in-depth analysis. A brief analysis has been made to reveal the research interest trend of C&D waste quantification, a graph of publishing year versus number of papers was plotted, as shown in Fig. 1. It can be concluded that this topic has been receiving continuous interest in the recent six years. 3. Classification of the selected studies

2. Research methodology To make a comprehensive understanding of the current C&D waste quantification methodologies, a strict literature retrieval process was conducted based on the two most world-famous indexed databases: the SCI database (http://www.webofknowledge.com/) and the EI database (http://www.engineeringvillage.com). The worldwide publications indexed by these two databases have been peer reviewed and regarded of high quality. The procedure for retrieving relevant paper was as follows.  Comprehensive search of potential related papers. The potential related papers were searched in the designated databases with a time span of 01/01/1990–31/10/2013. In addition, five international journals were selected for further paper retrieval, including ‘‘Waste Management’’, ‘‘Waste Management and Research’’, ‘‘Resources, Conservation and Recycling’’, ‘‘Construction Management & Economics’’ and ‘‘Journal of Construction Engineering and Management’’. These five journals were selected because they publish the largest number of papers concerning C&D waste management (Lu and Yuan, 2011; Yuan and Shen, 2011). After the scanning of contents issue by issue, more than 200 papers were collected.  Detailed relevance identification of the collected papers. After the collection of potential related papers, a filtering process was then implemented to identify how the collected papers match the research scope by scanning titles and abstracts. As the scope of this study is reviewing quantification methodologies only on C&D waste, involving total waste stream and individual components, papers on quantifying other wastes streams (e.g., municipal solid waste) have been excluded. After this filtering process, 49 papers were left for further investigation.  Cross-referencing examination of retrieved papers. A crossreferencing examination was further conducted to ensure the comprehensiveness of the research. All references cited

Number

Linear (Number)

10

10 9

8

8

7

7

6

6 5

4

4

4 3 2

1

1

1

1 0

0

1994

1996

2

2

2 1

1 0 1992

4

3

1998

0

2000

0

0

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

Fig. 1. Trend of research interest on C&D waste quantification.

2014

After a systematic review of the retrieved 57 papers, three characteristic classification criteria of the current literature were revealed: waste generation activity, estimation level and quantification methodology. Corresponding descriptions are given in the following sections and the selected papers are classified in Table 1 based on the identified criteria. 3.1. Waste generation activity The C&D waste stream is produced throughout the lifecycle of a project, involving construction, usage/maintenance and demolition. During the usage/maintenance stage, waste is rarely generated unless renovation activities are implemented (Su et al., 2012). As a result, according to the waste generation amount, three primary waste generation activities can be classified: (i) construction of new buildings, (ii) demolition of old buildings, and (iii) civil and infrastructural works. – Construction of new buildings. The generation of waste during construction phase is considered unavoidable (Tam and Tam, 2006). Typical causes of waste production in this phase include timber formwork, wet trade of finishing, concrete work, masonry work and material handling, accounting for 30%, 20%, 13%, 13% and 10% respectively (Poon et al., 2004a). Mokhtar et al. (2011) found that construction method, project size, building type, material storage method, human error and technical problem are the main factors that affect the waste generation of newly constructed buildings. Furthermore, studies have revealed that the attitude and behaviour of on-site workers can play an important role in producing waste as well (Al-Sari et al., 2012; Teo and Loosemore, 2001). In practice, the contractors usually assume that the wastage rate is equivalent to 1–10% of the purchased construction materials (Shen et al., 2005). The specific percentage is determined by their previous experiences derived from direct measurement on site. However, such information is not robust for making an effective waste management plan, classification systems have been introduced to tackle this problem (Llatas, 2011; Solis-Guzman et al., 2009). – Demolition of old buildings. The demolition activities can produce a large amount of waste. Appropriate processing should be adopted to reduce the environmental impact because of the existence of hazardous substances (Trankler et al., 1996). Nearly 100% of the demolished structures were ended as waste except some materials that have mature secondary market (e.g. wood, metal, etc.) (Poon et al., 2004b). Selective demolition is regarded as an effective solution to reduce and recycle demolition waste (Kourmpanis et al., 2008a). However, in developing countries, blasting demolition is often employed because this method requires less time and labour. Therefore, the

Please cite this article in press as: Wu, Z., et al. Quantifying construction and demolition waste: An analytical review. Waste Management (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.010

3

Z. Wu et al. / Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx Table 1 Classification of the reviewed papers.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

Reviewed paper

Region

McBean and Fortin (1993) Gavilan and Bernold (1994) Bossink and Brouwers (1996) Yost and Halstead (1996) Poon (1997) McDonald and Smithers (1998) Formoso et al. (2002) Hsiao et al. (2002) Fatta et al. (2003) Kartam et al. (2004) Poon et al. (2004a) Poon et al. (2004b) Wang et al. (2004) Begum et al. (2006) Shi and Xu (2006) Bergsdal et al. (2007) Cochran et al. (2007) Hashimoto et al. (2007) Hao et al. (2008) Kelly and Hanahoe (2008) Kourmpanis et al. (2008a) Kourmpanis et al. (2008b) Lau et al. (2008) Tam (2008) Hashimoto et al. (2009) Jaillon et al. (2009) Kofoworola and Gheewala (2009) Solis-Guzman et al. (2009) Cochran and Townsend (2010) Hettiaratchi et al. (2010) Hu et al. (2010) Lage et al. (2010) Wimalasena et al. (2010) Ye et al. (2010) Zhao et al. (2010) Banias et al. (2011) Coelho and de Brito (2011a) Coelho and de Brito (2011b) De Melo et al. (2011) Katz and Baum (2011) Llatas (2011) Lu et al. (2011) Masudi et al. (2011) Mokhtar et al. (2011) Zhao et al. (2011) Al-Sari et al. (2012) de Guzmán Báez et al. (2012) Saez et al. (2012) Tamraz et al. (2012) Che Hasan et al. (2013) Cheng and Ma (2013) Hoglmeier et al. (2013) Li et al. (2013) Li and Zhang (2013) Mália et al. (2013) Mercader-Moyano and Ramírez-de-Arellano-Agudo (2013) Nagapan et al. (2013)

Canada US Netherlands US Hong Kong Australia Brazil Taiwan Greece Kuwait Hong Kong Hong Kong US Malaysia China Norway US Japan Hong Kong Ireland Cyprus Greece Malaysia Hong Kong Japan Hong Kong Thailand Spain US Canada China Spain Canada China China Greece Portugal Portugal Portugal Israel Spain China Malaysia Malaysia China Palestine Spain Spain Lebanon Malaysia Hong Kong Germany China Hong Kong Portugal Spain Malaysia

Waste generation activity

Estimation level

CNB p p p p

PL

DOB p

CIW

p p p p

p p p p p p p p p p p p

p p p p p p

p p p p p

p

p p

p p p p

p p p p

p

p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p

p p p p

p p p p

p

p

p p p

p p

p p

p p

p p

p p

p p

p p p p p p

p p p p p p p p p p p

p

p p

p

p p p

p p p p p p p p p

RL p

p

p p p p p p p p p

Methodology

GRC SV SV SV+GRC GRC+LA SV SV GRC+LA GRC SV+GRC SV SV GRC+CSA SV GRC+LA GRC+LA SV+GRC GRC+LA Other SV GRC GRC SV SV GRC+LA SV GRC SV+GRC+CSA LA+Other SV+GRC+VM SV+GRC+LA GRC VM VM SV+GRC GRC SV+GRC+CSA GRC GRC SV+VM SV+GRC+CSA SV SV+GRC+CSA SV SV+GRC VM SV+GRC+CSA GRC+CSA SV+GRC VM GRC+CSA GRC SV+GRC GRC+CSA SV+GRC GRC+CSA SV

CNB – construction of new buildings; DOB – demolition of old buildings; CIW – civil and infrastructural works; PL – project level; RL – regional level. SV – site visit; GRC – generation rate calculation; LA – lifetime analysis; CSA – classification system accumulation; VM – variables modelling.

available generation information of demolition waste is less than the one of construction waste. – Civil and infrastructural works. Civil and infrastructural works involve the projects that support a society, such as roads, highways, bridges, airports, dams, etc. This kind of projects are usually with large volume and long duration, thus produce massive waste. However, they are often omitted or intentionally excluded from the quantification in the existing literature (Fatta et al., 2003; Hsiao et al., 2002; Kofoworola and Gheewala, 2009). de Guzmán Báez et al.

(2012) claimed that more studies should be launched to quantify the waste generation in civil engineering sector. 3.2. Estimation level The estimation level is determined by the targeted quantification object. The waste management planners are more concentrated on the waste production forecast in the medium and long period, while the professionals, who have to estimate the production of waste of a construction or demolition activity, are more

Please cite this article in press as: Wu, Z., et al. Quantifying construction and demolition waste: An analytical review. Waste Management (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.010

4

Z. Wu et al. / Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

focused on less sophisticated methodologies that have to give information on a short period. In some papers, to achieve the purpose of estimating C&D waste quantity at a regional level, several practical site visits might be conducted to collect the waste generation coefficients. In this circumstance, the estimation level is regarded as regional level because the targeted quantification object is C&D waste generation of a region. – Project level. The waste quantification on a project is very essential. It has been suggested that a sound waste management plan should be implemented to guide the reduction of waste generation on sites (McDonald and Smithers, 1998; Tam, 2008). The practitioners can arrange the spaces of their sites and estimate the cost of material flows based on such information. In addition, the waste generation rates derived from different projects can assist in providing information for benchmarking the effectiveness of different management practices. The optimal technologies and work procedure can be selected by comparing the waste generation rates. – Regional level. Effective policies play an important role in C&D waste reduction in a region (Lu and Tam, 2013). Take Hong Kong for an example, the annual C&D waste amount got a significant decrease after the implementation of ‘‘Construction Waste Disposal Charging Scheme’’ (EPD, 2014). Besides disposal charging scheme, other policies, such as tax policies, waste disposal regulations, can also be adopted for waste reduction. The knowledge of regional waste generation trend can help the policy-makers to formulate practical regulations and make effective decisions. In addition, the number and volume of waste treatment sites to be established can be determined according to this information. 3.3. Quantification methodology According to the methodological principle, the adopted quantification methods in selected papers were summarized into six major categories, which consist of site visit (SV) method, generation rate calculation (GRC) method, lifetime analysis (LA) method, classification system accumulation (CSA) method, variables modelling (VM) method and other particular methods, as shown in Table 1. It should be underlined that more than one quantification methodologies might be involved for a particular case. For example, before conducting GRC quantification, a SV method might be introduced and used to explore the waste generation rates. In this circumstance, both methodologies will be presented in the aggregated table. 3.3.1. Site visit (SV) method This methodology requires investigators to visit the construction or demolition sites for a realistic survey. Direct or indirect approaches can be utilized to collect C&D waste generation data. 3.3.1.1. Direct measurement. Direct measurement requires to weigh the waste produced or to measure its volume on site. Before implementing direct measurement, some assumptions have to be made. For instance, in the research conducted by Lau et al. (2008), four assumptions were made depending on how C&D waste was stockpiled, gathered, scattered or stacked. For stockpiled waste, a rectangular based pyramid was assumed, and the volume was calculated by Eq. (1).

Vs ¼ 1=3  ðL  B  HÞ

ð1Þ

where Vs is the volume of the stockpiled C&D waste, L is the base length of the assumed rectangular based pyramid, B is the base breadth, and H represents the height.

For gathered waste, the layout shape was assumed cuboid, and the volume (Vg) was derived from Eq. (2).

Vg ¼ L  B  H

ð2Þ

After obtaining the volumes of the stockpiled and gathered C&D waste, the mass was derived by using waste volume times corresponding density. For scattered and stacked waste with similar size (e.g., bricks, roof tiles), three samples were randomly chosen from the total. The average weight of the selected samples was calculated and assumed to be uniform. Thus, the total weight could be estimated by using the average weight multiplied by the number of samples. For the wastes that were largely different in size, they were sorted into several groups before estimation. The size of each sample in the same group was similar, and then above-described estimation method was implemented. 3.3.1.2. Indirect measurement. As direct measurement requires a substantial amount of time and labour, indirect measurement is more frequently used for practical estimation. For example, Poon et al. (2004b) employed truck load records to estimate the volume of C&D waste generated on site. The investigators recorded the number of trucks for waste collecting, together with the container’s volume of each. Based on this information, the total waste volume at a project level was derived. For the purpose of indirect quantification at a regional level, Kartam et al. (2004) obtained truck load records from landfills. Besides the above-mentioned measurements, interviews with contractors could be further conducted for a verification purpose. This is because on-site professionals often possess relevant background and can give some insights for adjusting the waste generation information. 3.3.2. Generation rate calculation (GRC) method The literature review revealed that GRC is the most popular methodology for estimating C&D waste amounts. It can be implemented for construction, renovation and demolition activities at both regional and project levels. The principle of this methodology is to obtain the waste generation rate for a particular activity unit (such as kg/m2, and m3/m2). In this principle, several methods were introduced by using alternative parameters in previous studies, such as per capita multiplier, financial value extrapolation and area-based calculation. 3.3.2.1. Per-capita multiplier. Per-capita multiplier is the earliest C&D waste quantification methodology in literature, which is developed from the methodologies that quantify municipal solid waste (MSW). To estimate C&D waste generation in Waterloo, McBean and Fortin (1993) collected the regional C&D waste quantity from 1983 to 1990. Then, the average C&D waste generation per person was calculated as 1.09 tonnes/person/year. On this basis, future regional C&D waste generation amounts were extrapolated using waste weight per person multiplied by number of population. Per-capita multiplier is an easy way to quantify C&D waste in a region. However, Yost and Halstead (1996) argued it suffers from the fact that construction and demolition activities may fluctuate widely due to the economy status while the population remains almost constant. 3.3.2.2. Financial value extrapolation. In order to reflect actual construction activities more accurately, Yost and Halstead (1996) developed a methodology based on the financial value of buildings permits issued by the US Census Bureau. A case study estimating the quantification of gypsum wallboard waste in a region was described. The estimation processes were as follows:

Please cite this article in press as: Wu, Z., et al. Quantifying construction and demolition waste: An analytical review. Waste Management (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.010

Z. Wu et al. / Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

(1) The generation rate of wasted gypsum was assumed based on field observations. In this study, several new construction projects were selected for empirical investigation. The wasted gypsum on sites was weighed and the total area of the buildings was collected, then the generation rate (kg/m2) could be determined using total mass divided by the area. (2) Through reviewing the building permits data of 72 new construction projects, the financial value per square metre was obtained ($/m2). Based on the empirical data, the relationship between wasted gypsum quantity and building financial value could be established using wasted gypsum per financial value (kg/$). (3) Given the total financial values ($) of new construction projects in a designated region, the wasted gypsum generation (kg) could be derived by timing generation rate per financial value (kg/$). Financial value extrapolation utilizes financial value presented in construction and demolition permits. Through this method, the fluctuation of construction and demolition activities can be reflected using building financial value, making the estimation more construction related and more accurate than per-capita multiplier method. 3.3.2.3. Area-based calculation. In recent years, many studies employed GRC methodology based on the generation rate per construction/renovation/demolition area. Unlike the above two GRC methods, this method can be used both at the regional and project levels. Generation rate values can be derived from several approaches, such as site visits, project consultancy, construction guides and literature review (Coelho and de Brito, 2011a; Lage et al., 2010; Zhao et al., 2011). The total construction or demolition area can be easily collected from the project schedule or government statistical department. Then, the total C&D waste generation amount can be estimated by multiplying the generation rate by total area. Area-based calculation is the most frequently used method in literature. Compared with financial value extrapolation, this method omits the intermediate variable – financial value. Potential errors caused by the intermediate variable can be eliminated through the area-based estimation. 3.3.3. Lifetime analysis (LA) method Lifetime analysis is mainly implemented when quantifying demolition waste. The primary principle involved in this method is material mass balance. It is assumed that constructed buildings will eventually be demolished and become demolition waste. Consequently, the amount of demolition waste must equal the mass of the constructed structure, and can be projected by assuming reasonable lifetimes of buildings/materials. Building lifetime analysis and material lifetime analysis are the two branches of this method. 3.3.3.1. Building lifetime analysis. For the first time, building lifetime analysis was introduced by Poon (1997). The objective was to supply essential information for conducting more effective and efficient demolition waste management. In Poon’s research, the buildings were categorized into four groups according to their ages, namely pre-war to 1945, 1946–1955, 1956–1960 and 1961–1965. The buildings completed after 1965 were assumed not to be demolished in the next ten years. Nineteen scenarios were then proposed by defining the demolition percentage of each group. The most realistic scenario was selected based on a practical investigation and the areas of demolished buildings were identified. The quantity of demolition waste could be derived by GRC

5

after knowing the generated volume per unit of building area and the material mass per unit of volume. 3.3.3.2. Material lifetime analysis. To attain more detailed information about each kind of material, Cochran and Townsend (2010) presented an alternative approach named ‘‘material flow analysis’’ to estimate C&D waste generation and composition for the US. In their research, the consumption of construction materials in the whole country and typical waste factors used for construction materials purchasing were used to estimate the mass of solid waste generated as a result of construction activities. For demolition activities, the C&D waste volume was predicted from various historical construction materials consumption data and estimates of average service lives of the materials. Since not all materials purchased will end up in the structures, the C&D waste produced in construction activities could be estimated by using Eq. (3).

Cw ¼ M  W c

ð3Þ

where Cw is the quantity of waste produced in construction activities; M refers to all materials purchased in the whole country; Wc stands for the average proportion discarded during construction which can be found from construction guides. The quantity of materials ending up as demolition waste (Dw) was supposed to be equivalent to the amount of material still in the structure after installation, minus the amount discarded during installation, as shown in Eq. (4).

Dw ¼ M  C w

ð4Þ

For instance, supposing that the lifetime for a particular material is 50 years, and was originally produced in 1952, the demolished quantity in 2002 could be calculated using Eq. (5).

Dwð2002Þ ¼ M ð1952Þ  C wð1952Þ

ð5Þ

3.3.4. Classification system accumulation (CSA) method In recent years, classification system accumulation (CSA) method has got wide implementation (Coelho and de Brito, 2011a; Llatas, 2011; Solis-Guzman et al., 2009). This methodology is developed based on GRC method. The primary improvement is that CSA involves a classification system, which provides a platform for quantifying different specified material. A classification system can be established according to existing systems, such as a regional project budget system or the European Waste List (EWL). Solis-Guzman et al. (2009) built a classification system based on a Spanish project budget system. This system was hierarchically organized in chapters and sub-chapters. For example, 02TX corresponded to chapter 02 (stands for earth works) and sub-chapter TX (represents earth transportation). The waste amount of this item was calculated by applying SV and GRC. Once the quantities of all items have been determined, the total amount of waste could be derived by accumulating those all items. Other researchers implemented similar estimation systems using the EWL (Coelho and de Brito, 2011a; Llatas, 2011). It is obvious that the outcomes derived from this methodology can offer more effective information for determining waste management strategies, because each kind of waste material has different properties and requires a different handling. Similar to GRC, this method can also be used for quantifying both CW and DW. To facilitate the application of CSA, computer software (such as Microsoft Excel) or databases were suggested to be used (SolisGuzman et al., 2009). 3.3.5. Variables modelling (VM) method C&D waste generation depends on numerous variables, such as economic indicators, construction areas, on-site working condition,

Please cite this article in press as: Wu, Z., et al. Quantifying construction and demolition waste: An analytical review. Waste Management (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.010

6

Z. Wu et al. / Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

etc. Therefore, there is a possibility to simulate the C&D waste generation using variables modelling. Predicting C&D waste amounts by modelling helps to understand the interrelationship among the variables, and provides more systematic information for decision making. At the project level, Wimalasena et al. (2010) established a quantification framework based on the principle of ‘‘Activity Based Waste Generation’’, which assumes that the total quantity of construction waste generated at a particular time on a construction site is the accumulation of waste quantities from each construction activity. Five categories of factors were identified to estimate the waste generation in a construction activity: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

activity specific factors; labour and equipment related factors; material and storage related factors; site condition and weather related factors; company policies.

To make the prediction model more sophisticated, it was suggested that detailed site observations should be implemented to quantify the variables and to establish the correlations. For estimation at a regional level, Ye et al. (2010) proposed a conceptual model based on system dynamics theory. The model was established according to the identified interrelationships between each variable. The interrelationships were represented using casual loops, which is used to diminish the complexity of the system and reflect the changes of variables. Thus, the C&D waste production could be modelled dynamically. 3.3.6. Others Besides the estimation methodologies above, some other methods have also been used. For example, Hao et al. (2008) estimated construction waste production as a fixed percentage of the purchased materials. In their research, they assumed the waste generation rate to be 10%. As a result, the total amount of construction waste could be easily calculated as 10% of the purchased quantities. In addition, wastage amounts for some particular materials could be calculated based on their chemical characteristics. For instance, Shi and Xu (2006) estimated concrete debris in China from the annual cement production. Cement is used because it is an essential material for producing concrete and its industrial output is recorded by the national statistics department. It is possible, therefore, to estimate the amount of concrete debris having data on the proportion of cement in concrete and concrete wastage rates. 4. Discussions The selection of appropriate quantification methodology is essential and indispensable for making an effective waste management plan (Beigl et al., 2008). In order to obtain valuable insights from previous studies, the existing methodologies are compared and discussed based on the identified classification criteria, current limitations and potential research directions are proposed as well. 4.1. Integrated comparison of the current methodologies There is an increasing emphasis on C&D waste quantification in the field of C&D waste management. Many quantification methodologies have been introduced for estimating C&D waste amounts. In this study, six quantification methodologies were identified, namely SV, GRC, LA, CSA, VM and other particular methods. According to different quantification objectives, corresponding methods can be selected. The applicability of each method is described as follows.

 SV. This method is not appropriate for estimating the C&D waste generation at a regional level because of the high requirement of time, labour and money. However, it is of great essence to be implemented at a project level to collect the most realistic data for employing other methodologies. In addition, this method is applicable to measure waste produced from all of the waste generation activities. The measurement can be conducted through weighing C&D waste directly on site (Lu et al., 2011), as well as estimating the shape of the piled wasted materials (Lau et al., 2008). On-site interviews to professionals are also suggested in order to tune the calculated production rate.  GRC. This methodology has got a wide utilization in previous studies because it can be implied to estimate waste from all activities at both regional and project levels. The fundamental of this methodology is to determine the waste generation rate per unit and the amount of total units. In the earlier implementation of this methodology, the C&D waste generation was estimated based on municipal population, which is a popular indicator in the MSW quantification field. However, in the most recent C&D waste quantification studies, the variable of area is used. For estimation at a project level, the value of area (m2) can be collected from the basic project schedule. For estimation at a regional level, the area value can be derived from the related governmental statistic reports.  LA. The method of LA is developed based on the GRC quantification, aiming to estimate waste generate from renovation and demolition activities based on proper lifetime assumption. According to the estimation level, two divisions of this method can be categorized, namely material lifetime analysis and building lifetime analysis. The former one is used for estimation at a project level, while the latter one focuses on quantification at a regional level. The advantage of this method is that it can be used in the regions where no demolition area data exists.  CSA. This method is developed for the classified materials of C&D waste. As different construction materials have different chemical characteristics and storage requirements, the corresponding recycling benefits and disposal choices are different. For example, recycling wasted rebar can earn more profits than recycling wasted concrete or stones. Therefore, a more detailed understanding of waste generation is essential for better management of C&D waste. CSA is a feasible method for supplying such information, and can be implemented to estimate waste from all activities at project level. Generally, the classification system can be established based on a project budget system or governmental waste list (e.g., European Waste List).  VM. This method is focused on the interrelationships among the systematic variables to model waste generation. When conducting estimation of C&D waste generation, the variables are collectively considered and their interrelationships are detected. This method has been developed to forecast MSW production extensively. However, as the data on C&D waste are quite less than data on MSW, the method remains at the conceptual level and does not provide reliable future scenarios at current stage. More practical investigations are needed to develop this kind of methodology and to increase its feasibility and accuracy.  Others. In practice, it is not possible to make an accurate estimation of C&D waste because of some specific limitations, such as the construction period is very short. In this circumstance, a wastage rate for purchased materials can be assumed based on the literature or practical

Please cite this article in press as: Wu, Z., et al. Quantifying construction and demolition waste: An analytical review. Waste Management (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.010

Z. Wu et al. / Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

experiences to give a rough estimation. However, accurate estimation is quite essential to some valuable materials (e.g., rebar) with the aim of cutting down the wastage and saving money. Based on the above analysis, it cannot be concluded that one specific quantification method is more effective than others. A proper methodology should be selected based on the particular quantification objectives and practical conditions. In order to provide more insights, a detailed integrated comparison is tabulated for the branches of each methodology, see Table 2. To serve as guidance, a relevance tree is further proposed for selecting an appropriate C&D waste quantification methodology, as shown in Fig. 2. Because variables modelling method remains at conceptual level, and other particular methods have specific implementation limitations, they are not included in the relevance tree; only mature and commonly used methods are considered.

7

4.2.1. Current limitations 4.2.1.1. Lack of quantification on infrastructure. From the literature review, it can be concluded that quantification activities are focused much more on residential or commercial buildings than on civil engineering works or infrastructures. Some possible reasons are the following:  residential and commercial buildings are often smaller than public construction works and thus are easier and cheaper to study;  the construction durations and the lifetimes of these buildings are much shorter than those of public civil engineering works, which makes it applicable for demolition waste estimation;  as residential and commercial buildings are generally of similar construction, the waste generation information collected from different projects are comparable and can be generalized.

4.2. Current limitations and future research directions Through a thorough analysis of what have been done in the previous studies, the current limitations of C&D waste quantification research are identified. Based on the limitations, potential future research directions are further suggested, as described in the following sections.

4.2.1.2. Lack of actual data. Actual data are very important for an accurate quantification. However, nowadays, reliable data for C&D waste estimation are missing, with only few exceptions in some developed countries. To achieve relatively accurate estimation, researchers must draw support from assumptions. For example, as the annual total area of construction (m2) in Florida is not

Table 2 Comparison of the current C&D waste quantification methodologies. Methodology

Typical paper

Waste generation activity

Estimation level

Comments

SV

Direct measurement

Lau et al. (2008), Lu et al. (2011)

CNB, DOB, CIW

PL

Indirect measurement

Poon et al. (2004b)

CNB, DOB, CIW

PL

Per-capita multiplier

McBean and Fortin (1993)

CNB, DOB, CIW

RL

Financial value extrapolation

Yost and Halstead (1996)

CNB, DOB, CIW

RL

Area-based calculation

Fatta et al. (2003), Lage et al. (2010)

CNB, DOB, CIW

PL, RL

Building lifetime analysis

Poon (1997)

DOB

RL

Material lifetime analysis

Cochran and Townsend (2010)

DOB

RL

CSA

Solis-Guzman et al. (2009), Llatas (2011)

CNB, DOB, CIW

PL, RL

VM

Wimalasena et al. (2010)

CNB, DOB, CIW

PL, RL

Others

Shi and Xu (2006)

CNB, DOB, CIW

PL, RL

Direct measurement of C&D waste can provide the most practical waste generation rates, which is the most basic information for C&D waste quantification. Besides, the waste generation rates enable the comparison and benchmark of C&D waste management in different economies. However, the direct measurement should first successfully seek the support from the contractors, and the consumption of time, money and labor is immense Indirect measurement can quickly supply general information of waste generation situation. However, the waste generation amounts derived from this method can only approximately reflect the fact Per-capita multiplier is a method developed from MSW quantification. The population statistics, which is very basic information for a region, is utilized. However, as C&D waste generation is more construction related, this method is not suggested if construction related statistics can be derived Financial value extrapolation utilizes financial value presented in construction/ demolition permits as a converting factor to estimate the area of construction/ demolition activities, making the estimation construction activities related. However, this method is not suggested when the area of construction/demolition activities can be directly derived Area-based calculation is the most popular method in literature. It can be employed to estimate all kinds of C&D waste at both project and regional levels. However, the demolition areas statistic may not available at regional level Building lifetime analysis is a method that estimates demolition areas, making it possible for quantifying DW without governmental demolition statistics. However, appropriate assumptions of building lifetime are required when conducting this method and the detailed wasted amount at material level cannot be derived Material lifetime analysis is a method that can estimate DW generation at material level. The lifetime of the material is considered. However, similar with building lifetime analysis, appropriate assumptions of material lifetime are required CSA is a methodology developed based on GCC. This methodology can give more detailed information at material level, which makes the project managers and regional policy-makers more feasible to formulate effective and efficient waste management plans. However, a classification system is suggested to be established in advance VM is a methodology that can simulate the potential inter-relationships between waste generation affecting variables. This method has a great perspective in modeling future C&D waste generation. However, as the realistic data for C&D waste estimation is rare at this stage, this method has not got a wide application Other methodologies are essential supplement for C&D waste quantification. However, due to various limitations, they cannot be generalized

GRC

LA

CNB – construction of new buildings; DOB – demolition of old buildings; CIW – civil and infrastructural works; PL – project level; RL – regional level. SV – site visit; GRC – generation rate calculation; LA – lifetime analysis; CSA – classification system accumulation; VM – variables modelling.

Please cite this article in press as: Wu, Z., et al. Quantifying construction and demolition waste: An analytical review. Waste Management (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.010

8

Z. Wu et al. / Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Site visit Direct measurement

No

Indirect measurement

RL CW

Known waste generation rate?

Category of reachable data?

Generation rate calculation Demographic data Per-capita multiplier

Yes

Financial data

Estimation level? No

Waste stream

No

PL

Area data

Consider lifetime?

Yes

Area-based calculation

Classified information? Yes

DW

Financial value extrapolation

Classified information?

Classification system accumulation

Lifetime analysis No

Building lifetime analysis

Yes

Material lifetime analysis

Fig. 2. Relevance tree for methodology selection.

directly available, Cochran et al. (2007) estimated it through dividing the total value of construction activity ($/year) by the average cost per area of construction activity ($/m2). Poon (1997) assumed a constant waste generation rate (m3/m2), a general demolition waste density (kg/m3), and the most possible scenario for demolition area (m2) to investigate the demolition waste. Though the assumptions are reasonable, it is suggested that more efforts should be paid on recording actual data for more accurate estimation. 4.2.1.3. Lack of verification. Though many quantification methodologies have been proposed and case studies have been implemented in literature, little verification has been conducted to prove whether a methodology is appropriate or how far its estimation is from the truth. The only evidence that the investigators conduct verification in literature is when employing a SV quantification method. After the waste generation rate was collected, the investigators adjusted their estimation with experienced on-site professionals through interviews. This verification can make their estimation more practical. However, at a regional level, there is little chance for the researchers to conduct verification because the local government has no record of C&D generation. 4.2.2. Future research directions 4.2.2.1. Pay attention to civil engineering works. Previous research has focused mostly on residential and commercial buildings, but civil engineering works also make a great contribution to C&D waste generation. In most cases, a single civil engineering project produces much more waste than a single residential or commercial project. As a result, more attention should be paid to quantifying C&D waste generated by civil engineering works. de Guzmán Báez et al. (2012) have proposed a methodology for quantifying waste generation in Spanish railway construction works. It is

expected that further efforts will focus on other civil engineering works, such as highway construction, bridge construction, etc. 4.2.2.2. Focus on classified information. Information on C&D waste generation could help project managers and policy makers to formulate a more effective waste management plan. At a project level, it is very common to encounter some constraints (i.e. lack of site space, lack of labour, etc.) during the project implementation stage. These constraints can make it is not realistic to conduct a complete recycling plan for all the waste streams. In this circumstance, it is important for a project manager to know the classified information to make an optimal waste management plan, which indicates what materials to be recycled on site and what materials to be disposed at landfills. The on-site recycling should be arranged to the most cost-effective materials which are bearing higher recycling values. At a regional level, waste disposal facilities can accept different type of waste depending on their chemical characteristics. For example, in Hong Kong, inert wastes can be disposed in public fill reception facilities (with a disposal fee of HK$25), while the noninert materials are supposed to be disposed of in landfills (with a disposal fee of HK$100) (EPD, 2011). Thus, it is essential for the policy makers to know the annual inert and non-inert waste amount to determine a more realistic disposal facility arrangement and waste charging fees. In addition, incentive policies can be issued for waste recycling based on the classified information. 4.2.2.3. Computer-aided estimation. Nowadays, computers are used more and more widely, and can facilitate the estimation of C&D waste amounts. The two recent developed quantification methodologies are based on computer techniques. Wang et al. (2004) first developed CSA method based on an Excel spreadsheet file to track C&D waste streams in various waste management stages. An economic analysis was further provided by incorporating the

Please cite this article in press as: Wu, Z., et al. Quantifying construction and demolition waste: An analytical review. Waste Management (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.010

Z. Wu et al. / Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

cost/revenue data for different C&D waste management scenarios. Instead of an Excel spreadsheet, Banias et al. (2011) conducted a web-based quantification to estimate 21 different waste streams for four types of buildings. This web-based estimation idea was further developed by Li and Zhang (2013), suggesting that a webbased system can not only supply accurate C&D waste generation information, but also facilitate accessibility, interfacing, connectivity and information sharing when a wide range of construction waste management is required. In addition, Cheng and Ma (2013) introduced the BIM technology, which is able to simulate the planning, design, construction and operation of a building, to fill the gap that tools for C&D waste quantification are lacking. As requirements for C&D waste quantification become more and more accurate, concise and detailed, it is believed that computer-aided estimation has good development prospects. 4.2.2.4. Forecasting future waste generation. Accurate forecast of future C&D waste generation can help the project manager to conduct better on-site resource arrangement and assist the regional decision-makers in establishing efficient waste reception facilities. However, unlike MSW quantification, little research has been conducted on forecasting future C&D waste generation. Current studies mainly focus on estimating C&D waste production of a completed project or regional waste generation in previous years. This is mainly because the supporting information for forecasting is not adequate, as discussed in Section 4.2.1.2. At present, studies have been emerged to investigate the waste generation rate at project level. It is believed that waste forecasting at regional level is becoming more and more applicable. However, at a regional level, there is still a long way to go. The local government should increase their environmental awareness concerning C&D waste management, it is hoped that sufficient realistic data can be recorded in chronological, hence time series forecasting regression modelling can be conducted. 5. Conclusions Reliable waste generation information is a basic requirement for formulating successful waste management strategies. Through the comprehensive literature review of 57 papers, existing quantification methods were described and compared. The comparison revealed that no independent quantification methodology can fulfill all of the potential scenarios; appropriate methodology should be selected according to actual quantification objectives and realistic conditions. A relevance tree was proposed for methodology selection, as shown in Fig. 2. Limitations of previous studies and future research directions were identified and suggested for further exploring the field of C&D waste quantification. It is suggested that more attentions should be paid to civil and infrastructural works. The classified information of C&D waste can be recorded with the aid of computer technologies for benchmarking and better waste management. Acknowledgments The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the four anonymous reviewers for their constructive and considerate comments. Thanks are also due to Prof. Michael Anson and Dr. Paul Fox for their kind help in proofreading of this paper. References Al-Sari, M.I., Al-Khatib, I.A., Avraamides, M., Fatta-Kassinos, D., 2012. A study on the attitudes and behavioural influence of construction waste management in occupied Palestinian territory. Waste Manage. Res. 30 (2), 122–136. Banias, G., Achillas, C., Vlachokostas, C., Moussiopoulos, N., Papaioannou, I., 2011. A web-based Decision Support System for the optimal management of

9

construction and demolition waste. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 31 (12), 2497– 2502. Begum, R.A., Siwar, C., Pereira, J.J., Jaafar, A.H., 2006. A benefit-cost analysis on the economic feasibility of construction waste minimisation: the case of Malaysia. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 48 (1), 86–98. Beigl, P., Lebersorger, S., Salhofer, S., 2008. Modelling municipal solid waste generation: a review. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 28 (1), 200–214. Bergsdal, H., Bohne, R.A., Brattebo, H., 2007. Projection of construction and demolition waste in Norway. J. Ind. Ecol. 11 (3), 27–39. Bossink, B.A.G., Brouwers, H.J.H., 1996. Construction waste: quantification and source evaluation. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 122 (1), 55–60. Che Hasan, A.B., Yusof, Z.B., Mohd Ridzuan, A.R.B., Atan, I.B., Noordin, B.B., Abdul Ghani, A.H.B., 2013. Estimation model of construction waste materials in Malaysia: Steel, 2013 IEEE Business Engineering and Industrial Applications Colloquium, BEIAC 2013, April 7, 2013 – April 9, 2013. IEEE Computer Society, Langkawi, Malaysia, pp. 709–713. Cheng, J.C.P., Ma, L.Y.H., 2013. A BIM-based system for demolition and renovation waste estimation and planning. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 33 (6), 1539–1551. Cochran, K.M., Townsend, T.G., 2010. Estimating construction and demolition debris generation using a materials flow analysis approach. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 30 (11), 2247–2254. Cochran, K., Townsend, T., Reinhart, D., Heck, H., 2007. Estimation of regional building-related C&D debris generation and composition: case study for Florida, US. Waste Manage. 27 (7), 921–931. Coelho, A., de Brito, J., 2011a. Distribution of materials in construction and demolition waste in Portugal. Waste Manage. Res. 29 (8), 843–853. Coelho, A., de Brito, J., 2011b. Generation of construction and demolition waste in Portugal. Waste Manage. Res. 29 (7), 739–750. de Guzmán Báez, A., Villoria Sáez, P., del Río Merino, M., García Navarro, J., 2012. Methodology for quantification of waste generated in Spanish railway construction works. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 32 (5), 920–924. De Melo, A.B., Goncalves, A.F., Martins, I.M., 2011. Construction and demolition waste generation and management in Lisbon (Portugal). Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (12), 1252–1264. EPD, 2011. Construction Waste Disposal Charging Scheme. (accessed 11.02.14). EPD, 2012. Construction Waste. (accessed 08.12.12). EPD, 2014. Hong Kong Waste Treatment and Disposal Statistics. (accessed 07.02.14). Fatta, D., Papadopoulos, A., Avramikos, E., Sgourou, E., Moustakas, K., Kourmoussis, F., Mentzis, A., Loizidou, M., 2003. Generation and management of construction and demolition waste in Greece – an existing challenge. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 40 (1), 81–91. Formoso, C.T., Soibelman, L., Claudia, Isatto, E.L., 2002. Material waste in building industry: main causes and prevention. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 128 (4), 316–325. Gavilan, R.M., Bernold, L.E., 1994. Source Evaluation of Solid Waste in Building Construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 120 (3), 536–552. Hao, J.L., Hill, M.J., Shen, L.Y., 2008. Managing construction waste on-site through system dynamics modelling: the case of Hong Kong. Eng. Constr. Architec. Manage. 15 (2), 103–113. Hashimoto, S., Tanikawa, H., Moriguchi, Y., 2007. Where will large amounts of materials accumulated within the economy go? – a material flow analysis of construction minerals for Japan. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 27 (12), 1725–1738. Hashimoto, S., Tanikawa, H., Moriguchi, Y., 2009. Framework for estimating potential wastes and secondary resources accumulated within an economy – a case study of construction minerals in Japan. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 29 (11), 2859–2866. Hettiaratchi, J.P.A., Verduga, B.F.P., Rajbhandari, B.K., Ruwanpura, J.Y., Wimalasena, B.A.D.S., 2010. A statistical approach to predict waste generation rates to support recycling programmes. Int. J. Environ. Waste Manage. 6 (1–2), 82–95. Hoglmeier, K., Weber-Blaschke, G., Richter, K., 2013. Potentials for cascading of recovered wood from building deconstruction – a case study for south-east Germany. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 78, 81–91. Hsiao, T.Y., Huang, Y.T., Yu, Y.H., Wernick, I.K., 2002. Modeling materials flow of waste concrete from construction and demolition wastes in Taiwan. Resources Policy 28 (1–2), 39–47. Hu, D., You, F., Zhao, Y.H., Yuan, Y., Liu, T.X., Cao, A.X., Wang, Z., Zhang, J.L., 2010. Input, stocks and output flows of urban residential building system in Beijing city, China from 1949 to 2008. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (12), 1177–1188. Jaillon, L., Poon, C.S., Chiang, Y.H., 2009. Quantifying the waste reduction potential of using prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 29 (1), 309–320. Kartam, N., Al-Mutairi, N., Al-Ghusain, I., Al-Humoud, J., 2004. Environmental management of construction and demolition waste in Kuwait. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 24 (10), 1049–1059. Katz, A., Baum, H., 2011. A novel methodology to estimate the evolution of construction waste in construction sites. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 31 (2), 353– 358. Kelly, M., Hanahoe, J., 2008. The development of construction waste production indicators for the Irish construction industry, in: Zamorano, M., Brebbia, C.A., Kungolos, A., Popov, V., Itoh, H. (Eds.), Waste Management and the Environment Iv, pp. 499–508. Kofoworola, O.F., Gheewala, S.H., 2009. Estimation of construction waste generation and management in Thailand. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 29 (2), 731–738.

Please cite this article in press as: Wu, Z., et al. Quantifying construction and demolition waste: An analytical review. Waste Management (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.010

10

Z. Wu et al. / Waste Management xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Kourmpanis, B., Papadopoulos, A., Moustakas, K., Kourmoussis, F., Stylianou, M., Loizidou, M., 2008a. An integrated approach for the management of demolition waste in Cyprus. Waste Manage. Res. 26 (6), 573–581. Kourmpanis, B., Papadopoulos, A., Moustakas, K., Stylianou, M., Haralambous, K.J., Loizidou, M., 2008b. Preliminary study for the management of construction and demolition waste. Waste Manage. Res. 26 (3), 267–275. Lage, I.M., Abella, F.M., Herrero, C.V., Ordonez, J.L.P., 2010. Estimation of the annual production and composition of C&D Debris in Galicia (Spain). Waste Manage. (Oxford) 30 (4), 636–645. Lau, H.H., Whyte, A., Law, P.L., 2008. Composition and characteristics of construction waste generated by residential housing project. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2 (3), 261–268. Li, Y., Zhang, X., 2013. Web-based construction waste estimation system for building construction projects. Autom. Constr. 35, 142–156. Li, J.R., Ding, Z.K., Mi, X.M., Wang, J.Y., 2013. A model for estimating construction waste generation index for building project in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 74, 20–26. Llatas, C., 2011. A model for quantifying construction waste in projects according to the European waste list. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 31 (6), 1261–1276. Lu, W., Tam, V.W.Y., 2013. Construction waste management policies and their effectiveness in Hong Kong: a longitudinal review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 23, 214–223. Lu, W.S., Yuan, H.P., 2011. A framework for understanding waste management studies in construction. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 31 (6), 1252–1260. Lu, W.S., Yuan, H.P., Li, J.R., Hao, J.J.L., Mi, X.M., Ding, Z.K., 2011. An empirical investigation of construction and demolition waste generation rates in Shenzhen city, South China. Waste Manage. 31 (4), 680–687. Mália, M., de Brito, J., Pinheiro, M.D., Bravo, M., 2013. Construction and demolition waste indicators. Waste Manage. Res. 31 (3), 241–255. Masudi, A.F., Hassan, C.R.C., Mahmood, N.Z., Mokhtar, S.N., Sulaiman, N.M., 2011. Quantification methods for construction waste generation at construction sites: a review. Adv. Mater. Res. 163–167, 4564–4569. McBean, E.A., Fortin, M.H.P., 1993. A forecast model of refuse tonnage with recapture and uncertainty bounds. Waste Manage. Res. 11 (5), 373–385. McDonald, B., Smithers, M., 1998. Implementing a waste management plan during the construction phase of a project: a case study. Constr. Manage. Econom. 16 (1), 71–78. Mercader-Moyano, P., Ramírez-de-Arellano-Agudo, A., 2013. Selective classification and quantification model of C&D waste from material resources consumed in residential building construction. Waste Manage. Res. 31 (5), 458–474. Mokhtar, S.N., Mahmood, N.Z., Hassan, C.R.C., Masudi, A.F., Sulaiman, N.M., 2011. Factors that contribute to the generation of construction waste at sites. Adv. Mater. Res. 163–167, 4501–4507. Nagapan, S., Rahman, I.A., Asmi, A., Adnan, N.F., 2013. Study of site’s construction waste in Batu Pahat, Johor. Proc. Eng. 53, 99–103. Peng, C.L., Scorpio, D.E., Kibert, C.J., 1997. Strategies for successful construction and demolition waste recycling operations. Constr. Manage. Econom. 15 (1), 49–58. Poon, C.S., 1997. Management and recycling of demolition waste in Hong Kong. Waste Manage. Res. 15 (6), 561–572. Poon, C.S., Yu, A.T.W., Jaillon, L., 2004a. Reducing building waste at construction sites in Hong Kong. Constr. Manage. Econom. 22 (5), 461–470.

Poon, C.S., Yu, A.T.W., See, S.C., Cheung, E., 2004b. Minimizing demolition wastes in Hong Kong public housing projects. Constr. Manage. Econom. 22 (8), 799–805. Saez, P.V., Merino, M.D., Porras-Amores, C., 2012. Estimation of construction and demolition waste volume generation in new residential buildings in Spain. Waste Manage. Res. 30 (2), 137–146. Shen, L.Y., Wu, Y.Z., Chan, E.H.W., Hao, J.L., 2005. Application of system dynamics for assessment of sustainable performance of construction projects. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. A 6 (4), 339–349. Shi, J., Xu, Y., 2006. Estimation and forecasting of concrete debris amount in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 49 (2), 147–158. Solis-Guzman, J., Marrero, M., Montes-Delgado, M.V., Ramirez-De-Arellano, A., 2009. A Spanish model for quantification and management of construction waste. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 29 (9), 2542–2548. Su, X., Andoh, A.R., Cai, H., Pan, J., Kandil, A., Said, H.M., 2012. GIS-based dynamic construction site material layout evaluation for building renovation projects. Autom. Constr 27, 40–49. Tam, V.W.Y., 2008. On the effectiveness in implementing a waste-managementplan method in construction. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 28 (6), 1072–1080. Tam, V.W., Tam, C.M., 2006. A review on the viable technology for construction waste recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 47 (3), 209–221. Tamraz, S.N., Srour, I.M., Chehab, G.R., 2012. Construction demolition waste management in Lebanon, International Conference on Sustainable Design and Construction 2011: Integrating Sustainability Practices in the Construction Industry, ICSDC 2011, March 23, 2011 – March 25, 2011. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Kansas City, MO, United states, pp. 375–383. Teo, M.M.M., Loosemore, M., 2001. A theory of waste behaviour in the construction industry. Constr. Manage. Econom. 19 (7), 741–751. Trankler, J.O.V., Walker, I., Dohmann, M., 1996. Environmental impact of demolition waste – an overview on 10 years of research and experience. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 16 (1–3), 21–26. Wang, J.Y., Touran, A., Christoforou, C., Fadlalla, H., 2004. A systems analysis tool for construction and demolition wastes management. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 24 (10), 989–997. Wimalasena, B.A.D.S., Ruwanpura, J.Y., Hettiaratchi, J.P.A., 2010. Modeling construction waste generation towards sustainability, Construction Research Congress 2010: Innovation for Reshaping Construction Practice, May 8, 2010 – May 10, 2010. American Society of Civil Engineers, Banff, AB, Canada, pp. 1498–1507. Ye, G., Yuan, H.P., Wang, H.X., 2010. Estimating the generation of construction and demolition waste by using system dynamics: a proposed model. In: The International Conference on Environmental Pollution and Public Health (EPPH2010), June 18, 2010 – June 20, 2010. IEEE, Chengdu, China, pp. 1–4. Yost, P.A., Halstead, J.M., 1996. A methodology for quantifying the volume of construction waste. Waste Manage. Res. 14 (5), 453–461. Yuan, H.P., Shen, L.Y., 2011. Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste management. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 31 (4), 670–679. Zhao, W., Leeftink, R.B., Rotter, V.S., 2010. Evaluation of the economic feasibility for the recycling of construction and demolition waste in China – the case of Chongqing. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (6), 377–389. Zhao, W., Ren, H., Rotter, V.S., 2011. A system dynamics model for evaluating the alternative of type in construction and demolition waste recycling center – the case of Chongqing, China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (11), 933–944.

Please cite this article in press as: Wu, Z., et al. Quantifying construction and demolition waste: An analytical review. Waste Management (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.010