Pau, S H; Chau, K W and Wong, W G (1993) Prospects for no-dig technology in Hong Kong construction industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(3), pp. 550-559. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The no-dig technique has been proven in Europe and Japan as a successful means of constructing underground utilities and drainage works through densely populated areas without causing unacceptable disturbances, by eliminating the conventional open-cut method. Although this conventional method causes detrimental impacts on traffic flow, pedestrians and motorists, as well as on the environment, it is commonly employed in Hong Kong for various utility activities. Despite this, the advanced no-dig technique, which can tackle the problem, remains unpopular. Past records reveal that in Hong Kong the technique had only been applied to the construction and maintenance of utilities to a very limited extent. It is useful to identify the factors impeding its widespread application. This paper reviews the causes that preclude the extensive applications of no-dig technique to utility works in Hong Kong. The prospect of promoting such a technique in the territory in the future is also investigated.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | pedestrian, drainage, Japan, traffic flow, construction industry, Europe, Hong Kong, utilities |
| Subjects: | sociology, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, transportation engineering, physical geography and landforms, Geography, construction type |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Stakeholder Management, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here