Salgin, B; Mersky, R L and Agyekum, K (2025) Exploring waste reduction approaches in the architectural design stage of university buildings in the United States. International Journal of Construction Management, 25(5), pp. 510-518. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
Determining construction and demolition (C&D) waste reduction approaches in the architectural design stage is critical since this waste can be reduced by design decisions. Additionally, adding space and equipment which allow collection, recycling, and storage of solid waste at the usage phase of buildings are important in terms of design decisions. An online survey concerning design decisions of university buildings was conducted among United States (US) higher education institutions. Responses for 74 building projects from 71 universities were collected, analysed descriptively (i.e. percentages), and inferentially (i.e. correlations). Responses in some categories were aggregated to determine the total environment scores of the universities. The highest possible environmental score was determined as 8. While the score of 12 universities was 7, the score of three universities was 0. Of the participants, 85% stated that their University required architect to include specific design features for solid waste management (SWM) in the building; 89% stated that the University asked to use greener materials; 78% stated that the University asked to use longer-lasting building products. A set of recommendations and suggestions were provided to deal with the C&D and solid waste issue arising from university buildings.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | c&d waste; sustainable campus; waste minimization |
| Index terms: | higher education institution, solid waste management, waste reduction, minimization, United States, construction and demolition, recycling, architect, architectural design, design decision, survey |
| Subjects: | profession, algorithms, sustainability assessment, data collection methods, educational institutions, design practice, Geography, waste management |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Sustainability, Education, Design Practice, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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