Seydel, A; Wilson, O D and Skitmore, R M (2002) Financial evaluation of waste management methods: a case study. Journal of Construction Research, 3(1), pp. 167-179. ISSN 1609-9451
Abstract
A case study is presented of a waste management system for a construction project in Brisbane. The study incorporates the assessment of the current on-site waste management operations plan, a financial feasibility providing a comparison between traditional waste disposal methods, waste disposal methods as adopted on this site, and proposed environmental ideal waste management methods. The results indicate that the total cost of waste handling and disposal for the project was approximately the same as for traditional methods. For an idealized system of total waste management, there would have been an increase of cost of 66% over the traditional method. It is also shown that the waste separation system was not realized to its fullest potential, mainly due to difficult site conditions and the subcontractor's unfamiliarity with a Waste Management Scheme and that it is likely that improvement in these areas would require better control and planning of waste handling.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | waste management; construction waste recycling; waste management plan; building waste; construction law; waste costs |
| Index terms: | waste management, construction project, construction waste recycling, Brisbane, construction law, waste disposal, subcontractor, case study |
| Subjects: | construction law, data collection methods, waste management, environmental engineering, practitioner, Geography, production management |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Legal Issues, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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