Kabirifar, Kamyar (2022) Effective construction and demolition waste management assessment: A case of Australian large construction companies. PhD thesis, University of New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
Urbanisation and population growth have put considerable pressure on the construction industry to build new structures. As a result, a large volume of construction and demolition waste is produced. In the absence of an effective management mechanism, the waste is a significant contributor to environmental pollution and degradation, water pollution, excessive raw material extraction, energy consumption, economic loss, and harmful impacts on public health and safety. Several studies have addressed some aspects of construction and demolition waste management, such as on-site waste management, the role of clients in waste management, the economic impact assessment of waste management, and advanced tools and technologies in managing waste. However, practices have not been successful in alleviating the inefficiencies of construction and demolition waste management as they are highly fragmented in highlighting factors and strategies that systematically and effectively affect construction and demolition waste management. Thus, this study aimed to empirically assess effective construction and demolition waste management.A systematic review of studies on effective construction and demolition waste management revealed that it is essential to incorporate factors and strategies that effectively affect construction and demolition waste management. Factors were categorised into four groups: stakeholders' attitudes, project life cycle, sustainability, and tools. The construction and demolition waste management hierarchy of reduce, reuse and recycle strategies was revealed as the most effective and widely applicable strategy for managing construction and demolition waste. A framework was then developed to assess the effectiveness of construction and demolition waste management based on the juxtaposition of the contributing factors and strategies. With the help of a systematic review of theories pertinent to construction and demolition waste management, the developed framework was supported by the sustainability concept and theory of planned behaviour. The sustainability concept supported the impact of environmental, economic and social aspects of construction and demolition waste management on reducing, reusing and recycling construction and demolition waste, and the theory of planned behaviour supported the effectiveness of stakeholders' attitudes in reducing, reusing and recycling construction and demolition waste. A survey was used to collect primary data defined in the conceptual framework from large construction companies across Australia using convenience sampling. It targeted population members with specific practical criteria, such as availability at a given time, ease of accessibility, geographical adjacency, and participation willingness. Data from the 41 usable responses (38% response rate) were then analysed through Partial Least Squares based Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) using SmartPLS Professional version 3.0 software.Results indicated that three contributing factors to effective construction and demolition waste management, of stakeholders' attitudes, tools and sustainability, significantly impacted the construction and demolition waste management hierarchy, respectively, whereas project life cycle phases were revealed as ineffective. The impact of the construction and demolition waste management hierarchy on effective construction and demolition waste management was also significant. The recycling strategy received more attention than reusing and reducing strategies, in contrast to the preferred order of the construction and demolition waste management hierarchy.This study addressed the conceptual gaps in previous construction and demolition waste management studies by presenting and explaining a unique assessment framework for effective construction and demolition waste management.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Mojtahedi, Mohammad and Wang, Cynthia Changxin |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; accessibility; economic impact; energy consumption; health and safety; life cycle; participation; pollution; population; professional; public health; recycling; reuse; safety; structural equation modelling; sustainability; urbanisation; waste management |
| Index terms: | public health, social aspect, planned behaviour, construction industry, life cycle, conceptual framework, systematic literature review, construction and demolition, sampling, effectiveness, pollution, strategy, structural equation modelling, management mechanism, accessibility, degradation, recycling, population, waste management, construction company, energy consumption, health and safety, recycle, partial least square, survey, urbanization, economic impact, Australia |
| Subjects: | sociology, theoretical framing, data collection methods, material degradation and durability, health safety and environment, management, energy systems, industry analysis, environmental health, behavioral psychology, financial analysis, research evaluation and metrics, performance management, waste management, urban planning, inclusive design, value management, organization, demography, Geography, statistical analysis |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Health and Safety, Construction Materials, Project Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Governance, Urban Studies, Design Practice, Sustainability, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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