Selman, A D; Guðjónsdóttir, S and Gade, A N (2021) Is the Danish construction sector ready for sustainable and circular construction sites? In: Scott, L and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 37th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-7 September 2021, Online Event, UK.
Abstract
A significant part of the existing provisions in Danish building regulations will, within two years, regulate sustainability by having a new sustainability building class to boost the green transformation of construction and make it more sustainable than what we have today. One of the sustainability requirements is to save resources, promoting circularity at construction sites. Waste from the Danish building sector accounts for 30 % of the total waste. It is a valuable resource that will reduce environmental impact and increase economic growth if utilized well. In September 2018, the government launched a national strategy to prevent and manage waste aiming for an increased value and an improved environment achieved by building design, consumption, and recycling. This study investigates Danish construction organizations' readiness and willingness to use the new sustainable building class to establish sustainable construction sites, mainly using circular solutions. The study considers actors' understanding and current level of implementing sustainability principles and circular strategies in construction sites. Accordingly, it highlights the challenges and the actors' practical experiences. A literature review was conducted, and a qualitative survey was sent to 1100 organizations, 330 actors responded, including contractors, consultants, architects, building owners and developers. The results show the awareness of implementing sustainability in construction sites, as 32 % of organizations use sustainable onsite principles with various levels of experience, e.g., including waste management, handling hazardous substances from building materials and energy reduction strategies and 48 % are willing to use circular solutions. In contra, the rest of the actors have not worked with sustainable building site principles due to economic factors and lack of knowledge. The study concludes that a majority of actors are still unaware of the relevant rules and do not have a specific strategy to manage waste and experience this topic with high risk and uncertain benefits.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction site; sustainability; circular economy; waste; readiness |
| Index terms: | economic factor, consumption, economic growth, construction sector, architect, building material, environmental impact, waste management, sustainable building, survey, circular economy, transformation, energy reduction, owner, recycling, construction site, strategy, circularity, literature review, sustainable construction, onsite, construction organization, building design, building regulation |
| Subjects: | sociology, building construction, industry analysis, regulatory law, economic development, management, sustainable construction, sustainable design, economic concepts, work location, building materials, architectural design, data analysis and analytics, energy systems, organization, business, profession, data collection methods, consumer economics, sustainable materials, waste management, environmental impact |
| Topics: | Site Management, Legal Issues, Design Practice, Sustainability, Construction Technology, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| 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