Ratnasabapathy, S; Alashwal, A and Perera, S (2021) Investigation of waste diversion rates in the construction and demolition sector in Australia. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 11(3), pp. 427-439. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
Waste diversion rate (WDR) is a key indicator of effective waste management and circular economy. However, it has not yet been widely used in the construction and demolition waste (C&DW) sector. This study aims to promote the application of WDR as an effective measure for waste management through the investigation of the current status of C&DW diversion in the Australian construction industry. A mixed-method approach, which combines a desk study and a case study of 12 residential projects was used in this study. Data retrieved from the National Waste Database (NWD) were used for the descriptive analysis. The analysis of the national waste data revealed that the national average WDR in Australia is 64%. WDR varies based on material types and across the states. The analysis facilitated the forecasting of the possible future trend of waste diversion in Australia. The studied projects from two states in Australia presented slightly different results. Most of the waste stream, except mixed waste, presented above 95% of WDR in each project. Although the studied projects showed a higher recycling rate, this study claims that achieving a higher rate of recovery by diverting the waste could not be assured unless accurate estimation is carried out with reliable and verifiable data. Lack of reliable data is considered as the limitation of this study. While the scope of descriptive analysis of waste generation and diversion covers the whole country, the case study analysis is limited to the states of New South Wales and Victoria. The study highlights the significance of WDR in assessing the performance of effective waste management in the C&DW sector. WDR is a comprehensive measure that takes the output of the waste life cycle into account for benchmarking waste management. The results provide a critique of the current practices of waste management and the essence of the consistent, transparent and verifiable waste data to enable accurate WDR estimation in Australia. The outcome is useful for waste managers and policymakers in developing potential waste management strategies and C&DW specific legislation for building a more ecologically sustainable industry.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; residential projects; waste generation; legislation; construction materials; natural resources; strategic planning; performance evaluation; prefabricated buildings; case studies |
| Index terms: | waste diversion rate, performance evaluation, benchmarking, construction industry, prefabricated building, key indicator, New South Wales, waste management, investigation, residential project, strategic planning, construction material, stream, circular economy, critique, Australia, database, natural resource, estimation, recycling, effective waste management, Victoria, life cycle, construction and demolition, strategy, waste generation, case study, forecasting, manager, recovery, legislation |
| Subjects: | environmental resource management, operations management, building materials, legal systems, financial and cost management, project delivery, prediction and forecasting, regions and continents, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, waste management, environmental impact, value management, practitioner, data management, building construction, industry analysis, management, economic development, performance measurement, water management, Geography, sustainable design |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Urban Studies, Digital Applications, Legal Issues, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project Management, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Sustainability, Construction Technology, Roles and Professions |
| 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