Tam, V W Y and Tam, C M (2008) Waste reduction through incentives: A case study. Building Research & Information, 36(1), pp. 37-43. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
To motivate construction workers to adopt a waste construction strategy, a reward scheme was implemented. A Stepwise Incentive System (SIS) was used to measure the cost save on purchasing material and controlling waste generation. The key difference of this method is that it harnesses employees' awareness on waste reduction by contributing incentive funding to staff involved in projects producing lower waste levels. The lower the waste, the higher the incentive. The effectiveness of the SIS is shown by using a local case study in which waste can be reduced by up to 23%.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; construction waste; environment; green buildings; Hong Kong; incentives; landfill |
| Index terms: | purchasing, waste generation, strategy, case study, Hong Kong, construction waste, landfill, waste reduction, construction worker, effectiveness, green building, funding |
| Subjects: | procurement strategy, Geography, management, sustainability assessment, design practice, performance management, economic analysis, waste management, environmental impact, practitioner, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Procurement, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Design Practice, Quality Management |
| 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