Lingard, H; Gilbert, G and Graham, P (2001) Improving solid waste reduction and recycling performance using goal setting and feedback. Construction Management and Economics, 19(8), pp. 809-817. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
A multiple-baseline experiment design across waste streams was used to determine the effectiveness of a goal setting and feedback intervention in bringing about improved solid waste management performance on a sports stadium construction site in Australia. A desktop method was used to measure the volume of timber and construction waste disposed as landfill and recycled. A general index of material usage efficiency and two recycling indices were calculated. Performance was measured each fortnight and formal goal setting and performance feedback were introduced to the timber and concrete waste streams. The intervention was effective in reducing the volume of waste disposed as landfill and increasing material usage efficiency, indicating that solid waste was reduced at source or re-used. Recycling performance did not improve significantly with the introduction of the intervention. This may be due to the way in which construction workers perceive the costs and benefits of recycling.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; construction; motivation; re-use; recycling; reduction; solid waste |
| Index terms: | efficiency, re-use, recycling, Australia, effectiveness, construction worker, solid waste management, construction waste, construction site, motivation, experiment, stream, waste reduction, landfill |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, practitioner, waste management, work location, psychology, performance management, sustainability assessment, Geography, health safety and environment, water management |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Human Resources, Site Management, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Roles and Professions, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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