Pun, S K; Liu, C and Langston, C (2006) Case study of demolition costs of residential buildings. Construction Management and Economics, 24(9), pp. 967-976. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Building demolition is one of the most common activities in the construction industry. Several demolition techniques are commonly used, including mechanical demolition, deconstruction and hybrid demolition. Although deconstruction has been advocated for its environmentally friendly approaches, the cost comparison of a demolition project under different techniques is rarely researched. In this paper, the cost of a demolition project is broken down to input and output costs, which are further broken down to more countable sections. Through an empirical study in Victoria, Australia, project costs of mechanical demolition, hybrid demolition and deconstruction are investigated. It is found that deconstruction has the greatest profitability among the three techniques. Hybrid demolition, which is the actual technique adopted by the contractor, has a slightly lower profit, and mechanical demolition is the most expensive. Although deconstruction has the best overall economical performance, the small extra gain comes with increased complexity and risk that deters demolition contractors from its attempt. It is found in the paper that an optimized demolition project strategy exists between hybrid demolition and deconstruction with the greatest profitability among various building demolition techniques.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; cost modelling; demolition; project appraisal; recycling |
| Index terms: | project cost, project strategy, profit, project appraisal, complexity, case study, environmentally friendly, residential building, Australia, recycling, Victoria, profitability, empirical study, construction industry, modelling |
| Subjects: | waste management, construction type, data collection methods, regions and continents, economic analysis, project delivery, strategic project management, analytical methods, sustainable design, Geography, economics, research methods, industry analysis, systems engineering |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Construction Technology, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project 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