Poon, C S; Yu, A T W and Ng, L H (2003) Comparison of low-waste building technologies adopted in public and private housing projects in Hong Kong. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 10(2), pp. 88-98. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Hong Kong is running out of both reclamation sites and landfill space for the disposal of construction and demolition waste. This paper reports on the findings of a study, consisting of a questionnaire survey, interviews and work-site visits, to compare the use of low-waste building technologies in public housing and private residential projects in Hong Kong. The results show that large panel formwork and prefabricated building components are widely used in public housing projects in Hong Kong. Due to the difference of the design with public housing, the use of smaller aluminium panel formwork is more common in the private housing projects. The barriers for the adoption of low-waste building technologies in the private sector are identified and discussed.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building materials; construction industry; demolition; Hong Kong; recycling; waste disposal |
| Index terms: | construction and demolition, survey, housing project, interview, building technology, waste disposal, landfill, residential project, reclamation, questionnaire, formwork, recycling, private sector, Hong Kong, construction industry, prefabricated building, building material, public housing |
| Subjects: | building construction, housing and residential development, environmental engineering, industry analysis, economic development, land management, Geography, building materials, construction type, data collection methods, waste management, engineering systems |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Sustainability, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Design Practice, Urban Studies |
| 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