Resources, Conservation and Recycling 75 (2013) 5262

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Best practice measures assessment for construction and demolition waste management in building constructions
Paola Villoria Saez a, , Mercedes del Ro Merino a,1 , Alicia San-Antonio Gonzlez a,1 , Csar Porras-Amores b
a Departamento de Construcciones Arquitectnicas y su Control, Escuela Universitaria de Arquitectura Tcnica, Universidad Politcnica de Madrid, Avda. Juan de Herrera 6, 28040 Madrid, Spain b Departamento de Construccin y Vas Rurales, Escuela Tcnica Superior de Ingenieros Agrnomos, Universidad Politcnica de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Currently the construction and demolition (C&D) waste collection system in Spain is managed in a decentralized manner by each sub-contracted company. This lack of comprehensive strategy for C&D waste management causes a confusing and sometimes individual attitude regarding the different measures for C&D waste. Therefore effective waste management should be enforced. Construction stakeholders have wide range of best practices in C&D waste management that can be implemented, so they need to be assessed for their effectiveness. The aim of this research study is to assist construction stakeholders in making a decision on C&D waste management. This paper carries out a survey conducted among the construction agents in order to evaluate the effectiveness of 20 best practice measures regarding C&D waste management, identifying the most suitable types of building constructions to implement these practices and also the advantages and drawbacks of their performance in a building construction project. Results of this study show that among the highly effective best practices are: the use of industrialized systems and the contract of suppliers managing the waste. In addition, distributing small containers in the work areas is also another high valued practice, although only 36% of respondents usually implement this measure in their works. 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 15 October 2012 Received in revised form 26 March 2013 Accepted 27 March 2013 Keywords: Construction and demolition waste Waste management Best practice measures Assessment Stakeholders behaviour

1. Introduction The large-scale construction activities occurred in certain countries of the European Union (EU) over the past decades have produced a vast amount of construction and demolition (C&D) waste. According to the European Commission statics, the total volume of C&D waste generated in 2008 was around 890 million tonnes (European Commission, 2012). Although the activity has now entered in a decline phase, due to the economic downturn and the change in the productivity cycle, problems caused by such waste, or rather, by its management need to be addressed and considered in depth (Braz De Melo et al., 2011). Management carried out for the C&D waste is still far from achieving the target for recycling established under the Waste Framework Directive (WFD), which demands an overall target of 70% for C&D waste to be recycled in the EU Countries by 2020 (European Parliament, 2008). But in fact, only 50% of the C&D

waste generated in EU is recycled. However, this percentage is overrated and not very accurate because not all countries follow the same calculation methodology, and some countries consider mineral wastes, such as soil and stones not containing hazardous materials in their ratios (Tojo and Fischer, 2011). The reasons for this situation include, among others, a high cost of C&D waste management, low cost of natural resources landll disposal and lack of interest by the clients for waste reduction or minimization. In an attempt to correct the serious consequences this circumstances produces, the Directive 2006/12/CE states that National Waste Management Plans should be drawn up by EU State members (European Parliament, 2006). At the same time, several countries are developing specic laws to establish a legal frame for C&D waste production and management, to encourage prevention, reuse and recycling, ensuring that waste will be properly treated (Rodrguez et al., 2007). For the particular case of Spain, the Royal Decree (RD) 2008) proposes the inclusion and 105/2008 (Gobierno de Espana, development of a waste management model for each construction project which should include the drawing up of: - A waste management report (WMR), developed during the design phase of the project.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 91 336 76 07. E-mail address: paola.villoria@upm.es (P. Villoria Saez). 1 Tel.: +34 91 336 76 07. 0921-3449/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.03.009

P. Villoria Saez et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 75 (2013) 5262

53

- A waste management plan (WMP), developed during the planning of the construction work. These documents should necessarily include a description of the best practice (BP) measures of reuse, valorization or nal disposal of the waste and the descriptions regarding storage, handling or any other managing operation of the C&D waste to be carried out on the working site. Moreover, this situation has not only worried EU governments, but it has been of great interest for worldwide researchers in the eld. According to Yuan and Shen (2011) special attention to C&D waste management has been developed in recent years. Specic research within the construction sector has focused in both, analysing the environmental impact of selective demolition (Coelho and de Brito, 2011a) and optimizing waste management including quantifying methods of C&D waste generation, as Lu and Yuan (2011) claim. Among these studies Fatta et al. (2003), SolsGuzmn et al. (2009), Llamas (2011), Coelho and de Brito (2011b) and Villoria Sez et al. (2012) can be highlighted. Furthermore, specic works on BPs in C&D waste management have also been of interest to many authors. Regarding these practices, the study by Osmani et al. (2008) revealed architects assume that waste is mainly produced during site operations and rarely generated during the design stages. However, about one-third of construction waste essentially arises from design decisions, as this study stated. Tam (2008) has researched the effectiveness of the implementation of the existing waste management plan method in Hong Kong. In this study, the main benets gained in waste reduction and waste separation are the proposed methods for on-site reuse of materials. To that end, the use of prefabricated components is considered as the major measure to encourage waste reduction. In addition, Begum et al. (2009) stated that the majority of contractors do not practice source separation, source reduction, reuse or recycling, at Malaysian construction sites. The results of the study showed as key factors: construction-related education among employees, contractor experience in construction works, source reduction measures, etc. are the most signicant factors affecting the contractors performance. Other researchers have focused their analysis on causes inuencing C&D waste management on site, e.g. Yuan et al. (2011) and Wang et al. (2010). Both studies have identied several critical success factors for the C&D waste management; i.e. the limited number of areas in which results if satisfactory will ensure successful competitive performance. Table 1 shows a summary of the main studies performed regarding C&D waste management. Although research on C&D waste management in Asia has been widely conducted, little attention has been paid to BPs of C&D waste management in other geographic areas such as in the EU. The knowledge of C&D waste management developed in one geographical area is not easily adapted and applied to other areas without considering their contextual differences (Lu and Yuan, 2010). In this sense, although the BPs analysed here are set in a Spanish context, the knowledge developed in this study will serve as an important reference for effective C&D waste management and the methodology followed could be forwarded to other countries. 2. Aim Although new measures encouraging C&D waste reduction and correct management have been implemented by EU countries, according to de Guzmn Bez et al. (2012) study, Spanish professionals are still reluctant to implement BPs in construction. The range of practices that can be implemented is very broad and not all are equally effective and efcient in reducing C&D waste generation or improving its management (Begum et al., 2007).

Therefore, the agents involved in taking a decision on the C&D waste management might have difculties in opting for the more effective ones. For this reason, assessing such practices would help agents in making more effective management decisions. Although these BPs aim at C&D waste improvement, they can also have an important role in reducing the environmental impact of buildings. However, in this sense, this article is limited to the assessment of BP regarding C&D waste management and generation. Other best practices aiming at reducing the environmental impact such as CO2 emissions, noise, wild life, water management, etc., have not been considered in this study. Therefore, even though BPs regarding C&D waste management have been suggested and partially studied, the assessment of those BPs according to the construction stakeholders together with estimating the type of construction where the implementation would be easier is still a needed research to be performed. The main goal of this article has hence been to identify the most commonly used BPs and to assess their effectiveness, determining advantages and drawbacks, as well as analysing the most adequate building construction type on which BPs be implemented. To this end, a questionnaire has been performed to the stakeholders intervening in the construction process. 3. Methodology Based on the research survey study of Lu et al. (2008) to identify several success factors in C&D waste, the research survey methodology presented here is used to identify the effectiveness of best practice measures. In this sense, the index value is used to measure the weighted importance of each BP analysed. Therefore, the steps used for identication of effective BPs for C&D waste management are: (1) identifying a full set of selected BP; (2) conducting a survey to investigate each BPs importance; and (3) calculating each index value based on the survey data; and analyse the data obtained. 3.1. Selected best practices for C&D waste management From the body of literature covering C&D waste management this study identied a total of 20 BPs for successful C&D waste management; 7 of them regarding the design phase of the construction process and 13 during the construction stage (Table 2). 3.2. Best practices questionnaire survey Surveys are used as helpful scientic research tools to obtain information of primary sources using well planned questionnaires accomplishing reliable specic information. The questionnaire methodology offers a descriptive analysis data, which can be statistically treated to enhance the reliability of the survey analysis (Rojas Tejada et al., 1998). Several statistical computer programmes can be used to analyse the data obtained and to explain the existing relationships between the different and multiple variables. In general, questionnaires are well accepted research methods, widely used by researchers of the construction sector as experimental pilot studies (Table 1). In this study, an online questionnaire has been considered as the most appropriate modality for the following reasons (Jackson, 2008): - Efciency: electronic mails are the most efcient tools used between the stakeholders involved in the construction process. - Condentiality: due to the topic addressed, it has been necessary to ensure at all times the condentiality of responses, and therefore, the anonymity of the people questioned. - Questionnaire length: this questionnaire survey provides greater exibility regarding other modalities, i.e. the respondent has time to develop and review their responses, as well as to consult before

54

P. Villoria Saez et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 75 (2013) 5262

Table 1 Previous studies regarding C&D waste management. Author Osmani et al. Year 2008 Country United Kingdom Methodology Postal questionnaire survey Major measures Design with standard dimensions and prefabricated units Design for deconstruction Study of waste estimation Use of prefabricated materials Purchase management Education and training Proper site layout planning On-site waste recycling operation Education among employees Contractor experience Source reduction measures Reuse of materials Waste disposal behaviours Attitudes towards waste management Waste management regulations Waste management system (WMS) Awareness C&D WM Low-waste building technologies Fewer design changes Research and development in WM Vocational training in WM Workforce Market for recycled material Sorting out waste Better management Site space Equipment for sorting waste

Tam

2008

Hong Kong

Survey questionnaire and interviews

Begum et al.

2009

Malaysia

Survey questionnaire

Lu and Yuan

2010

China

Survey questionnaire and personal interviews

Wang et al.

2010

China

Survey questionnaire and face-to-face interviews

answering any questions. On the other hand, the survey carried out to people with whom it is difcult to maintain a long telephone conversation or arrange a personal interview, as they are too busy or not present. Special attention needs to be paid on the questionnaire drawing up, stating the aim of the questionnaire survey into relevant questions as Bowling (2005) claims. The vast majority of the questions asked in this survey are closed inquiries, as they are more efcient and facilitate the further data analysis. The survey conducted to collect opinions of these BPs unfolds in two parts. The rst part was designed to collect information about respondents, such as their experience, type of enterprise and training in C&D waste topic. Determining these types of variables allows obtaining groups for comparisons so as to interpret the different answers collected. In the second part, respondents were invited to evaluate the 20 BPs measures selected, in terms of their efciency and viability. For these questions, the grading scale used has been the well-established. The level of importance was measured on a 5-point scale, where 5 denoted very efcient, 4 efcient, 3 neutral, 2 inefcient, and 1 insignicant (Guyatt et al., 1987). The questionnaire was piloted in December 2011, followed by the revision process made to its format and approved by a board of expert members in the construction sector. Finally, the full survey was conducted in Madrid region from January to February 2012. The survey was issued in Madrids construction companies in the market with more than 20 employees. According to Spanish National Institute of Statistics, there were 401 construction companies established in Madrid with these characteristics for the year 2012 (INE, 2013). The survey sample consisted of a total of 82 questionnaires distributed by e-mail to the construction agents in Madrid using Google Drive Software. The construction agents were randomly selected from the target population. During the survey period, the following measures were taken to ensure a high response rate: e-mailing and phoning each

construction agent prior to the distribution of the surveys asking for their acceptance in participating and sending reminders every two weeks. Once the responses were received the following criteria was used in order to select the valid responses: - Incomplete surveys were removed from the study. - Do not know or unanswered results were deleted from the study. - Respondents giving a middle value (3) to the effectiveness of all the BPs analysed have been removed from the study because they are not relevant for discriminating purposes. Taking into account the previous criteria, a total of 58 valid responses have been obtained, reecting a response rate of 70.73%. According to Lu and Yuan (2010) 68% of response is considered satisfactory; therefore the response rate for this survey is totally valid. 3.3. Data calculation and analysis To evaluate the relative effectiveness or importance of the BPs analysed, an index value for each BP has been calculated using Eq. (1). Ix = where: - Ix is the index value of the BP measure effectiveness. - Vy is the mean value appointed by the agents of each BP (S1 = 1, . . ., S5 = 5). - Nxy is the number of agents that chose the yth value (Vy ) for the xth best practice.
5 N V y=1 xy y 5 N y=1 xy

(x = 1, 2, ...; y = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

P. Villoria Saez et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 75 (2013) 5262 Table 2 Selection of best practice measures. No. D1 D2 Phase Design Design Best practice Plan soil remains to be used in the same construction site Provide a space in the work site for the correct management of the C&D waste Source Begum et al. (2009) Poon et al. (2001) Lu and Yuan (2010) Wang et al. (2010)

55

D3 D4

Design

Detect the construction activities that can admit reusable materials from the construction Use prefabricated or industrialized systems generating limited waste

del Ro Merino et al. (2010) Tam et al. (2007) Shen et al. (2009) Lu and Yuan (2010) Osmani et al. (2008) Osmani et al. (2008) Shen et al. (2009) Poon et al. (2001) Wang et al. (2010) Tam (2008) del Ro Merino et al. (2010) Audus et al. (2010) Lu and Yuan (2010) Formoso et al. (2002) Audus et al. (2010) Lu and Yuan (2010) Lu and Yuan (2010) Tam (2008) Audus et al. (2010) del Ro Merino et al. (2010) Lu and Yuan (2010) Wang et al. (2010) Audus et al. (2010) Lu and Yuan (2010) Tam (2008) Lu and Yuan (2010) Audus et al. (2010) del Ro Merino et al. (2010) Audus et al. (2010) del Ro Merino et al. (2010) Formoso et al. (2002) Lu and Yuan (2010) Wang et al. (2010)

Design

D5 D6 D7 O1 O2 O3 O4

Design

Optimize design sections to reduce the amount of material used, and as a consequence the C&D waste generation Use constructive systems that favour segregation of their elements at the end of their useful life Use materials with a high content of recycled material Contract suppliers managing their product waste Plan number and size of containers needed for each activity Register the quantities of C&D waste and control them Carry out periodic checks on the use of C&D waste containers

Design Design On site On site On site On site

O5 O6

On site

Follow the project drawings designs to prevent carrying out unexpected chases or holes Perform an on-site segregation of each waste category

On site

O7 O8 O9 O10 O11 O12 O13

On site On site On site On site On site On site On site

Respect the instructions of the manufacturer in the collection of materials Give talks for operators in the eld of waste management Distribute small containers in working areas Reduce excess of ordered material to avoid fracture of the material at the worksite Buy materials avoiding unnecessary packaging Plan coordination and review meetings about C&D waste Use shredder machines or compactors at the worksite for the C&D waste

Eq. (1) has been widely adopted to identify the relative importance of factors/variables by calculating their importance index values (Shen and Liu, 2003; Tam, 2008; Wang et al., 2010) and it has been used to calculate the index value of each BP analysed in this paper. By introducing the survey results into Statgraphics v.5.1, the total score and the median (Me) were calculated. The BPs selected were then ranked according to their index value score. This analysis has led to part of the conclusions which, joined to the theoretical framework studied, have given rise to the conclusions of this paper. Identifying all the BPs determined by the agents in the waste management reports and plans is essential, and also, indicating the degree of effectiveness and feasibility of them is important. In this regard, two categories of BPs have been distinguished: those in the design phase of the building and those during the construction phase (on site).

4. Results and discussion 4.1. Composition of the survey respondents The composition of the survey respondents were agents from: 45% design phase and 55% from construction phase. From the total number of valid respondents nearly 75% had more experience in newly built constructions whereas 25% worked mainly in rehabilitation or demolition works. In addition, respondents were invited to assess their training and experience regarding C&D waste management on a 5-point scale, where 5 denoted very high and 1 very poor. Results show an average value of 3.5, that is a medium-high knowledge. 4.2. Best practice measures assessment When analysing the results, only responses from agents working in design phase have been considered, as they are the only agents

56

P. Villoria Saez et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 75 (2013) 5262

Table 3 Index value calculation for each BP analysed in the design phase. No. D4 D1 D2 D6 D7 D3 D5 Best practices during the design stage Use prefabricated or industrialized systems generating limited waste Plan soil remains to be used in the same construction site Provide a space in the work site for the correct management of the C&D waste Use constructive systems that favour segregation of their elements at the end of their useful life Use materials with a high content of recycled material Detect the construction activities that can admit reusable materials from the construction Optimize design sections to reduce the amount of material used and, as a consequence, the C&D waste generation None %a 40 68 56 28 8 40 36 4 Assessment (Me) 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Ix 3.846 3.808 3.423 3.231 3.154 3.115 2.769

Only design phase respondents results. a Percentage of respondents which usually implement BPs. Respondents of the design phase can select more than one BP, and therefore, the sum of percentages can exceed 100%.

working at this stage and who can carry out BPs during the design of the building. Moreover, to determine the BP implemented by the stakeholders in the construction phase, both agents design phase and construction phase ones were asked to value the on-site BPs from 1 to 5. In this case, the assessment of the two types of stakeholders were of interest, because both of them have to determine the onsite BP in their compulsory management documents the agents in the design phase determined BPs in the waste management report and the agents in phase of execution in the Waste Management Plan. 4.2.1. BP assessment during the design phase Knowing if the agents in design phase commonly use BPs in their projects has been considered a main factor. Results showed that stakeholders in the design phase commonly use BPs as to forecast the use of soil remains in the same site, and to establish a space in the work site for the correct collection of the C&D waste generated (Table 3).However, less than half of the respondents use prefabricated elements in their projects (40%) and even less those who use products with a high content of recycled material, despite being a measure that signicantly minimizes the generation of C&D waste according to the previous literature review studies analysed in Table 1 (Osmani et al., 2008; Lu and Yuan, 2010). Ultimately, BPs usually implemented by the agents in the design phase aim at the correct management of the C&D waste within the construction site, as opposed to the ones aiming towards a minimization of their generation. In addition to determining the usual BP implemented by the agents in the design phase, agents evaluated them regarding their effectiveness and viability. From the mean valuation appointed by the agents for each BP, the index value (Ix ) has been reached using Eq. (1) (Table 3). In short, considering a space in the work site for the C&D waste and the soil remains management, as well as the use of prefabricated systems, can be highlighted with an Ix and median exceeding 3.4 and 4 respectively. This means that these BPs tend to be medium-high effective measures. In particular, the results showing the importance of using prefabricated systems and the site space are in agreement with the studies developed by Tam (2008) and Wang et al. (2010), respectively (Table 1). In addition, Although the use of prefabricated systems in the construction works is a well-considered measure, it is only implemented regularly by 40% of respondents (Table 3). This might be due to the low acceptance dwellings built with prefabricated systems have in the Spanish society (Gmez Juregui, 2009). Spanish population prefers homes with traditional elements such as bricks and onsite concrete, as opposed to the prefabricated elements which generate less waste (Tam et al., 2007). Furthermore, using construction products with a high content of recycled material is considered an average or acceptable measure (Ix > 3) and only 8% of the surveyed agents usually implement it

(Table 3). This fact is probably due to the lack of legislation setting out recommendations and technical specications covering the valorization of C&D waste to be used as alternative raw material for new construction products.

4.2.2. BP assessment during the construction phase Regarding BPs second category during the construction phase Table 4 shows the results of the common on site BPs according to the surveyed stakeholders, which refers mainly to recruiting suppliers to manage waste products (64%) and to plan the number of containers and size needed for each activity (57%). From the results, it is necessary to remark that only 50% of respondents claim to have carried out checks on the use of C&D waste containers or registering and controlling the quantities of waste leaving the work site. Moreover, results on Table 4 show that around 43% of construction agents do not practice source separation. Table 4 shows the assessment performed by the surveyed agents and the index value obtained for each BP valued using Eq. (1). In contrast with the key factors stated in Begum et al. (2009) study (Table 1), Spanish respondents highlighted with Ix greater than 4.0 the contracting of suppliers to manage their products waste. This means that it tends to be a high effective measure. In addition, BP such as: on site segregation of each waste category, the distribution of small containers in working areas, periodic checks and planning the number of containers required, are valued as medium-high effective measures (Ix 3.0). In particular, the distribution of small containers in the working areas is a well valued measure; however, only 36% of respondents implemented this measure in their works habitually (Table 4). Furthermore, among the results, the stakeholders positively valued Ix greater than 3.0 periodic controls of waste containers and of the generated C&D waste quantities, although only 50% of those surveyed usually perform these checks (Table 4). Finally, a comparison between the index values obtained in this study and the previous ones stated by Lu and Yuan (2010) and Wang et al. (2010) has been made. From the 20 BP analysed in the present article, only ten were considered by Lu and Yuan (2010) and Wang et al. (2010) where the same index value equation is used. Results in Fig. 1 show that both, planning on-site segregation for each waste category and using prefabricated or industrialized systems, have slightly higher index values in Spain than China (Lu and Wang, 2010). This can be due to the differences of the conventional construction systems and the categories of waste generated in each region. In contrast, giving talks for operators in the eld of waste management has been better valued in the Chinese studies, maybe because of the cultural differences between both regions. Moreover, best practices O3, O12, D7 show similar index values to the previous studies.

P. Villoria Saez et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 75 (2013) 5262 Table 4 Index value calculation for each on site best practice analysed. No. O1 O6 O9 O4 O11 O2 O3 O12 O8 O7 O13 O5 O10 On site best practice Contract suppliers managing their product waste Perform an on-site segregation of each waste category Distribute small containers in working areas Carry out periodic checks on the use of C&D waste containers Buy materials avoiding unnecessary packaging Plan number and size of containers needed for each activity Register the quantities of C&D waste and control them Plan coordination and review meetings about C&D waste Give talks for operators in the eld of waste management Respect the instructions of the manufacturer in the collection of materials Use shredder machines or compactors at the worksite for the C&D waste Follow the project drawing designs to prevent carrying out unexpected chases or holes Reduce excess of ordered material to avoid fracture of the material at the worksite %a 64 43 36 50 29 57 50 29 36 39 18 46 32 Assessment (Me) 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.50 3.00 4.00 3.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.75 3.00 Ix

57

4.138 3.638 3.466 3.414 3.397 3.397 3.276 3.190 3.121 3.103 3.103 2.759 2.741

Design and construction phase respondents results. a Percentage of respondents which usually implement the BP. Respondents can select more than one BP, and therefore, the sum of percentages can exceed 100%.

Fig. 1. Comparison between the index values of the previous literature and the results obtained.

4.3. Implementation of BP measures regarding the type of construction work Nearly 75.5% of respondents, both in the design and construction phase, consider the type of construction work as highly determinant when implementing BPs. In particular, respondents do more easily implement BP in construction works of detached houses and collective housing buildings in height of more than 120 homes, rather than other types of constructions, as shown in Table 5. Unique construction works are the main answers described by respondents in the other option. This is probably due to their greater economic margin, and because these projects are normally built in the city outskirts where space enough can be provided for a correct collection and segregation of C&D waste (Table 5). 4.4. Advantages and drawbacks of implementing Best Practices Fig. 2 represents the value of the median for every possible advantage of implementing BPs in the construction works. Values were established in a 5 point scale by all the agents surveyed (in the

design and construction phases): 1 indicated that the established option does not improve the C&D waste management in the work site, and 5 meant that the BP highly improves it. Surveyed stakeholders pointed out that the main advantages arising from the implementation of BPs in the companies are: improving the image of the company committed with the environment and enhancing the on-site C&D waste management, the saving of raw materials and raising staff awareness. For the above options, the median reached a value 4. In addition, respondents determined that the application of BPs contributes to some extent (value of the median 3.75), to reduce the economic cost to obtain greater advantages in bids, and reduce legal sanctions. This result agrees with the Informe Entorno (Fundacin Entorno, 2009), which states that reducing legal sanctions in the construction sector is not considered a main driving factor to adopt environmental policies. Finally, comparing the results obtained in the design phase with those in the construction phase (Fig. 2), the latter considers more favourable the application of these BP, because probably the design agents are unaware of how these can improve the waste management in the construction site, particularly reducing legal sanctions.

Table 5 Types of construction projects where BP is implemented with greater efciency and viability. Types of construction works Detached houses, semidetached houses and row houses Collective housing buildings in height <50 homes Collective housing buildings in height. 5080 homes Collective housing buildings in height. 80120 homes Collective housing buildings in height. >120 homes Other
a

Construction agentsa (%) 38 14 43 29 43 14

Design agentsa (%) 45 30 15 25 50 0

Respondents can select more than one answer, and therefore, the sum of percentages can exceed 100%.

58

P. Villoria Saez et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 75 (2013) 5262

Greater advantages in bids Raising staff awareness Raw materials saving Improvement of C&D waste management Design phase Construction phase

Reduce legal sanctions

Cost saving Improvement of the image company 0 1 2 3 Assessment (Me) 4 5

Fig. 2. Advantages of BP implementation.

On the other hand, when they were asked to provide their opinion on the major drawbacks in implementing BPs, all the answers obtained can be classied into the following factors: - Economic: the extra costs for a greater vigilance and control for its implementation due to lack of awareness of agents that intervene in the process. Ultimately, the need of a person just dedicated to it. - Time: more time devoted to sorting out waste, which conditions the work plan schedule. - On site space: lack of space to locate the different types and varieties of waste containers. - Increase of red tape: extra paperwork i.e. ling control forms, and inspection reports. 5. Conclusions The assessment performed in this paper implies a detailed knowledge of the effectiveness and viability of each of BP studied. The methodology provided can be applied to obtain new assessments for other particular areas with other index values, representing their specic characteristics. From the analysis performed in this study the following conclusions can be drawn: - The drafting of regulations should be emphasized laying down technical recommendations for the use of new recycled materials in construction, as only 8% of the surveyed agents recognized the use of recycled materials, despite it being a measure that signicantly minimizes the C&D waste. - Through a series of analytical processes, this research identied the following 3 effective BPs during the design stage: (1) the use prefabricated or industrialized systems that generate little waste, (2) the planning for the earth remains to be used in the same

working site, and (3) the supply of a space in the work site for the correct management of the C&D waste. - Moreover, 5 effective on site BPs have been identied: (1) contracting suppliers to manage their waste, (2) on-site sorting out waste categories, (3) distributing small containers in the working areas, (4) conducting regular checks on the use of C&D waste containers, and (5) buying materials bulk to avoid unnecessary packaging. The distribution of small containers in the work areas is the third best valued measure (Ix = 3.466), while only 36% of respondents implemented this measure commonly in their works. - Detached house constructions and collective housing buildings in height of more than 120 homes, are the two types of dwellings where it is easier to implement BPs rather than other types of building constructions. - All together, the main advantages of implementing BPs are: improving both the image of the company and the C&D waste management on site, while saving raw materials and increasing the awareness of the staff. The BPs assessment developed in this paper, highlighting their effectiveness as well as their advantages and drawbacks, can help construction stakeholders to make a decision between the wide range of possible C&D waste measures, ensuring a sustainable waste management procedure throughout the construction process and promoting zero waste generation buildings. Acknowledgements This paper is part of a research project entitled C&D waste minimization in building construction works with the collaboration of ARPADA and CMS Construcciones. We are grateful to the contractors and their staff for giving support for the development of this research.

P. Villoria Saez et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 75 (2013) 5262

59

Appendix A Survey Questionaire

A. Personal information A1. Your work is done mainly during: (Please select one option) a. The construction phase b. The design phase A2. Your activity mainly focuses on: (Please select one option) a. New build b. Refurbishment or maintenance/repair c. Demolition d. Other, please specify: A3. Please tell us the size of your company: (Please select one option) a. 1-19 employers b. 20-49 employers c. 50-249 employers d. >250 employers A4. Please, rate your knowledge regarding construction waste management:
1- Very poor 2-Poor 3- Moderate 4- Quite well 5- Very high

B. Implementation of Best Practice Measures in Design Phase (ONLY Design Phase Agents) B1. Which of the following best practice measures do you usually implement in your projects? (Please select all relevant options)
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 Best Practice Measure Planning the soil remains to be used in the same construction site Provide a space in the work site for the correct management of the C&D waste. Detect the construction activities that can admit reusable materials from the construction itself. Use prefabricated or industrialized systems that generate limited waste.
Optimize design sections to reduce the amount of material used, and as a consequence the C&D waste generation

Use constructive systems that favour segregation of their elements at the end of their useful life. Use materials with a high content of recycled material.

B2. Please rate the following best practice measures regarding their effectiveness, efficiency and viability:
Rate Best Practice measure D1 D2 Plan soil remains to be used in the same construction site Provide a space in the work site for the correct
1not at all efficient 2slightly 3Somewhat/ moderate 4- quite well 5- very well

60

P. Villoria Saez et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 75 (2013) 5262

Rate Best Practice measure management of the C&D waste. Detect the construction activities that can admit reusable materials from the construction. Use prefabricated or industrialized systems that generate limited waste.
Optimize design sections to reduce the amount of material used, and as a consequence the C&D waste generation
1not at all efficient 2slightly 3Somewhat/ moderate 4- quite well 5- very well

D3 D4 D5 D6 D7

Use constructive systems that favour segregation of their elements at the end of their useful life. Use materials with a high content of recycled material.

C. Implementation of Best Practice Measures in Construction Phase C1. Which of the following best practice measures do you usually implement in your projects? (Please select all relevant options)
O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 O7 O8 O9 O10 O11 O12 O13 Best Practice Measure Contract providers to manage their products waste. Plan number and size of containers needed for each activity. Register the quantities of C&D waste and control them. Carry out periodic checks on the use of C&D waste containers Follow the project drawings designs to prevent carrying out unexpected chases or holes. Perform an on-site segregation of each waste category. Respect the instructions of the manufacturer in the collection of material. Give talks for operators in the field of waste management. Distribute small containers in working areas. Reduce excess of ordered material to avoid fracture of the material at the worksite. Buy materials avoiding unnecessary packaging. Plan coordination and review meetings about C&D waste. Use shredder machines or compactors in the worksite for the C&D waste. No best practice measures are usually applied

C2. Please rate the following best practice measures regarding their effectiveness, efficiency and viability in the construction site:
Rate Best Practice measure O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 O7 Contract providers to manage their products waste. Plan number and size of containers needed for each activity. Register the quantities of C&D waste and control them. Carry out periodic checks on the use of C&D waste containers Follow the project drawings designs to prevent carrying out unexpected chases or holes. Perform an on-site segregation of each waste category. Respect the instructions of the manufacturer in
1not at all efficient 2slightly 3Somewhat/ moderate 4- quite well 5- very well

P. Villoria Saez et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 75 (2013) 5262

61

Rate Best Practice measure the collection of material. Give talks for operators in the field of waste management. Distribute small containers in working areas. Reduce excess of ordered material to avoid fracture of the material at the worksite. Buy materials avoiding unnecessary packaging. Plan coordination and review meetings about C&D waste. Use shredder machines or compactors in the worksite for the C&D waste.
1not at all efficient 2slightly 3Somewhat/ moderate 4- quite well 5- very well

O8 O9 O10 O11 O12 O13

D. Advantages and drawbacks of implementing Best Practices D1. Do you think the type of construction project is an important factor to consider when implementing best practice measures? a) Yes. If so, where do you believe its easier to implement them? (Please select one option) i. Detached houses, semidetached houses an row homes ii. Collective housing buildings in height <50 homes iii. Collective housing buildings in height 50-79 homes iv. Collective housing buildings in height 80-119 homes v. Collective housing buildings in height > 120 homes vi. Other, please specify . b) No D2. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following: An advantage for your company when implementing best practice measures in your works is.
Advantages Greater advantages in bids Raising staff awareness Raw materials savings Improvement of onsite C&D waste management Reduce legal sanctions Improvement of the image of the company 1-Strongly Disagree 2- Disagree Rate 3- Neither agree or disagree 4- Agree 5-Strongly agree

D3. The main drawbacks for your company when implementing best practice measures in your works is. (Please explain briefly)

THANK YOU!
References
Audus I, Charles P, Evans S. Environmental good practice on site. 3rd edition United Kingdom: Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA); 2010. Begum RA, Siwar C, Pereira JJ, Jaafar AH. Implementation of waste management and minimisation in the construction industry of Malaysia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2007;51(1):190202. Begum RA, Siwar C, Pereira JJ, Jaafar AH. Attitude and behavioral factors in waste management in the construction industry of Malaysia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2009;55(12):125264. Bowling A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public Health 2005;27(3):28191. alves AF, Martins IM. Construction and demolition waste Braz De Melo A, Gonc generation and management in Lisbon (Portugal). Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2011;53(6):3218. Coelho A, de Brito J. Economic analysis of conventional versus selective demolition a case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2011a;55(3): 38292. Coelho A, de Brito J. Generation of construction and demolition waste in Portugal. Waste Management and Research 2011b;29(7):73950. de Guzmn Bez A, Villoria Sez P, del Ro Merino M, Garca Navarro J. Methodology for quantication of waste generated in Spanish railway construction works. Waste Management 2012;32(5):9204. del Ro Merino M, Izquierdo Gracia PI, Saltoweis Azevedo I. Sustainable construction: construction and demolition waste reconsidered. Waste Management and Research 2010;28(2):11829. European Commission. Eurostat tatistics. Available: http://epp.eurostat.ec. europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/; 2012 [February last update]. European Parliament. Directive 2008/98/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Cerain Directives. Ofcial Journal of the European Union; 2008.

62

P. Villoria Saez et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 75 (2013) 5262 Poon C, Yu A, Ng L. On-site sorting of construction and demolition waste in Hong Kong. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2001;32(2):15772. Rodrguez G, Alegre FJ, Martnez G. The contribution of environmental management systems to the management of construction and demolition waste: the case of Autonomous Community of Madrid (Spain). Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2007;50(3):33449. Rojas Tejada AJ, Fernndez Prados JS, Prez Melndez C. Investigar mediante encuestas. Fundamentos tericos y aspectos prcticos. Madrid, Spain: Sntesis; 1998. Shen LY, Tam VWY, Li CY. Benet analysis on replacing in situ concreting with precast slabs for temporary construction works in pursuing sustainable construction practice. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2009;53(3):1458. Shen Q, Liu G. Critical success factors for value management studies in construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 2003;129:48591. Sols-Guzmn J, Marrero M, Montes-Delgado MV, Ramrez-de-Arellano A. A Spanish model for quantication and management of construction waste. Waste Management 2009;29(9):25428. Tam VWY. On the effectiveness in implementing a waste-management-plan method in construction. Waste Management 2008;28(6):107280. Tam VWY, Tam CM, Zeng SX, Ng WCY. Towards adoption of prefabrication in construction. Building and Environment 2007;42(10):364254. Tojo N, Fischer C. Europe as a recycling society: European recycling policies in relation to the actual recycling achieved. Copenhague, Denmark: European Environment Agency. European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production; 2011. Villoria Sez P, Del Rio M, Porras-Amores C. Estimation of construction and demolition waste volume generation in new residential buildings in Spain. Waste Management and Research 2012;30(2):13746. Wang J, Yuan H, Kang X, Lu W. Critical success factors for on-site sorting of construction waste: a China study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2010;54(11):9316. Yuan H, Shen L, Hao JJL, Lu W. A model for costbenet analysis of construction and demolition waste management throughout the waste chain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2011;55(6):60412. Yuan H, Shen L. Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste management. Waste Management 2011;31(4):6709.

European Parliament. Directive 2006/12/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on Waste. Ofcial Journal of the European Union; 2006. Fatta D, Papadopoulos A, Avramikos E, Sgourou E, Moustakas K, Kourmoussis F, Mentzis A, Loizidou M. Generation and management of construction and demolition waste in Greece an existing challenge. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2003;40(1):8191. Formoso CT, De Cesare C, Isatto EL. Material waste in building industry: main causes and prevention. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 2002;128:316. Fundacin Entorno. Informe sobre la gestin de la sostenibilidad en la empresa 2009. Espana; espanola. Real Decreto 105/2008, de 1 de Febrero, por el que se Regula la Gobierno de Espana, Produccin y Gestin de los Residuos de Construccin y Demolicin. Ministerio de la Presidencia, Boletn Ocial del Estado (BOE); 2008. Gmez Juregui V. Habidite: viviendas modulares industrializadas [Habidite: industrialized modular dwellings]. Informes de la Construccin 2009;61(513):3346. Guyatt GH, Townsend M, Berman LB, Keller JL. A comparison of Likert and visual analogue scales for measuring change in function. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1987;40(12):112933. INE Instituto Nacional de Estadstica (National Statistics Institute). http://www. ine.es/Last access: 24/04/2013. Jackson SL. Research methods: a modular approach. CA, USA: Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont; 2008. Llamas C. A model for quantifying construction waste in projects according to the European waste list. Waste Management 2011;31(6):126176. Lu W, Shen L, Yam MCH. Critical success factors for competitiveness of contractors: China study. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 2008;134:972. Lu W, Yuan H. A framework for understanding waste management studies in construction. Waste Management 2011;31(6):125260. Lu W, Yuan H. Exploring critical success factors for waste management in construction projects of China. Resources Conservation and Recycling 2010;55(2): 2018. Osmani M, Glass J, Price ADF. Architects perspectives on construction waste reduction by design. Waste Management 2008;28(7):114758.